Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The polling tide turning for the Tories? – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,910
    Another medal, a great silver in the womens 800m. Almost got silver and bronze, but gold was clearly won by the dominant American.
  • tlg86 said:

    Athletics is the biggest bust for Team GB an already weak team, 2 sprinters injuried, KJT has been injuried all season, and really only the lass in the 1500m as an outside chance.

    Could end up with 0-1 medals from the track.

    So close to this prediction aging badly really quickly!
    That's why i am on the iSAGE sub committee on sports.....
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    Wow!.. of course this might just be a hiatus as in the oxygen meter reading on the Apollo 13 mission to.the moon before an even faster fall, but who knows... only more polls will tell us....
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197
    Quincel said:

    Another medal, a great silver in the womens 800m. Almost got silver and bronze, but gold was clearly won by the dominant American.

    Not to boast but I did say Hodgkinson was a good outside bet...
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,494

    kinabalu said:

    Quiz for today, name as many of them as possible. Thought that was Nigel Kennedy on the left but it is of course the one and only Johnnie Fingers, Aled Jones on the right, Midge Ure looks like he's got something very naughty under his Royal Stewart and I assume George Michael is the ruddy faced scaffolder behind Geldof.


    The Bowie cool is quite strong there.
    Bowie was cool even before he was cool.

    This is a 1967 letter from a 20 year old Bowie, replying to his first fan letter from America



    https://lettersofnote.com/2009/12/02/my-real-name-is-david-jones/
    Absolute classic - thanks for posting it. Wish I'd been that modest at 20 with much, much more to be modest about. Must re-watch The Man Who Fell To Earth soonish. It foreshadowed some of today's leading entrepreneurs
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826

    kinabalu said:


    On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

    A seductive view if you're a Leaver but flatly contradicted by the facts on the ground. 18 months ago when Starmer's Brexit "duplicity" would have been fresher in memory than it is today his ratings were good and Labour were polling well.
    Careful, you're pissing on a developing PB afternoon meme there. They'll just go back to their UFOs and Wuhan labs now.
    Yes, sorry. I'll desist.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    Stereodog said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole thing with SKS's ratings is that he started very well with a lot of goodwill.

    I'm sure the Tories microtarget with whatever SKS said about Brexit, but to say that is the reason for his ratings doesn't hold water.

    Basically he had struggled to attack the government effectively during COVID, and it is that lack of presence that has mainly ended his honeymoon. BAU politics provides an opportunity, but he and Labour will need to sharpen up to take it. It's remains to be seen if that is possible.

    Its not even being able to attack the government....he basically stands up every time and says terrible, useless, reckless, confusion...so what would you do different....erhhhhh...hmmmmm.....well.....the same, but different, but essentially the same, but definitely differently better. Yes thanks for that SKS.
    In fairness when anything COVID related comes before Parliament it's usually because the government is finally doing what everyone has been pressing them to do earlier. You can't vote against something you agree with because you wish the government had done it sooner.
    He has provided zero sensible suggestions in a manner that would have made a significant difference.
  • Reekie was panicking in the run-in, a bit, so her form went. But still a PB!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,954
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:



    Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

    People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

    The Red Wall shit munchers didn't understand what was happening at the time. They definitely don't remember the arcane details of who did what from a year ago.
    I reckon the "shit munchers" are a bit more intuitive than you presume. Starmer WAS a high profile Remainer. People only have to remember that "vaguely" for it to hit home

    Otherwise, how else do you explain his relatively appalling polling, especially on "more or less truthful than Boris", where he comes out roughly equal?
    But how to explain his good ratings - personal and party - in early 2020. That was very soon after he'd tried to strangle Brexit.
    A brief Xmas honeymoon, then everyone remembered what a Remoaning dick he is
    I think we have a case of projecting personal feelings onto the public at large. That's what you and Nerys are doing. Isam does it too on this very same point. You guys think Starmer's Remoanerdom SHOULD make him toxic and unelectable so you attribute his current poor ratings to his Remoanerdom, ignoring that he had good ratings when his Remoanerdom was more recent and relevant. More likely his slump was caused by the major event that co-incides with it - the pandemic.
    Yes, possibly. I also just like using the word "Remoaner", because I know it annoys Remoaners.
    See also the use of Gammon, Woke etc
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,954

    Athletics is the biggest bust for Team GB an already weak team, 2 sprinters injuried, KJT has been injuried all season, and really only the lass in the 1500m as an outside chance.

    Could end up with 0-1 medals from the track.

    At least one now... So close to two in the 800.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892
    Silver!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    edited August 2021
    kle4 said:

    Ha, I watched this movie in the cinema on Sunday and I just knew there was going to be a story about this nonsense as people worked up a fake outrage.

    Disney's newest film Jungle Cruise is facing criticism because of a lack of "genuine representation" when it comes to LGBTQ+ characters...

    Three year's ago Whitehall, who is a straight actor, was controversially cast as Disney's first out and officially gay character, named MacGregor in the film. Now, following the movie's release, the studio has been criticised again for a scene where MacGregor reveals his sexuality.

    In the scene, he tells Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's character Frank that he broke off relationships - described as "engagements" in the film - with three women because his "interests happily lay elsewhere".

    The character then thanks his sister for supporting him after he wasn't accepted by the rest of their family.

    However members of the LGBTQ+ community and others have criticised the film on social media because the character doesn't specifically say that he is 'gay'.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58027620

    There is actually a follow up line where he is pretty clear about the issue being about who he loves. It may not mention the word gay but there is no ambiguity there.

    Frankly I'm more surprised the confected 'outrage' is not about him being the comic relief of the film and how that reflects poorly on gay people or some rubbish.

    It's also ahistorical rubbish - homosexuals in 1916 did not describe themselves as "gay", they were "artistic" or "confirmed bachelors".....Although there are some references in the 1930s (Cary Grant in "Bringing up Baby" when challenged about why he was wearing a lady's dressing gown) it didn't enter more general parlance until the 1960s onwards.

    In the late 1950s the US Procter & Gamble wanted to launch a dishwashing liquid in the UK. Their local operation - Thomas Hedley, wanted to use their long established brand "Fairy" - a popular bar soap. The suits in Cincinnati balked at the name - for reasons they declined to specify, but insisted on testing the UK name against their US choice - 'Gay'!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,023
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

    Nature is necessary but not sufficient. South Sudan haven't done very well at the Olympics so far. But one of their diaspora just won gold for the USA in the women's 800m.
  • Possible relay. Maybe.

    Women's 1500 m is an outside chance of a medal.

    Possible one, maybe two, in field events.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892
    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    MaxPB said:

    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

    I wonder if Laura Muir is slightly kicking herself not even competing in 800m, when faster than the other British women, to concentrate on 1500m, where i don't think she has a shot of winning that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

    I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

    eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

    That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

    Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

    Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

    People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

    SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.
    You mean allowing the election?

    Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?
    No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.
    The party would not have allowed it.
    So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

    A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

    Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

    Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.
  • Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

    No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892

    MaxPB said:

    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

    I wonder if Laura Muir is slightly kicking herself not even competing in 800m, when faster than the other British women.
    Depends on if she can get a medal in the 1500m, not sure what the competition is like.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311
    Dura_Ace said:

    I did a swirl flap and EGR delete on my diesel tow rig then sold it to some mug on FB. I've got a petrol sDrive 35i F15 X5 now. 2WD X5s are the coolest.

    Are any electric cars approved for towing? They have the weight and torque, but I think not manufacturers approval.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,428
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

    I wonder if Laura Muir is slightly kicking herself not even competing in 800m, when faster than the other British women.
    Depends on if she can get a medal in the 1500m, not sure what the competition is like.
    Tough. That's why she is focusing on just one of the events, because she thought the competition is too tough across 800m and 1500m to try and attempt both.
  • Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,215

    MaxPB said:

    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

    I wonder if Laura Muir is slightly kicking herself not even competing in 800m, when faster than the other British women, to concentrate on 1500m, where i don't think she has a shot of winning that.
    Dunno, championship 800 metres are often "truer" races than the 1500m.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,954

    kle4 said:

    Ha, I watched this movie in the cinema on Sunday and I just knew there was going to be a story about this nonsense as people worked up a fake outrage.

    Disney's newest film Jungle Cruise is facing criticism because of a lack of "genuine representation" when it comes to LGBTQ+ characters...

    Three year's ago Whitehall, who is a straight actor, was controversially cast as Disney's first out and officially gay character, named MacGregor in the film. Now, following the movie's release, the studio has been criticised again for a scene where MacGregor reveals his sexuality.

    In the scene, he tells Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's character Frank that he broke off relationships - described as "engagements" in the film - with three women because his "interests happily lay elsewhere".

    The character then thanks his sister for supporting him after he wasn't accepted by the rest of their family.

    However members of the LGBTQ+ community and others have criticised the film on social media because the character doesn't specifically say that he is 'gay'.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58027620

    There is actually a follow up line where he is pretty clear about the issue being about who he loves. It may not mention the word gay but there is no ambiguity there.

    Frankly I'm more surprised the confected 'outrage' is not about him being the comic relief of the film and how that reflects poorly on gay people or some rubbish.

    It's also ahistorical rubbish - homosexuals in 1916 did not describe themselves as "gay", they were "artistic" or "confirmed bachelors".....Although there are some references in the 1930s (Cary Grant in "Bringing up Baby" when challenged about why he was wearing a lady's dressing gown) it didn't enter more general parlance until the 1960s onwards.

    In the late 1950s the US Procter & Gamble wanted to launch a dishwashing liquid in the UK. Their local operation - Thomas Hedley, wanted to use their long established brand "Fairy" - a popular bar soap. The suits in Cincinnati balked at the name - for reasons they declined to specify, but insisted on testing the UK name against their US choice - 'Gay'!
    TBF it is a movie based on a them park ride, I don't think they were going for verisimilitude here...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,954
    MaxPB said:

    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

    That american's legs are unbelievably long. Should be in a separate category!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,954
    edited August 2021
    deleted - misunderstood
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,215

    MaxPB said:

    That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

    That american's legs are unbelievably long. Should be in a separate category!
    The women's weightlifting was a bit like that yesterday. Campbell isn't a small lifter but the chinese girl, Wenwen was bigger by ~ 5 stone or so.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,445
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    Slavers: He looks a healthy sort, well able to outrun any pursuit. Let's have him.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Not sure about that, a lot will depend on the track cycling. As BJO said, we seem pretty much guaranteed a Gold tomorrow in the sailing so then 5 to go. Outside chance still.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,989
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I did a swirl flap and EGR delete on my diesel tow rig then sold it to some mug on FB. I've got a petrol sDrive 35i F15 X5 now. 2WD X5s are the coolest.

    Are any electric cars approved for towing? They have the weight and torque, but I think not manufacturers approval.
    UK facing tesla website says the model x can tow 2,268kg

    https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/modelx
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Rowing and Track were two big areas for us from before and where we have "underperformed" (so far). But others far better eg swimming.

    I'd say we would get better than 51. We are 43 already. 2 more boxing medals guaranteed plus almost certainly a sailing gold. With several days to go and not including the track cycling.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197
    MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Rowing and Track were two big areas for us from before and where we have "underperformed" (so far). But others far better eg swimming.

    I'd say we would get better than 51. We are 43 already. 2 more boxing medals guaranteed plus almost certainly a sailing gold. With several days to go and not including the track cycling.
    Sorry meant Track Cycling...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    Motes & beams:

    Wales should be miffed about being lumped in with England here.

    England’s drug deaths went from 2,685 in 2019 to 2,830 in 2020 - up 5.4%

    Wales’s drug deaths went from 165 to 149 - down 9.7%

    (Scotland up 4.6% from 1,280 to 1,339 - though rate 5x England or Wales)


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1422538782923005953?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

    That is wrong IMO.

    However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

    (Hint, he wasn't.)

    If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
    I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

    The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
    Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
    That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

    Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

    Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

    "You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

    The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

    It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
    At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
    I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

    That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

    Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
    Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
    I don't need one.

    I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
    Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

    Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
  • MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Not sure about that, a lot will depend on the track cycling. As BJO said, we seem pretty much guaranteed a Gold tomorrow in the sailing so then 5 to go. Outside chance still.
    8 track cycling events, 4 are more likely, 4 very much more random.

    So, yeah, pushing towards unlikely.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,879
    edited August 2021
    MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    ...

    I'd say we would get better than 51. We are 43 already. 2 more boxing medals guaranteed plus almost certainly a sailing gold. With several days to go and not including the track cycling.
    OK, > 51 should be more than achievable. But I think it may be close.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,215
    Quickest 200 metres since Flo Jo.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,377
    Another gender farce in the 200m - 2nd place to a girl banned from the 400m for too much Testosterone, but allowed in 200m where it would be even more help. Technically completely inept but yet massively quicker than everyone else when she gets going. If she's allowed to keep going will win gold in every major event for next decade once she learns basic technique.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,023
    edited August 2021
    https://apnews.com/article/namibia-africa-olympic-games-2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-f71b7d1e9f5ba0fbc08a1e0ab346c20b

    Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, who burst into Olympic medal reckoning with some blisteringly fast times this year, were subjected to “medical assessments” by track governing body World Athletics at their training camp in Italy, the Namibia Olympic committee said.

    They were withdrawn from the 400 meters by the Namibian team after the tests revealed high natural testosterone which meant they wouldn’t be allowed to run in the 400 in Tokyo.


    What are the odds that two such athletes from the same country would appear on the scene just before an Olympics?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,898

    Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

    No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.
    Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

    I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,445
    Can we guess of whom the blessed Simon speaks?

    Simon Schama
    @simon_schama
    breathtaking stupidity; historical illiteracy and selfishness masquerading as principle all in one dazzlingly repellent package
    12:38 pm · 3 Aug 2021·Twitter for iPhone
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,428

    Can we guess of whom the blessed Simon speaks?

    Simon Schama
    @simon_schama
    breathtaking stupidity; historical illiteracy and selfishness masquerading as principle all in one dazzlingly repellent package
    12:38 pm · 3 Aug 2021·Twitter for iPhone

    The former convenerperson of the National Trust for Scotland?
  • tlg86 said:

    https://apnews.com/article/namibia-africa-olympic-games-2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-f71b7d1e9f5ba0fbc08a1e0ab346c20b

    Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, who burst into Olympic medal reckoning with some blisteringly fast times this year, were subjected to “medical assessments” by track governing body World Athletics at their training camp in Italy, the Namibia Olympic committee said.

    They were withdrawn from the 400 meters by the Namibian team after the tests revealed high natural testosterone which meant they wouldn’t be allowed to run in the 400 in Tokyo.


    What are the odds that two such athletes from the same country would appear on the scene just before an Olympics?

    Not suspicious at all.....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

    I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

    eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

    That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

    Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

    Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

    People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

    SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.
    You mean allowing the election?

    Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?
    No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.
    The party would not have allowed it.
    So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

    A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

    Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

    Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.
    I agree he should have been more bolshie. The focus groups were telling him the public didn't want to see 'politics' in such a crisis but I think this should have been ignored. Like the Tories did so successfully with the Financial Crisis. Build a narrative that damages the government. 'Lazy reckless callous Johnson cost thousands of lives' etc.

    But on the May Deal, this notion that Corbyn and Labour should have voted it through, it wasn't a practical option. The party (MPs and members) wouldn't have stood for it. Saving a Tory PM plus enabling Brexit - No.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892
    MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Not sure about that, a lot will depend on the track cycling. As BJO said, we seem pretty much guaranteed a Gold tomorrow in the sailing so then 5 to go. Outside chance still.
    Could convert some of those boxing chances too. But I think 19/20 is the limit for sure. Which is above the 13-15 I had pencilled in at the start. Outperfomances in the pool and BMX has been amazing this time. Hope we can keep that momentum for Paris and fix the problems in rowing as well.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197
    tlg86 said:

    https://apnews.com/article/namibia-africa-olympic-games-2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-f71b7d1e9f5ba0fbc08a1e0ab346c20b

    Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, who burst into Olympic medal reckoning with some blisteringly fast times this year, were subjected to “medical assessments” by track governing body World Athletics at their training camp in Italy, the Namibia Olympic committee said.

    They were withdrawn from the 400 meters by the Namibian team after the tests revealed high natural testosterone which meant they wouldn’t be allowed to run in the 400 in Tokyo.


    What are the odds that two such athletes from the same country would appear on the scene just before an Olympics?

    And Namibia has a small population
  • I did not realise Namibia only achieved independence in 1990.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,898
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,023
    That Swedish pole-vaulter looked a class apart.
  • Leon said:

    Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

    No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.
    Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

    I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd
    They weren't even that big a deal at the Winters until relatively recently.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things, so much so, many women were transitioning....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,898

    Leon said:

    Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

    No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.
    Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

    I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd
    They weren't even that big a deal at the Winters until relatively recently.
    Ice Hockey apart, they don't seem to have much of a sporting culture. And yet Americans are mad for sports
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197

    MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    ...

    I'd say we would get better than 51. We are 43 already. 2 more boxing medals guaranteed plus almost certainly a sailing gold. With several days to go and not including the track cycling.
    OK, > 51 should be more than achievable. But I think it may be close.

    There is also the un-predictables. No one thought Hodgkinson could get a Silver (well, I did or at least a medal).

    We have won 8 medals today. That is a cracking achievement.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,023

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,215
    maaarsh said:

    Another gender farce in the 200m - 2nd place to a girl banned from the 400m for too much Testosterone, but allowed in 200m where it would be even more help. Technically completely inept but yet massively quicker than everyone else when she gets going. If she's allowed to keep going will win gold in every major event for next decade once she learns basic technique.

    The IOC need to work out where the dividing line between men and women actually lies, different rules for the 400 and 200 metres is a complete nonsense.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

    I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

    eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

    That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

    Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

    Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

    People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

    SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.
    You mean allowing the election?

    Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?
    No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.
    The party would not have allowed it.
    So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

    A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

    Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

    Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.
    I agree he should have been more bolshie. The focus groups were telling him the public didn't want to see 'politics' in such a crisis but I think this should have been ignored. Like the Tories did so successfully with the Financial Crisis. Build a narrative that damages the government. 'Lazy reckless callous Johnson cost thousands of lives' etc.

    But on the May Deal, this notion that Corbyn and Labour should have voted it through, it wasn't a practical option. The party (MPs and members) wouldn't have stood for it. Saving a Tory PM plus enabling Brexit - No.
    It continues to be my view that the people who scuppered May's deal were the Cons rebels which gave Lab the cover to say "well if their own party doesn't support it why should we".

    Problem was, for the national interest (according to their stated views on Brexit), it would have been the right thing although I appreciate that not possible for the reasons you suggest.

    Thing is, with 20/20 hindsight, first, they have now sacrificed their polling position for the national interest, and secondly, how much worse could it be than now, mid-term and 5-10 pts behind the govt?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,468
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I did a swirl flap and EGR delete on my diesel tow rig then sold it to some mug on FB. I've got a petrol sDrive 35i F15 X5 now. 2WD X5s are the coolest.

    Are any electric cars approved for towing? They have the weight and torque, but I think not manufacturers approval.
    Model X, Hyundai Ioniq 5, VW ID4.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,356
    Areas of the country that need to buck their ideas up case wise.
    Lincoln
    Exeter!
    Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,428
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
    I wonder if there is a misunderstanding?

    'Fitness' has a specific meaning in Darwinian terminology: the collective sum total of differential survival and differential reproduction. It certainly does not mean the Olympic/athletic 'fitness' - consider, for instance, the many organisms which save energy and resources and do very well by quite literally being non-athletic.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,822
    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
  • tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    What nonsense....i can vaguely see how at super long distance, but 100m, 200m, 400m...they are power events. There is a reason why sprinters in the 90s and 00s looked like bodybuilders.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892
    Leon said:

    Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

    No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.
    Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

    I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd
    Yeah, they should be putting in an Australia level performance every year. I think lots of liberal countries are simply embarrassed by the idea of doing well at something as nationalistic as the Olympics.

    On the flip side we do have countries at the top of the table (including the UK) who use it as a test of national virility. No doubt our elite sports programme stems from this as do the US, Chinese, Australian and Russian ones.

    At least the latter approach gives the nation something to cheer every 4 years. Canada just exists in a perpetual state of being embarrassed to be Canadian and perpetually apologising for their nationality.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,197
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I did a swirl flap and EGR delete on my diesel tow rig then sold it to some mug on FB. I've got a petrol sDrive 35i F15 X5 now. 2WD X5s are the coolest.

    Are any electric cars approved for towing? They have the weight and torque, but I think not manufacturers approval.
    Model X, Hyundai Ioniq 5, VW ID4.
    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Not sure about that, a lot will depend on the track cycling. As BJO said, we seem pretty much guaranteed a Gold tomorrow in the sailing so then 5 to go. Outside chance still.
    Could convert some of those boxing chances too. But I think 19/20 is the limit for sure. Which is above the 13-15 I had pencilled in at the start. Outperfomances in the pool and BMX has been amazing this time. Hope we can keep that momentum for Paris and fix the problems in rowing as well.
    I think we will look back and say these Games were a success for us. You could argue we were in a transition for our typical strong spots (Rowing / Cycling, although the latter is more the rest of the world has caught up). We have also started to crack sports that have not been great for us (e.g. weightlifting). Apart from tomorrow's women's event where we are way in the lead, are there any other sailing events left for us?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,898
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
    I wonder if there is a misunderstanding?

    'Fitness' has a specific meaning in Darwinian terminology: the collective sum total of differential survival and differential reproduction. It certainly does not mean the Olympic/athletic 'fitness' - consider, for instance, the many organisms which save energy and resources and do very well by quite literally being non-athletic.
    I know what fitness means in a Darwinian sense. I use it in that sense, you prannock

    But fitness in the Darwinian sense will incorporate fitness in the athletic sense
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
    Don't know about these examples but I'm hardly oversensitive. In fact I'm a big buyer of 'racism as shaper of the world' (past and present). Normally I'm accused on here of overstating this. I don't, of course. Quite the opposite.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    All atheletes in that infamous final eventually were popped, other than Carl Lewis, for legal reasons we will say that he never officially failed a drugs test.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728
    tlg86 said:

    That Swedish pole-vaulter looked a class apart.

    I am always intrigued at the idea of learning the pole-vault from scratch. At some point there must be an "oh fuck" moment when you have to rely on the pole doing its thing.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,120
    From Twitter (Chris Hatton): Across UK, COVID-19 vaccination rates for adults with intellectual disabilities have ended up very similar to rates for adults without intellectual disabilities (around 90%), although lower for younger adults aged 16-25 and people from most minority ethnic groups.

    Thought that was interesting.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    I think all Olympic events should include an element of using tiny bikes, tiny boats, riding horses or swimming....Team GB would be top the medal table.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,434

    kle4 said:

    Ha, I watched this movie in the cinema on Sunday and I just knew there was going to be a story about this nonsense as people worked up a fake outrage.

    Disney's newest film Jungle Cruise is facing criticism because of a lack of "genuine representation" when it comes to LGBTQ+ characters...

    Three year's ago Whitehall, who is a straight actor, was controversially cast as Disney's first out and officially gay character, named MacGregor in the film. Now, following the movie's release, the studio has been criticised again for a scene where MacGregor reveals his sexuality.

    In the scene, he tells Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's character Frank that he broke off relationships - described as "engagements" in the film - with three women because his "interests happily lay elsewhere".

    The character then thanks his sister for supporting him after he wasn't accepted by the rest of their family.

    However members of the LGBTQ+ community and others have criticised the film on social media because the character doesn't specifically say that he is 'gay'.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58027620

    There is actually a follow up line where he is pretty clear about the issue being about who he loves. It may not mention the word gay but there is no ambiguity there.

    Frankly I'm more surprised the confected 'outrage' is not about him being the comic relief of the film and how that reflects poorly on gay people or some rubbish.

    It's also ahistorical rubbish - homosexuals in 1916 did not describe themselves as "gay", they were "artistic" or "confirmed bachelors".....Although there are some references in the 1930s (Cary Grant in "Bringing up Baby" when challenged about why he was wearing a lady's dressing gown) it didn't enter more general parlance until the 1960s onwards.

    In the late 1950s the US Procter & Gamble wanted to launch a dishwashing liquid in the UK. Their local operation - Thomas Hedley, wanted to use their long established brand "Fairy" - a popular bar soap. The suits in Cincinnati balked at the name - for reasons they declined to specify, but insisted on testing the UK name against their US choice - 'Gay'!
    Films dont need to be accurately historical of course, but as the character's status was made clear, given the time setting one would think it made sense for that character to be somewhat circumspect in language
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Swedish pole-vaulter looked a class apart.

    I am always intrigued at the idea of learning the pole-vault from scratch. At some point there must be an "oh fuck" moment when you have to rely on the pole doing its thing.
    Its also one of those events where you go how, why, what.... especially when the pole is bent right over.
  • MrEd said:



    There is also the un-predictables. No one thought Hodgkinson could get a Silver (well, I did or at least a medal).

    I dunno, 800 m had 3 solid GB qualifiers. Outside chance of a medal. As stated a few days back.
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    image

    seems legit
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728
    edited August 2021
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

    I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

    That is wrong IMO.

    However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

    (Hint, he wasn't.)

    If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
    I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

    The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
    Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
    That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

    Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

    Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

    "You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

    The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

    It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
    At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
    I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

    That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

    Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
    Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
    I don't need one.

    I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
    Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

    Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
    And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

    It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
    Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,428
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
    I wonder if there is a misunderstanding?

    'Fitness' has a specific meaning in Darwinian terminology: the collective sum total of differential survival and differential reproduction. It certainly does not mean the Olympic/athletic 'fitness' - consider, for instance, the many organisms which save energy and resources and do very well by quite literally being non-athletic.
    I know what fitness means in a Darwinian sense. I use it in that sense, you prannock

    But fitness in the Darwinian sense will incorporate fitness in the athletic sense
    The point I am making is that there is no logical or necessary connexion. Indeed, the very theory of selection on the middle passage itself invokes selection in phenomena - salt metabolism - which have no real relationship to athletic fitness (except an increased tendendy to keel over and die when running too hard).
  • MrEd said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I did a swirl flap and EGR delete on my diesel tow rig then sold it to some mug on FB. I've got a petrol sDrive 35i F15 X5 now. 2WD X5s are the coolest.

    Are any electric cars approved for towing? They have the weight and torque, but I think not manufacturers approval.
    Model X, Hyundai Ioniq 5, VW ID4.
    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

    Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Not sure about that, a lot will depend on the track cycling. As BJO said, we seem pretty much guaranteed a Gold tomorrow in the sailing so then 5 to go. Outside chance still.
    Could convert some of those boxing chances too. But I think 19/20 is the limit for sure. Which is above the 13-15 I had pencilled in at the start. Outperfomances in the pool and BMX has been amazing this time. Hope we can keep that momentum for Paris and fix the problems in rowing as well.
    I think we will look back and say these Games were a success for us. You could argue we were in a transition for our typical strong spots (Rowing / Cycling, although the latter is more the rest of the world has caught up). We have also started to crack sports that have not been great for us (e.g. weightlifting). Apart from tomorrow's women's event where we are way in the lead, are there any other sailing events left for us?

    Men's same category. Currently 5th. 9 points off bronze which is, err, 5 places, I think.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,106
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

    I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

    eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

    That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

    Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

    Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

    People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

    SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.
    You mean allowing the election?

    Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?
    No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.
    Except you are forgetting had Labour backed Brexit with May's deal they would have lost as many Remainers to the LDs as the Tories lost Leavers to the Brexit Party with May's deal
    It would have torn the tories in two, then who knows what would have happened
    Something like the 2019 European elections, the Brexit Party and LDs would have surged and the May Tories and Corbyn Labour collapsed
    That is a very good proposal from you, young HY. Presumably it is now Conservative Party policy.

    And it does rather seem as though the good electors in Chesham and Amersham would agree with us too!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Swedish pole-vaulter looked a class apart.

    I am always intrigued at the idea of learning the pole-vault from scratch. At some point there must be an "oh fuck" moment when you have to rely on the pole doing its thing.
    Its also one of those events where you go how, why, what.... especially when the pole is bent right over.
    Absolutely.
  • DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    All atheletes in that infamous final eventually were popped, other than Carl Lewis, for legal reasons we will say that he never officially failed a drugs test.
    Not 100 % sure that's true.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

    I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.
    I listened to a great interview with the guy behind Balco Labs, Victor Conte. Basically he went though all the warning signs that an athlete is juice, i don't just mean physically, but things like how many missed tests, where do they hold training camps ask yourself why therr, and many of the ways they play the system.

    He basically said in this day and age, missed tests massive red flags, strange uncommon medical conditions that in most people mean declined performance, red flags, any talk of they took some supplement or medication that they didn't know contained trace of x, massive red flag, training camps on remote locations where very hard for a tester to get to / everybody knows if they are incoming, massive red flag.

    Basically clean atheletes are anal about they where abouts locator info, they don't put anything in their body that hasn't been signed off by official doctors, etc.
  • kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

    That is wrong IMO.

    However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

    (Hint, he wasn't.)

    If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
    I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

    The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
    Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
    That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

    Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

    Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

    "You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

    The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

    It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
    At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
    I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

    That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

    Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
    Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
    I don't need one.

    I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
    Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

    Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
    And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

    It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
    Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
    Don't you also have to ban home schooling?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I did a swirl flap and EGR delete on my diesel tow rig then sold it to some mug on FB. I've got a petrol sDrive 35i F15 X5 now. 2WD X5s are the coolest.

    Are any electric cars approved for towing? They have the weight and torque, but I think not manufacturers approval.
    Model X, Hyundai Ioniq 5, VW ID4.
    Interesting. It looks like the Kia EV6 can tow to 1600 kg too, it shares a chassis with the Hyundai Ioniq 5.

    It has a formidable spec, and superfast charging. The 4 wheel drive sports version is very quick off the mark..I am quite tempted for when my Fiat 500 finally expires.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,822
    Fishing said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    spudgfsh said:

    Leon said:

    spudgfsh said:

    felix said:

    Apologies if already posted.

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    1h
    Scottish independence voting intention:

    Yes: 48.1% (-6.1)
    No: 51.9% (+6.1)

    via @BritainElects
    poll tracker, 24 Jun
    Chgs. w/ 13 Jan

    not going to make a difference to how either Sturgeon or Johnson deal with the issue. Sturgeon will continue to push for a referendum (even though it's not clear that They'd win it) and Johnson will continue to refuse to authorise a referendum under the same rules as 2014.

    Sturgeon will eventually either have to call one anyway (which the unionists may boycott) or will have to come up with a way of pushing it into the long grass the way that GB did so effectively with joining the Euro. The difference being that joining the Euro wasn't the main goal of the Labour party though and I'm not sure that the SNP can let it be pushed into the long grass. Not dealt with the Scots will (eventually) tire of the push for independence (especially if everything else starts to slip).
    Disagree. This will make a difference quite quickly

    That's a momentous shift from YES to NO, and the last few polls have all been NO

    Sturgeon needs a sense of public fervour behind her to have even a tiny chance of persuading HMG to allow a vote. She has the opposite, she has declining support, no demand for a vote, and most Scots actually don't want indy

    So her brave new bid for Sindyref2 - coming next month - is going to look ridiculous, as everyone will know she doesn't mean it, she doesn't want a vote, because she absolutely cannot risk losing

    This is important for two reasons, no politician benefits from looking absurd, and - as you imply - this will deepen splits in the Nat movement as the fundamentalists tire of SNP havering
    the SNP is in too deep with the call for a Referendum to back out without something to kick it into the long grass. I can't see what would give them the excuse to put it off for longer than a few months. They also need independence on the agenda to keep people voting for them. when SLab finally get their act together and provide a decent Left opposition the SNP will be in trouble.
    The UK government will refuse indyref2 as long as the Tories remain in power.

    Sturgeon has ruled out a wildcat referendum and ruled out UDI, so nothing will change and defections from the SNP to Alba will gather pace
    You’ve this post set up as a macro haven’t you?
    He may be repetitive, but he isn't obviously wrong.
    Except maybe the Alba part. They look dead in the water after the Scottish elections.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,898
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
    I wonder if there is a misunderstanding?

    'Fitness' has a specific meaning in Darwinian terminology: the collective sum total of differential survival and differential reproduction. It certainly does not mean the Olympic/athletic 'fitness' - consider, for instance, the many organisms which save energy and resources and do very well by quite literally being non-athletic.
    I know what fitness means in a Darwinian sense. I use it in that sense, you prannock

    But fitness in the Darwinian sense will incorporate fitness in the athletic sense
    The point I am making is that there is no logical or necessary connexion. Indeed, the very theory of selection on the middle passage itself invokes selection in phenomena - salt metabolism - which have no real relationship to athletic fitness (except an increased tendendy to keel over and die when running too hard).
    I am fairly certain the Middle Passage, with all its intense horrors, killed off the weaker victims, every time these hideous ships sailed the Atlantic. That's a severe evolutionary pinch point, right there

    Once the poor slaves got to the Americas, they were treated literally like livestock. The strongest males were deliberately matched with the youngest, most nubile females, to breed more slaves, thus increasing the owners' wealth. The less "fit" were discouraged from breeding, sent to the fields to do the deadliest work, and so on.

    On American Plantations you can see books where all this is recorded diligently, as an English farmer might record his increasing herd of excellent cattle.

    This is accelerated evolution in action, and it would certainly encourage "fitness" in both senses.

    But enough of this tragic and distasteful subject! - I am going to the gym, and thence to a glass of rose wine with a friend. The sun has come out

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    All atheletes in that infamous final eventually were popped, other than Carl Lewis, for legal reasons we will say that he never officially failed a drugs test.
    Not 100 % sure that's true.
    Not the actual final, but at some point during their careers, i believe it is correct.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,215

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

    I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.
    I listened to a great interview with the guy behind Balco Labs, Victor Conte. Basically he went though all the warning signs that an athlete is juice, i don't just mean physically, but things like how many missed tests, where do they hold training camps ask yourself why therr, and many of the ways they play the system.

    He basically said in this day and age, missed tests massive red flags, strange uncommon medical conditions that in most people mean declined performance, red flags, any talk of they took some supplement or medication that they didn't know contained trace of x, massive red flag, training camps on remote locations where very hard for a tester to get to / everybody knows if they are incoming, massive red flag.

    Basically clean atheletes are anal about they where abouts locator info, they don't put anything in their body that hasn't been signed off by official doctors, etc.
    If covid gets into the big cycling teams it could be devastating with the amount of asthmatics they have.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

    I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

    eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

    That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

    Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

    Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

    People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

    SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.
    You mean allowing the election?

    Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?
    No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.
    The party would not have allowed it.
    So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

    A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

    Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

    Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.
    I agree he should have been more bolshie. The focus groups were telling him the public didn't want to see 'politics' in such a crisis but I think this should have been ignored. Like the Tories did so successfully with the Financial Crisis. Build a narrative that damages the government. 'Lazy reckless callous Johnson cost thousands of lives' etc.

    But on the May Deal, this notion that Corbyn and Labour should have voted it through, it wasn't a practical option. The party (MPs and members) wouldn't have stood for it. Saving a Tory PM plus enabling Brexit - No.
    It continues to be my view that the people who scuppered May's deal were the Cons rebels which gave Lab the cover to say "well if their own party doesn't support it why should we".

    Problem was, for the national interest (according to their stated views on Brexit), it would have been the right thing although I appreciate that not possible for the reasons you suggest.

    Thing is, with 20/20 hindsight, first, they have now sacrificed their polling position for the national interest, and secondly, how much worse could it be than now, mid-term and 5-10 pts behind the govt?
    Yes, totally. The Con government negotiated a compromise pragmatic Brexit deal. The Con party should therefore have supported it. They didn't. Very rich indeed, therefore, for people to cast aspersions at Labour. And, yes, it wasn't real world possible but with hindsight Corbyn should have found a way to finesse that deal through. Better for the country AND (as things have turned out) for the Labour party. And, yes, re pandemic positioning, it couldn't have been much worse and might have been better if Starmer had opposed more vigorously and regularly. Sorry, agreeing too much, but I can't pretend. :smile:
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 13,146
    edited August 2021
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

    That is wrong IMO.

    However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

    (Hint, he wasn't.)

    If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
    I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

    The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
    Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
    That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

    Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

    Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

    "You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

    The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

    It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
    At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
    I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

    That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

    Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
    Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
    I don't need one.

    I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
    Boris is pissing on your trouser leg and you are fiddling with the weather app on your phone to figure out whether it’s raining or not.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,822
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

    I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.
    I think that Linford still holds the British record. Hmm...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited August 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

    I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.
    I listened to a great interview with the guy behind Balco Labs, Victor Conte. Basically he went though all the warning signs that an athlete is juice, i don't just mean physically, but things like how many missed tests, where do they hold training camps ask yourself why therr, and many of the ways they play the system.

    He basically said in this day and age, missed tests massive red flags, strange uncommon medical conditions that in most people mean declined performance, red flags, any talk of they took some supplement or medication that they didn't know contained trace of x, massive red flag, training camps on remote locations where very hard for a tester to get to / everybody knows if they are incoming, massive red flag.

    Basically clean atheletes are anal about they where abouts locator info, they don't put anything in their body that hasn't been signed off by official doctors, etc.
    If covid gets into the big cycling teams it could be devastating with the amount of asthmatics they have.
    Its amazing that the sound of all the asthmatic wheezing isn't deafening when the Tour de France whiz past.

    Bit like all those distance runners with thyroid conditions. I am sure it is a total coincidence that one of the possible medications for this playing up has a side effect of striping weighting incredibly efficiently, without the sort of tiredness associated with calorie restriction.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,826
    edited August 2021

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

    That is wrong IMO.

    However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

    (Hint, he wasn't.)

    If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
    I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

    The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
    Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
    That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

    Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

    Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

    "You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

    The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

    It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
    At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
    I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

    That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

    Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
    Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
    I don't need one.

    I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
    Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

    Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
    And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

    It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
    Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
    Don't you also have to ban home schooling?
    No. In fact you don't have to ban private schools either. Just heavily disincentivize - eg end the tax breaks and bring back uni grants but only for state school pupils - and allow time to work its magic.
  • DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    All atheletes in that infamous final eventually were popped, other than Carl Lewis, for legal reasons we will say that he never officially failed a drugs test.
    Not 100 % sure that's true.
    Not the actual final, but at some point during their careers, i believe it is correct.
    OK, 4th and 6th, as I understand it, were never linked to PEDs.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,377

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

    Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.
    I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....
    There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

    I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.
    I listened to a great interview with the guy behind Balco Labs, Victor Conte. Basically he went though all the warning signs that an athlete is juice, i don't just mean physically, but things like how many missed tests, where do they hold training camps ask yourself why therr, and many of the ways they play the system.

    He basically said in this day and age, missed tests massive red flags, strange uncommon medical conditions that in most people mean declined performance, red flags, any talk of they took some supplement or medication that they didn't know contained trace of x, massive red flag, training camps on remote locations where very hard for a tester to get to / everybody knows if they are incoming, massive red flag.

    Basically clean atheletes are anal about they where abouts locator info, they don't put anything in their body that hasn't been signed off by official doctors, etc.
    Where are training camps is another great point on the Jamaican success story. If you're on a small island, or deep in the Rift valley, it's rather difficult for WADA to get anywhere near you without you getting a 12 hour warning. Alaways made me laugh when certain prominant athletes said they wanted to go to Kenya for the best training facilities.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,859
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

    What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

    A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.
    There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

    The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure
    Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?
    Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

    In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

    I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

    It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.
    The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.
    You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

    It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

    Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

    There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people
    I wonder if there is a misunderstanding?

    'Fitness' has a specific meaning in Darwinian terminology: the collective sum total of differential survival and differential reproduction. It certainly does not mean the Olympic/athletic 'fitness' - consider, for instance, the many organisms which save energy and resources and do very well by quite literally being non-athletic.
    I know what fitness means in a Darwinian sense. I use it in that sense, you prannock

    But fitness in the Darwinian sense will incorporate fitness in the athletic sense
    Not necessarily. Having a lot of calorie-consuming muscle mass would probably be a disadvantage when trying to survive starvation.
This discussion has been closed.