David Roche GOES HOME DEVASTATED from Western States

ClaudeAI Analyses This Thread wrote:

"If you're forming your opinion of the Roches based on snippets from last week’s pod, I’d really encourage you to listen to this week’s episode, too. It’s not a redemption arc or a PR repair job—just a quiet, thoughtful conversation between two self-aware and reflective people trying to regroup. They talk about seeing a therapist, getting bloodwork, limiting phone use, and turning to things like board games and conversation cards as a way of reconnecting with life after failure.

What struck me most was the contrast between that conversation and the tone of this thread—including usernames like 'is David suicidal?' casually tossed off for effect. This week’s podcast feels like a deliberate act of refuge from that kind of discourse—an attempt to reinhabit the world with more attention and care.

It reminded me of something Tarkovsky once wrote: 'Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual.' You don’t have to think the Roches are artists to recognise that same longing here. They’re not always perfect. But they’re clearly trying—at some personal cost—to understand themselves, and to model what that process might look like in public.

You can still disagree with them. But writing them off as narcissists feels like the easiest possible read of something much more complex."

j.a-koss wrote:

ClaudeAI Analyses This Thread wrote:

"If you're forming your opinion of the Roches based on snippets from last week’s pod, I’d really encourage you to listen to this week’s episode, too. It’s not a redemption arc or a PR repair job—just a quiet, thoughtful conversation between two self-aware and reflective people trying to regroup. They talk about seeing a therapist, getting bloodwork, limiting phone use, and turning to things like board games and conversation cards as a way of reconnecting with life after failure.

What struck me most was the contrast between that conversation and the tone of this thread—including usernames like 'is David suicidal?' casually tossed off for effect. This week’s podcast feels like a deliberate act of refuge from that kind of discourse—an attempt to reinhabit the world with more attention and care.

It reminded me of something Tarkovsky once wrote: 'Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual.' You don’t have to think the Roches are artists to recognise that same longing here. They’re not always perfect. But they’re clearly trying—at some personal cost—to understand themselves, and to model what that process might look like in public.

You can still disagree with them. But writing them off as narcissists feels like the easiest possible read of something much more complex."

Two self-aware and reflective people? So you are either one of them, or one of their family members, or a big fan. Which is fine. But you cannot use those words to describe these two individuals. If you really listen to their podcasts (which I have now suffered through a few), and watch some of the videos leading up to WS100 (which I now have suffered through a few) - you can easily tell they are not genuine people, and this is not uncommon among the other athletes in the sport. You can hear them saying how supportive every was to David after the DNF, but that was a dog and pony show as David has a social media following, is a sponsored athlete and no one was going to kick him down right then and there as there was an actual race going on.

But go listen to any other athlete talk about David/Megan on other podcasts, it's obvious people do not like them. And I’m speculating here, but my guess would be most people do not like them because David and Megan are not good ambassadors for the sport and the community. As I said before they are both incredible athletes and that cannot be taken away, but as people they absolutely suck.

Bloodwork, therapy, having other hobbies are all things they SHOULD be doing. Instead they spend all of this time thinking the entire running sphere revolves around them and them alone.

I agree the “David is suicidal” username is way too much. But for a guy who came into this race so darn cocky and putting himself above everyone else, having some tummy issues then quitting, I do not respect that. He left Forest aid station and knew he wasn’t gonna podium or even top 5 and he didn’t have the guts to go and just get the buckle. Absolutely pathetic to just give up.

bReOt wrote:

j.a-koss wrote:

Two self-aware and reflective people? So you are either one of them, or one of their family members, or a big fan. Which is fine. But you cannot use those words to describe these two individuals. If you really listen to their podcasts (which I have now suffered through a few), and watch some of the videos leading up to WS100 (which I now have suffered through a few) - you can easily tell they are not genuine people, and this is not uncommon among the other athletes in the sport. You can hear them saying how supportive every was to David after the DNF, but that was a dog and pony show as David has a social media following, is a sponsored athlete and no one was going to kick him down right then and there as there was an actual race going on.

But go listen to any other athlete talk about David/Megan on other podcasts, it's obvious people do not like them. And I’m speculating here, but my guess would be most people do not like them because David and Megan are not good ambassadors for the sport and the community. As I said before they are both incredible athletes and that cannot be taken away, but as people they absolutely suck.

Bloodwork, therapy, having other hobbies are all things they SHOULD be doing. Instead they spend all of this time thinking the entire running sphere revolves around them and them alone.

I agree the “David is suicidal” username is way too much. But for a guy who came into this race so darn cocky and putting himself above everyone else, having some tummy issues then quitting, I do not respect that. He left Forest aid station and knew he wasn’t gonna podium or even top 5 and he didn’t have the guts to go and just get the buckle. Absolutely pathetic to just give up.

Just tried to listen to the latest podcast. The amount of creepy bodily fluids and gross sex talk was just too much. And I'm only 8 minutes in so far.

Another Roche hater wrote:

oyoyoy wrote:

That's where I am since all I ever heard him say was that it was a moon shot with a 1% chance of winning. After Leadville and Javelina it was reasonable to think he had a 1% chance, especially after Walmsley dropped. Seems to me that "shock the world" and 1% chance go together. But there's no reasoning with the irrational. I would love to know the motivations of these blokes who hate Roche but consume his content then immediately pitch up on this site to criticise. Normal people can't be bothered with obsessively following athletes or politicos or journos that they hate. Self-hating poofs probably.

I find it interesting that people post all their stuff on social media to make a buck or two and then they are surprised when there is some backlash.
This guy was posting outrageous stuff full of false science in order to sell his training and now it looks like his training didn't work that great on himself.