Shalane Flanagan Heading Back to Portland, Turns Down Late Show with Stephen Colbert

obvious reason wrote:

Probably doesn't want to answer questions (that so-called "running media" won't ask) about whether the "race" was rigged.

Just Retire All Ready wrote:

Yep, her pre-race bluster made it clear the fix was in. Now she only has herself to blame when it boomerangs upon media scrutiny.

You people are whacked wrote:

Hey trolls, any reason that makes you believe the East African runners like Keitany are so easy manipulated and of such low character they’d accept a bribe and throw a race? Every single one would just take the money and “run,” huh? You have a really low opinion of those runners, don’t ya?

Not at all. Personally I wouldn't fault them at all, being from a very poor country, for taking the money.

However, other than payoffs, that the fix was in for Flanagan could have included drugging their food or drinks or whatever.

Just Retire All Ready wrote:

obvious reason wrote:

Probably doesn't want to answer questions (that so-called "running media" won't ask) about whether the "race" was rigged.

Yep, her pre-race bluster made it clear the fix was in. Now she only has herself to blame when it boomerangs upon media scrutiny.

You people are loco!

"It's the kind that thinks"? "It's the kind that thinks"? Did you mean "the kind (or type) who thinks"? And "type" or "kind" of what? Attitude? Do attitudes think now?

"A person like that, grammatical or otherwise"? You're calling me grammatical? Or did you mean to modify the verb "engage" with the adverb "grammatically"?

I think I get it. God is going to punish me for saying these things one day? That's another amusing thing about godders in the U.S. -- they can be indignant about other people wishing death on others (which I'm not doing) even as they themselves hunger for the fires of Hell to incinerate their earthly adversaries.

I don't think you'll be seeing God as your lack of faith is evident. Hope you come to your senses sooner than later. Peace.

[quote]these guys ... wrote:

Do you lock your house?

Do you lock your car?

Do you take any measures to protect yourself or property?

If so, do you consider them 100% ineffective, because anyone who was hell bent on beating you up or breaking into your car would find a way?

Thank you for bringing up a valid arguments. I consider those measure about 95% effective at creating a barrier to the moderately motivated criminal. but if someone really wanted to break into my house or car, I know they could get in. That doesn't mean I don't take measures to discourage the less motivated person, but I know that my measures can only do so much.

When it comes to gun laws, I think that restricted access to guns will not be able to fully eliminate these mass killings.

Someone who gets to the point where they are so filled with resentment and rage that they plan on killing others for no other reason than to inflict pain on fellow humans, that person is already planning to violate the most serious social norm. Gun restrictions are not likely to divert them. If guns where very hard to acquire, they would just find another way to kill.

My evidence is that over the last hundred years, access to guns has stayed pretty much the same and yet mass shootings appear to be on the rise. Obviously, it is not access to guns that is the causal element to the increase in mass shootings.

Laws are a balancing act between what can be enforced, and what is expected to be complied with. I think it is appropriate to restrict machine guns and up. But I don't think we would see any net positive effect to restricting weapons like semi automatic rifles and down.

Kelly & Ryan video is here for those who haven't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi0jatmSs3o

I get that she technically could have done both -- but I really don't blame her. She was already getting loads of media attention and had sponsor obligations, plus she got (in her own words) zero hours of sleep the night before. And that's ignoring the obvious fact that she just ran a marathon and was probably very tired.

You have to be your best self to be on one of those shows and I think she just wouldn't have been physically up for it.

-1

Maybe Shalane doesn't want to go on Colbert because she doesn't like him constantly insulting and making fun of President Trump.

robert678 wrote:

Maybe Shalane doesn't want to go on Colbert because she doesn't like him constantly insulting and making fun of President Trump.

has she even stated who she voted for?

robert678 wrote:

Maybe Shalane doesn't want to go on Colbert because she doesn't like him constantly insulting and making fun of President Trump.

Big props to Shalane for not participating in that alt left, communist show.

[quote]Uncle Pervy wrote:

Now I recall why I haven't been on this site for a year... Idiot Alt-Righers.... The Late Show isn't mainstream and has a limited reach?

I just can't Isn't there a mainstream running board somewhere?

[quote]Carnivore 69 wrote:

Quite ironic coming from a guy who calls himself "Uncle Pervy." Is your name Harvey Weinstein?

follower wrote:

robert678 wrote:

Maybe Shalane doesn't want to go on Colbert because she doesn't like him constantly insulting and making fun of President Trump.

Big props to Shalane for not participating in that alt left, communist show.

Amen.

Typ letsrunner wrote:

Benghazi!

Just some fodder for the rwnjs here.

Say it again Benghazi!

"RUSSIA!!" LOL

Thank you for bringing up valid arguments as well. "I think that restricted access to guns will not be able to fully eliminate these mass killings" Probably true "Someone who gets to the point where they are so filled with resentment and rage that they plan on killing others for no other reason than to inflict pain on fellow humans, that person is already planning to violate the most serious social norm. Gun restrictions are not likely to divert them. If guns where very hard to acquire, they would just find another way to kill." I can't prove or disprove this, but I don't think it's plausible. I personally think it's common to have such thoughts temporarily. "Cooling off" happens though. What matters is when occurrence of such thoughts intersects with readily available means of acting on those thoughts. The more available the means, the more common those intersections. "My evidence is that over the last hundred years, access to guns has stayed pretty much the same" That's not the case though. I can drive 15 minutes in any direction and buy guns at a variety of stores. If I wait a few months I can go to an enormous gunshow somewhere within a 30 minute drive. I have the Internet, with which I can get in all kinds trouble. Those weren't true even 40 years ago. "Laws are a balancing act between what can be enforced, and what is expected to be complied with. I think it is appropriate to restrict machine guns and up. But I don't think we would see any net positive effect to restricting weapons like semi automatic rifles and down." Personally I think a semi-automatic ban would be a positive effect in and of itself ... but I'd be ok with a machine guns and up ban. I honestly think 80%+ of people agree on that sort of ban.

I only have one more argument to make as a reply to you (once again, thank you for discussing this in a productive way). My last paragraph about laws being a balancing act, needs and addition to it, and that addition is the value of freedom. On the one side of the balance is the capability of enforcement and the expected compliance, on the other side of the scale is the cost of restricting freedom.

Recognizing the value of freedom that is piece of the puzzle that is often overlooked. But I think it is actually the most important aspect to the whole argument. Every time a new restrictive law is passed our freedoms are hemmed in just a little.

You estimate that 80% of people agree with banning machine guns and up, I agree. That is basically what the current laws are. Machine guns are very hard to acquire in the US. None of the mass shooting in the US, in the last several decades have involved machine guns. So while we agree that 80% of people agree with banning machine guns, that implies that %80 of people agree that semi automatic rifles (like the infamous AR15) should be allowed. The reason to not ban semi-automatic guns is because good people WANT THE FREEDOM to own them.

I still think a free society is the best option of all possible social constructs. So unless I see clear proof that an additional law would improve our lives, I don't want that law. My life is not improved if I can't buy an AR 15, while a deranged homicidal dirt bag will still find a way to illegally get one.

The most recent shooting in Texas illustrates this principle. The shooter got his gun despite the current law which should not have let him get it. And he was stopped by a good Samaritan who owned an AR15. Why should the good man who responded heroically to this shooting, have his gun taken away?

100m wrote:

follower wrote:

Big props to Shalane for not participating in that alt left, communist show.

Amen.

Anyone notice Colbert taking a thinly veiled swipe at Shalane with his comment and I' m paraphrasing , " We're (his show ) enormously popular in Nairobi , Kenya ."

Marketing & Promotion Department Mgr. wrote:

AXC wrote:

OMG so dumb! WHAT ABOUT THE SPORT PEOPLE

Has there been a distance runner on a late night talk show since Alan Webb on Letterman??

This is a stance to ponder... at a USATF clinic an instructor said "If we don't promote the sport, who will?" That stuck with me and may apply here.

But I respect her decision to be at home.

Seriously this. This is why other athletes make actual money and runners don't. She put running back 40+ years.

For the first time in almost ever, tons of people actually cared about a us woman running and she threw away a chance to build upon it.

Promote the ducking sport plebs!

plebeian wrote:

Marketing & Promotion Department Mgr. wrote:

This is a stance to ponder... at a USATF clinic an instructor said "If we don't promote the sport, who will?" That stuck with me and may apply here.

But I respect her decision to be at home.

Seriously this. This is why other athletes make actual money and runners don't. She put running back 40+ years.

For the first time in almost ever, tons of people actually cared about a us woman running and she threw away a chance to build upon it.

Promote the ducking sport plebs!

Yeah people were dancing in the streets.

You azzwhole

DumbDumbDumb wrote:

Her money comes from sponsors and sponsors want exposure. Turning down one of the most viewed shows on TV is unlikely to please them.

It is highly unlikely that Colbert would press her on some political front or suggest the race was rigged. Even if she disagrees with the politics of the show, she could politely decline any related question or even politely disagree.

This was a dumb move.

+10

She had an opportunity to 'crossover' and didn't take it. Very short-sighted.