One general note- GH and I usually monitor the board but Sieg and Dan do too and while we try to be consistent and communicate about decisions about pulling threads, we don't always succeed.
That is the nature of the beast. We're about to hit 25,000 posts and I've read probably 98% of them. We've ripped through 1600 new messages in the last week. So sometimes a little wheat goes out with the chaff and hell if we can remember exactly what and why. If there is a trend to the abuse I start to make note of it and follow it more closely.
We try to post explanations when the message is borderline or abnormal in some way but that cannot always happen, nor should it be expected.
I just remember when a certain Arkansas alum was being borderline trollish back on the old track email newsletter in the mid-nineties. I stuck up for him, for his right to voice his opinion, free speech, etc.
Without limits, the guy turned into a first class jerk. His likeminded diciples still haunt letsrun.com, ruining that board.
Never again. Call'em as you see fit, boys. If you're wrong, you're wrong. We can all live with it. The alternative is too horrible.
Hey thanks to the folks like Steve, Natasha, Jon kuha1 and others who aren't intimidated by gh and who have offered support.
Gary, you've proven yourself to be someone who will say what he wants, when he wants, to avoid dealing with issues he doesn't want to hear about. You have yanked posts I made on Fuchs, and you did call it hearsay, regardless of what may still be on the board. I'm glad you at least haven't denied that (so far). The condescending and highhanded way in which you dismissed my allegations only made me more determined to provide the proof you said was missing, so I posted something from T&FN 1992 about DDR drug use. Then you said that was ancient and "nothing more came of it. End of story". Do you really expect people to believe you, the editor of Track and Field News, are so ignorant? Rather than take your insulting response lying down, I referred you and interested readers to March 98 p.74 "More East German Doping Allegations." Nothing more ever came of it? Sure Gary. You just "forgot" about all that ever came after 1992. What a crock. And you knew nothing about Fuchs either. And by the way, her admission was 5 years ago, not 30, and she was your athlete of the decade 23 years ago. The only time you have given a damn about what I've said about Fuchs was yesterday because you finally couldn't just dismiss it as untrue, anymore.
I know I can be cocky and acerbic, and yes I was asked by YOU to tone it down a few months back. Despite seeing your own genteel manner de temps en temp, such as "Shut the fuck up and go away. (Was I really that blunt?)", I have been scrupulously careful over the last few months to monitor my tendency to be pedantic/sarcastic. But then, how could I expect you to notice when you and Ben have so much to wade through?
Ben, comparing me to Eddie only reflects on you. Like I told you when I forwarded Dr. Franke's message to you yesterday, you can't save your face and your ass at the same time. Clearly from the support you can see on this post I am no Eddie and to be compared to him/them/whatever is a pathetic and desperate mischaracterization on your part.
And perhaps most interesting of all, you STILL won't show what was, in your words, "trollism". Because if you did show what was yanked, it would show how rudely innappropriate your language is to describe the person's post.
Go celebrate. You won't have to put up with my dreadful nagging questions anymore. At least I can leave this board having proved that you either are one major ignoramus for an editor of a Track and Field magazine, or a sleazeball who doesn't want certain truths to "inconvenience" him and his current drama.
I am sorry to see you go, but when you bid adieu with statements like:
"you either are one major ignoramus for an editor of a Track and Field magazine, or a sleazeball who doesn't want certain truths to "inconvenience" him and his current drama."
you disserve your own cause. Obviously he is not an T&F ignoramus, which leaves only sleazeball, who doesn't want to be 'inconvenienced.' That makes no sense either. He and Ben have gone out of their way to explain their position with facts. That's not the work of someone who doesn't want to be inconvenienced by the truth. What are you so mad at? A public scolding? Big deal. You did not abide by their 'rules' and that's all they asked. When you posted in the first place you knew it was their board, their rules.
I think they would have let you return, but now you've made that impossible. Your loss. Our loss. Even gh/bh's loss.
>Hey thanks to the folks like Steve, Natasha, Jon
>kuha1 and others who aren't intimidated by gh and
>who have offered support.
You think that because I say that I agree with GH that I'm intimidated by him? You're ridiculous. Your posts were almost always interesting but your ability to recognize the line between discussion and ranting is lacking. That is why you were being asked to leave. You say you tried to tone it down, but obviously you didn't do that. My guess is that you turned this into a personal thing that you wanted to win. So, you kept pushing.
Please, try to look at yourself as objectively as you can. Look very deeply to try and find why it was that GH gave you the boot, and see if you wouldn't have done the same in his position with his rules.
Then, please consider apologizing to GH so you can maybe get back on the board and the rest of us can continue to enjoy your posts and insights as we always have.
Michael: 1st thing...great job in getting and posting that missive from the Germans about Fuchs....keep in mind, T&F news is here to report on a sport we love. The editors probably live in million dollar Menlo Park homes and travel the globe watching events, so they might be a bit elitist at times. So tone down your language and present your ideas in the proper thread because I will miss your posts, if you are banned completely.
>Michael: 1st thing...great job in getting and
>posting that missive from the Germans about
Given the statements Franke has made in the past, I have no doubt that might be real, but are you so dull that you'll allow somebody with no known credentials to put a post on a message board that says "here's a message from famous-person X" and you take it at face value?
Can I please have your e-mail address? I've got some Arizona oceanfront property I'd like to sell you.
I'm away for just a few days running a marathon (sprint?) and all heck breaks loose.
Geez, can't we just settle this with a grudge-match race over, say, 100k. The winner (survivor) gets to have his own thread to say what he wants?
Or maybe we can discuss athletes and performances and side-track the drug stuff for a while. We all know its present and and a problem. We can let it kill the sport we love by letting it consume us and this board or we can dwell on the things we love like the WC 5k.
Heaven help any kids who happen upon this board. they would run yelling from T&F forever. My daughter is banned from going to this board until further notice.
What actually comprises of unacceptable behavior? I understand that "unsubstantiated drug allegations" are not appropriate but what about the usage of profanity and comments regarding the less than flattering physiques of come runners with links to pictures of those runners. The comments I have seen regarding certain runners who may not look as thin as the male message poster would like are downright mean....or perhaps I am referring to another track website's message board
Ultrarunner wrote: "Or maybe we can discuss athletes and performances and side-track the drug stuff for a while. We all know its present and and a problem. We can let it kill the sport we love by letting it consume us and this board or we can dwell on the things we love like the WC 5k."
I agree with your sentiment, but it's easier said than done.
My problem is that given the recent THG revelations, it's hard to talk about any good track performances without the lingering doubt in the back of my mind that they might be tainted.
It's kind of like growing up: you go from being young and innocent to being old and fully aware of all the problems in the world.
The same thing is happening with track (for me, at least) -- our innocence has been lost. We are now suspicious of every good performance, no matter how much we would like to simply sit back and enjoy it.
>Hey thanks to the folks like Steve, Natasha, Jon
>kuha1 and others who aren't intimidated by gh and
>who have offered support.
Add me to the list. The worst that can happen is that I could be banned, too. I certainly doubt my subscription would be canceled, but in the internet age I can live with that.
>proven yourself to be someone who will say what
>he wants, when he wants, to avoid dealing with
>issues he doesn't want to hear about.
. . .
>At least I can leave this
>board having proved that you either are one major
>ignoramus for an editor of a Track and Field
>magazine, or a sleazeball who doesn't want
>certain truths to "inconvenience" him and his
Nah, he's just a bad journalist. One would assume that the nation's leading (er, only) track magazine would either do some investigation of its own, or at least be quoted in major press coverage of the THG scandal. Neither has happened. I assume my criticism will get me removed from this board as well.
Don't you think you're being a little quick in your judgement on the THG case?
First, there is a piece in the November issue on the THG crisis that was added as the magazine went to press (actually after it was at the press). Second, there is a piece on the front page by Sieg Lindstrom ( http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/di ... .jsp?id=63 ) written last week that looked at a facet of the story no one else (to my knowledge) had looked at. Third, there is a section of the front page (updated as news breaks) devoted to the THG crisis and a message board devoted to the issue.
Before you assume that I am a T&FN lapdog apologist, note that I too have gotten nastygrams from Mssrs Hill & Hall, but . . .
"Nah, he's just a bad journalist. One would assume that the nation's leading (er, only) track magazine would either do some investigation of its own, or at least be quoted in major press coverage of the THG scandal"
doesn't hold water. I doubt that they have the far-flung resources required to do real investigative work. They don't have a big staff, big budget, big office - like a say 'Runner's World' has. They also HAVE to stick to FACTS or face extinction in lawsuits. As for being quoted, that's not their call. MANY reporters have never heard of them! Most reporters know zip about the 't&f world', but they know a good scandal when they see one. I think T&FN is doing the best that they can under the circumstances. I doubt they'll yank your post, because at least you are civil about it. I have been impressed with your knowledge, so you don't need to fall on your sword as ML did.
Lets not all over react here. Maybe it is because you are a writter yourself that you are taking this personally as well but I'd hardly call GH a "bad journalist". Maybe he doesn't attack the issues you would like but thats not "bad journalism" that disagreeing with the journalism that you want.
GH is opinionated (as most journalist/editors) and while I often disagree with him I respect his opinion and his right to it and try and follow his ground rules since it is his message board.
The drug issue has been given its own space now lets respect the owners/creators and police of their message board and keep the topics to the disignated pace. I for one do not enjoy having each thread monopolized by one sub issue (drugs) and if it persists I and many others would leave the board (voluntarily) altogher.
What is ML's problem with leaving this sub-issue to its designated spot? And why is GH's request to do so bad form?
GH thanks for the board and good luck keeping those who would monopolize the subject matter at bay.
As for me I'll keep pushing for more (any) Ultra-coverage.
"Nah, he's just a bad journalist. One would assume that the nation's leading (er, only) track magazine would either do some investigation of its own, or at least be quoted in major press coverage of the THG scandal."
j squire - totally assinine comment. A little thought before hitting "post reply" would be nice. I subscribe to T&FN to get accurate reporting of the news in our sport. There is no way GH and the bunch can "investigate" any better than the federal government and prosecutors - but they can accurately supply information (and just as importantly limit dis-information).
Before posting, we should all take note of the limited number of athletes currently posting on the boards (thanks J. Spivey!) and consider that the immature coments and negativity may be a reason (see Ultrarunner's comments above).
>I second 6 5.5hjsteve. I would also miss Michael
>Lewis. Is there a room for compromise, "kiss and
>make up", perhaps?>>
In looking at all these threads, I would say that if there's a move to be made here, it's Mr. Lewis's. GH did relent from his unreasonable total-ban stance and say Lewis was allowed to continue on this thread and play out the bone of contention, the Fuchs thingie. Lewis's response was an ad hominem attack on GH, but I don't see that TFN subsequently shut the door on him despite that ongoing churlishness.
"Look very deeply to try and find why it was that GH gave you the boot, and see if you wouldn't have done the same in his position with his rules.
Then, please consider apologizing to GH so you can maybe get back on the board and the rest of us can continue to enjoy your posts and insights as we always have."
Steve, very good advice. I feel that I need to apologize, not in order to get back on the board, but for my own integrity. What Gary and Ben do with the apology is their business, but it's not being made to get back on the board. That would be insincere, and frankly, as much as I love the board, life will go on for me and everyone else whether I'm on this board or not.
Gary and Ben, sincere apologies for putting the Fuchs post where it didn't belong. Apologies for not taking time to consider how much work you do on this board and for allowing my own personal resentments about other disagreements to motivate the placement of the post. In retrospect, I wish I had contacted you either by email privately, or perhaps started another thread. Just to let you know, I had received the message from Dr. Franke 2 weeks before and hadn't seen it until Oct.20, so I was not waiting for some opportune moment to pounce with it, just don't always check my email on this computer very regularly.
Apologies are also in order for some of the language I used, particularly "ignoramus" and "sleazeball". Regardless of what I may think about how we have differed on some issues, there are better ways to state differences than name-calling. I do not think you are an ignoramus, and I respect your knowledge of athletics. It is deep. I don't agree with how you have responded to my "opinions" nor with the accuracy of some of your statements, but it is your board, and I lost sight of that.
Wow. That was nice. Good on you. Sometimes we all need to take a few moments, to think about what we are writing, not to be too quick on the post key, and far quicker on the delete key.
I do enjoy most of the posts on the Board, and respect many of the opinions. They are heartfelt and generally form well supported arguments.
And again, thanks to the TFN group for providing this forum to us tracksters. Policing a board is no fun. Hats off to GH and BH.
ML, please don't pull your punches, just word them differently.
Everyone - read the latest Spivey post and go for a run!!!
Now, will we see an equally classy apology from gh? That would complete the circle and close the case, I think.
If gh really did accuse Michael Lewis of making a bs and hearsay accusation about the Ruth Fuchs matter, then he owes Michael an apology because in fact Michael had solid and impressive evidence for his accusation, which was far from "hearsay".
So let's hear it from gh and close this matter amicably and responsibly.
Sorry to be so long in getting back to this thread; please don't read anything into how long it took me to respond after Michael's post, other than my trying to say afloat in all the kaka that's inundating the track world these days at the same time as the World Rankings are being formulated.
Michael, I have no problem with being called "ignoramus" or "sleazeball." As they say, I've been called worse. But thanks for that pullback on your part.
One thing arising from all this is the need for everyone to realize that an editor's job--be it for print or for in heping to keep the board running smoothly--is largely one of journalistic triage: there's a limited amount of resources (time/space/energy) available, and explaining every move we make simply isn't feasible.
So my reaction to "controversial" material is likely to fall into one of three categories: simply yank it, caution that the direction must be changed, simply walk away from it.
This last is the toughest for people to understand I guess; when somebody simply drops out of the "debate." But this board is not a paid service where people can expect to get their money's worth; where after they have their 30 seconds I'm supposed to contribute 30 seconds and then it's there turn again, so on ad infinitum. If I don't feel I can bring anything more to a conversation (and there's no reason eith to yank the thread or say the thread should stop) then walking away unannounced is what I'll do.
As Ben noted earlier, there are about 25,000 posts on the board and he has read about 98% of them. I've probably read 125% of them, because I usually try to scan a whole thread (well, non-Webb ones before I respond. So the details of our contretemps regarding Fuchs are lost in the mists of time.
As noted at the very top, if you feel there is more to be said on this topic, start again. I'll certainly stipulate that at one point she said something about having used drugs in her athletic days. I don't recall ever disputing that, which is pretty much common knowledge. And I'm well acquainted with the stance that Franke and his wife take on the whole subject. So where do you want to go from here.
Thanks Gary for the reply. I never doubted you guys were busy but 25,000 posts is a lot, and I would just prefer to leave the Fuchs thing at that. We have a different recollection of events and I don't wish to push the point anymore. May we leave it at that and just shake hands?
"All's well (or is it?). Michael, start a new thread so we know you are back home where you belong!"
I'm still alive and well and not getting out of this life that easily I'm afraid Should I get a green light from Gary Hill I will consider myself officially reprieved.
Gary, after combing through material still on the board dating around Sept 20 I can see references I made to what I thought was disagreement from you re Fuchs. Something got yanked somewhere, a post where I started out saying something like this: "One thing I have learned on this board is I won't assume anything unless I have thoroughly researched it, regardless of how commonly known I may think it is, ...." (blah blah black sheep) Maybe I misunderstood something you said. If I did, I apologize further, I just honestly don't know without knowing exactly what was on the board, and frankly, does anyone really care anymore? I'm not perfect and I'm still learning, probably goes for the rest of the human race too.
So Happy Hallowe'en everyone and I will check in here next week sometime to see what's afloat.