Ethan Hermann is robbed of an OTQ - Merber reports

Avocado's Number wrote:

Sad To Say It Sounds Like Him wrote:

Here are my take-aways from this:

- Ethan Hermann sounds like a good hard-working kid put in a bad position by an over-reaching coach.

- Chris Naimoli sounds like an a**-hole who doesn't know the rules or doesn't care about them, is willing to lie (to race volunteer, to us, to club members, and to race officials) and tell half-truths and all for what is no real advantage. If Ethan can't grab his own bottle he has major issues, he doesn't need someone to hand them to him. But Chris wanted to do it to insert himself into the race/situation (ego trip) and did so to the detriment and eventual DQ of his athlete.

- Either James McKirdy is lying about the Philly Race Official(s) coming to him with the evidence and asking for his opinion or if it is true then the Race Official(s) has some major ethics issues. The opinion of an outside coach is not needed or helpful in a rules violation instance. Its only was the rule broken or not, opinion is useless. To involve an outside party and give them information/evidence is unethical or at least against the spirit and probably rules of the race. I have a hard time seeing how/why they would do that. The most likely scenario is that McKirdy reported the rules violation and that is why he was discussing it with them and when confronted by Chris he lied about reporting it and made up his story about them coming to him for an opinion. Sounds very McKirdy'ish.

Could someone explain to me why these comments, which were posted some hours after the apparently official explanation for the DQ was published (and republished) in this thread, received so many upvotes and so few downvotes? I don't know any of the people involved or alleged to be involved in this matter, but I did carefully read the apparently official explanation, which specifically and repeatedly found that "Mr. Hermann" -- not his coach, although that individual was not spared from criticism -- "conspired," "collaborated," and "colluded" with a number of other individuals to violate the rules. How does this sound like "a good hard-working kid put in a bad position by an over-reaching coach"? I find it hard to even imagine going to such lengths to shave seconds off a finishing time or avoid bottle mishaps, even if "an over-reaching coach" is whispering in my ear to go ahead and do it. And how in the world does this McKirdy guy end up getting fingered as the villain? (The notion that it's somehow unethical (or "not needed or helpful") to get an apparently knowledgeable third-party's opinion on the matter is laughable, and, if actually accepted, would pretty much end the professions of tax advisors and many, many lawyers.)

When I read the apparently official explanation (actually, even before I read it), my thought was that whoever keeps accusing this McKirdy guy or various other alleged whistleblowers should request that his (or her) allegations be removed immediately from the thread to avoid defamation claims. An anonymous apology might also help. Instead, at least one poster has apparently decided to double down on these assertions.

Avocado Toasted wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

Could someone explain to me why these comments, which were posted some hours after the apparently official explanation for the DQ was published (and republished) in this thread, received so many upvotes and so few downvotes? I don't know any of the people involved or alleged to be involved in this matter, but I did carefully read the apparently official explanation, which specifically and repeatedly found that "Mr. Hermann" -- not his coach, although that individual was not spared from criticism -- "conspired," "collaborated," and "colluded" with a number of other individuals to violate the rules. How does this sound like "a good hard-working kid put in a bad position by an over-reaching coach"? I find it hard to even imagine going to such lengths to shave seconds off a finishing time or avoid bottle mishaps, even if "an over-reaching coach" is whispering in my ear to go ahead and do it. And how in the world does this McKirdy guy end up getting fingered as the villain? (The notion that it's somehow unethical (or "not needed or helpful") to get an apparently knowledgeable third-party's opinion on the matter is laughable, and, if actually accepted, would pretty much end the professions of tax advisors and many, many lawyers.)

When I read the apparently official explanation (actually, even before I read it), my thought was that whoever keeps accusing this McKirdy guy or various other alleged whistleblowers should request that his (or her) allegations be removed immediately from the thread to avoid defamation claims. An anonymous apology might also help. Instead, at least one poster has apparently decided to double down on these assertions.

the issue is that mckirdy lied and said he did not report the infraction.

the issue is not with mckirdy, or anyone else reporting infractions on anyone. all accusations should be investigated as this one was.

no one's apologizing.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Avocado Toasted wrote:

the issue is that mckirdy lied and said he did not report the infraction.

the issue is not with mckirdy, or anyone else reporting infractions on anyone. all accusations should be investigated as this one was.

no one's apologizing.

Not even the poster to whom I was responding went so far as to assert that "McKirdy lied," as you are now asserting. Rather, the poster ("Sad to Say It Sounds Like Him") offered a choice: "Either James McKirdy is lying about the Philly Race Official(s) coming to him with the evidence and asking for his opinion or if it is true then the Race Official(s) has some major ethics issues." And as far as I've seen on this thread, no one has provided any evidence that "McKirdy lied," beyond what seems to be some vague and unsubstantiated attack on the man's character.

But even before the official "Final Decision" was published on this thread, effectively ending any serious debate about the nature and pertinent facts of the conspiracy to violate race rules, one thing that struck me about many of the comments in this thread was the focus on the identity of the "snitch," as if someone violated a Mafia-like code of omertà. Having spent a few years in Philadelphia during my youth, I'm rather familiar with its history of mobster governance, but to see it in, of all things, an inconsequential Philadelphia running club is almost a parody of that history.