Dirty money in cycling.

afx237vi

BikingBernie wrote:

Could you show me where I argued that Sky shouldn't be allowed to sponsor a cycling team? All I did was to point out that when it comes to pro cycling, anyone's money seems to be considered to be good enough to set up a team...

P.s. Nor have I argued that anyones viewpoints should be banned!

Does taking someone's money automatically mean an endorsement for their political beliefs? What about someone who fits satellite dishes or works in a Sky call centre? Does that mean they all buy the Sun and vote Tory? Of course not. Sometimes a job is just a job. You take the money out of necessity, and you need lots of it to found a pro cycling team.

You could probably find some dirt on every cycling sponsor, but as another poster wrote, until Amnesty International start stumping up some cash there's nothing the sport can do.

afx237vi

johnfinch wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

"Dirty money"? To use the vernacular purrrr-lease! He doesn't make money through extortion or theft, he makes it by packaging and selling Premier League Football to people who want to watch it. Then sells advertising to go with it.

I think that what you mean is that he takes football away from the fans and then sells it to those that can afford it. Now you have the situation where say, a pensioner who supported his/her local football club for decades can't go to matches and can't afford to watch it live in his/her own home, 'cos Murdoch is selling it to a load of Johnny-cum-lately gimps who think that spoon-fed "entertainment" and morons on a PA system is better than fans creating the atmosphere.

Aaaah, I feel a lot better now.

How much football could this theoretical pensioner watch on TV before Sky Sports got their hands on it? One, two matches per year?

Personally I'd love Sky Sports to cover more cycling. It would start on time, for starters.

moray_gub

mwo wrote:

How is Sky's money 'dirty'? My understanding of 'dirty money' is money obtained illegally. As far as I'm aware both Sky and News Corp make money through legal activities. You may not like Murdoch's politics, and you may not like Sky's product, but calling it 'dirty' money is just nonsense.

+1

Monkeypump

johnfinch wrote:

On the subject of Murdoch and the media - if any other product told lies - say food packaging labels, or misleading advertising, they could be prosecuted. Yet newspapers (right, centre and left) are allowed to get away with the most ludicrously biased reporting, and nobody says a word (well, apart from Bernie). Now, Im not suggesting any sort of restriction on freedom of speech, but maybe newspapers could be forced to carry a tagline - warning, what you are reading in here is propaganda based on advancing the cause of political ideology x, y or z. Do not forget to read critically.

I think you're overstating the case a little, but don't we already do this anyway, without the need for a warning?

moray_gub

johnfinch wrote:

On the subject of Murdoch and the media - if any other product told lies - say food packaging labels, or misleading advertising, they could be prosecuted. Yet newspapers (right, centre and left) are allowed to get away with the most ludicrously biased reporting, and nobody says a word (well, apart from Bernie). Now, Im not suggesting any sort of restriction on freedom of speech, but maybe newspapers could be forced to carry a tagline - warning, what you are reading in here is propaganda based on advancing the cause of political ideology x, y or z. Do not forget to read critically.

Anyone with half a brain reading a newspaper should know that anyway

Kléber

afx237vi wrote:

What about Herbalife?

Yes, good point. I remember the short-lived Le Groupment team too. Not only did the pyramid selling company collapse but they had some of the nastiest kit around.

As for Murdoch, he is a media baron and acts accordingly. It is possibly different from Tesco or BP in that we don't have to use these companies but Murdoch's media empire has enormous sway over people, it can even influence election results. Just look how former British PM Tony Blair jetted all the way to Australia to get the man's blessing. That's not always healthy. Although this has little to do with cycling!

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...Im not suggesting any sort of restriction on freedom of speech, but maybe newspapers could be forced to carry a tagline - warning, what you are reading in here is propaganda based on advancing the cause of political ideology x, y or z. Do not forget to read critically.

Anyone with half a brain reading a newspaper should know that anyway

But the majority of readers lack such 'half a brain'. I teach in a HE institution and most of my students are incapable of critical thinking and properly evaluating a source. In reality most people seem to pick a newspaper that they know can be relied on to validate and justify their own attitudes and beliefs, and when it comes to papers like The Daily Mail, Sun and Express, to validate and justify their ignorance and prejudices as well.

Monkeypump

BikingBernie wrote:

In reality most people seem to pick a newspaper that they can rely on to validate and justify their own attitudes and beliefs, and when it comes to papers like The Daily Mail, Sun and Express, to validate and justify their ignorance and prejudices as well.

Hmmm... as much as I'd like to think better of people, you're probably right.

finchy

Moray Gub and Monkey Pump - I wish you were right. Unfortunately I have met too many people who believe everything they read in a newspaper.

afx231 - OK, maybe watching football live on TV wasn't always an option, but the way the Premier League has become about nothing but money means that neither attendance nor TV is possible now.

ms_tree

If you think Murdoch's dodgy what does that make Belusconi?

ms_tree

Personally I don't care what people vote as long as they go out and make their mark. Then they are taking part in the democratic process. Too many people moan but don't do the one thing that freedom gives them to chance to. I am always appalled at the low turnouts in elections. Women died to get the vote - you should honour their memory.

RichN95.

johnfinch wrote:

afx231 - OK, maybe watching football live on TV wasn't always an option, but the way the Premier League has become about nothing but money means that neither attendance nor TV is possible now.

When did Murdoch start setting ticket prices?

iainf72

Ms Tree wrote:

If you think Murdoch's dodgy what does that make Belusconi?

A comedy genius

DaveyL

frenchfighter wrote:

BikingBernie is a master debater, providing knowledge, evidence and clear structure. You may not agree with his points (I do for the most part) yet he puts them coherently sans expletives etc.. My only slight issue is how everything seems to turn to politics!

This is the same guy who got banned for resorting to petty personal abuse towards another poster. You know that, right?

"Master debater" ROTFL. Are you out of 6th form yet?

BikingBernie

Ms Tree wrote:

Women died to get the vote - you should honour their memory.

And so did an awful lot of men! Did you know that the universal male suffrage for all men aged over 21 was not introduced in the UK until 1918, meaning that very many of those who died in WW1 did not even have the right to vote? In 1918 women over the age of 30 were also given the vote and the 'flapper vote' of 1928 was aimed at closing this age gap.

The cause of women's suffrage has become something of a 'cause célèbre' amongst feminists, but the fight for the vote was historically as much to do with class as gender, if not more so. Even amongst various female emancipation and socialist groups in late Victorian England there was much debate about whether women should seek to support universal suffrage for all, including the working classes, or merely fight for equality with men - meaning extending the vote to privileged middle class women. (Some of who already had the vote by virtue of being property owners - the traditional qualification for voting rights).

It is also often forgotten that the ‘feminism’ of people like Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst was fanatically pro-WW1. They were leading figures in the ‘White feather’ movement, branding all no-uniformed men ‘cowards’ by handing them a white feather and calling for all such men to be jailed. (They never demanded that women be given equal rights to die on the western front though!).

mwo

Kléber wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

What about Herbalife?

Yes, good point. I remember the short-lived Le Groupment team too. Not only did the pyramid selling company collapse but they had some of the nastiest kit around.

What about IT Factory? A 200 million dollar fraud of a company that ended with the CEO on the run from Interpol.

disgruntledgoat

BikingBernie wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...Im not suggesting any sort of restriction on freedom of speech, but maybe newspapers could be forced to carry a tagline - warning, what you are reading in here is propaganda based on advancing the cause of political ideology x, y or z. Do not forget to read critically.

Anyone with half a brain reading a newspaper should know that anyway

But the majority of readers lack such 'half a brain'. I teach in a HE institution and most of my students are incapable of critical thinking and properly evaluating a source. In reality most people seem to pick a newspaper that they know can be relied on to validate and justify their own attitudes and beliefs, and when it comes to papers like The Daily Mail, Sun and Express, to validate and justify their ignorance and prejudices as well.

My university professor did a lot of research on this... his conclusion was that it was a self perpeptuating cycle. People buy a paper that reinforces their prejudices, the paper gives people what they want. Chicken and egg.

As for murdoch and this pensioner, how does more football on telly force clubs to put up their prices? They do it because they're greedy. Sky's money saved rugby league in this country and fireworks and music are a small price to pay. How could murdoch "steal" cycling? It happens on a roadside. Are the current broadcasters doing it for the love?

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...Im not suggesting any sort of restriction on freedom of speech, but maybe newspapers could be forced to carry a tagline - warning, what you are reading in here is propaganda based on advancing the cause of political ideology x, y or z. Do not forget to read critically.

Anyone with half a brain reading a newspaper should know that anyway

But the majority of readers lack such 'half a brain'. I teach in a HE institution and most of my students are incapable of critical thinking and properly evaluating a source. In reality most people seem to pick a newspaper that they know can be relied on to validate and justify their own attitudes and beliefs, and when it comes to papers like The Daily Mail, Sun and Express, to validate and justify their ignorance and prejudices as well.

You could more than likely add most of the mainstream newspapers to that list as well, as much as you would like to portray ignorance and prejudice isnt exclusive to right wing meadia orginisations.

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

In reality most people seem to pick a newspaper that they know can be relied on to validate and justify their own attitudes and beliefs, and when it comes to papers like The Daily Mail, Sun and Express, to validate and justify their ignorance and prejudices as well.

You could more than likely add most of the mainstream newspapers to that list as well, as much as you would like to portray ignorance and prejudice isnt exclusive to right wing meadia orginisations.

But most of the remaining 'mainstream' newspapers in the UK are also right of centre! (And what could be more 'mainstream’ than The Sun and The Daily Mail - going by sales at any rate).

The only mainstream exceptions to the general right-of-centre bias in the UK press are The Independent, which is centrist, and The Guardian, which is centre / soft left. Are you saying that these also peddle ignorance and prejudice?

disgruntledgoat

The independent is basicallt the socialist worker. It"s as biased as any right wing paper. Witness the cartoon they printed of Arial Sharon eating babies.

As for the majority of British papers being right of centre... why could that be? People have a choice what to read and the Guardian (the world leader for moral equivelence and pandering to the right sort of dictator) is losing £80k a day.

BikingBernie

disgruntledgoat wrote:

The independent is basicallt the socialist worker.

:shock: :roll:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

As for the majority of British papers being right of centre... why could that be? People have a choice what to read and the Guardian (the world leader for moral equivelence and pandering to the right sort of dictator) is losing £80k a day.

Because Britain is overwhelmingly a hierarchical, inequitable, status-obsessed, authoritarian, right-wing country...

(As George Orwell foresaw back in the 1930's when he wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier: 'Fascism is coming; probably a slimy Anglicized form of Fascism, with cultured policemen instead of Nazi gorillas and the lion and the unicorn instead of the swastika...')

This situation is due in no small part to the on-going influence of right-wing media demagogues like the first Viscount Rothermere, Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre.

finchy

RichN95 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

afx231 - OK, maybe watching football live on TV wasn't always an option, but the way the Premier League has become about nothing but money means that neither attendance nor TV is possible now.

When did Murdoch start setting ticket prices?

I wasn't absolving football clubs of blame. My point was (and I must admit that I made it pretty badly, but I was in a rush) that the Premier League was an invention of the FA the clubs and Sky, with the sole intention of raising a load of money for a small number of clubs and to hell with smaller clubs and the fans.

Anyway, to get back on topic, dirty money in cycling. I can't see how cycling could ever start to get picky about sponsors. Can we be sure that Garmin and Columbia aren't using third world labour in terrible conditions to produce their goods? Or the manufacturers of the jerseys, shorts and jackets that we all cycle around in?

The answer is probably not - who is going to provide constant monitoring of the manufacturing process from beginning to end?

And who is to say what is acceptable and what isn't? Do we really need helicopter shots of a bike race, for example, or a whole flotilla of advertisers going ahead of the Tour? How many people are going to die in the future because of our generation's wasteful use of resources? Hey, maybe even the whole concept of professional sport is morally objectionable to some.

So while I disagree with Murdoch's politics and especially the media bias (not just him), I can't see how a team could turn down one sponsor on ethical grounds, but accept another that many people would find distasteful.

disgruntledgoat

Ok.. you're laughing at my argument. Now what? Care to engage with it?

I concur with you that the british are generally status-obsessed. However, there is a wonderful contrary streak to our national character that, eventually, opposes most grabs on our freedoms. There is a huge groundswell on all sides of the political spectrum against id cards and the NID database, for example. Our problem is professional politicians, but that's another story

ms_tree

BikingBernie wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

Women died to get the vote - you should honour their memory.

And so did an awful lot of men! Did you know that the universal male suffrage for all men aged over 21 was not introduced in the UK until 1918, meaning that very many of those who died in WW1 did not even have the right to vote? In 1918 women over the age of 30 were also given the vote and the 'flapper vote' of 1928 was aimed at closing this age gap.

The cause of women's suffrage has become something of a 'cause célèbre' amongst feminists, but the fight for the vote was historically as much to do with class as gender, if not more so. Even amongst various female emancipation and socialist groups in late Victorian England there was much debate about whether women should seek to support universal suffrage for all, including the working classes, or merely fight for equality with men - meaning extending the vote to privileged middle class women. (Some of who already had the vote by virtue of being property owners - the traditional qualification for voting rights).

It is also often forgotten that the ‘feminism’ of people like Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst was fanatically pro-WW1. They were leading figures in the ‘White feather’ movement, branding all no-uniformed men ‘cowards’ by handing them a white feather and calling for all such men to be jailed. (They never demanded that women be given equal rights to die on the western front though!).

Excuse me I never said I supported the Pankhursts but women had to fill the gap in the 1st WW annd do a lot of jobs that men had previously done. I recently found a will of my great grandfather who died in 1913 and his wife couldn't have the money it all had to be administered by 2 of her sons - on -law.
You should read Shoulder to Shoulder' by Midge Mackenzie .
And don't lecture me - I am entitled to my own opinion and just because it doesn't agree with yours.....

BikingBernie

disgruntledgoat wrote:

there is a wonderful contrary streak to our national character that, eventually, opposes most grabs on our freedoms...

On the contrary, most of the oppressive legislation that has been passed in the past 20 years has been positively welcomed by 'The Great British Public', or at the very least they have not raised a murmur against it, especially when the main targets have been low-status out-groups or the growing 'underclass' in Britain. Examples include all the legislation destroying union power and making the deregulated workplace a possibility, the various acts that were brought in to control 'travellers', protests and so on and even the regulatory reform bill, a virtual copy of Hitler's 1933 'enabling act' that gives the Government the power to make, repeal and modify the law without recourse to the parliamentary process.

BikingBernie

Ms Tree wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

Women died to get the vote - you should honour their memory.

And so did an awful lot of men! Did you know that the universal male suffrage for all men aged over 21 was not introduced in the UK until 1918, meaning that very many of those who died in WW1 did not even have the right to vote? In 1918 women over the age of 30 were also given the vote and the 'flapper vote' of 1928 was aimed at closing this age gap.

The cause of women's suffrage has become something of a 'cause célèbre' amongst feminists, but the fight for the vote was historically as much to do with class as gender, if not more so. Even amongst various female emancipation and socialist groups in late Victorian England there was much debate about whether women should seek to support universal suffrage for all, including the working classes, or merely fight for equality with men - meaning extending the vote to privileged middle class women. (Some of who already had the vote by virtue of being property owners - the traditional qualification for voting rights).

It is also often forgotten that the ‘feminism’ of people like Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst was fanatically pro-WW1. They were leading figures in the ‘White feather’ movement, branding all no-uniformed men ‘cowards’ by handing them a white feather and calling for all such men to be jailed. (They never demanded that women be given equal rights to die on the western front though!).

I am entitled to my own opinion and just because it doesn't agree with yours.....

But I haven't expressed an opinion, merely stated a few facts about the expansion of the franchise to women and the working classes. Do I take it that you disagree with something that I have pointed out? Did you really mean to imply that only women have died in the struggle to get voting rights?

teagar

BikingBernie wrote:

P.s the following discussion of the link between traditional right-wing and 'Authoritarian' (here termed 'Fascist' ) attitudes is taken from 'The Authoritarian Personality' by T.W Adorno et al and printed in 1950.

…The general pattern we are investigating here is characterized by an all-pervasive feature. These subjects want no pity for the poor, neither here nor abroad. This trail seems to be strictly confined to high scorers and to be one of the most differentiating features in political philosophy. At this point, the interrelatedness of some ideas measured by the PEC [Political-Economic Conservatism] scale and certain attitudes caught by the F [Fascism] scale should be stressed. Abolition of the dole, rejection of state interference with the "natural" play of supply and demand on the labor market, the spirit of the adage "who does not work, shall not eat" belong to the traditional wisdom of economic rugged individualism and are stressed by all those who regard the liberal system as being endangered by socialism. At the same time, the ideas involved have a tinge of punitiveness and authoritarian aggressiveness which makes them ideal receptacles of some typical psychological urges of the prejudiced character…

The attitude of indifference to the lot of the poor together with admiration for rich and successful people sheds light on the potential attitude of the high scorers toward the prospective victims of fascism in a critical situation. Those who humiliate mentally those who are down-trodden anyway, are more than likely to react the same way when an outgroup is being "liquidated."

It's sixty years old and discussing issues in politics which may bear the same name but carry different meanings today.

Just because it sounds authoritative doesn't mean it is

antfly

BikingBernie wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...Im not suggesting any sort of restriction on freedom of speech, but maybe newspapers could be forced to carry a tagline - warning, what you are reading in here is propaganda based on advancing the cause of political ideology x, y or z. Do not forget to read critically.

Anyone with half a brain reading a newspaper should know that anyway

But the majority of readers lack such 'half a brain'. I teach in a HE institution and most of my students are incapable of critical thinking and properly evaluating a source. In reality most people seem to pick a newspaper that they know can be relied on to validate and justify their own attitudes and beliefs, and when it comes to papers like The Daily Mail, Sun and Express, to validate and justify their ignorance and prejudices as well.

And people who read the guardian do it for the very same reasons only more so.

stagehopper

johnfinch wrote:

I wasn't absolving football clubs of blame. My point was (and I must admit that I made it pretty badly, but I was in a rush) that the Premier League was an invention of the FA the clubs and Sky, with the sole intention of raising a load of money for a small number of clubs and to hell with smaller clubs and the fans.

The Premier League's formation had nothing really to do with Sky.

It was an outcome forced upon the FA by the "big five" clubs at the time: Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur. The FA under threat of a breakaway desperately climbed aboard and decided to ratify thw new league which would keep a far bigger proportion of the TV rights for the member clubs in exchange for a big increase in live games.

Sky were just one of the bidders for the TV contract and came very close to losing out to ITV in the bidding process.

jim one

BikingBernie wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

there is a wonderful contrary streak to our national character that, eventually, opposes most grabs on our freedoms...

On the contrary, most of the oppressive legislation that has been passed in the past 20 years has been positively welcomed by 'The Great British Public', or at the very least they have not raised a murmur against it, especially when the main targets have been low-status out-groups or the growing 'underclass' in Britain. Examples include all the legislation destroying union power and making the deregulated workplace a possibility, the various acts that were brought in to control 'travellers', protests and so on and even the regulatory reform bill, a virtual copy of Hitler's 1933 'enabling act' that gives the Government the power to make, repeal and modify the law without recourse to the parliamentary process.

Bernie I enjoy reading your posts for the useful info, however I think your political opinion is going off on a bit of a rant at the government now and not using your usual style of providing factual evidence. While you make the point of laws brought into persecute travelers, the right wing Murdoch view is that it is numerous new "human rights" laws introduced infact protect these travelers. Perhaps a bit harsh to make out the government is some kind of Nazi oppressive state considering a key pillar of new labour is their introduction of numerous human rights bills. I suspect now Bernie you will tell me about all that torturing and other terrorist related things

Back on topic I think Sky money should be welcomed as it is from a reputed source unlike the mystery that surrounds Astana and its Kazak backers. It is afterall a large company which i suspect is the what the uci look for in their "globalisation" of cycling plan. Is there any professional sport that has an example of the moral view that cycling should take Bernie?? When large sums of money is involved I think sadly morals fall to lower down the agenda.