MangoFed

This doesn't pass the sniff test. As others have mentioned, contestants are sequestered and there are NDAs that cover telling people what happened. And since when do Tom and Mike have such a relationship that this is even possible? And how does Tom get this idea through production, and all the other people who have input in the show (he doesn't call 100% of the shots). Does he just say "We're doing this to help my buddy, and the rest of you can suck it", and no one raises a complaint? Also, 'competition' shows are actually regulated pretty heavily for this exact reason. I mean, the fact that they didn't start LCK until AFTER this twist is more evidence (delaying production schedules is expensive, so it's a safe assumption that they didn't audible that). This just seems like an Ocaam's Razor type of thing. You can either believe there's a conspiracy, and find weird and creative ways to justify the thousands of flaws in that argument, or you can believe that it was a twist that was planned that George happened to benefit from. As for the Blais thing, I don't get how he 'made it about him'. It's not like he required the use of those ingredients. He added them so people could use them if they were inclined. The fact that Doug won despite not using any of them showed that there were solid pairings within the basket, and he (like Tom) was just giving them multiple directions to go into.

I think the conspiracy theorists are looking hard for something that isn't there. From the chef's perspective, George did get a raw deal. He lost a team-dependent challenge, was unlucky to choose a really good competitor, and turned out a good dish that wasn't as good as Gregory's. I can see them being sympathetic.

On a somewhat unrelated note, is anyone rooting for Aaron to come out of LCK just to see what a clusterfuck it would be? He doesn't have the chops to pull it off, fortunately, but the reaction from the chefs would almost make it worth having to deal with him again.

Doug wasn't familiar with those ingredients either. He just didn't use them. I think it was a pretty decent basket. No one was forced to use ingredients they were uncomfortable with, and there were certainly good pairings in Richards basket, as Doug showed. I could be wrong, but I believe he said to call him 'Dougie' in the first challenge.

I think you have to heavily incentivize risk-taking. In the All-Stars season, the winner of the challenge got $10 000, which is enough of a reward for most of these chefs to force them to come out of their shell. Maybe throwing money at the problem is the solution? Of course, then you get into feasibility issues and whatnot, and whether the person footing the bill thinks it's worthwhile.

I think part of the reason they do double eliminations is that whole 'positive ethos' they try and hammer home. They always frame it as one person staying as opposed to two people leaving.

And remember, the trio of Mei, Doug and Adam made good food in the menu planning challenge, but struggled in terms of actually writing and conceiving the menu (basically, an EC/owner's role). None of them were an ideal fit for the role, but Doug certainly rose to the occasion.

So a little more than halfway through, who do you think will win the fan favourite? Seems like Dougie is the early favourite, right?

Right, so when Adam's team gets eliminated early, it's proof he's a bad coach, and when his team is left intact, it's because the producers favour him. I mean, this isn't the first time he's had 3 singers go deep. He had Tessanne, Will, and James in the top 5 as well, back in season 5. He always has the most talented team, so it's not that surprising.

Kristen's advice for RW would be interesting, given how she exited.

Spike said something to similar effect in the improv challenge during season 4. As did Dale during Restaurant Wars of All-Stars (I won't spoil the outcome of that, in case you haven't watched it). It's a pretty boilerplate 'reality show' TH.

I don't take much issue with that attitude, because I feel most chefs and competitive people have it. I'm an athlete, and I know that when I play, I absolutely feel that my best is better than other peoples (even if I know intellectually, that's not necessarily true). You have to in order to thrive in a competitive scenario. And for what it's worth, Tom, Ted Allen, and Gail have all stated in some form that it was Richard's competition to lose. So I don't blame him for that.

Amber was a unique situation in that she came up near the very end, and would have gotten more chairs to turn if there were still open spots. To be honest, I'm with Noreaster. The beauty of statistics is that we can adjust for the sample size to address those concerns you have. If you run a 95% significance level hypothesis test for the amount of 4-chair turns making it (which is the closest proxy we have to 'talent'), we get there's no real difference in the rate in which they're advanced between Adam and 'not Adam'. I'd wager that for 1 and 2 chair turns, there might be a difference, but it's hard to say.

I honestly don't find him particularly rude, no more so than Padma or Gail. And he's a softie by the standards of Bourdain, who I love. I don't care if they're mean. All I care about is if they're knowledgeable and can make comments that are either funny or informative. Richard does that for me.

This place is the only place I've seen that's this anti-Richard. I'm pretty neutral on him. I think he obviously knows what he's talking about, and in a situation where he's the lone judge, he's really shone (on TC Canada, for example). I think he's still figuring out how to fit in at Judges Table. I've seen him make some very smart remarks (he actually used the term 'Moneyball' properly, which was nice), but at times, he does seem like he's trying too hard. Honestly, the hate he gets here makes me like him more. From everything I've seen of him, his biggest crime is having a crappy haircut and making a mildly objectionable comment about the fact that he thought he choked in his first season.