I was upset when Oscar got kicked off of Step it up and dance. However, i am very happy he is back!

I agree there is a lot wrong with not only reality TV but TV in general. Unfortunately this is not the place to discuss or solve all the problems of television. Nama only brought that up to throw a wet towel on what we are trying to do here, that is correct the problems of one show. We are the viewers of Ms. Jackie Warner-Waddel's Work Out show. To be truthful with you I had not heard of many of those shows, not that I am questioning their existance. I imagine if the viewers of thoses shows were all that distressed by those programs they too would be writing sponsors, producers and the corporations that are presenting the program to the viewing public. Maybe you could check out those shows, see if there are boards to post onto and get the feel of what their thinking is at present. Then come back and let us know.

I think its ridiculous to keep referring to jackie as warner-waddell. A lot of people in Hollywood and in the entertainment industry change their name. I dont see anyone referring to Marilyn Monroe as Monroe-Baker. And come to think of it, Marilyn wasnt even her first name either!

Falzone-

Someone who knows the industry like I do...thank you for
the S and P comment...God I miss it. But hey, now the FCC gets to make money when some self righteous...***kicks own soapbox*** don't mind me.

Everyone-tell me someone reported Nama...three times is SPAM. We get it. But you are missing the point, we, the folks who watch the show are disappointed and want Bravo to get the show back to where it was and not the trainwreck that it has become. Yes, we know that Jackie is independent, but if a guy acted this way with his employees, he wouldn't have any and have sexual harassment lawsuits to boot. got it?

The whole cancer things is mean and was not expected. Note the problem that people have with it, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Enough huh?

The only good thing here is that there are still good people here on the net (I think most of you are pretty cool!) and many of them are hanging here.

Skates

Nama

I do not know what to say except that I do not have to argue with you, I will debate my three concerns: Ms. Jackie Warner-Waddel's behavior regarding clients, employees and romantic interests. Someone who feels they need to swear and to call people names as you do does not intimidate me, swearing and name calling does not intimidate anyone it usually just becomes annoying and turns people off, in addition I usually wonder if their vocabulary is really that inadequate.

I am only going to comment on my concerns in regards to Ms. Jackie Warner-Waddel and Work Out. I do not feel I need to watch or comment on the red herrings you have thrown in the mix. If these shows are of such a major concern to you, I suggest you pick up the gauntlets, climb onto your warrior mount of the knights of old and carry those standards and causes into battle.

If you are all that concerned about the people who might or have lost their jobs because we mobilized and expressed our objections to events on the program, I suggest you direct your venom to the correct people, the producers and editors of the program, they are the ones that decide what will be presented during the different episodes.

I do watch for mindless entertaiment some of the shows mentioned and even some other "train wreck" reality shows.

Sunset Tan, The Osbornes, Girls Next Door, Gene Simmons, Hogan Family etc. are scripted reality. A situation is scripted and they set a show around it.

Then you have the prize shows. I will say this catergory is where Bravo sets it self apart from the rest. Both Project Runway and Top Chef contestants were kicked off by the producers. Top Chef one contestant, a strong one at that was let go b/c he wrestled to the ground Marcel and held him down against his will. Project Runway a contestant brought pattern books (against the rules) and was let go. The integrity of the Bravo shows is why I do perfer them to ther others, with the exception of American Idol a show I have watched since the beginning. The rest I have watched a couple of shows or maybe a season, but didn't really keep my interest.

Workout, Housewives, Blow Out are more concept shows. They had a conscept in mind for a show then cast it. They chose the gym and trianers to be featured, no differntly from the Houswives show, they chose the women to be featrued. Is some of it set up, yes. Are real situations taking place along the way? Yes.

This issue is a he said, she said, she said, etc. Bottom line take Peeler out of it for a second. Lisa is saying Jackie made a comment and Rich wanted an apology from her as well. That is in her blog on this website. Jackie's same blog on this website says an entirely different story. She says she made no comment either on or off camera. Which is it?

Alot of people here including my self were looking for Jackie to act like the boss and be accountable for what was either said by her or in her presence by her employee. If that was done two weeks ago this would not be the issue it is now.

Jackie signed a deal with the devil if you will when she agreeded to be featured in Workout. She and her gym got exposure that would not have had otherwise. Jackie is taking smart advanatage of that exposure to expand the product line of Jackie Warner. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the exposure to the public you are selling your wares to, then you have to respect that same public when they want you to say you are sorry. That is damage controll 101. Look at the Miley Cyrus uproar from a few weeks ago. The pictures aired, there were statments and apologizes issued immediately, then a period of zero exposure to let the dust settle.

I am not suprised Jamie and or Rick are taking their time getting a statment prepared. They had no idea how Jackie would respond until the show aired two weeks ago, They diddn't know if Jackie said in the one on one spots that she was sorry, they didn't know if she would say she was sorry in her blog after the show aired. So when that didin't happen and eveyone was looking at them to tell the story, they had to meet with lawyers to make sure every single word on a statemet would hold up to legal scrutinty. I am sure there attonrneys needed to review any and all paperwork Jamie signed for Bravo before appearing on camera, and any statment she or Rick make doens't violate the agreement. I am sure there is a process taking place that is far more complicated than posting a blog. Hopefully we will see such a statment, who knows they may wait until a reunion show airs?

From Nama "Fact: There is no law against commenting on one's appearance. A claim of slander would be a giant legal jump. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_...defamation.html (It can be easily assumed that if this were considered a case of slander, some sort of legal action would have been taken six months ago.)"


According to Section 340 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
the statute of limitations for slander is normally one year from the
date of publication(incident). Nama you are incorrect when you say Jamie and Rich needed to make a move 6 months ago. The incident happened last Fall of '07, according to California law they would have until Fall of '08 to prepare a case. Could it be that Jamie and Rich have been getting their "ducks in a row"?

Nama, as a reality TV producer (and straight, Caucasian, aging liberal male), I much enjoyed reading the lengthy missive originally posted by RTHawk at askslesbian.com which you kindly reposted. It is filled with false factual assertions too numerous to detail about a number of reality programs with which I have an intimate acquaintance. I'd be happy to debate the details here or elsewhere should anyone actiually be interested. Personally, if I were you, I'd seek reliance in more credible purveyors of "fact." Doubtless, there are some.

I do know some of the people in the cast of Work Out from both a business and social context and have no desire to see the show cancelled. This is a firestorm that does Jackie no good, damages Bravo's excellent reputation, alienates advertisers away from this and other reality programming, and may result in reduced ratings and failure to renew the franchise. Was any of this really necessary? Anyone with half a brain who was involved should have easily crafted a plan to deal with what Jackie, the producers and Bravo should certainly have anticipated was within the probability of likely fan responses. Yet, the content of Jackie's own blog seemed so ill-considered that one must wonder if everyone associated with the show has had their head burried in the sand since taping last Fall. The only person seeming to take responsibility for anything is Lisa, and in some significant ways her recollection of events appears substantially different from Jackie's blog. (Of course, we have no way of knowing if either of them is actually the author of her named blog).

Where is the harm in hoping for a modicum of civility? Unless there is some action pending under Calilfornia labor law (perhaps under Title X) that would preclude Jackie from simply saying "I'm sorry this all happened. I and Sky Sport could have handled this better," that would have been -- from my distanced viewpoint -- the correct approach. Now that battle lines are drawn and swords (and pen quills) bloodied, it is likely that no one will emerge the victor.

V1 Man-

Wow. Thank you for stating it so well. As i have said in other places, editing can only get you so far.

Is it wrong to ask Bravo to air, or at least put here what was said and let the public decide? Women and men can be catty, but what was said? It seems like Lisa was scapegoated and that is the most uncool thing about the whole incident.

For everyone else-
When a show loses sponsors, it not only sullies the show, it sullies the network. TV is a business, first and foremost, this kind of stuff kills the show.

Skates

Lisa,

At the beginning of this fire storm, I came down on you pretty hard for what you said. I felt it was in extremely poor taste. I felt that Ms. Jackie Warner even listening to your comments was wrong, she is the owner/manager of Sky Sport and Spa and should have known better. Because you stepped up and owned up I must say I admire you for your courage.

I just started laughing when I saw the posts to derail the intent of the Jackie incident posts by naming countless other shows that "maybe" are just as bad as Work Out or worse. I don't watch those other shows, but even if I did, because something else is bad doesn't mean that another bad makes it right or ok. It also doesn't mean if we dislike something on one show we have to pick up the gauntlet and go after all shows. It also certainly doesn't mean that some here have never gone after other shows they deemed inappropriate as well.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the incidence at hand or the issues we are upset about. This is the show we are watching and this is the show that a number of us had a knee-jerk reaction to over the insensitive and disrespectful attitude of Jackie Warner and her treatment towards others, specifically Jamie.

By saying other shows are bad doesn't change the fact that Jackie made fun of a client's body, who happened to be a breast cancer survivor. It doesn't change the fact that she chose that incident to fire Peeler over because he politely questioned her actions in that incident. It doesn't change the fact that Jackie has shown nothing but total disrespect towards almost everyone on that show. and most importantly, it doesn't change the fact that Jackie obviously believes she's above ever having to apologize to someone for a very distasteful action she participated in.

Posts about other bad shows or claiming statements are being made purely because of Jackie's sexual orientation are just smoke screens to cover the fact that what she did can't be rationalized or defended. So lets just throw in the kitchen sink to try and hide what's really going on:

Jackie's behavior was disgusting.

Well...that's at least a positive step. Though with your attitude about the morbidly obese (as demonstrated by your posts) I hope you are not in a position to train anybody with that problem.

IMHO

sr

As time has passed and this issue has itself been smeared I began

thinking about the sequence of events. I do this. When people begin

to attempt to justify the unjustifiable I begin looking deeper into what

happened to see if I missed anything. So here goes.

Jackie and Lisa are in her office WATCHING Brian Peeler working out a

client. Despite the level of workout Brian Peeler is doing all Jackie

notices at first is that Brian Peeler isn't wearing his UNIFORM. Does

Jackie call him in and bring up the subject professionally??? NOPE. She

gives a shirt that is the official uniform shirt and has Lisa the office

manager take it to him on the floor and has her TELL Brian that he is not

wearing his uniform and pretty rudely tells him to put it on. Now, we

all know Brian Peeler and Jackie has issues. HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS

GROUP BELIEVES THIS WAS DONE FOR THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE? DOES

ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS DONE TO MAKE BRIAN PUT ON HIS

UNIFORM OR DO YOU BELIEVE THIS WAS DONE TO PROVOKE BRIAN

PEELER??? I have decided this was done to provoke Brian Peeler. To

bad for Jackie Warner because this did not provoke Brian Peeler to

any sort of disrespectful behavior. So does Jackie and Lisa stop their

actions or do they continue to attempt to provoke Brian Peeler? Well,

yes they do. THE TWO WOMEN DECIDE TO TRASH HIS CLIENT BECAUSE

ANYONE WHO JUST WATCHES THE SHOW KNOWS HOW PROTECTIVE

BRIAN IS WITH HIS CLIENT. After they are caught by clients boyfriend

do they apologize in an appropriate manner thus ending the situation or

do they apologize in a way that will once more PROVOKE BRIAN. They

decide to provoke Brian Peeler once more which in turn is disrespectful

to the Client. Next morning does Jackie Warner pull Brian Peeler aside

and discuss with him what happened and attempt to make amends to

Brian Peeler like any other rational human being would do unless of

course the rationale human being was trying to PROVOKE BRIAN PEELER.

She follows the path of either not being rational or she is simply creating

a situation to provoke Brian Peeler so she will have the right to FIRE

BRIAN PEELER. Because of how this went down and how Jackie Warner

has stubbornly decided to ignore the situation I have come to believe

that this entire incident was not an accident. The moment Jackie

Warner DOES THE RIGHT THING IS THE SAME MOMENT SHE WILL HAVE

TO GIVE BRIAN PEELER HIS JOB BACK OR ELSE COMPENSATION. This

explains why Jackie Warner refuses to do the right thing. To do so will

change her legal stance making it legally acceptable to not compensate

Brian Peeler or to make him whole by giving him his job back, as if he

might want it. Jackie Warner wanted Peeler out of her gym and off the

show. As long as she does not accept responsibility she will not have

to compensate or make whole Brian Peeler. Now for me at least it makes

sense. I used to be a Union Steward which is why I have been trying

to work out the entire situation since it happened. It didn't fit. Once

you make this a planned firing, everything falls into place. Sorry for the

repetition. It seemed necessary as I wrote it.

Kari Ana

It is important to note that Jamie and her boyfriend could not have

legally done anything at all until the episode aired because they

signed a confidentiality clause like all reality show people sign. Had

they had anyone served with legal papers before the episode aired first

they wouldn't know what to file on because they didn't see the final

edit till it aired. The year will begin for slander on the air date not

before. Also, until the show aired the incident was just tacky and in

bad taste. Once it aired it was then something that a legal team can

file a complaint about.

Kari Ana

A smart lawyer would wait until all of this season's episodes were aired to see if anything else was pending.

Yep...I took a tumble a few years ago and severely sprained my ankle....had to do PT for it...and it HURT! Posted about it here...

Just seeing the scenes of Deenie "walking" on the wet sand made me cringe in sympathatic pain.

sr

My sweetie knows...I'd switch teams for Melissa...and I waited ten years to be with him! LOL *sigh* However, since she's happily married I guess I just got a settle for owning all her albums.



sr

Some excerpts from a standard reality show confidentiality agreement:

PRODUCER'S UNFETTERED EDITORIAL LICENSE: I understand that, in and in connection with the Program, I may reveal and/or relate, and other parties (including, without limitation, other participants and Producer), may reveal and/or relate information about me of a personal, surprising, defamatory, disparaging, embarrassing or unfavorable nature, which may be factual or fictional. I further understand that my appearance, depiction, and/or portrayal in and in connection with the Program, and my actions and the actions of others displayed in and in connection with the Program, may be disparaging, defamatory, embarrassing or of an otherwise unfavorable nature, may expose me to public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation. I further understand that the Producers are free to engage in edits of the Program in their sole unfettered discretion, I understand that such editing may cause me to be seen in a more or less favorable fashion than other participants and the editing process could portray me in negative light.

DAMAGES FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: I understands and agrees that any disclosure or misappropriation of any of the Confidential Information at any time in violation of this Release will cause the production irreparable harm, including nut not limited to: affecting game play for the contestants; eliminating the surprise, tension and outcome of the Program for the viewing public; adversely affecting television ratings of the Program; and/or placing Producers in breach of their agreements with the network and other third parties. I further understand and agrees that given that determining the extent or amount of such damages would be difficult or impossible ascertain in a court of law, I agree I shall be liable to pay to Producers a sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10 Million Dollars), plus attorneys' fees (collectively referred to as "Liquidated Damages"). I understand and agree that this Liquidated Damages provision is realistic and reasonable given the impact on ratings and revenue that such a disclosure could have on the Program (and the actual damages in the event of such a disclosure involving the elements of the Program would likely to be far in excess of $10 Million Dollars).


ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK: I know, understand and acknowledge the scope, nature and extent of the risks involved in working on a production that will primarily be filming in real life environments as opposed to a "Producer controlled closed set",� as well as risks associated with travel, transportation and participation in athletic endeavors. I EXPRESSLY, VOLUNTARILY AND IRREVOCABLY ASSUME ALL RISK OF DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY AND/OR DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF MY PROPERTY SUSTAINED WHILE PARTICIPATING IN ANY AND ALL ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRAVEL) DURING MY PARTICIPATION (BOTH ON AND OFF CAMERA) AND/OR DURING MY ASSOCIATION WITH THE PRODUCTION WHETHER OR NOT CONTEMPLATED IN THIS AGREEMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT SUCH DAMAGE IS CAUSED BY A NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMMISSION OR ANY DEFECT IN THE SURROUNDINGS OR EQUIPMENT PROVIDED.

VALIDITY OF WAIVER/PARTIES BOUND BY AGREEMENT: I understand that if I institute or anyone on my behalf institutes, any suit or action at law or any claim for damages or cause of action against any of the Producers, organizations and/or persons described in this Release because of injury to my person or property, or my death, due to the activities covered by this Release, this Release can and will be used in court as conclusive evidence of my full informed "covenant not to sue" Producers, and it is my full intent and desire that this waiver be given full force and effect to prevent any litigation brought by my estate, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns who may attempt to bring suit against the Releases. I have freely relinquished my right to sue and thus my successors, heirs and assigns shall be equally bound in law and equity by this covenant not to sue.

And this is from Oprah's "The Big Give"

Read full (5 pages) agreement here
http://images.oprah.com/uyl/harpoprod/harp...ing_release.pdf

I will never be on a reality show. Especially if I give them the right to maim or kill me, and my estate, nor my heirs can recoop damages. How bloody stupid is that?

Thanks for the great info Liam!

The agreement goes into much more detail. If you get a chance (and have some Advil on hand to get through all of the legalize), you should give it a look.

I tried to include what I thought was pertinent to the situation at hand.


BTW, The agreement I signed with my job (my earlier post about wrongful termination) included a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Right to Sue Waiver. My case would have gone to Arbitration not Civil Court. And I was a private individual, working in the public sector.
California is a 'Right to Work" state, which means an employer can fire an employee at any time, for any reason, without notice.
Many states have these laws. The burden of proof is on the employee to prove the termination was for discriminatory reasons and was there for a violation of state and/or federal law.

Oh, well then, of course I'll sign. I cannot imagine why someone would not give up all rights to humane treatment! Can you believe they include a clause that freely admits to the possibility of "fictionalizing" reality? Excuse me, but I believe that is a perfect example of an oxymoron.

At any rate, I do not believe there is any case for slander here. Bad judgement and bad behavior certainly, but at the best of times slander is very difficult to win. The burden rises way above embarrassment. Somehow I think the fallout over Episode 3 will re-energize the victims and simply bury the guilty.

[Sorry, sometimes I fall back on British spellings.]

Hey all! Sorry I have not been contributing a whole lot last couple of days...got some wildfires going on here in South Florida...sure my friends from California can relate. Why? Why would anyone sign that contract? I can't figure it out. Still don't know why those few posters don't get what we are upset about. I wish they would take the time to read all of the previous posts before spewing off.

Hey JC...looks like just you and me and 1 anonymous...hope we get a visit from your Farmgirl later!

I just thought of two things about that reality contract.

That contract protects the producers, but does it protect Jackie, and the gym itself?

Second question, I remember reading something from Peeler stating he was a subcontractor renting space in the gym. If this is true and Jackie in fact revoked his lease, that isn't exactly a employee/employer situation. Isn't that a lot like a hair dresser renting space in someone's shop? You pay rent for your spot(chair), and the owner gets a percentage? Is it legal to just terminate someone's lease in CA?

^^^ This made me laugh and I agree with Gracie as well. Liamin, I would add Millionaire Matchmaker to that list... there are so many shows that are just wrong. I do kind of like the woman who owns the Matchmaker agency.

Mostly, I'm really confused. I was really annoyed by the whole thing w/ Jackie, etc. My posts were pretty direct about what I thought... I thought Bravo should remove Jackie and replace her w/ someone else.. then I made someone mad and I don't even remember why and I didn't mean to and then everyone started yelling at everyone else and my head started to hurt.

I still don't believe that Brian is any better. And thank you CTMum for offering this bit

When I first saw the promos for Work Out Season One, I really thought Jackie was going to be like my 8th Grade gym teacher, totally butch, appeared unpleasant but was really very nice. (Does anyone watch Weeds? Remember the woman who made pot baked goods? Well, like her!) But Jackie wasn't that interesting or dynamic. She was just another celebuwannabe. I was never a Jackie fan and well, Brian was right up there with her. Remember the Palm Springs trip? That whole thing was so cringe worthy. So when Jackie made a huge blunder, it was pretty easy for me to jump all over it. I was right there questioning her qualifications, etc but again, thought Brian was as equally limited and possibly more so. Don't hate me for saying that but I think they're both just at the opposite ends of ick spectrum. Brian won't shut up and Jackie won't say anything. I'm telling you! They just cancel each other out. So I go back to my original theory which is that Jackie really should step up and say something. At this point, I can't imagine Jamie Eason or her boyfriend caring. I really can't. If anything, they've both received a great deal of attention that they wouldn't have otherwise and I think it shows a great deal of class by not commenting. Of course, that doesn't really apply to Jackie. Maybe she just needs to hire a really good publicist?

Anywho, I have a question or three... specifically to Liamin, were you a fan of Jackie's? I mean, do you feel that she's let you down? I guess that question goes for anyone... That argument makes more sense to me than the one about her doing Brian wrong. If you truly admired her and feel betrayed, I think that's fair holds more weight than the argument of standing up for someone else. I agree with Nama on that.

I dunno...I'm still trying to work it all out. I still can’t remember why I watched the show in the first place? I think maybe because it was purrty….



I would love to see Jackie apologize. If I was her publicist, this is what I'd have her say: "I'm very sorry that I have let my fans down. My actions were inappropriate and inconsiderate. I have spoken with Jamie Eason and we have resolved the issue. (I don't think she needs to give us or Brian the info on that) I work everyday to better myself and this is a lesson learned." Then maybe say something about how important the fans are and how she's grateful for what they've given her??? Oh and then maybe she could throw in that Maya Angelou quote :’you did what you knew how to do, and when you knew better, you did better.'

Here's my fantasy solution- Let Brian go, Jackie can stay but she has to replace her therapist with Dr. Phil (that will cover the lame therapist and Brian all in one.) Bravo must bring in Martina Navratilova for some motivational speaking and training tips (She's my idol and icon!), I've noticed that RuPaul is back in the news... I'd love to see him do some sort of water work out class. And how about Richard Simmons? I think he could use some work/exposure right now. Get him involved in the SkyLab bootcamps! Ummm... I'd like to see a competitive bodybuilder on the show… (Does Sky Sport even have free weights?) How 'bout hiring Jennifer and Zoi from Top Chef to prepare meals for skylabbers and why doesn't Jackie have Jesse getting more involved in that? (P.S. Jennifer should have NEVER been sent home!), Jeana from OC housewives can train with Rebecca, Ben from Make me a Supermodel should be hired as a new trainer and I want to see Tyson training at Sky Sport ALOT! Without his shirt!!

I'm not sure...it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I'm not a big fan of litigation...sure wish Bravo would have just done the obvious thing and address the situation with its viewers, now former viewers.

I hope we see her today. Maybe she doesn't love us anymore?
I too don't have allot to say, maybe later....

I guess I would equate being on a reality show to jumping out of an airplane (where you also sign a waiver against accidental injury or death).

The individuals who participate must feel the reward is worth the risk.

Of course, expanding on that analogy. If someone knows the risks and jumps without checking if they have a parachute on (let alone a reserve chute), they should expect less than favorable consequences.


After all, producers can't use what you don't give them.

I can answer this one because I'm an independent contractor in California... yea! Um, every contract is a little bit different but almost all of them say that it can be terminated at will and for no reason. I don't know about other states but it's really becoming the norm out here. Even my FedEx guy is an independent contractor. It gives a company the flexibility not allowed under many of CA's strict employment laws and also, you don't have to pay any sort of benefits to a contracted employee. As far as pay structure goes, it just depends on the industry. A trainer would be getting paid by clients so yes, they would then hand over a percentage to whoever is contracting them. But many executives are independent contractors and are paid with traditional salaries, stock options and bonuses. Every year, the contract must be renegotiated. That's my husband's world. It can be tense. If a company is considering a downsized, they might hand out a 3 or 6 month contract and you're like wholly crap! What's going on! Again, it's protection. Contracted execs are not counted as "unemployed" if their contract is not renewed so it protects a company's figures. It sounds terrible but there is an upside of being able to leverage and make a great deal more money than you would as a traditional employee.


Did I even answer the question???????? heh:)

Looks like it is just us old timers in here... I have a headache and am un-motivated today....

nelson, I hope the Fires are not close to you. We so far have been lucky on my little patch of Earth....

One other thing, it depends on the contract but most do stipulate that even though you are contracted, you must still abide by the company's rules, regulations, etc. That would include a uniform. My fedex guy still shows up in a uniform. So yes, Jackie could easily require that Brian wear her clothes.

It's sort of a "hey, do you want to make money here? If you don't want to sign the contract and play by our rules, go elsewhere."

Thank you so much. I know quite a few things but had no idea about gyms and being a subcontractors, especially way out west. I am a great believer that if you have a question to ask.
It is nice to own your own business, but I would never raise my voice at an employee, much less cuss at them. In my state also, if the boss suddenly decides that you are ugly, they can fire you. I would have to have a reason, and a good one.

The interview I read, that was what Peeler was saying. Being a subcontractor, he did not have a problem wearing Jackie's stuff if she required it. That was her call. If you remember that as soon as Lisa gave it to him, he went and changed.
Just found the address for that interview.

http://www.realitywanted.com/newsitem/1116...ian-youre-fired

Oh don't go there! We have 5 acres high in the hills. It's been so hot. I'd much rather Mother Nature give me a good rattle than send me a fire!

I suppose it's the price we pay for living in such a great place!

I think someone else said something about the clothes thing. Maybe another poster? I can't remember. Again, I think they were both wrong. Brian shouldn't have worn a PeelerBuilt shirt in Sky Sport and she shouldn't have interrupted his training session over the issue. See! They cancel each other out!

The down side of this is that in a bad economy, some employers really start taking advantage of people. I remember 8 or 9 years ago, we could basically dictate our terms and wants... not now.

I asked Peeler about this when he was here and was wondering the same thing. He said he rented from Jackie and also worked for her, a duo setup. I hope I remember this correctly. If he trained his own client he paid her $15.00. If Jackie secured the client and gave the client to Peeler, she paid him.

No they aren't close to me yet...but the smoke is choking. I can't see or breathe. Scary.

That makes sense.

I just want to know how the whole thing went down. I mean the creation of the show. Who did what first? How the producers negotiated with Jackie basically forcing her to take on trainers who were cast on the show but not her choice? I think it would be very interesting.

Example, Andre still trains at Sky Sport but is not longer on the show. Was that his choice? Or did the producers decide that he didn't score well and needed to be replaced with someone younger? Notice that none of the trainers are older than Jackie or married. Only Doug was older. I said this before but I still think they really tried too hard to dumb down the show this year and turn it into some sort of Real World production. Greg P is cute and everything and Renessa is pretty but why are they there? Oh yeah, because producers decided that we're so stupid we need "that" in order to tune in. I said I like pretty but it was kind of a joke. I mostly like interesting.

I just reread that interview with Brain Peeler and I remembered something that Jamie Eason had said. Jamie said she had to sign a release before she could train with Peeler that night.
Now look at this quote from Brian.
"A. Brian Peeler, Bravo’s Workout: Jackie didn’t even know who Jamie Eason was. Jamie is the number one fitness model and she told me to take her to another club. You would think Jackie would know who she was. To be honest I feel sorry for Jackie right now."
Which means the next day Jackie probably did not know, nor did she care who the woman was, but the producers knew because they got her to sign that release.

Did the forces that be, just let Jackie commit a type of professional suicide without telling her?

ok i just woke up. am i reading this right? did jamie eason not want to work out at skysport and wanted peeler to meet her somewhere else? *rubbing eyes and yawning*

No No No, hands Gracie a cup of coffee.
Jackie did not know who Jamie was, even when she was getting rid of Peeler, telling him to take his client(Jamie Eason) someplace else.

Ok now??????

I think it should have been read like this:

"Jamie is the number one fitness model and she(Jackie) told me to take her to another club."

I'm pretty sure he ment Jackie told him to take his client elsewhere.

ok i see now!!!
Thanks yall!

I think we are being told that when Peeler was training Jamie Eason that night Jackie Warner did not know who she was. I think or suspect Jackie knew who she was after the confrontation with Jamie's boyfriend that same evening.

I am sure she knew who Peeler's client was by the next day when Peeler went into her office, she fired him and told him to take his client elsewhere. Jackie is too schrewd a business woman not to know (even if only by sight) who Jamie Eason is.

Personally I think and I have nothing to support this, I have a feeling that Jackie knew exactly who Jamie was when she first walked in Sky Sport and Spa. The reason I feel like this is because Jamie is well know in the field and it would be to Jackie's advantage to know all the important people in the field, at least by sight. I think that probably the reason she sent Lisa out with the "Uniform." It would have been nice if before the work out Peeler had stopped by Jackie's off with Jamie. I have a feeling things were so deteriorated between the two of them it was just a matter of time before the explosion happened. They both were doing things that would annoy the other. I support Peeler in all of this mess.

I think the producers played the lowest common denominator in general. Obviously, something went down early on in casting that made someone realize that Jackie and Brian were not going to get along. That's what they wanted from the beginning. Add to it the straight man arguing with a lesbian and it complicates the matter even further. Jackie should have just kept quiet. She should have said, "okay, I'll play you're little game but I'm not going to give you what you want." (Which was a continuous battle with Brian.)

As for knowing Jamie, I think that's a bit unfair for Brian to say. My business partner doesn't know who she is and I don't think she'd care either. (we never talk about this...heh:) She's a runner and she trains runners, my focus is slightly different... anyway, only I know who Jamie is... and honestly, it was on accident. Most of the people I work with wouldn't know Jamie Eason. They wouldn't know who Jackie Warner is either. I guess it depends on the style of gym. If you're in a place that focuses on lifting and building.. like a Gold's Gym then you would probably know who some of these people are. I don't think Sky Sport has that type of clientele.

I came down hard on Jackie for not knowing who Jamie was as well but then after I started a couple of conversations with people (including my husband) and I received more than a couple of "Who?" and "Why are you talking about this?" I reconsidered my position.

That's me. I'm involved in sports but I always want and have the gossip on the athletes... I can't help it. It's as crazy as the world of celebrity and I think it's more interesting because you're dealing with some very talented people as opposed to the Paris Hiltons of the world. Still, it's a terrible habit. Just for the record, I don't spread anything. I just like knowing. Terrible. Awful of me.

KisaB,
I wouldn't say I was a fan of Jackie Warner's per se (her personal behavior on the show was always a little questionable for me from season 1) but I was definitely a fan of Work Out. The shift in tone seemed radically different and the show itself is not the same for me as in previous seasons (and that did disappoint me as a loyal viewer). Jackie Warner's portrayal this season so far, is really what I am protesting. I don't know her. I don't know most people I see on TV. But I feel I have the right (and obligation) as a viewer to express my opinion.

But I'm a "big boy" and I realize my opinions are just that my own personal tastes or point of view. The creators of entertainment (in any or all it's forms) do not need to appease my personal sensibilities, in fact I love to be surprised and have my consciousness expanded. I feel when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

I also love to hear opposing opinions and try my best to listen to (and learn from) other people's personal experiences. I especially value hearing a completely different point of view from my own.
I know that I personally learn far more from criticism than I ever do from praise (praise tends to be general "you did good..." where criticism is usually more specific "this is what you did wrong...").

And I fully support everyone who is identifying themselves as gay on TV or in the media. Good or bad, just being on TV (or movies or music etc.) is a huge step for the LGBT community. For me personally, it's about visibility.

While I was growing up (I was born in 1968) there were very few portrayals of gay men on TV (and then usually only a very narrow "perspective" of an extremely diverse group of people from diametrically opposed walks of life).

I struggled with my sexuality as a teen, I tried to be "straight". I thought my choices were "happy heterosexual existence" or "hated, shame-filled, lonely life of a homosexual". I thought if I can't cure myself of this and be normal, I would rather be dead than to have anyone know I was a "homo"!

Do you want to know what changed my mind (and probably saved a stupid kid from doing the unthinkable)?

A TV show!

An episode of "The Phil Donahue Show" about gay teens. It probably sounds trite but it's the truth.
For the first time in my life I saw my experiences represented on TV.
This was a complete revelation to me and I have endeavored from that moment on to educate myself not only about the gay community but also about every marginalized section of our society (even those whose views sometimes threaten my existence in America and the rest of the world).

I know this is wordy (wow, I didn't think this response would be this long, and encompass so much). But this issue and the responses on this board have affected me emotionally way more than I ever thought it would.

Thanks in advance for listening to my diatribe and allowing me the opportunity to "Over Share" for a moment.

Not "over share" ... good reading. Let's hope the next generation is spared the fear of falling into that Well of Loneliness.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Telling us your feelings and experiences only adds to our education.

First off, please excuse me for not paying attention to if you were male of female. I can't read everyday so when I'm here I'm playing catch up! Also, I think I over share and go too long in all of my posts...

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I think it's very valid. I posted this in my previous posts but I'm basically a straight girl in a gay world. I won't bore everyone with the details again but I am very close to my gay brother, have dealt directly with AIDS and have spent most of my life surrounded by what many would consider very stereotypical butch women because of my sport.

I understand the argument of circling the wagons and protecting one of our own (and I do feel like I'm part of that). But I've just never been able to figure out what message Jackie wanted to put out there? I certainly don't expect her to be a role model but I also never really felt like she was a lesbian as much as she was a woman who slept with other women. I don't know if that makes sense?? I just can't figure her out...

I think my favorite storyline on the show was the conflict between Doug and Jesse. I thought it was so real. It's someting that happens all the time. Hmmmmm.... I'm still confused only because I'm not sure if I think Jackie changed this year or if the format of the show changed?

I guess for me, the format of the show really did change and that was a disappointment. I'm not sure they know what they want the show to be? Is it a fitness show? It is a show about relationships between trainers? What the hell is it now? Bravo has broad appeal within the gay and lesbian community but with this year's Work Out, I get the feeling they want to attract more straight people? It's just a guess. With Andy's stupid comments about straight women and Jackie and with the addition of Renessa and Greg.

Whatever is going on.. Bravo certainly doesn't seem interested in taking care of what's going on now. They could easily address the situation and shut Brian Peeler up but (and I know I'm going to get total flak for this).. but Brian does appeal to a certain straight demographic (not saying that everyone here who likes him is in that demographic or that it's bad.... just sayin') Bravo wants ratings and like it or not, this "thing" helps them. I'm starting to think that Andy is a totally twisted human being.

Some of what I'm saying, I'm just now thinking about but maybe all of this mess with Brian and Jamie is much bigger than Jackie? I mean, maybe Jackie is taking the heat for some twisted grand design on the part of the producers? Okay, here's what I think in this moment and of course it may change 5 minutes from now but I think the producers are as equally responsible. Yes, Jackie should address the current situation and apologize but much of this could have been dealt with early on. The producers could have added a statement at the end of the show saying something like, "on behalf of Bravo, Work Out and all involved, we'd like to apologized to Jamie Eason and all breast cancer survivors and blah blah blah..."

As far as reaching out to the gay community, Bravo and the producers need to think about the games their playing. I don't think anyone tuned into Work Out in the beginning because they wanted to see a bunch of so-called hot people making out? Maybe I'm wrong but we can get that anywhere. I put some of that on Jackie as well. How many times has she said, "Sex sells"?? That may be true but for how long?

I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore. I just know that I was annoyed with the show and Jackie's mistake but equally annoyed that this thing has turned into the Brian Peeler show. I think it's much deeper than Brian... beyond that, still totally confused.

But thank you Liam! Your posts really do make sense to me. Even if I'm totally unable to express myself.