Not really about the beef. But the real question I have is, who told you she had an ADRV? Did that same person tell Jack? You guys run platforms that do have journalistic integrity aspects, whether you say you’re not journalists is completely different and that would require cleaning up a lot of things. Clearly someone told you guys because they wanted it reported, not because they’re friends with you, not because you’re in the circle of trust (you’re not, sorry).
You tell one person a secret, it’s not a secret by lunch. And then by supper the whole world knows. So that being the cause a podbeef is hilarious. Just something to think about the next time you are told confidential information, figure out what their angle is.
Thanks for the mea culpa Talbot, it really means a lot and is the classy move here. Not sure why so many avoid this at all costs.
But big need here is what is up with the Lionel and Talbot 100IM challenge?? I think we need a mini meet once again to see where those old times stack up, and if either of you could beat a 70 year old man!!!
If only society had invented some kind of formalized relationship, recognized by everyone else, in which two adults could enter together to avoid this mess.
I don’t really have much sympathy people who, for temporary gratification, chose to bypass those age-old protections, which although not perfect, would eliminate innumerable amounts of pain and suffering if adhered to.
Of you could risk it all for the biscuit and lament that someone said mean or not true things about you later.
I enjoy both PTN and TTH. And obviously find the bickering odd. Put that time and energy into other podcast areas. Research etc.
What’s weird is that some big English language triathlon media units have started podcasts. And they’ve not been that great. Why can’t actual journalists get the job done on tape?
The German Triathlon Magazin podcast is easily the best offering from established online or print people. Le Tri Chaud, in French, is good too.
Then censor me. I didn’t read through the thread. PTN’s comments this week got to me so I shared on opinion on a message board. It’s naive to think that our sport (pro & age group) is immune to microdosing/TUEs/designer drugs/whereabouts. I’m not accusing people of it – I’m saying it exists. This isn’t some baseless allegation against a specific athlete. Testing negative doesn’t equate to being clean when tests can be beat. Anyways, my point is that media coverage on this is weak. Pretend like problems don’t exist. Befriend athletes. Repeat their well-paid for legal talking points when the rare cases surface. Rinse & repeat. PTN wants this stuff to remain more insular than it already does. I think public accountability is one way to maintain clean sport & vehemently disagree with their position.
“It’s naive to think that our sport (pro & age group) is immune to microdosing/TUEs/designer drugs/whereabouts. . . . it exists” - Agree. Who thinks microdosing doesn’t exist? TUEs are sensible, right? Three whereabouts failures in a year results in an ADRV assertion - seems fair. Have you ever had to keep ADAMS up-to-date every night 365 for years? No. Designer drugs? Do tell us more, preferably not in this thread.
“Testing negative doesn’t equate to being clean when tests can be beat.” What’s your point? So?
“Media coverage on this is weak.” So I understand what you mean, do you recommend that ADOs immediately publicise an AAF as soon as the B sample is tested, without inviting the athlete to at least offer an explanation? Kelly chose to effectively bully Simmonds into going public only 21 days after the first notification. ProTriNews who, they say, were also given info on the +ve test chose to wait until the ITA announced it. The ITA dealt with Rodriguez by giving him ample time to explore possible explanations and only going public after ?70 days after Texas and announced the determination and ban maybe 5 weeks later.
Perhaps you’d like to share what you think is good practice - recommend it to ProTriNews? Maybe your comment is just ‘banter’ but it reads more like ‘ranter’. How quickly or what should be the catalyst for the fact of an AAF and assertion of a ADRV to go public? Is early exposure of a case going to help “maintain a clean sport” or would it not be better, in the round, to have a sensible controlled release by, you know, people who know all the facts? (See WADA Code Section 14 for inspiration.)
Allow me to share a couple of paragraphs from CAS Arbitration dealing with the WADA Appeal against Harris (the (married) Canadian curler), which CAS rejected and upheld the ‘no fault or negligence’ finding by the ADO.
“90. In civil society, there are many forms of relationships, and marriage is one of them. However, the marriage dynamics between two individuals strictly belong to them, and it is not for the CAS ADD to impose a one-colour definition of how communication should be exercised in marriage. Some marriages have very open channels, others maintain a secret garden for each person. To expect that the Athlete and her husband would have shared everything is to impose a dynamic in their marriage that does not belong with the CAS ADD’s scope of review.
”91. However, this is not to say that there is not an inherent expectation that married persons share most of the private life together. There is indeed a general social expectation that married persons share their personal information between themselves, but this expectation can be rebuked by evidence, testimonies and facts. The Athlete and her husband have testified frankly and credibly, and the Sole Arbitrator has no doubt that the Athlete was not informed that her husband was using ligandrol.”
Would you agree that evidenced based accusations of rape, murder, etc. are a greater threat to ones reputation and livelihood than evidenced based accusations of PED drug use?
Would you suggest that the appropriate way to handle those criminal evidenced base allegations is in secret, and in a trial that no one knows the results of until a ruling is handed down?
Do you believe that we should throw out the concept of trial by jury, because it is impossible for a group of laymen to judge the truth amongst themselves after considering the evidence together?
Here is what I suggest - the current system is shrouded in secrecy under the guide of protecting the athletes privacy, but really it serves to empower and protect those behind the curtain who are administrating things.
The entire concept should be reconstructed and handled similarly to a court case with the accusations public, the evidence public, the defense public, and the verdict decided by a jury of peers who are asked to consider the evidence.
The whole holier than now approach you guys took after the fact and the way you attacked Jack was excessive. The story was always going to come out-or was she going to fake a year long injury?
For a group of guys who felt it shouldn’t have been discussed you sure spent plenty of time discussing it after Jack took the fall for breaking it (after Imo made it public…)
Since you say you’re happy to take feedback: I think you (and Jack for that matter) would do a better job at growing our sport if you also covered short course well and competently or at least stopped having digs at short course making it sound like nobody cares about it (just because you don’t).
Or all B level races. If it’s not an A race with a bunch of celebrity athletes they can be at best dismissive and at worst condescending to those up and coming athletes. I’d love to see some of the future athletes get some love. The one that really chapped me was they dismissed Alanis Siffert’s bike in French Riviera because she didnt factor in the race after she fell apart on the run. However, they failed to remember that she had just come off an amazing 2 months of extremely hard biking by going:
3rd at Roth
1st at Alp D’ Huez
1st at Embrunman
the last 2 are monster bike courses and so her FR bike deserved some recognition even though her legs gave out on the run. To be fair to @talbotcox it was really Mark who was dismissive in that case.
I disagree on this. They shouldn’t spend time talking about bronze and silver level races unless there is something especially interesting about them. They’re correctly focusing on T100 and the Ironman Pro Series races for long course coverage. It’s just like ESPN covers the major leagues and not minor league professional football, baseball, basketball, etc.
@talbotcox thank you for the note above - you don’t owe anything to me or others here, but I really appreciate your openness and presence. And, thank you for continuing to produce content that I get to enjoy each week.
If I could, I’d love to share my perspective on 2 things.
what I really like about the show is the vibe of sitting around on couches and shooting the shit. You all are a good hang! One thing I find to be annoying at times, though, is when you all will make inside joke references about information that you all know, but can’t share publicly. This came up on the recent episode about some news about T100 next year, but also comes up at other times too. As a listener, this creates a bit of a middle school dynamic where you all are the cool kids having a laugh but won’t /share with anyone else. To be clear, I respect your decisions to hold some things back and let them come out as they should. But maybe cut out the little jokes / references as it creates distance from your audience?
I get that you guys cover the pro side of the sport, and I appreciate that you all are on the ground at the big races - that’s awesome. It provides great content. Also, I appreciate the areas in which you all provide real advocacy around issues (e.g., 20m drafting, testing) that are important. With this said, I think most of your listeners are not watching the pro sport live and are instead watching the broadcast. And, as one of those broadcast watching fans, I wish you all would be using your influence to push for higher quality broadcasts. I, too, would love triathlon to be covered like an F1 race but understand why that’s not possible. That said, I think there are some real low hanging fruit that you all could be more vocal about which would make the pro sport better. First, i don’t think it’s too much to ask that commentators on races be expected to really know the athletes (what they’ve been up to, who their coaches are, results, how to pronounce their names). T100 and WTCS do an excellent job at this and you all were 100% right to praise Belinda and Will for their commentary in Wollongong (where I thought the commentary was awesome). I find Ironman to be severely lacking in this department where it feels like I as a triathlon super nerd know more about what’s happening than some of the commentators. Belinda is a treasure. Can’t we hold a high bar for others to be like her or Aaron Royle or Vickie Holland or Will McCloy or Emma? (E.g., other triathlon super fans). Second, I was surprised by your team’s acceptance of the non-functioning GPS tracking of athletes and super infrequent timing mat updates, which also malfunction. Even with an amazing commentator and cameras on course, you need frequent timing data to be able to tell the story of a race and see what’s going on. Watching Ironman races in particular (this happens to T100 too but with less frequency than IM) it feels all too often as if we’re flying blind WAY more often than other races I watch (cycling, running - including ultras in the middle of remote areas). Maybe athletes aren’t as impacted by this because during the race their team is faking and giving live splits. But my personal plug would be for you all to be more vocal about the importance of improving the quality of the broadcast (as you have for other issues) that have a genuine impact on the viewing experience of the sport and that could help to grow it further. I personally found the team (and maybe Pat specifically on a recent episode)) level of acceptance / allowance of this to be a bit disappointing. Judging from what’s been said on your and other pods, I wondered if you all are getting some pressure from the organizers to be less critical of commentators / broadcasts, so maybe that explains this. In which case, fair enough.