Friday, June 5, 2009

Roy for King of the World (Warnie is already God)

The decision to send Andrew Symonds home from England resulted in a storm of discussion over at twitter. Discussion, spirited discussion. Not argument, but a good old fashion enjoyable discussion. It was a pleasure Moko, Dr Yobbo and Lobes.

The point of contention seems to be around what is a reasonable expectation of behaviour from our sporting hero's. There are a few keywords that get thrown around during these discussions and here are my views on some of them:

Role model: This is a doozy. Apparently everyone that plays professional sport has to be a role model to the kiddies. In my day, my parents were my role models and they would give me the moral framework to be able to select role models from other areas of society. Sports people could be role models, but all that was demanded of them was to perform in their chosen sport and if they provided a good off-field example then that was celebrated.

Professionalism: Being a professional sportsman means that you make your lively hood from your sport. So by extension, professionalism would refer to the standards maintained by that player to perform at a level that warrants payment. So in my view, you are acting in a professional manner if you turn up each game/training session in a condition to perform at the standards required.

Sponsorship: The big problem is that to pay sportspeople lots of money, that money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is sponsors that want to be associated with the sport or individual. They want to be associated with winners first and foremost, but then also demand that their stable also project an appropriate image outside of the sport. You may think that is a fair request, here is a stack of cash now go out and win and also behave like this corporate robot. I don't think that's is really fair. My life is my own and I will live it how I choose. Judge my character before you sponsor me and if you don't like it or it doesn't fit your marketing plan, then keep the cash.

Media: The new catchphrase for the media is "it's in the public's interest". Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Why is it in my interest to know how many schooners Roy has put away or what Ben Cousins is doing hours before a game? The phrase is "in the public's interest" not "what the public is interested in".

So in conclusion to me sport is sport and what matters is how you perform on the field. Your life is your life and you deserve to be treated in the same manner as the rest of society. Some sportspeople respond to a life of discipline and dedication (Tom Hafey, Michael Shumacher) while others perform best when their personal life is chaotic and provides a distraction (Warnie, Keith Miller).

Sport people are people not corporate cardboard cutouts.

Now someone ask me why I don't think sportspeople should be tested for illicit substances.


  1. lol. Alrighty....

    I hate the media (full stop). The term 'media' invokes thoughts of 'news', 'truth' and 'non-bias', but unfortunately, AS IF. They are bottom feeding leeches that generate gossip and sensationalism for profit. Maybe not the individual in the profession, but the entity.

    The Shit that leaks out from the lower orifice of the Media Entity serves no purpose than attempting to cater for something that will make us buy, or click, their bollocks and attempt swallow it like some sorta half cooked nasty stew at your inlaws place which leaves you in no position other than praying your body successfully digests it without giving you the SHITS...


    So let's get to what the 'Normal Prudent Person' would recognise as, 'common sense'.

    There are many professions out there where if you VOLUNTEER to pursue you KNOW what you do will be scrutinised and judged.


    Politicians. Police Officers. Sports people.

    Why?, because people like that are in a position where they are EXPECTED to stand out from the chaff. Those positions are positions that are BIGGER than the individual. Sportsmen, and women, (ESPECIALLY in a team) represent each other. Why should 9 out of 10 sports people sacrifice SO MUCH and act like a professional and an ADULT just for one individual to act like twat and make them all look like amateurs on a pub crawl.

    TO me, with his actions, it makes it look like they cruise the globe sucking back coldies and laughing at the people who don't have the talent to be there.

    Does he have personal issues?....maybe. Is he struggling with the fame?....maybe...but that isn't the team's fault, or He's had AMPLE opportunity to get his shit together. It seems to me he's a serial fuck-up. Simple as that. People make mistakes, but in an arena like that you should only get to make them once....or piss off and let a true professional in there for a go.

    That D'arcy clown figured it out, and some football players need the same treatment. Fuck off, and come back when you're an adult like the rest of us.

    So sayeth Moko.

  2. Yes, whether they want to be or expect to be, they become role models for kids, simply because children of all ages admire and look up to certain people, and as is childrens way, mimic and pretend to be their hero.
    If it werent for the media, then the misdeamenours of our sporting fraternity would remain between themselves and not for public consumption.
    We dont particularily want to know what Ben shot up his arm. Or wha Roy scoffed down.
    whilst sporting/political/showbusiness peoples do need to curb their more out there behaviour when in the public eye, they are still human and as such will make poor judgements.
    Do we need to know the ins and outs of a ducks bum if its a sporting duck, fuck NO.
    To my way of thinking, its the media who is the lowest of the low. Not the bloke at the pub whos finding life a bit tuff at the top of his sport and just wants to forget the pressure for a night.

  3. Ok, agreed, the media are a bunch of arseclowns (I am getting lots of opportunities to use that phrase).

    Big difference between Cops, Pollies and sports people. Cops and Pollies are responsible for developing and maintaining the fabric of our society whereas as sports people just play sport.

    That said, as long as it is legal and it doesn't effect the way they perform their jobs, then I don't really care how cops and pollies live their lives.

    Sportspeople represent their team/club whenever they pull on the uniform. They represent themselves at all other times. As I said, professionlism relates to how they perform their profession.

    When you think about your views on Roy, where do you get your information? From a bunch of arseclowns, so it is probably not fair to judge him.

    As you say, everyone makes mistakes both personally and professionally. Society punishes personal mistakes and your empoyer punishes your work ones. I can see a case for society (Police) punishing serious work mistakes (people get killed at work) but not one for employers punishing serious personnal mistakes.

    D'arcy broke a law and got punished by a court for it. The only possible justification for leaving him out of the team is that he would upset the team harmony. NOT that he was of poor character.

  4. Redhead it sounds like we are of a similar view.

    I will just add one thing. Yes kids will look up to sportspeople, but I think we underplay the role of the parent. If I say my daughter imitating the negative aspects of a specific sportsperson then I would dicipline and educate her. I am responsible for her until she is old enough to be responsible for herself. It is not up to her school and sportstars to give her a moral framework for life.

  5. That should be "saw my daughter imitating".

  6. I think we're ALWAYS gonna disagree on the professional person and the private person. Character FLAWS in professionals is a bad thing for up and coming potentials when someone like that can be SO influential, and fun. Misery likes company and he'll quite happily drag someone else down with him. ESPECIALLY if it's a substance issue.

    I DO get the 'live and let live' way of thinking and generally, yeah, if no one is getting hurt in the process do what you will, but his postion is a privaledge, not something to be dicked with. How many MILLION kids would kill for his spot?. How amny have been passed over without a chance to prove themselves just because this clown is 'quirky'. From the other players POV it would give them THE SHITS to have a fuck up like that in the ranks when they're sacrificing so much. Most are giving up that life for the bigger picture...

    Why should they 'play the game' when he runs riot...?.

    Private character is EVERYTHING when it comes to being true professional.

  7. Let me add this to the 'Role Model' thing...

    Definition ~ - somebody to be copied: a worthy person who is a good example for other people.

    It isn't a default setting cause you're famous. That's the point the media misses.

  8. I do a agree with you in a small degree. Most serious character flaws in private life (such as substance abuse) will eventually effect their professional life. If Cousins had a regular substance abuse problem, then it was bound to effect his performance one day.

    I don't like the "MILLION kids would kill for his spot" arguement, becuase if they are better than him they will get it. In many cases the individual that works the hardest wins, like Lance Armstrong. But a smaller amount need to balance their intense performances with intense play, like Warnie and perhaps Roy.

    I think the modern player has been duped by the administration and media that there is only ONE way to be successful and that is to FOLLOW THE RULES! Bugger that, individuals respond to different stimuli and at the end of the day if your teammate will help you win that's what matters.

    "Private character is EVERYTHING when it comes to being true professional". Yes, but I think we would define character differently.

  9. Missed the Role Model bit. Seems we agree on that one, don't make a habit of it;-)

  10. Christ, don't talk about Cousins. HE belongs ANYWHERE but on the tele. He'd be six feet under the simpson if it was up to me.

    "...if they are better than him they will get it". Yeah, for sure, but someone with his ethics doesn't deserve to be there in the first place. The ONLY thing that keeps him there is his overall earning potential. It's getting to the point where they're going, "Screw it, cut him loose". The long term benefits of example setting outwieghs the short term gains of having him there. No one likes negative publicity for their product if they're financially supporting it. Internationally how do people view someone like that?. Long yarn short, it's about the almighty dollar for them. How does 'the subcontinent family' view someone like him?.

    Do you think Sanitarium wanna see their Weetbix being ralphed all over the footpath outside some pub on the news?.

  11. See now I think the AFL's treatment of Cousins is hypocritical, but that's a whole other discussion that involves my views on illcit drug testing.

    What are his ethics? We have no idea, just what the media shows. This is the problem with sponsorship, they are sponsoring people to win sport, but what they want is robots that win, dress nice and speak in nice advertising sound bites. They put all the sportspeople through media training so they can string a cliche together without saying anything, but fitting all the sponsors in.

    Sponsors want to have their cake and put it in a winning trophy held by Mr Sheen.

    Speaking of which, Barry Sheene, another wildman that performed.

    How does the subcontinent family view Roy? I think they love to hate him, but don't see how that matters.

    As for Sanitarium, I haven't seen Roy ralph anywhere, but if they want to see their boys holding trophies aloft, then they want the best players on the pitch.

    Actually if they were smart they would run an ad saying, "Roy wakes up after a hard night on the cans, 13 Weetbix later and he is ready to take on the world".

  12. For me: Illicit drugs by them = See ya, don't pass go, ya tool.

    That sort of sport isn't sport; it's entertainment with an generally unknown outcome. It's a business. To you and me, the punter, it's a sport, to them, it's a job they are generally naturally good at and some still enjoy doing it. Be a fuck up in your own time; not on tour. He's making more than enough to be 'on the job' 24/7 on tour.

    What's his ethics?....'you can tell what a man's thinking by his actions'. Didn't he just get the arse from England?. The media just passed that one wide, they didn't scrounge for it. He apparently doesn't give a shit about the team or its image. The ethics were obviously broken or he'd still be there.

    Barry Sheene, yeah, 1975 to 1984....anyway, 25 years later the idea of professionalism has changed somewhat.

    Either way, Roy's done, and it's no one's fault but his own. Tow the line or piss off, and he's had endless chances. All he's got left is mercenary cricket in the IPL. Hope he doesn't fuck that up. Or you might see him with his head kicked in in some far off dunny for being an adult sized juvenile drunk wank.

    Way to piss away a career Roy, well done. What a way to go out. Forever known as a fuck up.

  13. Illicit drug - seperate topic but in a nutshell they are illegal and there are specific authorities that deal with that kind of stuff. If sport is going to test for them, then the results should be handed straight to the police. It's another example of sports administration trying to be the Government and the Church.

    Ok it's entertainment. Are we going to start consigning actors to these kind of rules and kick them off movies sets if they turn up late? If I have to be on 24/7 I want a lot more money than these guys get.

    Ethics - I maintain that not having met him, we have no idea what his ethics are. The team/administration have imposed a series of team ethics/rules upon him, which he broke and got sent home for. How far do those team ethics/rules go and what right do they have to be enforcing them on his personal life?

    I maintain that "professionalism" is preparing for and conducting your profession at a high level. You can't argue that Bazza and Roy haven't done that.

    You are right in that Roy only has himself to blame for his actions. My arguement remains that the team and cricket Australia only have the right to judge him on his performance on the field, training track and club functions.

    Roy is the master of his own life and deserves to live within society the same as you and I.

    Interestingly with all the "dicipline problems" they have had over the years in AFL, Mick Malthouse came out with an interesting statement. To paraphrase he said that he would suspend a rookie for a transgretion that he would let a champion off for, because at the end of the day his job is to win games not please the community.

    Cricket Australia's job is to produce winning sides.

  14. I obviously expect more from people than you do.

  15. Without doubt, because I don't expect anything from anyone.

    I learn't a long time ago that you can't make people do things unless they want to do them.

    Society can set and enforce boundries, but it should be done with great.

    The fact that we are having this gives me great confidence that you are exactly the kind of person I want enforcing the boundries. I wouldn't vote you onto the board of Cricket Australia though and not just 'cause you are a kiwi;-)

  16. Having this conversation, it should say.

    Must learn to proof read.

  17. Oh and it should be "done with great care and consideration".

    I blame that one on blogger.

  18. Oh YEAH, well you've got a stunning KID!!!. rofl. Thanks mate.

    Look, we've all got rules personally, with the family, with each other, at work, everywhere. Some sections of society should function above the norm, and sections like pro sport should be one due to only the elite in that section being able to make it there. The average me will never get there and it's not JUST earnt, you're chosen above 99% of everyone else. Act like it.

  19. I have a similar but different view and am determined to get the last word in!

    I think society has rules and we all have to live within them or pay the consequences. If you want to be a dick within the rules then so be it.

    The only people I would put above the norm are judges as they have the job or judging those that have stepped outside societies rules.

  20. In the immortal words of one I have endless arguments with but ALWAYS seems to need to have the last say, "WOOF".

  21. Kudos lads - if you fullahs had put on hats saying 'Professional sportsperson' and 'Disgruntled fan' respectively you couldn't have roleplayed the argument out better for either case. Both views are valid from those particular points of view. The individual human rights of the sportsperson AND the right of the fan not to have drunken arseclowns put forward, rightly or (usually) wrongly to their kidlets as To Be Aspired to, are both reasonable positions.

    I'd love to think that the rights of the individual could be divorced away from the responsibilities of the sportsperson as corporate spokeshumanoid as you suggest Naut. And it used to be that way. Dougie Walters, Barry Sheene, even Peter Brock in his cigs-burgers-and-Miss-Australia days (pre Energy Polariser obviously). But they can't. Not any more. The difference between what Sheene got paid and what Vale Rossi (probably the modern equivalent in terms of lifestyle, though Rossi wins more) gets paid 30 yrs down the track is entirely down to his greater value in promotional terms. Without paying spectators - in person or on TV - there IS NO PROFESSIONAL SPORT. It's an obvious point but it needs to be belted into some of these self-absorbed peons in professional sport who whinge about the fans and the media. They own you. They pay your wages, through the sponsors that pay your employer for the right to use you as a vehicle to sell their product. If you don't like it do something else.

    The problem with your suggested approach Naut that an individual sportsperson should be judged on the merits of their sporting performance only, is that they're not employed on the merits of their sporting performance. Their professional assessment is somewhat dependent thereon - obviously if you're not good enough to get picked in first grade (eg Mark Cosgrove) the argument re behaviour is moot. When Schuey was pulling in his $55M salary ten years ago the common wisdom was he earned maybe 5-10% of that for actually winning races and the rest for his ability to promote the Sponsors Product, directly or indirectly. Obviously you can't have the latter without the former, but once you get to the stage where everyone basically has the former - ie the ability to do the job at the highest level, accepting that the difference in performance between top level sportspeople in a given sport isn't THAT great and everyone, even Schuey, Rossi or Roy, are replaceable one way or another - then the latter is the only real thing which differentiates the heavy money earners from the worthy-but-dulls like the Brad Hodges or the Nick Heidfelds.

  22. [Apparently I maxxed out the character limit. No surprises there yeah? Rest of spiel to follow]

    The interesting complexity in Roy's case, as argued at Twitter, is that because of the peculiarities of Australian sport, in particular Australian cricket, Roy's behavioural issues actually served to make him MORE marketable, up to a point, due to the cult hero affect - carrying the larrikin baton handed down from Warnie, Boonie, Lillee and Marsh, Dougie Walters et al. Remember two summers ago when he was in every TV ad campaign going? Ford, Solo, KFC, you name it. But then the sponsors got more and more nervous as Roy the cult hero gave way to Andrew Symonds the troubled, injured, out-of-form, pressured dumped-by-girlfriend, borderline-alcoholic Human Being - and despite what Moko says these people are still that and you can never get away from that, though I understand why he'd have fuck all patience with someone in Roy's position pissing away his advantages like he's done - and all of a sudden the reality of Roy the Larrikin actually being Andy Symonds the Drunk meant they didn't see him as a marketable entity any more. It's massively hypocritical of course - and the media's role in this has already been correctly derided as completely self-serving - but THAT'S HOW IT IS. If it wasn't like this, he wouldn't be able to get paid to play cricket - he'd have to have part time offseason jobs like all the guys in the 70s and early 80s did. Dougie Walters, for instance was a sales rep for Benson and Hedges. (Sort of like a seedier version of Lerm with a better on-drive.) Symonds may not have completely understood this going into his professional career - I don't believe any kid of 20 knows what's ahead of him no matter the career - but he did once he became a full-time member of the Australian team - and that was 8-10 years ago. The wheels only fell off in the last 5 yrs, interestingly enough, suggesting that he had his shit together and lost it, rather than never having had it together in the first place - though obviously with that burgeoning cult hero role comes a lot more media and sponsor attention, which is a negative feedback loop.

    The best thing Andrew Symonds (as distinct from the media/sponsor/Cricket Australia creation of Roy) can do is give up the drink - if only for the next 3-5 years so he can earn enough cash playing IPL for Gilly and Boof's mighty Dickhead Chargers to mean he can spend every year of his life from late-30s retirement to liver cirrosis going fishing and pissing it up every day, if that's what he wants to do.

  23. Bravo, and thank Christ...

    So what say you, Mr Naut?.

  24. Bah, Moko made more sense with "Woof".

    Seriously, though you make a good argument Doc, but you are talking about how things are, not how they should be.

    Damn it's hard to think and watch the Simpsons.

    The fly in the ointment of having this discussion properly is the role of the media. Their reporting is so sensationalised and biased that it is hard to objectively assess the behaviour of any sportsperson.

    Sponsors will always be attracted to sport because it is the best way to reach a large audience. They will use sportspeople with no regard to the individual. You can't buy people, only the rights to their image and if you manipulate that don't be surprised if it no longer fits.

    My big beef is with sport administration. If my employer fined me, I would shove the fine so far up their arse their wives wouldn't kiss them because their breath smelt of fine burps.

    I want my police to police, my government to govern and my sporting organisations to WIN.

    There, TAKE THAT!

    mmmmmm Crunchie.

  25. Amen, Naut.

    I'd generally agree with your post-generally a sports figure should only be a role model only in the way he or she plays their game. They're going to have the same flaws and foibles as the rest of us-possibly magnified because they have money to feed their flaws. Was Michael Jordan, for example, a role model? Well, he COULD play basketball a bit-but he had a terrible gambling weakness. Not necessarily something to brag about.

    As for drugs-are we talking illegal narcotics or performance-enhancing drugs (steroids)? Because I have a real problem with, especially in baseball, kids working hard and trying to make the majors-and doing it the right way-only for there not to be a spot because some clown shoots himself full of 'roids (I'm talking to you, Manny Ramirez and Barry Bonds)and stays on a team roster. And shame on MLB for letting it happen. If the league chooses not to come down hard on those people because they're making money on them, then they're no great assets to humanity either. And they're not watching out for their players' best interests either-excessive steroids will screw people up. Badly.

    My final sports comment-Brett Favre, stay retired. Quit being the turd that won't flush. I'll be the one doing that-but ESPN doesn't bore the planet with my every move.

  26. The media, like the clubs, like the sponsors, like the TV networks and like the players themselves, are in it to make money. I don't blame them for taking the lowest common denominator approach to covering sportspeeps' indiscretions - I don't like it, but I accept it. They're celebrities, just like Britney, Posh Spice and that fucking irritating Chk Chk Boom woman. I blame the people who lap this shite up for being completely undiscerning and susceptible to a LCD approach, and meaning that celebrity updates are considered legitimate news worthy of the six pm bulletin. But that's a larger argument.

    How it should be? Probably how it was back in the day, when league and VFL were dominated by hard men with big mo's, Bathurst was dominated by V8 Toranas and Playboy was dominated by girls with big hairy... anyway. Problem with that: you wouldn't get every game of the week live on Fox or free to air, you wouldn't have Sports Tonight injury updates for your fantasy team, and you wouldn't be in the lead - albeit due to very dubious statistical anomalies - of the Bedak Showcase of Shite tipping comp.

    In the end, sport's just entertainment. The finest form of entertainment there is, I grant you, but it's no more than that. I want my sporting teams to win too - however as they are (respectively) South Sydney, Country Origin, NSW Origin, HRT, the Australian Cricket team, the Australian football team, the mighty Newcastle Jets of the A-League, AC Milan, anyone in the EPL who isn't Man fuckin' United, etc etc etc, I'm largely shit out of luck at present. But I know that without sponsor cash and media interest none of these groups would exist in the form they do today.

  27. Wow, we have to go all the way to the USA to get some sense!!! I salute you YD and thankyou for your input.

    As to the drugs, we are talking illegal not performance-enhancing. I totally agree with your stance on performance-enhancing.

    Brett Favre, I have no opinion on him until now and I totally agree with everything you think about him.

  28. Now I know why you are disagreeing with me Doc, it's because I am beating you in Bedak's tipping comp!

    Yes the spectators play their part in the problem, but the answer is simple.

    At first I thought it was big hairy mo (Havock for aussie captain), but the answer is much less terrifying.

    Let sportspeople play sports and stop dicking around with the other crap.

    As the wise one (YD) said, "They're going to have the same flaws and foibles as the rest of us".

  29. I have it easy, with two daughters, all I need to do is find a female athlete as a role women's soccer players, that sort of thing. Typically, they work hard, don't drink/do drugs, have a regular job on the side, sometimes have families. They don't do it for the money, so there's no pressure to load up on coke or steroids like the men. They do it for the love of the game. I simply tell them all male pro athletes do it for the money, succumb to pressure, and are not to be emulated.

    Oh, and I suppose I encourage them to pay attention to female scientists too, I guess. Whatever.

    Anyway, it's not as difficult for me. Now, as for banned substances. It should make a difference. Steroids won't make you hit a ball in baseball, but it could make you hit it farther. In Cricket, it could be the difference between a 1 and a 6, no? In American football, roid rage could help you kill a guy. So it adds a factor that simply doesn't need to be in the game. That's why I typically follow hockey more, steroids do not help you as it's not a game that revolves around great strength, but stamina and agility. You do find drug abusers and alcoholics (just like any profession), but the Nat'l Hockey League has an excellent program for hockey players who need help. But, I've never been a fan of sticking coke users in prison (barring vehicular homicide situations), but instead getting them medical help, so turning them over to the cops doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

  30. I think we all pretty much agree that the idea of sporting 'role models' is completely bogus - 'role model' is an invention of the media, whereby what they really mean is 'sponsor's spokesperson'. To a limited extent a Brett Lee or a Michael Clarke would be role models to young kids wanting to play cricket. But Roy's only a role model to other twenty-something pissheads. Anyone who seriously thinks sports people are appropriate role models for their children ain't gonna do much of a job of parenting them.

  31. Steve - See you have a relationship with your girls that involves a degree of mutual respect. That means you can nudge them in the direction of good role models.

    Doc - Yes I think we are in agreement. Let's face it, is an obsessive, win at all costs sports person the ideal role model for your kids? Personally I want them to have a little more balance.

    That said Roy does offer something to kids. His upbeat spirit and intensity while in the field is something to admire. His ability to adapt his game to suit test cricket proves that if you really want to, you can change.

    The fact that he has a life outside of cricket (fishin' and drinkin') should also be respected.

  32. In the spirit of tolerance and acceptance I have stolen your position and appropriated it as the central plank of my new series World of Bollocks Reports From The T20 World Cup Thingy. Sponsors and media dictating terms is how it is, but lunatics running the asylum is how it should be - more prospects for a laugh at least.

    Insert blatant thread hijack: T20 World Champs Update from WoBNewsWire

    Will probably run the whole tourney - or at least as long as I can be arsed hanging shite on the Strayan cricket team. So the whole tourney then.

  33. Ok, let's look at it this way.

    Order for someone to be, say, and electrician, they have to complete certain things, take certain exams, be an apprentice, keep their tickets up to scratch and so on. Some of the tickets they might have to do may come up yearly; seems somewhat harsh....maybe. But if this particular individual wants to stay being an electrician he HAS to follow the rules as laid out by individuals further up the food chain from him. Fortunately for the electrician much of said rules and regulations only really relate to 'on the clock', excluding drink driving and such. No licence, generally, no job.

    If Mr Roy wants to keep playing cricket he has certain guidelines he has to adhere to BECAUSE he's proven, time and again, he's a cock smoker.

    Right or wrong, those rules are there, and I'm sure everyone on the team has to adhere just the same....or maybe they get a 3 strikes type thing...

  34. Doc - read it and it is easily the most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Shows why you have a doctorate.

    Moko - Sportspeople have the ultimate set of rules and tickets required, it's called form. If they are performing then there is little room for sentimentality. As you say, they are only judged on their "on the clock" time, why is a sportsperson on the clock 24/7.

    He has do follow a set of guidelines because cricket australia have watched to many episodes of Ladette to Lady.

    Lerm - It's a wonderful thing!

  35. Dude if I could get a doctorate for making up a load of bollocks I could have saved myself the best part of four years fucking up experiments. That's if we're pretending it wasn't just a made up load o bollocks of course...

  36. Doc - I just thought with your scientific Doctory stuff you had looked into an alternative universe where Ponts and the ACB hadn't screwed the country out of a decent team.

  37. I realize athletes should rarely be held as role models (and when they are, it should be for the non-athletic things they do, like Roberto Clemente the baseball player helping poor kids), but like I said, I am more than happy to show off many female athletes (team-sport only, no tennis or golfers....they're all whackjobs raised since infancy to make millions of dollars for their agent, who is also their daddy) who have to work that much harder to compete in a world dominated by men. And unlike the male athletes, they have to get good grades, they have the pressures of family, things like that, so the fact that they can often juggle all of that makes them good role models. But again, this doesn't include the tennis players who know nothing of a team environment, and have been told by a psycho Russian coach since they were 3 that they have to do better.