I fear that this thread has attracted a few pitchfork and flaming torch carrying folks who are going to turn things into a “Twitch-Hunt”. In the end ST will lose Jack’s presence which would be a huge loss to the forum.
8 Likes
Sorry, I feel I have explained it all a few times, but happy to repeat things.
-
I got offered to commentate all races by the T100.
-
Travel is by far the biggest factor when it comes to races this year, including Singapore on the weekend. I am chatting to the T100 currently about which ones/if any races I will be doing. It’s SO hard from Australia. The travel to each race is between 16-54 hours of airplane time in a 5 day period (Wednesday->Sunday is my proposed travel schedule with them to each race).
-
The T100 started as an athlete driven organisation and so they still have an athlete board and the athlete’s have a say in some things. When the Imogen news was broken by me, someone who commentates for them, they chatted to me and everyone involved in the situation (including athletes) so they were across everything. Given that Imogen is a contracted athlete by the T100 it is crucial to their organisations values that they take the entire situation seriously. Looking after their athletes and making sure things were done in a respectful, moral and fair manner is important. If they’re not doing that then they’re not really an athlete firs organisation, they’re just saying they are. And my experience of the T100 behind closed doors is that they do genuinely try to do the best by the athletes. So if that is an investigation, then that’s what that is.
-
My biggest priorities this year are: creating the best content possible for The Triathlon Hour podcast & YouTube + my fitness & health so I’m not just talking the talk but also walking the walk in the triathlon world. Last year the travel I did (about 415 hours in a plane and months away from home) reeeeeally made it hard for me to be fit and healthy. I actually started looking and feeling more like Jabba the Hutt with every long haul trip. So if I want to be someone who is respected in the triathlon world I think it’s important to not just be a yapper, but also be someone who lives the lifestyle that they claim to love (which I do, I just had a bit of a 2 year lapse and bit of shitty mental health!)
14 Likes
Plenty of retired athletes or current coaches who do not look fit.
But 100% in support of you prioritising your health including mental health. Just don’t do it for the others, do it for yourself.
2 Likes
The Peter Bol case was the one I thought was similar
Bol had an adverse finding in his A sample
News got leaked
Journalist called AthleticsAustralia telling them he was going to publish it but they had 6 hours to make an announcement first
B sample was eventually enough to exonerate Bol
Very different. Imogen’s A & B sample had both come back positive and she’d been provisionally suspended.
And re: the Bol case - his B sample came back as atypical. Which isn’t positive or negative. So just very, very different cases and very different reporting standards.
4 Likes
This one is a little closer…Same drug, unintentionally taken.
Don’t stress, I feel more love on here than I do hate.
Granted there are definitely a few people on here who seem to have it a bit irrationally in for me, but hey, all in good fun I guess!! Haha.
I’m in a very minor “public” position where I need to be thick skinned enough to accept negativity that will (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) come my way while also not become one of those assholes who gets too big for their boots once a handful of people know who I am.
1 Like
^^ This case here is BY FAR the one with the most relevance to Imogen’s case. It’s a woman called Laurence Vincent Lapointe. She tested positive for Ligandrol. She got cleared in the end because her boyfriend’s hair sample showed he had it in his system and she got it transferred to her through his bodily fluid.
Also, I don’t want to be a bad sport, but this is the last I’m going to chat about Imogen’s case on here for a bit if that’s ok? I just feel like I need to move away from it until there’s any updates.
7 Likes
Aren’t all the people who get caught just innocent bystanders who ‘accidentally’ took PEDs… Jack is another cheater who also blaimed it on her boyfriends shaker being contaminated…amazing all these partners on the gear…
Where these cheats get caught out is reading the drug is out of your system in a couple of days, not being smart enough to realise the detectable metabolites can be there for in excess of 12 months…
2 Likes
Pat is an easy target in this case as he has money. But that rumor was all over X before McAfee ever mentioned it. He did not bring it to mainstream like she claims he did. It was already mainstream.
You absolutely should have reported on that story and the fact that you aren’t going to in the future is a loss.
3 Likes
I don’t even think it’s about what he should or shouldn’t have done. Within his role in the sport (and major kudos to JK for grinding to get those roles), it’s likely more about the optics or the cost/benefit of reporting on such “controversial” topic…I say that because his story essentially was on an half completed case. So whether he should or could have reported on it, what it has done is created massive stress on himself/likely T100 / athletes. And so I think you then have to figure out, is it worth it? Again I think because this was only a half completed process, that’s made it difficult to handle for many parties. If this was a full doping sanction, it wouldn’t matter to anyone that he was 1st or 2nd or 4th to break the story, because who “broke” the news would almost become irrelevant, it would be a factual doping case that would be the story, not who broke it or didn’t.
Which is why I think any tri pod media who waits for their weekly scheduled pod release to comment on completed doping cases would be losing the ability to potentially gain followers. You would by default have to have an “emergency pod” with any big name doping conviction.
I categorically reject this “half story” idea. Any sporting journalist worth their salt would have run that story. If @JackKelly-TTH doesnt want to be a journalist that’s fine, it’s his prerogative. But that’s unfortunate as no one else seems to be stepping into that space. And the T100 can go pound sand if they are trying to retaliate or hold him to account for that report because it’s “embarrassing”. Too bad, welcome to the big league’s.
7 Likes
That’s sorta the point. When you get in the roles that Jack gets, he’s now in the big leagues. He’s no longer just some podcaster giving opinions, he’s sorta moved up a level (and again MAJOR KUDOS for that, just shows passion/grind can help you advance in life). Whether that’s right or wrong, that’s sorta the reality of it. So again I’m not even arguing the validity of should or shouldn’t report on something like that. I’m more actually saying your “welcome to the big leagues” doens’t mean what you think it means. You take on those roles and your going to be held to a higher standard whether right or wrong- that’s the reality of life in corporate world. Your actions/behavior will always represent just more than yourself.
I actually don’t necessarily agree with your take that anyone would run the story. Most journalist need scopes to be verified; that’s the whole difference between a story and gossip- verification of the story. Several tri media went to get it verified and got radio silence / ghosted (from both the athlete’s side and the testing authority side). Thus to then “report” something with nothing to back it up would be simple gossip. It’s the whole reason why Jack went to IS to begin with and doubled down on her when she initially seemingly ghosted his questions. If she never confirms the story, he’s only reporting on the “gossip” (which to his credit he didn’t want to do). Which if that’s what you want our media to do, I don’t necessarily think we can agree to that, nor do I think you are wanting that. Or at min you’ll simply become the tabloid news person, which generally most people wouldn’t respect.
Again I go back to 2 summers ago, there were big rumors that a “big name” was going through a doping case. Several top coaches knew, several tri media knew all behind the scenes. But there was nothing “confirmed” of the case. So talking about it publicly was only going to be drama/gossip without much substance. By IS confirming it, that then goes from gossip to story. But you must have that confirmation to run a story, you learn that the 1st day you become a journalist.
Look, Jack is free to make his own decisions as to what he wants to be in regard to triathlon media. I think it’s a shame that be removing himself from the role of journalism, it’s a net loss to our sport. In the case of Imogen, the story wasn’t “gossip”, it was being outed by someone within Imogen’s camp. That makes it newsworthy. Also, what do you think would have happened when suddenly she wasn’t starting races she was signed up for? This was going to come out well in advance of the arbitration. You are being exceedingly precious about how we should treat the professionals in our sport, they aren’t children.
2 Likes
Umm no, I’m actually trying to distinguish what most people recognize as general guidelines/accepted practices of the media.
How was it going to come out well before the arbitration? Because she “skips” some races with a fake injury or illness? Again only JK seemingly within the media was able to get the “story” from IS; everyone else was ghosted and didn’t double down to get the story. So again how was it going to break if he doesn’t break it? (Go back to the story 2 summers ago, lots of “insiders” knew of a potential doping case and yet it has never come out to the public because no one got any confirmation on the validity of it other than a “rumor”).
Again I’ve said, I’m not even debating whether it’s right or wrong to run the story. i’m saying you can be “right” and still end up losing out if you don’t at times “read the room” correctly.
I totally agree with you but I also can see Imo’s theoretical point (if she’s even making it).
I also think it’s very rich that all of these women can get away with blaming their partner and there’s this cover that gets used in every case that, " athletes are dealing with low-level positives caused by meat contamination or intimacy with a partner, you know, multivitamin or mineral or supplement contamination" (from a news article linked earlier).
If we’re going to provide cover for so called low levels, we’re basically greenlighting microdosing.
Anyone making the low level claim while not even attempting to refute or address the possibility for microdosing with real data is not someone I trust to be acting in good faith.
Regarding Jack’s role in commentary and scandal reporting, the T100 needs understand that their broadcast sounds better with him than without.
I actually hadn’t put my finger on it, but I didn’t enjoy this broadcast as much as before. Could missing Jack be the answer?
1 Like
That’s right, and this is the only calculus T100 should make in regard to his participation, not his reporting on a situation with one of their contracted athletes who put themselves in a spot of bother.
Just as announcers have to understand that they can’t be in the potential tabloid weeds of their sport and expect to stay as the voice of said sport. And that goes for any sport.
2 Likes