In 365 days time Scottish residents will vote in a referendum that could change the future of the United Kingdom forever, in this post I will be exploring how Scottish independence could affect athletes both north and south of the border.
According to BBC Sport, the Scottish Sports Minister, Shona Robison believes that, should Scotland be granted independence, it could compete at the 2016 Olympics under St Andrew's Cross.
Among the criteria to receive a National Olympic Committee (NOC), is being an internationally recognised independent state, which could prove difficult to achieve within the limited time frame.
Although Robison draws parallels to Montenegro which became independent in 2006 and managed to compete in the Beijing Olympics just two years later, which proves it is possible.
However it should be noted that the referendum on independence only has the power to start discussions between in Edinburgh and Westminster over Scotland's detachment from the rest of the UK, which could postpone Scotland's sovereignty indefinitely, making it challenging for Scotland to receive a recognised NOC in time for the Rio games.
But how successful will Scotland be in the Olympics?
During the 2012 London Olympics Scottish athletes were part of teams that were responsible for winning 12 out of 65 medals for Team GB. Nevertheless only 3 medals were won by Scottish athletes competing in individual events.
In the 2010 Commonwealth games, Scotland achieve
10th place on the medal table, with 9 gold medals and 26 medals overall. I would consider this to be low for a country as developed as Scotland with a sophisticated sporting infrastructure, even with consideration to its relatively small population.
That is not even giving consideration to the cut in funding that Scottish athletes could face if Scotland does leave the United Kingdom; most athletes rely on UK Sport for funding but that funding could be withdrawn for Scottish athletes post 2014. Not to mention sponsors, who may not see financial benefits in supporting a Scottish athlete, who would be unlikely to receive media attention south of the border after the referendum.
Furthermore, Britain's greatest ever Olympian, Chris Hoy, said in May that Scottish athletes would suffer as they would be restricted from certain training venues and would not be able to train with as many experienced athletes like he did when he trained in Manchester.
In conclusion, Scottish Independence would harm Team GB due to the loss of some of the nation's best athletes from the team, while also badly endangering the dreams of potential Scottish Olympians.
The views of a young sports fan on the Issues that affect Olympic and Paralympic Sport.
Wednesday 18 September 2013
Friday 6 September 2013
Where are the 2020 Olympics going?
The IOC is just
hours away from announcing the host city of the 2020 Olympic Games, choosing
from one of Tokyo, Madrid and Istanbul. While all three cities have their
individual merits, they are each faced with their own individual problems. In
this post I will be exploring these issues and which city is most likely to
win.
Madrid
The Spanish capital is bidding for third consecutive Olympic Games after losing out to the cities of London and Rio de Janeiro in which they achieved 2nd and 3rd respectively. On that basis they could continue their upward trajectory and leave Buenos Aires with the rights to host the Olympic Games. However their bid is fraught with issues that harm their potential.
The most obvious issue is that the Spanish economy is in a terrible state (when I went their last October it became apparent that striking is the national pastime), undoubtedly the budget for the games would be restricted by the recession on the Iberian Peninsula.
However it should be noted that Madrid’s bid takes advantage of the city’s existing infrastructure and sports venues which in some respects makes it the safe option for the IOC to choose.
It could be argued that the Santiago train crash in July displays a weakness in Spain’s infrastructure although I do not think that the crash will drastically change the minds of any IOC members who would have considered voting for Madrid.
Tokyo
Bookmakers consider this to be the frontrunner in the race to host the games due to its good infrastructure and compact venue plan however like their competitors they have hurdles to overcome.
The biggest issue affecting Tokyo is the Fukushima Nuclear plant, which has been leaking radioactive water, and may be contaminating water in Japan. The worse part of this is that the Tokyo bid committee keep trying to downplay this rather than showing that they are trying to deal with this. People also seem to forget that Japan sits on the boundary of three tectonic plates and is prone to earthquakes which could slow down construction of venues in preparation for the games.
Istanbul
In my opinion this is the strongest bid of three, the Turkish economy is one of the fastest growing in the world and Istanbul is supported by a unique culture that sets it apart from the rest.
The Istanbul bid is hampered by high levels of doping within Turkey, which Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, drew attention to earlier this year. To respond Turkey issued 31 2-year bans to athletes convicted of doping. In my opinion this shows that Turkey is determined to address the issues that affect sport in rather than turning a blind eye to these issues.
Earlier this year it became apparent that Turkey may not be as politically stable as was previously though amid anti-government protests, however these protests seem to be forgotten and I don’t think they will affect the outcome even though at the time of the protests I thought hope was over for Istanbul.
Overall each city has its unique charm and many are describing this as the closest race to host the Olympics in a long time however I feel confident that Istanbul will get the games, partly on the basis that they have never hosted the games before and due to economic prosperity within the Eurasian country that gives it the edge over the others.
Madrid
The Spanish capital is bidding for third consecutive Olympic Games after losing out to the cities of London and Rio de Janeiro in which they achieved 2nd and 3rd respectively. On that basis they could continue their upward trajectory and leave Buenos Aires with the rights to host the Olympic Games. However their bid is fraught with issues that harm their potential.
The most obvious issue is that the Spanish economy is in a terrible state (when I went their last October it became apparent that striking is the national pastime), undoubtedly the budget for the games would be restricted by the recession on the Iberian Peninsula.
However it should be noted that Madrid’s bid takes advantage of the city’s existing infrastructure and sports venues which in some respects makes it the safe option for the IOC to choose.
It could be argued that the Santiago train crash in July displays a weakness in Spain’s infrastructure although I do not think that the crash will drastically change the minds of any IOC members who would have considered voting for Madrid.
Tokyo
Bookmakers consider this to be the frontrunner in the race to host the games due to its good infrastructure and compact venue plan however like their competitors they have hurdles to overcome.
The biggest issue affecting Tokyo is the Fukushima Nuclear plant, which has been leaking radioactive water, and may be contaminating water in Japan. The worse part of this is that the Tokyo bid committee keep trying to downplay this rather than showing that they are trying to deal with this. People also seem to forget that Japan sits on the boundary of three tectonic plates and is prone to earthquakes which could slow down construction of venues in preparation for the games.
Istanbul
In my opinion this is the strongest bid of three, the Turkish economy is one of the fastest growing in the world and Istanbul is supported by a unique culture that sets it apart from the rest.
The Istanbul bid is hampered by high levels of doping within Turkey, which Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, drew attention to earlier this year. To respond Turkey issued 31 2-year bans to athletes convicted of doping. In my opinion this shows that Turkey is determined to address the issues that affect sport in rather than turning a blind eye to these issues.
Earlier this year it became apparent that Turkey may not be as politically stable as was previously though amid anti-government protests, however these protests seem to be forgotten and I don’t think they will affect the outcome even though at the time of the protests I thought hope was over for Istanbul.
Overall each city has its unique charm and many are describing this as the closest race to host the Olympics in a long time however I feel confident that Istanbul will get the games, partly on the basis that they have never hosted the games before and due to economic prosperity within the Eurasian country that gives it the edge over the others.
Monday 1 July 2013
Why are wintersports underfunded?
Last week UK Sport announced a funding increase for British Winter Sports in order to prepare for the Sochi Olympics in February. While a boost of £443,200 may sound like a lot, sports that take place in the colder half of the year aren't getting a fair share of funding.
The 2012-13 winter sport season was an incredibly successful season for British athletes; overall they won 2 Gold medals, 1 Silver and 3 Bronzes, which would equate an all time best for Team GB at the Winter Olympics. However despite this success the total sum of funding for these sports is just shy of £14 million.
Now I understand that you may be reading this thinking that is a lot, especially in the economic climate in the UK at this moment in time however, Summer sports such as Field Hockey receive more than all winter sport, even though at best it can win us 2 Olympic Gold medals, which I see unlikely against the likes of The Netherlands and Argentina.
While I understand that UK Sport is not swimming in cash, the figures are depressing. The best funded of all Winter sports is Skeleton which is receiving less than £3.5 million according to the UK Sport website, even though British skeleton athletes are among the best in the world.
Whereas sports in which Team GB are hopeless, funding is comparatively abundant. Basketball was awarded £8 million on an appeal even though we are unlikely to get anywhere spectacular in this sport dominated by the USA.
British Skeleton told me that they cannot even afford a youth programme until after the Sochi Olympics. This deeply worries me as our success will not only be limited in the Winter Youth Olympics in 2016 but possibly in Pyeongchang 2018 onwards.
I find it depressing that sports on snow and ice are overlooked by UK sport while they still splash their cash on hopeless summer sports. I hope that this will change soon or else we may never surpass the record Winter games tally set in 1924.
The 2012-13 winter sport season was an incredibly successful season for British athletes; overall they won 2 Gold medals, 1 Silver and 3 Bronzes, which would equate an all time best for Team GB at the Winter Olympics. However despite this success the total sum of funding for these sports is just shy of £14 million.
Now I understand that you may be reading this thinking that is a lot, especially in the economic climate in the UK at this moment in time however, Summer sports such as Field Hockey receive more than all winter sport, even though at best it can win us 2 Olympic Gold medals, which I see unlikely against the likes of The Netherlands and Argentina.
While I understand that UK Sport is not swimming in cash, the figures are depressing. The best funded of all Winter sports is Skeleton which is receiving less than £3.5 million according to the UK Sport website, even though British skeleton athletes are among the best in the world.
Whereas sports in which Team GB are hopeless, funding is comparatively abundant. Basketball was awarded £8 million on an appeal even though we are unlikely to get anywhere spectacular in this sport dominated by the USA.
British Skeleton told me that they cannot even afford a youth programme until after the Sochi Olympics. This deeply worries me as our success will not only be limited in the Winter Youth Olympics in 2016 but possibly in Pyeongchang 2018 onwards.
I find it depressing that sports on snow and ice are overlooked by UK sport while they still splash their cash on hopeless summer sports. I hope that this will change soon or else we may never surpass the record Winter games tally set in 1924.
Friday 22 March 2013
We don't want you West Ham
Today the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) announced that West Ham United has won the right to move into the Olympic Stadium and in turn the LLDC has lost the right to have Legacy in its name.
The fact that West Ham are moving into the Olympic stadium frustrates me for so many reasons, the first one is the fact that London's Olympic bid was focused on legacy and that there would be a world class athletics venue in the east end of London. I personally think that stick seats for a football club over the athletics track compromises on this promise given in 2005.
Furthermore the public funds of refurbishing the stadium are ridiculous considering the stadium opened a year ago. I do not usually worry about public money being spent on sport (probably because I'm too young to pay taxes) however £60m for a privately owned team to use it is ridiculous.
It puzzles me even more when you consider that Arsenal not only paid for the construction of the Emirates Stadium, but they also had to pay for changes to infrastructure with no support from the government.
Clearly there is a fantastic record of football clubs playing in athletics stadia, take Juventus for example who stayed in Stadio delle Alpi for a whopping 16 years and let's not forget Bayern Munich who played at the Munich Olympiastadion from 1972 to 2005. It is incredibly likely that West Ham will follow this route and put the Olympic Stadium into jeopardy once they get tired of playing there.
The one argument that might make West Ham an exception is retractable seating, which will most likely be very disappointing, considering the lower tier already sits in front of the upper tier as well as the fact the lower part of the stadium is dug into the ground. Changing to the seating would also ruin the view for athletics spectators, therefore ruining the stadium and its primary purpose.
If the FA allow the Hammers to move into the Olympic stadium they will be ignoring their own rules to protect small clubs. The stadium sits within the zone entitled to Leyton Orient and letting West Ham move in would destroy their ability to generate profit.
I wouldn't mind the stadium being used in the Rugby World Cup, I would happily see it in the Football World Cup if it is ever in England again, the stadium would be a brilliant place to host big cricket matches due to the large capacity. The stadium is fully sustainable without a football club as tenant; it could be used for concerts, making use of the pixels that dazzled the world last summer as well as hosting world class athletics.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and something will stop West Ham moving in, but for now I fear for the stadium that brought you Super Saturday and Thriller Thursday.
The fact that West Ham are moving into the Olympic stadium frustrates me for so many reasons, the first one is the fact that London's Olympic bid was focused on legacy and that there would be a world class athletics venue in the east end of London. I personally think that stick seats for a football club over the athletics track compromises on this promise given in 2005.
Furthermore the public funds of refurbishing the stadium are ridiculous considering the stadium opened a year ago. I do not usually worry about public money being spent on sport (probably because I'm too young to pay taxes) however £60m for a privately owned team to use it is ridiculous.
It puzzles me even more when you consider that Arsenal not only paid for the construction of the Emirates Stadium, but they also had to pay for changes to infrastructure with no support from the government.
Clearly there is a fantastic record of football clubs playing in athletics stadia, take Juventus for example who stayed in Stadio delle Alpi for a whopping 16 years and let's not forget Bayern Munich who played at the Munich Olympiastadion from 1972 to 2005. It is incredibly likely that West Ham will follow this route and put the Olympic Stadium into jeopardy once they get tired of playing there.
The one argument that might make West Ham an exception is retractable seating, which will most likely be very disappointing, considering the lower tier already sits in front of the upper tier as well as the fact the lower part of the stadium is dug into the ground. Changing to the seating would also ruin the view for athletics spectators, therefore ruining the stadium and its primary purpose.
If the FA allow the Hammers to move into the Olympic stadium they will be ignoring their own rules to protect small clubs. The stadium sits within the zone entitled to Leyton Orient and letting West Ham move in would destroy their ability to generate profit.
I wouldn't mind the stadium being used in the Rugby World Cup, I would happily see it in the Football World Cup if it is ever in England again, the stadium would be a brilliant place to host big cricket matches due to the large capacity. The stadium is fully sustainable without a football club as tenant; it could be used for concerts, making use of the pixels that dazzled the world last summer as well as hosting world class athletics.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and something will stop West Ham moving in, but for now I fear for the stadium that brought you Super Saturday and Thriller Thursday.
Tuesday 12 February 2013
What effect will the loss of wrestling have?
Today the IOC shocked the world by voting to remove Wrestling from the Olympic Programme, rather than the bookies' favourite, Modern Pentathlon and Field Hockey. But what I want to know is how will this affect the Olympic Games of the future?
Needless to say I was shocked to find out that Wrestling was dropped from the games this sport has been held at all games bar one (1900) and has become a staple of the games for many. I expected Table Tennis or Badminton to get the axe due to their general dullness and complete dominace by China as well as the cheating scandal that faced Badminton at the London Olympics.
In contrast Wrestling is a global sport in which 29 nations won medals in during the 2012 Olympics, and although it doesn't receive much media attention it greatly affects how the medal table shapes out.
Take Russia for example, seldom seen away from the top 5 of the Olympic medal table, due in part to the success of their nation's wrestling team. In London they secured 4 of the 24 golds that were taken home to Russia and in Beijing Russia would have only managed a fourth place finish on the medal table if Wrestling wasn't part of the core programme.
The presence of Wrestling at the Five Ring Circus allows many countries to achieve their only medals: Azerbaijan won the majority of their Olympic medals at ExCeL while Uzbekistan won its only gold of 2012 on the wrestling mat.
The loss of Wrestling will hinder Baku's chances of hosting the Olympics in the future, without the sport Azerbaijan will struggle to get onto the medal board. Due to a lack of sporting success the IOC would hesitate to award the games to Baku as this may cause lack of interest in the host nation. Ironically if Baku were still in the running for the 2020 games Wrestling almost certainly wouldn't be dropped, their bid included Wrestling being held at the 25,000 seat Crystal Hall that hosted the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest.
However from a British point of view this many be good news: Russia will be less of a threat on the medal table, a new sport will be introduced (most likely Squash or Karate) which Team GB will have better chances in.
I think it is a shame that we are likely to not see Wrestling at the 2020 Olympics although the competitive Brit in me smiles at the likelihood of beating Russia on the medal table in years to come. I also am glad that Modern Pentathlon has been saved from the chopping block however for the growth of the Olympic movement in more nations I believe that we need the sport of Wrestling to act as a catalyst for the growth.
If you wish to support Wrestlings bid to return to the Olympics click here
In contrast Wrestling is a global sport in which 29 nations won medals in during the 2012 Olympics, and although it doesn't receive much media attention it greatly affects how the medal table shapes out.
Take Russia for example, seldom seen away from the top 5 of the Olympic medal table, due in part to the success of their nation's wrestling team. In London they secured 4 of the 24 golds that were taken home to Russia and in Beijing Russia would have only managed a fourth place finish on the medal table if Wrestling wasn't part of the core programme.
The presence of Wrestling at the Five Ring Circus allows many countries to achieve their only medals: Azerbaijan won the majority of their Olympic medals at ExCeL while Uzbekistan won its only gold of 2012 on the wrestling mat.
The loss of Wrestling will hinder Baku's chances of hosting the Olympics in the future, without the sport Azerbaijan will struggle to get onto the medal board. Due to a lack of sporting success the IOC would hesitate to award the games to Baku as this may cause lack of interest in the host nation. Ironically if Baku were still in the running for the 2020 games Wrestling almost certainly wouldn't be dropped, their bid included Wrestling being held at the 25,000 seat Crystal Hall that hosted the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest.
However from a British point of view this many be good news: Russia will be less of a threat on the medal table, a new sport will be introduced (most likely Squash or Karate) which Team GB will have better chances in.
I think it is a shame that we are likely to not see Wrestling at the 2020 Olympics although the competitive Brit in me smiles at the likelihood of beating Russia on the medal table in years to come. I also am glad that Modern Pentathlon has been saved from the chopping block however for the growth of the Olympic movement in more nations I believe that we need the sport of Wrestling to act as a catalyst for the growth.
If you wish to support Wrestlings bid to return to the Olympics click here
Friday 8 February 2013
Channel 4 to broadcast future Paralympics
Today I am in a good mood, entirely due to one piece of exciting news. On tonight's episode of The Last Leg, Channel 4's hit comedy show that spawned from the Paralympics, it was announced that Channel 4 will broadcast both the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympics and the Rio 2016 Summer Olympics to viewers in the UK.
This is really news for British Paralympic sport; this will help keep Para-sports in the spotlight with a major TV channel showing the world's best disabled athletes competing in a variety of different sports.
I am especially excited for the Winter Paralympic coverage. Over the years the BBC has been more than disappointing when it comes to showing any Winter Sport, let alone Para-Sports of the snow variety.
In 2010 the Beeb couldn't even be bothered to show the opening ceremony on a mainstream channel and what passed for publicity for the games was a 30 second report on children's news show Newsround.
Whereas Channel 4 are going to broadcast 45 hours from the Black Sea Resort next year including The Last Leg which has proved to be a major success both during and after the Paralympics, hopefully boosting the profile of the Winter Games, which are facing an uncertain future.
I am also looking forward to the coverage of the 2016 summer edition of the Paralympics, of which C4 will broadcast 500 hours from the city of Samba.
With Channel 4 slowly gaining a monopoly over Paralympic Sport on British television we are going to see disabled sports on our screens for quite a while, creating a legacy of the London Paralympics that will last until the unforseeable future.
This is really news for British Paralympic sport; this will help keep Para-sports in the spotlight with a major TV channel showing the world's best disabled athletes competing in a variety of different sports.
I am especially excited for the Winter Paralympic coverage. Over the years the BBC has been more than disappointing when it comes to showing any Winter Sport, let alone Para-Sports of the snow variety.
In 2010 the Beeb couldn't even be bothered to show the opening ceremony on a mainstream channel and what passed for publicity for the games was a 30 second report on children's news show Newsround.
Whereas Channel 4 are going to broadcast 45 hours from the Black Sea Resort next year including The Last Leg which has proved to be a major success both during and after the Paralympics, hopefully boosting the profile of the Winter Games, which are facing an uncertain future.
I am also looking forward to the coverage of the 2016 summer edition of the Paralympics, of which C4 will broadcast 500 hours from the city of Samba.
With Channel 4 slowly gaining a monopoly over Paralympic Sport on British television we are going to see disabled sports on our screens for quite a while, creating a legacy of the London Paralympics that will last until the unforseeable future.
Thursday 31 January 2013
Armstrong you don't deserve to compete
Apologies for the lateness of this post, I had exams I was pretending to revise for. I know it's a week late but it is big news I need to rant about.
A few weeks ago we saw Lance Armstrong trying to save what little dignity he has left on international television on a sofa next to Oprah Winfrey, the aim of this wasn't to give the public info on how he cheated; instead it was a pathetic excuse for an apology so he can compete in Triathlon.
I find it disgusting that throughout the interview Armstrong showed no remorse for those cyclists trying to win clean, and gave little thought as to the cloud he has left hovering over the sport of cycling.
The 7 time cheat remained insistent throughout the interview that everyone else was taking the disgusting decision to dope, however he still won't name any names and refuses to give any evidence on the matter: That doesn't scream liar at all does it?
The truth is Armstrong has no right to walk the streets freely, let alone compete, throughout his career he made money through sponsorship that he had no right to, he won several lawsuits against media outlets that purported to the fact he never won honestly by any definition that is fraud and it is a wonder he hasn't been arrested yet.
I do feel that this is partly due to western legal systems that cannot prosecute anyone who is moderately famous even if there is no evidence to suggest their innocence: take Harry Redknapp for example who obviously is guilty of tax avoidance but still got through with no punishment whatsoever.
But I digress: Armstrong is a disgusting cheat who should be in an orange jumpsuit behind bars, not trying to compete against the world's best triathletes such as the Brownlee Brothers and Javier Gomez.
A few weeks ago we saw Lance Armstrong trying to save what little dignity he has left on international television on a sofa next to Oprah Winfrey, the aim of this wasn't to give the public info on how he cheated; instead it was a pathetic excuse for an apology so he can compete in Triathlon.
I find it disgusting that throughout the interview Armstrong showed no remorse for those cyclists trying to win clean, and gave little thought as to the cloud he has left hovering over the sport of cycling.
The 7 time cheat remained insistent throughout the interview that everyone else was taking the disgusting decision to dope, however he still won't name any names and refuses to give any evidence on the matter: That doesn't scream liar at all does it?
The truth is Armstrong has no right to walk the streets freely, let alone compete, throughout his career he made money through sponsorship that he had no right to, he won several lawsuits against media outlets that purported to the fact he never won honestly by any definition that is fraud and it is a wonder he hasn't been arrested yet.
I do feel that this is partly due to western legal systems that cannot prosecute anyone who is moderately famous even if there is no evidence to suggest their innocence: take Harry Redknapp for example who obviously is guilty of tax avoidance but still got through with no punishment whatsoever.
But I digress: Armstrong is a disgusting cheat who should be in an orange jumpsuit behind bars, not trying to compete against the world's best triathletes such as the Brownlee Brothers and Javier Gomez.
Don't take away the Modern Pentathlon
In September the IOC will decide on a new sport to enter the Olympic program for 2020, and in doing so, will decide upon a sport to exit the schedule of the greatest sporting event on earth.
And sadly, current speculation suggests that the unlucky sport will be none other than the Modern Pentathlon, the brainchild of Pierre de Coubertin, the man accredited with reviving the Olympics from their ancient roots.
I personally feel that to lose the modern pentathlon from the games would be to remove the soul from the Olympic games. The victor of the Modern Pentathlon isn't just the best athlete in many disciplines of the same sport like the Heptathlon on Omnium, they are the best all round athlete in the world in all sports, it follows the ideal of a soldier with the skills to carry a message using the skills of Shooting, Fencing, Swimming, Horse Riding and Running.
The argument for removing Modern Pentathlon from the Olympics is that it lacks a following outside of Eastern Europe. I would not deny this fact however I would point out that the 23,000 seat stadium at Greenwich park was full to the rafters during the London Olympics. I think if more attention was given to the sport, people would flock in their thousands to see stars like Samantha Murray and Laura Asadauskaite.
The sport's governing body, the UIPM has offered a way of squeezing all 5 disciplines into one stadium; the idea has pros and cons: it includes a difficult to see fencing piste and a wasteful pool that would only be used for a few races, however it does offer an improved, less distracting format for the fencing and a more exciting running portion held on a 400m track.
In conclusion the IOC has a responsibility to keep the Modern Pentathlon in the Olympics, if only to prevent Baron de Coubertin from rolling in his grave although the UIPM needs to carry its weight and raise the sport's profile before it's too late.
And sadly, current speculation suggests that the unlucky sport will be none other than the Modern Pentathlon, the brainchild of Pierre de Coubertin, the man accredited with reviving the Olympics from their ancient roots.
I personally feel that to lose the modern pentathlon from the games would be to remove the soul from the Olympic games. The victor of the Modern Pentathlon isn't just the best athlete in many disciplines of the same sport like the Heptathlon on Omnium, they are the best all round athlete in the world in all sports, it follows the ideal of a soldier with the skills to carry a message using the skills of Shooting, Fencing, Swimming, Horse Riding and Running.
The argument for removing Modern Pentathlon from the Olympics is that it lacks a following outside of Eastern Europe. I would not deny this fact however I would point out that the 23,000 seat stadium at Greenwich park was full to the rafters during the London Olympics. I think if more attention was given to the sport, people would flock in their thousands to see stars like Samantha Murray and Laura Asadauskaite.
The sport's governing body, the UIPM has offered a way of squeezing all 5 disciplines into one stadium; the idea has pros and cons: it includes a difficult to see fencing piste and a wasteful pool that would only be used for a few races, however it does offer an improved, less distracting format for the fencing and a more exciting running portion held on a 400m track.
In conclusion the IOC has a responsibility to keep the Modern Pentathlon in the Olympics, if only to prevent Baron de Coubertin from rolling in his grave although the UIPM needs to carry its weight and raise the sport's profile before it's too late.
Wednesday 16 January 2013
Why the Paralympic grassroots stats are wrong
On Friday, the Sport and
Recreation Alliance revealed results of a study which suggest that
participation in Paralympic grassroots sport has barely risen since the London
Paralympic games. But if this study is accurate, why haven’t we seen an
increase in disability sport?
This study has been dismissed by the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association, Tim Hollingsworth who said "There is still a long way to go, but just four months on from the Games it's wrong to suggest nothing has changed."
I think it is worth pointing out that immediately following the close of the Paralympics the weather took a turn for the worse and we had enough rain to make 2012 the second wettest year on record in the UK, only surpassed by 2000.
To me it seems incredibly unlikely that people would start taking up sport in such disgusting, and I struggle to imagine that many disabled people, who are often made vulnerable by their impairments, would want to take up a new sport.
I would also note that many of clubs surveyed may not advertise the fact that they facilitate to disabled participants and in fact the study reported that only 24% of the sports clubs that were used to compile the data had all of the required facilities to cater to participants of Para-sport, a figure which completely disproves the findings of the report
Overall I struggle to believe the findings of this study, it was created much too hastily and didn't even survey clubs that will accept disabled athletes, in July I think we will start to see the real legacy of the Paralympics when it comes to grassroots sport, but for now the only legacy we can measure is how life for disabled people has improved since the world was stunned at the achievements of Paraltmpians in the Summer of 2012.
This study has been dismissed by the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association, Tim Hollingsworth who said "There is still a long way to go, but just four months on from the Games it's wrong to suggest nothing has changed."
I think it is worth pointing out that immediately following the close of the Paralympics the weather took a turn for the worse and we had enough rain to make 2012 the second wettest year on record in the UK, only surpassed by 2000.
To me it seems incredibly unlikely that people would start taking up sport in such disgusting, and I struggle to imagine that many disabled people, who are often made vulnerable by their impairments, would want to take up a new sport.
I would also note that many of clubs surveyed may not advertise the fact that they facilitate to disabled participants and in fact the study reported that only 24% of the sports clubs that were used to compile the data had all of the required facilities to cater to participants of Para-sport, a figure which completely disproves the findings of the report
Overall I struggle to believe the findings of this study, it was created much too hastily and didn't even survey clubs that will accept disabled athletes, in July I think we will start to see the real legacy of the Paralympics when it comes to grassroots sport, but for now the only legacy we can measure is how life for disabled people has improved since the world was stunned at the achievements of Paraltmpians in the Summer of 2012.
Saturday 5 January 2013
Why Splash was a massive flop
Rather than my
usual ranting about the world of sport, in this post I will be taking the role
of TV critic and evaluating everything that is wrong with Tom Daley’s new TV
show Splash.
I had very low expectations for this show and it still managed to fall well below them.
My first problem with the show is the title and the tagline, “Who can make the most Splash?” both of which go against the main aim of diving; to create as little splash as possible.
The show itself will not benefit Tom Daley in any way shape or form; He is wasting his time teaching D-List celebrities to do the most basic dives meanwhile his fellow Olympic medallists David Boudia and Qiu Bo are training every day, both of whom will undoubtedly beat him in Rio, just as they did in London. When Tom Daley doesn’t reach the Olympic podium in 2016, Splash will be Exhibit A as to why.
I’m not the type of person who would normally criticise an Olympian for making media appearances, I love to see the world’s finest athletes appear A Question of Sport or A League of Their Own but Tom Daley has let the fame get to his head by letting a show to be centred on the athlete.
I am fine with recently retired athletes like Victoria Pendleton and Beth Tweddle taking part in shows like Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing on Ice as they no longer need to worry about training and considering Louis Smith’s prospects of competing in Rio are slim I was happy to see him lift the strictly glitter ball.
Ignoring all of the above, the show fails as basic entertainment: figure skating and ballroom dancing have been developed as performance arts whereas diving is just a sport, which is not improved by ridiculous strip teases and five minutes of build up.
The hosts, Gabby Logan and Vernon Kay, knew very little about what they were presenting. Not to mention having a comedienne to judge a diving contest, there was little consensus in the scores given and Leon Taylor kept looking into the camera when giving his comments.
In 10 years time when we reflect on awful TV from the 21st century this will be high up on the list of “That show was ridiculous!”
In conclusion, this show is cringe-worthy, inaccurate way for ITV to extort money from weak-minded viewers through the medium of televoting.
I had very low expectations for this show and it still managed to fall well below them.
My first problem with the show is the title and the tagline, “Who can make the most Splash?” both of which go against the main aim of diving; to create as little splash as possible.
The show itself will not benefit Tom Daley in any way shape or form; He is wasting his time teaching D-List celebrities to do the most basic dives meanwhile his fellow Olympic medallists David Boudia and Qiu Bo are training every day, both of whom will undoubtedly beat him in Rio, just as they did in London. When Tom Daley doesn’t reach the Olympic podium in 2016, Splash will be Exhibit A as to why.
I’m not the type of person who would normally criticise an Olympian for making media appearances, I love to see the world’s finest athletes appear A Question of Sport or A League of Their Own but Tom Daley has let the fame get to his head by letting a show to be centred on the athlete.
I am fine with recently retired athletes like Victoria Pendleton and Beth Tweddle taking part in shows like Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing on Ice as they no longer need to worry about training and considering Louis Smith’s prospects of competing in Rio are slim I was happy to see him lift the strictly glitter ball.
Ignoring all of the above, the show fails as basic entertainment: figure skating and ballroom dancing have been developed as performance arts whereas diving is just a sport, which is not improved by ridiculous strip teases and five minutes of build up.
The hosts, Gabby Logan and Vernon Kay, knew very little about what they were presenting. Not to mention having a comedienne to judge a diving contest, there was little consensus in the scores given and Leon Taylor kept looking into the camera when giving his comments.
In 10 years time when we reflect on awful TV from the 21st century this will be high up on the list of “That show was ridiculous!”
In conclusion, this show is cringe-worthy, inaccurate way for ITV to extort money from weak-minded viewers through the medium of televoting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)