GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: vintly on April 11, 2013, 04:10:53 PM
-
Fairplay to Damon Hill for once again publicly viewing his distaste for F1 in Bahrain:
"I would not want to go to Bahrain if people are going to be treated extra bad just so a race can go ahead. What we don't want to have is F1 being responsible for making life worse for people. The question is whether F1, by going to Bahrain, is actually going to enable or further brutal repression."
This article yesterday from the highly reputable Human Rights Watch organisation confirms his fears.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/10/bahrain-targeted-raids-and-arbitrary-detentions
Hill's quote from this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/11/damon-hill-formula-one-bahrain-grand-prix
-
Yes, he's right in my opinion, and the F1 circus should stop turning up there. It won't though. Ecclestone's too chummy with the Crown Prince, and he'd lose too much money.
-
Yes Irisado, in the end that is truth we have to live with.
-
It's not just Bernie:
Mark Stewart Productions produces PR for the Bahrainian regime. Mark is Jackie's son. http://bahrainwatch.org/pr/mark-stewart-productions.php
http://www.redbullmea.com/cs/Satellite/en_MEA/Article/Petr-Kraus-Embarks-on-A-Filmed-Journey-That-021243332300810
And I'm sure you all know that The McLaren Group is 50% owned by The Mumtalakat Holding Company, from Bahrain of all places.
I'm obviously against the race being there at all, mainly for the reasons in my first post, highlighted by Damon Hill. The politics in Bahrain is not straightforward - if there was a successful uprising by pro-democracy reformists, then the Shia party, Al Wefaq, would probably come into power. Problem is that Al Wefaq are mostly in favour of a return to Sharia law, which would be an awful backward step for a country that is on some levels quite forward thinking. I think this is why Western governments are not willing to step in and help, as the alternative to the current staus quo is a potentially worse evil. Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that F1 shouldn't be there.
-
:o :o I knew they had a stake, but 50% :swoon: :swoon:
-
The politics of these situations is never as one sided as portrayed by some elements of the media I completely agree.
F1 does itself no favours by being associated with Bahrain in either case though, as you've said. It does raise the question as to the wisdom of Formula 1 teams doing business there, but that's a separate discussion on business and ethics.
-
Of course, if the FIA had complied with its own regulations concerning Bahrain's advertising scheme and its breach of Article 1 of the FIA Statutes last year, we would not be having this conversation. The Sporting Regulations state that any cancellation not due to force majuere will lead to a 12-month removal from the calendar. That 12 months would have covered this weekend. I seriously doubt anyone could suggest that using a political advertising scheme was an act of force majuere...
I can't exactly boycott the race because I would miss it anyway due to a swimming gala, but I wish I could.
-
Why should political opinion dictate sport involvement?
-
Why should political opinion dictate sport involvement?
Generally it shouldn't, because sport and politics shouldn't be directly linked. In this case they are, very closely. Like it or not, the sport is being used to convey a false situation in Bahrain.
-
Why should political opinion dictate sport involvement?
Because it's the Bahrain government which organises, promotes, and funds the race, and they are using it for political propaganda.
-
Why should political opinion dictate sport involvement?
Compliance with FIA regs should, Bahrain breached them last year in a way that normally results in a 12-month exclusion from international competition, and the FIA ignored it because they wanted the money. Technically, if the FIA had followed its own rules, then the punishment would have included this race not happening.
In this case, I would have to suggest that "discounting political opinion" brings the FIA into disrepute and suggests all its rules are negotiable if rich enough politicians get involved.
I can't boycott Bahrain because I have a swimming gala that clashes with it anyway. But I wish I could...
-
I can't boycott Bahrain because I have a swimming gala that clashes with it anyway. But I wish I could...
I have no problem watching the race. My boycotting it will do nothing to help anyone there. What I can do is tell people about the situation (as no doubt you also do), try to open their minds up a bit as to what's going on, and generally spread the word about what I think is the nastier side of F1. Information is everything, put the information in front of people so they can make an informed decision. I'm against F1 being in Bahrain, but it's there, so I'll watch it like I watch every race.
I'm only saying this Alianora as I don't want you to miss it!
-
Ali is in the same boat as me, not on sky.
-
Why should political opinion dictate sport involvement?
Supporting a sport indicates supporting the people involved in it.
If the Bahrain GP was completely funded by private interests, one could certainly suggest that we could separate sports and politics. But in this case, the government in question is involved in the race itself.
What makes things interesting though, is that the government in question, which would appear to be guilty of torture, censorship, intimidation and generally undemocratic behaviour would seem to be the lesser of two evils. If Bahrain was a functional democracy, then the majority would favour an interpretation of law that I would personally find distasteful.
The 'evil' regime in question supports freedom of religion, equal rights for women, international cooperation and did establish democracy in Bahrain, before they trampled it. The 'Freedom fighters' want to ban all religions save their own, eliminate rights for women, close the border to 'foreign devils' and basically legalise all the things the current regime is doing (illegally) to the 'freedom fighters'.
-
Why should political opinion dictate sport involvement?
Supporting a sport indicates supporting the people involved in it.
If the Bahrain GP was completely funded by private interests, one could certainly suggest that we could separate sports and politics. But in this case, the government in question is involved in the race itself.
What makes things interesting though, is that the government in question, which would appear to be guilty of torture, censorship, intimidation and generally undemocratic behaviour would seem to be the lesser of two evils. If Bahrain was a functional democracy, then the majority would favour an interpretation of law that I would personally find distasteful.
The 'evil' regime in question supports freedom of religion, equal rights for women, international cooperation and did establish democracy in Bahrain, before they trampled it. The 'Freedom fighters' want to ban all religions save their own, eliminate rights for women, close the border to 'foreign devils' and basically legalise all the things the current regime is doing (illegally) to the 'freedom fighters'.
Yeah the old conundrum; encourage replacement of a tainted but mostly forward looking regime and risk putting a far more restrictive regime in place.
It's all well and good calling for so called democratic self determination, but how to ensure a truly democratic society is much harder to conjure up.
I think too many people mistake division of wealth for democracy, the two are certainly not the same thing. My government loves to tell me I'm free to do all sorts of things, where as in reality due to my limited resources far far too many things are really not possible or available. Most of us also know our seemingly benign government will react in powerful ways should we wish to have too great a sway on the Status Quo.
Me and probably most of the UK population get very little choice over most laws enacted by our so called democratic system.
The track and race in China are obviously heavily subsidized by the government, the human rights record there is probably worse than in Bahrain.
-
I can't boycott Bahrain because I have a swimming gala that clashes with it anyway. But I wish I could...
I have no problem watching the race. My boycotting it will do nothing to help anyone there. What I can do is tell people about the situation (as no doubt you also do), try to open their minds up a bit as to what's going on, and generally spread the word about what I think is the nastier side of F1. Information is everything, put the information in front of people so they can make an informed decision. I'm against F1 being in Bahrain, but it's there, so I'll watch it like I watch every race.
I'm only saying this Alianora as I don't want you to miss it!
The problem I have is that I don't have any tools at my disposal that will get the race stopped, the way I did last year (and only failed in getting the race stopped through lack of time, if my information sources were anything to go by). The organisers have been careful not to breach any FIA regs, unlike last year. Remember also that human rights violations don't stop the races in China, the UK or any other country. So the FIA and teams are powerless to stop the race unless the insurance companies refuse to cover them for the trip. Suffice to say that it is beyond my baliwick to endorse the severe and sustained violence necessary to make that happen.
As it stands, F1 made its own bed and is now stuck in it. The best it can hope for is that nobody notices the FIA implicitly turn itself into a political organisation. Otherwise the FIA is in danger of losing the authority to govern sport, either officially or practically.
I've already had 2 rebel groups ask me via Twitter to spread messages to boycott the race - and then fail to reply to my requests for information that might lead to the race actually being stopped. If they don't want the race stopped (and their silence makes me suspect that), why should I? Indeed, the requests came in such a way as to make me suspect the rebel movement has split and the different fragments don't talk to each other any more. This indicates I'd have to be careful what I say because the nature of the battle on the ground has changed. There isn't "the government" and "the rebels" any more. There's "the government", "one bunch of rebels", "another bunch of rebels" and possibly other rebels - not including the people who just want everyone to shut up and stop being silly so that they can live in peace.
Boycotting wouldn't have changed anything on F1's side, especially now that F1 has turned its back on viewer figures as a success metric. It would, however, ensure I didn't have any blood on my hands, and I'd prefer a clean conscience. But boycotting implies a choice in viewing, and I can't view it anyway because I can't watch races from inside a swimming pool ;)
-
F1 has a history of going places regardless of the political climate. They went to Batista's Cuba, Peron's Argentina, and South Africa during Apartheid that I remember off the top of my head. All of those situations changed and F1 no longer goes there anyway. Certainly China is a worse regime than Bahrain, and I am embarrassed to say the US does not have clean hands in this area. :-[
-
I'm somewhat appalled by Joe Saward's latest views on Bahrain. Very one-sided in my opinion.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/perceptions-and-realities-in-bahrain/#comment-149595
Not impressed by his replies to my comments either, but neither was he with mine.
-
I'm somewhat appalled by Joe Saward's latest views on Bahrain. Very one-sided in my opinion.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/perceptions-and-realities-in-bahrain/#comment-149595
Not impressed by his replies to my comments either, but neither was he with mine.
Joe said a fair amount of nonsensical stuff last year, including a giant piece on 3 supposedly-neutral people who were later discovered to have staged the entire interview to get a pro-government viewpoint across. When anyone pointed out the obvious holes in his thinking, he whinged. It doesn't surprise me that he hasn't learned his lesson.
-
Maybe he's got a cheap government subsidized bit of waterfront? He's surely in bed with someone there. ;)
-
I'm somewhat appalled by Joe Saward's latest views on Bahrain. Very one-sided in my opinion.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/perceptions-and-realities-in-bahrain/#comment-149595
Not impressed by his replies to my comments either, but neither was he with mine.
Clearly you hit him in the nuts vintly :DD :DD
-
Maybe he's got a cheap government subsidized bit of waterfront? He's surely in bed with someone there. ;)
Nah, Joe just doesn't like changing his mind. He liked the place in 2004 and he's not going to change it unless they put up a statue to Vijay Mallya or something (to say he doesn't like Vijay is like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it)...
-
Wow! Not much respect here for one of F1's premier journalists. I'm guessing he gets touchy when people piggyback on his work to push their own barrow.
I've learned more about what is happening in Bahrain from Joe's blog than any other source. That's different from claiming he tells the whole story, by the way.
A lot of the reporting on Bahrain has been incredibly tabloid, but if anyone tries to point that out, they get howled down by the very mob that the sensationalist press pander to. Somehow simply presenting some actual insight and facts is equated to condoning everything the Bahrani regime has done.
-
Joe's 'insight' is very biased, and I can prove it beyond doubt. His article also happens to be exactly what a lot of people would like to hear, a more convenient version of events if you like.
If you would like a more balanced perspective, in my opinion, I'd be happy to mail you a load of information. PM me if you do.
Here's a flavour from Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/bahrain-s-dark-side-empty-promises-while-repression-goes-unabated-2013-04-17
-
Any time an unelected regime beats down peaceful protest, it is worth paying close attention to. When someone who is considered 'one of F1's premier journalists' writes a piece obviously only for Bahrain and Bernie's tastes, we should be even more concerned.
-
I think the area's history lends some validity to Joe's claims. Egypt overthrows a dictator and "democracy" skews Fundamental Islamist, leading to more riots. Iran overthrew a dictator and look where that lead, worse oppression and more riots brutally put down. One of the US' greatest fears is Iraq turning fundamentalist, and there have been signs that could happen. So, truly, which is worse, The current oppressive regime, where most people have at least some freedom, or another Iranian style regime straddling the Straights of Hormuz?
-
The Bahrain situation is not so black and white, and with so many agenda's on the table it is really difficult to make your stand. I am a Formula 1 fan who likes to see racing, no matter wherever it is being held, as because I have no say about it. If I had I would have replaced Korea with Austrian A1 GP, I would have enforced mandatory presence of Spa and many other decisions. Unfortunately I cannot, and neither can you. The only way it could have been done is a massive drop of audience, which would have enforced Mr. Bernie to think about. As it is unlikely to be happening as because there is massive amount of different opinion regarding this GP, I decided to enjoy it, because there is nothing else I could do.
-
I don't know what is better in the Middle East, to leave strong dictators in power for stability's sake or push for democracy and then stand back waiting to see how it shakes out in a decade or two.
I think most of us agree that perhaps a race shouldn't be held there just to fuel the propaganda of everything being right in Bahrain though, so to have an F1 journalist dive in on the same side is a bit shameful. :DntKnw:
That said, yeah, I'll be watching from my couch.
-
As far as the politics is concerned, we just have to let them figure it out. Too many problems have been caused by western interventions in that region, and trying to continually manipulate things, so that pro-western governments remain in power is really little better. If they elect anti-western governments, the question that we really ought to be posing to ourselves is why? Still, this isn't a politics board, so I'll leave that as rhetorical point.
In purely racing terms, it's not even a good circuit. Were it not for the money that Ecclestone receives, there would be no race there anyway. This all comes back to his, and CVC's, needs (greed in my view), combined the investments of some of the teams. I'd rather have an old European track reinstated in its place, but that won't happen because European governments don't tend to fund Formula 1 race venues.
-
I think most of us agree that perhaps a race shouldn't be held there just to fuel the propaganda of everything being right in Bahrain though, so to have an F1 journalist dive in on the same side is a bit shameful. :DntKnw:
That said, yeah, I'll be watching from my couch.
So life does not go on in the face of unrest in a country? :confused:
In most states what the violent Bahraini protest groups are up to would be cracked down on with both police and military force as necessary. Somehow because it's a Middle East state bombings by opponents of the government are given more validity by the media, laying the blame for such awful actions on the authorities.
When bomb atrocities have happened in Europe everyone rightly blames the perpetrators and the powers that be try to ensure life and events go on as normally as possible to prove violent disorder can't win. Hooligans and thugs are just hijacking the agenda ahead of this F1 event because the worlds media revels in a holier than thou crusade against Arab rulers.
Since when has it been wrong for an F1 journo, or anyone else, preferring on side of a political argument to any other? ::)
-
No, as a sports journalist, I think he should stay out of it. Just as I wouldn't pay any attention to a political journalist writing about sport.
We all have opinions about everything we know about, but if your job is to report on F1, it is arrogant to report on politics in an F1 column or blog.
-
In purely racing terms, it's not even a good circuit. Were it not for the money that Ecclestone receives, there would be no race there anyway.
So true. :good:
-
In purely racing terms, it's not even a good circuit. Were it not for the money that Ecclestone receives, there would be no race there anyway. This all comes back to his, and CVC's, needs (greed in my view), combined the investments of some of the teams. I'd rather have an old European track reinstated in its place, but that won't happen because European governments don't tend to fund Formula 1 race venues.
Well it's certainly a lot better than Hungary, Valencia, Zandvoort, or Zolder for that matter. :tease:
-
No, as a sports journalist, I think he should stay out of it. Just as I wouldn't pay any attention to a political journalist writing about sport.
We all have opinions about everything we know about, but if your job is to report on F1, it is arrogant to report on politics in an F1 column or blog.
In essence I agree but there's politics, and then there's politics. What I mean, is that in this case there's the political structure and history in Bahrain, with a myriad of factors affecting it, far beyond what the interested observer (me) or an occasionally visiting F1 reporter (Joe Saward) can fully understand, so hence maybe we shouldn't get too involved with those details. But, there's a basic human rights story here too, which isn't politics, it's life - and it's something that every man, woman and child should be afforded by rights. Hence when they are not being afforded to a section of a population when the ruling elite say there's no problem, in light of an F1 race, the two are intertwined, and very worthy of comment, by journalist and observer alike.
I don't have a problem with Joe Saward having a different view than mine (Gawd help us if we all thought the same), but to parade his view as 'two sides to the argument' is downright tosh.
-
I have to disagree, John. Zandvoort is a far superior circuit to Bahrain. Speaking of Zandvoort, I recall that one of the reasons given by F1 for leaving that track was that too much sand got on the racing surface. Sound like any current venues?
-
Well it's certainly a lot better than Hungary, Valencia, Zandvoort, or Zolder for that matter. :tease:
I actually liked the Hungaroring when there were more gravel traps, because it was a track which did punish drivers when they made mistakes. The loss of the gravel at a number of corners, including the blind turn four, has made it a much less interesting circuit for me though.
I don't count Valencia as a circuit, since it was nothing more than a glorified car park :P.
Anyway, the point is that Bahrain really isn't a good track at all. It has no memorable corners, and I can't recall any moments of real drama there, apart from the political situation, and that says it all.
Todt speaks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22196377). Quite how he reaches the conclusion which he does though, I'm not entirely sure.
-
Bahrains human rights record more then makes it reason enough for the F1 circus to give that country a miss.
There are plenty of places that would happily welcome F1 where people are not being killed by the regime to stage this beacon of automotive excess.
-
Places like Shanghai, China
-
I don't know what is better in the Middle East, to leave strong dictators in power for stability's sake or push for democracy and then stand back waiting to see how it shakes out in a decade or two.
I think most of us agree that perhaps a race shouldn't be held there just to fuel the propaganda of everything being right in Bahrain though, so to have an F1 journalist dive in on the same side is a bit shameful. :DntKnw:
That said, yeah, I'll be watching from my couch.
Are the Iraqi people any better off without Saddam
than with?I know our economy isn't.I think Iraq is a
far more dangerous place than before.I have my
doubts on our motives for being in Iraq or Afghanistan.
-
I'm pretty sure we went to Iraq because George W. Bush held a grudge against Saddam for trying to assassinate his father.
-
I'm pretty sure we went to Iraq because George W. Bush held a grudge against Saddam for trying to assassinate his father.
or to get Saddam because Bush the elder couldn't
-
Wow! Not much respect here for one of F1's premier journalists. I'm guessing he gets touchy when people piggyback on his work to push their own barrow.
I've learned more about what is happening in Bahrain from Joe's blog than any other source. That's different from claiming he tells the whole story, by the way.
A lot of the reporting on Bahrain has been incredibly tabloid, but if anyone tries to point that out, they get howled down by the very mob that the sensationalist press pander to. Somehow simply presenting some actual insight and facts is equated to condoning everything the Bahrani regime has done.
Cam, Joe used to be perhaps the finest F1 journalist in the paddock. That made his transition downwards in quality (which I believe happened in the span of a few short months early in 2010) all the more painful to watch. A lot of the the news items he came out with after that turned out to be blatantly wrong (in ways that made it obvious he was seeing what he wanted to see rather than what was there) and many others have turned out to be... ...dubious. (Did you know, for example, that there's three different "oppositions" in Bahrain, orientated around religion, civil rights and non-violence respectively? A check at the protest patterns on Twitter demonstrates that, and last I checked Joe was claiming there was only one opposition group (Al-Wefaq and its allies)). This makes it difficult to trust anything he says any more.
(Paranthetically, what Joe says about Al-Wefaq being fundamentalist and anti-equality is true, though they prefer not to broadcast this. An example of their unintentional bias against women was discovered by Kate Walker last year. Despite being introduced to an Al-Wefaq MP as a journalist, she was denied his business card while all the male journalists received one (http://www.f1katewalker.com/1/post/2012/04/behind-the-scenes-first-impressions-of-bahrain.html). Hardly an illustration of equality from the Al-Wefaq representative).
Compounding Joe's problems with credibility is that he decided to open a comments section, apparently for pure cheerleading purposes, without realising or caring that a comments section is a community space, just like a forum or a workplace water-cooler, and tends be used accordingly. If you open a community, you must be preparared to manage it. Joe could usefully learn lessons from Wizzo in this respect.
I enjoy reading the work of good journalists and am pleased when new ones join their ranks. It's sad to see previously-good journalists leave their ranks, especially when it's to become a bad one.
Mostly though, I'm relieved nobody in F1 got injured or killed this weekend. I note Bahrain had to step up their security to do it (which it's done through being more targeted in its interventions - their approach was a bit more scattergun last year). Whether the FIA will survive the self-destructive act it made by putting Bahrain on last year despite a blatant breach of its own Statutes is another matter. Remember, if the 12-month international racing ban the regs suggest should have been issued had been imposed last year, that ban would only end next month. The statute of limitations should another country or entity wish to take the FIA to court over allowing overtly politicised marketing materials doesn't end for another 4 years, and if any take up the invitation, the FIA will lose its power over all motor sport...
-
I think that much of the media coverage regarding Bahrain has been poor.
I am not going to get into the politics because (like most of the journalists) I do not fully understand the issues.
What I do know is that ever since Bahrain ceased to be a British Protectorate there have been major problems with a mainly Sunni leadership trying to govern a Shia population. However, conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims is widespread across much of the Arab world and I would guess that only the people directly involved can fully understand the intricacies of this complex cultural anomaly. For me the big question is 'what does sport / motor sport have to do with any of this?' F1 visiting Bahrain brings the question of Human Rights to a world audience so it must be positive. Other than that it is an international sporting event that is good for the Country and must therefore be good for the people of the country.
To put things into context the deaths and injuries resulting from conflict in Bahrain total in the tens, more died in riots in China, through the years there have been worse problems in Spain (Basque conflict) and the UK (Northern Ireland) and to geographically spread the pain, a poor journalist could probably take issue with the USA - Mexico relationship. F1 has or does operate in all of these Countries without complaint.
As I have said; I do not understand Bahrain (or indeed any of the other issues I have raised simply as comparisons) and I am certainly not making any judgements. I just think that sport and politics are, and should remain, unconnected.
-
Perhaps if the Bahraini organisers had listened to monty last year and not done the "UniF1ed" campaign, and if the Bahraini government wasn't paying for the race in an attempt to make themselves look good, the sport/politics ideal could be maintained in this case. Sadly they are interwoven, and we can only deal with the matter as it stands (while acknowledging parts of the matter are in shadow).
-
To put things into context the deaths and injuries resulting from conflict in Bahrain total in the tens, more died in riots in China, through the years there have been worse problems in Spain (Basque conflict) and the UK (Northern Ireland) and to geographically spread the pain, a poor journalist could probably take issue with the USA - Mexico relationship. F1 has or does operate in all of these Countries without complaint.
As I have said; I do not understand Bahrain (or indeed any of the other issues I have raised simply as comparisons) and I am certainly not making any judgements. I just think that sport and politics are, and should remain, unconnected.
In an ideal world they would, but they cannot, because the race is directly controlled, and linked to the Bahrain government, that's the difference vis à vis the Spanish, and British events, for example. You also cannot really compare Spain and the UK to Bahrain, as ETA, and the IRA are/were groups running bombing campaigns to undermine, or threaten, democratically elected governments; and that's not what's happening in Bahrain.
Note that I'm not saying that either the Spanish or British governments are completely innocent when it comes to handling their respective peace processes (e.g. the GAL scandal in Spain, and Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland), but that's a discussion for a separate thread.
-
You also cannot really compare Spain and the UK to Bahrain, as ETA, and the IRA are/were groups running bombing campaigns to undermine, or threaten, democratically elected governments; and that's not what's happening in Bahrain.
No, that's right. The Bahrain government is not democratically elected.
-
Sporting events should not be intertwined with politics/religion/race, not by organizers, participants, governments, media, or priests.
Example: Berlin Olympics 1936. I do not recall the U.S. boycotting this event.
a quote:
"The Americans should be ashamed of themselves, letting Negroes win their medals for them."
Balder von Shirach claimed Hitler said this after the 100m victory of Jesse Owens.
-
Sporting events should not be intertwined with politics/religion/race, not by organizers, participants, governments, media, or priests.
Example: Berlin Olympics 1936. I do not recall the U.S. boycotting this event.
a quote:
"The Americans should be ashamed of themselves, letting Negroes win their medals for them."
Balder von Shirach claimed Hitler said this after the 100m victory of Jesse Owens.
Now from anyone other than Hitler and this quote shows the US up for the lack of equal rights at the time, unfortunately having the crazy despot attached to the words lessens the effect somewhat and let the good old USA off the hook. :(
-
John:
The point I was trying to make is- if governments (or special interest organizations) are allowed to interject their particular viewpoints about sporting events, the Hitlers of the world can easily sidetrack the main purpose of the event.
Kudos to the U.S. for not boycotting the Berlin Olympics, even though the German mores at the time were clearly against accepted principles.
It is better to take part in the event and prove your worth by putting on a good show... ala Jesse Owens!
-
To me the Olympic's haven't been the same ever since we
boycotted the Olympic's in Russia and they returned the favor
by boycotting the Olympic's in Los Angles.
And now it's become all about the money not the sports being played.
-
All sport is now ruled by money.
-
All sport is now ruled by money.
True, but it's still sport.
(I do love a good sweeping generalisation, and I'm not being facetious :good:)
-
All sport is now ruled by money.
Seriously, I think that's why I've become fond of curling. They're still out there just for the love of it.
-
Seriously, I think that's why I've become fond of curling. They're still out there just for the love of it.
Plus sometimes the not so in shape guy/gal wins!! ;) ;) :D