The banning of Eduardo for ‘deceiving the referee’ leaves a strangely split taste in the mouth. Whilst it is undoubtedly sweet justice to ban those who cheat, when looked at, the merits of the case leave a rather more bitter taste lingering.
For a start there is the name of the charge: ‘deceiving the referee.’ Eduardo hadn’t simply taken a tumble, but engaged in full on deceit; as if the Croat had convinced the official into giving his details into some intricate pyramid scheme. Why not just call it what it is, diving?
The punishment for diving, when caught during a game, is a yellow card. However, it’s a two game ban if the referee misses it. Is the extra punishment in place for the referee’s ineptitude? If Associations are serious about backing up their referees then why not give them the power to send off divers? That of course could potentially ruin games on a bad call, but the current, scatter gun, position of increased punishment lies in an officiating limbo. Not quite admitting that referees need technological support, akin to the referral system in rugby, but not backing their abilities either.
The case has been led by the Scottish FA, who also has members in UEFA. This case isn’t a first in world football. The last time a player was banned retrospectively was Saulius Mikoliunas, playing for Lithuania against Scotland. Scotland with members on the banning committee, and a key vote in World cup bids. Expect Terry Wogan to walk out of a football game mumbling something about political voting any time soon.
Whilst ‘witch – hunt,’ is too strong a term, Michael Platini is on record as saying the big four is bad for football. Barcelona, with their unbranded shirts seems to fit into Platini’s ideal of romantic football, and with that there has been no talk of a ban for Messi headbutting an opponent. Platini hates the financial dominance of the big four, yet has been strangely quiet on the Real Madrid Galacticos 2 project. Yet despite all this Champion’s League games are all still shown at 19:45, no matter the location, to appeal to the strongest market – the English; the same loyal and unflinching market that makes the big 4 so strong.
It seems UEFA want their big 4 cakes, and they want to eat them all, before banning said teams for causing them stomach cramps.
Saturday 5 September 2009
Friday 20 February 2009
Lance vs Kimmage
This week Lance Armstrong criticised the Sunday Times journalist Paul Kimmage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fV-48DT3E
Kimmage has criticised many of cycling's authorities for double standards. When speaking to Lance he says puts doping offences in an order saying 'David Millar has been very pronounced in his anti doping stance, whereas these guys have admitted to nothing." Yet in his interview with Cycling Weekly we're told that "he [Millar] should never be allowed to race again." If this is the lesser punishment for a doping cycling I'm not entirely sure that I want to know what Kimmage expects for Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis. With a career already being taken away, one can only presume some sort of disfigurement.
Kimmage's failure to ever win in his professional career, despite taking drugs himself is perhaps too obvious a reason for his hatred of the clean Armstrong, but then perhaps that's because his jealousy is all too apparent. This is a man that says "the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking" and claims to have references for this. Professional cyclists for references. Yet there is no expansion of what 'stuff' is, or indeed who these cyclists are.
Essentially you have a journalist's career built largely upon rumours, hints and suggestion. One must ask the question is this any different to a career built upon, not fact, but false fact, doping?
A journalist has a right and indeed, is expected, to ask hard questions. However, to call a man, never mind a man who has suffered at the hands of disease and raised so much to combat it, a 'cancer' is an insult not only to Armstrong, but anybody who has ever suffered or been affected by the suffering caused by cancer.
Cycling is a sport. Shown by Armstrong, it is a sport that can be a huge force for good, but it is just a sport. Armstrong's return, whatever one's personal opinion of him, will never take a life too early, insist upon hours of recuperation, or devastate an entire family. I sincerely hope Paul Kimmage comes to realise this on his own terms and never has to find out the hard way, like too many of us have had to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fV-48DT3E
Kimmage has criticised many of cycling's authorities for double standards. When speaking to Lance he says puts doping offences in an order saying 'David Millar has been very pronounced in his anti doping stance, whereas these guys have admitted to nothing." Yet in his interview with Cycling Weekly we're told that "he [Millar] should never be allowed to race again." If this is the lesser punishment for a doping cycling I'm not entirely sure that I want to know what Kimmage expects for Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis. With a career already being taken away, one can only presume some sort of disfigurement.
Kimmage's failure to ever win in his professional career, despite taking drugs himself is perhaps too obvious a reason for his hatred of the clean Armstrong, but then perhaps that's because his jealousy is all too apparent. This is a man that says "the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking" and claims to have references for this. Professional cyclists for references. Yet there is no expansion of what 'stuff' is, or indeed who these cyclists are.
Essentially you have a journalist's career built largely upon rumours, hints and suggestion. One must ask the question is this any different to a career built upon, not fact, but false fact, doping?
A journalist has a right and indeed, is expected, to ask hard questions. However, to call a man, never mind a man who has suffered at the hands of disease and raised so much to combat it, a 'cancer' is an insult not only to Armstrong, but anybody who has ever suffered or been affected by the suffering caused by cancer.
Cycling is a sport. Shown by Armstrong, it is a sport that can be a huge force for good, but it is just a sport. Armstrong's return, whatever one's personal opinion of him, will never take a life too early, insist upon hours of recuperation, or devastate an entire family. I sincerely hope Paul Kimmage comes to realise this on his own terms and never has to find out the hard way, like too many of us have had to.
Thursday 29 January 2009
Robinho charged. He's innocent isn't he?
Robinho being charged for ‘a sexual assault’ came into the news hardly as a surprise. Commentators, laymen, and indeed I have all seemed to have come to the conclusion that it’s just an accusation. In a time when convection rates are at an all time low this is a worrying assumption. Whilst I wouldn’t judge pre judgement on Robinho, the fact that any judgement is leant towards the accused and not the accuser speaks volumes for the regard that the court system in sexual assault cases is held.
It’s in this situation that rare sympathy can be afforded to footballers. In the last few years a group of players including Titus Bramble and Carlton Cole were accused of raping a young girl. There was no conviction, but Max Clifford was hired to represent the girl. Not a lawyer, no private detective. Instead a PR expert.
Robin van Persie was accused, but the case was thrown out due to a complete lack of evidence. His ‘victim’s’ name was in the newspaper, something that can’t happen in law without her consent. Whilst it’s impossible to imagine the horror of such an ordeal, should it have happened it’s doubtful a true victim would be comfortable speaking about it in a newspaper.
Christiano Ronaldo was another. His case thrown out due to a lack of evidence.
Paul Dicov, Keith Gillespie and Frank Sinclair have all be charged and later cleared due to a lack of evidence, and there are more.
Is it any wonder then, with such accusations made with no evidence that the natural assumption for Robinho is not guilty? Footballers are subject to women throwing themselves at them on a regular basis. Even Van Persie’s accuser spoke of wanting to have sex ‘with a nice footballer.’ This huge lack of awareness for their value as a woman carries more far more repercussions than damaging footballers' egos; It carries right through to affect genuine victims of rape.
Why have these cases been allowed to go to court with such a lack of evidence? Don’t the Police check if there are facts before charging? Apparently not, the word rape is enough. If any progression with conviction rates is to take place then the focus must shift to deciding if a case is warranted, or if it is a case of a girl wanting sex with a nice footballer and either regretting it later or wanting to see her name in the papers.
As long as this trend continues women and real victims will continue to suffer without justice.
It’s in this situation that rare sympathy can be afforded to footballers. In the last few years a group of players including Titus Bramble and Carlton Cole were accused of raping a young girl. There was no conviction, but Max Clifford was hired to represent the girl. Not a lawyer, no private detective. Instead a PR expert.
Robin van Persie was accused, but the case was thrown out due to a complete lack of evidence. His ‘victim’s’ name was in the newspaper, something that can’t happen in law without her consent. Whilst it’s impossible to imagine the horror of such an ordeal, should it have happened it’s doubtful a true victim would be comfortable speaking about it in a newspaper.
Christiano Ronaldo was another. His case thrown out due to a lack of evidence.
Paul Dicov, Keith Gillespie and Frank Sinclair have all be charged and later cleared due to a lack of evidence, and there are more.
Is it any wonder then, with such accusations made with no evidence that the natural assumption for Robinho is not guilty? Footballers are subject to women throwing themselves at them on a regular basis. Even Van Persie’s accuser spoke of wanting to have sex ‘with a nice footballer.’ This huge lack of awareness for their value as a woman carries more far more repercussions than damaging footballers' egos; It carries right through to affect genuine victims of rape.
Why have these cases been allowed to go to court with such a lack of evidence? Don’t the Police check if there are facts before charging? Apparently not, the word rape is enough. If any progression with conviction rates is to take place then the focus must shift to deciding if a case is warranted, or if it is a case of a girl wanting sex with a nice footballer and either regretting it later or wanting to see her name in the papers.
As long as this trend continues women and real victims will continue to suffer without justice.
Thursday 15 January 2009
The Story ... So Far
A trip to the city last weekend brought about a trip to a certain respectable book store, during which my mind simply wasn't on the task; I was thinking about cricket. To be precise I was thinking about how it is that England have gone from Australia Conquering Heroes to being rated 5th in the test rankings, just 3 points above 6th, in the space of 3 years. That's less time than it took Boycott to craft another century.
This thought was in mind whilst I looked at the Sports section. I looked down past the autobiographies of Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, and on to Alistair Cook: My Story So Far. Considering his story so far leaves him at 25 and would set you back £12.99 I'd feel a little more that short changed. Monty Panesar also tells of 'My Story So Far,' and so the problem became more apparent. So far half the current team have spent time writing their stories, all so far.
The mention to Boycott wasn't simply a needless critique. He took so long to score because he was so obsessed with runs. His autobiography didn't come out until he was 47. Instead he spent his time working on his game, but this isn't supposed to be a big up Boycott post, instead an asking of the question: What exactly have Cook and Panesar done to feel their stories are worth telling so far? What have they achieved?
With Matthew Hayden retiring (no autobiography yet, just two cookbooks) perhaps we should look across the water to compare outlooks. When we beat Australia we gave out MBEs, OBEs, tours around Downing Street, and many many alkaseltzers. When Australia beat us 5-0 there was just the hangover cures. It was another victory, another step on the way. For us it was the destination.
This thought was in mind whilst I looked at the Sports section. I looked down past the autobiographies of Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, and on to Alistair Cook: My Story So Far. Considering his story so far leaves him at 25 and would set you back £12.99 I'd feel a little more that short changed. Monty Panesar also tells of 'My Story So Far,' and so the problem became more apparent. So far half the current team have spent time writing their stories, all so far.
The mention to Boycott wasn't simply a needless critique. He took so long to score because he was so obsessed with runs. His autobiography didn't come out until he was 47. Instead he spent his time working on his game, but this isn't supposed to be a big up Boycott post, instead an asking of the question: What exactly have Cook and Panesar done to feel their stories are worth telling so far? What have they achieved?
With Matthew Hayden retiring (no autobiography yet, just two cookbooks) perhaps we should look across the water to compare outlooks. When we beat Australia we gave out MBEs, OBEs, tours around Downing Street, and many many alkaseltzers. When Australia beat us 5-0 there was just the hangover cures. It was another victory, another step on the way. For us it was the destination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
