Anti-Doping Solutions for Ultrarunning with Corrine Malcolm #222

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
trail and ultra runners.
What is going on?
Welcome to another episode ofthe coop cast.
As always, I am your humblehost, coach jason coop, and this
episode of the podcast is witha voice and a face.
If you're watching the youtubeversion, that you are probably
familiar with, and that is theincredible Corinne Malcolm.
You probably recognize Corinnefrom her exploits behind the mic

(00:34):
on many of today's top ultramarathons, where she provides
probably, I think, the bestcolor commentary in the entire
game.
She is also a podcast host inher own right, most notably on
the On Trail Society, which ispart of the Free Trail Network,
as well as the Trailhead, whichis part of Ultra Sign Up, which
I was actually just recently on.
Corinne is also one of theco-authors of my book.

(00:57):
I consider her a close friend,but today's conversation takes
advantage of another one ofCorinne's many roles.
She does a whole heck of a lotof things here, and that is she
is the head of the anti-dopingworking group for the
Professional Trail RunnersAssociation, and in this role,
let me tell you folks, she hasher hands full, because this is

(01:17):
something that is bothincredibly important and also
ridiculously hard to actuallypull off.
Last week, during my podcastwith USADA's Tammy Hansen, we
went over a little bit of thisfractured landscape that exists
in trail and ultra running,where there is no overarching
entity to really organizeanti-doping efforts.

(01:39):
Corinne has raised her hand andvolunteered to try to take
charge of that, and that is noeasy effort, and so what I
wanted to do throughout thecourse of this podcast is bring
to light that effort and what isgoing on behind the scenes.
And why is it actually sodifficult?
A little bit of a sinistermotivation, as I hope it piques

(02:00):
the curiosity of a lot of thepublic out there, so that we can
actually help catalyze a lot ofthese efforts.
Because it is going to beimportant for trail and ultra
running to really take controlof this on our own accord and by
ourselves, because I don'tthink anybody's coming in to
save us any time soon.
All right, folks, buckle up fora heater of a conversation.

(02:21):
Here it goes, we are gettinginto it with corne Malcolm today
, all about the anti-dopingefforts in the trail and ultra
running space.
All right, let's do it.
Corinne, okay, first off,everybody's used to hearing you
behind the mic, but you've got afew different roles that you

(02:42):
play within the trail and run.
You've got a few differentroles that you play within the
trail and run the wholecommunity, basically.
So let's go over that first,and then one of those roles is
going to be what we talk about.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
Yeah, I feel like I wear too many hats and maybe
bisect the sport from too manydirections at times.
I think most people know me nowas a commentator and speaker of
the sport.
However, I do technically stillrun races, which is, I think,
something that I'm forgetting aswell, and maybe it's at the
great demand of the other thingsthat I've got going on Coach,

(03:18):
mentor, advisor I feel like I'mwearing all those hats Wr writer
, editor, etc.
But I'm also on the board ofthe Pro Trail Running
Association, or the PTRA had toconvince the Europeans that a
PTA would be kind of weird forthe American athletes.
No parents association.
I largely work on trying tofigure out the anti-doping

(03:48):
landscape of the sport.
I chair a small group ofathletes that will continue to,
I think, ramp up their work.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
Year one has been a little bit slow and just
meetings, but that is largely myrole there is to champion what
the anti-doping landscape andframework looks like in trail
and ultra running, since we area new or niche or sport that
doesn't really fall into anexisting category which turns
out has a lot of problems okay,we're going to talk about some

(04:14):
of those problems, but before weget into that, let's go over
the anti-doping landscapeprevious to the ptra, because I
think that's a little bit oftable setting that we need to
discuss in order to get us towhere you are currently at,
because we're always basingthings off of previous history,

(04:34):
right, I mean, if you go backeven just with the formation of
wada, before that, each ngb wasresponsible for their own
internal anti-doping efforts.
So if you can think about USAWrestling, they did the
anti-doping for the wrestlersversus USADA having jurisdiction
over all of the NGBs and WADAhaving jurisdiction over USADA

(04:57):
and all the other NATOs, thenational anti-doping
organizations.
So let's go back a little Withthat as a little bit of a
backdrop.
Let's kind of go back to whathas transpired, or not, within
the trail and ultra runningspace to take us to where we're
at today.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
Yeah, so previous to any sort of water adjacent,
anti-doping in the sport oftrail and ultra running.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
Did you just say WADA adjacent?

Speaker 2 (05:24):
Yeah, I did.

Speaker 1 (05:25):
Okay, I just wanted to get that terminology.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
Yeah, because I feel like it is kind of what we're
working towards feels WADAadjacent.
Fair enough, if not WADA, justWADA itself.
But previous to that we havehad kind of I mean, it's still
the Wild West.
I want to be clear there, it'sstill the Wild West.
There I've had kind of I mean,it's still the Wild West.
I want to be clear there, it'sstill the Wild West.
There's still lots of nationaldifferences.

(05:51):
There's still lots of race torace differences or race series
to race series differences.
The only kind of antidoping thatmany of us experienced and I'm
using air quotes here on anaudio format was called Quartz,
which was not antidoping but atthe same time was anti-doping,
depending on who you asked aboutit.
Technically it was supposed tobe about athlete health, but
they also had a pretty clearstance on what anti-doping it

(06:14):
was and wasn't.
If TUEs were or weren't legal.
They were kind of apurity-driven
guised-as-health-concorganization that masqueraded as
anti-doping but was utilized inthe Golden Trail World Series,
was utilized in the Ultra TrailWorld Tour, was utilized even

(06:36):
early on in the UTMB WorldSeries, but it had its own rules
and regulations that seemed tochange and seemed to be
completely in a like, notenforceable but very scary for
athletes.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
So not water adjacent , not water compliant, and very
much its own unique situationwell, and I can remember when
the court system first kind ofcame on the scene and you had
this really prototypicalresponse from the athlete cohort
, it was like, oh hey, this isgreat, we've made it right.

(07:08):
And that happens when athletesare kind of co-opted into an
organization like USADA or theAFLD.
They kind of wear it initiallyas a badge of honor.
Right, they've been workingtheir whole careers to get to a
certain level and then thisconcept that they're now being
monitored right for performanceenhancing drugs is a little bit

(07:31):
of a badge of honor that theyhave quote unquote made it to
some to some esoteric level.
The shine on that apple cameoff very quickly after maybe the
first year or maybe two ofimplementation.
And I remember this very vividlywhen the athletes started kind

(07:51):
of speaking up about thisinitial court system and a lot
of its misgivings, which you hadkind of just touched on, and
many of the athletes were afraidto say anything about it
because they didn't want to beperceived as anti-anti-doping
right.
You have this in air quotesanti-doping system, of course

(08:11):
kind of put in place veryspecifically for the UTMB races
and some other races as wellthat we don't need to really get
into, and you have this initialwoohoo, this is here, we're all
happy about it, you know, thisis a good thing.
And then, once the curtain gotpeeled back a little bit and
people got to kind of see whatwas going on, peek underneath
the hood and actually experienceit, that tide turned very

(08:34):
quickly, at least from aninternal perspective.
But then from an externalperspective it took a whole lot
longer because of that sentimentthat you don't want to unwind
progress.
Right, it was viewed as initialpoint of progress and you don't
want to kind of unwind that Ata similar time, right just to

(08:55):
timestamp all of this stuff.
The PTA gets formed, right,there's this overlap between the
court system and the PTAactually actually forming, and I
want to kind of take thelisteners through first off,
like you can, like, set yourrole within the ptra and who you
uh work with within thisanti-doping group, but go over
that initial like piece ofoverlap where the board forms.

(09:17):
There's still this system herethat the athletes are starting
to, they're starting to havesome misgivings about and
starting to initially speak upabout it after it's been in
place for a few years, and thenwe'll use that as the framework
for this pathway that you're nowtrying to carve out yourself.
I mean, you're literally tryingto build a new trail into the

(09:38):
community and into the ecosystem.
But let's just kind of startwith that transition and this
overlap between the PTtra andthe court system and then your
involvement yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
So the ptra was formed at a time when I think we
had a lot of question marks inthe sport.
I was prompted by this notionthat courts was feeling more and
more like medicaldiscrimination, in part because
they took a really hard lineanti-tue or therapeutic use
exemption stance and obviouslythere are TUEs that are abused
in other sports et cetera.

(10:08):
But it felt like medicaldiscrimination.
I've got friends, colleagues,teammates who have autoimmune
diseases, who have reallyhorrible asthma, who have
conditions that require thatthey are on medications that
need a TUE, and that fourth isstance was that well, if they
need that substance, thatmedication et cetera in order to

(10:31):
compete, then maybe running isbad for them and they shouldn't
be running because that isjeopardizing their health.
If they feel like their healthis jeopardized by running
without that needed medication,then it must be jeopardizing
their health and they shouldn'trun.
Which is like very backwardsand made me really upset and we
kind of that was happening as wewere pushing to form the ptra

(10:52):
and that was actually thebrainchild of, you know, killing
jorne and francesco poopy and anumber of other individuals who
kind of got the initial liftoff the ground.
We held a general assembly toelect board members.
I was one of those peopleelected and was elected, I think
, in part because of myexperience within an anti-doping
system previously as a USbiathlete competing for the US

(11:15):
during that 2010 to 2014 Olympiccycle.
So having a clear knowledge ofwhat that should look like
versus what the sport wasexperiencing and being able to
really paint those two incontrast for other athletes and
point out kind of where therewere deficits and where we're
having the wool pulled over oureyes came on to kind of chair
that working group.

(11:35):
But you know, I think in partthe formation was we're at this
like great flux in the sport inwhich there's enough money
coming into it, there's enoughprofessionalization coming into
it, that if we wanted things tobe in the athlete's favor, to be
in the sports favor movingforward, we had a very finite
window to act before things justbecome the default, the status

(11:56):
quo.
We're in this.
We're in this period of timewhere other sports don't have
that.
Maybe they've gone on too long.
If they think that something's,they really can't do anything
about it.
If you want to be the bestcyclist in the world, you're
racing UCI events, independentabout how you feel about the UCI
.
We're in this part of sportwhere we can still, I think,
make critical change inanti-doping, in kind of our

(12:20):
ethos, in athlete representationet cetera.
And so the PTRA is forming kindof, as there's this momentum
building in the sport, andQuartz was one of the first
things that we pushed backreally hard against and I think
was quickly eliminated and thatalso, you know, falls into line
with, you know, two years ago,an Ironman coming on as a 45%
shareholder in UTMB Ironman hasmore established anti-doping

(12:43):
practices.
So all of a sudden we were kindof able to lean into other
organizations who kind of couldnot laugh at but see that the
current system was ineffectiveand not something that we wanted
to continue to invest in.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, I kind of take it was one of those things where
you don't know what you don'tknow, right?
I mean, you very eloquentlyjust said that you part of your
kind of like expertise that youbring to the PTRA boards is you
have like actual experience withthis as an athlete, and not
many trail and ultra runnersactually have that type of
experience of being under anational governing body, having

(13:20):
to submit your whereabouts for aquote unquote real anti-doping
program, having to submit yourwhereabouts for a quote-unquote
real anti-doping program.
And once you experience that,you kind of know what the
standards and the norms are andI guess like the expertise and
the sophistication that'sactually required amongst all
those programs and the peoplethat really administer them.
And so I don't think anybodyfaults the trail runners or the

(13:44):
professional trail runners orthe trail running community for
initially kind of getting thewool pulled over their eyes or
for a period of time, becauseyou literally don't know what
you don't know.
You don't know what you don'tknow.
So now, like the community isin this like state of ambiguity,
right when races like theWestern States 100 adopts some
in competition testing, utmbadopts some in-competition

(14:07):
testing, utmb adopts somein-competition testing.
The AFLD is starting to co-opttrail and ultra runners into
their out-of-competition testingpools, and that's a kind of a
weird mechanism that I don'teven profess to understand.
But there's no universal.
Hey, this is what we are allgoing to do.
And?
But there's no universal.

(14:28):
Hey, this is what we are allgoing to do.
So, corinne, you get to playqueen of the world right now.
Right, and I know you'vethought a lot about this and
you're going to be able toarticulate this very well.
Let's teleport ourselves tothree or four years down the
line, right, and you haveeverything established, that,
everything established that youhave wanted to establish from
the get-go.
Describe to the listeners whatthat looks like, and then what

(14:53):
we're going to do is we're goingto try to build the path
forward.
What does that look like if wejust say, okay, it's done, it's
built, the house is built, we'vegot all the furnishings in
there, it works properly, it'sconnected to utilities and all
this kind of stuff.
What does that look like withinthe anti-doping space, within
trail and ultra running, interms of just what are you
trying to build?

Speaker 2 (15:12):
yeah, that is the the question.
That is what I've been kind ofbanging my head against the wall
over for more than a year now.
We've had we've personally hadthis conversation for many years
, probably going back five orsix years at this point, just
with my own time in the sport,you know, and the iterations of
potential anti-doping man, if Icould just say we're 10 years

(15:33):
from now and this is exactlywhat's happening.
It's that we have a, aninternational governing body
that's recognized, that allowsus to have a signatory, which
means that we are completelywada compliant.
We we're not WADA adjacent,we're not like a very good
anti-doping but not quite WADAsituation.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
You're not redheaded stepchild WADA.
You're like WADA, full WADA.

Speaker 2 (15:55):
Legit.
We're legit WADA Legit.
That's the goal, I'm surethat's in their code somewhere.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
No WADA.
Adjacent Legit.

Speaker 2 (16:02):
Yeah, we're legit.
Wada, which means adjacentlegit.
Yeah, we're legit, which meansthat we've all agreed to the
same terms to the thing that hasexisted for decades.
You know, we don't need toreinvent the wheel anymore, like
it just exists and all theathletes know the rules and all
the race organizers know therules and everyone shows up with
the same expectations of oneanother.

(16:22):
We're not doing guerrillaeducation anymore, because
that's what it feels like.
It feels like I'm doingguerrilla education where I'm
literally grabbing athletes andsaying, hey, when this happens
post race, this is what you'reallowed to do, yeah, well, hey,
when this happens pre-race, thisis what you're allowed to do.
Like that is, you know, whenI'm trying to just like get to
athletes ahead of a testingexperience that they've never

(16:42):
been educated on, they've neverseen before, etc.
Like guerrilla education hasbeen like taking 80% of my
energy.
It feels like and I'm reallyexcited to hopefully like that
goes away that there's like apipeline that athletes say you
know they find out.
Oh hey, next year you're in theout of competition testing pool
, you do this, they are providedwith the education, they are
onboarded, they there is noloopholes or oopsie daisies.

(17:06):
It is like clear as day what ishappening and that is just like
it's a beautiful existence.
No one thinks that it's weirdto file whereabouts.
No, races have their ownspecial rules that preclude and
saids or you know like I think.
I guess races may continue toban athletes indefinitely and

(17:26):
that's their own prerogative,but that we've all agreed to
this like common set of rulesand decency and expectation, and
it's just not a question.
That is what we need to get to,and if that is a international
governing body, amazing.
But it might come about inslightly different forms to get
us to that end goal, amazing butit might come about in slightly

(17:46):
different forms to get us tothat end goal.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
So one of the interesting parts of that is is
this rule set that you are allagreeing to is being formulated
by an expert entity, and thatexpert entity is the World
Anti-Doping Association.
That doesn't have to be thecase, and there are many
listeners out there that willsay hey, listen, let's just come
up with our own rule framework.
Let's, as a community whichexists.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
I've had those meetings.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
Yeah, let's, as a community, come up with our own
framework and say these are theperformance enhancing drugs, the
purple pill, the red pill, theblue pill, xyz levels of
testosterone or kind of whateverit is.
Let's come up with our own setof rules and our own set of
sanctions and enforce themourselves.

(18:30):
That is a plausible solution,right?
A community-wide plausiblesolution.
But what you're saying is no,no, no, no, no.
We're just going to take theWADA code and their rule
framework and I want to apply itinto our sport.
Why is that ladder distinctionin your estimation really
important, as opposed to thecommunity trying to figure it
out themselves?

Speaker 2 (18:52):
Well, those rules exist for a reason.
I think people argue over verynitpicky supplements, et cetera,
and any system, I guess, isn'tperfect for sure.
Like the burden of proof beingon the athletes is hard to watch
at times.
And when I say burden of proof,proof, I mean you are guilty
until proven innocent ifsomething happens with your test
samples, and it's just it'salways kind of been that way
with an anti-doping and thatthat's a hard pill to swallow.

(19:12):
That means that guerrillaeducation is even more important
.
But I do think that I think itcomes down to probably results
management, and it's somethingthat we've like kind of talked
about, not here but in otherother spaces, essentially like
how are sanctions doled out,what does that look like, et
cetera.
I think some of the oopsiedaisies in the sport of trail
and ultra running are because wedon't have like a proper

(19:35):
results management system inplace in the sport.
Ie Athlete test positive inrandom road race that is
reported to one federation, it'snot reported to another
federation, it's not within theadams system, which kind of
allows us to know who's beentested, how often they're being
tested in, what disciplinethey're being tested in, and

(19:55):
then that athlete shows up to arace like sears and all, and we
don't know that they're nottechnically supposed to be
racing.
They show up to ultra pyreneeyou and run the marathon and we
don't know they're not supposedto be racing, etc.
It's like all of a sudden thethe burden is on the athletes
and the race organizers to knowwho has who's got a ban.
He doesn't have a ban.
If we're all under oneuniversal system, then we're

(20:18):
part of that system and thattakes that burden off the
competitors and off the raceorganizers to understand who's
legally allowed to be on thestart line or not.
And I think that has been a bigfrustration.
And there are people within theanti-doping working group at
the PTA who that's what theyreally want to focus on is like
a list of people who arecurrently or have served doping

(20:39):
sanctions that we can draw fromto say hey, like they're not
supposed to be here, etc.
And that seems like I don'twant to have to do that.
I draw from um to say hey, likethey're not supposed to be here
, etc.
And that seems like I don'twant to have to do that.
I want wada to do that for me, Iwant a big global entity that
has all that data information todo that for me.
I don't want to have to sourcethat.
I don't want race organizershave to source that.
I want it to be as easy aspossible and I think that

(21:01):
pre-existing system allows forthese little menial things like
education, like resultsmanagement, like sanctions being
upheld, the sharing ofinformation, etc.
The understanding of who'sactually being tested, etc.
To be done.
It's not perfect becauseactually in Adams this is a
tangent that's important InAdams there is no distinction

(21:22):
for anyone racing over 3000meters.
In Adams there is nodistinction for anyone racing
over 3,000 meters.
So there's not even adistinction between someone
racing the 5k on the track and aroad marathon, or the 3,000
meter steeplechase and a roadhalf marathon, et cetera.
They all fall under the 3,000meter and up category.
And so trail and ultra, ifthose athletes are being tested
and there are some that we knoware within a national testing

(21:43):
pool we don't know that they'rebeing tested or not because we
can't delineate Trail and Ultrain the Atom system that already
exists.
So I do think us becoming partof that means something that we
could push for, that we couldactually maybe have someone
listen to us, but that allexists within one established
system that we are not currentlya player in and some of our

(22:04):
best solutions that I've had somany meetings this past year.
That is what the ptr has beendoing.
We've been having meetingswhich is the bane of my
existence and there are a numberof players in the sport,
including, like theinternational testing agency,
which is the ita, who are thesekind of wada adjacent potential
systems and they're not a badsolution For the sport.

(22:27):
We've talked about doing thiswithin USADA, setting up a
global testing pool, etc.
It's not a bad solution, but itdoes mean that we're not
getting full access to thethings that we could have access
to if we were completely WADAcompliant and we were just part
of a pre-existing internationalsystem which, with sport

(22:49):
crossover, is going to becomemore and more important for
trail and ultra running.

Speaker 1 (22:52):
Yeah, and I've kind of come at this ultimate WADA
solution from the standpoint of,from the standpoint of, first
off, that athletes, they justwant to know the rules.
And if you have a universal setof rules it's very clear.

(23:14):
But when you have a fracturedrule system, hey, these things
are prohibited in this situationbut they're not prohibited in
this other situation.
And you see that when athleteskind of migrate sports, so they
have to go in and out of anational testing program and a
national testing program, justthey just want to know the rules
, to be on the right side of theline, and the more those rules
change.
And now that I'm thinking aboutit, even when wada updates
their list, you know they have athe.

(23:37):
The new list comes out inoctober and then it takes effect
.
Is it october, august?
I just went over this withtammy I forgot, takes effect.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
It takes effect in january of every year, but
generally comes out in the falland then jan 1 is like the new
day.
So, like tramadol, yeah, um wasa big thing abused by the uci,
road cyclist, etc.
It has been abused in the sportof trail and ultra running as
well, not gonna say it hasn't.
Tramadol is a, is a is anopioid, it blunts your perceived
exertion, etc.

(24:04):
And that we found out in thefall that I'd be banned starting
jan 1 of this year.
So tramadol, can't use it,don't use it.
You shouldn't have been usingit to begin with.
But that's kind of how thatworks, is that it's a constantly
updated list?

Speaker 1 (24:16):
yeah, and I guess my my point with that is is, even
when that list updates, there'sstill a moment of rejiggering
amongst the athletes who youknow none of them, not a lot,
not all of them are doing areusing these substances
nefariously, but they still haveto, like take survey the
landscape.

(24:37):
Okay, I will, I was doing this,I can't do it anymore.
Now I'm not going to do it andI have to do kind of like
something else.
So my point with that that is,the more consistent the rules
actually are, the better it isfor the athletes, because all
they want to do is just stay onthe right side of the line.
Listeners up a little bit.

(25:02):
The reason we're talking aboutthis is having a fully WADA
compliant solution isn't theonly solution out there, and
it's probably not going to bethe first one.
There's probably going to be acouple of different steps in
this whole trail buildingprocess that we're describing
here, but another solution to itis why don't you just do your
own thing, right?
Why don't you just subcontractthe testing and you come up with
your own rules, framework andthings like that, and to which I

(25:24):
always go you want to have theexperts involved in this, the
people who have done it for aliving, and have done it for
decades for a living, that havethe resources to say these are
the banned substances becausethey run afoul of two of these
three points that we went overwith Tammy last week.
And here's how we're going toimplement everything.

(25:46):
You don't want to go throughthat process with people who are
naive or it's novel to them,because it's incredibly
complicated.
And I see this with races whowant to adjudicate any sort of
positive findings themselves,and that's a really common
situation.
A race will do competitiontesting and they'll work with

(26:09):
the group that is doing that incompetition testing, and
sometimes it's USADA, sometimesit's another NATO and sometimes
it's like a private group.
Right, they have privatecompanies that can do this, and
the race organization will saygive us the results.
We want to figure out what todo with them, and to which I've
always said just manage yourrace.

(26:30):
You don't want to do that.
You're not an expert in this.
You don't want to.
You don't want your nonprofitboard or your race director or
your volunteer director tryingto figure out if this athlete
has been using this substancenefariously or not.
When those things happen, it cansometimes take a team, a

(26:51):
literal team of people, all ofwhich have decades of experience
to figure out what is actuallygoing on underneath the hood
with those types of tests.
That's the main reason I kindof come back to this you want to
work to this gold standardsolution because the expertise
that you have to have in thatarea is so specific and

(27:13):
developed over such a longperiod of time and also
consequential to the ecosystem,to the athletes, the races, the
integrity of the race and thingslike that.
You don't want to screw it upby bringing in, you know,
half-baked types of solutions inpeople who don't have the
expertise to actually weedthrough the situation yeah, it's

(27:34):
complicated, I would say, andthen I mean just talk about like
biases right, or being like, orperceived biases like well
we're gonna we're gonna, youknow, snag this athlete, but
we're not gonna snag, you know,that athlete, etc.

Speaker 2 (27:46):
Exactly the sport.
It's just like, okay, you don'tget to selectively punish
people either, and so I thinkthat, yeah, it's.
We do have some of that inplace right now from experience,
and tim tolofson is someonethat I've been working kind of
closely with.
He's very passionate about thistopic and I commend him for,
like putting up the money tohave in competition testing at

(28:06):
Mammoth Trail Fest via USADA.
He also made sure that USADAput on an educational program
for athletes.
It was open to anyone, but itwas like mainly targeting the
athletes who would be racing atthe Golden Trail World Series so
that they'd be, you know, ifthey had any questions etc.
Sing at the golden trail worldseries so that they'd be, you
know, if they had any questionsetc.
They could come to thiseducational zoom call ahead of
time so that they just knew whatthey're getting into.

(28:27):
Because that's the other thingtoo is that we don't want to
test on uneducated athletes,which I harp on and people I
think don't quite understandwhat that means like you want
athletes to be educated, but wedo right now.
It kind of sort of came intoeffect at the UTMB World Series
finals and country or regionalmajors this past year where UTMB

(28:49):
the entity contracts with theInternational Testing Agency,
which again is this like WADAadjacent situation.
They're smart individuals butthey come actually from like
national governing body buildingand not from anti-doping, is my
understanding havingconversations with them, and

(29:23):
then they contracted withnational doping agencies in the
countries, so like Spain, france, the US, etc.
To do testing at those majors,as well as the French
anti-doping agency at the UTMBWorld Series finals.
But the goal of that wholething and we knew some of this
ahead of time was to actuallyhave that information ahead of
time to allow the education ofathletes before testing at those
events, which did not happen.
And there were some pretty bigoopsies that came out of that
situation as well whereunadjudicated athletes were

(29:43):
tested by legitimate nationalanti-doping agencies, and so
there are legitimateconsequences to anything that
was that ran afoul there.
When, generally, when you bringin a new crop of athletes into
any sort of anti-doping program,you have an onboarding period,
you have an educational periodand this is just with in
competition testing.
Like in competition testingshould be the easiest form of

(30:05):
anti-doping for us to likeadminister and get into the
sport and do it well andsmoothly and efficiently and
with little mistakes.
And that was not even the case.
There were a bunch of mistakesthat were made this year with
that being instituted kind ofrushed and without much
foresight for the athletes.
And this isn't to say like, oh,you want to give athletes time

(30:26):
to like not get caught for doingsomething illicit.
No, like it's like athletesjust don't oftentimes like
understand what they need todisclose, what they should be
recording ahead of time, etc.
So we had oopsies there andthis is like the easiest
anti-doping we can do.
Because the end goal isn't justthe easiest anti-doping we can
do, because the end goal isn'tjust in competition, anti-doping
.
The end goal is having thiswada legit, which I'm going to

(30:50):
just keep saying what a legit,compliant out of competition
testing like that is the endgoal.
The end goal isn't to have, youknow, the athletes tested pre
and post competition in chamonixor at the golden trail world
series finals or whatever it's.
To have you know random out ofcompetition testing with a large

(31:10):
athlete population and we can'teven do the first step right,
yeah, right now.
And that, to me, is like scaryand frustrating and not
inspiring.
It shows me how much we, howmuch we still I mean usada has
gotten so many panicked emailsfrom me about this over the last
like year, about each of theseincidents before they came up,

(31:33):
um, and it's like to me that'sscary, that we're like walking
into something that we can'teven do the easiest part right
now.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
Whenever you plop a rule down, you have to make sure
that you're doing it in acalculated and very deliberate
way.
So let's just remove dopingfrom the thing, because it's
such a charged topic and peopleget obscured by this wedge issue
.
Let's just say it's with yourchart, running polls, right.

(32:03):
So let's just say from oneminute to the next UTMB.
Or let's just say WesternStates right, it's a great
example because they don't allowpolls.
Right.
Let's just say Western States,three days before the race, says
hey, you know what, we're goingto allow polls.
All of a sudden, right, bigrule change from one day to the
day to the next.
That would throw the field intochaos and then you would start

(32:27):
okay, do I have to keep thepolls the entire time, like you
have to do in Europe?
Can I just use them up theescarpment?
Like?
You would go through thisentire thing and nobody would
get.
You know, probably nobody wouldget mad at it, but it would be
such a disruption because you gofrom not thinking that it's
part of the rule set to thinkingthat it's part of the rule set.

(32:51):
Nobody's going to disqualifyyou for not using polls.
But now let's flip thatsituation into an anti-doping
one, right, you don't know thatyou're being tested and all of a
sudden you are being tested,right.
There's consequence to failingthe test and sometimes a severe
consequence to people's careerand their livelihood and also

(33:14):
their reputational damage andthings like that.
And so I kind of come back toreemphasize your point, corinne.
You have to do things very in acautious and a calculated way
so that everybody understandswhat the deal is, because there
is actual consequence to it.
It's not like not taking pollswhen you're allowed to take

(33:34):
polls in a race, even thoughthat would be just as confusing
to everybody, just as confusingto everybody.
So for the listeners out thereand I get this a lot in the
community why do you have totake?
Why can't you just test for theheavy hitting drugs?
Why can't you just do this?
Why can't you just do that?
Right Is usually the frameworkthat the question is coming.

(33:55):
You just do this like it's soeasy.
The reason it's not so easy isbecause it's such a disruptive
rule change in the entire kindof set of rules that the
athletes have to have to play by.
So you've got your end point,corinne.
You're, you know.
Corinne gets to play queen ofthe world and wave her magic

(34:15):
wand and poof, we're right there.
Let's like rewind, right.
Let's start kind of likebuilding these trails.
This is almost like a productroadmap, right.
That's start kind of likebuilding these trails.
This is almost like a productroadmap right, that you can kind
of create for yourself.
What's the?
We went over the kind of thecurrent state of affairs.
Right, we've kind of battedaround.
Some races are using incompetition testing, the AFLD is

(34:35):
gradually co-opting some trailand ultra runners into an out of
competition testing pool.
There's still no universalsystem to thread all of these
happenings together.
In your estimation, where arethe kind of the first two
pivotal points that we now needto take to start to build this
trail or this bridge to yourultimate, you know, vision that

(34:59):
you articulated earlier?

Speaker 2 (35:02):
Yeah, I think that I mean what it is starting, as is
a million meetings.
I keep harping on thesemeetings, but it's been the
thing.
It's like I've we've had totalk to everyone.
But if you know and thisincludes, you know, like the
athlete integrity unit and worldathletics people who are
players in kind of in therunning space but not
necessarily in the trail space,and as they're kind of all

(35:23):
looking at trail right now, likehey, we see you over there, we
might come talk to you later.
Some of that has been hamperedby the Paris Olympics coming up.
A lot of the focus needs to beon Paris and making sure that
goes smoothly, and then they'relike post-Paris, we'll come back
to you.
So I do think that there's likesome outside interest in trail

(35:49):
and ultra running from the folksat, like, world Athletics, who
will become the presenter forthe this here's another big
acronym for you the World Trailand Mountain Running
Championships, which is too longof an acronym.
They will become the presentingsponsor in 2025 when that next
world championship is.
So I think that there is somekind of outside influence that
could come in that could allow abetter pathway forward.
But the iterations we've talkedabout includes working with one
national anti-doping agency likeUSADA, and creating a, you know

(36:15):
, a global, you know, beyond anational pool of athletes to run
an out-of-competition testingsystem, for which could work,
and there are, and that would be, you know, like a out of
competition testing system, forwhich could work, and there are,
and that would be what you knowlike a water legit testing
system.
They would do resultsmanagement.
They would, you know, kind oftake it from start to finish.
That would include education onthe front end, etc.
But I don't want to say it'sprohibitively expensive because,

(36:36):
like, I think that we couldraise the money to do it what is
that that?
It's about half a milliondollars a year to test less than
40 athletes, generally speaking, and we've talked about you
know, could we stretch thatmoney by like having some
athletes that we test more andsome athletes that we test less,
and then what's the legitimacyof like athletes not being
tested but being part of thesystem, et cetera, from like a

(36:59):
trust building and like apractical standpoint of the
system, etc.
From like a trust building andlike a practical standpoint.
But it's about a half milliondollars a year and that includes
the testing, but it alsoincludes all the legal.
It's kind of like a big legalbank essentially of making sure
that if something happened withsomeone's sample, that there
would be like funding for kindof legal ramifications, but also
kind of like the athleteworking through this legal their
own legal burden in that regard.

Speaker 1 (37:22):
But what I want to Before yeah, before, I don't
want to I want this half amillion dollars, because I know
this has kind of been thrownaround a little bit.
I want to put this into contextand the context I'm going to
skip to the end and then I'mgoing to talk about how we get
to the end.
Yeah, a half a million bucks isnot a whole lot of money when

(37:43):
you think about the entireecosystem that could contribute
to that.
That's the end point.
It's not that much.
Sure, you're talking about 40athletes.
You double that.
It's not quite a double in theexpenses, but it's still going
to go up.
When you look at that in thecontext of the size of Hoka
which this is public information, I'm not saying anything that's

(38:04):
like behind a curtain orwhatever.
They report their revenuequarterly.
They're a billion-dollarcompany, billion with a B, just
one shoe brand Hoka.
$1 billion in revenue last year, over $1 billion in revenue
last year.
You look at the sponsorshipmoney that a lot of the big

(38:25):
races draw, in particular UTMB,which exceeds over a million
dollars to those sponsors everysingle year.
Once again, I'm putting it in abread box.
It's not difficult informationto back of the napkin type of
calculate.
So if the people out there theathletes and the coaches and the
brands and the race directorsout there think that cost is

(38:48):
somehow prohibiting this tohappen, I got news for you.
Cost is not an issue.
There's enough economy in theentire ecosystem of trail and
ultra running to actually fundthis.
There's no doubt that's thecase.
Now, is it easy?
No, it's not easy, because youhave to pull that funding in

(39:09):
from different entities.
There's not going to be anangel investor that will come in
to do that and I don't thinkUSADA would actually allow that,
because they want to threadthose resources to make sure
that they're not getting or theycouldn't be accused of bias or
whoever does the actual testing.
But my point with that is notto belabor it too much is don't

(39:29):
think half a million bucks is alot.
We're big enough, we're grownadults.
We're big boys now.
Big boys and big girls now.
That is something that shouldbe attainable, or the cost of it
?
The price tag of it should beactually attainable by the
entire of it.
The the price tag of it shouldbe actually attainable by the
entire community if we all putour heads together and figure it
out yeah.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
So, as you mentioned, like, cost is not the limiting
factor.
I don't think it is, but whathappens then is that you need
someone to kind of and this onceagain creates that like, uh,
removal bias from, like ananti-doping group like usada is
that you need someone to holdthe purse strings, like you need
an entity, yeah, to hold thepurse strings, and that comes in
different flavors as well.

(40:09):
One of those is, like you havea signatory right, so you have
an international testing, eveninternational federation or a
group, or it can be a major raceessentially, like utmb could
become a signatory essentially,which might have other issues,
but essentially it needs to be afederation, a, a major race
organization or, a quote,another group that is highly

(40:33):
relevant to the sport which isvery ambiguous, but technically
that is one of the signatoryoptions.
Signatories means that that youknow you are, that really brings
you into, like the WADA, theWADA legit, the WADA compliant
circle.
That is like full, you arefully in, et cetera.
We could have something that'sless legit than that, that acts

(40:54):
as the purse strings, that actsas an entity that's partnering
with a USADA.
That being said, they couldalso partner with someone like a
private entity, like the ITA,or a North American iteration of
that.
I've spoken to some of our kindof mutual friends and
colleagues who could bebasically the North American
version of the ITA and probablyhave the better resources,

(41:14):
better understanding ofantidoping to actually do that.
But the issue there is thatunless then you have to have a
global signatory if you wantaccess to atoms, if you want
access to better results,management, etc.
So there's these two distinctpathways A signatory could or, I
guess, could be involved orcould not be involved, but you

(41:36):
have to have an entity.
And I do think that this pointin my mind, that entity, is
probably the biggest pinch point, because the ptra, like we,
can't be.
We are a relevant organizationbut we can't be the entity
either.
We're an organization run bythe athletes who are actively
competing in the sport.
That is kind of part of ourethos that you you are and you

(41:59):
are a sponsored, a currentlysponsored athlete with like a
grace period to come out of that.
And then retired athletes canbe part of the general assembly
but they don't have a votingshare within the voting assembly
, like within the generalassembly.
So it's like you can beinvolved but you're not, you
don't have a vote, etc.
So the PTA really can't be thatrelevant entity either.
When I'm like when I put mypleas out there into the ether

(42:23):
to be like I need someone tohelp with this, there's actually
interest in help, like to helpwith anti-doping I'm using air
quotes again because we don'treally know what that means and
it's like there are people thatare passionate about anti-doping
and, you know, maybe havethey're a pharmacist or they
have some other expertise thatthey could offer to the athletes
as far as like education etcetera.
But this like entity item, beit for a USADA based or a WADA

(42:46):
compliant system or us doing it,the private route of recreating
an antidoping framework withanother organization, to
reinvent the wheel but to do itoutside of the system, the money
is the same, the cost is goingto be the same, but that entity,
signatory or otherwise, isreally same.
The the cost is going to be thesame, but that entity,
signatory or otherwise, isreally up in the air.

(43:06):
And that is the thing that Idon't know how to fix.
And it's like I feel like I'vealready, I feel like the things
that I do outside of my ownrunning has already been a
detriment to my own running.
And that's fine, like I'm,these are things I'm like that I
want to be involved in, butit's like it turns out I'm not
just running and I use a lot ofmy brain, energy and physical

(43:29):
energy to try to solve theseother problems in our sport, and
it's like I still keep comingup against this, like I think I
texted you coop and I was likeso are we just both retiring
from everything?
And like becoming the entity tofix this thing, because I don't
know who else is going to do it.
I don't know how to make thisthing happen and that is like
this pinch point is thesignatory element, slash the

(43:52):
entity, slash the person holdingthe purse.

Speaker 1 (43:55):
Essentially, I want you to elaborate on one point.
So why?
Because the listeners are goingto think this and I have a
little bit of curiosity as wellwhy can't the ptra be that
entity?
Or why can't somebody somethingthat already exists, the utmb
world series, right, somethingthat already exists why can't

(44:16):
they be that entity to do all ofthese things?
And just to kind of like recapwhy this entity is important
they're the ones that hold thepurse strings, so they're in
charge of gathering the moneyand then also deploying the
money.
You have to have some group ofpeople or some entity, as you're
saying, in the middle of thatentire process, because you
don't want a single personfunding it.

(44:38):
Corinne all of a sudden comesup with half a million bucks and
you give it to USADA to deploythat.
You don't want that to happen.
You want some sort of mixing ofeverything to avoid potential
conflicts of interest and biasand things like that.
But you also need an entity tohelp direct the testing agencies
towards who the pool is right.
So there's a pool of athletesand it's not everybody right.

(44:59):
You mentioned 40, could be 50,could be a hundred, but it's a
fixed number.
It's not the whole field where.
How do you help direct thosefinite resources, being the
doping control officers, thetests themselves and all of
those things?
How do you efficiently directthose at the athletes and the
competitions that need the most,the most scrutiny?

(45:21):
Theoretically, this entitywould be heavily involved, if
not solely direct that componentof it.
Why can't it be something thatalready exists?
Why can't somebody raise theirhand, the PTR raise their hand,
or the Western States Board ofDirectors raise their hand and
say we will do this for you,community.
Here we're going to lie on thissacrificial altar to take over

(45:45):
this responsibility.
Why can't that be the case, orcan it?

Speaker 2 (45:49):
Yeah, just a bunch of martyrs out there.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
You know I don't want that job, by the way, I'm not
volunteering.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
Yeah, I've tried.
I've tried to have Coopvolunteer as tribute several
times and he's not on board.
It's okay, we'll get himeventually, team, don't worry.
I think that so a number ofthings.
So technically, the utmb worldseries could become a signatory.
I've talked to the ita about it.
It's something that would belargely paperwork probably, and
not necessarily impact the sportwidely.

(46:18):
When I say not, I mean liketechnically speaking, it doesn't
give UTMB more control over thesport if they became the
signatory.
But I think from because it'smostly paperwork, but I think
from like a cultural relevancestandpoint, you'd want an
independent arm running that.
If they became the signatory,you wouldn't want it to be I

(46:39):
mean, I just had a meeting withCatherine Pelletti yesterday the
signatory you wouldn't want itto be.
I mean I just had a meetingwith Catherine Pelletti
yesterday.
I don't think you wantCatherine Pelletti running that
arm of it.
If UTMB is the signatory, Ithink you want an independent
entity running it.
Same with the PTRA, right?
You're talking about how youknow they do.
That entity needs to be able tosay hey, this is how we're
directing testing, this is whereX, y and Z.

(46:59):
We want to look more thisdirection.
We want the funding to go here,etc.
A group run by the athletesalready kind of takes out that
independence of it.
I think it needs to be a stepremoved from there.
Do I think athletes formerathletes could be on that board?
Do I think that you could havean athlete representative
working with that group?
Yes, we see that within lots ofnational governing bodies,

(47:26):
right, you have an athleterepresentative on the board for
various functions.
So it's not to say thatathletes wouldn't be involved in
like entirely, but I think thatit needs to be more independent
than that.
Technically speaking, like youknow, I was like oh, we need an
international entity.
What is this thing called theInternational Trail Running
Association or ITRA, you know?
Could they in theory be thatglobal entity?
And so I think that there islikely an entity that already

(47:48):
exists that might need relevancerestored.
But I think essentially, evenif, say, like, itra became the
thing with the hand up, youwould essentially need to create
a organization within theorganization to you're basically
not to say that you're usingthem as a front, but you'd be

(48:08):
using it as a front, yeah, to bethe entity that holds the purse
strings for this internal kindof hidden, in plain sight, uh
group of people that'd beresponsible for that kind of
thing within itra.
Like I don't think you can justhand it over to anyone, right?

Speaker 1 (48:24):
now, yeah, it's a weird situation because you have
to have it.
We're using the word entity orgroup of people, a company,
whatever, that is simultaneouslya stakeholder and independent,
and those have a big overlap tothem, right?
They come into conflict, right,this independence aspect and
the stakeholder aspect.

(48:44):
As you can imagine, let's justsay it's Corrine and Coop, right
, that formed this entity.
You will absolutely have peoplesay, well, freaking, coop's not
going to.
This is why I can't do it.
Right, coop is not going todirect more testing at his
athletes because he doesn't wantthe scrutiny on his athletes.
That's an absolute, validcriticism that would be thrown

(49:06):
out.
And any stakeholder in thecommunity is going to have a
similar level of scrutiny onthem if they form this type of
entity.
So this concept of you need tobe a stakeholder in it and also
independent is one of the biggerstumbling blocks, because the

(49:26):
last thing that you want in anyanti-doping, in any anti-doping
whatever, is this perceptionthat there's a conflict of
interest, because thatdeteriorates the trust.
For you know everything, foreverything that you're trying,
for everything that you'retrying to do.
So Corinne has heard me tellthis story many times before,

(49:49):
but I'll go ahead and tell itpublicly to the audience as well
, because it's now several yearsremoved.
One of the former COOs of USADAI happened to work with for a
long period of time His name isJohn Frothingham and he's
absolutely brilliant and I askedhim very directly while he was
COO of USADA I was like, what isgoing to happen with trail and

(50:12):
ultra running in this space?
How do you actually fix thiswhole problem?
And he brought up this conceptof creating an entity as the
instantaneity like it didn'ttake him more than five seconds
to figure it out as the instantstumbling block in the road.
He said that somebody is goingto have to form a company, form

(50:33):
an entity that is rife with alot of criticism, that probably
doesn't pay very well and maybe10 years down the line does
something good.
Not a lot of people are goingto want to do that, right.
Not a lot of people will raisetheir hand and say I am going to
take charge and I'm going toact and I'm going to actually do

(50:55):
that Now.
It doesn't have to actually getformed in that kind of in that
way, but here you have somebodywho's a legitimate domain,
expert in the in in the field,instantly identifying what is
going to be the main roadblockand that identification is so
very easy because you alreadylook at what the like, how it

(51:16):
works, in an established systemwhere the national governing
bodies, they basically doeverything they.
This is the pool.
These are the groups ofathletes we're going to direct.
You know, the testing we'regoing to help system where the
national governing bodies, theybasically do everything.
This is the pool.
These are the groups ofathletes we're going to help
direct the testing over here.
We're going to work with theNATOs to do this and educate the
athletes on creating thisindependent, yet stakeholder
company or entity within trailand ultra running isn't so easy

(51:39):
because it's not kind ofmandated by the Olympic system.
Right, the Olympicic system,you have to have those things.
So if we're presenting thatlike what, like it's, somebody's
got to write right, I meancurrent, somebody's just got to
raise their hand and do it atthe end of the day, right?

Speaker 2 (51:56):
yeah, which is like maybe the world's worst job, but
yeah I don't want to do it.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
I can't.
Once again, I'd have to give upmy coaching career to do that,
because there's too muchconflict and there's many people
and this is what I've beenstruggling with and I'm sure the
PTA is struggling with as wellthere are many people that would
actually want to do it but areeither not in the right life
situation or they have too muchof that conflict to actually do

(52:27):
it.
Just imagine some C-levelperson at HOKA or whoever else
can be in the community, themactually booting it up and doing
it to boot up an LLC or acompany or whatever is not that
hard.
But once you think through whatyou're actually having to do,
manage all of these careerimpacting, integrity impacting

(52:50):
things it's a heavy decision tomake.
It's a heavy decision foranybody to make if you're
actually thinking about it.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
Yeah, and it's like I've looked for all the
shortcuts and loopholes andother pathways but, I keep
coming up against this thing,this the need for an entity
which feels I don't know kind ofnebulous in and of itself, but
yeah, this idea of it beingstakeholder, yet independent.
And and how can you do that ifyou are also, you know, a

(53:22):
controlling force in a raceseries?
And I think that I mean, I lookat that, right, like you've got
.
I look at cycling, so you'vegot like the UCI, which is like
their national governing body,so then they have kind of this
like independent lens into WADA,then they sanction all the you

(53:44):
know any other race in the sport.
They want to be UCI affiliated,etc.
And we just we don't have thatand I don't know that we ever
will have that.
You know, so to speak, like havelike everything be, you know,
okay, like here's a potentialpossibility.
Right, right, utmb becomes notjust you know, ultra, trail,

(54:09):
mont blanc, but they are morethan just a race series.
All of a sudden they'd have tobe this national or
international governing body andI think that's kind of.
We're at this weird, I don'tknow pinch point in the sport in
general where no one is surewhere they want us to be.
Right, world athletics isn'tsure they want us to be.
Each individual national trackand field organization isn't
sure they want us to be.
Right, world athletics isn'tsure they want us to be.
Each individual national trackand field organization isn't
sure where they want us to be.
Some countries you know spain isa great example of that like I

(54:33):
think you know, they haveadopted trail and ultra really
into their national governingbody and therefore do some
testing.
Some trail and trail and ultraathletes will become part of,
like, their track and fieldtesting pool.
Because of that, france is alsokind of doing some of this.
But it's like we're in thisweird no one knows where they
want trail and ultra to be.
No national governing bodyknows where they want us to be.

(54:53):
No international governing bodyknows where we're to be.
We're kind of this stepchildsport where we are rapidly
professionalizing but at thesame time we're still other,
we're still outside, we're stillthis niche thing that they
don't think they have to payattention to yet, and so maybe
this will change wide, like justwildly, in the next 18 months
to two years.

Speaker 1 (55:14):
I mean, that's the that's what I was going to ask
you Is it plausible that somethe IOC or world athletics or
something that actuallycurrently exists just co-ops the
entire community of trail andultra running as a kind of an
Olympic level sport, so to speak, and then that way all the
framework is kind of likealready there, it's like a new,

(55:35):
it'd be in the Olympics, right,Like instead of the 3000 meter
steeplechase you have the 3000meter steeplechase and a 50K and
then all the athletes kind offit underneath that umbrella.
Would that be a reasonable,like plausible scenario to
actually play out?
Because then it's just time,you just have to wait, right,
you have to have patchworksolutions and kind of in you

(55:57):
know, in the meantime, do youjust wait it out?
Can the community just wait itout?

Speaker 2 (56:03):
in theory, yes, and I think that might be what our
patchwork is leading to.
And I actually had aconversation with some of the
kind of the private stakeholdersabout this idea that, like you
know, we started an out ofcompetition testing pool.
Could this just be rolled intosomething that's like
encapsulated within, like aworld athletic situation down

(56:23):
the road and they were like,yeah, of course it would just
like be handed off, um, so tospeak, but and I don't think
that's impossible I think thattruly we've had kind of mixed
messages from world athletics,which again is kind of you know,
they are the, the entity over,they're the overlords of, of
trail, of soon to be trail, oftrack and field of road, et

(56:45):
cetera.
They're kind of the thegrandparent organization that
everything else falls underneath.
We've gotten mixed messagesfrom them.
We've been told, on one hand,that they have no interest in,
they don't think that there's areason to test trail and ultra
running athletes.
We've asked about this like hey, could we bring in a group of
athletes under under worldathletics, have this subsidized,
to have you do resultsmanagement, etc.
And they're like we don't thinkthat there's a reason to test

(57:08):
trail and ultra athletes.
We don't think that antidote.
They were basically like you'relow risk, why would we test you
?
Why would we have money in it?
But at the same time, they willbe the overarching entity for
the World Mountain and Trailrunning championships in 2025 in
the Pyrenees.
So it's like there's this mixedmessage of like we don't need
to test you guys, you're lowrisk.

(57:29):
We don't think endodoping istaking place here, which is
being contradicted by accidentalstuff and like and illicit,
like intentional doping that'sgoing on in our sport Plus you
know this like pathway to beingour world championships.
So we might have this thingcoalescing right where we've had
you know, we've had thissegmented thing.
We've had the world mountainrunning association.

(57:49):
We've had the iau, we've hadthe you know, itra, affiliated
things, and all of a suddenwe're coalescing around this one
world championship event thatnow world athletics is going to
be heavily invested in,supposedly, it seems like, by
talking to like nancy and folksat the american trail running
association that really doesgoing to be heavily invested in,
supposedly, it seems like, bytalking to like nancy and folks
at the american trail runningassociation, that really does
seem to be the pathway that isstarting to unfurl in front of

(58:10):
us.
And if that does happen, Ithink we do all of a sudden have
a pathway to being included ina pre-existing system that we
might have to be investing in.
It might be a subsidized system, but then it would
automatically bring us intotheir resources, their results,
management, their access toatoms, having a signatory, etc.

(58:34):
That we could all just beadopted by.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
And that to me, feels like a like, like I'm exhaling
like this big sigh of relief,potentially, but I don't know
how we feel about waiting it outand seeing either yeah, that's
the thing, because you're notcontrolling your own destiny at
that point right, you're justlike waiting for this random not
not completely random, but athird party to just decide hey,

(59:00):
y'all are worth it.
This is kind of like what we'regoing to do and once again kind
of going back to're going to do, and once again kind of going
back to this entity that has tobe both the stakeholder and also
have some neutrality andindependence associated with it.
It's hard to come up with thatGoldilocks entity, but the more
and more I think about it aslisteners can tell like current

(59:22):
of I and I've like wrestled withthis internally in our brains
and then also like verbally,whenever we, you know, whenever
we're in the same, you know inthe same place at the same time,
or even in a virtual roomtogether, and it's the.
The answers are not very clearcut and that's what I'm trying
to articulate here in thecommunity.
But I've always kind of comeback to like we want to do it

(59:46):
ourselves, like we being thecommunity, and I hate to be like
projected as like the universalspokesperson for the community.
I'm certainly not, but I thinkthat's a reasonable position to
kind of like take the bull bythe horns, at least as a
stepping stone, either inadvance or in conjunction with
these, aren't like either.
Or situations, some aspect oftrail and ultra running becoming

(01:00:08):
an Olympic sport, having ourown carving out, our own destiny
within the sport itself, sothat we know that the integrity
of the results that we seeacross the landscape has been
ensured and that also theathletes kind of know, kind of
know what the deal is.
I kind of don't want to waitfor another thing to just kind

(01:00:29):
of miraculously pop up.
I kind of want to just likelet's figure out who's actually
gonna do this and create the endto create.
I feel like what's the mostrecent mission Impossible movie
that the bad guy is the entity?
Right, it's like an AI thingthat takes over the Russian
submarine.
Feeling like I'm teleportedback to that movie when we talk

(01:00:52):
about this.
But anyway, let's go over oneadditional thing, right.
I mean we've kind of beatenthis dead horse that creating
this organization is kind of thebiggest stumbling block here.
If we just remove that, right,it's just once again Corinne can
play queen of the world again,waver magic wand and say, poof,

(01:01:14):
this thing now actually exists.
What's the next piece of it?
Right, because it's not just anorganization like plops out of
nowhere.
That's a big ask in and ofitself, but after that
organization exists, I want youto like walk through, walk the
listeners through what the nextkind of steps would be, so that
everybody is on the same page.
Right, you have thisorganization that can collected

(01:01:37):
your half a million bucks.
They're going to start todeploy it, and things like that.
What would the next stepsactually look like to the
observing public and then alsoto the athletes that are
involved?

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
I just double checked that the triathlon world did
not already steal our potentialhypothetical acronym for a
international governing body wecould be the uti american
listeners we can't do that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:03):
The.

Speaker 2 (01:02:03):
Union Trail International, like the UCI for
cycling.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
We can't use that acronym.

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
No, that's a free idea for someone out there who
wants to run with it.
No, I see this as a future.

Speaker 1 (01:02:13):
We can't use that acronym.

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
It's going to be great.
Okay, so I'm waving my magicwand.
This has happened.
The UTI exists.
We've given them all of ourmoney.
You know, world athletics isover there, continuing to feign
interest in us.
It's great, we're carving ourown path forward.
What that would look like rightwould be establishing an, a
global testing pool, which isalso hard because we have many
disciplines right.

(01:02:36):
We've got this like sub ultratrail space.
We've got this kind of.
We've got 50k specialists.
We've got 100 mile specialists.
We've got, you know, are wetesting the 250 mile, the tour
de jean specialists, etc.
Who is in this testing pool?
Are we using a ranking systemsaying, hey, you ranked within
the top 30 men this year andthat is distance agnostic.
We've figured out a way to makeit completely distance agnostic

(01:02:57):
.
You're in the testing pool.
We could, at this point, also bebenefited by the investment
from other nationalorganizations.
Ie, france already has alreadyis testing these five men and
these five women cool.
They also then are then like,included in that testing pool.
So there there could be thisspread or advancement of one

(01:03:20):
unified out of competitiontesting pool by investment from
different national organizations, and I honestly think
thatcompetition testing pool byinvestment from different
national organizations and Ihonestly think that having a
global testing pool run by aprivate entity would encourage
the investment from othernational antidoping agencies and
national governing bodies towant to contribute.
I would say to have some, likethey're already.

(01:03:42):
They're saying, hey, you missedtwo of our athletes, so we're
also going to test these two orthese three, kind of casting an
even wider net.
But essentially, from therethose athletes are onboarded,
they're educated annually.
That list of who is in and outof competition would adjust
annually, kind of based onprevious testing or previous
results from the year before.

(01:04:02):
But it would need to be, Ithink, like a distance agnostic
ranking system in which we couldbest disseminate.
You know our Remy Bonet is inthe testing pool and you know
Jim Walmsley is in the testingpool.
Right, working in completelyopposite ends of the sport is
really important.

Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
That's not easy either, because usually you have
like 25% of the entirety of thepeople that you're looking at
that are very clearly need to bein the pool.
And then you have 50%, thatmiddle, you know, kind of that
middle half.
That sounds really weird to say, but the math actually works
out.
If you have the top 25%, that'seasy.
The middle 50%, which is half.

(01:04:42):
50% is half hashtag math.
That gets a little bit ofdebate who should be in the pool
and who shouldn't be in thepool.
But then the last 25%, that'skind of where most of the
consternation actually occurs,if you can imagine just think
about the ultra runner of theyear rankings, right, usually
it's very clear one, two, threemaybe there's a little bit of

(01:05:03):
debate here four, five, six,there's more debate.
And then once you get to seven,eight, nine, 10, that's when
everybody's like trying tocompare apples and oranges and
bananas and cucumbers togetherand try to come up with some
sort of thing.
The same thing is the same exactthing plays out in creating the
testing pool.
You have to have a group ofdomain experts that spend

(01:05:24):
countless hours figuring out.
We are only going to put thesefour.
However big it is, 40 peoplewill use that number.
We'll put these 40 people in abox and we're going to test them
and then we're going toevaluate it.
This person drops out, thisperson comes back in.
That's not who like.
Who's to determine?
You know, corinne gets testedand coop does it, or vice versa,

(01:05:47):
right?
I mean, that's a difficultproblem, but you're saying
that's the first step.
Right is creating the pool thatsomehow takes into account all
of the different distances,what's going to apply, what's
not going to apply.
Got that pool we've got set,and then we start deploying the
testing from there yeah, andthere's.

Speaker 2 (01:06:03):
And, to play on that comparison analogy, there's
always going to be a potato,there's always going to be a
potato who thinks they could bein the testing pool, but they're
not for this year, and that'sjust the way it goes why can't
hold on?

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
this is important.
Why can't an athlete just raisetheir hand and say put me in
the pool, I'll pay for it?
Because athletes have askedthat of usada quite often.
Right, put me in the testingpool, I'll pay for it.
Because athletes have askedthat of USADA quite often.
Right, Put me in the testingpool, I'll pay for it.
Whatever it costs five grand ayear.
Whatever it is, I'll pay for it.
Put me in the testing pool.
Why can't athletes do that?
Why does it have to be a poolthat's created by an external

(01:06:35):
group of advisors?

Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
Well, man, I feel like this is a test that I am
unprepared for.
I have to imagine, though,there's a bias and resources
component to that.
In part, it's just it's notjust because of the testing
costing X amount of money, butit's the results management
piece, and results managementseems kind of like this weird
nebulous term that we keep using, but essentially it's like it's
the legal ramifications of likeof a positive test essentially,

(01:06:59):
and that is not really includedin that.
Hey, I'll give you 5K and beput in this testing pool.
So I think that there'sprobably a bias element of
wanting to be in the testingpool and saying, hey look, I'm
in the testing pool, I gave themmy money, I'm in the testing
pool, versus being selected andelected to be in that testing
pool.
You could also do things like wesee this in a lot of Olympic

(01:07:20):
qualification circles, in whichthis kind of like expands the
pool further.
If an athlete and this wouldfall probably on the national
governing bodies, not theinternational entity or
organization is that if you havean athlete that is eligible for
potentially making the world'steam for an Olympic, for the
Olympics example, that athleteis required to have been in the
out of competition testing poolfor one year prior to that

(01:07:44):
championship event.
Therefore, that would fall tothe national governing body.
So the national governing body,we call it the short list,
oftentimes in, or like long list, short list for olympic trials,
a lot of sports that don't runa truck like a track and field
trial system, but run a like heyhow we use how the us does
Worlds right.
There are some qualifying events, but there's also this like

(01:08:06):
apply on resume.
So essentially eligibleathletes then need to be on what
is deemed the short list or thelong list, however you want to
look at it cup, half, full cupand those athletes have to be
tested out of competition by thenational organization for a
year prior to Worlds if they areeligible to be on that Worlds
team.
So that'd be one way to kind ofexpand that scope beyond the

(01:08:29):
like these people performed inthe X percent, y percent, z
percent of the field over theprevious year.
But yeah, there's no reasonbeyond that why someone can't
raise their hand and just getput into a testing pool.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
Well, I know athletes will ask that, and it's
something that USADA inparticular has always denied,
and it's because of thatpotential bias or conflicts of
interest.
They don't want to receive themoney directly from the athletes
.
They'd rather fuse the moneytogether so that any potential
linkage between this person paidyou X to do this and you

(01:09:02):
influencing the outcome ofwhatever the testing actually is
.
You want to avoid that at allcosts, because your business you
saw it as business and all theNATOs are the same way are
essentially built off ofintegrity, and anything that
pierces that veil of integrityand one of these things would be
receiving money directly fromthe people that you are actually

(01:09:25):
testing is very clearly notgoing to be something that they
come up into.
Let's wrap this up a little bit, corinne, because we've kind of
gone back and forth.
I think it's very, I hope, themessage that we've kind of
painted to the public and thisruns in line with my previous
conversation that the listenerscan refer back to with Tammy
Hanson over at USADA and Iimagine even though I haven't

(01:09:46):
recorded this yet a conversationthat I'm going to have next
week with Gabe Bida that thearena is complicated.
It's not as simple as peeing ina cup and it turns red or green
and then we report the red orgreen to whoever else.
There's a lot of differentpieces of the puzzle.
To whoever else.
There's a lot of differentpieces of the puzzle.

(01:10:07):
The other storyline here is thatthere is going to continue to
be fractured elements of thisbefore a cohesive solution is
formed.
And what I mean by that iswe're going to have various
entities to use that word racesperform in competition testing.
We're going to have NATOs kindof come into the fray, as is

(01:10:28):
already kind of happening withcertain country and certain
countries and things like that.
And those are all positives.
They might be tricky and theymight have different stumbling
blocks.
Even the quartz debacle that wewent through, I view that as a
net positive because it goteverybody's attention.
I do view these initialstumbling blocks as positives

(01:10:49):
because you got to move theneedle, and it's never going to
be perfect, but you got to keepmoving the needle Within that
fractured element.
Corinne, the stakeholders hereare the athletes, the coaches,
the brands and the racedirectors primarily.
You could say that the casualfan is a little bit of a
stakeholder as well.
But within those fourstakeholder groups of people,

(01:11:11):
how can they get more involvedto help perpetuate this
fractured nature or this kind oflike fractured system that we
currently have and theneventually lead into something
to where it's more cohesive?
What can they actually do?

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
Yeah.
So I would say that the firstthing is to like be ready to
serve when called upon.
That's kind of like theoverarching thing, right.

Speaker 1 (01:11:33):
When we say jump, I want you to jump
enthusiastically.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
Enthusiastic consent from everyone would be amazing.
But I think the big piece isthat, like what we can do and
what I'm finding that needs tobe done with the PTRA in
particular.
Like we've mentioned Tammy afew times, where I've got, I've
been in communication with Tammyabout doing some education with
the PTRA members open toathletes, etc.
So when it comes to athletebrand, race director, etc.
Buy-in, I think that agreeingto WADA level, like WADA

(01:12:01):
compliance, just like let's justsay that even if we don't have
testing at a race, at an event,et cetera, let's just agree that
those are the rules that we'refollowing.

Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:12:09):
Straightforward.
You can use the global draw,you can find those.
Those resources are amazing andthey're already online.
We don't need to reinvent them.
And then it's like hosteducation, host education for
your athletes.
Make education mandatory foryour athletes, because the best

(01:12:31):
way you can protect the athlete,the brand, the sport is to make
sure that people know the rulesthey're following and then
expect them to adhere to them ishow I would look at it, and
that is what I think our biggestfocus will be largely targeted
at in competition testing forthe next year probably, as we
maybe move towards out ofcompetition testing is to really
make sure that events areeducated, because I think it's
not just the athletes need to beeducated.

(01:12:52):
The events and the stakeholderswithin those race organizers,
organizations, also need to beeducated on to the reality of
anti-doping, on to the realityof anti-doping, onto the
implications of anti-doping,onto the you know, making sure
that things are runappropriately, that we're
investing in thingsappropriately, et cetera.
It's not just the athletes andbrands that need to be educated,

(01:13:12):
but I think the race directorsas well.
But that's the biggest thingthat I see is coming down the
pipeline.
It's the lowest, it's thelowest hanging fruit, I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
I don't think people realize how easy it is, like I
went over this with Tammy lastweek.
I know you haven't heard thispodcast, corinne, but you can
kind of envision how it actuallyworked out.
I don't think people realizehow easy it is.
I just I happen to have heremail and contact information,
so that's like one step.
But I just emailed Tammy and Isaid will you do an in-service
for my athletes the period?

(01:13:44):
It was the easiest thing ever.
She said yes, I paid them forit.
It was not that, it was notthat expensive.
But these initial steps.
I guess the point that I'mtrying to drive home is these
initial steps that you'retalking about with race
directors and brands andathletes.
They are not that hard, they'relow hanging fruit.
Yeah, it might cost a fewhundred bucks to get this done,

(01:14:06):
but that is not anything in thegrand scope of things and
there's no excuse not to do that.
I'm going to step up on thesoapbox for just a second.
I view my role as a coach,particularly for the elite and
professional athletes, to helpthem perpetuate their profession

(01:14:29):
, and part of that is makingsure that they're educated on
what the rule set is.
How could they couldpotentially run a foul off on it
when they're not even trying.
I view that as like an activerole that I play.
It's not just putting freakingworkouts down on paper and
telling them you know, good job,karan.
It's like, hey, listen, this ispart of the stuff that you

(01:14:49):
actually need to know.
So I would encourage anybodyout there that is in one of
these invested stakeholders takefive minutes and figure out
what you can actually do just toget educated.
Just start there.
Just start there.
If everybody's on the same page, we all know what the thing is.
Then we can start to have aconversation about how to move
things forward.
So your point there, corinne,is just really well taken that

(01:15:10):
the first step is some of theseeasy education steps.

Speaker 2 (01:15:13):
Yeah, I think it's easy to get lost in other things
that people want you know, likea list of actively serving
individuals, who are servingbands, etc.
But I think it's really likeprotect yourself, protect your
athletes, protect the sport bybeing well educated and well
versed in what antidoping lookslike.
It's not that hard to do.

(01:15:34):
I think that you know it's kindof us signing on to a common
code.
That shouldn't be a big hurdlebecause it shouldn't be me, you
know, one-on-one grabbingathletes ahead of no, you know,
that's not sustainable it's not.
No, it's not sustainable at all.
And I feel like that's theinstagram dms that I'm sending
out, that's the free race, mewalking into a room being like

(01:15:56):
hey, this is happening, likeknow that this is your right,
etc.
Which has been fine because Ithink that it's important that
those athletes know that this isyour right, etc.
Which has been fine, because Ithink that it's important that
the athletes know that they canhave a chaperone post-race, that
they need to be writing downthe lot numbers of the
supplement or medication thatthey're taking, etc.
They know what the global drawis and how to use it effectively
.
These are simple things, but itturns out that these simple

(01:16:19):
things can add up in reallyprofound ways.
It's not my job to catch thedopers.
It's my job to educate mycolleagues, which turns out my
colleagues are wide-reaching atthis point.
It's the athletes, my teammates, that I'm coaching, the race
organizers that we work with,the brands that we work with,
etc.
It's kind of that's.
I don't know that's the job.

(01:16:40):
The job is like making surethat we all have a common
understanding of that's.
I don't know that's the job.
The job is like making surethat we all have a common
understanding of what is andisn't acceptable from a not just
a protection of the athletestandpoint, but a wider
protection of the sportstandpoint yep, start with the
easy stuff, education first, andthen the entity will form.

Speaker 1 (01:16:59):
I'm gonna use that voice every time we say it.
Now the entity like some, likebig, dark, nebulous, nebulous
the uti.
It's happening we can't use uticorinne I think we can.
I think it's funny no, wecannot use that we'll brainstorm
it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
We'll brainstorm it at a later date, exactly well
for what it's worth.

Speaker 1 (01:17:19):
I hope that this problem gets solved.
I mean, we've recognized thisand I hope, by putting this
podcast and this informationkind of out in the public, I do
hope that on the back end of itsomething kind of forms together
.
You and I have been, you know,outside looking in participants.
We're not in the best positionto remove that stumbling block.

(01:17:40):
Like you said, we're not in theposition of trying to catch the
dopers right.
That's not our lot in life.
It's would potentially create aconflict of interest and things
like that.
But there are people out thereand hopefully they're listening
to this that are in the rightposition in their life and
actually want to take somethinglike this on.
I for what it's worth.
I have approached individuals,you know, just to put this out
there publicly.

(01:18:01):
I've approached individualsabout being the person or
creating a group that actuallysolves that problem.
It's a hard sell.
So I hope that the listenerstake this to heart that if the
job's out there, if you want todo it you know it's not nobody
You're not going to apply for iton monstercom or whatever

(01:18:22):
there's job, linkedin orwhatever the job board is, but
the but the job is absolutelyout there and you'll have people
in your corner that want that,wants you to do it, but nobody's
going to force anybody to do it.
That's the thing.
So I hope, by putting thiscontent on the space, that that
at least perks that, that at thevery least it perks people's
interest.
Second thing is the athletes,particularly elite athletes, and

(01:18:45):
the coaches and the brands thatalso have purvey over these
elite athletes, take thiseducation piece seriously.
And the final step is maybethere's some solution that's
catalyzed to remove thestumbling block.

Speaker 2 (01:18:56):
Yeah, there'll be people to advise you.
There'll be people to supportyou along the way.
If this is your calling, ifyou're a retired stakeholder and
you have ample time stakeholder, you're right, it's a retired
stakeholder right, like you'reretired early because you, like,
did something cool, um, andyou've got some extra time on
your hands and you want to befeared and maybe loathed, but

(01:19:19):
also championed.
This could be a job for you.
I'm selling it, I think thereyou go.

Speaker 1 (01:19:24):
We sold it good.
Corinne I, I have to say thankyou for doing what you do with
the ptra.
Thank you for being a colleagueand a friend in this.
I know it hasn't been easy, oryou know gorilla, educating
people, as you're mentioning,that's not an easy thing to do,
nor does nor is it sustainable.
I recognize that from yourperspective, you're playing
whack-a-mole, but it isappreciated by the community.

(01:19:46):
It's appreciated by people likeme, because any of the messages
that I try to drive home arejust reinforced because you and
I are serendipitously on thesame page in many, if not all,
of these aspects.
So I just want to tell you onbehalf of the community just
thank you for what you do.
Nobody twisted your arm to takeany of the roles that you're

(01:20:09):
taking being an advocate in thisarea.
You decided on your own accordto do that.
That's something very admirable, because you're one of the few
people that is actually takingaction no-transcript it and I

(01:20:44):
think that you should becommended for it.
And I just want to do thatpublicly, before we went off air
.

Speaker 2 (01:20:50):
Thanks, it's always good.
I will wake up early for you topat me on the back, any day.

Speaker 1 (01:20:55):
All right, we'll leave it at that, corinne.
Thank you for what you do.
Thank you for coming on thepodcast.
We'll bring you back some othertime and talk about something
else.
Sweet Love it.
All right, folks.
There you have it.
Thanks to Corinne for indulgingme and coming on the podcast
today.
I can't really emphasize enoughthat what she is attempting to

(01:21:16):
do with the Pro Trail RunnersAssociation, what they're trying
to do overall, this is no easyfeat.
This is something that I havebeen a part of in various facets
over the course of really thelast decade and I've recognized
from very early on that it is ahard problem to solve because of
many of the aspects that wetalked about throughout the
course of this podcast.
Links to everything will be inthe show notes.

(01:21:39):
I encourage all of you to goand check that out.
If you found any of theseprevious podcasts all about
drugs and sport interesting,please pass them on to your
friends, your colleagues andyour running partners.
That's the best way to sharethe love and share the
information so that we can alltry to get on the same page.
Next week we are in for anotherbanger with my homeboy, gabe

(01:22:01):
Bida, who has this interestingperspective on something that is
going to be incredibly relevantfor trail and ultra runners out
there, and that is how toactually bring anti-doping
efforts into a novel audience.
Gabe has this incredible storywhere he was responsible for
many of the aspects when USADAtook over the UFC's anti-doping

(01:22:22):
program, so that was acompletely new audience to the
anti-doping world.
Usada took it over and Gabe hasthis really incredible story of
some of his involvement withinthat sport and with those
athletes, their coaches, theirtrainers and the gyms they
worked with.
It's going to be a really coolconversation.
I hope you guys stick aroundfor that next week.
As always, this podcast isbrought to you without sponsors,

(01:22:44):
endorsements, advertisers ofany kind, and that is so that I
can tell the honest to God truthabout any of this stuff without
any repercussions to mynon-existent income stream.
So if you love this podcast, goahead and give it a like or
give it a share in your podcastplayer of choice.
Podcast.
Go ahead and give it a like orgive it a share in your podcast

(01:23:06):
player of choice.
Give it a review that helps thepodcast out a lot.
Or just come say hi to me inperson and give me a high five
or give me a hug.
I always really appreciate thefeedback that I get in the
public.
It means a lot to me that youguys are getting such incredible
knowledge out of this podcastand you value it as well.
All right, folks.
That is it for today and, asalways, we will see you out on

(01:23:26):
the trails.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Anti-Doping Solutions for Ultrarunning with Corrine Malcolm #222

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Anti-Doping Solutions for Ultrarunning with Corrine Malcolm #222

Stuff You Should Know