On chutzpah and the publicizing of e-mail exchanges

David Epstein has published a response to Alberto Salazar's open letter challenging the allegations of misconduct made against him by a third of the population of the Portland metro area. If I could be bothered to count the number of distinct things of some importance that Salazar undeniably got wrong -- you don't have to trust me, you don't even have to trust Epstein, just refer back to older news items -- I expect that I'd count at least a dozen, maybe fifteen.


Given the number of internal inconsistencies in Salazar's rambling screed, along with the various issues that Salazar flat-out fails to address, it's astonishing that anyone who has carefully gone over it can see it as any better than "Look, the dog ate my homework and I have e-mails from Woofy to prove it," much less a knockdown refutation of Magness et al.
The e-mail exchanges are red herrings that only people convinced in advance of Salazar's innocence or relative innocence could perceive as exculpatory. People forget or simply don't realize how easy it is to selectively edit things like e-mail and text-message exchanges and leave entire portions of the conversation out (see: University of Toledo head coach resigns, Feb. 2013).
Oh, wait. Didn't some other well-known figure in endurance sports try the very same tactic before later being nailed to the wall?


I think people are interpreting Salazar's willingness to take unrestrained punches at Magness' and Adam Goucher's competence and as well as his character as a sign that he must be clean, or at least less dirty than his accusers have claimed. After all, would a guilty man evince so much sheer confidence and bravado?