Mary Cain refused to talk to us but she did talk to Chris Lotsbom

Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of self-flattery going on in your posts here, Rojo.

While it is surely comforting to think that athletes avoid you because you ask "tough questions" (which you *do* do from time to time), have you ever stopped to consider that it is not only or even principally because of that that athletes might not be especially eager to answer your questions? Especially when your questions are not just "tough" but poorly formulated? Or when you claim to be a journalist but 95% of your website is merely providing links to the work that other websites and journalists have accomplished? Or when you are more known neither for your message board than your "journalism"?

I appreciate this website, and I appreciate the message board, but it is precisely because of that that your defensive responses are so frustrating. Rather than accept criticism from the people who post here, you post petulant responses like "your welcome" (and actually, *YOU* are the one who should thank the visitors of this website once in a while for giving you the clicks and traffic that keep it alive) and assume that the only problem people have with you is that you "ask tough questions" (which is not really a far cry from saying your greatest flaw is having no flaws).

The purpose of these message boards is to generate dialogue. So why do you go out of your way to shut it down with your responses? Why don't you ever take the time to consider what people say and think about what you could be doing to do your job better?

Good post. You will not generate a change in how they act or respond. It is what it is. The NOP story earlier this year was way overhyped. I think they got too excited and made every development out to be more than it was. Asking tough questions needs to be organized and supported by investigation. The clock was the most telling moment for Letsrun especially when compared to the muted reaction to the Radcliffe issues. In the end, Magness and Goucher could not respond to the Salazar report at all and we are really left with the testosterone test story, which we must acknowledge was self reported. They basically went back to deferring to USADA, a position they abandoned to talk to Epstein in the first place. Epstein seems smart and the BBC and pro publica are respectable. However, they did not have much and the report was probably not their best work. I do like the site because it aggregates information and the recaps are a good.source of info. The message board is messy.

I hope LRC learns from this that in the world of journalism, you walk a very fine line between being tough enough that you are respected and being respectable enough that people will feel obligated to answer your questions. LRC did a good job hiring Jon Gault to be a staff writer. He is a very smart guy who is a good journalist. But he has a lot of work to do to bring LRC to the point where they are the running news outlet that everyone feels obligated to talk to after races. The BroJos were very gutsy in the way they challenged some very powerful people about doping issues. But the approach was about seven parts bull in China shop/TMZ quality reporting for each part Edward R. Murrow journalistic integrity.

There is also a line between a news outlet's ability to be a news gather and be an advocate. News organizations that take a very active advocacy role, like Democracy Now! on the left and Breitbart on the right often get shut out of press conferences because it is so obvious that they have an agenda that no one wants to deal with them. They are there to make a point much more than get to the truth.

So, this should really be a wake up and smell the coffee moment for LRC rather than an opportunity to back slap and say "we're awesome! we're so tough people won't talk with us!"

Harry Prevor care to weigh in on your PED use? He refuses to answer questions from the media...

Precious Roy wrote:

iit is so obvious that they have an agenda that no one wants to deal with them.

When a sports federation who explicitly promises it's a fairly run sport is found to be thoroughly corrupt, then no one is allowed to discuss it. Anyone attempting to discuss it is labeled as having an agenda.

There's this thing called WWE wrestling that is probably what you are looking for in your sports entertainment.

The Ghost of Caesar wrote:

The purpose of these message boards is to generate dialogue. So why do you go out of your way to shut it down with your responses? Why don't you ever take the time to consider what people say and think about what you could be doing to do your job better?

Because the brother johnson and their cronies are incredibly thin-skinned and entitled.

I see LR is troll central for New York sucks.

I think the real problem here is the cocaine usage by Scum Dawson. Its really been bad for his image and is probably the reason why the Raiders lost by 2 in OT of the LI HOOPS playoffs....

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

iit is so obvious that they have an agenda that no one wants to deal with them.

When a sports federation who explicitly promises it's a fairly run sport is found to be thoroughly corrupt, then no one is allowed to discuss it. Anyone attempting to discuss it is labeled as having an agenda.

There's this thing called WWE wrestling that is probably what you are looking for in your sports entertainment.

"thoroughly corrupt" you say.

No, sorry. Definitely some very bad people involved with too much power but there are some very good people working to change the power structure. It won't happen overnight (though it should).

Larry Dickman wrote:

rojo wrote:http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/10/back-to-the-future-re-energized-mary-cain-explains-move-east/

Why would she talk to you guys? You let anonymous users talk trash about pro athletes on your semi-to-un-moderated world famous discussion board.

I can't believe any pro runners talk to you guys.

+1

I don't care how many users visit LR every day, as long as half the discussions are about "Libtards", Jamin's latest trolling attempt, etc. The "brojos" will remain irrelevant in the eyes of legitimate professional athletes. The message board is far and away the worst on the internet (Dyestat, Tracktalk, r/Running, r/AdvancedRunning, etc are ALL better in every way) and the front page is irrelevant bs about random Kenyan marathons or one of the brojos' super-opinionated, rarely persuasive, and never evidence-based viewpoint on some doping issue.

Take that into consideration Rojo--every person who comes here to discuss RUNNING thinks the same way.

rojo wrote:

Runners know we will ask the difficult questions.

Clueless, insensitive, ignorant, rude, stupid, offensive, and abusive.

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

iit is so obvious that they have an agenda that no one wants to deal with them.

When a sports federation who explicitly promises it's a fairly run sport is found to be thoroughly corrupt, then no one is allowed to discuss it. Anyone attempting to discuss it is labeled as having an agenda.

There's this thing called WWE wrestling that is probably what you are looking for in your sports entertainment.

You completely missed my point. I never said that NOP and USATF scandals were only figments of LRC's imagination. Those are real issues that have received coverage in both the mainstream running press and the non-running press. My point is that LRC can get ignored because unlike other news outlets, they have heavily editorialized the issues both in formal articles and interviews and on the message boards. Thus, it is well known in the running world that LRC wants to keep digging at the NOP scandal even when there is nothing new to report. So, athletes will just avoid doing interviews with LRC and the rest of the running press won't be bothered because LRC is known to have an agenda.

Look, I love this place and feel I have a stool at the bar, but if I were Mary Cain I wouldn't speak to these guys either - their goal seems to be to embarrass runners in difficult situations by asking awkward questions.

They're like that guy from the Howard Stern show who used to ask provocative questions of famous people - not really expecting an answer but trying to get a reaction.

The brojos think they are doing the hard hitting journalism no one else will do...but in the end it's not really journalism if no answers are found.

Precious Roy wrote:

My point is that LRC can get ignored because unlike other news outlets, they have heavily editorialized the issues both in formal articles and interviews and on the message boards.

Let's imagine Brosjos take your advice. Letsrun becomes a quirkier version of runner's world. You got your wish, nice letsrun is just like all the rest and nobody shows up to read it because it's just like RW.

What is "heavily editorialized?" Breaking news at Buzzfeed: all media properties are "heavily editorialized." All of them.

If you want to believe in a completely fraudulent sport, then stick to reading Alan Abrahamson and usatf communication.

Yes, letsrun asks the difficult questions, but that doesn't mean your reporting is up to professional journalism standards taught in college journalism classes and generally upheld by major U.S. newspapers and other media publications. It's not.(I'm not calling myself an expert on journalism standards, but I do have a journalism degree, went to Columbia University J-School, and spent 10 years working full-time as a newspaper reporter.)

rojo wrote:

It's standsard journalist practice to report when public figures refuse to talk to you. I's worth mentiong that she refused to talk to us. Runners know we will ask the difficult questions.

Our reporter Jonathan Gault introduced himself and said he was from us. She knows we are going to ask at least one question about doping and the Salazar allegations as she's never really had to address that. We were going to ask if the allegations played any role in her move home - perhaps her parents were worried by them or perhaps not.

She told Jonathan she had to cool down. He asked if she'd talk when she came back from the cool-down and she said know.

The fact that she spoke to others is worth reporting as well.

I disagree with all the fault-finders. Sure, LR.com is imperfect, and maybe Rojo and Wejo don't do every single thing exactly the way I'd like, but then, who does? A lot of the people complaining seem to want the status quo of US athlete/celebrity TV, where athletes are treated like a higher class of people, and must be fed softball questions that lead to them talking about hard work, inspiration, etc. Like, maybe, "Hey, Mary, how awesomely is your training going? Was training with AlSal totally awesome, and then you decided to move back east because it was equally awesome, and, like, are you getting in awesome workouts and stuff?"

That crap is boring. I much prefer hearing some questions that might actually make the athlete think a little bit, and maybe tell us something we don't already know. The LetsRun employees may be a little rough around the edges in their interviewing styles, but they're still way better than most. The writing is often half-decent. In fact, I'm glad they're a little rough around the edges, because that smooth-talking, cliche-riddled type of sports mythologizing that is considered the gold standard (Sports Illustrated style writing, Al Michaels interviews, etc) makes me simultaneously want to puke and fall asleep.

Keep up the good work, LetsRun!

rojo wrote:

Ok I'll just stop asking drug related questions. Thanks for the memo. And I'll shut down the messageboard. I'll talk to our tech guy at our weekly conference call at noon and see how long it will take for him to pull the plub on the board.

It's 8:47 now. I imagine he'll have this baby shut down by 12:15 so there are less than 3.5 hours to post.

LOL! Classic.

Were you stomping your feet when you posted this?

good post actually - it goes to the old question - sometimes journalism with a point of view is more useful than journalism that tries to be impartial. You can learn more sometimes. In the end, the fact that the brojos know something about running and have their own outlet makes what they say more interesting.

Bend OR runner guy wrote:

Yes, letsrun asks the difficult questions, but that doesn't mean your reporting is up to professional journalism standards taught in college journalism classes and generally upheld by major U.S. newspapers and other media publications. It's not.

And what's the economic health of mainstream media properties that adhere to these mythical standards? Maybe not collapsing, but, definitely rapidly shrinking. What kind of product has slavishly sticking to these standards delivered?

Again, what happens if the Brosjos decide to join your cult of "professional journalism?" They will be reprinting USATF press releases and breathlessly await the arrival of Nike's next world-beating shoe... You can get that at RW right now.