Doofus said:
The Tweet referenced in the OP was sufficiently vague to get the author off the hook, but perhaps just specific enough to be put in the context an ongoing flow of rumors in the Carolinas about Masters doping, and the unstated (in pixels) subjects of those rumors were riders on the Carolina Masters team.
Two of those riders e-mailed their USADA letters to me, since one or more of the rumor-spreaders posted comments on my blog post about the original testing in August, reitertaing the vague accusations.
The blog post was niether self-serving nor out of context. If the link was modded out, then it would be appropriate for the Tweet in the OP to be modded out as well, for it hardly qualifies as journalism from a CN staffer.
Hi Doofus,
The OP has already admitted that the post never should have been made, but the discussion that followed had valid angles to it.
You now added context to your own link that was missing to the post in which you posted the link.
It's why I said in a PM that I could see an angle in which it was done in good faith (pretty much the one you now clarified). But without argumentation why the link was actual relevant in your -first- post, just giving a link that sends people to the middle of a discussion on your own blog, that has no clear connection to our forum members here (unless people have been following the history of that thread on your own blog and make some assumptions to boot), it inevitably leads to people perceiving it as spamming and private blog advertising.
I already PMed you, when I made the edit, that you are welcome to contribute to the discussion here on the CN forum, just like everyone else. But that when you post links, especially in your first post, giving the actual reason why it is relevant is helpful to all.
Now we have the missing context and an explanation of its relevance that doesn't rely on people knowing more than is written here, and having read older post on your blog too, feel free to contribute the same link again.
Enjoy your days here on the CN forum. I am sure you will get some responses to the substance of it. I will stay out of that discussion.