Sure, and that's great for you. But here's the or a point as indicated in the article: her role in the cheating--to the extent that it's known--was not merely in sport. Because she wasn't in the sport. It was part of her life, something she did as a spouse or a partner. Sure, it's collateral and contributes to the end result, but in terms of life decisions that she made at the time it's a little more complicated than that.trailrunner said:Not everyone is perfect, but not everyone writes a column in a leading national magazine.
And when it comes to cheating in sports, I have indeed "been morally upright throughout every instance of [my life]."
That doesn't make them right, good, or even wholly justified, but it is in her case more interconnected than just cheating in sport. And by that measure, and this is part of what I take to be Chew D's argument, it's a little to easy for people to jump around on a message board and demand that she come clean strictly for the "sake of the sport," when there are other factors in play.
No one is perfect, but many do write for national magazines. But if you're making demands on her from that perspective--as if the magazine owed any thing to some fictional public norm--when it's nothing but a commercial activity, than I think that's ridiculous.
She'll potentially come clean (or stop writing for them) when just as with Nike, etc. she or her employer decide that it's financially expedient to do so.