• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

European football championships

if long distance spitting ever becomes an olympic sport, Totti has a good chance of winning gold :)

i was really hoping that the canadian women's team would make it, but mexico defeated them in the qualifiers.

i really hate the canadian oplympic commitee...
they will only give money to teams or people they think have a really good chance at getting a medal.

so soccer in canada (although tons and tons of people play it here, more than hockey believe it or not) they get hardly any money, yet bob sled people get tons. how many bob sledders are there in canada? not a hell of a lot. does this fairly represent people's interests, or does it represent greed for a medal count.

i wish they would stop focussing on medals, and focus on just competing against the rest of the world in a great event like the olympics. to me the olympics are about trying your best and not about getting medals.

chris
 
Dunno if Totti really is the "worst" in his discipline. At least he didn't spit someone right into the face from what I understand.

I think most countries have the same philosophy about which athletes to grant money to. Ideally it should be those who have a chance for gold in a sport where sponsors are not interested. A top athlete in a popular sport will probably have enough money to keep on with the activity anyway, and for those who are so-so it would only be welfare to give money.

Sweden is sending a significantly smaller group this year than to Sydney 2000, although travelling distances etc are shorter. I don't know if that would be a factor though.
 
too bad about all that sponsor stuff and money being involved in what should be amateur sport

i am also against sending NHL players and the like. i like only amateurs going, but the line is so blurred now.

and with the push for gold and sponsor money, people wonder why there is rampant drug use in olympics??

chris
 
I think more or less everyone who are qualified for the Olympics these days are professional, using the old definition of the word. In the 40'ties, you would get banned for life if you accepted as much as $10 for winning a competition.

If it is about money, where should the line be drawn? State grants, paid expenses, charity donations, accepting no money at all? Is it about how much you're allowed to practise in your sports - if you are unemployed or for other reasons can do it full-time, you should not compete against those who have a day job to attend to?

Drugs and doping I'm also against, but I think that even the most money pure amateur would be convinced to try something that doesn't have side effects, can't be tracked but gives you an instant boost on performance. Maybe even more so those who have a day job and can't build muscles, reflexes, skills etc all day.

Of course, everyone should compete on equal terms when it comes to access to the arena, living, food and no starters money. Maybe prize and record money, but everyone should be eligible, unlike in some golf tournaments when an amateur player wins but has to be excluded from the official winners' list (and no prize) because he or she is an .. amateur.
 
Oh, on the subject of starters' money, on Friday I watched yet another one of the athletics meets before the Olympics (not sure which meet it was, since reports said that three different international meets were held on the same evening, all in the UK, or I misunderstood something).

Anyway, Yelena Isinbayeva set a new world record in pole vault, 4.90 m which is an increase by one cm over her previous record. This time she had competition from Svetlana Feofanova up to this height, so it was part of the original plans to go 4.60 - 4.70 - 4.80 - 4.90. After successfully clearing 4.90 with lots of room to go, Yelena had no reason to try even higher as she already had received the $50,000 one gets for a world record. Better save 4.91 or 4.92 for the next competition and cash as much as possible. I think Sergey Bubka did something similar when he was competiting, but he seldom had 5-10 cm safety margin...

I was thinking that if starters, prize and record money are meant to be granted, maybe the arrangers could make a table on how much you get:

* $20,000 if you break the record by 1 cm / 0.01 s / 0.1 s (depending on event)
* $30,000 if you break the record by 2 cm / 0.03 s / 0.5 s etc
* $50,000 if you break the record by 5 cm / 0.10 s / 1 s and so on

Ok, this is much off-topic and nothing us in the VC Forum could ever steer, but would it make sense to pay after performance and not placing as a way to give the audience (!) the best possible run for the money? It is almost like the result lists in decathlon and heptalon where you get a number of points depending on your result, not your position compared with the others.
 
i wonder if you could also tie it in with personal bests as well?

i have always wished they would adopt some kind of performance based wage system in the NHL.

too many times you see a player play great on their final year of contract, sign a big fat new contract, and then screw around for a couple of seasons after that.

give everyone the same rate, and then factor in performance bonusses.

chris
 
i am not a fan of man u as well, but they sure have some fine players.

especially like ryan giggs, imo.

wish he was canadian, but who am i kidding? he would simply end up playing for wales or england anyway, via some grandparent being born there or something :)

chris
 
What about Canada invading or buying out Wales from Great Britain? You're all part of the Commonwealth, so it is not totally unthinkable.

Now it is about eight days to the Olympics. For some reason, I thought it starts tomorrow (Friday), but I must have misplaced the dates. The latest report says that only 40% of the tickets are sold, but the most attractive events surely are sold out since long ago. Some of the arenas are not quite finished yet - lacking electricity, dirt in the swimming pool etc - but the Greek have at least a week to finish.

The costs were projected around $5.5 billion, but have rocketed to $7.2 billion and some analytics believe it will not end until $12 billion, which maybe makes the Greek asking the European Union for support. Hm, although it is a fun event, it is a shame that it has to cost so much, but I suppose in these figures, there are more than a handful people making a big profit as entrepreneurs and caretakers.
 
"carlsson" wrote:

> What about Canada invading or buying out Wales from
> Great Britain? You're all part of the Commonwealth, so
> it is not totally unthinkable.

'Nor is Australia or New Zealand! You wouldn't want to see
that happening now would you? If that were to happen then
all reminant remains of Aust & NZ would be wipped off the
face of the earth & would be the biggest hole in the Earth.
Remember Easter Island?

> Now it is about eight days to the Olympics. For some
> reason, I thought it starts tomorrow (Friday), but I must
> have misplaced the dates. The latest report says that
> only 40% of the tickets are sold, but the most attractive
> events surely are sold out since long ago. Some of the
> arenas are not quite finished yet - lacking electricity,
> dirt in the swimming pool etc - but the Greek have at
> least a week to finish.

It's hard to believe we rely on so much technology just
for the Electricity. Back in 1896, Electricity was in it's
infancy, I can't imagine what those Swimming Pools were
like either. Back in the Ancient Times it must of been so
different (no Electricity - unless it was harnessed from the
Gods), Men were only allowed to watch the games since
the athletes were naked. From what I remembered from
school though, was the crowds were supposed to be huge.

> The costs were projected around $5.5 billion, but have
> rocketed to $7.2 billion and some analytics believe it
> will not end until $12 billion, which maybe makes the
> Greek asking the European Union for support. Hm,
> although it is a fun event, it is a shame that it has to
> cost so much, but I suppose in these figures, there are
> more than a handful people making a big profit as
> entrepreneurs and caretakers.

Now it's all big money, big business. They show it on telly
(well the bits they want to show you, not the bits you want
to see) & all for something which dates from the ancient
times. Sure, it'd be more professional athlete wise, but
the idea's virtually the same. There'd be more sports to
contend in wouldn't there?

As for Drugs in sport, as an Australian, I have no pity for
those who take drugs regardless of relign, colour, race,
even if their Australian (I don't give special
conseriderations to -ANYONE-), they know they are doing
the wrong thing (even if it's a headache tablet), cause
it should be based on the Athlete on the day & if they just
can't cut it, then so be it!

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 
CP/M User said:
carlsson said:
What about Canada invading or buying out Wales
Click to expand...
If that were to happen then all reminant remains of Aust & NZ would be wipped off the face of the earth & would be the biggest hole in the Earth.
Click to expand...
Err.. I didn't suggest a war, just some "redistribution of property" (in this case Ryan Giggs and whatever else Wales has to offer). If for example Canada would like to rule New Zeeland, blowing it into pieces would not make much left of it to rule over. :wink: But no, I was not entirely serious. Much easier for Chris to apply for Welsh citizenship and get a new favourite football team. In athletics, it is perfectly possible for a country to buy a star athlete and make him compete for the new country, but FIFA does not yet allow this, so moving Giggs would not help.

Men were only allowed to watch the games since the athletes were naked. From what I remembered from school though, was the crowds were supposed to be huge.
Click to expand...
Maybe there was a connection between nudity and big crowds of men? :p
 
"carlsson" wrote:

>>> What about Canada invading or buying out Wales

>> If that were to happen then all reminant remains of
>> Aust & NZ would be wipped off the face of the earth
>> & would be the biggest hole in the Earth.

> Err.. I didn't suggest a war, just some "redistribution
> of property" (in this case Ryan Giggs and whatever
> else Wales has to offer). If for example Canada would
> like to rule New Zeeland, blowing it into pieces would
> not make much left of it to rule over. ;-) But no,
> I was not entirely serious. Much easier for Chris to
> apply for Welsh citizenship and get a new favourite
> football team. In athletics, it is perfectly possible for a
> country to buy a star athlete and make him compete
> for the new country, but FIFA does not yet allow this,
> so moving Giggs would not help.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. From an
environmental point of view, if Australia were taken
over, the environment would never get fixed! ;-(

It's a disaster which occured from the days of the settlers
unfortunately. Though it's all a matter of how were we
mean't to know?

>> Men were only allowed to watch the games since the
>> athletes were naked. From what I remembered from
>> school though, was the crowds were supposed to be
>> huge.

> Maybe there was a connection between nudity and big
> crowds of men? :p

You mean it's something which has been going on for
that long? No wonder I don't want to expose myself to
-anybody- & -everybody- around!

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 
CP/M User said:
Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. From an environmental point of view, if Australia were taken over, the environment would never get fixed! ;-(
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean new animals and plants get implanted, overtaking the native ones? Yeah, I know about the rabbits et. al. Some nature program on TV told about how you try to extinguish the rabbits, and that one of the only and best natural enemies is the dingo, but

1) the dingo can hunt just any animal, maybe preferring slower ones
2) many dingo are shot for selling the skins

They had tried to implant fox in Australia, but while the fox can hunt rabbits elsewhere in the world, those in Oz had found easier (native) targets and thus the fox itself had become a nature danger rather than solution.

Oh well. Looking back at the past 30-40 years of wars, I don't know if introducing new species into a foreign country has been one of the most prominent actions after a war has been "won". Rather exploiting the natural assets of the new land.
 
"carlsson" wrote:

>> Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. From an
>> environmental point of view, if Australia were
>> taken over, the environment would never get
>> fixed! ;-(

> Oh, you mean new animals and plants get
> implanted, overtaking the native ones? Yeah, I
> know about the rabbits et. al. Some nature
> program on TV told about how you try to
> extinguish the rabbits, and that one of the only
> and best natural enemies is the dingo, but

Heh! Don't I just change the subject so well.

Rabbits were introduced with settlers.

> 1) the dingo can hunt just any animal, maybe
> preferring slower ones
> 2) many dingo are shot for selling the skins

As far as I know, Dingos are more common in
warmer areas of Australia, it's an interesting
point raised, cause I don't recall having seeing
any Dingos in our State (unless there held
captive, or are a pet or something).

> They had tried to implant fox in Australia, but
> while the fox can hunt rabbits elsewhere in the
> world, those in Oz had found easier (native)
> targets and thus the fox itself had become a
> nature danger rather than solution.

Actually, these were introduced with settlers too &
were actually brought over to that they had
something to hunt. Foxes & feral cats have had a
devistation effect to the local wildlife, reducing a
significant number of creatures which hunt other
creatures, which results in an over abunance of
a creature. That in turn has a bad balance onto
the environment.

> Oh well. Looking back at the past 30-40 years
> of wars, I don't know if introducing new species
> into a foreign country has been one of the most
> prominent actions after a war has been "won".
> Rather exploiting the natural assets of the new
> land.

Certainally it's not a war thing, but like you said if
one country takes over another country, then the
ol' one would struggle to survive that's more after
a war would occur. In Wars diseases could be spead
more easily. One such disease introduced here,
unfortunately, might of been quite by accident, but
has serious effects to which brings our plant life to
it's demise by attacking it's system. It's so small
that a microscope is required, but can be spead
easily from Humans/Animals without realising.

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 
CP/M User said:
In Wars diseases could be spead more easily.
Click to expand...
So make sure these enemies invading your land are sterilized. :p

As an attempt to steer the argument somewhat back to sports and Olympics, I read today that the hotel in Cyprus where parts of the Swedish team is staying before the games open, has a master chief in the kitchen and a certificate that the cleaning staff keeps everything really clean (no risk of diseases or otherwise). It is important, as noone of the athletes want to risk illness due to the food or habitat. I think I have never heard about a cleanness certificate though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top