That’s an unfair pejorative description of what actually happened. This was not tabloid journalism.
2 Likes
It’s really this simple to me. Which lane do you want to be in? Pick a lane and stay in your lane. Jacks trying to be both.
Your missing my point. Even if this was 100% “journalism” through and through, if that impacts anyone your associated with, it’s not good. So again you can be 100% right and still end up losing. So what role you play is certainly going to affect how you behave, that’s called life; unless your 100% self funded. Your behavior is always going to be a reflection on the people you are associated with. So if even 0.01% makes it a “bad” look, and it be 99.99% "right’ you could still potentiallly lose out on what you want in life.
So yes you can report on things any which way you want, and be in the right. But you can still be potentially penalized for that behavior. Your not 100% immune from consequences of you being in the right. And that’s the point I was making…As they say some roles require you to be more “buttoned up” than others.
but so does pro tri news on one hand they play the doping investigator as they want a clean sport, but then if an athelte they like fails an a and b sample which in anti doping means guilty until proven innocent , than they dont want to report on it .
2 Likes
If the National Enquirer publishes a “real story”, is it tabloid journalism ?
So I don’t follow it at all but does Joe Rogan do commentary anymore? I realize it’s not a perfect example, but he’s a guy whose podcast invites controversy and my assumption is he still commentates.
Yes he’s still one of their lead commentators, but we’ll just agree to disagree on that particular subject; if that 1 example is disproving my theory. I look forward to Jim Nantz on the 18th green at Augusta to start talking about the controversy between LIV and PGA Tour… 
So again I’m not even saying it was wrong to report on it. I’m more saying as Jack alluded to upthread, there are different “roles” in the media and as such, each role *usually has generally accepted standards/behavior. So it’s more the old adage “just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should”. And that generally goes for the higher up you go in importance/roles.
So in that aspect beyond Pat’s “managerial” role, pods like PTN likely should/could have more freedom to “break news” than for example a 2025 Jack Kelly imo. The only real issue then is the “personal bias”, but again I think Talbot detailed upthread what they did to confirm the story. There was no confirmation given from the testers nor IS’s camp. Thus they sat on the “gossip”; whether right or wrong. I don’t know the ins and outs of legal obligations of what can and can’t protect you in certain situations across the genre that this type of global stories covers.
I just going to disagree with you. Fomenting a rumor to your millions of live viewers that affects a 19 yr old girl who did nothing makes you [McAfee] a piece of human excrement.
1 Like
I think the big difference is UFC is fringe (even though it’s big $$$) in terms of “respectability” unlike golf, and what triathlon is trying to be. Ironically, PTO tried to have the UFC controversy approach, and backed away once people’s feelings got hurt. UFC they are still actually punching each other in the face. Then you have the fact that Joe has become one of the biggest names in the history of media, while Jack is mostly focused on triathlon. I suppose, if Jack was attracting gold medalists from all kinds of other sports and podcasting with them, and spreading a wide net, he’d have even more value to the T100 as a commentator and have some immunity to the controversy issue.
So to engage with both of these. My point was
Is the product the T100 producing better with Jack? Yes.
You guys counter, “but reporting on controversy aint your job.” One does not follow the other like my point does.
If the product is better and the costs are reasonable, pay for the better product. What the guy’s lane is has nothing to do with it. If you want to argue the costs of him having this role in the industry that can occasionally invite controversy is too high, relative to the benefit he provides, then make that argument. Not that Jack shouldn’t try to swim, bike, and run (just pick one, you might say!).
But I’m not really buying the costs are too great to have Jack around. One, if he did become that guy that might antagonizes athletes when there is breaking news that reflects poorly on them, that’s like complaining that Simon on Britain’s got talent shouldn’t be so mean.
In reality, Jack doesn’t go around saying mean stuff. People can question his judgement to go public with quasi-confidential info as it relates to doping investigations, but it is precisely his enthusiasm for triathlon and the discussions he’s a part of around his podcast that add value to his commentating.
Unless a sizeable number of the athletes on the T100 have said they don’t want Jack commentating, then he should still be there. But even then… if he’s the guy behind the microphone, why do they care? It’s not like they are in the middle of the swim having a panic attack wondering what Jack Kelly might be saying about their beautiful arm stroke, which we hear to death from everyone else. It becomes hard to differentiate real concern from the athletes about being antagonized to simple retaliation. We shouldn’t concede every field to the first one to cry victim. (But I can see how Imo has a very strong case she can make as part of her claim to innocence that she was subject to embarrassment as a result of Jack’s actions – don’t totally buy it myself though)
2 Likes
Talbot definitely is more than just Lionel’s camera guy. He does have a pulse on the sport, he does have a ton of connections, he’s definitely not everyone’s cup of tea but truly, he’s been very good for the sport in my opinion. Funny you think he spends all day worried about what everyone thinks of him - sometimes I think he couldn’t give a flying fuck honestly…lol
5 Likes
So I’m also talking less specifics, and more in generalities (again I think Jack has done a great job, and his passion for the sport is easy to see). But for most startups you need everyone to sorta “buy in” to make it cohesive. Especially as I’m guessing there are more times “behind the scenes” for PTO staff to interact with athletes than normal race dynamics. There are pre race interviews, likely race meetings, likely course fams, etc and I’m also guessing just general hanging in the lobby or at dinner (I believe it’s a 4-5 day committment for each race location, so athletes and PTO staff are going to be interacting a lot). And again in NO WAY am I saying anyone’s already burned bridges already, I’m just getting to the point when your part of a bigger organization that especially is in start up mode than just yourself, everything matters.
Better interviews, better intel that athletes may potentially share with PTO staff in production meetings, all makes for better intel and information for the broadcasters during the broadcast. Barry Shipley was famous for this every race he would talk about who he met at “supper” the night before or was in the elevator riding to breakfast and said athlete felt like today was going to be a special day. Those wisdom nuggets made his commentary and his “knowledge” more powerful when he was broadcasting, it’s why he held his job for so long.
So if there is ever an situation where an commentator suddenly has lost the trust of athletes, that’s where it matters. And again I’m not even saying this is the case now, but when you asked why should the athletes care who is or isn’t commentating…because it’s all essentially has to be a cohesive group at this point to put the best product forward. If they athletes don’t want to be around someone who’s doing interviews or part of behind the scenes production meetings, that’s going to affect the quality of the product.
And again I’m not even saying this is currently the case. I’m talking more generalities of the likely needs/expected behaviors of each of the pieces of the pie.
This is word salad navel gazing.
1 Like
Except it’s the reality of the situation, whether you can see it or not.
1 Like
That warrants pasting his reply into chatgpt and asking for a short refutation. Someone needs to make a browser extension that you can just highlight long snippets of text and click “summarize in 4 sentences” or “refute in 4 sentences” heh.
Does the bot sound convincing Brooks?
1/ Thoughtful post, but I disagree with some of the assumptions. Let’s break this down. 
2/ First: yes, trust & cohesion help. But professionalism doesn’t require athletes to “buy in” to every media personality. Good commentary isn’t based on dinner conversations—it’s based on insight, prep, and skill.
3/ The Barry Shipley example is nostalgic but anecdotal. Modern broadcast excellence comes from a sharp point of view, clear storytelling, and analysis—not casual vibes from the hotel lobby.
4/ Athletes shouldn’t have to like every media member. They just need to respect the role. That’s how it works in every major sport.
5/ Saying everyone needs to “buy in” risks stifling individuality. Some of the best voices in media challenge norms—they don’t blend in, they bring edge and perspective.
6/ Finally: if there’s no current issue, let’s not create a hypothetical one. “Just talking in generalities” can still plant unfair doubt where none exists.
7/ In short: chemistry helps, but it’s not the foundation. Respect, professionalism, and diverse perspectives are what elevate the broadcast.
3 Likes
Thanks for the really nice words about the commentary above. I know that I’m not everyone’s cup of tea because in the eyes of lots of people I haven’t earnt my spot there so what I say annoys them and is like “who is this guy seriously shut up.” But the positive comments make me feel good, so I appreciate that!!!
With comms I just try to bring what my strengths are. I have good relationships with the majority of the 40 athletes racing and like 10 really close relationships so I try to bring insight from that cause I talk to probably 50% of the athletes at least once or twice a month type of thing via message or in person. So I just talk about stuff they’ve talked to me about with regards to their training, the race dynamic, etc.
As well as part of my role being telling the overall story and making sure people who aren’t experts can follow a beginning, middle and end timeline and which “characters” are doing what in today’s “story.”
And then I try to ask Jan & Vicky questions about “as someone who’s been in this position, what would you be thinking/feeling/doing” or “what do you think about x, y or z” type questions.
What I really want to know is ‘funner’ a real word?
Or… hear me out, hear me out…
People have different tastes and different ideas on how things should be done. I am very aware of who you are, and it is clear to me that you are a tri nerd and you know your stats. However, your style just doesn’t ring with me. The hyperbolic way of speaking, the very long-winded questions, etc… it’s just not my style.
But it’s a two-sided coin, and some people really enjoy that, so you have that going for you.
1 Like
Yep! Lots of reasons you (or anyone) might not like me. I’m well aware I’m far from perfect 
I’m always trying my best to improve and get better every podcast & every broadcast, though and will keep trying to.
2 Likes
Congrats on landing Kate Waugh for an interview post Singapore, look forward to hearing that. Clearly you have not done zero damage in regards to your relationship with T100 athletes despite some speculating that could happen.
1 Like