Mac Fleet in Twitter Beef with Jenny Simpson

I am sorry but wrote:

Mac Fleet is a loser.

Right. And how many times did you win an NCAA title, again?

JoJoCo wrote:

It is inappropriate for some scrub like Fleet to criticize someone of Jenny Simpson's stature in the sport

I would guess that every year at least 500 people in the US run faster than Simpson ever has over any distance and worldwide this figure would be several 1000 every year. I think that Mac Fleet is well within in his rights to call out someone like Simpson who is just trying to market themselves as being better than they really are. That is all what the stature you refer to has come from.

Mac Fleet understands social signaling modeling! He is currently a leading contender for "smartest professional distance runner." (Although I'm not sure that he makes any money.)

uh oh never mind https://twitter.com/macfleet1/status/794282231762010112

This one is better https://twitter.com/macfleet1/status/794268453901217792

Do tell............

T-B-kay wrote:

Also, maybe Jenny can post her list of TUE's that she would not let anyone at USA's ask her about a few years back.

Double Loser wrote:

I am sorry but wrote:

Mac Fleet is a loser.

Right. And how many times did you win an NCAA title, again?

Jenny Simpson is the greatest American miler in history. Since Shannon Rubbery. She is infallible, like the Archbishop of Rome. Mac Fleet is spreading heresies! Save yourselves from excommunication from the twitter consensus circus!!! Confess your cynns this day and renew your subscriptions with Runny's Whirled. With new recipes to fuel your runny bye Sinead Flanagol

Fleet is a smart person wrote:

This one is better

https://twitter.com/macfleet1/status/794268453901217792

Learn to make money and social capital off riding the twitter consensus circus! Make key comments at opportune times. The new book by best selling author and YuTuba star Jum Ping shark! Coming soon: Amazon, kindle, apple, iTunes.

While I think there are some good points on both sides here, read Macs recent tweets. This isn't a "this is all just talk!" argument he's trying to raise, it's devolved to a "Wah Wah Nike wasn't included in this release! The brands are always out to get us!!!".

Sounds like somebody needed to find a way to remain on a Nike contract.

Clean Sport will have to associate itself with common Forensic evidence gathering standards and protocols in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice in order to be legitimate. In contrast current USATF/IAAF/NFL/MLB/UCI protocols are fake, a complete sham, and inadmissible in the US Courts of Law.

Isn't it fairly clear 99% of doping in distance running is happening either systematically outside of the US (i.e. Russia) and/or in areas with essentially no out of competition testing (i.e. Kenya).

You see a lot of stimulants and such in areas with good testing (precisely bc they get caught), but the real high octane stuff like EPO and steroids are happening in isolated or protected countries.

This movement is cute and yes Mac it is indeed a publicity/moneymaking stunt. They are indeed taking advantage of a market where they see one, regardless of their intentions being pure or not. None of it matters in terms of real change. All of the publicity should be directed towards putting in place leadership in the IOC/WADA/USATF/etc that actually have a vested interest in clean sport. That is the issue. So have all these certified athletes have a condition to protest the current T&F leadership.

The idea of for profit entities being involved does not bother me. If sponsors refuse to support federations, athletes, coaches, and agents tied to doping AROUND THE WORLD, the sport would be cleaner than it is today. If sponsors said that they would not sponsor federations or athletes training in countries without robust out of competition testing - or, in countries with significant corruption - the sport would be cleaner. I get that this initiative is not perfect. But the fact that for profit companies - and largely white middle distance and distance runners -- are involved thus far is not a reason to dismiss it entirely, in my view. If it starts a conversation about how for profit entitles can impact doping incentives - that would be awesome. And if some fan wants to buy a water bottle or whatever, I don't care.

Regarding Fleet's question about whether Nike athletes were contacted before - I have no idea, of course, because I have no connection to the industry, but what is the likelihood that Nike or Nike sponsored athletes would get behind an initiative founded by Kara Goucher's agent and another of her sponsors (Nuun guy)? Nike is, of course, free to express support if it chooses, to create its own initiaitves, or to rethink how its allocation of sponsor dollars might contribute to anti doping efforts around the world. If Nike did any of those things, I bet you'd see a lot of Nike athletes being more vocal about doping. But, given the current state of affairs, if you were an athlete getting gear and MAYBE a few thousand bucks a year from Nike - assuming no reductions - would you jump on an initiative started by Modcraft, Nuun, etc.

Finally, maybe it's true that some athletes are engaging in self-promotion with the pledge. What's wrong with that? I know that if I were a sponsor, I'd include a morals clause about doping in my sponsorship contracts - and a clawback if the athlete is ever found to have doped. Presumably, when you go out and try to get a job, you too will include your background (including your achievements) on your resume. You might even try to signal to potential employers that you did not cheat your way to the top. I don't see the harm in creating a more robust anti-doping ecosystem for the sport - and if self-promotion around an anti-doping initiative helps a post-collegiate runner on the margins get a few pairs of shoes, hydration tabs, etc. for free, I am fine with that.

thisguy wrote:

Isn't it fairly clear 99% of doping in distance running is happening either systematically outside of the US (i.e. Russia) and/or in areas with essentially no out of competition testing (i.e. Kenya).

So... USA distance runners don't dope? Mhmm....

One Perspective wrote:

We all know as much as Jenny and Mac on this topic. Anyone can - and should - call others out on things if they have facts to back them up. Here's Mac's explanation (facts).

https://twitter.com/macfleet1/status/794298908797112320

This is classic of the behind the scenes do good approach for profit.

Mac is spot on with this observations.

We should pull back and look at the facts and ask for an audit and truth statement from Kara etc. Who is behind this all athletes and ex athletes and if profit is being made is there any going direct to the pockets of the originators.

Its ok to make a profit and build a business, lets be transparent.

Meanwhile Dr.Rosa, chief doper of the Kenyan and Italians is back at the helm from retirement and being honored and praised at the NYC marathon.

Having a bunch of athletes pledging and posting pics will not resolve anything but give a feel good.

Banning agents and coaches who are involved with the athletes associated with drugs,suffering the same pentality as the athletes would help the full circle of drug abuse.

But we do know who is behind it, right? Kara's agent (Modcraft), the guy from Nuun - a Goucher sponsor. No lack of transparency. The individuals and entities behind cleansport (identified on the website) have launched an anti-doping awareness campaign involving athletes and sponsors. Consumers can participate by buying trinkets, supporting the athletes, purchasing gear/ supplies from sponsors, etc. Seems straightforward to me.

On the profit motive, what is wrong with a sponsor taking a public anti-doping stance, even if the sponsor's motives include generating consumer goodwill and profit. This strikes me as the free market at work. The companies that have gotten involved/ pledged not to sponsor doping athletes might be doing it for altruistic reasons, sure. But, realistically, they might also hope that some consumers will buy their stuff as a show of support. It's the whole doing well by doing good approach -- see, for example, Patagonia. Consumers have a choice here - they can value a pledge not to sponsor or not. No one is forcing anyone to do anything - or even to care one way or another. As a consumer, I like to make my own decisions.

And, on the it's just a feel good thing/ it won't matter -- again, I say let the market decide. Maybe this initiative will spur dialog concerning the role of sponsors and athletes in doping/ anti-doping worldwide. Maybe some consumers will be more aware of doping/ anti-doping issues when making purchasing decisions. Or, maybe not. But the fact that we don't have a crystal ball or a guarantee of success does not mean that people shouldn't at least try.

The reality is that many of the athletes who have posted - including Kara and Jenny - have lost medals, a lane in a Diamond league event, a lane in a final, etc. to dopers. If these athletes and their sponsors want to try to spur discussion about athletes and sponsors and doping, it's fine with me.

JoJoCo wrote:

It is inappropriate for some scrub like Fleet to criticize someone of Jenny Simpson's stature in the sport. In football it would be like Christian Ponder calling out Cam Newton.

Just shut up and go back to obscurity Fleet.

Shlt, he listened.

predictionie wrote:

Steve Magnums wrote:

Steve Magness has the best response to this:

https://twitter.com/stevemagness/status/793847167307829248

Pledging to do something has a slight positive effect. This isn't going to change the entire landscape, but incremental progress is progress.

About as effective as his pledge not to scrw the female athletes he coaches.

Wait, was there ever any proof any new one's slept with him after the one that got him fired?

I do know he's thought of as a creeper now behind the scenes...for real.

And we are resurrecting an almost two year old thread why?

Because Fleet is the actual worst