Are we talking about seeing a hard copy (actual sheet of paper), a photograph/scanned digital copy, or just the text posted on a message board? I've seen the latter, but to write a newspaper article I'd want to see the first.
I could believe it was an email fired off in the heat of the moment, but I can't believe it was an actual posted letter.
I think the new things in that article (to me) were the Charlie Francis allegations that were subsequently denied.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Are we talking about seeing a hard copy (actual sheet of paper), a photograph/scanned digital copy, or just the text posted on a message board? I've seen the latter, but to write a newspaper article I'd want to see the first.
And what, do you suppose is the ratio of written letters to e-mail messages these days? When was the last time you wrote a personal letter, especially one of any length? Why would you expect whoever wrote that communication to have done so by any means other than e-mail?
Why do you think Ato is not talking? Ya think it might be based upon the advice of legal counsel? His formal denial in emails to the media as been very weak. Zero evidence? This reminds me of Mo jumping up and down at the USATF meeting a couple of years back chanting "Zero Tolerance, Zero Tolerance." It seems that you are hoping that the allegations against Mo will be found to be untrue. I don't think that is very likely. Do you? What is likely is that this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Mo and company. I guess we will all find out soon enough.
Why do you think Ato is not talking? Ya think it might be based upon the advice of legal counsel? His formal denial in emails to the media as been very weak. Zero evidence? This reminds me of Mo jumping up and down at the USATF meeting a couple of years back chanting "Zero Tolerance, Zero Tolerance." It seems that you are hoping that the allegations against Mo will be found to be untrue. I don't think that is very likely. Do you? What is likely is that this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Mo and company. I guess we will all find out soon enough.
I am not gh, but I would like to address the above. First of all, why does Ato's talking or not talking necessarily signify anything in relation to whether he authored the letter? Second, what constitutes a weak denial? Third, gh appears to be more objective than you. Fourth, you appear to be conflating two issues, the first of which relates to this letter and Boldon's potential involvement in concocting it, and second, allegations regarding Maurice Green, which apparently exist independently of this letter you are so convinced Boldon authored. The fact that one does not necessarily believe everything one reads is not tantamount to a lack of objectivity. What evidence do you have that Boldon wrote this letter?
