Cav surely a shoo-in for BBC Sports Personality of Year?

[El Pistolero]

Your mind works in strange ways.

I am not laughing at the fact she was excluded. I am laughing at her graceless response to that.

I laugh at her being a bad loser who then tries to pretend her calls for a boycott have nothing to do with the personal snub. It is ungraceful for her to act in this way, even if she is justified in being upset at not being selected.

90% of professional athletes of whatever sport would react in pretty much the same way after an initial disappointment. How many stupid things does Cavendish say right after he lost a race? It's not ungraceful, it's normal human behavior.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

90% of professional athletes of whatever sport would react in pretty much the same way after an initial disappointment. How many stupid things does Cavendish say right after he lost a race? It's not ungraceful, it's normal human behavior.

Again, you don't get it.

The problem is not that she was upset, or that she said she was upset.

It's that she's trying to organise a boycott and insisting it's got nothing to do with her being personally upset.

Which is utterly ridiculous.

 

[El Pistolero]

Again, you don't get it.

The problem is not that she was upset, or that she said she was upset.

It's that she's trying to organise a boycott and insisting it's got nothing to do with her being personally upset.

Which is utterly ridiculous.

Well, I didn't know she was organizing a boycott at first though

Yes, it's pretty ridiculous, but doesn't sound amusing to me. I feel more sorry for her than amused. Not a single woman nominated by the way?I'm not an expert when it comes to British athletes, but surely there must be someone that deserved a nomination?

 

[ramjambunath]

Actually, all the names deserve to be there. Only two names are debatable (Strauss, who's the captain of a successful England, and Khan, who is the light welterweight champion), the rest have had fantastic years.

It's a case of this being such a good year for British sport that the women have been overlooked when they would have been there in other years.

If they wanted to accommodate women for the sake of accommodating women they could have extended the list of nominees for the final.

 

[The Hitch]

But surely there must be someone that deserved a nomination?

Its more a celebrity award. Being famous gets you on the list. During the olympics a woman can win a gold and get some press so make it onto the list.

Brownlee for example is 1 of the best if not the best athlete Britain has but tv channels and newspapers dont make any money off him, so, who cares.

During the golden award like 10 years ago for best athlete of past half century David Beckham was one of the 5 nominees.

 

[El Pistolero]

Its more a celebrity award. Being famous gets you on the list. During the olympics a woman can win a gold and get some press so make it onto the list.

Brownlee for example is 1 of the best if not the best athlete Britain has but tv channels and newspapers dont make any money off him, so, who cares.

During the golden award like 10 years ago for best athlete of past half century David Beckham was one of the 5 nominees.

Guess that explains a lot. Small sport, not famous.

 

[ultimobici]

Your mind works in strange ways.

I am not laughing at the fact she was excluded. I am laughing at her graceless response to that.

I laugh at her being a bad loser who then tries to pretend her calls for a boycott have nothing to do with the personal snub. It is ungraceful for her to act in this way, even if she is justified in being upset at not being selected.

If you read the article you can see that it is not about not being nominated but about the fact that the whole thing is rigged to ignore women's sport unless they've won something so big they cannot be ignored, i.e. Olympic Gold. Rebecca Adlington is World Champion this year yet is not even mentioned? But what can one expect when the selection panel was made up of sports editors all of whom are male?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Actually, all the names deserve to be there. Only two names are debatable (Strauss, who's the captain of a successful England, and Khan, who is the light welterweight champion), the rest have had fantastic years.

No, all the names don't deserve to be there. Murray won nothing of significance in the last year and Khan beat nobody of significance in the last year. Strauss hasn't been particularly brilliant as an individual. You could make a case for him as a representative of the best English cricket team in years, but there's already another nominee from the team.

It's an unusually strong list in that seven of those nominated actually do deserve to be there. But Murray is being nominated for being consistently fourth best in his discipline, simply because his sport is popular. There are a number of athletes who have been the best in the world in their discipline (both men and women) and who could reasonably feel a bit upset at being excluded.

 

[ramjambunath]

Forgot about Murray, he doesn't belong in the list. Two debatable individuals and one undeserving individual, the rest deserve their spot in the list.

 

[will10]

Take part in a major sport.

She's the best at a minority subset of a minority sport.

Brownlee has a right to be upset, not her.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but so is Mark Cavendish.

You want to talk about a laughable sport, try oly-distance triathlon. Brownlee is a good wet runner though..

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

If you read the article you can see that it is not about not being nominated but about the fact that the whole thing is rigged to ignore women's sport unless they've won something so big they cannot be ignored, i.e. Olympic Gold. Rebecca Adlington is World Champion this year yet is not even mentioned? But what can one expect when the selection panel was made up of sports editors all of whom are male?

It's a sports popularity contest. They asked the sports editors of newspapers and magazines to make the shortlist for them.

You may believe there is a huge untapped demand for more coverage of women's sports, and if so, I encourage you to make your fortune supplying it, because there are lots of people in a position to do so who do not consider it worthwhile at the moment.

The thing isn't rigged - the thing just reflects actual sports popularity - women's sport is a minority interest outside of the Olympics. If there was demand for more coverage, a newspaper would meet it and win new subscribers, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[ultimobici]

It's a sports popularity contest. They asked the sports editors of newspapers and magazines to make the shortlist for them.

You may believe there is a huge untapped demand for more coverage of women's sports, and if so, I encourage you to make your fortune supplying it, because there are lots of people in a position to do so who do not consider it worthwhile at the moment.

The thing isn't rigged - the thing just reflects actual sports popularity - women's sport is a minority interest outside of the Olympics. If there was demand for more coverage, a newspaper would meet it and win new subscribers, but it hasn't happened yet.

Well guess which sport is the third most popular participation sport after football & cricket? Yep, women's football!!

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but so is Mark Cavendish.

You want to talk about a laughable sport, try oly-distance triathlon. Brownlee is a good wet runner though..

Cavendish is sufficiently mainstream to get a quarter page in the sports section of every major British paper most times he wins a GT stage.

I have yet to ever see coverage of long distance triathlon, although I presume it is covered in the round-up article once a year.



As for triathlon, I couldn't agree more with anyone who sees it as pretty pointless until they move back to proper drafting rules. I don't see how that validates an 8 hour variety of the same sport which, for better or worse, will always be perceived as an activity for people either seeking some quasi spiritual experience, or not good enough to compete at Olympic distance.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Well guess which sport is the third most popular participation sport after football & cricket? Yep, women's football!!

Why doesn't the Times have 2 pages a day of women's football coverage then? Sexist sports editor?

How about the Telegraph then? Guardian? Independant? Sun? Mail? Mirror? Presumably all just sexist and ignoring the pent up demand.




There is a difference between participatory sports, and sports people watch for pleasure. Until someone makes a profit covering women's football, your counterexample is rather flat.

 

[ultimobici]

Why doesn't the Times have 2 pages a day of women's football coverage then? Sexist sports editor?

Narrowminded more like. The same attitude that ridiculed cycling for decades in favour of that super successful sport, football.

How about the Telegraph then? Guardian? Independant? Sun? Mail? Mirror? Presumably all just sexist and ignoring the pent up demand.

Biased towards the marquee sports we've been so successful in all down the years. Oh wait, it's only the last few years we've actually won anything on the rugby & cricket world stages and they were more a result of the rest being sub-par.

In the 46 years I've been alive we've won one world cup in our national sport. In that same period we've had multiple world champions in cycling. Simpson, Porter, Doyle, Boardman, Sturgess, Obree, Wiggins & Cavendish. Also we've had women world champions in Beryl Burton, Mandy Jones. We've had winners of major classifications in the Tour, Giro & Vuelta too. But all Fleet Street can report is dope, dope, dope. When Ferdinand had to go shopping instead of peeing in a cup, where was the vitriol then? Nowhere to be seen. Poor Rio, he forgot! The British press have about as much integrity as a junkie hooker, actually less, IMO.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Narrowminded more like. The same attitude that ridiculed cycling for decades in favour of that super successful sport, football.

Biased towards the marquee sports we've been so successful in all down the years. Oh wait, it's only the last few years we've actually won anything on the rugby & cricket world stages and they were more a result of the rest being sub-par.

In the 46 years I've been alive we've won one world cup in our national sport. In that same period we've had multiple world champions in cycling. Simpson, Porter, Doyle, Boardman, Sturgess, Obree, Wiggins & Cavendish. Also we've had women world champions in Beryl Burton, Mandy Jones. We've had winners of major classifications in the Tour, Giro & Vuelta too. But all Fleet Street can report is dope, dope, dope. When Ferdinand had to go shopping instead of peeing in a cup, where was the vitriol then? Nowhere to be seen. Poor Rio, he forgot! The British press have about as much integrity as a junkie hooker, actually less, IMO.

I don't think pointing out that people continue to want coverage of the main sports even though we're crap at them makes the compelling case you think it does.

Newspaper editors do not reflect their own 'narrowmindedness', but that of their readers.

I repeat again, if the share of voice/share of market of women's sport really is less than 1, you can make your fortune filling the gap in the market, but I certainly won't be investing in you.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't think pointing out that people continue to want coverage of the main sports even though we're crap at them makes the compelling case you think it does.

Newspaper editors do not reflect their own 'narrowmindedness', but that of their readers.

I repeat again, if the share of voice/share of market of women's sport really is less than 1, you can make your fortune filling the gap in the market, but I certainly won't be investing in you.

It's the attitude that football is the only real sport and the likes of cycling, triathlon etc are "mickey mouse" sports is what galls me. Sure they should cover football, cricket & rugby but when mainstream media ignore the likes of Cavendish's stage victories one has to wonder what they are doing.

Anyhow by having an all male panel is bad enough, but to include dross like Zoo and Nuts is laughable.

 

[BM1979]

Cavendish is sufficiently mainstream to get a quarter page in the sports section of every major British paper most times he wins a GT stage.

I have yet to ever see coverage of long distance triathlon, although I presume it is covered in the round-up article once a year.



As for triathlon, I couldn't agree more with anyone who sees it as pretty pointless until they move back to proper drafting rules. I don't see how that validates an 8 hour variety of the same sport which, for better or worse, will always be perceived as an activity for people either seeking some quasi spiritual experience, or not good enough to compete at Olympic distance.[/QUOTE]

Or could be considered the ultimate challenge in triathalon. I would think a lot of triathletes would get more satisfaction out of winning the Hawaii Ironman Championship compared to a Olympic gold medal.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Cavendish is sufficiently mainstream to get a quarter page in the sports section of every major British paper most times he wins a GT stage.

I have yet to ever see coverage of long distance triathlon, although I presume it is covered in the round-up article once a year.



As for triathlon, I couldn't agree more with anyone who sees it as pretty pointless until they move back to proper drafting rules. I don't see how that validates an 8 hour variety of the same sport which, for better or worse, will always be perceived as an activity for people either seeking some quasi spiritual experience, or not good enough to compete at Olympic distance.[/QUOTE]

Or could be considered the ultimate challenge in triathalon. I would think a lot of triathletes would get more satisfaction out of winning the Hawaii Ironman Championship compared to a Olympic gold medal.

They may get more satisfaction - that is their lookout - but it is not a greater achievement.

For the keen amateur to complete a tougher event is a greater achievement, but the greater merit for the winner lies in the strength of the elite field, which clearly lies at Olympic distance.

 

[BM1979]

They may get more satisfaction - that is their lookout - but it is not a greater achievement.

For the keen amateur to complete a tougher event is a greater achievement, but the greater merit for the winner lies in the strength of the elite field, which clearly lies at Olympic distance.

Tell me how you come to that conclusion , Is it cause that's what gets shown on Tv. You do know the Hawaii Ironman is the TDF of triathalon

 

[The Hitch]

Narrowminded more like. The same attitude that ridiculed cycling for decades in favour of that super successful sport, football.

Biased towards the marquee sports we've been so successful in all down the years. Oh wait, it's only the last few years we've actually won anything on the rugby & cricket world stages and they were more a result of the rest being sub-par.

In the 46 years I've been alive we've won one world cup in our national sport. In that same period we've had multiple world champions in cycling. Simpson, Porter, Doyle, Boardman, Sturgess, Obree, Wiggins & Cavendish. Also we've had women world champions in Beryl Burton, Mandy Jones. We've had winners of major classifications in the Tour, Giro & Vuelta too. But all Fleet Street can report is dope, dope, dope. When Ferdinand had to go shopping instead of peeing in a cup, where was the vitriol then? Nowhere to be seen. Poor Rio, he forgot! The British press have about as much integrity as a junkie hooker, actually less, IMO.

Chapeau sir. Well said. So true about the ignorance of the press. You look at who some of the "journalists" are and its a joke. Anyone who played football can become a well respected "expert" might even get themselves a knighthood for services to television of some crap. During the world cup some of the "pundits" didnt even know the names of the players in the matches they were commentating on, and they just laughed about it, while 1 million of our money went to building a special lift for these "experts" to make it to the rooftop studio because they couldnt be bothered to walk up the stairs.

And as you say the amount they know about doping, but yet have the cheek to act like only cyclists do it, well its no laughing matter.

 

[Tuarts]

Tough to do an Aussie version I think.

Cadel Evans v Sally Pearsons.

Not sure who the other nomineese would be. Craig Alexander I guess, someone from Brisbane Roar.

 

[Mambo95]

It's the attitude that football is the only real sport and the likes of cycling, triathlon etc are "mickey mouse" sports is what galls me. Sure they should cover football, cricket & rugby but when mainstream media ignore the likes of Cavendish's stage victories one has to wonder what they are doing.

They don't ignore him. He's actually pretty well known. For this award he is currently the odds-on hot favourite with the bookies.
By contrast, Alistair Cook who was outstanding in cricket is 50-1.
Let's not play the victim here, when it's unmerited. I'm pretty confident Cav will win this.

 

[Mambo95]

Chrissie Wellington may just be the greatest athlete ever, that happens to be a woman. Sure, there may have been women who were equally dominant over other women in more mainstream sporting endeavors, but there has never been a woman whose performances have been as close to the absolute best performance in the sport regardless of sex. In other words, she's closer to the best men than any woman has ever been in any other sport. To me that makes her the greatest female athlete ever.

Let's stop the BS here. Triathlon is a minority sport, although it is growing in popularity. Within that minority, Ironman is a minority. All the top athletes do the ITU series. That's the professional grade. Ironman is for amateurs who want a challenge. The reason Wellington dominates is because the number of full time female Ironman professionals can be counted on one hand. Before Wellington won it four times, Natascha Badmann won it six times and Paula Newby-Fraser eight times. No-one bangs on about them, though.

Ironman is to triathlon what RAAM is to cycling. I never see Jure Robic's name in lists of the great cyclists though.

Similarly, being women's welterweight champion at Taekwondo once is not a greater achievement than, for example, being no.3 in the world at men's tennis or beingMen's Raiod Race champion. Not all world championships are of equal merit.

 

[BM1979]

Let's stop the BS here. Triathlon is a minority sport, although it is growing in popularity. Within that minority, Ironman is a minority. All the top athletes do the ITU series. That's the professional grade. Ironman is for amateurs who want a challenge. The reason Wellington dominates is because the number of full time female Ironman professionals can be counted on one hand. Before Wellington won it four times, Natascha Badmann won it six times and Paula Newby-Fraser eight times. No-one bangs on about them, though.

Ironman is to triathlon what RAAM is to cycling. I never see Jure Robic's name in lists of the great cyclists though.

Similarly, being women's welterweight champion at Taekwondo once is not a greater achievement than, for example, being no.3 in the world at men's tennis or beingMen's Raiod Race champion. Not all world championships are of equal merit.

Amateurs. I suppose Marathon runners are amateurs too compared to sprinters being the Proffessional grade