Jump to content

Talk:Ryan Lochte/Archives/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ryan Lochte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Robbery" ...

Ryan Lochte said these guys came out with a police badge, no lights, no nothing, just a police badge. He did not say they "were dressed like Rio de Janeiro police officers." I can't find that quote anywhere but reporters are interpreting that to mean they were police impersonators. Can we find real actual quotes and interviews saying exactly that? Otherwise I'm skeptical of this statement misinterpretation and misquote which could be the basis for alleging he's intentionally fabricating a story when he's just explaining or interpreting the event poorly. Without a quote, I propose taking that sentence down. (Opmeto (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

Seems there are some questions about Lochte and his buddies getting robbed in Rio by "fake" cops. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/americas/ryan-lochte-rio-olympics.html 2601:547:1203:1414:B964:3ECC:EFCD:38A5 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The article says that two of the swimmers have admitted to fabricating the story. But, that's just the AP quoting an anonymous source in the police department. Given that the swimmers claim to have been assaulted by people wearing police uniforms, the police have a clear motive to lie about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cefulmer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

... actually, it seems like the "boys" (and, by the way, this Lochte "boy" is age 32) have a clear motive to lie. And, in fact, some of them have indeed admitted to lying. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

They have a clear motive to lie. Police interrogation tactics of manipulating them to testify against each other in exchange for their freedom and no charges. The police edited the video and went out of their way to cut out the right side of the video where someone approaches the taxi and reaches into the vehicle. Probably as it appears to corroborate their story that someone showed a badge and held them at gunpoint. Feigen stands by his story and is being extorted to donate $10,800 for freedom. (Opmeto (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC))

Regardless of your misrepresentation of what plea bargaining is the fact is that Feigen agreed to pay to have the matter dropped. It happens thousands of times a day in American courts as well. There is video that shows things being thrown out of the bathroom and at least two of the pissing on the ground just beyond the space between the buildings. If you agree to testify against a co-conspirator for a reduced sentence you are not being manipulated. In fact if what you testify is found to be untruthful you get charged with perjury. They've even admitted what they did. Why would you continue being an apologist.?Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Sy9045, Wikipedia runs on editor consensus, and Jackhammer111 has raised a concern with your edit. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, then reverted, so we must discuss. Instead, you're edit warring and likely to be blocked. I see from your talk page that it wouldn't be the first time. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on you, the person who wants it added. And verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Also, there have been no insults, so I suggest you stick with facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

False police report during 2016 Olympics

Ryan Lochte said "These guys came out with a police badge..." The reporters and headlines interpreted what he said as police impersonators. Someone edited it twice that in the interview he said 4 men "dressed as Rio de Janeiro police officers." He never said that in the interview. It doesn't even ring true. Even the gothamist article selectively quotes fragments in the headline. The article is not a direct quote but an interpretation by the author "Jen Chung" in her first paragraph and can only be attributed to her, not Lochte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opmeto (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this section (false police report) needs to be edited for grammar, etc..seems like it was translated from Portuguese and these translations often need to be changed a little to make sense in English Beaglemix (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For instance, it says "the Speedo" instead of just Speedo Beaglemix (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you made some corrections but the Speedo quote needs to be corrected also: "we cannot tolerate behavior that is contrary to the values of this brand FOR A LONG TIME" Maybe leave out the phrase I put in all caps or change in another way to make sense Beaglemix (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose the addition of the following edit, as it's semi-protected:

Gunnar Bentz released a statement that someone showed a badge and they were held at gunpoint by two men who told them they "needed to pay them in order to leave." Bentz was "confident that some video angles have not been shown that would further substantiate" his account. They had relieved themselves behind the building and attention may have been drawn to them after Lochte pulled to the ground a loose metal sign.

swimswam gunnar-bentz-makes-statement-recalling-happened-rio-incident (Opmeto (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC))

Insufficient lead / personal section for a GA

I just stopped by this article to link to a new article on Bro (subculture), and I see this article mentions nothing about his personality, TV show, etc. in the lead. I get that this article was listed as a GA in 2011, but if it's not being properly maintained, it can lose that status. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And reading the article a little closer, while his swimming career is well covered, items like the TV show and his personality get too little attention. These are all details that are post-Olympics and post-GA promotion, but need to be worked on. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can this be rewritten so its more clear? "which ranks him second in swimming behind Michael Phelps. His seven individual Olympic medals rank near the top in men's swimming". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.1.2.19 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gas station robbery fabrication is not just an 'incident'

It's a major part of who he is now, with stories like this one. As such, it deserves to be part of the lede paragraph and not buried in the body of the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The heading "Gas station incident" is not appropriate. It seems like it is trying to "soften" what it really is. It's lying; fabrication; false accusations of robbery; international deception; etc. We need wording that is a little more in line of what actually happened. "Gas station incident" seems to be non-neutral and a white-wash. Any suggestions? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I changed the header title, and upgraded the section level. Feel free to adjust further. Gap9551 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The heading 'False statement to police' is not currently supported by the content of the section. It is not clear exactly what he told police. It is clearer that the story he told to Billy Bush was incorrect. I say call it an incident and allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on the facts available. We shouldn't be pushing an argument about the severity of his conduct. Knope7 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone already added a summary sentence to the lead. Gap9551 (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Spadaro, you're being biased. They were extorted at gun point for money, they were drunk, probably didn't understand what was going on in Portuguese. The police are making allegations that strike as a cover up that they totally trashed the bathroom and that they were knowingly negotiating with alleged interpreters present and that someone eventually pulled a gun because they were aggressive and dangerous and that they intentionally fabricated everything. It's too many assumptions that are favorable to police which have a history of extorting people, including a Jujitsu Olympian 3 weeks before the Olympics. Why are you so eager to make so many assumptions with out hard facts? Holding someone up at gunpoint and taking money from them is not legal, even if you believe you're rightfully owed that money. It's extortion. Holding someone at gunpoint is only acceptable when there is a special class of a felony or violent eminent danger which there did not appear to be. I say change it back. (Opmeto (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

What are you talking about? The swimmers themselves -- including Lochte -- admitted that they lied. The three others admitted this. And Lochte himself admitted it, using "softer" language (saying that "I over-exaggerated", instead of using the terminology "I lied"). So, again, what are you talking about? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You read all the testimony from everyone? Where is it? Testimony is often forced and manipulated by the police. You separate everyone and force the weaker ones to tell them what you want to hear or they'll face charges. That does not always result in truthful testimony it often results in throwing people under the bus with fabricated stories in exchange for lighter treatment.
He was drunk. People don't remember things when they're drunk and intoxicated. You can be in a state of total diminished capacity while appearing to interact with people, but you're not there. His account of what happened could have been truthful, as far as he could remember. 4 people often have different accounts of an event, especially when intoxicated. None of that proves that he's a liar. He may have exaggerated somewhat about small details, but a lot of people do that. His overall testimony was relatively honest which doesn't make sense if he's supposed to be fabricating a huge plot. He's kind of an air head. He's even being manipulated in interviews.
I was assaulted and my testimony was a mess, but overall with a truthful intent. When hospitalized I was supposed to have had lengthy conversations that I have no recollection of because I had been drugged. You could take a video and then according to you, I'm the biggest liar on earth. You're not being objective or reasonable. You seem kind of naive. (Opmeto (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC))
He himself admitted that he lied. What part do you not understand. Let me repeat that: He himself admitted that he lied. Got it now? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
He wouldn't say whether there was a robbery or not in his most recent interview with Matt Lauer. He admitted he lied about being pulled over and having a gun put to his head. That was the story he told to the press, not the police. The article needs strive for accuracy and neutrality. Yes, I think Lochte did many things wrong in this situation, but this Wikipedia article is not the place to make that article. Knope7 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Recounting a story incorrectly and entirely fabricating a story, intentionally, are two different things. The police have alleged that there was this big conspiracy to fabricate an event that never happened. It seems more to me the police are manipulating the situation to cover it up and smear them. Police are well trained in that. They released an edited video and removed the assailant from the video that reached into the taxi probably with a gun or badge, some kind of threat. They held their hands up after exiting the taxi and further, were forced to get on the ground and give money at gun point. Lochte said he was uncooperative when they said get on the ground which looks like what happened in the video. Why would he say that if he's fabricating a story to make himself look good? In hindsight, admitting that parts of the story were exaggerated, namely that the gun was pointed to his forehead when it may not have come in direct contact with his forehead, is not the same thing as intentionally lying about the whole story. People don't remember things like a video. Experiments have shown that people need proper sleep to remember an event. I myself have needed some time, sometimes days to years to remember that something I testified to was slightly different from what I remembered. In dealing with testimony you start to realize that all testimony has some degree of exaggeration in it. A real talented lawyer or police officer knows that and uses that to their advantage. That does not mean he made a false police report, in fact, they said he did not report the incident to them, they found out on the media. Even more reason to change the headline back to Gas station incident. (68.238.227.189 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC))
OK, thanks. They all admitted to their lying. Not sure what part is hard to understand (except that you have an agenda here). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
My agenda is for objectivity. Your statements are completely inaccurate. In fact Bentz and Conger have been lauded for not lying whatsoever. Bentz released a statement that they were held at gunpoint and told they needed to pay to leave. Feigen made a similar statement and that he didn't understand why everyone was assuming they were all guilty. That corroborates a robbery or at least an extortion. You shouldn't just believe whatever gossip the media and police tell you. (Opmeto (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC))
OK. Thanks. I stand by my points raised above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

False? Allegedly false?

I'm a little confused by User:Knope7's edit here. If even Lochte himself has fessed up to telling fibs to the coppers, where exactly is BLP conflict in explicitly calling it a "false" report? NickCT (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Lochte admitted the statement to Billy Bush was false. Billy Bush is not the police. Moreover, false statements to police are a crime. Lochte has not been charged with, convicted of, or plead to a crime. There are allegations he committed a crime, but that appears to be in dispute. Both USA Today and TMZ have published articles articulating a defense to the allegation that Lochte lied to police: that using a gun to force the swimmers to hand over more money than was needed to pay for the damages constitutes armed robbery. Asserting the made false statements to police is not as accurate as identifying that he allegedly made false statements. I am not aware of any reporting that actually has his full statement to police. This is a BLP issue if we are inaccurately stating what happened about an issue that could be considered libelous.
I also believe that the point of the section as written is not really about false statements to police. My reading is that it's about his severe exaggerations to Bush about the incident. Even if a charitable reading may support robbery, it certainly was not what Lochte described to Bush and that's what kicked off this whole mess.
We need to be concerned about possibly libelous statements about a BLP. The word allegedly helps on that front. Knope7 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid USA Today has acknowledged that the police chief exaggerated things too.[1] TMZ is also not exactly a reliable website, as it has a longtime habit of creating scandals for views. Lets not be like TMZ and report the plain facts as they are.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are really responding to what I said about USA Today and TMZ. USA Today did a detailed report which undermines the use of the old section heading, which has been modified now anyway. The point is if the section heading is going to accuse someone of a crime, that heading needs to be accurate and both USA Today and TMZ put out reports which cast doubt as to whether Lochte had committed a crime. As for TMZ as a source, they often rely on court documents. They can sensationalize stories at times, however they have done more solid reporting based on legal documents than is typical for a gossip site. I wasn't even suggesting we use TMZ in the article, just that based on TMZ and USA Today's reporting we needed to be more careful about the language in the article. If anything here, TMZ wasn't sensationalizing the story; they were presenting it in a more moderate light. Knope7 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you think that TMZ relies on simple court documents, you got another thing coming. It has been acknowledged TMZ is like the late Gawker.com when it comes to creating celebrity scandals. A new report by USA Today also is also acknowledging that the location of where the swimmers were urinating was the bushes, not the bathroom as originally claimed, that the police did not question the swimmers about vandalism and that Lochte only damaged a poster at the gas station. Read it here[2]JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, please read what I actually said. You are mischaracterizing my statements and creating a straw man. Knope7 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Knope7: - Ok. So maybe the word in contention is "police", not "false"? How about "False robbery report during 2016 Olympics". That way we avoid the question of the question of whether Lochte ever said anything false to the police (in fact, I'm not sure he ever made a police report ref), but acknowledge that he was actually telling fibs about the robbery story? NickCT (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Instead of having Wikipedia editors argue about characterizing what he said (e.g. "Lochte lied" or "Lochte's story was false"), why don't we quote reliable sources (e.g. "According to his news interview, Lochte said, 'I admit what I said was an over-exaggeration'" or "NBC News Reported that the police chief accused Lochte of lying") that way we attribute contentious opinions to the people that have them. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@NickCT: what's there now is better than accusing Lochte of a crime, however I still think it's not good enough for a "good article." Referring to the robbery as false may not technically be accurate if what happened may fit a definition of armed robbery. Also, I'm not sure what report would be referenced in the section heading then as he "reported" to his mother, Billy Bush, Matt Lauer, the authorities after they started investigating and maybe others. I think the heading should reference the whole incident. Even Lochtegate would be cleaner. I'm not completely opposed to using the words "false" or "lie" in the section heading, but I don't think they are necessary either. So far, the attempts to add those terms come across as forced. The earlier insistence from others not to use "incident" because it didn't condemn Lochte enough goes back to the problem that the section has too heavy of a hand in parts. Knope7 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Lochtegate article for general coverage

You may be interested in improving the already-linked Lochtegate article, as a means of addressing both a possibly WP:UNDUE section with this article AND addressing large, substantially identical sections being maintained within each of the articles of the three other swimmers. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Turns Out The Police Chief Exaggerated Things Too

This needs to be known.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I tagged your edit (substantially duplicated here) as being difficult to both parse and validate, with the provided citations. Could you please quote the citations, or copy edit? UW Dawgs (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Just did quote it. Thank you.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

About the USA today reference.

First thing I notice is the text at the start of the video it reads to the effect "surveillance fails to show near bathroom." If you look at the 2 or 3 New York Times stories I refereed to with my edits or the dozens of others I think they all have videos that clearly show them all going between the 2 buildings, 1 or 2 of them going into the bathroom, then things flying out of the bathroom into the space between the buildings and someone near or just beyond that space pissing on the ground.

[1]

So the claim "video fails to show" them is a huge red flag.

The 600 word piece is not investigative journalism.

"An extensive review of surveillance footage by a USA TODAY Sports videographer who also visited the gas station supports swimmer Gunnar Bentz’s claim that he did not see anyone vandalize the restroom"

I don't think many could look at the video in the Times and claim there was no vandalism with a straight face. The USA saying they didn't find a broken mirror or soap dispenser does not mean that they could have repaired things. Like putting a pulled of soap dispenser. These things are meaningless dance on the head of a pin that can be argued on way or another but it's clear from the video they threw things out of the bathroom door. There is a preponderance of evidence. Multiple sources from the gas station owner to the Rio police chief said they did and it's clearly the reason gas station employees got the security guard involved. And the guard was not waling around with his gun out.

" USA TODAY Sports does not find any showing the swimmers going near the bathrooms."

I should really stop right here. The video SHOWING them in the corridor and in and out of a room and throwing things out of that room remove any credibility from the article. But to continue, the judge is unnamed and not related to the case and the lawyer doesn't have the charge right, which was false testimony not filing a false police report, and what the police and their prosecutors think, is important as is what the attorneys for the kids being held thought is way more important that what I lawyer not involved in the case thought. There is no reason to give what they say much weight unless, as investigative journalism would do, they went much further into the reasons. As far as I can find they didn't file a police report, they just spread their claim around the world through the press.

There's a lot of talk from them about drawn guns. Available video show them arriving, going to the restroom, trying to get back in the cab, getting out of the cab, milling around, a couple of them with their wallets out wth nobody near them, sitting because the guard called the police and possible giving up some cash before you see them get in a cab and leave. Not once does anyone have a gun out. I though I saw one at one point but I zoomed up the vid and it wasn't. What I thought I saw happens when they got in cab to leave after obviously being told not to. At the right of the frame you see the guard move quickly to the driver window with an arm straight out. I thought that was point a gun. Looking close I notice it's his left arm out and his hand looks like he's holding out his badge. I can just make out his right arm and it looks like his hand is on his holstered gun. All of this would be the right way to stop them. Tell them to stop, show your badge and have your hand on the gun in case they put you in danger. Remember everyone admits they were drunk and they didn't like being held. Strong drunk athletes are dangerous. Especially famous ones that may feel a sense of entitlement along with being drunk. You see it all the time with drunk professional athletes. I shouldn't even have to say this is Rio and he has to be ready for anything because it looks to me to reflect the way American cops are trained. His weapon was not drawn, just shown. He was rightfully preventing them from leaving. BTW, as the USA article points out that guard is recognized in Rio as legitimate law enforcement. The day job for many of them is prison guards. It's not like some minimum wage rent a cop night watchman.

"Police have not accounted for why the guards allegedly showed their law enforcement badges". What? Why would the police have to account for that? After employees found the damage the guard had the right to retain them. He simply showed his badge to show he had that right. Looking at the vid it looks like they aren't in easily recognized uniforms. The one I saw most closely had on a fairly heavy black coat with some kind of stripe around the middle. Showing his badge would be the right thing and obvious thing to do and "Police" don't have anything to account for regarding it.

It's on an on like this in the whole article.

I feel bad about your ban. I know it's short but it doesn't look good on your record. If you'd contacted me, especially after the second time or put something on the talk page you could direct me to I think this could be avoided. I may have seemed like a flip wholesale deletion but it wasn't. I just went way out of my way to explain the thought process I went though before I deleted it.

Just because an source maybe considered reliable, and I question USA Today in that regard, that isn't reason enough to be included. There was an. A contribute has already been banned for reverting my deletion of what was written. You can't revert without giving reasons. And the truth must be told is not a reason as no one of us has a patent on truth.

Given your history I'll be notifying administrators that we may be on the verge of another edit war on the same topic. Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Quit tellling tall tales already. A new source just admitted that the police never questioned the swimmers about vandalism.[3]JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know what video Jackhammer111 is referring to. Did the New York Times post this video somewhere on the internet? If we do not have this video available, how can we compare to what USA Today has analyzed? Also, have any other Reliable Sources reviewed gas station video footage and stated what these videos do or do not show? I am asking because I think that we get into Original Research territory if we start to act as our own investigative reporters who question each others' interpretations of videos. What do the RELIABLE SOURCES say about what is shown in the videos? Peace, MPS (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm doing your research for you. The first two are links I provided in this article. The third was just one of dozens you find if you simply Google Ryan Lochte surveillance. Two of them show the whole sequence. Urinating outside, 2 things thrown out of the restroom into the space between the two buildings, all of them walking out of that walkway, getting back in the cab, being ordered out of the cab... everything. The Times of course is a great source but even the YouTube video is reliable because you are seeing it yourself. The video itself is the primary source. Nobody in their right mind would claim the videos are fake and, the USA TODAY should have known of the long version of the video. So they either know it was false to claim video did not show them at the restrooms and misrepresented it in their apologist article, or they were incompetent in not finding it.

I don't think in my wildest dreams he's going to Brazil to face the charges, but his attorney will be shown all the video from every camera, with this stuff in it, when he shows up to try and defend him in court. The video along with so many people that were there will be real hard to defend.

The Evidence That Ryan Lochte Lied About an Armed Robbery in Rio

U.S. Swimmers’ Disputed Robbery Claim Fuels Tension in Brazil

(FULL RAW CCTV) Ryan Lochte and US Swimmers “Robbery” at Rio Olympics

Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jakhammer111, are you going to ban everyone you disagree with and filibuster on every little point? Many journalist have been there and said the sign is damaged only. An employee even said that only the sign was damaged. There was a blownup video on TV showing Lochte pull the sign down to the ground. All swimmers said they witnessed him do that. Get over it. There is no bathroom back there. There has been video showing that area and I do not see a bathroom there. You're delusional and imagining things. Why is anyone allowing you to ban people when you've never been there yet you insists with absolute certainty that they clearly trashed the bathroom? You're not credible. The links you've posted are not accurate and prove nothing whatsoever. Stop banning people just because you refuse to believe anything else. (Opmeto (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

Please review WP:AGF and stop with the wild accusations. If you're interested, here is how the temporary block occured for an (second) edit warring violation (WP:3RR), see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 1 week) UW Dawgs (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction, there may be bathrooms back there but they're much further back than I think can be seen in the video. Ryan Lochte may have lied about urinating and minor damage to a sign. Not much evidence otherwise. Speculation and theory are not evidence. Guards may even have mistakenly thought he did more damage, and took excessive money as a result.

Lochte has No motive to lie about being shown a badge and held at gunpoint. They all appear in fear and under duress. The police have released edited fragments of video that at first did a pan-and-scan to remove the guy approaching the taxi. That suggests impropriety and a coverup. Bentz said after leaving the Taxi a badge was shown and gun drawn, then another gun drawn. I believe this happened. There is no motive to tell this story. It doesn't make any sense that he'd tell his mom they were robbed unless he felt that way. I'm skeptical about the interpreter. He was on TV and only able to say "Yes. Lochte. Face." Not very reliable, assuming he was there. This is just the defense the police are making. They are allegations and you can't know what is inside people's heads. You can only speculate that they lied. Even testimony can be manipulated.

It's more probable that they felt robbed and extorted. I believe Lochte felt that. He's extremely unsophisticated and drunk. Drunks don't remember things correctly. The police are spinning their story. Moreover, the main points of his story are accurate and he incriminates himself by refusing to get down. Why would you make up a story that incriminates yourself? They could simply have not said anything and this whole incident would have covered itself. Allegedly he also speculated off camera that it may have been a conspiracy with the Taxi driver and that they were followed. He was drunk and paranoid and trying to make sense of what happened. This is not the crime of the century. It's just drunk tourists being shaken down by the police and they're doing damage control. It's unfair to only tell one side of this story. (Opmeto (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

This article contains many poorly written sentences.

This article, especially the portions regarding the "alleged robbery" are grammatically poorly structured and need reworking. Also, the story and "facts" regarding his dishonesty are coming to light now and have not been included. Mainly, the vandalism did not occur, the security detail were off duty police and the Brazilian judge hearing the case has stated that the videotape of the incident 1) shows no vandalism occurring, other than a poster being torn down and 2) the "actions of the security detail can be deemed to be robbery", as Ryan Lochte had stated all along.

How about someone in charge here finding the USA Today article where these facts are sourced and include it in the article to show some balance and fairness to an American treasure such as Mr. Lochte. Afterall, this is a BLP and should not malign the subject of the BLP without fair and balance.

Thank you.

P.S. I won't hold my breathe as this article seems to have tried and convicted him already. Which is a violation of NPOV of BLP's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP covers your concerns and encourages removal of problematic content. Read it first, then go WP:FIXIT. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Why create an account? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should I have to create n account if I don't want one? Wikipedia is becoming more and more irrelevant and many people see it as a skewed source of information. A source that has an axe to grind and a agenda to fill. I say to hell with Wikipedia requiring people to create an account. Screw them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, well, This article is locked down from editors being able to edit it. So, how could I possibly edit it? I am constantly amazed at the POV of many BLP's by editors who have taken control and ownership of certain articles. If Mr. Lochte was a black American or a well regarded Hispanic...(read not well known that he is a Hispanic American) the article would tow the line of not maligning this fine American citizen. However, nobody seems to regard him with the esteem, respect and value that Americans should. This article is a disgrace and should be rewritten.

Perhaps, Dawgs can edit it to show a more fair and balanced perspective in order to help Wikipedia.

Confusing Chronology

The following sentence is inaccurate and confusing chronologically. It should be removed or placed in better chronological order.

"The other swimmers claimed they were removed from the taxi by armed security men, who commanded them at gunpoint to sit on the sidewalk, and demanded payment for alleged vandalism.[87] After surveillance video emerged that confirmed the swimmers' previous stories,"

Only Feigen was present when the police went looking for them. Lochte may have made a statement later, confused about the timing or if any police report was actually filed by Lochte, but sounds like the police allege he filed a false one.

Bentz, Conger and Feigen released statements when they were home. That may not be the actual statements they gave to the police. Therefore the video couldn't have confirmed the statements because the statements were made after they arrived home.

It's way too confusing and inaccurate to bounce back and forth in time and interrupt the story. I would delete it but people seem to be pretty upset about that and I don't want to mess up the sources. Overall, the rest is complicated too. (Opmeto (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

LOL, as if that were the only issues with this article. It has been edited and reedited with no organization structure or desire for cohesion and/or understanding whatsoever. Just the implied message of "Nothing to see here and move on" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lochtegate AfD resolved as Keep

Now that Wikipedia consensus is to keep (and possibly rename) the Lochtegate article, I think it is important to mention that the bulk of the content on that scandal topic can be housed and updated at the Lochtegate article to prevent UNDUE imbalance of coverage on the Ryan Lochte article. Agreed? Peace, MPS (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed -for all four swimmers. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool... I just added a merge discussion notice on the respective talk pages for the other 3 swimmers. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryan_Lochte/Archives/2016&oldid=1027323298"