3 ms·

I think you missed the point as well. The newspaper coverage of her public deception and lying is on par with the benefits that she would otherwise try to benef

I think you missed the point as well. The newspaper coverage of her public deception and lying is on par with the benefits that she would otherwise try to benefit from by building up her image on fake wins and defrauding people who have trained harder to get those same results - and somehow we're supposed to give her a pass because she might want to have another public trust position in the future? She should work and convince those in the public space like another person committing other public trust breaches and taking fraudulent actions. Are you saying the Internet should forget, especially inconvenient/correct but damaging stories? Public records also never forget.

sah2ed 10y ago
For the record, I absolutely do not condone what she did. What she did was very dishonest and she has paid the price. Merely pointing out what has already been said elsewhere in the thread that the internet, as a medium of communication, can deliver outsized punishments long after any "crime" has been committed.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  Outing any wrongdoing in a position of public trust can deliver punishment, whether that's outsized or not depends on the context and what they were trying to gain from it. If she weren't a sponsored lifestyle blogger, then I would agree that this was an exaggeration, but given the fact that the then conspired to cover her tracks is damning enough to get labeled as a cheater in the race's public records. She had to know that it would be possible to permanently damage her image but judged the risks lower than the benefits, and that's on her, not the public that she tried to mislead.