Olympics 2024
Comments
-
I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it'll do for the question of whether the morality of what I would call an inhumane sport changes because of societal outcomes. I'd argue that other sports that don't involve brain damage could provide equally positive outcomes as boxing without the inherent risk. It's just that boxing has occupied that space. It could equally be some sort of martial art, if some sort of outlet for physical domination is deemed a good motivator, (though that might be a rather condescending way of looking at what motivates boys from tough neighbourhoods & families).
0 -
I would agree, the societal effect is more of an aside, and plenty of other sports can deliver this. My main question is whether we feel we have a moral duty to ban harmful sports or whether it should be left to free will of those taking part (not that any bans will actually happen in reality as money generally trumps all valid health concerns).
0 -
This is a funny, if logical, debate. Nobody partakes in these sports thinking they won't get hurt.
In some cases it is part of the thrill. Make it safe and kill it. Some will say "good", but the participants?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
The harmful effects of smoking were known for years, and cigarettes had big health warnings printed on them, but I think we'd probably agree that banning children from smoking was a good move, as people, especially children, can't perceive of these terrible things happening to themselves.
If I wanted to extend the smoking analogy to brain damage, which can be cumulative in a similar way, it wouldn't be too difficult. Having said that, cigarettes can't inflict traumatic damage from a single incident, unless you stick the burning end in your eye by accident.
0 -
One of the riskiest most memorable moments in sport that comes to mind is Alex Honnold free climbing Al Cap (2900ft), no ropes, no support.
0 -
I think the argument re the riskiness of sport is best considered at a "cohort level". i.e. if you take x sporty types (where x is a large number) and monitor their health over time and do the same for x couch potatoes then overall, the sporty types enjoy better health collectively and are thus less of a burden to the health service. (Though they may live longer and therefore be more of a burden to the pension system.)
Thankfully, really serious injuries (life-changing rather than just forcing a change from contact or non-contact activity etc.) are very rare, and not that expensive in the grand scheme of things (and often covered by insurance anyway). The "Weekend Warrior" ranks are full of middle aged folk who've b*ggered various parts of their body in other sports (e.g. ruptured disc for me from rowing) but who can still cycle without too much bother (albeit without much speed either in my case!)
Head injuries in rugby may be a "game changer" in this assessment as they seem to be alarmingly prevalent.
Boxing (and similar) is a bit of an exception given that it is part of the game to damage your opponent physically, whereas in other sports, physical damage is a side-effect.
0 -
I think Hansjorg Auers solo of the Marmolada Fish route was a bolder and more dangerous climb given it’s in the Dolomites and it’s dodgy limestone. Where as El Cap is perfect granite.
0 -
Of no relevance, but in the interests of blatant celebrity name-dropping, we were on hols in Yosemite a few years ago, and whilst waiting for one of the early morning shuttle buses, I was standing next to a wiry, tanned guy weighted down by ropes and other climbing hardware. He was minding his own business, so we didn't engage in small talk. ("What have you got planned today?" "Climbing" felt a little un-necessary anyway.) Shortly after we arrived, a large group of excited people - mainly kids - arrived at pace, and immediately started asking "Alex" for his autograph / selfies.
We had no idea who he was, but concluded he must be reasonably well known given the excitement his mere presence generated, so when back online later in the day, I googled "Alex climbing yosemite" and found out I'd been standing next to a climbing legend. (He wasn't quite so high profile back then, but was still a Big Deal.) Hopefully he was impressed by how cool we'd played it, though I doubt he remembers the incident as clearly as we do!
1 -
I've heard a couple of interesting interviews on R4 this morning. First was a British marathon runner who had run with a stress fracture in the leg, and who is hoping to get married without crutches now. Suspect this is a friend of Pross?
Anyway, jolly inspiring and all that. Lost her job as a lawyer during covid, I suppose relatively little lottery funding needed, might be a blip in park runs.
Followed by a snippet of a young diver realising that he has to decide what to do with his life, and an interview with an ex 2004 silver medalist rower, who no-one remembers now, speaking about athlete self-development and lasting legacy being important.
I am afraid that as much as we all like the medal table and a couple of weeks and several billion pounds' worth of odd sports on TV, I was left with the firm conclusion that there is no lasting legacy, outside perhaps of a historical footnote and some urban facilities in some of the host cities.
In the vast majority of cases, the athletes and the money spent to let them follow their dreams creates none whatsoever.
0 -
Anyone else looking forward to the Paralympics in 2 weeks time? We went to both the main Olympics and Paralympics in London back in 2012 and if anything the Paras were an even better experience.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
In the presence of greatness, that's a immediate like, no messin.
1 -
Yeah, sure. Personally, I felt quite uncomfortable cycling/walking (different occasions) across the Severn bridge.
0 -
Afraid not. I find too many of the categories give rise to a colossal biomechanical advantage to athletes right on the border with the next category. Competition is also necessarily very thin in a lot of cases and overall the games illustrate attitudes towards and funding to support disabilities around the world.
So I can appreciate the athletic efforts, the false equivalence with the Olympics that is rammed home on a 15 second repeat cycle by commentators is tiring, and I'm already Olympic-ed out and looking forward to the F1 and footie restarting.
I never understood why they put it on after the Olympics. Should be before, to tap in to the pent up excitement.
0 -
To be fair, no-one really remembers the rowing gold medallists, bar Steve Redgrave and his crewmates, let alone silver medallists! In fact there are numerous double and triple gold medallist rowers who could walk unrecognised round any supermarket in the country.
But joking aside, the OGs is a great ego trip for the politicians and undoubtedly great for the competitors who are successful, but the "bang for your buck" for society as a whole doesn't feel particularly high. And of course, the unsuccessful competitors have a lot with which to come to terms.
0 -
Sure, I just found it interesting that this mantra of "legacy" of a given event at a given Olympics persists. It's a little bit brainwashy. Understand it is tempting to draw a line between sporting success and participation, and that participation means we may have fewer pasty stuffers clogging up the NHS in years to come, but I don't think there is anything to demonstrate that elite sport moves the dial whatsoever.
0 -
I think it's a great idea to give people a goal and something to aspire to. Sometimes with the main Olympics all the ego BS gets a bit OTT. Seeing people thrilled to be there and just compete.
0 -
Around this time every four years, I am forced to wonder whether "the thrill" is worth £10Bn for the host city and £0.5Bn of charitable funding in the UK.
0 -
I agree with your last point that the Paras would be better as a 'warm up' to the main event.
I'm looking at from point of view of a live spectator. When we went the atmosphere at the Paras was fantastic, the support for the athletes was top notch (level of noise and stuff like the hand clap in the build up to the long jump etc) and the crowd less bothered about which country the athletes are from.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agree FZ. And seeing what some of these Paralympians have done to get to where they are/competing at that level is pretty bloody inspiring IMO.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There are many vested interests in keeping up appearances that the Olympics are an unallayed "Good Thing" be broadcasters (lots of nice freebies to the Games) or Directors of Performance (job security).
The amount of Lottery dosh directed to produce a handful of swimming medallists is mind-boggling, however good it was to see the GB lads dish it out to the Yanks and the Aussies in the 4*2 relay. The same cash could do so much more to provide more opportunities for kids to learn to swim and compete, simply by being directed towards accredited learn to swim programmes and pools that are shutting down due to financial issues.
0 -
Most of the lottery funding in swimming seems to have resulted in watching the same French fella ahead of a different British fella, while the French fella does a subtly different arm motion to the previous day.
Most of the lottery funding in boxing seems to have resulted in a British person being punched in the face harder or more often than someone from Uzbekistan who also runs a yak farm whilst training.
Most of the lottery funding in sailing seems to have resulted in some middle class people who could afford to go sailing between terms at private schools mis-timing the most basic rule of the sport, before returning to comfortable middle class lives after a fun and self-gratifying career break.
I could go on.
1 -
Meh, compared to COVID costings blighty around £400,000,000,000 it's money down the back of the sofa.
0 -
You probably shouldn't dig too deeply into the S14 category in swimming!
0 -
Nope, looks like they are all getting married! Chances are she might not get selected in future as she apparently lied about her injury to team staff the day before. I can understand it as you may never get another chance but it won't have been well received.
0 -
Did she take anyone's place at that stage?
I don't know whether a finishing time of 2.51 might have knock on effects on the number of other athletes we can send?
0 -
I don't think anyone else had run the qualifying time (may be wrong on that) and it would probably have been too late to get anyone out. I suspect it was more a duty of care thing for UKA if she was aware of having and injury but either not notifying them or actually lying when asked. As far as I'm aware the finishing times don't have any impact, you can send up to 3 athletes if they have hit the qualifying requirements within the relevant period.
0 -
£500m of charitable funding over 4 years doesn't strike me as being that bad - note a swift Google says £352m in the last Olympic and Paralympic cycle though (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/55371552).
So about £5.25 per person in the UK and mostly funded from the National Lottery (as I understand). Or about £1.30/yr but of course we only see the outcome at the end of the cycle.
Given the amount of it I watched I find that pretty good value... Similar to the amount we've paid for the Rwanda scheme (£318m, https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/), for example, which may as well have been flushed down the toilet...
1 -
Sure, but the other comparitor is how excited everyone gets at £30m donations from Children in Need.
Either way, I wanted to debunk the "lasting legacy" stuff.
0 -
Do you not think that seeing people complete at the highest level doesn't inspire kids to try a sport they may never have seen before? Or a coach potato to get off their derriere and become active?
You also seem to have a hang-up regarding sailing. You can pick up a secondhand Laser on e-bay for £400. And as Pross mentioned upthread, sailing club membership is pretty cheap. Equally many dinghy owners will probably just be glad of having someone to crew for them. Entry to that sport really isn't the preserve of the wealthy, or even the middle class.
Likewise, someone suggested rugby is the preserve of the privately educated. I'd suggest you pop along to any local rugby club in the south west on a Saturday or Sunday during the season and you'll see that is utter BS.
3
