sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
spill the tea wrote:
I just watched the story and holey moley was the video she posted with it super weird. Or was it just me?
Probably just you. The obsession people have with saying negative things about this woman because she declined a contract from Nike is pretty weird.
This, because misogyny.
Too much CBD ...
In good old Letsrun fashion everyone assumes the worst and thinks they know what's going on behind the scenes.
Colleen knows what she's doing. She's not an idiot. She has a new coach who she likes much better. Jerry and BTC weren't working out. Yes, they are the most elite training group in the US, but they are adding so much talent and I highly doubt Jerry cares much about female physiology, not unlike Salazar and his reputation with female athletes. Emily and Vanessa are also consistently injured. Jerry trains them into the ground, then somehow these women bounce back in a super short amount of time, then they get injured again. It clearly wasn't working for Colleen.
Colleen is incredibly influential among young girls and in the sport of T&F. Any company can see that marketing value. She's not going with a shoe sponsor. She's going to sign with an unexpected brand trying to make a name in running and probably make twice what Nike offered her.
Reaction to this particular aspect of her saga isn't about misogyny. We discuss male and female athletes' contracts all the time. If Ryan Hill was suddenly running amongst the sunflowers saying he declined Nike to join Hoka, it would be equally as odd.
She is signaling to this message board that she isn’t having a mental breakdown and no prospects of a sponsor when I reality.....
Too hot to fail.
spursy wrote:
Reaction to this particular aspect of her saga isn't about misogyny. We discuss male and female athletes' contracts all the time. If Ryan Hill was suddenly running amongst the sunflowers saying he declined Nike to join Hoka, it would be equally as odd.
^^ exactly. We talk about it so much because it's peculiar, mainly because it's been such a long time between sponsors and she is marketable. Typically the very marketable people are scooped up quickly.
to the other poster - being an idiot has nothing to do with anything. Someone can make a decision to the best of their knowledge at the time and it may or may not turn out to be a mistake.
spursy wrote:
Reaction to this particular aspect of her saga isn't about misogyny. We discuss male and female athletes' contracts all the time. If Ryan Hill was suddenly running amongst the sunflowers saying he declined Nike to join Hoka, it would be equally as odd.
It probably won't be 7 pages long, laced with sh!t about how he needs to stop making Instagram stories and chalking up his marketability to his looks, etc.
That's a breathtakingly thoughtless take. The breadth and scope of it sure is misogynistic. Nobody speculated negatively on Hill's or Ben True's or Noah Droddy's intelligence or personality in discussion of their sponsorships ending. Multiple different posters on here have gladly done this very thing about Quigley. Don't be daft.
If we assume that she is currently still without contract given how long it's been and the fact that she hasn't even said "exciting things coming!" or something to that effect, I have to wonder if her repeatedly throwing shade at Nike is something that would turn potential sponsors off.
She has also alluded in several posts that she might be moving to LA (which is I believe where her boyfriend is based), so not sure what that would mean for her current coaching setup?
I have a feeling she will move to LA too. She is here right now and I got the feeling it was to potentially scope things out. Not only from a running perspective, but also in terms of marketing potential (just more opportunity here if she goes that route). Yeah have no idea what that would mean coaching wise or who she would train with (have seen her with pappas) so we will see.
spursy wrote:
Reaction to this particular aspect of her saga isn't about misogyny. We discuss male and female athletes' contracts all the time. If Ryan Hill was suddenly running amongst the sunflowers saying he declined Nike to join Hoka, it would be equally as odd.
"not about misogyny" my ass. Multiple comments here have said that Colleen "relies on her looks" to propel her career, insinuating that she has no real talent outside of modeling and running fast and that her decision to leave Nike was stupid. This board has questioned her intelligence over and over again in this thread. Literally STFU.
Most of you are just jealous you can't date someone as successful and confident as Colleen. I'm sorry ya'll feel intimated by her.
Well, I don't think it's about misogyny. I mean, when Mo Farah started shilling for really odd stuff like cleaning products and the Djibouti Port Authority we all noted it. That said, I don't find her that attractive but appreciate she is a much better athlete than I am.
If hobbyjogger personalities on social media can make six figures a year, she'll be fine. I do think a traditional shoe contract might be slipping away now that she's crapping on Nike and didn't "play nice" with her teammates, whether that's the truth or not. Plus, is she injured now?
why wrote:
In good old Letsrun fashion everyone assumes the worst and thinks they know what's going on behind the scenes.
Colleen knows what she's doing. She's not an idiot. She has a new coach who she likes much better. Jerry and BTC weren't working out. Yes, they are the most elite training group in the US, but they are adding so much talent and I highly doubt Jerry cares much about female physiology, not unlike Salazar and his reputation with female athletes. Emily and Vanessa are also consistently injured. Jerry trains them into the ground, then somehow these women bounce back in a super short amount of time, then they get injured again. It clearly wasn't working for Colleen.
Colleen is incredibly influential among young girls and in the sport of T&F. Any company can see that marketing value. She's not going with a shoe sponsor. She's going to sign with an unexpected brand trying to make a name in running and probably make twice what Nike offered her.
Source?
suddenly supporting women wrote:
Well, I don't think it's about misogyny. I mean, when Mo Farah started shilling for really odd stuff like cleaning products and the Djibouti Port Authority we all noted it. That said, I don't find her that attractive but appreciate she is a much better athlete than I am.
If hobbyjogger personalities on social media can make six figures a year, she'll be fine. I do think a traditional shoe contract might be slipping away now that she's crapping on Nike and didn't "play nice" with her teammates, whether that's the truth or not. Plus, is she injured now?
Too stupid for words.
runr375 wrote:
...(have seen her with pappas) so we will see.
Pappas....as in Atreyu?
birdbeard wrote:
spursy wrote:
Reaction to this particular aspect of her saga isn't about misogyny. We discuss male and female athletes' contracts all the time. If Ryan Hill was suddenly running amongst the sunflowers saying he declined Nike to join Hoka, it would be equally as odd.
It probably won't be 7 pages long, laced with sh!t about how he needs to stop making Instagram stories and chalking up his marketability to his looks, etc.
The difference is she craves the attention. She posts about every aspect of her life from every freaking meal she cooks to jumping on every woke bandwagon under the sun, that deserves the scrutiny it gets.
Of course people will comment on her looks, the whole reason she couldn’t get the money she wanted from Nike was based on her perceived value of her looks because it certainly wasn’t based on her performance value.
LetsIncel wrote:
That's a breathtakingly thoughtless take. The breadth and scope of it sure is misogynistic. Nobody speculated negatively on Hill's or Ben True's or Noah Droddy's intelligence or personality in discussion of their sponsorships ending. Multiple different posters on here have gladly done this very thing about Quigley. Don't be daft.
To offer a tiny bit of fairness, none of those mentioned are near the level of Quigley in terms of success in their event or events, so there is less incentive to speculate about their contracts. If they lose a contract or switch sponsors, it would be pretty obvious why. Quigley is at or near the peak of her career, so it is odd to see a contract switch wt this time.
But yea, I most agree with you.
FalseNewsWatcher wrote:
why wrote:
In good old Letsrun fashion everyone assumes the worst and thinks they know what's going on behind the scenes.
Colleen knows what she's doing. She's not an idiot. She has a new coach who she likes much better. Jerry and BTC weren't working out. Yes, they are the most elite training group in the US, but they are adding so much talent and I highly doubt Jerry cares much about female physiology, not unlike Salazar and his reputation with female athletes. Emily and Vanessa are also consistently injured. Jerry trains them into the ground, then somehow these women bounce back in a super short amount of time, then they get injured again. It clearly wasn't working for Colleen.
Colleen is incredibly influential among young girls and in the sport of T&F. Any company can see that marketing value. She's not going with a shoe sponsor. She's going to sign with an unexpected brand trying to make a name in running and probably make twice what Nike offered her.
Source?
A source isn't needed? Colleen literally talks about these things on her instagram. She has a new coach who she's raved about and she said not signing with Nike was a "huge weight off her shoulders". It's obvious Jerry's training wasn't working for her and likely contributing to her injuries. And she is constantly talking about women's fashion & collaborating with cool brands. Anyone tuned into her channels can figure this out.
mambaskills wrote:
birdbeard wrote:
It probably won't be 7 pages long, laced with sh!t about how he needs to stop making Instagram stories and chalking up his marketability to his looks, etc.
The difference is she craves the attention. She posts about every aspect of her life from every freaking meal she cooks to jumping on every woke bandwagon under the sun, that deserves the scrutiny it gets.
Of course people will comment on her looks, the whole reason she couldn’t get the money she wanted from Nike was based on her perceived value of her looks because it certainly wasn’t based on her performance value.
Even just saying “craves attention” is pretty stupid and misogynistic. How do you know? Could it be that she makes a living partially on her social media following and wants to maximize her income? Would you criticize a man for marketing/hustling?
How do you know anything about her negotiations with Nike?
Ah, you don’t. You are speculating based on your impressions of her due to the stereotypes you’ve lumped her into.
Get gone!