still at square one wrote:
This can't really be Scott Hubbard from Michigan, right? This is a troll stealing his handle, right?
If not, you really aren't as smart as I thought you were Scott. This is elementary, so I will explain it to you as simplistic as possible.
You bring a picture of the guy walking across the line with a jacket on and no number exposed. You explain that he's a the back of the back of the back of the pack.
You then lay a picture in front of him at the finish line and ask him how he got there without 1, not 1 person seeing him pass them. You then ask him why his clothes and hat are different. You do this over halfway through the interview/recording to keep him comfortable with easy questions.
You show a picture of him in Michigan at the Solstice 10k (soon to be Kona) and ask how he is again in the background after the main pack is long gone, for a 10k mind you, and somehow ends up near the front and his shirt is bone dry on a hot and humid day. His answer on videotape would be?
Thank you as I could interview him myself and do a much better job than the writer and I would get an admission of guilt or he would walk away when faced with irrefutable evidence and the camera would record that as well.
How do you force someone to tell the truth? Well you can't but their actions tell the story and if it were on videotape it wouldn't take a genius to figure it out.
Been away a while - doing that Olympic thing. I have a name that requires a password to use - so yes, it's me, Scott Hubbard.
Friend, who do you suppose it was (along w/another guy) that got Kip DQ'd from the Solstice 10 km you mention above? I was in contact w/numerous RD's about Kip, laying out the facts as I saw them but only the Solstice RD had the wherewithal to DQ the good doctor from Clarkston. I couldn't force the others to follow suit, so didn't pursue it. And, really, it didn't matter a lot - I knew there'd be a story down the line.
Per the whole videotape interview scenario you describe ... I rather doubt Kip would've agreed to that so you're proposal is moot. However, we don't need to 'show' he was guilty by his walking away from an interview - the overwhelming mountain of evidence proves that and Mark's story lays out enough of it to persuade his audience the guy is not only guilty but one of the worst serial cheats of all time. We don't need a videotape to prove he's even more guilty - his behavior, explanations, denials & lies are more than enough to convince anybody.
You admit you can't force Kip to tell the truth. He wouldn't be the first person guilty as hell not to confess to deceit. And there's the thing about 'what's missing from the story'...Mark & I knew Kip would never be honest w/us because every bit of correspondence we'd seen was a pile of crap, made up BS. Every bit. I don't know if the story would've been written if Kip hadn't agreed to an interview - so we should be happy it happened - despite knowing how it how it would go.
Repeatedly, Kip brushed aside evidence w/lies. It was downright unnerving how consistent he was at having trouble w/the truth. I got Kip to admit, in a back-handed, half-assed way, to cheating at least 4 times. That he agreed to be monitored in Jan '11 in upcoming races I felt was a fascinating development - one that I felt had a 50-50 chance of occuring. Alas, that fell through and the story was ready to be written.
It's fine that many here project themselves into this thing - but, trust me, it's been a protracted matter of frustration and disbelief. Nothing was going to pry the 'how' or the 'why' from Dr David Kip Litton. Nothing.