Paging Lynn Hoppes ...

There is nothing wrong with being anonymous on here. You don't have to apologize for it.

But I'd take what you said a step further.

If I was going to attack someone's character on here (go after them by name) and do a real rip job -- no matter how justified I thought it was, or how much I despised the person -- I'd put my name to it. Or else, I'd stay quiet and bite my tongue.

First, it's just not that courageous to rip someone anonymously. Second, if I put my name to it, people can evaluate my relationship to the person, what my agenda might be, and whether what I have to say is credible. That is basically why what Schmadtke said had some weight with you. Third, when you put your name to it, your character becomes fair game, too, which is only right when you are attacking someone else's character.

WriteThinking posted that he had no idea who carrie is, but her rip jobs had a "ring of truth." That really frightened me. You have no idea who she is, and you think, "ring of truth," rather than "what is the agenda here"?

I can't believe anyone wouldn't have that initial reaction.

Someone is gone for several years, sees this thread and comes back specifically to call Hoppes, "shady, as lazy and as drama-motivated as they come." That is a really nasty character attack. Forget the stuff he is legitimately getting ripped for on here. She took it to the level of a complete personal skewering. You have no idea who she is. And you think "ring of truth," rather than wondering what her personal agenda might be, or if she has an axe to grind?

That is the problem with an anonymous character attack on a message board. My hope was that most people had the good sense to look at it critically for what it was. There is no way to know whether what you read is true, false or something in between. You have no idea if the person who posted those things was posting first-hand knowledge of anything, truthful things, distorted hearsay or if they just libeled someone.

 

Um. Here is the post.

You are really making a parallel with that post to tell me I am full of shit?

I posted about how we don't know how PED us is prevalent in tennis. I gave examples of players getting busted, despite the fact that the ATP is not under the scrutiny of other sports and it has buried instances. The reason I mentioned Roger Federer was that someone asked specifically why anyone might think HE might be using. You'd have to be obtuse to interpret that as me ripping Roger Federer. I was suggesting that given the current landscape in sports, it is not OUTLANDISH to think that any athlete MIGHT be using.

Seriously.

 

Try to follow the exchange. TSP said PEDs are required to be an elite athlete.

Ringer picked out Roger Federer. Not me. He asked why you'd think he is using.

I pointed out that we know PEDs are in tennis. I gave evidence. I said, therefore it is not outlandish to think that anyone is using. I mentioned Roger Federer because that was the name ringer picked.

If you want to twist yourself into a pretzel to turn that into me ripping Roger Federer, a la what we have seen on this thread, knock yourself out.

It's ridiculous.

 

Excuse me? We're protecting the "big boys?"

I know Lynn.
I consider Lynn a friend.
Even with that, I've let everything go on here because given the nature of the allegations, it is fair game.
Who are we "protecting?"

 

For what it is worth, I saw something on this thread really bugged me. I stated my opinion.

As a moderator, I am not protecting anyone. I didn't delete the posts. I haven't touched this thread, except to give my personal opinion.

I have no reason to "protect" Lynn Hoppes, nor have I been trying to.