To add: as I mentioned many times - I stand behind everything I say or do...and while some of you see this is "showing off"...it is MY WAY of living.
Again - I am giving my "fans" (enemies) the opportunity to prove me wrong...
Mike approached me for the interview (not other way around)...
He asked me questions and as he turned to be very "tricky" from the very beginning [first asking me that he wants to do the interview about nutritional supplements - which I agreed to do...His first question LATER (few hours later...) WHEN THE INTERVIEW STARTED was: "well, what do you think about all these nutritional supplements and performance enhancing drugs..."]
After his first question I had a good idea where the interview will be going - but I gave him the benefit of the doubt...and asked:" These are two completely different topics and absolutely different things...What do you REALLY want to know - supplements (as originally mentioned) or drugs used in various sports?"
Not to my surprise - he said: "well - I guess drugs..."
Right there and than I knew what kind of guy he probably is...but I still gave him a chance...
As I soon realized that he was immediately interpreting something that I said to something that he "THINKS THAT HE WAS HEARING" - I requested from him to sign me on the piece of paper that he will show me the article BEFORE it goes to press...
I wanted to make sure that WHAT I SAID is not "lost in translation"...and if I say: I was only charged with conspiracy to posses for personal use ONLY and never even charged with the distribution or anything like that...I wanted to make sure that writer would put "NEVER EVEN" before "CHARGED" so people don't get wrong idea (interestingly - that is exactly what end up happenning - Mike somehow didn't hear NEVER EVEN...but just concluded that I was charged...).
Well - I hope that you get the picture.
As my lawyer Rick Collins told me - there are numerous cases where reporters use SELECTIVE memory while they interview some people...And they also interpret whatever (NOTHING) to be - SOMETHING (as they need some excitement, controversy, shocking story...etc...
I made Mike sign on the piece of paper that he will show me the article...but as he continued with his practice - asking directly the questions that I know could be manipulated IF he really wants it - I just wanted to make sure and I ask him again - that I have no problem answering ANY question - but I do want the right to see what he wrote - before it goes to print...
His nervous behavior made me look at the piece of paper (I hope I still have it - so I could scan it and post it - for people that question my honor...) and saw something that doesn't even remotely look as it suppose to be...
So I asked him again IF HE IS GOING TO SHOW ME my interview before the article is printed and he said - no...
Than - I told him th interview was OVER...
So, as few people will make their own conclusions - I will only say this:
I would let him play my interview on the net...I only ask AGAIN - that interview cannot be edited - but played in entirety...
Also - I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to be interviewed again - preferably LIVE - so there are no chances of editing...and I will promise to answer EVERY QUESTION I WOULD BE ASKED...
So, Mr. Mike Fisher - I am ready...and willing to do everything that I have mentioned here...Are you?
Or (let me guess) - you lost the tape...or maybe taped over...or erased ALL/MOST/MAJORITY...of my interview?
What is it?
As you said: "It's not worth getting into a war of words over what was said. Certainly, folks can reflect back on events and recall them differently, but suffice to say the interview was tape recorded. Again, thanks."
Why would we go to war? I volunteered to be interviewed by you...and had every intention to give you A GOOD INTERVIEW...
I have a lot to say - believe me...and if your intentions were good - we would have nice article that would be worth publishing...
What's more - I will still do the interview and show you my good will to cooperate...and contribute.
But, I will not have YOU or anyone else - put your words in my mouth and than "hide behind"...never taking the responsibility for your "intentional journalistic freedom of interpreting what you've heard..."
Anyone with just a little common sense could conclude: WHY WOULD SOMEONE (you Mike...and many other questionable reporters) HAVE A PROBLEM GIVING THE ARTICLE FOR A REVIEW to the interviewed person?
Wouldn't you want the opportunity to see IF that person would agree with your interpretation of what you've heard?
God, imagine IF you made a mistake and IF you didn't hear what was said correctly...or if you simply and honestly misinterpreted what was told?
Wouldn't you WANT the chance to correct the mistake(s)?
Or - the sole reason of the interview IS actually to have the freedom to INTERPRET WHATEVER YOU'VE HEARD THE WAY - YOU WANT TO ?
