I mentioned the same thing to CP on Twitter. Also would've been better had Flo contacted someone at UWW for the expected denial. And at least cite the rule they're accusing Silvestri of breaking. I don't doubt the veracity of the allegations, but other outlets/publications might pick it up, it should be sewn up tighter. Not to mention making it as difficult as possible for the UWW to undermine.Crazy. Great work by Flo.
I think it would help if they did some statistical analysis to drive home the egregarious corruption at play here.Show what the % would be if truly random vs what was the reality at the olympics.
Unbelievable.
I mentioned the same thing to CP on Twitter. Also would've been better had Flo contacted someone at UWW for the expected denial. And at least cite the rule they're accusing Silvestri of breaking. I don't doubt the veracity of the allegations, but other outlets/publications might pick it up, it should be sewn up tighter. Not to mention making it as difficult as possible for the UWW to undermine.
Just saw that, should be included in the article.CP tweeted that he reached out to UWW/Silvestri and there was no comment.
Speaking as a media lawyer (whose job it is to clear/flag/review borderline content just like this), I'm also a little surprised. It's always difficult to hang an intent-based allegation on statistical aberrations, no matter how seemingly damning. Based on the screwed up results we've seen at UWW events I don't have much of a problem buying the likelihood CP is onto something real but the article should be much tighter with respect to laying out the methodology and more circumspect with respect to rhetoric.I have zero doubts that the corruption is real.
But those are some big claims to be making based primarily on assignments. To be honest, I'm a little surprised their lawyers didn't make them tone down the rhetoric. The refs don't control their assignments; to call some of them cheaters based solely upon the matches they were assigned sounds like the door is open for libel.
Fishy? Yes.
True? Likely.
Proof? For many named, probably not.
Speaking as a media lawyer (whose job it is to clear/flag/review borderline content just like this), I'm also a little surprised. It's always difficult to hang an intent-based allegation on statistical aberrations, no matter how seemingly damning. Based on the screwed up results we've seen at UWW events I don't have much of a problem buying the likelihood CP is onto something real but the article should be much tighter with respect to laying out the methodology and more circumspect with respect to rhetoric.