Victoria Pendleton: Cycling's Golden Girl

cyclingprop

Rick Chasey wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Quite like her, and didn't see the honesty in the film as detracting from her.

Plenty of work romances happen; so who cares?

Yeah. They didn't really explain why the work romance was SOO bad, and why so many people were upset by it.

Precisely. And I bet there are people where most of you work who you sooooo would. TBH the 'holier than thou' attitude at the beginning of this thread irritated me. If you're going to judge, keep it to something you're actually good at.

Paulie W

Rick Chasey wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Quite like her, and didn't see the honesty in the film as detracting from her.

Plenty of work romances happen; so who cares?

Yeah. They didn't really explain why the work romance was SOO bad, and why so many people were upset by it.

It was the keeping it secret that was the real issue: one coach has a right old moan to another about Vicki little knowing that said other coach is sleeping with her. It's not hard to see why that would upset someone.

I didn't think Pendleton came over well but that had much to do with the approach taken by the filmmakers. I don't know how much artistic control Victoria, her father and GB Cycling had over the final version but no-one came out of it that well: her father in particular appeared as a deeply unpleasant character; her mother was noticeable by her absence - presumably she was too nice to get a look-in.

EKE_38BPM

Brad has had some serious father issues too. His dad was a pro, but never fulfilled his potential. His dad was a doper, known on the 6 day circuit as The Doctor (or something like that). Walked out on him and his mum when he was a nipper (he then did it another two times with two different women and kids). Turned into a pisshead fighter and died in suspicious circumstances.

[amateur head shrinker]I guess Brad veers between trying to emulate and be better than his dad was (as a racer) and fighting against everything his dad was (crap father and doper) as well as fighting statistics (kids of alcoholics are more likely to be alcoholics themselves).[/amateur head shrinker]

The programme about Brad seemed more hastily put together than Vicki's did. Brad's was mainly library footage (previous Tours etc) and a few recent interviews, whereas Vicki's followed her for years. Maybe if Brad was followed for years as well he would have come across as high maintenance (like all athletes are as its all about them and their performance) and with daddy issues as well?

With regard to why coaches and athletes getting it on is frowned upon:
The relationship between coach and athlete is similar to that of a doctor and a patient; close and intimate but open to abuse. If any suggestion of hanky panky was well off the menu then everyone can relax in the strictly professional atmosphere even though the coaches and physios have their hands all over the athletes (massages or pushing off from a standing start on the track).

It could also cause tension in the team.
Imagine in Laura Trott has a great result and VP's bloke (I can't remember his name) gives her a hug to congratulate her. VP sees this and gets the hump (because she's so needy, remember). She then gives bloke the cold shoulder and, eventually, tells him why. Next week, Laura Trott has an off day in the gym and needs cheering up, normally Mr VP would give her a hug or do something nice to cheer her up, but with VP's whining and withholding of privileges in the back of his mind he doesn't do what he would normally do and what Laura needed. Her results spiral downwards because of the now inferior coaching and its all because VP and Mr VP couldn't keep it in their pants.

And suppose VP and her fella have a messy break up. What that that do to the camp?

rjsterry

Here's a link to the Guardian article, which is related to the Pendletobn doc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/13/london-2012-victoria-pendleton-olympics?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

It seems pretty clear to me that the filmmaker saw that there was 'a story' in the family background, the insecurities this appeared to cause and how these were amplified by Team GB. The (forbidden) romance with the drama of him being thrown off the team, the effect on her results, then the resolution of him being allowed back on the team an her form returning could have come straight out of a Hollywood script. It's no wonder the various participants came across the way that they did

DonDaddyD

pangolin wrote:

DDD wrote:

coriordan wrote:

attention seeking perhaps...but considering she was too young to understand that she might have been overlooked as a child as her twin brother was going to die of cancer?

surely given the circumstances, it's acceptable?

I didn't see that part. It may be an explanation but I don't think it makes it acceptable, no.

My thinking was basically, who on earth do you think you are to decide whether her personality is 'acceptable' or not?

I don't believe I'm judging a personality in its purest sense. I think I'm making an assessment of a behavioural trait and determining whether that is acceptable or not. Attention seeking, in a real world social setting, is not acceptable and to past experiences don't, in my mind, suddenly make it acceptable.

Lets stretch this a moment: A child is bullied at home. He grows up to be a bully, is that behaviour acceptable? Does it become more acceptable if you find out that his Dad bullied him throughout the early years of life?

Everyone has both negative and positive experiences. All things are relative unto the individual, you don't need to live a certain life to believe you have experienced a problem. Our past defines us but we don't walk around our past experiences written on our chests explaining our somewhat negative behavioural traits. No, as adults (or merely functioning aspects of a collective society) we are expected to be resonsible for our actions. Past be damned. That extends to attention seeking. So no, her past doesn't make it acceptable.

But most importantly remember the picture above. Because he is a product of his childhood as well and no, vigilantism is never OK.

DonDaddyD

BillyMansell wrote:

It sounds like the problem here is your ability in dealing with honest and open human emotions.

Did you run out of constructive points to make so added this little adhominem piece above.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Attention seeking, in a real world social setting, is not acceptable and to past experiences don't, in my mind, suddenly make it acceptable.

Um, just because we are doing this online, doesn't mean it's not real. And liking a bit of attention, while perhaps not the most attractive quality is hardly deserving of the term 'unacceptable'.

I'll say it again, the film was conceived from the start as portraying a dramatic (in the theatrical sense of the word) story, so the (as you view them) negative personality traits (which I suggest will be found in all of us to a greater or lesser degree) were deliberately emphasised. What you are judging is a dramatic characterisation of a person, not the person herself.

BillyMansell

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

It sounds like the problem here is your ability in dealing with honest and open human emotions.

Did you run out of constructive points to make so added this little adhominem piece above.

Getting rather defensive there.

In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.

cyclingprop

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

It sounds like the problem here is your ability in dealing with honest and open human emotions.

Did you run out of constructive points to make so added this little adhominem piece above.

Getting rather defensive there.

In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.

It's not interesting, it's to be expected. #gotprevious.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Attention seeking, in a real world social setting, is not acceptable and to past experiences don't, in my mind, suddenly make it acceptable.

Um, just because we are doing this online, doesn't mean it's not real. And liking a bit of attention, while perhaps not the most attractive quality is hardly deserving of the term 'unacceptable'.

People benefit from the anonimity of the online World. I would say attention seeking to that degree (and I'm not sure that Vicky's issues can all be boiled down to attention seeking) is unacceptable. But then we are different people with different personalities, so I guess your personality may make you more tollerant of that sort of behaviour.

I'll say it again, the film was conceived from the start as portraying a dramatic (in the theatrical sense of the word) story, so the (as you view them) negative personality traits (which I suggest will be found in all of us to a greater or lesser degree) were deliberately emphasised. What you are judging is a dramatic characterisation of a person, not the person herself.

Absolutely, which is why I wrote 'based on what I've gleaned of their personality from a TV screen' in my post on page 3. We can only discuss in the context of the information we are presented with, while it shows clarity of thought to ackowledge the distinction between portrayal TV and actually knowing, the assumption has always been, on my part, how she came across on TV.

If I ever met her in real life, I'm sure I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. TV might create a preconception though.

rick_chasey

Everyone wants to be loved right?

It just comes out in different ways.

DonDaddyD

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

It sounds like the problem here is your ability in dealing with honest and open human emotions.

Did you run out of constructive points to make so added this little adhominem piece above.

Getting rather defensive there.

In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.

How does working in mental health somehow validate your adhominem attack/accusation? Please tell me.

BillyMansell

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't believe I'm judging a personality in its purest sense. I think I'm making an assessment of a behavioural trait and determining whether that is acceptable or not. Attention seeking, in a real world social setting, is not acceptable and to past experiences don't, in my mind, suddenly make it acceptable.

So you are making a value judgement. Wierd leaps in logic - you determine what's acceptable in an individual, you determine what's acceptable to society ergo what you find unacceptable has to be unacceptable to society. Crazy thinking.

Lets stretch this a moment: A child is bullied at home. He grows up to be a bully, is that behaviour acceptable? Does it become more acceptable if you find out that his Dad bullied him throughout the early years of life?

completely and absurdly irrelevant. Just a bizarre analogy.

Everyone has both negative and positive experiences. All things are relative unto the individual, you don't need to live a certain life to believe you have experienced a problem. Our past defines us but we don't walk around our past experiences written on our chests explaining our somewhat negative behavioural traits. No, as adults (or merely functioning aspects of a collective society) we are expected to be resonsible for our actions. Past be damned. That extends to attention seeking. So no, her past doesn't make it acceptable.

You really no nothing about cognitive behavioural thinking. You're simply making leaps and bounds in logic to justify your own world view. The beliefs the the real world thinks like you and that you can wholly reject your past is disturbing.

BillyMansell

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

It sounds like the problem here is your ability in dealing with honest and open human emotions.

Did you run out of constructive points to make so added this little adhominem piece above.

Getting rather defensive there.

In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.

How does working in mental health somehow validate your adhominem attack/accusation? Please tell me.

Do you feel this sense of persecution a lot? As I said, put it in context and read it with a rational mind.

DonDaddyD

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

It sounds like the problem here is your ability in dealing with honest and open human emotions.

Did you run out of constructive points to make so added this little adhominem piece above.

Getting rather defensive there.

In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.

How does working in mental health somehow validate your adhominem attack/accusation? Please tell me.

Do you feel this sense of persecution a lot? As I said, put it in context and read it with a rational mind.

You're avoiding the question by posing a near unrelated question.

I'll ask again:
How does working in mental health somehow validate what you are saying?

I have other questions:

What is your specific job that makes you feel so quialified to reference your time in mental health?

How long have you worked in mental health?

DonDaddyD

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't believe I'm judging a personality in its purest sense. I think I'm making an assessment of a behavioural trait and determining whether that is acceptable or not. Attention seeking, in a real world social setting, is not acceptable and to past experiences don't, in my mind, suddenly make it acceptable.

So you are making a value judgement. Wierd leaps in logic - you determine what's acceptable in an individual, you determine what's acceptable to society ergo what you find unacceptable has to be unacceptable to society. Crazy thinking.

I think you're actually making unnecessary leaps - straw man. Where did I say in my previous posts that what I find unacceptable or unacceptable in an individual is therefore unacceptable to society.

You are doing the exact thing you are accussing me of. It makes you look a bit of an idiot to be honest, oh but then you work in mental health so I guess that makes what you write valid.

In any case you've put in bold the qualifier of that paragraph. I'll leave you to figure the rest out.

BM wrote:

Lets stretch this a moment: A child is bullied at home. He grows up to be a bully, is that behaviour acceptable? Does it become more acceptable if you find out that his Dad bullied him throughout the early years of life?

completely and absurdly irrelevant. Just a bizarre analogy.

Really? I don't think so.

The original question posed to me was this:

coridan wrote:

attention seekeing perhaps...but considering she was too young to understand that she might have been overlooked as a child as her twin brother was going to die of cancer?

surely given the circumstances, it's acceptable?

I replied this:

DDD wrote:

I didn't see that part. It may be an explanation but I don't think it makes it acceptable, no.

Because this:

DDD wrote:

A child is bullied at home. He grows up to be a bully, is that behaviour acceptable? Does it become more acceptable if you find out that his Dad bullied him throughout the early years of life?

The example of a child being bullied at home and growing up to become a bully (and that behaviour not being acceptable) is spot on. It demonstrates that past experiences don't usually [another qualifier] excuse that persons behaviour.

So no, not completely absurd and irrelevant.

Everyone has both negative and positive experiences. All things are relative unto the individual, you don't need to live a certain life to believe you have experienced a problem. Our past defines us but we don't walk around our past experiences written on our chests explaining our somewhat negative behavioural traits. No, as adults (or merely functioning aspects of a collective society) we are expected to be resonsible for our actions. Past be damned. That extends to attention seeking. So no, her past doesn't make it acceptable.

You really no nothing about cognitive behavioural thinking. You're simply making leaps and bounds in logic to justify your own world view. The beliefs the the real world thinks like you and that you can wholly reject your past is disturbing.

Your response is nonsense.

Where did I say I or a person can reject their past? What I said is that past experiences don't always excuse current behavioural problems. It's an easy concept to follow.

Other than that I see no leaps.

BillyMansell

DonDaddyD wrote:

You're avoiding the question by posing a near unrelated question.

No I've addressed your question by twice asking you to read it in context but your avoiding doing this.

DonDaddyD

BillyMansell wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

You're avoiding the question by posing a near unrelated question.

No I've addressed your question by twice asking you to read it in context but your avoiding doing this.

I've read what you have said in the context of what you were saying.

You followed with:

In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.

I'm asking how this is relevant. I then followed with:

I'll ask again:
How does working in mental health somehow validate what you are saying?

I have other questions:

What is your specific job that makes you feel so quialified to reference your time in mental health?

How long have you worked in mental health?

Now are you going to answer the above questions?

cyclingprop

Is this where we gather around them in a circle, shouting "fight fight fight", and pushing them towards each other in the hope of physical confrontation?

DonDaddyD

Billy Mansell wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Is this where we gather around them in a circle, shouting "fight fight fight", and pushing them towards each other in the hope of physical confrontation?

You are basically saying that all internet conversations are precursors to fights and "ergo" (because I remember that man in the Matrix movie saying it so I'll say it as well because it makes me look intelligent*) internet conversation are the cause of WAR!

You know nothing about Aspergers Syndrome and I work in mental health so am qualified to talk on all things psychological.

*Seriously, no one used the word 'ergo' online or in conversation until after the first Matrix movie made it cool again!

EKE_38BPM

Must be a quiet day in DDD-World. Oh yeah, last day of term, so not much going on.

gtvlusso

I am going camping this weekend, I might take my bike with me.....

:?

walkingbootweather

gtvlusso wrote:

I am going camping this weekend, I might take my bike with me.....

:?

gtvlusso

But I am with DDD on this one.....

dhope

Billy Mansell wrote:

You know nothing about Aspergers Syndrome and I work in mental health so am qualified to talk on all things psychological.

:?

Morgan_le_Fay

What was that about VP being high maintenance and attention-seeking?

BillyMansell

cyclingprop wrote:

Is this where we gather around them in a circle, shouting "fight fight fight", and pushing them towards each other in the hope of physical confrontation?

Nah. DDD is fighting with himself.

DonDaddyD

BillyMansell wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Is this where we gather around them in a circle, shouting "fight fight fight", and pushing them towards each other in the hope of physical confrontation?

Nah. DDD is fighting with himself.

No, what I'm doing is participating in an online discussion. You have said things that I disagree with, you have accused me of saying things that I haven't and you have tried to dispute the examples that I have used.

All of which, like this, I have responded to. In that context I do not believe that I have exceeded the purpose of the website. If you accuse me of anything else you are just doing so in an attempt to ridicule and strengthen your own resolve.

ETA: And you have continually avoided my question.

Sewinman

Why are there so many words and so few pictures in this thread!? :evil:

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

Why are there so many words and so few pictures in this thread!? :evil:

Objectifying a very successful athelete is bad.

Take it to bottom bracket. (I expected more from you tut tut tut)