haha this is gold 
@Ironmandad
Wow … can’t believe that’s still out there! Thanks for the nice words, @ThailandUltras! Always fun to chat with Welchy and Paula! And, as if I needed any more reminders of just how long I’ve been doing this, I retired from racing three weeks after my daughter, Chelsea, was born. She’s been working with me as an announcer at various events now for years - we did the Toronto Waterfront Marathon together again for the third or fourth time the week after Kona!
4 Likes
Had trouble getting through the beginning of the podcast this week. I really disagree that there should be blanket privacy when it comes to doping investigations/allegations/complaints. It comes across as naive. It speaks to why people are saying they’re being too “friendly” to Imo. The sport needs more transparency on doping – not less. The reality is that Imo did (unintentionally) dope. You’re not really off the hook in my eyes if you’re a top athlete & you let your boyfriend keep banned drugs around. It’s a bad look. The sport is complicit. We don’t drug test as much as we should (from pro to age group) & promote faster & faster racing. Athletes micro-dose. They get TUEs when they shouldn’t. They rack up whereabouts that are never made public. They take designer drugs that do the same thing as banned ones, but haven’t been banned yet. Most of that stuff is private. That’s the problem. We don’t need more privacy. We need real journalists and real accountability. I’m ok with Imo competing & getting cleared. She’s entitled to due process & to her ruling. You still need to take some responsibility for keeping drugs in the house. I think that qualifies as something that should be public knowledge & people should get to feel how they want to feel about it. The PTN guys are all high & mighty about knowing about other cases that were never brought to the public. Who does that serve? Maybe this is a good thing because it’ll make it more difficult for the next person who is caught taking the same drug to use the same excuse, without being able to provide as much evidence as was supposedly given. When people are caught doping, there’s a playbook that lawyers use. This excuse is actually a fairly common one. It’ll be used again. If the next person’s evidence doesn’t compare hopefully it’ll help take this excuse away from someone who is just trying to make it fit.
5 Likes
So I think this is a scenario that has been played out in major American sports over the last 20-25 years. Remember when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape and the media slandered him right out of the gates? There’s been countless examples of the media jumping to conclusions from the beginning only to be sued down the road. Nowadays, you only see the media reporting the facts; “athlete x was accused of abc or arrested for xyz”. And that’s it until the facts come out or become more clear. Triathlon should be no different. I think it would be poor journalism or reporting to not report she was suspended. But then leave it alone until details are made public.
4 Likes
1.) As stated about thirteen times at this point: you can say that Imo had an ADRV, but you can’t call her a doper. That requires a level of intent which, quite literally, the ITA has said she did not have.
2.) Similarly, unless you have first-hand knowledge of people microdosing and TUEs, and are willing to provide receipts, this is not something we do here.
This isn’t 'Nam. This is the ST Forum. There are rules. This has been one for going on two decades.
3 Likes
Do you think he didn’t rape? Or he had an affair with her? I mean the USA/ wealthy is full of non disclosures.
Just find that an interesting example. RIP
1 Like
Still waiting for the slightest proof of tbe Macca rape accusation.
One very feasible scenario is:
- You’re a famous rich guy.
- You have casual consensual sex with a stranger because you can and they will.
- The person you had sex with claims you raped them. They have physical evidence of the sex and will testify to a rape.
- The person’s lawyer suggests that the person will not press charges and will sign an NDA in return for a lump sum of money.
- If you don’t agree, you will risk an embarrassing court trial and possibly a conviction and multiple dates with your new very large prison boyfriend named DeJuan (testimony is evidence after all, and you obviously have no alibi).
- The deal is implemented. You barely notice the drop in your bank account balance. Life goes on. You never have sex with strangers again.
You should really look up what evidence has been released to the public about the Kobe Bryant case. I wonder how many times you have had consensual sex with someone where there was blood all over and the person immediately filed a complaint.
We should really take these allegations more serious as you know that a large part of media and public will try and destroy the alleged victims for daring to file a complaint. That is a huge hurdle to pass before actually stepping into the police station. This is always so disappointing to read.
And no, taking these allegations very serious is not the same as declaring a person a rapist.
2 Likes
I “had trouble getting through” your stream of consciousness but allow me to select these phrases and your implications.
“This excuse is actually a fairly common one.” - it’s not, unless you know better, and certainly this only succeeds if the evidence that this source and cause was the most likely explanation (not an “excuse”).
Simmonds did not get “caught taking [this] drug”: she tested positive for its metabolites in nanoscopic amounts, 6 days after a -ve test and provided an explanation. I want anti-doping to be effective but these contamination issues, however they occur, are so damaging to the athlete, to our sport and indeed more broadly (see WADA current statement below).
If “the next person” caught up in an AAF like this is able to establish the “same” or similar cause for the ADRV and that they exercised the utmost caution, I sincerely trust they’ll be heard impartially. We don’t want to bust athletes if they haven’t doped, do we. Do you?
Contamination of supplements is a risk widely recognised, well publicised and covered in AD education. Athletes know they have strict liability and surely know they need to be careful what they eat and drink. I suggest that the publicity around this case should alert every athlete to the possibility of contamination by an ASP, partner or other inter-actor in this way and others, and the implicit need by them, the athlete, to educate these persons to mitigate this risk. Every ADO/fed’s AD Education package needs specifically to be amended to include this (link for others to explore).
WADA’s Director General Olivier Niggli made a strong public statement about the issues of contamination in sport:
“Today there is a contamination problem. This does not mean that there are more cases of this kind than in the past, the fact is that laboratories are more efficient in detecting even infinitesimal quantities of substances. The quantities are so small that you can get contaminated by doing harmless things. The truth is that we hear a lot of stories and I understand the public opinion that can end up thinking that we take everything. With thresholds we would not have seen all these cases. What we need to understand is whether we are ready to accept microdosing and where it is right to stop. A working table will be created precisely for this type of reflection.”
2 Likes
From what I remember, it seemed consensual and there was evidence that she had sex with someone else around the same time.
How about duke lacrosse?
Fair.
This is not correct. Her name was leaked and she didn’t take the stand in the criminal case so charges were dropped. That case you should compared to the Greg Hardy appeal where his ex failed to take the stand out for fear for her life.
Bryant settled with the victim for several million.
Bryant was also married and had a daughter at time of the alleged rape. Given his history, he started dating Vanessa (his wife) when she was in High School and she withdrew from high school and finished via home school because of that. Also his entire family did not attend the wedding.
Duke Lacrosse, yeah that was a sham. Should never have happened. Overzealous Prosecutor and a lying witness. But those things do happen.
In regards to the individual with the ADRV, I disagree @rrheisler a finding of no fault is not an acquittal. She’s still with the guy who was flooding his system with drugs. So has she “educated” him on what he can take? How many tests has she had since then? The hair test is nonsense when WADA looks at things. (I doubt they appeal though)
Isn’t there still an Imo thread? Does this convo need to spill into every thread on here? Running out of things to read between muting the Imo convos and muting the endless repeat threads on slot allocation.
1 Like
I think what I find most fascinating is we all think/assume every sport on the planet has athletes doping. Yet in almost every single case, we see the wildest explanations, and some get cleared while others don’t. Like we never just see the athlete race their hand and say “you got me”, it’s always some explanation of why they were caught with doping. Now I get it, that’s basically lawyering up and if that can get you cleared, then do it. But I even said it with the CC case, I atleast respected that for once an athlete raised their hand that they did it and moved on. So that’s what I find so interesting, we all think people are doping, yet anytime anyone ever gets caught, it’s the rolodex of reasons to hopefully get them cleared. And hey if the doping authority accepts your reason and clears you, by all means your clear. I just kinda laugh that it’s like anytime anyone ever gets caught, it’s never their own fault…seemingly ever.
1 Like
The Imo thread was killed because apparently, we can’t have nice things (like following this forum’s long-standing rules on when you call someone a doper).
But yeah. Again. Let’s get this back on the topic at hand. Do I need to start insulting @talbotcox and @Kyleglass91 to create fake internet outrage? 
1 Like
Agreeing with you, I’ve pointed out that Simmonds was not “acquitted”, she “accepted” - ITA: “The athlete accepted the finding of the ADRV”
I’ve commented on the rest of that on this thread:
1 Like
So is your math of ~80 athletes in the protocol and 292 tests sampled; on avg less than 4 out of comp tests for the year among the testing pool. And of course our sport probaly has really low funds to fund all of this, so that’s the bigger issue- funding. But this is again just showing, for anyone to say they KNOW someone is clean (especially someone not their significant other), I find to be impossible to know. And of course by default every athlete is in fact clean until they sanctioned by authorities for not being clean any longer.
This is kind of the topic at hand.
Who is first to make the narrative and get the message out sets the stage for most people to grab that narrative and not investigate or conclude just parrot and agree.
No company has done this better then “nike” they cover up for cheating and corruption and never take the blame. The use a lot of Money to market how lots of bad humans are good at a skill and that makes they great.
Mj
Tiger
Kobe
Lance
Oscar blade runner
Marion jones
The last female marathon record holder as example .
There are many more.
Here we have two podcasts , one telling us what we weren’t supposed to know and letting us form an opinion.
The other telling us your not supposed to know this, don’t worry about it, we know her,she’s nice , these things happen all the time and they get off etc. telling us what our opinion should be and pushing the message .
1 Like
Hey guys,
I wanted to jump in and respond to a lot of what’s been said above.
I actually wrote out an apology on paper and planned to read it at the start of our show. When we hit record, I decided to speak from the heart instead I thought it would be more genuine which probably made it less clear than it should’ve been. I realize I never clearly said what I was apologizing for. So to be clear: I was apologizing for the comment I made on Jack’s Imogen post where I made the situation about me and ProTriNews instead of the actual issue. That’s it. It wasn’t about the doping case itself — it was about my own behavior and how I handled that moment.
Additionally this wasn’t “manufactured beef.” It was real. In Nice, I reached out to Jack and invited him on our show to make peace. Afterward, things flared up again with the microwave stuff and some stories, and I popped off. That’s on me. It wasn’t Christ-like, it wasn’t mature, and it wasn’t good for the sport.
On the Imogen post: I jumped into the comments and made it about me and ProTriNews when it should’ve been about the issue — doping in our sport. That’s what I was apologizing for on the pod. I should’ve kept the focus on the problem, not on personalities.
Where I stand on our coverage: I actually feel we covered the situation fairly. We waited for the ITA decision instead of making claims we couldn’t back up. And yes I personally believed she was guilty at the time. Also, to be clear, I don’t agree with half of what Mark says. That’s part of the point of our show: we don’t all sing from the same song sheet. Mark pushes back on me, I push back on him that tension is why we have him there. That’s also why he is always kicking me in the balls.
On transparency and doping: I hear the calls for more transparency. I agree the sport needs it. But here’s the reality from our side. We hear things ALL THE TIME. Stuff like “Athlete X is serving a silent ban,” “So-and-so tested positive and is fighting it,” etc. If we posted every claim I hear, 98% of it would never see the light of day, and I’d look like an idiot spreading rumors or worse, I would get sued. We’re not ESPN with legal teams. We can’t just publish unverified accusations. So yes, push for more transparency at the sport/governance level but also understand why we don’t (and won’t) report rumors without verifiable facts.
On journalism: I’m not a journalist. None of us pretend to be. We’re fans with microphones who care about the sport. That doesn’t excuse mistakes, but it does explain why we default to “wait for facts” over “post every whisper.”
On PTN vs TTH going forward: I’ve talked with our team. As long as I’m on PTN, we’re done taking shots at Jack or his show. If I ever have an issue with him again, I’ll text him directly not do it for the public. Jack reached out and apologized, I apologized back. I hope that ends it. People don’t want beef between two media outlets — they want racing, stories, and athletes.
Accountability and bias: If I’m biased, call me out. I love Lionel and I try to be honest about him. I also give plenty of heat to athletes other people love. That’s the show we debate. But I’m listening. If I’m out of line, I’ll own it and do better.
Bigger picture: Triathlon is a tiny sport. We all want better journalism and more transparency me included. But there isn’t big-league money here. That’s not an excuse; it’s context for why we’re careful with what we report.
My DMs are open. I read Slowtwitch. If you disagree with me, push back as hard as you want and I’ll try to respond. I messed up by making the situation about me. I’m trying to be better. A rising tide lifts all ships, and I want to help grow this sport, not drag it into petty fights.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
— Talbot
14 Likes