ryan foreman wrote:
In any case, I contend that it was only when Kara got another shoe sponsor that the BBC/probublica actually listened to her and went public with her allegations. Go ahead and call me a nutty conspiracy nut.
That doesn't make you a conspiracy nut at all. It just means that in this case you're overreaching a bit.
A runner of Kara Goucher's stature was never going to go long without sponsorship, and last year she was picked up by Oiselle, Skechers and Nuun all within, what, a month? Meanwhile, Epstein and Mark Daly had been working on their stories for over a year already.
Do you really think that if Kara had toiled along unsponsored, but everything else had been the same, i,.e., the Gouchers came forward with what their pill bottle and associated claims, those journalists would have simply said, "Eh, she's a nobody now"? She could have been living in a box in Denver cackling to herself and subsisting on nits from Adam's chest hair, and she still would have been a former NOP member and one of the best long-distance runners in American history.
You might as well speculate that none of this BBC and ProPublica stuff would have happened if Wetmore hadn't become Kara's coach again. What you're proposing is far from silly, especially by local standards; it's just a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy,