Hell to the no, send it to some of these anynonmous ST experts to “break the news”…lol
I mean I get it, without an actual official announcement from either the athlete or the authority, it’s just a “rumor”…and as such your only reporting “rumors” at that point…which is kinda TMZ-ishy almost gotcha type of reporting.
So that’s the problem @Bryancd - what is “confirmation” because the only confirmation you can have is from the athlete or the testing authority. If neither has commented, all your then reporting on is a “rumor”. Which is why unless the authorities announce it, there is no real point to get out in front of it imo (even if you think it’s unjust imo). If someone wants to spread a “rumor”, let them.
Just to add, in terms of reporting, as long as you are careful in how you report it you are protected.
There is an allegation that pro XYZ hasn’t been racing because they have allegedly tested positive for ligandrol.
I realize PTN might say you don’t want to be liable for what you say. Well, Youri Keulen, potentially has a libel case against your podcast if you call him out for drafting when he was never issued a penalty.
You can report — Youri received a penalty for drafting.
You can allege – from the photos and from the reports on scene, Youri was allegedly drafting, but never received a penalty.
But you can’t say, “Youri was a drafting cheating mofo” without opening yourself up to legal liability.
It’s clear when it come to publishing potentially defamatory statements about athletes we have a double standard.
Accusing someone of being a doper, while it is indeed worse than accusing them of being a drafter, both are still damaging to their reputation, brand value, and future earnings.
Thanks for the feedback. I was a wire service and newspaper reporter doing a lot of investigative work ( meaning you are sometimes getting your stories lawyered pre-publication) and then moved to public radio news. I’m now a fill-in news show host on LAist 89.3 FM in Southern California and full-time recreational athlete. I do enjoy the triathlon podcasts, and truly appreciated the shows in the run up to women’s Kona this year.
But it’s almost beyond that. If neither the athlete nor the doping agency confirms a doping issue, it’s all just “rumors”, right? So if the athlete goes dark, and the testing agency doesn’t confirm anything, then all your doing is reporting on a rumor- even if it’s in fact TRUTH…but because it doesn’t get confirmed, then all your talking about is a rumor…which is the whole reason we all hear of “stories” of X athlete testing positive yet never actually got anything official (there is lots of “rumors” of that in our sport that many in the sport know/hear about but don’t go public with it in any official public comment).
In this case- the athlete confirmed the “rumor” which then triggered the testing agency to confirm the story. If neither of those occurred, it would all just be in the rumor mill, even if it was season long rumor.
Yeah but if you say this, you risk being a massive (not in a good way) dick. PTN gossip a lot, particularly Pat, which is fine. This gossip sometimes turns out to be true and sometimes not. Probably best if they leave the sensitive subject of doping out of the gossip column…
I assume Youri could feel the same if his bike sponsor dropped him because of the grief that he was given based on watching a few snippets of a broadcast that looked like he was drafting, but the race organization didn’t think it was an issue even though PTN 1000 miles away did.
Funny enough your “name” was the one who I suggested should start “breaking the news” since your anoynmous…lol (cus no duh no one is going to break news of “rumors” that are shared behind the scenes…we all basically live by the “wait and see if it gets announced” mantra generally)
And with that- I’m getting out of this conversation…a little too many anonymous people are starting to throw some shade at people which I find the worst kinda of action…atleast put your name on it if your going to call out or accuse someone of wrong.
Because usually the rumor, or the lie, is more damaging than the truth. Failing a drug test is an objective fact. Accusing someone of doping is entirely subjective until a final ruling, that’s what is off limits.
But it’s not a fact until it’s confirmed, which is my point. If the athlete nor the testing agency don’t confirm the failed test, it’s all conjecture at that point. Which is why I’ve thought at this point in the game the best course of action is probaly to have the testing agency announce “the score” throughout the process…if a provisional suspension is handed out, that seems fair to at minimum be announced to all…even if the final process is not completed.
And if we think it should be sealed until “final decision” then make that part of the process, so that the athletes dont get pressured or strong armed to reveal what’s going on. Just have them announce a “personal matter” and be done with it. But currently this “may” announce it, sorta makes no sense because for the most part none are announcing it until after the athlete has done so (for various reasons)
I agree, it should be made known immediately if an athlete has failed. And that’s why if a Jack Kelly is 100% certain of a failed test, report away since the agencies are unwilling.
But if the agencies are unwilling and the athlete is unwilling, reporting it even with 100% certain, is just reporting on rumors. Like if he reports it in what Feb and the final decision didn’t come out until Oct, that’s just 100% rumorville for like ~8 months…even if he’s accurate. So you basically need 1 of the 2 parties to confirm which is what happened in this case, and it’s what has never happened in all the other “rumors” of cases (that have just never gone actual public beyond the scuttlebutt rumors).
You are having a circular argument. If Jack knew what he was told was true, it’s not a rumor. It doesn’t need to come directly from the agency or athlete, it can come from someone close enough to the athlete who actually knows the truth. Case in point. It can come from someone within the agency who saw xyz report. That’s certainly reportable and can be done so with a high degree of confidence and credibility. That’s the bar to leap over.
With all due respect, this is invariably NOT the case. The ADO announces the assertion of an ADRV at the time of its choosing whether or not the subject athlete has gone public: as you say “may”. And when the issue is resolved, if an ADRV is accepted or on hearing determined, they “must” announce the resolution. This was well expressed by our friend who works for an ADO (other ‘AMA’ thread).
The WADA code tries to establish a balance between “public transparency” (and the reputation of anti-doping regime is an element in the deterrent effect) and “respect for the privacy of all athletes”. I think the ADOs are the people best placed to decided when a positive should go public: they have all the facts and context. I appreciate many disagree: by all means outline the benefits of an early leaking of an issue.
Maybe you’d like to scan @rrheisler excellent article:
I’m totally happy to keep answering questions and chatting about PTN here, but if it’s specifically about the Imogen Simmonds case, there’s already a separate thread for that topic.
Would be great if we could keep that discussion over there so things don’t get too mixed up here. Just helps keep this one focused on ProTriNews-related stuff. Appreciate it!
