Wejo pwn3d in epic fashion by Jason Richardson

greatness!

The fact that you used "pwn3d" in your post outs you as a moron and is reason to completely ignore you.

What the hell does "pwn3d" mean?

If anything, you have it backwards because obviously wejo struck a nerve.

Didn't Regina Jacobs have similar reactions to letsrun.com back when she was still competing?

Just saying...

That doesn't even make sense...

That's like saying; "Speaking this sentence bothers my speech impediment," or "that sound bothers my deafness."

I wish the Brojos were able to post the press conference audio, I'd like to hear how dumb he sounded firsthand.

BVCTF wrote:

The fact that you used "pwn3d" in your post outs you as a moron and is reason to completely ignore you.

Oh, okay Wejo!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

stumpy wrote:

That doesn't even make sense...

That's like saying; "Speaking this sentence bothers my speech impediment," or "that sound bothers my deafness."

I wish the Brojos were able to post the press conference audio, I'd like to hear how dumb he sounded firsthand.

No, that is not the same at all.

Seems like he's hiding something.

If he wasn't, then he could have easily made Wejo look dumb by saying, "Want my drug test results? Give me your address and they'll be delivered to you. In return I'll accept a written apology."

The Brojos, in my opinion, are doing what any other media journalists do: asking questions that people want to know the answers to whether they are professional questions or straight up childish questions which in this case I don't see what the big deal is with the Brojos asking about Mark Block.

Knower of Astigmatisms wrote:

No, that is not the same at all.

As someone with astigmatism, I know it can't be bothered. It causes a blur in everything I look at unless I wear corrective lenses.

Can the clashing colors of a website bother/annoy someone visually? Yes, but it has nothing to do with astigmatism.

stumpy wrote:

As someone with astigmatism, I know it can't be bothered. It causes a blur in everything I look at unless I wear corrective lenses.

Can the clashing colors of a website bother/annoy someone visually? Yes, but it has nothing to do with astigmatism.

Stumpy, it was a funny way of saying their website is ugly as hell. Buy a sense of humor. Good on JR for joking about the horrid look of this site.

Greg Peck wrote:

Stumpy, it was a funny way of saying their website is ugly as hell. Buy a sense of humor. Good on JR for joking about the horrid look of this site.

No it's not. It's stupid. It makes no sense. There are plenty ways to make fun of the appearance of this website.

I would go with "..site that looks like it was made by a color blind 4th grader."

And even that's not funny, but funnier and makes sense.

"I don't have any responsibility to answer to anybody especially your site that actually bothers my astigmatism"

Did anyone else read this and cringe at how lame of a retort this is? Especially when someone asks you about a potential doping affiliation...

This is like a lawyer asking you in court if you killed someone and you respond with "Hey nice shirt, loser!" instead of saying "No".

This whole "I've got a secret and I ain't telling nobody" attitude that Jason and Carmelita have put out in interviews when questioned by the BroJos is way more damning than any tweet or photo or hug with Mark Block.

Well, the jerk store called and they said that they ...aw, to hell with it.

Yes, Wejo annoying an athlete after an event is similar to a lawyer in a courtroom. They certainly deserve the same amount of respect. You guys have a good point. Brojos are legitimate journalists who have proven themselves to be fair and professional.

yagtash wrote:

This whole "I've got a secret and I ain't telling nobody" attitude that Jason and Carmelita have put out in interviews when questioned by the BroJos is way more damning than any tweet or photo or hug with Mark Block.

Concur.

Moreover, the precise scope and extent of Block's ban aside, why would a clean athlete choose to associate with someone like that? Block was fingered for participating in the doping of athletes who are in competition with ostensibly "clean" athletes. That is to say, he was aiding "dirty" athletes in their attempt to gain an unfair (and prohibited) advantage over those clean athletes. At a minimum, Block engaged in activities that, now that they have come to light, besmirch the reputation of the sport in which the clean athletes participate.

Again, given this, why would any otherwise clean athlete choose to remain on friendly terms with him?

There are a lot of people in this thread with very large sticks up their arse.

I don't think that is the goal of an interviewer, to piss of the interviewee so badly that they won't answer questions.

Curiously wrote:

If anything, you have it backwards because obviously wejo struck a nerve.

Camazotz wrote:

Concur.

Moreover, the precise scope and extent of Block's ban aside, why would a clean athlete choose to associate with someone like that? Block was fingered for participating in the doping of athletes who are in competition with ostensibly "clean" athletes. That is to say, he was aiding "dirty" athletes in their attempt to gain an unfair (and prohibited) advantage over those clean athletes. At a minimum, Block engaged in activities that, now that they have come to light, besmirch the reputation of the sport in which the clean athletes participate.

Again, given this, why would any otherwise clean athlete choose to remain on friendly terms with him?

I mean, Block is an idiot and I am not trying to defend him, but to think that they should disown the guy is kind of fierce. I mean, don't you have any friends that have done stupid things? Are you going to stop associating with a buddy if he gets a divorce? I mean, isn't that besmirch the reputation of a social & religious custom in which you participate.