Thread: Olympics Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030197
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
This is the last Olympics I shall watch.

It has become a bit of a farce. Money versus the Rest and the competitors mere pawns in the game.

Listened to the radio interview with a Brit cyclist, The amount of Lottery Money poured into cyclists' preparation is mind-boggling. Few nations could compete with this. ( Russia might but they are excluded for doping reasons.)

This is NOT a level playing field. Amateurs against well-funded professionals. What hope has any African or any other 3rd World country have?

The Olympic Spirit has long since been dissolved in the Rush for Gold dominated by nations that have the Cash to fund an athletics system which extends beyond the athletes to include a professional back-up staff which only an elite few can command.

Pity. But thats the way it is, And I, for one, am opting out.
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Well, the original spirit of amateurism was designed to keep the plebs out and ensure that only gentlemen took part, so I can't see that the exclusion has changed much over the last 120 years....

AG
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I was wondering why men and women from places like Ethiopia, Kenya and sundry Caribbean islands can't win medals. Now I know.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
In certain events - Kenyan men have been strong in distance running for years.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
And there's the so-aptly-named Mr. Bolt from Jamaica ... [Overused]

As long as people can pour money into the sports they want to sponsor, they will, and that's just The Way Life Is. I haven't seen any of the Olympics this time either, but not from choice - we're living in temporary accommodation and haven't got a telly.

I'm rather sorry I've missed it, seeing as Britain seems to be doing so well.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
So you want all money taken out of sport? That would be the end of most sports worldwide. I think it is better, overall, that someone who can run quickly can see a means where that can be acknowledged. Or someone who can cycle well and powerfully can - possibly - use that to make a career.

Otherwise the only people who can participate in sports are those with leisure time and no money worries. We would have Boris and Cameron in the Olympics for us.

Surely nobody wants that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
This is NOT a level playing field.
If you think it ever was a level playing field then you're deluded.

Amateur sport was, and is, always the preserve of those with the luxury of being able to do what they enjoy without pay. If you're working 50 hours a week, and barely able to keep food on the table you're not going to be buying your children a racing bike to practice on. If you're one of those children you're also likely to be helping around the home, doing what you can to help make ends meet. Spending several hours a day training is a luxury you can't afford. Sport is thus the preserve of the independently wealthy, unless there is some money from elsewhere injected into the system.

Add to that, natural talent is not sufficient. To develop that talent the first thing that's needed is for those talented children to be well fed. Under nourished children are never going to develop the muscles and bones needed to compete, even against less talented but well fed athletes. Yet another barrier the poor, whether within our own nations or in other nations, to overcome.

Sport is something that has always been a matter of community pride. Whether that's the local football team, or the national Olympic squad. Not that long ago it seemed that the Olympics were a contest between the USA and USSR, a part of the competition, the Cold War, between those nations (and, one much better than the parts of the war that actually involved firing bullets). Both nations put significant resources into training and equipping their athletes. In the US there is still an enormous resource put into sport through college scholarships, with successful athletes adding to the prestige of those colleges as well as proceeding to the international stage.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I was wondering why men and women from places like Ethiopia, Kenya and sundry Caribbean islands can't win medals. Now I know.
Sarky Sioni!
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
<HostingMode>

I'm afraid this conversation is a bit Purgatorial for the big tent, so I'm sending this thread over to that more learned place.

However, if you want to discuss the sporting achievements of those athletes who you feel are worthy, you are very welcome to do so on this thread

Imaginary Friend
Circus host

</HostingMode>
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
My beef is simply this. I have every admiration for the effort GB athletes put into their event.

But

I have a neighbour who has been waiting over 6 months for an op on his knees without which he is virtually immobile. The hospital has huge funding difficulties and is running a big deficit. His op is continually being postponed.

Meanwhile I see that the amount poured into the athletes' programme for the Olympics runs into the hundreds of thousands of ££.

What does that say about our priorities as a nation?

And what of those nations (African and others) who cannot afford this kind of money to prepare their athletes.? The Usain Bolts of this world are sponsored to the hilt and not by their national associations. Its no good using them as an example of achievement by "3rd World nations".

[ 17. August 2016, 17:49: Message edited by: shamwari ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My beef is simply this. I have every admiration for the effort GB athletes put into their event.

But

I have a neighbour who has been waiting over 6 months for an op on his knees without which he is virtually immobile. The hospital has huge funding difficulties and is running a big deficit. His op is continually being postponed.

Meanwhile I see that the amount poured into the athletes' programme for the Olympics runs into the hundreds of thousands of ££.

What does that say about our priorities as a nation?
Ask George Osborne. Austerity was his first, last and only policy for six years. That's why hospitals, the NHS generally, welfare and public spending has been cut. Well, apart from HS2, Crossrail, Trident replacement, some nuclear power station that might well be foreign owned and operated all of which makes the £250million (funded by the National Lottery) every four years for our Olympic team look very small beer.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
It's not the same since the end of the Cold War. I keep track of the the number of medals the former Soviet Union would have won. As of this post, the former Soviet Union and the United States are tied at 86 though the US has more gold medals. Still, those pinko commie bastards are making a comeback!

USA! USA! USA!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What does that say about our priorities as a nation?
Personally I find it hard to get excited about someone diving off a plank or being given a medal for riding a bicycle, but, lilies for the soul and all that. If watching the Olympics inspires young people to get out there and get involved in physical exercise, to push themselves, discover what they're capable of, give them pride in themselves, help them develop team spirit, become role models, and inspire others, then it is worth the money.

It is worth giving people who haven't a cat in hell's chance of even running down their own road something to cheer for, be glad about, and something to lift their minds off their own worries, even if only for a short while. Let them be proud of how well their compatriots do, let them take a pride in that local boy or girl who is now on the telly and famous.

Of course it could all be scrapped or scaled down to a local, low-budget event at the local sports hall and the money ploughed into hospitals instead. But... lilies for the soul and all that. With no sports, arts, music, dance or other unnecessary frivolous stuff to waste money on, how worthy, how healthy, how knowledgeable and educated we would all be - and how dull.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Replacing Trident will cost £205 billion.

UK sport funding for the current Olympic cycle is £543 million

Now, can we possibly think of anywhere else we could find the money for the NHS? (current budget is £116 billion btw).

What does it say about our national priorities that spend on sport is 0.3% of what we are spending on potential mass murder?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Our priority, and that of leading World Powers, is to fund a device that can a obliterate a very large number of people. The belief being that the possession of this device will prevent a very large number of people being obliterated.
Whether this turns out to be true or not none of us know.

In the meantime it does mean a proportion of this very large number of people have the privilege of competing, one with another. And a greater number of us have the privilege of partaking in the Spirit of this peaceful competition unhindered by the near continuous wars of our ancestors.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I absolutely want to fund the NHS. But we will not do it by not funding sports. We won't do it by leaving the EU. We will do it by making the NHS a priority, and directing money to it rather than government vanity projects.

And we will raise it by collecting taxes and not selling off the family silver to friends of the government.

Not spending this money on sports would make no difference to the NHS - even if it were diverted there (which it wouldn't be). Please stop making spurious claims to stop something that many people enjoy, just because you don't.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I have a neighbour who has been waiting over 6 months for an op on his knees without which he is virtually immobile. The hospital has huge funding difficulties and is running a big deficit. His op is continually being postponed.

Meanwhile I see that the amount poured into the athletes' programme for the Olympics runs into the hundreds of thousands of ££.

What does that say about our priorities as a nation?
If all that money being poured into athletes' programmes is coming from the Lottery (which one chooses to play and therefore pay for, unlike taxes) perhaps not a great deal? Sounds like you're trying to compare two different things.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My beef is simply this. I have every admiration for the effort GB athletes put into their event.

But

I have a neighbour who has been waiting over 6 months for an op on his knees without which he is virtually immobile. The hospital has huge funding difficulties and is running a big deficit. His op is continually being postponed.

Meanwhile I see that the amount poured into the athletes' programme for the Olympics runs into the hundreds of thousands of ££.
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
UK sport funding for the current Olympic cycle is £543 million

Now, can we possibly think of anywhere else we could find the money for the NHS? (current budget is £116 billion btw).
Over the same 4-year Olympic period the U.K. spent £444.7 billion on the NHS, so the argument seems to be that completely eliminating British participation in the Olympics could be used to increase spending on medical care by 0.001%? This seems like the fiscal equivalent of rifling through the sofa cushions to see if there's enough loose change in there to buy a new house.

And that's a bit of a change up from the original argument shamwari put forward, that the ability of rich nations to fund their athletes has made the Olympic games a farce with an unlevel playing field.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I'm surprised how little I'm watching Olympics this year in spite of massive opportunity. I think two things have reduced my enjoyment, maybe 3:

1. It has a different from when is was not so commercial. Apparently 1984 LA games brought in massive corporate commercialization. Also the committee take themselves too seriously. Remember the ski jumper who had never been on skis before, it was fun, but I read the committee changed the rules to make sure that sort of thing can never happen again because they felt the fun he added detracted from the serious athletes. The sense of playfulness seems gone.

2. The appalling costs of hosting the games, including the extraordinary cost overruns, and then the new facilities barely get used again, I heard Greece is still struggling with financial effects of hosting, Brazil doesn't have that kind of money to throw around, I applaud the cities that have the sense to say "no" to taking on the apparently significantly low-balled expense of hosting the games.

3. When someone wins a race by a 100th of a second that person is in fact no better than than ones he or she beat by so little. It's luck of starting position or of who slept better the night before, not difference in skill being awarded.

4. Seems to be a lot of corruption on multiple levels, from athletes doping to committee members rumored to accept bribes for naming a host city. But where there's money or even just competition for "glory" there's often corruption, so this complaint isn't specific to Olympics.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
1. It has a different from when is was not so commercial. Apparently 1984 LA games brought in massive corporate commercialization.
My understanding is that the IOC nearly went bust hosting the 1976 Games, which might explain why it took a radically different approach to funding subsequent Games.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I'm at a disadvantage commenting on this. I don't find the Olympics at all interesting. Mose of the events just aren't watchable. What's the fun in seeing some people running, or for that matter cycling, round a circular track, or throwing a lead weight at nothing in particular. So I don't really care that much who wins or loses. The hype, though, does annoy me, as does the blocking out of almost everything else from the television schedules while it has been going on.

I don't like the corruption. I don't like the obsession. I don't like the assumption sports enthusiasts have that their hobby is somehow more morally virtuous than anyone else's. Why should they get all this lottery money when nobody thinks of doing the same for coarse fishing, stamp-collecting, bell-ringing or collecting train numbers?

At least football is watchable - and it generates its own profits.


I also still think, and will go on thinking, that when the Olympics went to Athens, the opportunity should have been taken to say that it would stay there, just as Wimbledon is always at Wimbledon.
 
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 
Funding sport is a national health service. It reduces the demand for the services of the NHS.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

At least football is watchable
I have tried - really tried - to watch football. And failed. Drying paint is rivetting by comparison. As the man said, it's 22 millionaires ruining a lawn.

[ 17. August 2016, 21:54: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
Funding sport is a national health service. It reduces the demand for the services of the NHS.
Athletes are always getting injured.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't like the corruption. I don't like the obsession. I don't like the assumption sports enthusiasts have that their hobby is somehow more morally virtuous than anyone else's. Why should they get all this lottery money when nobody thinks of doing the same for coarse fishing, stamp-collecting, bell-ringing or collecting train numbers?
I once saw a dozen men at a railway station collecting numbers (though I think one might've been more interested in his packed lunch). I've never seen hundreds.

I'm not aware of massive stamp-collecting events where thousands come to cheer on the release of a First Day Cover, with millions more at home glued to the TV coverage of it.

These may or may not be noble pursuits, but surely hardly in the same league?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The hype, though, does annoy me, as does the blocking out of almost everything else from the television schedules while it has been going on.
Well, the Games have got us watching "Eggheads", out of sheer desperation!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
Funding sport is a national health service. It reduces the demand for the services of the NHS.
Athletes are always getting injured.
So when medical professionals tell people to get more exercise they're just trying to drum up some business? That's pretty sneaky!
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Belonging to a small country, of course I get a kick out of hearing one of our athletes has won a medal.
But I don't watch events. Well, I can't because they're not free to air here, and I don't have Sky.
One of our local concerns, though, is that the government pours considerable funds into elite sports, ie anyone who might win olympic medals or world events (America's Cup, anyone?) But all the local sports clubs that have kids and adults competing against one another and having fun, have to make do with what they can raise with sausage sizzles or attract from sponsors.
Kids playing sports to keep healthy and keep them 'off the streets' are more important that many big name winners.

Incidentally, I love the story of how CNN objected to the placing of the US team part-way back in the opening parade instead of having them make a spectacular entry almost at the end. Because they were, correctly, in alphabetical order in the host nation's language, as Estados Unidos do America.

GG
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
Funding sport is a national health service. It reduces the demand for the services of the NHS.
Although it appears that the supposed trickle-down effect of the London Olympics did not happen, rather like trickle-down economics.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I've found it exciting to watch little countries get their first ever medal - the joy flows down to all of us. But I find myself cringing when a big rich country wins yet another medal. Somehow this loses all meaning and and I rapidly lose interest. Another upsetting issue is the booing which is very evident this Olympics. This is very unpleasant and unsportsmanlike behaviour. I think that if there isn't a rethink and revamp of the Olympics I shall ignore it altogether in 2020.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
Funding sport is a national health service. It reduces the demand for the services of the NHS.
Although it appears that the supposed trickle-down effect of the London Olympics did not happen, rather like trickle-down economics.
The Olympics will not deliver that to a country. Investment in sport will. And yes, sportspeople get injured, but overall, being active is positive to health.

It is much cheaper to sew up a sliced leg or set a bone than manage a weak heart.

[I should point out that I am not at all active, but wish I could be. I would like to take up sport again, because it does make me healthier.]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Well, the Games have got us watching "Eggheads", out of sheer desperation!
Same here!!

There seems to be a 'big money or no money' mentality in sport and many other areas of life today.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
I think that if there isn't a rethink and revamp of the Olympics I shall ignore it altogether in 2020.
That's what I've said every time since Beijing. But somehow they insidiously creep back into my consciousness each time.

[ 18. August 2016, 08:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Another upsetting issue is the booing which is very evident this Olympics. This is very unpleasant and unsportsmanlike behaviour.
The only booing I've noticed (but, I've not been glued to the telly watching everything going) has been a couple of occasions when someone who has previously tested positive for drugs has been announced. What's more unsporting, using drugs to enhance performance or expressing your views on doing that?

There has also been a lot of support from the crowd for those who have struggled against adversity. Athletes who tripped, but struggled across the line in last place. The Syrian swimmer who swimming for a team of refugees. Appreciation for those who were never going to challenge for medals, but who put in personal bests or broke national records.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The case of booing that hit the press was the French pole vaulter who won a silver. (No I didn't watch it, just saw the coverage).

The men's gymnastics floor final, which I did watch, Max Whitlock won gold and two Brazilians, Diego Hypolito and Arthur Mariano, won the silver and bronze medals respectively, the crowd definitely cheered the Brazilians, who were delighted with their medals. There was no booing for Max Whitlock - he was slightly out of the celebrations at the end, but nothing offensive. There were similar scenes for the rings where Arthur Zanetti won silver.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I hadn't seen that particular example of booing. The one's I had seen reported were for Yulia Efimova (banned in 2013 for drug taking) who was booed at each of her swimming events, and the booing of the entire Russian team at the opening ceremony. The Brazilain football team were also booed when they failed to put in an outstanding game (but, that's probably a different phenomena).

Though attendence hasn't been massive, the Brazilian crowds do seem to be much more involved in, and passionate about, what is going on. I consider that to be a good thing, even if they don't show the same polite reserve of the British.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I've found it exciting to watch little countries get their first ever medal - the joy flows down to all of us. But I find myself cringing when a big rich country wins yet another medal.
Being from a big rich country that has won a lot of medals, I think it is interesting that the U.S. press makes us seem like underdogs too.

I guess that I feel guilty about this, but the whole experience makes me feel like the world is growing closer all the time. I get all choked up.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

I have a neighbour who has been waiting over 6 months for an op on his knees without which he is virtually immobile. The hospital has huge funding difficulties and is running a big deficit.
Not to worry. The NHS will get £350 million a week when we leave the EU. Those who promised it are now in government. And they are all, all honourable men.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
There's usually some controversy at the Olympics but does this one take the Gold Medal?


Any more?

[ 18. August 2016, 22:44: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There is a story in Cycling News about those false starts in the keirin. Apparently there was some footage from the British technical team that cleared the riders.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I've found it exciting to watch little countries get their first ever medal - the joy flows down to all of us. But I find myself cringing when a big rich country wins yet another medal.
Being from a big rich country that has won a lot of medals, I think it is interesting that the U.S. press makes us seem like underdogs too.

I guess that I feel guilty about this, but the whole experience makes me feel like the world is growing closer all the time. I get all choked up.
The women's sport news has me in a perpetual state of choked up.They done us proud.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a story in Cycling News about those false starts in the keirin. Apparently there was some footage from the British technical team that cleared the riders.
Two in a row was quite special. The fact that the judges didn't have a camera positioned in the right place seems a bit poor, to be honest.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Compared to, say track and field, the cycling events are relatively new. Though keirin has a 50 year history in Japan, there are differences in both the track and the rules compared to the international sport. The other day highlighted the ambiguity inherent in the simple "stay behind the pace bike until it leaves the track" rule, when a few milliseconds can be the difference between the top few slots there is considerable pressure to be as close to that bike as it leaves the track. With a moving point that is "behind the pace bike", and with no fixed point on the track where the pace bike leaves the track, that is always going to be a vague rule - and whenever the difference between riders very small and the stakes so high there will always be the pressure to be as close to that fuzzy line as possible. I assume it won't take long to improve definition of the rule (eg: maybe fit a laser on the back of the pace bike marking a line across the track to define what is, and isn't behind the bike, turned off as the bike leaves the track) and enforcement (including positioning of track side cameras, maybe a further camera on the pace bike). It's not the first sport where the pressures on competitors to gain the smallest of edges has pushed what had seemed simple rules and required further clarification and technology to aid judging, it won't be the last.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
One thing I have noticed is the utter joy a lot of people have on getting Bronze. Last night in women's javelin the two time defending Olympic gold medalist got bronze. And she was VERY happy and congratulated the gold medallist.

In particular, I was impressed with the US woman who got bronze in the 400m hurdles last night. The camera showed her when she found out and she was ecstatic...while lying on the ground recuperating.


Didn't used to see that, especially from US track and field. It used to be gold or don't care. Subtle change making the sport more fun to watch.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
One thing I have noticed is the utter joy a lot of people have on getting Bronze. Last night in women's javelin the two time defending Olympic gold medalist got bronze. And she was VERY happy and congratulated the gold medallist.

In particular, I was impressed with the US woman who got bronze in the 400m hurdles last night. The camera showed her when she found out and she was ecstatic...while lying on the ground recuperating.

Didn't used to see that, especially from US track and field. It used to be gold or don't care. Subtle change making the sport more fun to watch.
It's such a contrast with coming fourth. GB has had a spate of fourth places, including Adam Gemili in the 200m last night when he was given the same time as the bronze medalist. He'll live with that "If only" for at least four years, maybe a lifetime.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
One thing I have noticed is the utter joy a lot of people have on getting Bronze. Last night in women's javelin the two time defending Olympic gold medalist got bronze. And she was VERY happy and congratulated the gold medallist.

In particular, I was impressed with the US woman who got bronze in the 400m hurdles last night. The camera showed her when she found out and she was ecstatic...while lying on the ground recuperating.

Didn't used to see that, especially from US track and field. It used to be gold or don't care. Subtle change making the sport more fun to watch.
It's such a contrast with coming fourth. GB has had a spate of fourth places, including Adam Gemili in the 200m last night when he was given the same time as the bronze medalist. He'll live with that "If only" for at least four years, maybe a lifetime.
I think that's one of the more heartening things about the Olympics, to be honest. Away from the coverage of people with chestfuls of medals there are competitors I can think of who've come something like seventh and still set a British record in the process. I'm sure they are quite happy to have done so. A gold would be nice, but if it was the be-all-and-end-all that would be pretty bad.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Re Olympic funding. In Canada, the gov't program is called Own the Podium. If you and your sport are considered by the committees and vested interests to have a medal possibility, you get funded. Some sports and individuals have gone from funding to needing to essentially funding themselves or stopping.

Which speaks to the crisis of the Olympics I think: reduced participation in sports, emphasis on winning at all costs, very stressed young people, probably other things. Is it a proxy war between nations? Is winning the only goal of Olympics now?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
One thing I have noticed is the utter joy a lot of people have on getting Bronze. Last night in women's javelin the two time defending Olympic gold medalist got bronze. And she was VERY happy and congratulated the gold medallist.

In particular, I was impressed with the US woman who got bronze in the 400m hurdles last night. The camera showed her when she found out and she was ecstatic...while lying on the ground recuperating.


Didn't used to see that, especially from US track and field. It used to be gold or don't care. Subtle change making the sport more fun to watch.
I read a study somewhere (yeah, I know-- can't be bothered to look for it, so take it with a grain of salt)-- that suggested that the happiest people on the platform are the gold and bronze winners. The gold: obvious. The bronze: usually had low expectations and was just thrilled to have placed. The silver: had gold within sight, but it slipped away usually by a slim margin, leaving them disappointed & discouraged.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
Simon Jenkins wrote an interesting piece on this in the Grauniad last week.

I personally find spectator sports of no interest whatsoever, and see the Olympics as a massive school sports day at a school where I haven't got any children. But I usually find myself in a minority of one, so most of the time I just avoid Olympics conversations and let those who enjoy it get on with it.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]What's more unsporting, using drugs to enhance performance or expressing your views on doing that?
I don't really see the objection to using drugs. Elite athletes push their bodies to unhealthy extremes in training and diet regimes that most of us could not afford. Why not allow them to give their natural metabolism a boost and see what extremes the human body can be pushed to with modern technology? It's only cheating because the rule book says you can't do it. Change the rules.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]What's more unsporting, using drugs to enhance performance or expressing your views on doing that?
I don't really see the objection to using drugs. Elite athletes push their bodies to unhealthy extremes in training and diet regimes that most of us could not afford. Why not allow them to give their natural metabolism a boost and see what extremes the human body can be pushed to with modern technology? It's only cheating because the rule book says you can't do it. Change the rules.
That is silly, though. The idea is supposed to be a level playing field where talent and effort are rewarded. In order for drugs to fit that paradigm, all would have to take Olympic Standard drugs and that would level things out to the same point they are without drugs. And that would likely be no easier regulated than the current situation.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I don't watch much Olympic viewing.
One problem is that only events where the US is expected to dominate get much coverage.

The cost of the Olympics also means it tends to be put on by countries that don't listen to their own people.

From my own participation in the International Gay Games years ago (not a sign of any athletic prowess) I do wonder if the playing field would be closer to level if, like the original, the teams came from Cities; London, New York, Los Angeles, Paris. There wouldn't be such a disparity in resources.

I remember with fondness a few years back, when the US was hosting a soccer regional world cup which was something most US people don't care about, that the visiting teams from various countries had hosts who came in cheered for the country. It seems like a generous and powerful thing to do.

Finally, I do notice that I am rooting consistently for one group, those who have been Olympians for multiple Olympics. Phelps is the must publicized but there are others who are competing in their fourth or fifth games

[ 21. August 2016, 07:09: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
We have been watching. My husband is a runner and we are both huge track and field fans.

There is lots to dislike about the Olympics in general, certainly--the corruption, state-sanctioned drug use, etc. Not to mention the awful behavior of athletes like Ryan Lochte and Hope Solo in this Olympics. But there are always things that are great, and Rio is no exception. Some of my favorite moments:

Nikki Hamblin of New Zealand and Abbey D'Agostino of the US helping each other on the track after they fell in the 5000 meter semifinals. An example of the Olympic spirit if there ever was one.

Allyson Felix winning her 6th gold medal yesterday. This makes her the most-awarded female athlete in Olympic track and field history. Unlike the egomaniacal Usain Bolt, Felix is gracious and humble; she is one of the classiest acts in sports.

Matt Centrowitz winning the 1500 meters last night. The last time the US won in this event was in 1908. Matt was among the favorites to win, but not the overwhelming favorite. We were shrieking during the home stretch.

Brazil winning the men's soccer final against Germany. This win was huge for Brazil as the men's team has never won the gold medal and were shellacked in the World Cup by Germany.

Mo Farah winning the 10000 meters and 5000 meters. He is absolutely amazing.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]What's more unsporting, using drugs to enhance performance or expressing your views on doing that?
I don't really see the objection to using drugs. Elite athletes push their bodies to unhealthy extremes in training and diet regimes that most of us could not afford. Why not allow them to give their natural metabolism a boost and see what extremes the human body can be pushed to with modern technology? It's only cheating because the rule book says you can't do it. Change the rules.
That is silly, though. The idea is supposed to be a level playing field where talent and effort are rewarded. In order for drugs to fit that paradigm, all would have to take Olympic Standard drugs and that would level things out to the same point they are without drugs. And that would likely be no easier regulated than the current situation.
But that's entirely my point. The playing field is not level. It's tilted very steeply in favour of those who can afford the best coaches, the best technology, the best training facilities. Success is directly correlated to spending in the current scenario. What is the objection to using drugs to develop more perfect performance?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]What's more unsporting, using drugs to enhance performance or expressing your views on doing that?
I don't really see the objection to using drugs. Elite athletes push their bodies to unhealthy extremes in training and diet regimes that most of us could not afford. Why not allow them to give their natural metabolism a boost and see what extremes the human body can be pushed to with modern technology? It's only cheating because the rule book says you can't do it. Change the rules.
That is silly, though. The idea is supposed to be a level playing field where talent and effort are rewarded. In order for drugs to fit that paradigm, all would have to take Olympic Standard drugs and that would level things out to the same point they are without drugs. And that would likely be no easier regulated than the current situation.
But that's entirely my point. The playing field is not level. It's tilted very steeply in favour of those who can afford the best coaches, the best technology, the best training facilities. Success is directly correlated to spending in the current scenario. What is the objection to using drugs to develop more perfect performance?
If one looks at the detrimental effect some performance enhancing drugs can have, strict regulation of drug use in sports appears to be a good thing.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
But that's entirely my point. The playing field is not level. It's tilted very steeply in favour of those who can afford the best coaches, the best technology, the best training facilities. Success is directly correlated to spending in the current scenario. What is the objection to using drugs to develop more perfect performance?
Genetic advantage also tilts the playing field. For example, Michael Phelps' armspan of 2 meters certainly gives him an advantage over swimmers less endowed in that way, though of course (like every other athlete) he still needs hard training to bring out his best performance. He can hardly be banned on those grounds. Is that unfair?

Likewise, Usain Bolt has longer legs and thus a longer stride than most of his rivals - although they all genetically have more "fast twitch" muscles than 99.9% of the population. Unfair advantage?

And, more controversially, what about Caster Semenaya's natural levels of testosterone? At London she was forced to take treatment to lower those levels - i.e. performance depressing drugs. Unfair?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
While few contests of this nature are ever truly fair, making them more fair is a good goal.

But the point of the Olympic Games isn't really about who is best. That is an ephemeral, short term, point of pride among athletes and nations, but it means little in the overall scope of things.

The greater point is about nations coming together on peaceful terms and doing something that moves the hearts of people worldwide. Athletic events are visual, inspiring and popular. While these events can stir combative nationalism they also stir feelings of goodwill and international unity.

I come away from these games with a much greater love and respect for Brazil and Rio. Seeing the sincere anxieties, superhuman efforts, and raw emotions of these beautiful, muscular, superbly trained individuals gives me feelings of love and empathy for all the people in their respective countries.

I think the Olympics helps to combat racism, increases international respect, and eases the growing pains of globalization.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Hyper-competition. Where many athletes lead narrow, stunted lives until 30 years old. Because winning is everything. Those who can afford it are all taking "supplements".

In the Brazil - Canada semifinal women's soccer, Formiga of Brazil crumpled to the ground holding her foot. Won a free kick just outside of the penalty area. Replay showed the Canadian player was at least 4" away, no contact. And they all do it, do they? Winning is everything?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Winning is everything?
From an athlete's perspective I'm sure it usually is. Their efforts and dedication are amazing, so I would expect them to have that kind of total commitment.

But the larger benefits of the Olympics exist regardless of those possibly less than totally positive features.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
What is the objection to using drugs to develop more perfect performance?
It will not change any of the other advantages even if the athletes all took the same drugs. Countries/programmes which invest money will have better drugs.
So why the hunger to add drugs officially?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
A major problem with allowing drugs is that any of these substances don't have a license for this use and couldn't legally be prescribed in many European or Western states. That isn't just a bit of bureaucratic red tape, the reason is we don't know about harmful side effects (or in some cases know that there are harmful side effects).

So legalizing the practice in sporting-rules would put athletes in a double-bind as regards their own countries' legality, and also increase the pressure on them to take greater risks with their own health.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
If you want to have your faith restored-watch the final of the Rugby 7s. Little, not rich nation Fiji absolutely smashed Great Britain to take their first ever Gold Medal. The class and humility of the Fijian team both on and off the field was awesome. My absolute favourite team ever, the Fijian Rugby 7s.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There were other joys: Cote d'Ivoire winning Gold and Bronze Tae Kwondo medals against GB and Azerbaijan. Or the guy who won Tajikistan's first medal ever in hammer throwing. I was cheering on the guy from Cote d'Ivoire when I realised who was against the Brit in the gold medal fight.

Checking my memory of Tae Kwondo, I found that the medal tally from Cote d'Ivoire matches that of the Independent Olympic athletes. Although I do wonder about the message given by the events that the Independent Olympic athletes entered: swimming, shooting and fencing.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...
3. When someone wins a race by a 100th of a second that person is in fact no better than than ones he or she beat by so little. It's luck of starting position or of who slept better the night before, not difference in skill being awarded.
...
Well, then, let's get rid of the Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals, and give everyone a participation medal instead.

Sorry, but most aspects of life are improved by competition, so I really enjoy watching those who have risen to the height of their sport.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Post-Olympics thoughts. I don't particularly care about numbers of medals etc. My main interest is that it is a good close match, whatever the sport is. My interest in any game is marginally enhanced with a home team playing, but only marginally. I will make an effort to engage with practically any sport - within reason (a handful - dressage, basketball and squash spring to mind - just don't work as television ---- Others are alright for a solid half-an-hour maybe, and then start to become a bit of a 'chore' - swimming, judo, gymnastics spring to mind ... But I don't mind there being other channels set up to cater for any of the above ..). I found the coverage as on BBC TV (yet again) to be very irritating. It would be too long a list, if I was to make a list. So instead I'll summarise how it should have been done - Just show the games, as they happen. It was that simple. No silly opening graphics. No musical montages. No rambling conversations on the beach or the street (including no interviewing athletes when they are least able to string their thoughts together). ..... Is it me ??
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
The trouble with 'as they happen' is that so much is happening simultaneously in different places. So for main channel viewing they are going to cherry pick for variety, British interest, well-known participants, comprehensibility etc. I agree they could drop the chat with the panting, sweat-drenched and totally knackered.

If you were prepared to thread your way through the streaming options, you could have a much more coherent and satisfying experience - I watched the golf, for example, for a straight five or six hours.

It was pretty ubiquitous though: we were eating out with friends in a pub and every time I glanced up from my beer-battered haddock it was to see near lifesize images of buff young men wearing dental floss jumping into water. I'm not saying this was a bad thing mind you.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As in so much else, we do it so well. And not a terrorist in sight. Nightly firefights in the favelas of course.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Hi Firenze. I did go online in order to get more continuity. I still don't think that excuses the TV programme-makers, though. It shouldn't be at all difficult to show half-an-hour of this, then half-an-hour of that, across three or more channels ... Don't know if you can access the link but here's a typical hour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/…/b07…/olympics-day-12-bbc-one-19002000
Actual coverage - 20 mins to 35 mins in,, then 47 to 52 mins in. That's 20 minutes altogether, out of 60. Practically all the rest was musical montages and rambling conversations. It is important to bear in mind here that this was not an 'after the events' look-back package. This was being broadcast while there were LIVE EVENTS GOING ON. Who wants this? Is there a single person in the country who would object to it not being there (not to mention the additional expenditure it entails) ??
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes I agree. I also got annoyed when the evening news got unduly delayed due to Olympic events. OK, delay it by a few minutes so we can see the end of the hockey ... but not be a further 25 minutes of meaningless reruns and pointless interviews while we wait for the medal ceremony (especially as it was all on BBC2 anyway).

Yes they've paid a lot for the TV rights. But not everyone is into sport - not even the Olympics. At least BBC4 are making some amends his week by showing Proms concerts every night.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I don't see why it's on the news, really. Man goes to Rio to run and runs. That's Dog bites Man, surely, not Man bites Dog?

There are dedicated sports channels for this sort of thing. Keep it on there and leave the rest of us alone I say.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Well all TV you don't like is squandering your license fee (when am I going to get 12 hours of non-stop knitting like they have in Norway? eh? eh?)

But I've come to accept that it caters to a few million other tastes, and that the programme makers have very likely looked into what those are and acted accordingly.

It's not as if one is entirely dependent on TV for amusement.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Well no, but I was mildly irritated when I bought a newspaper and found actual news only started three quarters of the way through.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In a hyper-competitive sports world, most of the population removes itself from the activities by their teen years. They know yhey will never achieve anything worthy so they become watchers. Physical activity declines sharply. The resources are poured into the elite. Lifestyle and health problems for the inactive. Costs to physical and mental health systems. Costs to wellbeing.

It seems we can't have it both ways, participation and elite competitions, because there are no medals for staying active, and if inactive, with the health costs of that borne by the health system.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see why it's on the news, really. Man goes to Rio to run and runs. That's Dog bites Man, surely, not Man bites Dog?

There are dedicated sports channels for this sort of thing. Keep it on there and leave the rest of us alone I say.
Man goes to booth and writes cross on paper then posts it in box.

Politician talks to a big crowd about politics.

Terrorist blows people up.

Musician plays in front of large audience.

We can reduce everything to banal statements and argue they should be in specialist political/world news/music sections of the media because we don't care about them but I don't think that achieves anything beyond asserting a personal preference.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see why it's on the news, really. Man goes to Rio to run and runs. That's Dog bites Man, surely, not Man bites Dog?

There are dedicated sports channels for this sort of thing. Keep it on there and leave the rest of us alone I say.
Man goes to booth and writes cross on paper then posts it in box.

Politician talks to a big crowd about politics.

Terrorist blows people up.

Musician plays in front of large audience.

We can reduce everything to banal statements and argue they should be in specialist political/world news/music sections of the media because we don't care about them but I don't think that achieves anything beyond asserting a personal preference.
Yeah, probably. I'm in a bitter twisted frame of mind at the moment and too pissed off with the fucking pointless universe to see straight. When I were a lad the sporty people were virtually all thuggish cunts of the worst order who made me the bitter twat I am today so the last thing I want to hear about is how well people like them are doing. I identify with them rather less than I do an amoeba on Saturn.

[ 23. August 2016, 13:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That seems rather "othering". I'm not very sporty, but if I was I'd feel rather peeved about being labelled as deserving of derision because you associate me with a group of sporty thuggish cunts you previously came across.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Not so much derision as not giving a shit. Probably best ignoring me; I'm not making much sense.

[ 23. August 2016, 14:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I quite often hear that the Church is composed of all sorts and because some are, for example, swivel-eyed loons, this does not reflect badly on the institution. By the same token, some athletes seem to be nicer than others. If they have one unifying characteristic, it would seem to be persistence and a high pain tolerance - which are hardly moral failings.

I suppose the worst you can say is that they are all in a Faustian pact to be our vicarious gladiators - and it is some advance that they are (mostly) alive at the end of the day. How much their later lives suffer - I suppose you can either contemplate the career of Dr Roger Bannister or listen to Sprinsteen's Glory Days.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If you want to have your faith restored-watch the final of the Rugby 7s. Little, not rich nation Fiji absolutely smashed Great Britain to take their first ever Gold Medal. The class and humility of the Fijian team both on and off the field was awesome. My absolute favourite team ever, the Fijian Rugby 7s.
Yep, the Rugby 7's - male and female - were fantastic entertainment!

I wonder how much their medals would've been worth ?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Is this a storm in a teacup or is there something questionable behind Team GBs achievements in Rio?

Personally, I attribute their performance to:

i) Momentum following London 2012
ii) Most of the Russians being absent, which must be worth a medal or three
iii) Not having to waste funds on sports Team GB is no good at (basketball, water polo, handball etc)
iv) Concentrating on the Olympics at the expense of World, European and other tournaments
v) A once-in-a-generation crop of performers, typified by repeat medallists. Really. I don't expect this to continue in Tokyo 2020.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is this a storm in a teacup or is there something questionable behind Team GBs achievements in Rio?
Not even a storm in a teacup. It's a perfectly calm teacup which some people are saying contains a storm. A bunch of bad losers trying to deflect attention from the fact that they weren't quite good enough to win.

It's like if Labour wins the next election, and the Conservatives turn round and say "they didn't win the last two elections, so there must be something dodgy going on this time". Utterly ridiculous.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's a perfectly calm teacup which some people are saying contains a storm. A bunch of bad losers trying to deflect attention from the fact that they weren't quite good enough to win.
From where I'm sitting it's BBC Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield whipping up a storm to indulge in his habitual French-bashing. I will be so glad when he gets posted somewhere else [Mad]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's like if Labour wins the next election, and the Conservatives turn round and say "they didn't win the last two elections, so there must be something dodgy going on this time". Utterly ridiculous.
I agree with the conclusion, although it pains me to admit that this illustration is rather unfortunate given the current state of the Labour party. I suppose that given they can't currently be relied on to organize crude proverbial things in a place renowned for having lots of said proverbials then an underhand stitch-up of the election would be vanishingly unlikely.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But the French are right: we did buy our medals. This position on the Olympic medal table is the result of massive funding from the Lottery and targeted by the Sports Council to achieve the biggest haul of medals for their bucks. It was a political choice to go for Olympic gold.

I am not sure how queasy we should be feeling that the UK is following in the footsteps of such dubious forerunners as the Soviet Union, East Germany, China and the USA by funding sport and training talent in such a systematic way.

I also wonder about the systematic training regimes. I used to coach gymnastics for a leisure club, weekly sessions for children improving their fitness and co-ordination. We had one or two come through who were very good and were redirected to the local British Gymnastics training club, aged 7, and about 30-40 miles away, knowing that they would have to start training three or four times a week to get anywhere. I did see if their names ever came up later, but they didn't.

I also worked with a 10 year old swimmer who was a medal hope for 2012/2016. He in the top 10 for his age group on the British Swimming Association league, training daily and was pure muscle at that age. He dropped out when his local pool closed for refurbishment and training before school every day with his club became a lot more difficult. The reason I was involved was that he was getting into trouble, and we believed the pressure of training was affecting him adversely. But so many other reasons for dropping out: he could have been injured. One of the runners up in this year's Great British Sewing Bee was a medal hope for 2016 before she was injured.

Those medals also came from a huge commitment and effort from the athletes who have, for most sports, been training from a very young age.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
We had one or two come through who were very good and were redirected to the local British Gymnastics training club, aged 7, and about 30-40 miles away, knowing that they would have to start training three or four times a week to get anywhere.
Perhaps systematic funding would have made the opportunity to train easier for them to take.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Sour grapes really. The idea that pouring money into Olympic contenders is unethical is either naive or disingenuous.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The money spent in the last few years on elite training facilities, such as those available for cycling, is only part of the story. Yes, that elite training and the investment in equipment has resulted in cyclists (and other athletes) who are capable of outperforming cyclists from the rest of the world. But, that squad didn't appear from nowhere. They reached the point where that extra elite training could make a difference because a) they're talented cyclists, b) that was recognised at an early age, and c) there were grass-roots facilities able to develop that talent ... all before they got close to the elite training facilities. That is a long term investment, but without that being there for a decade or more team GB would not have won as many medals at Rio, or London, or Beijing.

The big effects of London and Rio will be to get more people into sport, and more young children. They won't be medalists in Tokyo, a few may be around for the 2024 games, but it'll be 2028 and later that the children inspired by team GB success over the last few Olympics will be the next team GB.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
That family (of the 7 year old gymnast) were still looking at 60 mile round trips three times a week around school for a 7 year old. That's a big ask. No leisure other than gymnastics for ever. The swimmer at least had training available locally.

My parents were competitive sailors: they represented the UK a few times at European and World Championships when I was a child. From that I have some idea of the commitment then, before the targeted gym regimes, daily training sessions, tactics, diet supplements and all the additional support now in place.

I spent my childhood on the banks of various sailing clubs. We were away (camping) every other weekend between April and October / November for them to compete and if we were based at our home club we actually got a chance to sail too. If it wasn't the week for the open meeting there, when we were catering for the assembled sailors. The weekend package included a cheap meal and entertainment on the Saturday night. (That challenge of mass catering on Masterchef - I was roped in to help from 10 or 11.) Our summer holiday was spent on the shore at the National Championships: Torquay, Llandudno and Penzance were fun, others not so much. If we were really lucky we travelled abroad for a week on shore for the Europeans.

(I could have been a competitive gymnast. I didn't even tell my parents I'd been headhunted to start training properly until years later, because I knew there was no time for me to train around them.)

eta to make it clear I was answering mdijon

[ 24. August 2016, 12:43: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The big effects of London and Rio will be to get more people into sport, and more young children. They won't be medalists in Tokyo, a few may be around for the 2024 games, but it'll be 2028 and later that the children inspired by team GB success over the last few Olympics will be the next team GB.
This is often said. Where's the data that people actually get more involved into sport because of elite emulation? They fo buy sporty gear like shoes, jerseys and shirts. The idea that elite promotion encourages general participation has been labelled as another "trickle down theory", this time of sport". Mightn't it be better to fund physical activity directly and encourage it by lowering barriers to participation? Lower or no fees, organizing sports for people, building facilities? But perhaps you have data for your idea.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
eta to make it clear I was answering mdijon
Not sure this is an answer. I was making the point that one can't complain about the inaccessibility of facilities and burden on developing young athletes and also complain about spending money on training. Lack of investment is going to make training increasingly inaccessible and burdensome to athletes. Especially those from the least privileged backgrounds.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I was more trying to emphasise the commitment required, including from young children for sports such as gymnastics and swimming, to become competitive for the Olympics. For children of that age that necessarily means the commitment of their families too. It doesn't give a lot of choice for siblings either - unless they are prepared to get involved too, which probably explains Alistair and Johnnie Brownlee, Beckie and Ellie Downie.

It isn't just the training facilities and the money injected, although that has had a huge impact, it is the athletes being prepared to commit to the programmes too.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But perhaps you have data for your idea.
Well, anecdotal data. Like 67 medals from Rio, across a range of disciplines, with interviews all talking about the quality sportsmen and women who didn't make the cut for Rio. That demonstrates that over the last 10-15 years the UK has developed a breadth and depth of world-class sportsmen and women. That can not have happened overnight, that must have involved a large number of people entering sport at an early age, with the investment to nurture and support talent through all levels. Clearly that hasn't been a universal coverage, where everyone has a chance based only on ability - for a start there would be a "postcode lottery" on whether or not there was a suitable training facility within reach, and a bias against those who could not afford to engage in sports, etc.

But, the only way that the UK can have achieved the success of the last two Olympics is if there was sufficient investment at all levels such that those with an interest can try a sport out, and as many as possible of those with ability can move up to higher levels of their sport. Those who compete in the Olympics are the peak of a pyramid, for that peak to be so consistently good across so many sports means there has to be a very large base of young people participating.

Also, the TV has over the last few weeks has carried a large number of interviews with athletes, in Rio and who didn't get to go. And, a consistent theme has been how they were inspired by top UK athletes - some names were repeated very often; Ennis-Hill, Farah, Boardman, Hoy ... Even people who ended up in different sports often cited inspiration from Olympic athletes. UK sporting super-stars taking time to visit schools and local authority sports centres, talking to young kids, showing off their medals (and often letting the kids wear them, judging by some of the photos shown).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was more trying to emphasise the commitment required, including from young children for sports such as gymnastics and swimming, to become competitive for the Olympics. For children of that age that necessarily means the commitment of their families too.
Yes, this. We're not talking about a couple of hours at the weekend here. But it's not just sports. A similar level of commitment is required from would-be world class musicians, ballet dancers, and a whole host of other things.

You can get good at something with a modicum of natural talent and a couple of hours practice a week. To be the world's best at it, you have to do it all the time.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Which, to me, underlines the need for proper investment. It doesn't seem right to ask people to dedicate their lives and passion to something and then skimp on the funding required to support their efforts.

I wouldn't want to say a word against the need for total commitment or underestimate it, but would say a word for proportionate funding to match what is asked of athletes in order to compete internationally.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
If anyone is intersted here's some evidence of growing participation.

OK, the population is growing, but it's ageing too, although that's no barrier as two of my sisters in law and their husbands (all well over seventy) have taken up bowls, which is gentle but cutthroat.

Down here in Newport we have one of very few international standard velodromes. The Paralympic team is practically based there and the national squad has used it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A similar level of commitment is required from would-be world class musicians, ballet dancers, and a whole host of other things.
Ah, but those things are Worthy Intellectual Pursuits rather than the unseemly mindless physicality of sporting activity.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0