Read that online several days ago. Really good article, but mostly exposes the futility of the war on drugs.
Read that online several days ago. Really good article, but mostly exposes the futility of the war on drugs.
I want a new drug. Expose.
It's about the DEA's pursuit of the Mexican drug cartels. There is a tiny tie into track and field doping. Jack Robertson - one of the DEA agents in the piece and a total badass - left the DEA in 2011 to become the chief investigative officer at the World Anti-Doping Agency.
It's good to know they have a total badass hunting down dopers in sport.
Last summer/fall the movie Sicario made me look at the war on drugs in a new way. Depressing and eye opening at the same time. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who actually knows something about how similar that movie is to how things really are.
Another Option wrote:
Last summer/fall the movie Sicario made me look at the war on drugs in a new way. Depressing and eye opening at the same time. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who actually knows something about how similar that movie is to how things really are.
Sicario was a hollywood action movie with a few nuggets of reality thrown in
Can you provide any details?
What is the basis for your expertise?
Another Option wrote:
Can you provide any details?
What is the basis for your expertise?
Are you questioning the fact the Sicario was a Hollywood action movie? It was not a news piece or documentary (which are often very biased themselves), it was, indeed, a movie.
I really wonder about people whose opinions are swayed by movies.
Hopefully he found better sources for this one than his NOP story which wasn't accurate.
Epstein isnt that good wrote:
Hopefully he found better sources for this one than his NOP story which wasn't accurate.
What wasn't accurate about his story regarding the NOP?
questioner of things wrote:
Epstein isnt that good wrote:Hopefully he found better sources for this one than his NOP story which wasn't accurate.
What wasn't accurate about his story regarding the NOP?
The entire story.
Dense` wrote:
questioner of things wrote:What wasn't accurate about his story regarding the NOP?
The entire story.
How do you know the entire story was inaccurate?
Assistant grip wrote:
Another Option wrote:Can you provide any details?
What is the basis for your expertise?
Are you questioning the fact the Sicario was a Hollywood action movie? It was not a news piece or documentary (which are often very biased themselves), it was, indeed, a movie.
I really wonder about people whose opinions are swayed by movies.
No. He just provided a simplistic answer to a real question.
I'm interested if there's anyone on these boards that actually works at the level of interactions shown in the movie and how they would compare much of what happened in the "hollywood action movie" and what they have experienced.
You can approach any dialogue with the assumption the other person is an idiot and make condescending comments or you can assume the best of intents and move forward with informed dialogue. Clearly there's too much of the former and too little of the latter, but one can always hope...
I thought the accuracy was fine. At least he was backing it up with direct quotes. And in fairness to him, he said Salazar didn't respond to various questions he had. In contrast, he had all sorts of sources coming out of the woodwork to speak out against Salazar. I just think he had the classic blindspot journalists can have. Not considering enough that his sources have their own agenda and they may be withholding information that puts Salazar and Rupp in a better light.
Epstein isnt that good wrote:
Hopefully he found better sources for this one than his NOP story which wasn't accurate.
hahahahaha... yeah, because what the world needs is someone else who begins with a "Doping is bad!" approach rather than asking "What would be the best approach to addressing the issue of drugs in sport?"
rojo wrote:
It's good to know they have a total badass hunting down dopers in sport.
That is pretty fair. I am sure he does good work. I think he thought he was opening a floodgate on NOP but missed the weaknesses in his story. For example, he should have had the Gouchers stay focused on what they experienced and not speculate on Galen. It was out of place and undercut the story. And he should also make sure their story and the Magness' story was not undercut by contemporaneous emails. In the end, this site was reduced to comparing length of response times instead of substance. Maybe things will change when a USADA report comes out but so far it fell flat He should start reporting on the issues IAAF is having and the background on the debate about blood samples.
ryan foreman wrote:
I thought the accuracy was fine. At least he was backing it up with direct quotes. And in fairness to him, he said Salazar didn't respond to various questions he had. In contrast, he had all sorts of sources coming out of the woodwork to speak out against Salazar.
I just think he had the classic blindspot journalists can have. Not considering enough that his sources have their own agenda and they may be withholding information that puts Salazar and Rupp in a better light.
Epstein isnt that good wrote:Hopefully he found better sources for this one than his NOP story which wasn't accurate.
questioner of things wrote:
Dense` wrote:The entire story.
How do you know the entire story was inaccurate?
There's never going to be a reply because the inaccuracy claim is not true. Every chance NOP gets to pollute the basic claim Salazar is running a doping program must be taken.
rojo wrote:
It's good to know they have a total badass hunting down dopers in sport.
Reaganomics wrote:
hahahahaha... yeah, because what the world needs is someone else who begins with a "Doping is bad!" approach rather than asking "What would be the best approach to addressing the issue of drugs in sport?"
The reasoning is very simply drug promotion, with the total absence of rational thought.
Brojos plastered a story on the front page a couple of years ago about a guy who had cancer, was constantly taking drugs that were supposed to save him and get rid of the cancer, but then the guy died, from the drugs.
So the message is simple in 2 parts, (1) take the drugs if you're sick, and they will probably kill you but take them anyway and (2) don't take drugs if you're competing, because the drugs will make you faster, even though they're much more likely to kill you and probably won't help you at all, but we've set up all these bogus drug agencies to try and promote that they do.
Epstein isnt that good wrote:
Hopefully he found better sources for this one than his NOP story which wasn't accurate.
Hate to break it to you, but Salazar and the NOP are coming down. It's just a matter of time.
Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
Another Option wrote:
Assistant grip wrote:Are you questioning the fact the Sicario was a Hollywood action movie? It was not a news piece or documentary (which are often very biased themselves), it was, indeed, a movie.
I really wonder about people whose opinions are swayed by movies.
No. He just provided a simplistic answer to a real question.
I'm interested if there's anyone on these boards that actually works at the level of interactions shown in the movie and how they would compare much of what happened in the "hollywood action movie" and what they have experienced.
You can approach any dialogue with the assumption the other person is an idiot and make condescending comments or you can assume the best of intents and move forward with informed dialogue. Clearly there's too much of the former and too little of the latter, but one can always hope...
I would agree except for the fact that the we are talking about a hollywood movie. I would NEVER expect truth or facts from a movie because that is not what they are for. Movies are for entertainment and making money. That is all. Turning this into an intellectual debate is a waste of time unless you can show that the movie was based on, and stuck to, facts with no hollywood glamorization.