Get a life wrote:
Not Singaporean, but I know Rui Yong though we're not close personal friends or anything like that. He's a good guy. He's charismatic and outspoken, which is not typical of Singaporeans. He does promote himself, but that's the world we love in for elites and even sub-elites who are trying to get sponsorships, etc. I think it would be fair to say he's quite popular within the running community in Singapore, with a few outliers like "tri-ing" apparently. And regardless of what some may think of a 2:23 male marathoner, he's BY FAR the best distance runner in the history of Singapore, and there are no other runners who are remotely close to him right now.
The notion of covered-up drug busts is patently absurd. An online crank in Singapore, whose ramblings make him seem completely insane by the way, has speculated about it, and that's it. Given that the SNOC and the SA clearly have it in for Rui Yong, there is absolutely no way that they'd be covering up positive tests.
To "tri-ing", get a life. You've painted every dispute in a biased and absurdly negative way. Thanks for giving us the old-boys' network establishment view though. It gives others a picture of how the bureaucrats who run the federation and the SNOC think.
For the benefit of anyone interested, I'll address your points:
Singapore has literally zero world class track & field athletes, so only ever gets to send a single wild card to the Olympics in each gender. In 2016, Soh complained about the stated selection criteria, and those criteria were actually changed to an more objective standard (IAAF points in the event) after he complained, which seems to me a validation of his complaint! Those with thin skins and looking to criticize took his complaint as a knock on the other athletes who might have had a better chance of selection under the original criteria, but that wasn't the case.
The 1995 "national record" was a farce and everyone who knows running knew it. There's a reason why the ARRS didn't recognize results from that race: the Chiang Mai course at the '95 SEA Games was not certified and never has been used again, and a quick look at the results indicates the course was short. The idea that Rameshon ran 2:24 in hot and humid conditions (5 minutes faster than his 2nd best marathon) when he only managed 2:29-2:31 in a number of attempts in cool weather in marathons like London, CIM and Hong Kong is absurd.
The vest -- cutting holes in the vest before a brutally hot and humid marathon -- was literally what many elites such as Galen Rupp have had done for them. It's a non-issue, and it's not at all clear that the sponsor's decision was driven by this. Only in Singapore would a bunch of old boys have gotten their panties in a twist over this.
Finally, I seriously doubt that Ashley Liew slowed down given that others in the race in addition to Rui Yong say he didn't. And it's laughable to say that SNOC investigated. They talked to a few folks and were happy to promote a feel-good story. The fact that Ashley admitted that he tried to kill the story before it was published by the media sounds like a guy who knew it wasn't true and was trying to prevent it from going viral lest he be exposed. And now that Ashley has suspiciously changed parts of his story, in my book he has lost the benefit of doubt.
tri-ing wrote:
This is an individual who seems to be getting more media exposure with disputes with the national associations than his own running, taking to the media at every opportunity to try to arm-twist the associations to do his bidding; and publicly chastising them if they don't comply to his selfish demands. Each time he would claim he was doing something for the greater good of the sport and for fellow athletes but it's strangely coincidental that every time his self interest is deeply intertwined with the disputed issues.
In 2016 , Soh disputed the selection criteria for the Olympic wild card entry just days before the athlete is selected, knowing that based on the criteria his chances were quite slim for the wild card. What's more damning was that he tried to undermine performances of fellow athletes who stood better chances in the selection, in order for his to look good. The criteria was never disputed before that though it was made known to all long before.
In 2017, after running his personal best of just under 2:25 in an overseas race, Soh tried to get his timing into the record book by disputing the then Singapore marathon record which had stood for more than 20 years, claiming it was not recognised by so-and-so international body and his own timing was. It's amazing how it was not an issue for more than 20 years and now it suddenly was because his personal interest is involved.
Promoting his own sponsor during the black-out period 2017 SEA Games: There's often a black-out period during Games that required athletes not to promote their own individual sponsors, as each nation will have their own official sponsors. Soh defied the order and disputed the standing order thereafter. If you disagree with the arrangement, sort it out before, not after. You risk losing sponsors that way. True enough, after cutting holes in his national team official vest during the marathon race, it pissed off the sponsor and the team lost the sponsorship soon after. Nicely done!
In his recently spat with another fellow athlete, it was over some sportsmanship award that the latter won for slowing down during the 2015 SEA Games marathon to wait for the a group of athletes ahead who had taken a wrong detour. Soh won the race, and the other athlete won a rather prestigious sportsmanship award. But now, 3 years later, Soh disputed the award on the basis that 'he did not notice/see anyone slowing down'. Despite Singapore National Olympic Council reassuring that investigastion had been done and had gathered sworn statements from witnesses, Soh refused to accept the decision and refused to retract the accusation, resulting in the ongoing lawsuit between the athlete and him. Is it any surprise that he is being excluded from the subsequent Game? If you are the selection committee, would you want someone who is known to be uncooperative, antagonising and full of antics ?