Well this thread shows how you can't make everyone happy. Poster "A Duck" is crucifying us for being unfair to Galen Rupp and his team yet poster "Andrew Dawson" says we have specific information about Mo Farah and are not doing anything with it.
I can assure you "Andre Dawson's" allegations are false. If anyone has any information on any doping matters you can email me confidentially at firstname.lastname@example.org
Now I guess "A Duck" would say "Andrew Dawson's" post is libelous but we have explained our position on why we let such posts exists.
Now onto some of "A Duck's" arguments:
[quote]A Duck wrote:
...There is a reason exactly Zero Elite runners will be interviewed here.
...There is a reason exactly Zero Elite USA coaches will be interviewed here.
There is a reason almost every university and high school coach has a policy BANNING their teams from frequenting this website.
The Lojo's can revel in bad faith, bad behavior, and delusion all they want -- the entire nation of organized runners CAN'T be wrong.
This site has exactly ZERO credibility.
"A Duck" I guess you live in your own version of reality.
I'm trying to think if we've ever had an athlete refuse an interview and can't think of an instance.
Then instead of claiming you ask the questions credentialed media don't ask, the next time you are in front of Rupp or whomever you suspect, in the mixed zone, ask the questions like men.
You won't because you are little cowards on the internet, and not credible journalists.
I guess you don't get it.
I did ask Carmelita Jeter about her association with Mark Block at the Olympics. And I had some of the most prominent journalists in the Olympic movement come up and congratulate me on the question.
Everytime I see Galen Rupp I'm not going to ask him about doping. Why would I do that? All I'm doing with this thread is saying it is ok for people to discuss whether they believe athlete X or Y is doping.
I do think someone should do an article on thyroid medication and its possible potential for abuse by athletes in light of Jos Hermen's comments at the Olympics. (Jos Hermens said to Dutch journalist Marco Knippen who translated the quotes into English and emailed them to me, "Science has triumphed over nature. Formally Farah and Rupp are doing nothing illegal. I rather just questioning if Farah during a doping control hands a laundry list of products specified, for which he apparently has a certificate." and "Within the environment knows almost everyone that it is used. Thyroid hormone affects all. I do not understand why it is not on the banned list.") Maybe I'll be the person who does that article. I do think athletes should be asked why they won't make their TUEs public and Marco did ask Galen about his TUEs at the Olympics and reported to me that Galen said, "About my
personal medical record I do not talk." Does that mean Galen is doping? No.
Do I think athletes should reveal their TUEs for medically non-sensitive conditions? Yes.
With this thread we are saying it is ok for people to post and discuss whether athlete X or Y is doping. It leads to a cleaner sport.
People can ask the same questions about Paula Radcliffe who I consider a personal friend.
In these threads people point things out that lead to journalists asking questions. I had no idea Felix Sanchez and Duane Solomon train in the same group. Someone pointed that out and that is worth looking into and asking a question about. Does it mean they are doping? No. Is it worth looking into? Yes. Will it cause Duane hopefully to push for an even cleaner sport? I hope so.
While you think threads like this are slandering your Ducks I think you have it wrong. It lets information be discussed both pro and con whether someone might be doping. In the thyroid thread, I pointed out that Paula Radcliffe and Ryan Hall have indicated they are on thyroid medication as well.
People in threads on this subject often point to the paper Alberto Salazar gave at Duke in 1999 where he said, "I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone" and then point out he now has two athletes 1-2 and the world trying to make some sort of connection to doping.
At the Olympics after the 10k, Alberto said to me and others, "Another big problem I believe was there's too many people who use the excuse of drugs, that anyone who runs fast is on drugs. The second you start thinking that as a coach or as an athlete you're basically saying you're not good enough to compete with other people unless you cheat. What I've always told our guys is 'Don't believe all that bull. Those are the losers that say that.' Rather than trying to change their own training to get better they use that as excuse and it's a defeatist attitude. A lot of the mind-set for us was 'We can beat these guys. We've just got to train smart."
I asked him at the Olympics about the disconnect between what he said after the 10k and what he said at Duke in 1999. And he had a very good point. He noted that WADA did not exist when he spoke at Duke. Anti-doping was in a complete different era. Now anti-doping is much stronger so his views had changed.
The point being threads like this are a discussion and aren't out to slander athletes. They let people be more informed on the issue.
I think Bill Simmons of ESPN/Grantland said it best in today's QOD: "I believe we need to fix this disconnect between our private conversations and our public ones. Cheating in professional sports is an epidemic. Wondering about the reasons behind a dramatically improved performance, or a dramatically fast recovery time, shouldn't be considered off-limits for media members. We shouldn't feel like scumbags bringing this stuff up. It's part of sports."
So if it's ok for journalists to ask questions then it's ok for fans to discuss the issue as well.
The point you are missing "A Duck" is that just because you wonder about an improved performance has to mean you conclude it is because of doping. But there is nothing wrong with wondering or having the conversation.[/quote]
And this "A duck", is how you behave. Here Wejo comes of as mature and reasonable, unlike you who act like a 14 year old girl defending that Justin Bieber in fact DOES make great music, unlike what people are saying.
Do you get the difference in you and Wejos behaviour?
Do you get that by acting the way you do, you are making it EASY for Wejo to crush your arguments?
Do you, A Duck?