Fairly interesting Sky article

2

Comments

  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    hotoph88 / (Tony Cooke?).

    Your claim (your claim) that the 'higher, faster, stronger' ethos of sport renders all women's sport 'an irrelevancy' is a patronising nonsense. (And if you are suggesting it is a position I hold you are setting up a straw man as well). For one, I am sure that many women like to see other women do what they can only dream of, whatever the attitude of male competitors.

    You say that you find 'exclusivity' in sport 'disturbing'. Well, womens' sport is by its very nature exclusive in that in order to give the female competitors a chance of getting on the podium, it excludes men! Of course, were all sport truly inclusive at the level of gender, in most sports female competitors wouldn't get a look in. Pointing that out is not, to use your favourite word, and example of 'misogyny', it is a simple matter of evolutionary biology. Sorry!

    Thanks for airing your prejudices about golf. I am sure those fighting to increase the profile of womens' golf would really appreciate what you say. What's more, just up the road from me at the moment the Evian Masters ( a women-only golf tournament) is on. Going by the number of people turning up thousands seem to enjoy watching women perform competitively in golf and it is getting plenty of media coverage. Perhaps you only want to promote women's sport that you are personally interested in. Somehow I think that the women in the Evian Masters wouldn't be at all impressed by your approach to promoting womens' sport...

    You talk about 'egalitarianism' in sport. Sport. Sorry, but competitive sport is intrinsically elitist.

    You still don't seem to have looked up what 'misogyny' actually means. Your use of this term is trivialises it's meaning and is rather insulting. Just because someone would prefer to watch, for example, a classic like the Tour of Flanders than the womens version of the race, or to fund a male team than female one, does not mean that they 'hate' women.

    The women-only Orange prize is primarily just another marketing exercise for Orange. However, it was created partly in response to the fact that, due to the poor quality of the material they were producing, women weren't getting a look-in in the serious book prizes like the Booker. Interesting that you point to J.K. Rowling as an example of womens' literary merit. Sure, she sells books, but on that basis the Sun is the most meritorious newspaper in Britain.

    You seem to be implying that womens' sport is immune to doping and corruption. In reality there have been plenty of cases of doping in womens' cycling and if the stakes were raised, doubtlessly the level of doping would rise too. Never heard of Tammy Thomas?

    The answer to your 'problem' is rather obvious. Rather than relying on 'misogynistic' men like Brailsford to do what you want, perhaps 'sisters need to do it for themselves'. Maybe J.K. Rowling could be persuaded to sponsor a team. :wink:
  • hotoph88
    hotoph88 Posts: 58
    Abdoujaparov wrote:
    Hotoph, media and governance of the sport aren't simply causes of the situation you describe - they're effects of the underlying cause.

    The main reasons are, our society and, even deeper than that, evolution.

    There are notable exceptions where women are involved on a similar level to men in certain sports, but these tend to be either when there is no money at stake or when the sport has been cocooned in the upper and upper-middle classes in its early development(e.g. tennis).

    One cannot legislate against evolution or history as Mr Wilberforce knew only too well. What can happen is individuals of principle can recognise an inequity and influence those levers to hand. There are many ways the governance of the sport could act positively, to set itself against the prejudice which exists. The corporate sponsors who are the paymasters of the media, undoubtedly have policies which require fair treatment of women in the workplace. Again they could act and if plc's I am confident that they are required to do so. None of these happen because the prejudice and the impact it has, totally preventing access of females to the rewards of the labour/talent in a manner equitable to men, is hidden by those interests served by that inherent unfairness.

    Principled individuals take a stand even if it brings with it negative impacts. In this case Sky could have had a lot of pluses for a tiny fraction of their budget. The prejudices, whatever their origin, blinded those who chose the strategy.
  • hotoph88
    hotoph88 Posts: 58
    BikingBernie wrote:
    .

    Your claim (your claim) that the 'higher, faster, stronger' ethos of sport renders all women's sport 'an irrelevancy' is a patronising nonsense. ............

    BB your premise is all wrong so you then end up lost. You have found a pin-head to dance on. Inclusivity is not about getting boys and girls into the pool at the same time for the same race. It is about giving both girls and boys their own triple jump competition and treating the winners of each with equal status. Fact – some sports do it, others don’t.

    BB, I am not arguing with you because you have more time and resource to post here. I have expressed myself. I am confident you disagree.

    I wish I was Tony Cooke or somebody else with a position of power to influence things. My own experiences are far more modest. I have spent a huge amount of time over many years trying to encourage and help youngsters in the sport. I have been amazed at the different experiences girls and boys have. I have often tried to work out why youngsters with talent leave the sport The drugs issue is the biggest threat to our sport. I now look back and think what wise choices many of the talented boys made, in reducing or entirely dropping out of their involvement in competitive cycling. Looking back - I am glad they did not heed my advice. For girls the decision is more obvious. The Sky decision is entirely symptomatic – even when there are proven positives and the cost is so small, the opportunity is passed by. Try explaining to a group of 13 year old youngsters, getting ready for a bike ride, talking excitedly about Team Sky and Bradley at the Tour and then a little girl pipes up – is there a Tour de France for girls ? A question I have fielded many times over many years. I can now no longer tell them, we are working to change things for the better. I know they are getting worse. Now I have no viable answer.

    Some sports do.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited July 2010
    hotoph88 wrote:
    It is about giving both girls and boys their own triple jump competition and treating the winners of each with equal status.
    The very fact that women have to be given their own competition because they perform at a lower level then male competitors makes the ideal of 'treating the winners of each with equal status’ a self-contradictory nonsense. The winners of female-only events will always be 'the best female competitor', not the best per say. This is not to say that womens' achievements in sports are 'irrelevant', far from it, but the 'higher, faster, stronger' ethos of competitive sport will always see the fastest and the strongest receive the greatest awards.

    It could even be argued that treating the performances of female competitors as being of equal status purely on the basis they they are 'handicapped' by virtue of being female is itself inherently patronising and sexist, especially in an age when women supposedly want to be judged by the same standards as men are. One might as well start awarding first-class honours degrees to those who are genetically disadvantaged by virtue of being of unexceptionally intelligence or diligent! (And as someone who teaches in HE, that does seem to be the way things are going, a case of 'All who can pay shall have prizes'. So much for meritocracy!).

    How about disabled sport, or 3rd cat male racing? If the quality of competition is what matters, not the ultimate level of performance, shouldn't they be given equal status as elite male sport? Yes, that might be an egalitarian ideal, but as I said earlier, competitive sport is intrinsically elitist, that's just the way it is. This applies to elite women racers as much as 'misogynistic' males, or do the likes of Nicole Cooke feel that all her fellow competitors who 'try their best' should get the same rewards for competing as she does, even if she is the one crossing the line first?
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    They tried a women's tour, running the women on the Tour stages ahead of the men but it didn't take off.

    The distances are shorter and the public tune into watch the superhuman endurance, they won't want to watch an abbreviated stage when they can watch a real ding dong over 200km later on. Viewing time is limited after all.

    Short of lining the route with portaloos, women can't ride for as long as the men, as a result the distances are usually capped at 100km for a race like the Tour de l'Aude.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    P.s. I also think we need to lay to rest they myth that elite sport is the main reason why people of both genders take part in recreational sport. Selling cycling on the basis of its health benefits, the way it makes you feel and look good and the enjoyment to be had will keep far more people on bikes than telling them that, if they get to be amongst the best couple of hundred cyclists in the world, they could ride the Tour de France! For most of the millions who ride bikes, racing, and even less elite racing, is an irrelevance.
  • flattythehurdler
    flattythehurdler Posts: 2,314
    Kléber wrote:
    Sky aren't the only team focussed on improving their riders :wink:

    Note several teams wear tight fitting jerseys, use wind tunnels and other ways to improve. Milram was the first team on the circuit to use ice baths. The concept of marginal gains is not exclusive to Sky. I remember a feature on Channel 4's Tour coverage from 1989 when they sung the praises of the PDM team for the way it had the comfiest coach and used all sorts of recovery techniques, including accupuncture - 21 years ago.

    I would have hoped for more from Sky. But many teams come along with a big budget and a fanfare and disappoint. It takes time to make a team spirit. Especially when some riders don't have a lot of faith in the team management and Yates and Sutton aren't exactly the Gary Kasparov and Bobby Fischer of the Pro Tour, their management style can make HTC's Brian Holm look gentle.

    That was a mis-translation of "sticking needles in the riders"
    Dan
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Hotoph88, I agree with a lot of what you say but this is completely wrong
    Any woman, no matter her talent or charisma is prevented from access to commercial success.

    Tell that to someone like Michelle Wie who has made millions in prize money in her 5 year pro career and sponsorship and endorsements on top. She was also given th eopportunity to compete with the top men, how many sports allow that? Unfortunately all it proved was that she was nowhere near good enough despite dominating the women's game since she was a kid.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Back on track. The death of idealism is always sad

    http://theinnerring.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... tance.html
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • ratsbeyfus
    ratsbeyfus Posts: 2,841
    I thought he'd already softened his stance when he hired Sean Yates.

    I had one of them red bikes but I don't any more. Sad face.

    @ratsbey
  • mroli
    mroli Posts: 3,622
    Pross wrote:
    Tell that to someone like Michelle Wie who has made millions in prize money in her 5 year pro career and sponsorship and endorsements on top. She was also given th eopportunity to compete with the top men, how many sports allow that? Unfortunately all it proved was that she was nowhere near good enough despite dominating the women's game since she was a kid.

    No. Not true. Michelle Wie has won (I think) 1 professional ladies' golf title. She failed massively to make the step up from amateur to professional golf
    http://www.georgesfoundation.org
    http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
    http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    I thought he'd already softened his stance when he hired Sean Yates.
    :lol:
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    mroli wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Tell that to someone like Michelle Wie who has made millions in prize money in her 5 year pro career and sponsorship and endorsements on top. She was also given th eopportunity to compete with the top men, how many sports allow that? Unfortunately all it proved was that she was nowhere near good enough despite dominating the women's game since she was a kid.

    No. Not true. Michelle Wie has won (I think) 1 professional ladies' golf title. She failed massively to make the step up from amateur to professional golf

    And yet has still won millions despite Hotoph88 stating that golf doesn't allow women access to commercial success.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    iainf72 wrote:
    Back on track. The death of idealism is always sad

    http://theinnerring.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... tance.html

    Maybe he wants to sign Basso.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Like a hot air balloon sinking towards earth, it sounds like Brailsford is trying to jettison pesky burdens like a strong anti-doping stance. Maybe he'll regret that interview with L'Equipe quite quickly.

    I appreciate the Realpolitik here, there aren't hundreds of unemployed team managers just waiting for the phone to ring, only a few are up to the job. I suppose he's struggling to fill the sudden vacuum left by Scott Sunderland. Yates and Sutton are basically cave dwellers, there's a real need for a proper manager here. But saying in public that you'll lower your standards clashes with the stance previously taken, for a team famous for its PR, Brailsford opened his mouth and the wrong words came out.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    I really hope they don't lower their standards on doping. I can accept the team not performing to the levels they claimed they wanted to achieve but to me the two main draws are their anti-doping stance and their aims to develop British riders. Drop either of those and they are just another mediocre team.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    I don't see it as a slippery slope, hiring a dodgy DS today doesn't mean fridges full of stored blood tomorrow. It's more that when you take a bold stance, it's a shame to see it crumble so soon. But let's note this hasn't happened, it's not like Brailsford's recruited Unzue or Savio.
  • mroli
    mroli Posts: 3,622
    Pross wrote:
    And yet has still won millions despite Hotoph88 stating that golf doesn't allow women access to commercial success.

    No - not true, she hasn't "won" millions, she has made millions in endorsements because she is pretty and of an interesting ethnic background for the States (Korean parents, born in Hawai I believe). In the same way that Sharapova has made millions, it has nothing to do with their talent, other than that they have some talent. It would be like, oh I don't know, some domestique with BBox making far more money than Shleck or Contador because he was a bit of a hunk.
    http://www.georgesfoundation.org
    http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
    http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    BikingBernie wrote:
    hotoph88 wrote:
    It is about giving both girls and boys their own triple jump competition and treating the winners of each with equal status.
    The very fact that women have to be given their own competition because they perform at a lower level then male competitors makes the ideal of 'treating the winners of each with equal status’ a self-contradictory nonsense. The winners of female-only events will always be 'the best female competitor', not the best per say. This is not to say that womens' achievements in sports are 'irrelevant', far from it, but the 'higher, faster, stronger' ethos of competitive sport will always see the fastest and the strongest receive the greatest awards.

    It could even be argued that treating the performances of female competitors as being of equal status purely on the basis they they are 'handicapped' by virtue of being female is itself inherently patronising and sexist, especially in an age when women supposedly want to be judged by the same standards as men are. One might as well start awarding first-class honours degrees to those who are genetically disadvantaged by virtue of being of unexceptionally intelligence or diligent! (And as someone who teaches in HE, that does seem to be the way things are going, a case of 'All who can pay shall have prizes'. So much for meritocracy!).

    How about disabled sport, or 3rd cat male racing? If the quality of competition is what matters, not the ultimate level of performance, shouldn't they be given equal status as elite male sport? Yes, that might be an egalitarian ideal, but as I said earlier, competitive sport is intrinsically elitist, that's just the way it is. This applies to elite women racers as much as 'misogynistic' males, or do the likes of Nicole Cooke feel that all her fellow competitors who 'try their best' should get the same rewards for competing as she does, even if she is the one crossing the line first?

    I've always thought your views on women in sport at odds with the views you express when discussing the French v American view of sport. There you come down heavily on the French side where you espouse their general view is it's not the winning that matters but the taking part and you seem to rally against the ethos of 'higher, faster, stronger'.
    @stagehopper
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    mroli wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    And yet has still won millions despite Hotoph88 stating that golf doesn't allow women access to commercial success.
    No - not true, she hasn't "won" millions, she has made millions in endorsements because she is pretty and of an interesting ethnic background for the States (Korean parents, born in Hawai I believe). In the same way that Sharapova has made millions, it has nothing to do with their talent, other than that they have some talent. It would be like, oh I don't know, some domestique with BBox making far more money than Shleck or Contador because he was a bit of a hunk.
    Life's not fair is it? In womens' sport you can be rubbish and still make a fortune if you look good, in elite male sport you actually have to win! :lol:
  • LittleB0b
    LittleB0b Posts: 416
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Life's not fair is it? In womens' sport you can be rubbish and still make a fortune if you look good, in elite male sport you actually have to win! :lol:

    Do you?

    Wasn't there that french 'housewives favorite' who was loved for always coming second - and i also remmber from some of the TDF commentray this year about a cyclist who was making more money from his modeling (sorry not a person who remmbers names)
    blog: bellevedere
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    edited July 2010
    mroli wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    And yet has still won millions despite Hotoph88 stating that golf doesn't allow women access to commercial success.

    No - not true, she hasn't "won" millions, she has made millions in endorsements because she is pretty and of an interesting ethnic background for the States (Korean parents, born in Hawai I believe). In the same way that Sharapova has made millions, it has nothing to do with their talent, other than that they have some talent. It would be like, oh I don't know, some domestique with BBox making far more money than Shleck or Contador because he was a bit of a hunk.

    http://www.lpga.com/greensheet.aspx?pid=18563&year=2009

    Over $1.2 million since joining the LPGA in 2009. OK, not millions plural but hardly constitutes a lack of commercial success. I'd be happy with 18 months earnings of $1.2 million either in my current job or as a pro cyclist.

    EDIT She also had tournament earnings of over $800k from 2006 to 2009 before joining the LPGA including over $750k in 2006 alone then there's the money she would have won had she been allowed as an amateur in open events - not bad for someone who is still only 20, granted not as much as her male counterparts but a poor choice of sport for someone to have used as an example of not giving women a chance of commercial success. I'd have used football, rugby, cricket, basketball, baseball all above golf.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    stagehopper wrote:
    I've always thought your views on women in sport at odds with the views you express when discussing the French v American view of sport. There you come down heavily on the French side where you espouse their general view is it's not the winning that matters but the taking part and you seem to rally against the ethos of 'higher, faster, stronger'.
    As I have made clear on previous occasions I have a lot of time for the 'winning is not everything' approach to sport. What I am being critical of here is the inconsistency of those who claim that they want to promote 'egalitarianism' in sport when what they really want is to promote elitism, but to the benefit a particular social group. (Or, even more narrowly, the benefit of Nicole Cooke and a few other elite competitors).

    If women (or come to that men) want to compete for the love of the sport, that's great. However arguing that, whatever the level of their performance or the number of those competing, women deserve the same rewards as those at the top of male elite sport get can only can only be justified on grounds that in most other contexts would be regarded as 'sexist' or discriminatory. It certainly can't be justified in terms of the demands of the market, and rightly or wrongly, it is ultimately the market that decides where the money goes.

    To return to your example of French cycling, plenty of French riders seem to enjoy competing even if they never get near the GC podium and the rewards this brings. I wonder what the reaction would be if riders on teams like BBox spent their time whinnying that they should get the same rewards as the likes of Contador!

    Of course, one approach would be to promote true egalitarianism in sport, perhaps by stripping away all the commercialism that surrounds it. However, I don't think that the likes of Nicole Cooke would welcome that when all they really want is a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    LittleB0b wrote:
    Wasn't there that french 'housewives favorite' who was loved for always coming second - and i also remmber from some of the TDF commentray this year about a cyclist who was making more money from his modeling (sorry not a person who remmbers names)
    As you say, Poulidor was loved for coming second and the way this created an affinity between him and the French public, not because of his looks. As for 'a cyclist' making more money from modeling than racing, if this person exists and is a professional cyclist he must be on a pretty minimal contract (probably less than the likes of Pooley and Cooke get) , especially considering the minimal rewards male models get in comparison with their female counterparts.
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    The DB quote is interesting. It must have been a stiff kick in the pants to perform so poorly, and they were really bad. Nothing really worked -- with the exception of Flecha and EBH, one hardly noticed them.

    It is interesting that Garmin had more options on both GC and the sprints.

    Big budgets come with serious pressure.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Are Sky riding the Vuelta?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Pross wrote:
    Are Sky riding the Vuelta?

    Yes
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    The CN / PC podcast guys were saying you could see Brailsford was dejected towards the end of the Tour.

    I guess the thing with stating an aim of winning the Tour means you need to have a guy who's got the natural gifts to be able to do it. And there are only a handful of those guys. And then to find one who is "British" - Even more difficult.

    They need a different / better DS though. How many times have we seen them with excellent trains...... at completely the wrong point in a race.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    RichN95 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Are Sky riding the Vuelta?

    Yes

    Have they announced their team yet? I'd like to see Kennaugh having a chance to get experience of a 3 week race.
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    His comments on Inner Ring (via L'equipe) read to me more as frustration that it's going to be bloody hard to find an experienced DS with a totally clean reputation. I think they've missed Scott Sunderland hugely.
    @stagehopper

Categories