A few criticized Rojo for his question. One said he'd be fine with the question if LetsRun had been consistent on the matter. Here is Rojo's reply to that.
We have been very consistent since day 1 at LetsRun. We've asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions from the moment this website was founded.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin, etc.), male, female, American or Kenyan.
Kenyans united online in support of marathon world record holder Ruth Chepng'etich after her historic 2:09:56 performance at the Chicago Marathon was questioned.
It is really odd to me how much criticism he is getting for asking those questions. NOT asking them would be a prime example of journalist not doing his/her job.
All of us that follow the sport wants these questions to be answered as well.
It is really odd to me how much criticism he is getting for asking those questions. NOT asking them would be a prime example of journalist not doing his/her job.
All of us that follow the sport wants these questions to be answered as well.
I could understand this take if he was remotely consistent.
He’s not, he’s a biased excuse for a journalist who acts impulsively based on emotion.
Say what you want about Rojo, he was without mistake in the right here. The other coward journalists didn’t want to ask what every attentive and sensible running fan was thinking because they were afraid of backlash. This is the most obviously doped recent performance on par with Jakob’s 7:17 and Kiptum’s 2:00:35. Ruth needed to be called out on BS immediately after crossing the finish line.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
Maybe if he wasn't associated with this alt-right cesspool of a conspiracy message board, they might have taken him seriously. But he is, so they didn't. 🤡
Say what you want about Rojo, he was without mistake in the right here. The other coward journalists didn’t want to ask what every attentive and sensible running fan was thinking because they were afraid of backlash. This is the most obviously doped recent performance on par with Jakob’s 7:17 and Kiptum’s 2:00:35. Ruth needed to be called out on BS immediately after crossing the finish line.
Except that Coevett will tell you that Jakob performance is clean.
You see where you are getting?
He is a person motivated by hatred.
Me I will tell you that both performances are likely clean (in the definition of Coevett), while I see Jakob a runner using artificial forking methods
I don't see anything wrong with the way he asked the question. He addressed a larger problem of the rampant Kenyan doping positive tests in recent years.
I thought her answers were fine. I think if I had to answer them I would have said to test me (which she was I'm sure).
I know that Paula Radcliffe offered to give (may have given) blood samples and she said that they could freeze them and re-test them in the future.
It's sad that we even have to think about this. I'm typically a give them the benefit of the doubt person and even I'm skeptical here- NOT because of the time but because of Kenya's recent problems.
Comparing Jakob's 7:17 to this is idiotic. He didn't come out of thin air like Kiptum or this woman. He has been doing this for 10-12 years and ran 3:31 1500m as a 17 year old. His times are a normal trajectory. Just a Jakob hater, not from a country that like Kenya who has had over 300 cheats in the last 8-9 years. Throwing Jakob in this just devalues the conversation and demonstrates an extreme bias.
Comparing Jakob's 7:17 to this is idiotic. He didn't come out of thin air like Kiptum or this woman. He has been doing this for 10-12 years and ran 3:31 1500m as a 17 year old. His times are a normal trajectory. Just a Jakob hater, not from a country that like Kenya who has had over 300 cheats in the last 8-9 years. Throwing Jakob in this just devalues the conversation and demonstrates an extreme bias.
It’s not idiotic or biased. People have been accusing that Norwegian science experiment of doping for years now. Running fast as a teenager has never proved anyone clean. All that shows is that they started doping at a younger age than most. It’s actually more evidence that they dope. And the reason why Kenya has so many more busts than Norway is because way more Kenyans participate in running than Norwegians do. There’s only a handful of pro Norwegian runners. So the rate of positive tests in Kenya compared to Norway proves nothing, especially the idea that Jakob is clean because there’s so many doped Kenyans.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
How is this a good question? If a reporter asks a clean athlete "are you doping?" they will answer no. If a reporter asks a dirty athlete "are you doping?" they will also answer no. Does Rojo think he's just going to Perry Mason her into confessing with one question?
How is this a good question? If a reporter asks a clean athlete "are you doping?" they will answer no. If a reporter asks a dirty athlete "are you doping?" they will also answer no. Does Rojo think he's just going to Perry Mason her into confessing with one question?
It worked on Lance Armstrong. Instead of a "no" we started to get mean-spirited rants before he eventually came clean. An athlete should be comfortable and confident answering this question all the time. When it's a big deal to ask, you've got red flags.
Comparing Jakob's 7:17 to this is idiotic. He didn't come out of thin air like Kiptum or this woman. He has been doing this for 10-12 years and ran 3:31 1500m as a 17 year old. His times are a normal trajectory. Just a Jakob hater, not from a country that like Kenya who has had over 300 cheats in the last 8-9 years. Throwing Jakob in this just devalues the conversation and demonstrates an extreme bias.
I'm sorry, if you think Chepngetich came out of thin air, you just haven't been paying attention. I'm not asserting that this run is or isn't legitimate, but hypothetically speaking, if a woman were to legitimately run 2h09, she's exactly the type of athlete I'd expect to do it. She has a history of running insanely aggressively and is self-coached. This kind of performance would require someone who has fundamentally different beliefs about the limits of performance than virtually everyone else.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
How is this a good question? If a reporter asks a clean athlete "are you doping?" they will answer no. If a reporter asks a dirty athlete "are you doping?" they will also answer no. Does Rojo think he's just going to Perry Mason her into confessing with one question?
He’s giving her an opportunity to explain why she’s different. She didn’t seem to take the opportunity and seemed uncomfortable responding. I haven’t watched her answer other questions so don’t know how much was a language issue or not.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
How is this a good question? If a reporter asks a clean athlete "are you doping?" they will answer no. If a reporter asks a dirty athlete "are you doping?" they will also answer no. Does Rojo think he's just going to Perry Mason her into confessing with one question?
None of your examples have any relevance to the story. Reading comprehension required to post in this thread, please go back to class.
Maybe if he wasn't associated with this alt-right cesspool of a conspiracy message board, they might have taken him seriously. But he is, so they didn't.
Except nobody outside this website knows about the toxic trolls who lurk here.
To the rest of the journalistic world, this is just a running website/forum and they were still offended.
The irony is that people should be skeptical when they hear "Letsrun..." because of the ugly nature of so many posters on the forum. But the offended journalists didn't know that, so they were off-base in their criticism (though they did get to the right position by mistake).
It is a bit more grandstanding than journalism. "What would you say to people who say you are doping" doesn't really give Chepngetich anywhere to go other than to say "I am not doping you a-hole."
A better question would be something like "you ran almost nine minutes faster than the great Catherine Ndereba did when she set the WR here in 2001. We also have recently had a large number of Kenyan athletes test positive for PED. What is it about your preparation, training, ability, etc. that is so much of an improvement over Ndereba that people can look at and be confident that your WR is entirely clean?
