Hey wejo,
So I'm one of the people who are critical of the messengers and I do think its a very important discussion to have. When you make allegations about someone's career, you have such a huge responsibility to substantiate your claims. And I know that I'm in the minority here, but I'm going to go so far as to say that you even have a responsibility for the way that people interpret and receive what you say. For example, Salazar's open letter thoroughly explains the Dusseldorf situation and provides email records supporting his claims. Regardless if he's lying, he's presenting relevant, verifiable details that are absolutely necessary to understanding the situation. Now when I first read the Epstien article, it seemed like the shadiest thing in the world. Without Salazar's response and supporting documentation, there is almost no way you could believe that Salazar wasn't the shadiest coach that ever walked the face of the earth. But his response indicated that all procedures were followed, USADA and IAAF were informed the whole way, and no rules were being broken. In fact, I can't see how he could be anything less than innocent. But my main point is this: The burden of proof is on the accusers. If Salazar hadn't spent significant time and energy crafting his response, he would be 100% guilty. Absolutely. That's why discussing the messenger is entirely appropriate. The "we gave him advance notice and he didn't respond to interview requests" isn't a valid argument to me. It's not his responsibility. Somehow Kara Goucher gets a free pass to not respond to Salazar's open letter till she's done with "USAs", but Salazar doesn't get a week's pass? Without Magness or Epstein providing the appropriate timelines, context, and explanations, its irresponsible to use this event to craft a cloud of mischief around Salazar.
This logic cuts both ways. The USADA has been notified multiple times by different athletes coming forward with their concerns. Since there has been no charges formally brought against Salazar, wouldn't this put another "well respected organization," the USADA, on the conspiracy side of the argument? This implies a massive coverup, no? Couldn't I also say "To pretend this is all good journalism and Magness, Epstein, ProPublica, and the BBC don't benefit for all this fodder is just crazy talk?" I'm not officially saying that, but I provide about as much reasoning as you did.
No, but lets be honest here, they are reporting that athletes are accusing Salazar. They aren't accusing Salazar, so I'm not accusing BBC or ProPublica of lying. But I am saying that there is no consequence for the BBC or ProPublica for reporting false claims. These articles will get so many clicks and ad views, and admittedly hypothetically, if these claims prove unsubstantiated, they have absolutely no consequences. Nobody will remember Epstein's name, and this wouldn't even show up on BBC's radar.