This isn't a full blog post; it's more a response to the recent The Science of Sport podcast episode, hosted by Ross Tucker and Mike Finch, featuring Malcolm Gladwell. I can't top Sarah Barker's take or J.K. Rowling's response on Twitter (X), but below are some thoughts I've had. I really hope people take the time to click on the two previous links and absorb what Rowling and Barker are saying.
Immediately after Gladwell, with all the panache of Alvy Singer, confessed that he was cowed --as others pointed out, he should have said "I was a coward" instead -- into supporting trans athletes in women's sport, Tucker went on social media in an effort to defend Gladwell and call him an ally. Tucker is usually a most reasonable, level-headed, fair, and considerate individual, and he wanted people to move beyond Gladwell's comment and listen to the rest of the interview. He felt, controversy aside, Gladwell made some interesting points during their conversation. I can't say I agree that Gladwell's ideas about scoring for cross country are among them, but Tucker seemed to think this and other topics of discussion were worth a listen.
It's probably hard for men or those who favor inclusion over fairness to understand how angry some of us are for being abandoned, criticized, called bigots and other names, and penalized for standing up for women. Again, Sarah Barker and J.K. Rowling summed everything up very concisely, so I won't beat a dead horse too much more. I agree with Sarah, though, that when Tucker compared his evolution on the topic to Gladwell's, he was wrong.
The major difference is that while Tucker has always voiced his opinion based on his knowledge at the time (as many of us have), Gladwell knowingly lied and omitted the truth. And he is considered a journalist, a prominent cultural thinker and such. Tucker changed his stance after conducting further research and after more information became available. Gladwell admitted that he knew there was a male advantage at the time he was supporting the idea of inclusion in the female category.
Several people have brought up other ways in which Gladwell either outright lied or distorted the truth. Those of you familiar with the Munk Debates may remember back in 2022 when Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg attempted to debate Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray on the topic of trusting the mainstream media. Perhaps if Gladwell hadn't been so busy trying to come up with cringy zingers to hurl at his opposition, he could have focused on the debate itself; however, not only did he fail miserably to sway the audience, he lied and got called out on previous lies as well. He has admitted bias regarding his book The Tipping Point and wrote inaccurately about Northern Ireland in his book David and Goliath. The guy is just not trustworthy.
Taibbi addressed what happened during the Munk Debate in a Substack post and on X (Twitter). Gladwell is really good at twisting the facts, yet, at the time, he wanted to assure everyone that it's OK to trust the media. It's good to trust the media. You can trust the media. During the debate, Gladwell suggested Taibbi was longing for the days of Jim Crow because Taibbi made reference to a respected reporter, Walter Cronkite. It was so off base that I was actually surprised Gladwell had the balls to lie so blatantly in public. Why he didn't immediately apologize is beyond me, but Gladwell only seems interested in apologizing if it serves him in some way.
Since the tide is turning and public opinion overwhelmingly supports the extreme notion that women actually just might deserve sex-based rights, Gladwell is suddenly "brave" enough to come forward and admit he was a wanker. But as a cherry on top for those of us who see who Gladwell is, think what you will about Douglas Murray, his response to Gladwell's continual disrespect during the debate was fucking brilliant.
In The Science of Sport podcast, Gladwell also suggested that he's an authoritarian when it comes to dopers in sport, but then went on to suggest that we should welcome those who have served bans back into the sport with open arms. This is pretty much the opposite of being an authoritarian. I've stated plenty of times that I'm for lifetime bans. I realize, and Tucker also pointed out on social media, that lifetime bans wouldn't be feasible because of legal factors, but there needs to be some sort of zero-tolerance policy put into place, not just for the athletes but for everyone involved.
The whole system is so completely fucked right now that it's almost pointless to debate the topic. More money put toward testing, better testing methods, fewer corrupt officials and athletes, and stricter punishments could possibly improve the situation slightly. I'm afraid professional and even amateur sport is so dirty that it's beyond repair.
The way testing works now is that, as ridiculous as an excuse might be (burrito contamination), we are forced to accept the possibility that the explanation for why the athlete tested positive could be accurate and not assume the person knowingly used performance enhancers.
It would be like watching someone in a wig and big sunglasses carrying a large bag around a store looking suspicious, and then getting stopped by employees right outside of the store. When a search of her bag reveals unpaid items from the shelves inside, we must assume that they could have accidentally fallen into her zipped-up sack. Or maybe someone else put them there!
While most everyone knows the items are stolen, several people will actually believe they're not and defend the thief. Other people will know they're stolen and still defend the thief. Very few will both know the truth and actually condemn the thief, and even those who do will be forced to admit that there's a possibility, no matter how small, that she could, in theory anyway, be innocent. Because that's the way the law works. In rare cases, lifetime bans have been handed out for certain classes of drugs after a certain number of violations have been reached in certain sports, or for gambling or other violations.
I'm not saying we should take anyone's right to due process away, but the way things are being run now is a farce. Technology will never catch up to new methods of doping, and money will always be too much of a factor. Organizations don't want to bust big names that draw spectators, and improved testing costs too much money. Athletes want to win, so there's also their incentive to consider. And all of this isn't even touching on the more subtle ways of cheating, like using thyroid medication or other substances that can potentially improve performance but are not on any lists of banned drugs.
On that bright and cheery note, I say adieu until the next time. Excuse any errors. I rushed through this and might need to go back and do some editing later..or not.
