- I agree with everything you wrote in your entire post.
- I don’t think it’s pressure from Ironman as much as just being buddies (my guess) and IM subsidising PTN’s presence at its races (which I believe PTN have disclosed - happy to be corrected if wrong).
1 Like
Responding as a journalist who needs to know and follow media law.
You and your fellow hosts on PTN (and Jack on TTH) say you’re not journalists. And that’s fine if that’s how you choose to describe yourselves.
But understand that how you style yourself does not get you off the hook for libel, slander or defamation claims. The mere “publication” (airing, writing, blogging, Insta-ing) of content can expose you to libel, slander or defamation claims. More here.
No amount of disclaimer at the front of the show changes that. There’s no free zone for people who say things that harm a reputation but then claim they are only podcasters sharing opinions and being funny. For better or worse, the people you talk about are going to treat you as journalists.
And for that, I appreciate the statements of adopting higher standards for what you choose to put in the show.
8 Likes
I agree with you. The focus should absolutely be on the premier races and athletes, but that doesn’t mean 100% of coverage nor does it mean they need to take the time to disparage or dismiss the non-premier side of the sport. If there is nothing worth mention just either call out the podium or don’t even mention the race.
2 Likes
Best post in this thread.
2 Likes
Hey man, yeah, as I said above, I really don’t want to point fingers or make this about who did what. We were told by a credible source, but I’m honestly trying to move away from that whole narrative. There were mistakes made all around — on a lot of sides — and it’s just not worth dragging it out anymore. I shot you a private message, so I’ll just leave it at that 
That’s a really good question. I don’t totally have the answer, but if I had to guess, I think a lot of the big English triathlon media outlets start podcasts because they’re told to — not because they actually want to. It has to be successful right away from a financial standpoint. And when the numbers don’t show up instantly, the higher-ups look at it and go, “This isn’t worth the time or money.”
Like I mentioned above, there just aren’t a lot of true, full-time, professional journalists in triathlon — it’s not a big-money sport. You couldn’t even pay off a journalism degree working in this space. So the people who end up doing it well are usually the ones doing it out of pure love for the sport, not for a paycheck.
Look at most of the successful podcasts in triathlon — they started because someone was passionate about it, not because a company told them to do it. Same with ours. We just hit our 250th episode and are coming up on five years. It’s never been about money; it’s about passion and community.
If you look at big names in sports media — people like Pat McAfee or Stephen A. Smith — it’s more personality-driven than traditional journalism. Most journalists are incredible at writing and reporting, but not everyone can bring that same energy or style on camera or on a mic.
So yeah, that’s just my take. I think it comes down to love and passion for the sport versus doing it for financial gain.
2 Likes
I’ve already apologized for the Jack stuff above, and I agree with you — it was handled poorly on both sides. I still stand by that I think he handled it the wrong way, and I believe he’s admitted that too. But that’s in the past now.
As for the story “always coming out,” I don’t think that’s a guarantee at all. Nobody really knows if it would have or not and that’s kind of the point. This whole thing lives in a big gray area. There are plenty of cases where athletes have tested positive, fought it legally, and it’s never seen the light of day. We even talked about that on our show. There are certain legal criteria around what becomes public, and sometimes those cases stay private forever.
You mentioned that we “spent plenty of time discussing it” even though we said it shouldn’t have been discussed and honestly, that’s a fair point. A lot of people claimed we didn’t cover it, but you’re right, we actually did spend a lot of time on it. Once it was made public, it became part of our job to talk about it, since our show is literally about professional triathlon news.
I’m not going to get into the weeds about who broke it first, but just to be clear — Jack’s post went up before Imogen’s. That’s all I’ll say on that.
As for covering doping in general we do our best. We’re not going to cover every single case in the world, especially if it’s an athlete none of us or our listeners have ever heard of (Like the pro triathlete that tested positive from Iraq last week). But I’ve always been vocal that I think doping is a real issue in the sport. I’ve said it many times — I think it happens more than people realize.
Last year, I even put together a big list of athletes who weren’t tested out of competition and tried to push the T100 series to make testing more transparent. Which led to them finalizing their deal with world triathlon. I’m all for accountability… I’ve said before I’d support public TUEs too.
So yeah, I take doping seriously, and I feel like we’ve covered it as fairly as we can. Maybe we can always do better, sure, but it’s definitely something I care about and want more transparency on.
And just for the record, like I mentioned on the podcast — I personally thought Imogen was guilty. I didn’t think she’d get cleared. But she did. So I can own that and say I was wrong there.
Hope that helps clear up where I’m coming from.
That’s a great point, and honestly, fair feedback.
I think this has always been one of the most debated topics, even amongst us on the show. Our goal has always been to grow the sport, but the reality we’ve seen through analytics over five years of doing this is that every time we cover short course, the numbers just tank. Listens drop, YouTube views drop, and people skip those episodes.
We actually used to have Chelsea Burns on our show! She’s incredibly knowledgeable about short course and we tried really hard to give it proper coverage. We even went all-in on it: we went to the Olympic Test Event in Paris, made a full YouTube series, and even did an alternative live commentary stream for an entire season with World Triathlon. We spent our own personal money on that trip to Paris because we genuinely wanted to help grow short course coverage. But the hard truth was… the interest just wasn’t there.
Someone once said, “Well, it’s your job to make people care.” And I agree with that to a degree. But when you’re self-funded and putting real money and time into it, it’s hard to keep doing it when the audience clearly isn’t engaging. Most of our listeners are long-course athletes.. Ironman and 70.3 competitors and that’s what they connect with. It’s hard for them to relate to short course racing.
That said, you’re right! I can be more positive about short course. I actually enjoy it. We still cover the major WTCS events, but I’ll admit we probably don’t give them as much energy as the long-course races. I’ll work on that personally.
Also, just being honest even from a brand and sponsor side, there’s very little commercial interest in short course. Most sponsors in the sport focus on Ironman-level athletes because that’s who their customers are not many customers in short course.
But again, I appreciate you calling that out. It’s good feedback, and we’ll do our best to be better about giving short course the credit it deserves.
Like I mentioned above in my reply about short course, we’re always trying to improve the show and figure out how to serve the audience better. After almost five years of data, we’ve really seen where our listeners tune in and where they drop off. The biggest thing we’ve learned is that our audience mostly wants long-distance racing coverage.
This past year we made a bit of a shift. For longtime listeners, you probably noticed the format change — we usually start with race results from the past weekend, then do a “topic of the week,” and then move into upcoming races. In our pre-show notes, we only list upcoming gold, platinum, and diamond-tier races. We skip silver and bronze events unless there’s a quiet weekend with no major races happening.
The reason is just time and attention. Some weekends have seven or eight pro races going on, and if we tried to cover every single one, it would be a three or four-hour podcast — and we’d lose half the audience before the end. So we kind of modeled it after ESPN’s College GameDay — they’ll mention other good games going on, but they deep dive into the biggest matchups. We try to do the same for triathlon.
It’s definitely not that we don’t respect or care about smaller races or up-and-coming athletes. We’re just trying to make the show as effective as possible, and based on analytics, episodes over an hour don’t perform nearly as well. So we pack as much good content as we can into that hour.
On your point about Alanis Siffert — that’s totally fair. You’re right, she had an incredible stretch of racing before French Riviera, and that probably deserved more recognition. I’ll own that. We can definitely do better at highlighting strong performances, even if the athlete doesn’t end up factoring into the podium that day.
And yeah, you’re right Mark can be super opinionated. He and I butt heads a lot (which is kind of the point of having multiple voices on the show), but I agree with you — we can all be less dismissive and give more credit where it’s due. Appreciate you calling that out.
4 Likes
Like it. Thanks Bert
2 Likes
Without question it would have. Her absence alone would have been of note and then her only option is to lie about it. She should have gotten in front of this before Jack reached out. She could have set the narrative. And once you guys had confirmation of this, you guys also should have reported it. These athletes are “professionals” and as such should be subject to that kind of scrutiny, they are not some kind of protected class. They are public figures whether they like it or not, they can’t just bathe in the good publicity while being insulated from the bad.
2 Likes
I would really appreciate it. But it has got to come from a place of passion. If you guys don’t really follow short course, I don’t think it makes sense to try. I’ll listen to Chelsea’s podcast (and yours as well, but for different reasons).
At the same time, if PTN is not making significant money anyway, then “numbers dropping” a bit won’t have massive financial ramifications. The issue with short course is, in my opinion, not so much that amateurs rarely race draft legal, but that nobody seems willing to popularise it so that we know the athletes, their strengths and weaknesses, follow the dramas, etc. (The World Triathlon social media team have been terrific this past year, but if they’re the only ones who make a serious commitment, this won’t fly.) I mean, mixed team relays and supertri races (when the field is as stacked as 2022 or 2023) are the best racing out there. I can’t believe that viewers won’t appreciate a one-hour race with about 20 significant events but will watch an eight-hour race with about 3 significant events.
1 Like
Man, these are some of the best questions on here! 
really appreciate the thoughtful feedback.
Question 1: On your first point about the “inside jokes,” I completely get what you mean. It does come across like a middle-school dynamic, and after reading your comment, I can see how it probably feels like an ego thing like we’re saying, “ha ha, we know something you don’t.” That’s not how we want it to come across at all.
Sometimes it’s tough because there are things we know that we can’t say yet, and it’s kind of fun to look back later and say, “see, we knew this was coming.” It gives a bit of credibility. But you’re right it can also just be annoying or alienating to the listener. So fair call. I don’t have the perfect answer for that. Maybe it’s better to just skip the teasing altogether. I’m honestly curious what you think the best balance would be there. Really appreciate you pointing that out. It’s good feedback that I’ll bring up with the guys.
Now, on to your second point about the broadcasts 1000% agree with you. First off, thanks for acknowledging that we try to advocate on things like drafting and testing. I appreciate that. But yeah, the Ironman broadcast situation is just… messy. It’s something we don’t really have much control or insight into.
To clarify, the live broadcast isn’t even run by the same Ironman content team that does things like Fighting Chance or the documentaries. The live crew is mostly a production company out of New York that normally does horse racing, plus a Boulder crew (BCC) that handles a lot of the tech side. So it’s kind of this weird mix of groups that don’t fully understand the triathlon world. [but are getting slightly better]
We’ve given feedback directly to Ironman before about commentators not knowing athletes, mispronouncing names, not doing basic research.. all of that. And I completely agree with you that Belinda, Will, Vicky, Aaron, and Emma are all phenomenal. They’re fans of the sport, and it shows. I’ve even told Ironman that their commentators should go through proper training. I know a guy who’s going through ESPN’s commentator school right now. He’s making a million dollars a year just training to call NFL games. That’s how seriously they take it. I wish triathlon had that level of investment.
To be fair, Ironman has tried and are bringing in some outside voices — Crowie, Miranda, Daniela, even Bob Abbott once. but it’s been hit or miss. And like you said, the lack of GPS tracking and timing mat data is just brutal. It makes it almost impossible to follow what’s going on, even if the commentary is decent.
As for whether we get pressure from Ironman — no. We have zero financial relationship with them. They don’t pay us, they don’t tell us what to say, and we’ve definitely kicked them when we felt it was deserved. But there’s also only so many times we can beat the same dead horse. After a while, it just feels repetitive to keep saying “the coverage is bad” every week.
That said, you’re right! It’s worth continuing to push for better standards. Maybe the best thing we can do is help crowdsource feedback or constructive ideas from fans like you and pass that along to the people we know inside the organization.
So yeah long answer, but to sum it up: we totally agree with you. The commentary and broadcast need serious improvement. They are getting a little better, but there’s still a long way to go. And your comment is a good reminder that it’s worth keeping the pressure on.
Appreciate you taking the time to write such thoughtful feedback really means a lot.
1 Like
So yes and no. Since we don’t have actual directives on how to handle provisional suspensions, some cases have never seen the light of day (and I have an example from '23 that all the “influencers” in the sport all knew about from a “big name” and yet no one went public with it…literally everyone’s response was “well let’s wait and see if an conviction actually occurs”…and nada and to this day I’ve still not seen one public mention of the doping allegation in that case beyond the behind the scenes “rumorville” texting that goes on with all these big cases). But I’m actually with the idea, that I think the overall good of the sport is enhanced when provisional suspensions are automatically announced by the authorities, even if the athlete can “win” in the appeal and essentially “nothing to see here” is the result. If they win I don’t necessarily think the damage is so bad that they are suddenly black balled like actual convicted dopers are seen as. Just my take on it, and of course the “details” are ultimately what will lead to most people’s fair/common sense approach to judging the actions of the athlete (along with the actual ruling from the authorities).
Holy cow, we actually have a real journalist in here!!! EPIC That’s awesome!
I totally get what you mean about us saying we’re not journalists. You’re right that doesn’t save us in a court of law from libel, slander, or defamation. A disclaimer might not protect us legally, but I still like having one because it at least helps set the tone for the listener. It lets people know this is an opinionated podcast not every word is gospel truth. Some of what we say is opinion, sometimes it’s dramatized, and listeners should understand that.
You made a great point and to back that about Pat McAfee — even with his disclaimer, Brett Favre still sued him. So yeah, no amount of legal wording will make you bulletproof. But I’m glad you jumped in here, because a lot of people above have said we should “report everything we hear” about doping or rumors. And your comment shows exactly why that’s not smart. Even with a disclaimer, we could still get sued if we said something unproven.
That’s why I say this really comes down to human discretion. Sometimes it’s just not smart to be the loudest voice in the room. There’s a difference between traditional journalism and what we do. We’re more of a sports talk show, kind of like Pat McAfee. But at least with a disclaimer, we’re reminding people that we’re not trying to be ABC or the New York Times ect.
I also often remind our team we’re not “just podcasters,” we still have a responsibility. Our first episode had maybe 10 listeners. Now some episodes spike to 60,000. And sometimes we forget that we’re not just four guys on a Zoom call. We’re basically on a stage talking to a packed auditorium. We owe it to the audience to get things right.
So yeah, you’re spot on. We’re not journalists that title means a lot more than just owning a mic. But we can still hold ourselves to a higher standard, and I think we’ve gotten better at that.
Really appreciate you chiming in and giving that perspective. Out of curiosity, what kind of journalism do you do? And be honest how pathetic does our work look through your eyes? haha! 
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.
1 Like
I liked the beef and fun of it, I suggest bring it back.
I like the wide range of topics, and opinions , even Talbots, which are usually wrong.
You will never please everyone so please the masses quickly and then add some for the other.
So far the only thing about short course tri people remember lately is a giant pylon.
Short course racing is fun to watch but triathlon is an individual sport and short course with drafting is actually not individual and therefore not relatable by most.
I see a lot of issues in social media clicks over content.
We talk about lebron and Michael Jordan too much , sga and Anthony Edwards are amazing and doing things the others haven’t in their careers yet no attention.
A women in basically a bikini running slow as shit sells more shoes and gets more clicks then an Olympic athlete.
I bring that up as if anyone has any info/ talk/ news they seem to want the clicks not the facts first. It sells .
1 Like
If the athlete has in fact been provisionally suspended, I don’t think anyone would be liable for reporting “facts” (and not adding conjecture into the provisional suspension). Now a pod like you guys have would be very hard to just stick to the facts, and not inject each of your own takes on it. I mean that’s why we listen, we want to hear your “take” on each subject matter.
So announcing X athlete is “provisional suspended” and then moving to the next topic and not speaking on it until the final verdict…yeah right, everyone of yall would want to have a take on it (we all want to have a take on it, see the thread on this case). So yes in that instance it’s safe to remain silent on that type of liable issue.
I totally get what you mean, and to be clear — we really do try to do that.
In fact, this exact thing actually made me kind of sad. During Ironman World Championship week, our lowest viewedepisode of the entire week was one where we specifically tried to highlight the underdogs. We had Daniela Ryf, Mirinda Carfrae, and Jenny Fletcher (who isn’t racing pro anymore but was a developing pro) on the show. The whole episode was about giving respect to the women who didn’t get as much attention all week. We talked about the athletes who weren’t being discussed all week, gave them some shine, and showed appreciation for their efforts.
And honestly, it did not do near as good as I would have liked. Not because the guests weren’t great they were incredible but because, analytically, it just didn’t perform. Which is disappointing. We want to give those athletes a platform. We try to mix that in whenever we can. But it’s tough when the numbers clearly show that most people only click on the big names or headline stories.
So yeah, I completely agree with you. We should always avoid being dismissive, and we’ll keep trying to highlight more of the developing athletes where we can. I just wish the audience would meet us halfway and support those episodes too 
because when we do them, they usually get the least traction.
Anyway, appreciate the comment — and I’ll drop the link to that Kona episode with Daniela, Rinny, and Jenny so you can check it out if you haven’t.
We avg about 30-40k downloads per episode in Kona
This episode we got around 20k
1 Like
Thanks, I was 1 of the 20k lol
Consider shifting your perspective and clap yourselves on the back for giving those athletes exposure to over 20k potential new supporters. That could lead to them getting more fans and thus more sponsors. That’s a huge potential win considering how hard it is for athletes to make a living outside of the top 15-20ish. I know that doesn’t help monetize for ya’ll today, but I do think it will help the sport grow.
I also think about how energizing it can be for those up and comers getting some love on tri media outlets like PTN and GTN. I know when I played high school and college basketball it was always very exciting to be on the news or in the paper (yes I’m old enough that printed newspaper actually mattered). So the occasional love from ya’ll has an impact. As an example the first few times Harry Palmer had a great result I listed to all the podcasts and shows hoping he’d get some love and was happy for him when it happened. I have to image it also gave him just a little jolt as well.
4 Likes
I’m not going to beat a dead horse here. I’m not going to defend us, and I’m not going to disagree with you either. I think at this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
In the future, we’ll do our best to handle things differently. I’ve seen some verified information and conversations that others haven’t, but there’s really no point in digging into those details now it is what it is, and what’s done is done.
Hopefully this kind of situation never happens again, but if it does, we’ll take what we’ve learned from this and try to handle it better. 
Yeah, I totally get what you mean. It’s not really about financial ramifications it’s more about time.
All of us have our own jobs and projects outside of PTN, and we try to line up across multiple time zones once a week to record. The show is a passion project for all of us. Any money we make usually just goes right back into funding trips to races or equipment.
So it mostly comes down to time. Sundays are usually my day of rest my time with my wife and daughter. My wife doesn’t mind me podcasting, but I try to keep that day free from work. Even then, I still spend around two hours every Sunday going over notes, reviewing results, and recording.
At some point you just have to draw a line on how much time you dedicate to a hobby, especially when the rest of your week is already full of triathlon work.
That said, I totally hear you. Short course deserves more attention, and we’ll do our best to be better about it where we can.
I don’t really want to get too deep in the weeds here, but just to be clear not every athlete who’s provisionally suspended has that information announced publicly. And it’s definitely not our job to be the ones announcing it if we happen to hear about it privately.
Like I’ve said before, this is a hobby for me. I love my family and my career, and the last thing I want is to end up in a lawsuit over something I said on a podcast. It’s just not worth the risk.
When an athlete’s provisional suspension is publicly announced whether by the athlete, their federation, or their country’s anti-doping body we always cover it. You can check any of our past episodes; we’ve never ignored a publicly confirmed case. But I’m not going to go out and “break” something that isn’t 100% verified.
Because what’s the upside? A few more clicks on social? It’s not worth it. And if you’re wrong if it turns out to be a rumor — you’ve just damaged someone’s reputation.
And Brent, just to be clear, any time an athlete has been publicly and officially provisionally suspended, we’ve covered it. The only exceptions would be something super obscure like a random case out of Iraq or somewhere that isn’t relevant to our audience. But otherwise, we’ve always reported on what’s confirmed and public.
Thanks for that, man. Really appreciate it. And you’re right — that kind of exposure does help those athletes reach a bigger audience, and hopefully it gives them a little motivation too.
I don’t think we deserve a pat on the back that’s kind of our job but I do appreciate you saying that. It means a lot.
We actually have some cool stuff planned for next year. The goal is to take ProTriNews to the next level not just a podcast, but a full-on media outlet that can highlight both the top-tier pros and the up-and-coming athletes. So yeah, exciting times ahead. Thanks again for the encouragement.
2 Likes
I’m just suggesting that if you actually “break the story” of a provisional suspension when an athlete has in fact been provisionally suspended, the chances of you being liable or sued is going to be almost nothing. But I get why yall are hesistant at the same time as well.
It’s also why I kinda feel like at this point in the game in sports- any suspension at this point should be officially announced by the proper authorities at this point in the sports world of 2025 and beyond.
lol at calling me “Brent” lol
Haha fair enough! Tell you what I’ll make you a deal. Every rumor I hear, I’ll just send it straight to you and you can post it. That way, when the lawsuits start flying, my name’s nowhere near it 
All jokes aside though, I get what you’re saying in a perfect world, every provisional suspension would be officially announced by the proper authorities. Hopefully we get there someday.
2 Likes