Brits don't dope?

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

By whom?

The British media.

It was a case of plucky Russians beating the arrogant Americans at their own game. It was an absurd narrative as the Americans possessed a hundred basketball teams who could have slaughtered the best in the Soviet Union at the time but many people bought into it.

Did you watch the match?

The Russians won. The win was contentious because of the extra 3 seconds allowed at the end of the match, and because the match jury consisted of 3/5 judges from communist countries. If the 3 seconds hadn't been allowed it would have been a really narrow victory for the US, so your comment that '100 US teams could have beaten the USSR' is just untrue. The Russians were well ahead until 6 minutes left to play.

As for British media, again I disagree. Here is the actual report from The Guardian, which as you know was the most left wing of the broadsheets:

What the Guardian said: 11 September 1972

Reactions were heated after an appeal jury of the International Basketball Federation awarded the Russians the gold medal after their disputed victory over the United States in the basketball final. The American team spokesman Kenny Davis called it a “stunning blow” and said players had voted not to accept the silver medal.

“We do not feel like accepting the silver medal because we feel we are worth the gold,” said Bill Summers, chairman of the US Olympic Basketball Committee and manager of the team.

The appeals jury studied television film of the end of the game when the Americans thought they had just snatched victory only to find that officials had added an extra three seconds to the game, which allowed the Russians to rally and win 51-50.

It was the first time the Americans had ever lost an Olympic Games basketball match. There was a heated argument between Herbert Mols, assistant manager of the United States squad, and Ferenc Hepp, the Hungarian president of the appeals committee, at a press conference afterwards.

Why US women are likely to outperform the men again at the Olympics
Mols said the match had been dominated for 39 minutes and 57 seconds by the Soviet Union. “But we have not heard of any game played for 40 minutes and three seconds,” he said. He asked under what rule the three seconds had been added.

Hepp explained that the time needed to react to the time left to play when the clock stopped was one second. Hans Tenschert, the scorer of the match and one of the three men at the judge’s table, said that when the referee stopped the match there was one second to play. The referee had consulted the judges’ table and no one had said three seconds had to be played: there was only a signal.

“Only a technical delegate at the table could cancel out this signal of three seconds which came from Dr William Jones, the secretary-general of the International Basketball Federation. But the delegate kept silent and the referee had, therefore, no choice but to play three seconds,” Tenschert said.

That, to me, reads like a very neutral report.

It's hard to see it as so anti-American as to deserve mention in the Brits don't dope thread. We'll have to consider the Boston Tea Party in that context next, at this rate. Not to mention the Yanks stealing our girls in WWII.

Or, to put it another way, I fail to see the relevance of the original post but am grateful for the kwikki info!

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

Certainly the role of British broadcasting as a whole and its involvement in sport. For example, Phil and Paul and their relationship with Armstrong remains unexamined for the most part.

Broadcasting? You're surely not going where I think you're going?

Two key figures from British sports journalism were the McWhirter brothers who both enjoyed links with the extreme far right of British politics and became friends and business partners with the Anglo-Irish Guinness family who also dabbled in far right politicking. Together with David Coleman and Ron Pickering they helped to control the sporting narrative at the BBC in the post-war era. The role of sport as an expression of national wellbeing was very much part of this narrative. To take up Hog’s point, Pickering very much believed in modelling British sports development on communist countries. I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

It's hard to see it as so anti-American as to deserve mention in the Brits don't dope thread. We'll have to consider the Boston Tea Party in that context next, at this rate. Not to mention the Yanks stealing our girls in WWII.

Or, to put it another way, I fail to see the relevance of the original post but am grateful for the kwikki info

This citation from “The Guardian” is proof of gullibility and is very much relevant in a Brits don’t dope thread.

The Soviets (like all their sports stars) were a full-time professional team. The Americans were white college kid amateurs. The bench from the lowest ranked American professional team would have crushed the Soviets that day.

Why all the publicity? Why the big write up? Why all the media attention? Why did the story generate this interest? Kwikki even claims to remember the game!

Dopers survive off gullibility and yours is writ large.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

brilliant stuff, buckle.

...
Dopers survive off gullibility and your is writ large.

I'm cracking up, this is so bang on the dough!

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

brilliant stuff, buckle.

...
Dopers survive off gullibility and your is writ large.

I'm cracking up, this is so bang on the dough!

You see this from the Guardian in 1972? Don't make me laugh.

 

[kwikki]

It's hard to see it as so anti-American as to deserve mention in the Brits don't dope thread. We'll have to consider the Boston Tea Party in that context next, at this rate. Not to mention the Yanks stealing our girls in WWII.

Or, to put it another way, I fail to see the relevance of the original post but am grateful for the kwikki info

This citation from “The Guardian” is proof of gullibility and is very much relevant in a Brits don’t dope thread.

The Soviets (like all their sports stars) were a full-time professional team. The Americans were white college kid amateurs. The bench from the lowest ranked American professional team would have crushed the Soviets that day.

Why all the publicity? Why the big write up? Why all the media attention? Why did the story generate this interest? Kwikki even claims to remember the game!

Dopers survive off gullibility and yours is writ large.

You aren't very consistent are you.

You cite the very right wing McWhirter brothers as being influential in British sports broadcasting and then talk about communist countries being lauded.

As for the basketball match teams...what a ridiculous point. The US fielded the team it fielded. That is up to it. It doesn't matter that they could have fielded a stronger team. What matters is that they didn't. And of course the story was big, the US had a 60-something run of victory. The reporting, however, was neither gloating nor triumphalist.

Thank you for your jibe about gullibility. It would be better if you put your energies into thinking through your arguments first, or perhaps researching events from an era you very clearly didn't experience.

 

[buckle]

Re:

It's hard to see it as so anti-American as to deserve mention in the Brits don't dope thread. We'll have to consider the Boston Tea Party in that context next, at this rate. Not to mention the Yanks stealing our girls in WWII.

Or, to put it another way, I fail to see the relevance of the original post but am grateful for the kwikki info

This citation from “The Guardian” is proof of gullibility and is very much relevant in a Brits don’t dope thread.

The Soviets (like all their sports stars) were a full-time professional team. The Americans were white college kid amateurs. The bench from the lowest ranked American professional team would have crushed the Soviets that day.

Why all the publicity? Why the big write up? Why all the media attention? Why did the story generate this interest? Kwikki even claims to remember the game!

Dopers survive off gullibility and yours is writ large.

You aren't very consistent are you.

You cite the very right wing McWhirter brothers as being influential in British sports broadcasting and then talk about communist countries being lauded.

As for the basketball match teams...what a ridiculous point.

The US fielded the team it fielded. That is up to it.

It doesn't matter that they could have fielded a stronger team. What matters is that they didn't. And of course the story was big, the US had a 60-something run of victory. The reporting, however, was neither gloating nor triumphalist.

Thank you for your jibe about gullibility. It would be better if you put your energies into thinking through your arguments first, or perhaps researching events from an era you very clearly didn't experience.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or just trolling?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

It's hard to see it as so anti-American as to deserve mention in the Brits don't dope thread. We'll have to consider the Boston Tea Party in that context next, at this rate. Not to mention the Yanks stealing our girls in WWII.

Or, to put it another way, I fail to see the relevance of the original post but am grateful for the kwikki info

This citation from “The Guardian” is proof of gullibility and is very much relevant in a Brits don’t dope thread.

The Soviets (like all their sports stars) were a full-time professional team. The Americans were white college kid amateurs. The bench from the lowest ranked American professional team would have crushed the Soviets that day.

Why all the publicity? Why the big write up? Why all the media attention? Why did the story generate this interest? Kwikki even claims to remember the game!

Dopers survive off gullibility and yours is writ large.

You aren't very consistent are you.

You cite the very right wing McWhirter brothers as being influential in British sports broadcasting and then talk about communist countries being lauded.

As for the basketball match teams...what a ridiculous point.

The US fielded the team it fielded. That is up to it.

It doesn't matter that they could have fielded a stronger team. What matters is that they didn't. And of course the story was big, the US had a 60-something run of victory. The reporting, however, was neither gloating nor triumphalist.

Thank you for your jibe about gullibility. It would be better if you put your energies into thinking through your arguments first, or perhaps researching events from an era you very clearly didn't experience.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or just trolling?

The last resort, and not appreciated by the mods. You ought to report it if that's what you think.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

It's hard to see it as so anti-American as to deserve mention in the Brits don't dope thread. We'll have to consider the Boston Tea Party in that context next, at this rate. Not to mention the Yanks stealing our girls in WWII.

Or, to put it another way, I fail to see the relevance of the original post but am grateful for the kwikki info

This citation from “The Guardian” is proof of gullibility and is very much relevant in a Brits don’t dope thread.

The Soviets (like all their sports stars) were a full-time professional team. The Americans were white college kid amateurs. The bench from the lowest ranked American professional team would have crushed the Soviets that day.

Why all the publicity? Why the big write up? Why all the media attention? Why did the story generate this interest? Kwikki even claims to remember the game!

Dopers survive off gullibility and yours is writ large.

You aren't very consistent are you.

You cite the very right wing McWhirter brothers as being influential in British sports broadcasting and then talk about communist countries being lauded.

As for the basketball match teams...what a ridiculous point.

The US fielded the team it fielded. That is up to it.

It doesn't matter that they could have fielded a stronger team. What matters is that they didn't. And of course the story was big, the US had a 60-something run of victory. The reporting, however, was neither gloating nor triumphalist.

Thank you for your jibe about gullibility. It would be better if you put your energies into thinking through your arguments first, or perhaps researching events from an era you very clearly didn't experience.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or just trolling?

Rather than make inflammatory accusations, it would be better if you put forward an argument. If you have one, that is. Otherwise, cease trying to take this discussion into the gutter.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

So today's 'idiotic' Lottery funding approach, which has so far proved to be soo unsuccessful.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

Certainly the role of British broadcasting as a whole and its involvement in sport. For example, Phil and Paul and their relationship with Armstrong remains unexamined for the most part.

Broadcasting? You're surely not going where I think you're going?

Two key figures from British sports journalism were the McWhirter brothers who both enjoyed links with the extreme far right of British politics and became friends and business partners with the Anglo-Irish Guinness family who also dabbled in far right politicking. Together with David Coleman and Ron Pickering they helped to control the sporting narrative at the BBC in the post-war era. The role of sport as an expression of national wellbeing was very much part of this narrative. To take up Hog’s point, Pickering very much believed in modelling British sports development on communist countries. I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

This is just too funny. Thanks for the laugh, buckle.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

So today's 'idiotic' Lottery funding approach, which has so far proved to be soo unsuccessful.

Did the British not finish 4th in the medal table at 2012 Olympics?

Compared to previous Olympics they must have wet themselves!

 

[The Hitch]

A British guy got 4th in the 200m breathstroke. The commentators were super depressed, barely mentioned any of the medalists yet alone the winner.

They then cut to the swimming analyst who said "he came 4th but a Russian came 3rd so you never know, he could move up, I hope so"

What a disgusting comment

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

So today's 'idiotic' Lottery funding approach, which has so far proved to be soo unsuccessful.

Did the British not finish 4th in the medal table at 2012 Olympics?

Compared to previous Olympics they must have wet themselves!

They really need a font for irony. Or, I should say, some really need a font for irony. Or maybe I should just resort to emoticons, lil winky face just so you know when the joking is going on? Or should I add an "NB: Of course I'm not being serious, what sort of numpty do you take me for?"?

 

[sniper]

A British guy got 4th in the 200m breathstroke. The commentators were super depressed, barely mentioned any of the medalists yet alone the winner.

They then cut to the swimming analyst who said "he came 4th but a Russian came 3rd so you never know, he could move up, I hope so"

What a disgusting comment

unreal, cold war type cheerleading.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Two key figures from British sports journalism were the McWhirter brothers who both enjoyed links with the extreme far right of British politics and became friends and business partners with the Anglo-Irish Guinness family who also dabbled in far right politicking. Together with David Coleman and Ron Pickering they helped to control the sporting narrative at the BBC in the post-war era. The role of sport as an expression of national wellbeing was very much part of this narrative. To take up Hog’s point, Pickering very much believed in modelling British sports development on communist countries. I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

You've avoided the question buckle. How did you leap so acrobatically from the Saville Report to broadcasting? Could you please explain, cause if you did what I think you did I'm shocked.

As for the above comment itself. You threw in a lot of total nonsense to pad that thing out and distract people, such as the Guinness family. But the central issue: the McWhirters, David Coleman and Ron Pickering controlling the sporting narrative at the BBC. First, even if that were true what would it signify in relation to the the great Tom Simpson "cover up" (please, please, please Benotti, note the use of quote marks - *I'm* not calling it a cover up, in fact, for the record, I don't believe there was a cover up. ok?) you propose occurred? Are you saying that The McWhiter-Coleman-Pickering cabal controlled the whole of the UK media? Controlled the Observer, where Simpson talked about doping to Chris Basher? Controlled the People, where Simpson also spoke about doping? If the McWhiter-Coleman-Pickering cabal were so controlling, how did doping questions get into Ludovic Kennedy's The World of Tom Simpson?

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Two key figures from British sports journalism were the McWhirter brothers who both enjoyed links with the extreme far right of British politics and became friends and business partners with the Anglo-Irish Guinness family who also dabbled in far right politicking. Together with David Coleman and Ron Pickering they helped to control the sporting narrative at the BBC in the post-war era. The role of sport as an expression of national wellbeing was very much part of this narrative. To take up Hog’s point, Pickering very much believed in modelling British sports development on communist countries. I can recall an idiotic documentary where he heaped peons of praise on the Cuban system where badly needed money and resources was spent on targeting a limited number of sports for guaranteed success and medals.

You've avoided the question buckle. How did you leap so acrobatically from the Saville Report to broadcasting? Could you please explain, cause if you did what I think you did I'm shocked.

As for the above comment itself. You threw in a lot of total nonsense to pad that thing out and distract people, such as the Guinness family. But the central issue: the McWhirters, David Coleman and Ron Pickering controlling the sporting narrative at the BBC. First, even if that were true what would it signify in relation to the the great Tom Simpson "cover up" (please, please, please Benotti, note the use of quote marks - *I'm* not calling it a cover up, in fact, for the record, I don't believe there was a cover up. ok?) you propose occurred? Are you saying that The McWhiter-Coleman-Pickering cabal controlled the whole of the UK media? Controlled the Observer, where Simpson talked about doping to Chris Basher? Controlled the People, where Simpson also spoke about doping? If the McWhiter-Coleman-Pickering cabal were so controlling, how did doping questions get into Ludovic Kennedy's The World of Tom Simpson?

A documentary so devastating to his profile that he later won SPOTY, in the same year of its broadcast, awarded by the same organisation?

I didn't suggest control of the UK media by a cabal. I suggested the establishment of a narrative. Coleman and Pickering in track and field were the equivalents of Phil and Paul in cycling today for the post-war generations. Tens of millions were watching them watching the Olympics ...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

A documentary so devastating to his profile that he later won SPOTY, in the same year of its broadcast, awarded by the same organisation?

I didn't suggest control of the UK media by a cabal. I suggested the establishment of a narrative. Coleman and Pickering in track and field were the equivalents of Phil and Paul in cycling today for the post-war generations. Tens of millions were watching them watching the Olympics ...

Again, evading the questions: how did you leap so acrobatically from the Saville Report to broadcasting? Could you please explain, cause if you did what I think you did I'm shocked.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I suggested the establishment of a narrative. Coleman and Pickering in track and field were the equivalents of Phil and Paul in cycling today for the post-war generations. Tens of millions were watching them watching the Olympics ...

ROFLMFAO. Chapeau man, chapeau. Yes, Coleman and Pickering where Phil+Paul, Phil+Paul come from a very long tradition of cheer-leading media. But setting the narrative? Phil+Paul really managed to set the narrative on LA, didn't they?)

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

A documentary so devastating to his profile that he later won SPOTY, in the same year of its broadcast, awarded by the same organisation?

I didn't suggest control of the UK media by a cabal. I suggested the establishment of a narrative. Coleman and Pickering in track and field were the equivalents of Phil and Paul in cycling today for the post-war generations. Tens of millions were watching them watching the Olympics ...

Again, evading the questions: how did you leap so acrobatically from the Saville Report to broadcasting? Could you please explain, cause if you did what I think you did I'm shocked.

The Saville Report reference is lost on me. I've no idea why that is being mentioned here? I thought we were talking about sports and the role sports media play in Britain acting as potential cheerleaders for state sponsored doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The Saville Report reference is lost on me. I've no idea why that is being mentioned here? I thought we were talking about sports and the role sports media play in Britain acting as potential cheerleaders for state sponsored doping.

They say it's the memory goes first. I disagree myself but howandever...

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

To which you responded, with a balletic leap that would have made Ninette de Valois weap, with a load of old guff about the role of broadcasting.

So, one more time: how did you get from the Saville Report to broadcasting? Where's the connection?

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

The Saville Report reference is lost on me. I've no idea why that is being mentioned here? I thought we were talking about sports and the role sports media play in Britain acting as potential cheerleaders for state sponsored doping.

They say it's the memory goes first. I disagree myself but howandever...

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

To which you responded, with a balletic leap that would have made Ninette de Valois weap, with a load of old guff about the role of broadcasting.

So, one more time: how did you get from the Saville Report to broadcasting? Where's the connection?

YOU MENTIONED IT NOT ME!

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

YOU MENTIONED IT NOT ME!

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

I mentioned the Saville Report. You brought in broadcasting. I want to understand where the connection between Saville and broadcasting comes from. Answer, please.

 

[The Hitch]

A British guy got 4th in the 200m breathstroke. The commentators were super depressed, barely mentioned any of the medalists yet alone the winner.

They then cut to the swimming analyst who said "he came 4th but a Russian came 3rd so you never know, he could move up, I hope so"

What a disgusting comment

unreal, cold war type cheerleading.

The Russian who medalled has never been implicated in doping.
but its ok to hope his life gets destroyed, because he's russian, just so someone who thanks to the accident of birth grew on the same island as you, could feel a little bit better.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The Russian who medalled has never been implicated in doping.
but its ok to hope his life gets destroyed, because he's russian, just so someone who thanks to the accident of birth grew on the same island as you, could feel a little bit better.

Uh. Excuse me. But. Hello? Athlete? Olympian? QED doper. Get with the programme man, you know the rules round here: if you're competing, you're doping. And if you're not competing you're not doping nearly enough. So. Chapeau to the BBC on calling truth on that dirty rotten doper. And boo! hiss! to the BBC for not calling truth on that other dirty rotten doper, the bigger loser one.