A lesson for quitter Radcliffe



"Hywel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Peter B says...
> >
> > "Robert Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> > message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > IMO once someone of Paulas standing is out of the medals there is little
> > point in carrying on.
>
> That's completely the wrong attitude. Who was that track runner that
> knackered his hamstring (or something) in a previous Games? He went
> down, and hobbled towards the finish. *That's* what sport is about,
> particularly the Olympics. These Games are going to be remembered for
> empty seats, fiddles on the results, and people dropping out because
> they can't be arsed to play the game properly. Eric the Eel - not a
> chance of even finishing the swim, but he did. Gawd knows who won that
> event, though.
>
>

I propose we make this very simple.....anyone and everyone is allowed to
criticise PR. Anyone and everyone that is, who has put in a similar amount
of hours of training and sacrifice and single mindenness and endured the
hardship necessary to get to her level of ability and into the olympics.
Everyone else can shut the **** up.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
 
"Tumbleweed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I propose we make this very simple.....anyone and everyone is allowed to
> criticise PR. Anyone and everyone that is, who has put in a similar amount
> of hours of training and sacrifice and single mindenness and endured the
> hardship necessary to get to her level of ability and into the olympics.
> Everyone else can shut the **** up.

Seems a bit Nazi to me.

Pete
 
"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tumbleweed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I propose we make this very simple.....anyone and everyone is allowed to
> > criticise PR. Anyone and everyone that is, who has put in a similar
amount
> > of hours of training and sacrifice and single mindenness and endured the
> > hardship necessary to get to her level of ability and into the olympics.
> > Everyone else can shut the **** up.
>
> Seems a bit Nazi to me.
>
> Pete
>

OK, your name has been noted for when the revolution comes.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
 
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:15:37 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Seems a bit Nazi to me.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>
>OK, your name has been noted for when the revolution comes.

"Don't tell him, Pike!"
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the bastards'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Hywel
<[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>, Michael
>MacClancy says...
>
>
>> As Brendan Foster said on the BBC this morning there is certainly something
>> wrong with her. It could be that her preparation was wrong, that she had a
>> minor infection or any of a lot of other things.
>>
>> She now needs support to help her find out what went wrong, not criticism.
>
>I do have sympathy for her, and I know I'm not in any position to
>criticise her or her team for what's happened, whatever that may be.
>Dropping out of the marathon due to illness, OK, I can accept that.
>Then do the same again a few days later?

Having had to drop out of the marathon a few days earlier probably meant
that she was likely to find completing the 10K very difficult - her I am
assuming that she dropped out of the marathon because she felt
physically unable to continue - the drain of that event must mean that
attempting another gruelling race a few days later is going to be very
difficult. I wasn't surprised she didn't finish

Logically it wasn't a sensible decision I think to enter it, but I can
understand why she would have felt she had to try.

--
Chris French, Leeds
 
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:01:08 +0100, David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On 27/8/04 9:46 am, in article [email protected], "Robert Bruce"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jenkins triumphs in adversity
>>
>> Britain's Marc Jenkins ended the Olympics triathlon to a hero's
>> welcome despite finishing last in Athens.
>> A collison midway through the cycling leg left the Welshman with a
>> broken wheel, ending any chance he had.
>>
>> But the 28-year-old put the bike on his shoulder and ran two
>> kilometres to the next wheel station, finishing the race to cheers from the
>> British fans.
>
>Apparently there was a big screen at the finish and every time they cut to
>him running with the bike the crowd stood up and cheered. Very good
>attitude.
>
>I don't think one could exactly call Paula Radcliffe a quitter. If you have
>never been in the situation where you just *can't* carry on then you can
>have no idea what she went through.

Ys - Radcliffe's just prone to it as she always attempts to lead from
the front and establish a long enough lead to prevent others
'finishing' past her.

The downside is you may end up with no reserves a bit too soon.

>Did you see the article on the Australian rower who also conked out (for
>want of a better term) three quarters of the way through a race? The
>conditions must have been really severe.
>
>..d

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
[scythe]

Isn't it interesting and revealing about British people - a week ago I
would have said 'Scots people', but I'm a little less depressed now to
see our southern neighbours at it too - to see how we put more energy
and interest into rubbishing people who have tried their best and
failed, than in praising people who have tried and succeeded?

Here - on a cycling group - we've spent more time belittling Paula
Radcliffe's failure than Chris Hoy's or Bradley Wiggins' successes.

The other thing that I find depressing is our narrow nationalism -
again, all this fuss about Paula Radcliffe, and scarcely a mention of
Gunn-Rita Dahle, who managed to win the women's cross country by 59
seconds despite a bent rear deraileur; or Leontien Van Moorsel who won
the women's time trial despite the most horrible crash in the road race
only three days before.

I can't help feeling that a psychologically healthy nation would praise
those who won - especially those who won against expectations or
against the odds - and those who tried their best; and let those who on
the day found they didn't have it in them to go away and rebuild their
confidence in peace.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.
 
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:08:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

> [scythe]
>
> Isn't it interesting and revealing about British people - a week ago I
> would have said 'Scots people', but I'm a little less depressed now to
> see our southern neighbours at it too - to see how we put more energy
> and interest into rubbishing people who have tried their best and
> failed, than in praising people who have tried and succeeded?
>
> Here - on a cycling group - we've spent more time belittling Paula
> Radcliffe's failure than Chris Hoy's or Bradley Wiggins' successes.

Even here it's probably a measure of the misplaced importance of athletics
(in the media rather than amongst the denizens of urc). We (the UK in this
instance) have done well in cycling, sailing, rowing and equestrianism but
none of these are 'international' sports and none receive the attention
athletics does.

Colin
 
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:20:23 +0100, Colin Blackburn wrote:



>
> Even here it's probably a measure of the misplaced importance of athletics
> (in the media rather than amongst the denizens of urc). We (the UK in this
> instance) have done well in cycling, sailing, rowing and equestrianism but
> none of these are 'international' sports and none receive the attention
> athletics does.
>
> Colin

Have you not thought that athletics is popular because it is so much more
accessible to most people than the sports mentioned above? To run you need
shoes, socks, shorts and singlet which together are considerably cheaper
than the bike, boat or horse needed for the others.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his
friends." -Oscar Wilde
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
 
Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes:

>Have you not thought that athletics is popular because it is so much more
>accessible to most people than the sports mentioned above? To run you need
>shoes, socks, shorts and singlet which together are considerably cheaper
>than the bike, boat or horse needed for the others.

Have you looked at the price of good running shoes lately? Which need to
be replaced regularly as well?
Rowing is cheap as the boats are normally owned by the club. No foot wear
needed. T-shirt and track bottoms work fine for people starting out.
Still not a populair sport though ;)

Roos
 
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:35:22 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Have you not thought that athletics is popular because it is so much more
> accessible to most people than the sports mentioned above?

Yes, absolutely. I'm not saying it isn't popular for underlying reasons.
Not only is it more accessible financially but it is probably more
accessible culturally---we have a history of rowing, sailing and riding
horses (over poles) that many countries do not have.

Colin
 
On 31 Aug 2004 11:43:54 GMT, Roos Eisma <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Have you not thought that athletics is popular because it is so much
>> more
>> accessible to most people than the sports mentioned above? To run you
>> need
>> shoes, socks, shorts and singlet which together are considerably cheaper
>> than the bike, boat or horse needed for the others.
>
> Have you looked at the price of good running shoes lately? Which need to
> be replaced regularly as well?

Good shoes can be had relatively cheaply.

> Rowing is cheap as the boats are normally owned by the club. No foot wear
> needed. T-shirt and track bottoms work fine for people starting out.

But you have to live near to a rowing club. In the UK this probably isn't
a problem for many people but in a world context I'd say running is more
accessible than rowing.

Colin
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> Have you not thought that athletics is popular because it is so much more
> accessible to most people than the sports mentioned above? To run you
need
> shoes, socks, shorts and singlet which together are considerably cheaper
> than the bike, boat or horse needed for the others.

Generally athletics (excluding the marathon) and show jumping are also
relatively easy to cover on TV. Most events (or at least most rounds) are
relatively short and take place in a reasonably confined space.

Cycling (except track), sailing, marathon, and cross country on almost
anything are not well confined hence raise significant problems for
broadcasters (and, until relatively recently, insuperable problems).

TV coverage promotes public interest.

T
 
Roos Eisma wrote:

> Rowing is cheap as the boats are normally owned by the club.

Eh? Where does the club get its money from?

Boats don't just grow on trees, you know. At least, most of them don't.
Not to mention the fact that they need maintenance, and storage
(probably at a prime riverside location).

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
James Annan wrote:

> Eh? Where does the club get its money from?
>
> Boats don't just grow on trees, you know. At least, most of them don't.
> Not to mention the fact that they need maintenance, and storage
> (probably at a prime riverside location).

In a related case (Tayside Sea Kayak Club):

boats have been bought with charitable grants, and from club funds.
Club funds come from subscriptions (at a whopping £5/year, which doesn't
exactly price us out of the leisure market) and from hire charges, which
are fairly nominal with an evening's paddle setting you back slightly
more than the pint you unwind with afterwards. But most club funds are
raised at an annual ceilidh.

Storage is indeed at a prime riverside location, but it doesn't cost us
anything much thanks to some "if you don't ask, you won't get"
enquiries. Other local sailing clubs have sheds that have been fixtures
for ages, so there's no capital to pay and rent can come from sources
like the above.

Maintenance on the boats is done by club members. This varies from the
odd nick being sanded out to complete restoration of hulks into
seaworthy expedition boats.

A new sea kayak will typically cost £1,500+ before you've bought paddle,
split paddles, BA, wet suit, paddling cag etc. etc. There are students
and unemployed folk in TSKC that can't even dream of that sort of
expenditure, yet they're active paddlers thanks to the club.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
James Annan <[email protected]> writes:

>Roos Eisma wrote:

>> Rowing is cheap as the boats are normally owned by the club.

>Eh? Where does the club get its money from?

It does mean that an individual rower doesn't normally own a boat. You
contribute to a small part of a boat that is used by more people over a
fairly long lifetime. Maintenance in the clubs I've been in was done by
volunteers, as was coaching. Additional income was generated by renting
out the club house for parties. And I suppose the large contingent of not
very active rowers who paid full contribution effectively sponsored the
active younger rowers.

Ok, maybe 'cheap' is overstretching it a bit, but the way the original
sentence was phrased implied that to row you would have to buy a boat,
like you would have to buy a bike to cycle.

Roos
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> James Annan wrote:
>
>> Eh? Where does the club get its money from?
>>
>> Boats don't just grow on trees, you know. At least, most of them
>> don't. Not to mention the fact that they need maintenance, and storage
>> (probably at a prime riverside location).
>
>
> In a related case (Tayside Sea Kayak Club):
>
> boats have been bought with charitable grants, and from club funds. Club
> funds come from subscriptions (at a whopping £5/year, which doesn't
> exactly price us out of the leisure market) and from hire charges, which
> are fairly nominal with an evening's paddle setting you back slightly
> more than the pint you unwind with afterwards. But most club funds are
> raised at an annual ceilidh.

Typical annual fee for a decent rowing club is around the 250UKP mark
(based on a very brief check). But I believe there is no extra usage fee
on top, so it may not be so different for say 3 times a week (minimum
for remotely serious use). Oh, you can expect a clubhouse with some gym
equipment too.


James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
Roos Eisma wrote:

> Ok, maybe 'cheap' is overstretching it a bit, but the way the original
> sentence was phrased implied that to row you would have to buy a boat,
> like you would have to buy a bike to cycle.

Oh, I see what you mean.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
On 31 Aug 2004 13:53:26 GMT, Roos Eisma wrote:


>
> Ok, maybe 'cheap' is overstretching it a bit, but the way the original
> sentence was phrased implied that to row you would have to buy a boat,
> like you would have to buy a bike to cycle.
>
> Roos

Fair point. But my experience of rowing in the UK is that it's a minority
sport, favoured by the richer echelons of our society and perceived by
'ordinary people' to be closed to them.

This perception is only reinforced by the fact that Matthew Pinsent went to
Eton and Oxford.

The only people who reliably get exposed to rowing go to public schools
(same probably applies to men's hockey).

If rowing is actually different to this then it needs some major PR to get
its presentation right.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "A modest little person, with much to be modest about."-
Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
 
Roos Eisma <[email protected]>typed


> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes:

> >Have you not thought that athletics is popular because it is so much more
> >accessible to most people than the sports mentioned above? To run you need
> >shoes, socks, shorts and singlet which together are considerably cheaper
> >than the bike, boat or horse needed for the others.

> Have you looked at the price of good running shoes lately? Which need to
> be replaced regularly as well?
> Rowing is cheap as the boats are normally owned by the club. No foot wear
> needed. T-shirt and track bottoms work fine for people starting out.
> Still not a populair sport though ;)

Yebbut the boats are *very* expensive and fragile. Presumably their cost
is borne by club members' subscriptions...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Unrecognised
I won a lesson at the Sir Chirs Hoy velodrome
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Unrecognised
Unrecognised
W
A lesson or two
Replies
9
Views
458
UK and Europe
Nick Kew
N
W
Can we take a lesson from Australia?
Replies
2
Views
260
UK and Europe
Graeme
G
R
  • Locked
Lesson in Camoflage (sp?)
Replies
22
Views
2K
UK and Europe
James Hodson
J
Top Bottom Back