✳️ After the Charade

A quest for understanding amongst the Kilian/Zach/UTMB drama

Hey pals,

What a week.

Despite all the copy in UTMB, PTRA, Kilian and Zach’s statements, they were surprisingly empty of any clarity over why Kilian and Zach sent the emails in the first place and what the next steps are for all parties involved.

it’s a situation that’s emblematic of what it’s like to be a fan of the sport in 2024 - lots of discourse, not much depth.

More on that in this weeks newsletter :)

Hope you have great week’s folks!

Matt

---

Over the course of 2023 the tension between the professional athlete community and UTMB has been building and building. From the Dacia sponsorship, the stone system, the WAM debacle, accelerated growth with no meaningful benefit for professional athletes - all these actions worked like scratches on wood wearing away at the relationship between the two parties. That, in part, was why the PTRA was formed, to utilise the combined leverage of professional athletes to have a greater say on the impact that UTMB and other race series have on their professional careers and the course of trail running.

Over the course of the past year the PTRA has made small but significant wins by working together in collaboration with UTMB. This was meant to be an outlet valve for the pressure between the two parties, for them to work through any issues that come up. However Zach Miller and Kilian Jornet’s incendiary email raises questions over their perceptions of the pace of PTRA’s progress and whether PTRA can have the impact they want on UTMB to change.

Up until now followers of the sport have had no reason to question the work that PTRA are doing and any professional athlete’s support for the union. Yet as PTRA outlined in their statement this week, Zach and Kilian’s email went behind the board’s back and sought to encourage athletes not to run UTMB without going through the PTRA. No matter who i speak to, from athlete, to media, to race directors, no can quite answer the most basic question - why did Kilian and Zach think they would have a better chance of changing athletes minds by going alone rather than with the PTRA?

Before the statements came out this week, David Roche had a fascinating take on the SWAP podcast that Zach and Kilian were trying to use their leverage in the professional community to enact change. Being 2nd in last year’s UTMB and multi-time winner respectively, they both have a commanded a lot of respect throughout their professional careers creating a tonne of leverage in the athlete community on both side of the pond. However one of the main reasons Kilian wanted to found the PTRA in the first place was to combine the leverage of the entire professional community knowing that collectively they had more leverage than two athletes by themselves, for example.

In recent months Zach has been more outspoken against UTMB and the commercialisation of the sport. In his recent essay on IRunFar he writes about wanting to return to why he run’s in the first place and not be guided by financial incentives. Yet to then encourage other professionals to change their race calendar because he doesn’t like UTMB is seemingly in antithesis to this running-for-running’s sake belief.

The many statements from PTRA, Zach, Kilian and UTMB this week offered no clarity, but instead sought to limit the fallout from the email leaks for both UTMB’s reputation and PTRA’s integrity.

UTMB’s statement was the most obscure of the bunch in what is now a classic expectation from the UTMB press department. The press release sought to simply brush the email under the rug, deny that they’ve done anything wrong and offer no action plan as to how they’ll address the tension between athletes and the organisation. To call it self-serving would be harsh, but true.

(My favourite part of all the statements was the denial that Zach and Kilian’s email was an incitement for a boycott. It’s hard to think an encouragement for runners to not race UTMB for political reasons is not a boycott. I’m no PR expert, but to not insult the reader’s intelligence is surely a basic tenant of the practice.)

Zach and Kilian’s responses had the same flare as their typical posts, but were neutered in their potency to follow the party line and not rock the boat more than they already have. All we can gather from those comments was that they felt they had to do something, but evidently they wanted that thing to be done in private and with them as leaders.

The PTRA comment had the most detail and was the most forthcoming. We learn that the email was targeted to athletes with a top 15 UTMB ranking, but nothing else is new.

(One small thing bugged me - the continuous use of ‘legit’ instead of legitimate. It gave the whole statement the vibes of a second hand watch dealer selling his wares on eBay ‘i promise you, it’s legit!’)

Ultimately, the statements did their job - the damage on PTRA’s relationship with UTMB, and UTMB’s reputation, has been limited. Zach and Kilian are left with their tail between their legs and their failed boycott extinguished. Who knew that Zach and Kilian’s beef with UTMB could be solved by talking more?

To any more astute observers, the tension has not died down after this conclusion, but you would be none the wiser if you read trail running’s media.

Most publications were copy -and-paste jobs of the statements with connecting paragraphs. After a year of layoffs across the media and the ascendancy of AI in online publications, it’s those that continue this style of reportage are at most risk of extinction.

TrailRunner went a few steps ahead, giving extensive context and got an interview with Zach. However Brian Metzler and Doug Mayer seemingly did not interview anyone at UTMB, and their reading of the statements went as far questioning the boycott argument, but no further, leaving the piece with an overly rosy outlook on the situation. The title claimed that the statements showed there was a ‘path forward’ between the two parties, when they merely said ‘we should talk more’, which was the original intention of the PTRA in the first place.

The piece was published within hours of the statements being released, so deadline pressure likely hindered Brian and Doug’s ability to interview more people. Additionally TrailRunner’s audience is more generalist runners who are not as interested in an analysis of the situation, holding them back from digging deeper.

At the end of this charade any fans of the sport are left with more questions than answers and the tension between UTMB and professional athletes lives on.

I originally intended to write a ‘state of trail running in 2024’ piece today (which I still might), but this whole situation perfectly encapsulated what it’s like to be a fan of the sport and a professional trail runner in 2024.

For fans, we have more PR than journalism. For athletes the only people holding the race series’ to account are themselves. Without strong governance from a professional body and a media with resources and investment, race organisations go unchecked and both fans and athletes are left frustrated and forever on a quest for understanding.