politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting strategy if for some reason Trump or Clinton ar

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Floater said:

The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.

I would agree with that.

Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.

(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).

The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).

Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.

We could be living in a year like 1913.

It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.

I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.

If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.

By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.

Are you suggesting that was comparable to Bush and Blair invading Iraq?

The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!

No. But Obama has made plenty of missteps ascwell. Reversing the surge. Running away from Iraq prematurely. Faffing around in Libya. No red lines in Syria.

Both sides have been useless - personally I think tolerating the use of chemical weapons is the worst strategic mistake of the lot

I would go for the Reagan/Thatcher funding and training of the Mujahadin myself. That is what converted a political Islamist philosophy into armed Jihad, with the ultimate blowback from Bin Laden.

Wasn’t that originally orchestrated by a Texan fundamentalist millionaire?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

nunu said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37132938

A classic shoot the messenger strategy by the Electoral Commission.

Err no - why couldn't the journalist have pointed out the security problem to the EC? IMHO he deserves everything he gets - hopefully he'll lose his job (but with the BBC generally being on Remain he can always get a new one with the BBC)

The things Remainers tried to do to influence the result.

ydoethur said:

Agree with your second part, not the first. Massacres of non-combatants and troublesome prisoners by German soldiers were more or less routine in France in 1944, which strongly suggests the Germans had other reasons for not using banned weapons.

I think the fact that most Allied soldiers had gas masks probably also played a part, although there are very real doubts about how useful they would have been in practice.

My understanding was that in WWII the Germans were pretty good in general in abiding by the Rules of War as they existed and applied at that time. So European, Commonwealth and US troops were mostly treated in accordance with the 1929 Geneva Conventions (notable exceptions such as Malmedy exist) and CBW were not used in compliance with the 1925 Geneva Protocol. I don't have proof, but my suspicion is that most exceptions probably involved either the SS or very young troops, rather than the more professional Wehrmacht.

This snippet from the wiki entry on Malmedy confirms that Allied soldiers also breached the Convention in retaliation and stories of SS or Gestapo personnel being summarily executed in the last days of the war were rife:

"The inspector general of the First Army learned of the shootings about three or four hours later. By late evening of the 17th, rumours that the enemy was killing prisoners had reached the forward American divisions. One US unit issued orders that "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight.""

This overall picture of Axis and Allied compliance with the Rules of War in the Western Theatre contrasted starkly with German treatment of Russian prisoners (not a party to the Geneva Convention) and with Japanese (not a party) treatment of prisoners.

Treatment of civilians in war torn areas by occupying troops was codified after the war in the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Just to add to the “we’ve won more medals than you” bragging table someone on WalesOnline has worked out that per head of population Wales has won more medals per head of population than anyone except New Zealand.
Scotland, Malc, is 5th.
China, Russia and the US are the bottom three.
Yorkshire’s not been incuded in the table.

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.

Wasn’t that why Stalin wanted all”Russian” ex PoW’s returned; so he could deal with the Ukranians?

Them and the Cossacks, who were handed over in 1945 with their families and all shot, including children, less than two hours later. Not one of the finer moments in the annals of the British army.

For the first time since 1981 we have a winner in the premier class of grand prix motorcycle racing.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.

Wasn’t that why Stalin wanted all”Russian” ex PoW’s returned; so he could deal with the Ukranians?

Them and the Cossacks, who were handed over in 1945 with their families and all shot, including children, less than two hours later. Not one of the finer moments in the annals of the British army.

I think you will find that decision to hand over the Cossack PoWs was taken by politicians not soldiers.

ydoethur said:

It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.

Isn't it true though that large numbers of every nationality in German occupied territory in the east (from Latvians through to Russians, and including both communists and anti-communists) were co-opted and participated in the Holocaust, almost irrespective of their pre war politics ?
Timothy Snyder's 'Black Earth' is particularly good is dissecting the history and mechanics of the Holocaust (and not to be undertaken lightly).

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

MTimT said:

OldKingCole said:

Just to add to the “we’ve won more medals than you” bragging table someone on WalesOnline has worked out that per head of population Wales has won more medals per head of population than anyone except New Zealand.
Scotland, Malc, is 5th.
China, Russia and the US are the bottom three.
Yorkshire’s not been incuded in the table.

Presumably neither has the top of the table, Maryland.

I saw in the Manchester Evening News today that if Manchester was a country it would be fourth in the medal table. Although in typical MEN lazy journalism style, it hadn't subtracted Manchester's medals from those of GB&NI, so it would actually be third.
It was also stretching the definition of 'Manchester' rather generously, and basically including the whole of the cycling team as 'Manchester-based' (though to be fair, most of them do genuinely live somewhere close to Manchester).

Anyway, I think if we're going to go for per-head-of-population battles then Greater Manchester defeinitley beats Wales.
Jason Kenny and Laura Trott's house does evcen better - if that was a country, it would come in at about 12th in the medal table with a population of 2.

MTimT said:

My understanding was that in WWII the Germans were pretty good in general in abiding by the Rules of War as they existed and applied at that time. So European, Commonwealth and US troops were mostly treated in accordance with the 1929 Geneva Conventions (notable exceptions such as Malmedy exist) and CBW were not used in compliance with the 1925 Geneva Protocol. I don't have proof, but my suspicion is that most exceptions probably involved either the SS or very young troops, rather than the more professional Wehrmacht.

Again, something I was more than a bit surprised by was how willing the Wehrmacht and even the police were to take part in atrocities, although that was mostly the Eastern not the Western Front.

A very good point about Allied war crimes. One of the things that makes me uneasy about Nuremberg is that no Allied soldier was ever tried. Anecdotally, I know of prisoners being shot out of hand or surrenders not being accepted (Mr Llama's one about the Black Watch is one I didn't know of but find credible). Historically, we all know about Katyn and the mass rapes performed by the Red Army. But nobody was ever even tried for that. So instead of a bunch of criminals getting their richly deserved penalties, it has always looked like a bunch of losers being victimised, and admirers of the system (Airey Neave in particular) always seem a little disingenuous on this point.

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Which doesn't change the fact that the *current* democratically elected governments chose the West.

So who won Vote Leave football competition?

ydoethur said:

MTimT said:

My understanding was that in WWII the Germans were pretty good in general in abiding by the Rules of War as they existed and applied at that time. So European, Commonwealth and US troops were mostly treated in accordance with the 1929 Geneva Conventions (notable exceptions such as Malmedy exist) and CBW were not used in compliance with the 1925 Geneva Protocol. I don't have proof, but my suspicion is that most exceptions probably involved either the SS or very young troops, rather than the more professional Wehrmacht.

Again, something I was more than a bit surprised by was how willing the Wehrmacht and even the police were to take part in atrocities, although that was mostly the Eastern not the Western Front.

A very good point about Allied war crimes. One of the things that makes me uneasy about Nuremberg is that no Allied soldier was ever tried. Anecdotally, I know of prisoners being shot out of hand or surrenders not being accepted (Mr Llama's one about the Black Watch is one I didn't know of but find credible). Historically, we all know about Katyn and the mass rapes performed by the Red Army. But nobody was ever even tried for that. So instead of a bunch of criminals getting their richly deserved penalties, it has always looked like a bunch of losers being victimised, and admirers of the system (Airey Neave in particular) always seem a little disingenuous on this point.

I am not sure what you mean by 'admirers of the scheme'. If you are talking about the Rules of War in general, I am an admirer. I think the proof of WWII is strongly that where there was a legal commitment to the Rules, they were overwhelmingly respected (German infractions on the Eastern Front, Katyn and Red Army rapes cannot be included, as the USSR was not party to the Conventions).

And the response of that US unit to Malmedy (and of the Russian Army to German brutality to its PoWs in 1941 - the majority of whom did not survive a year in captivity) shows why, from a military perspective, abiding by the rules works. You do not want to force your enemy into a 'no surrender, take no prisoners' mindset.

HurstLlama said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.

Wasn’t that why Stalin wanted all”Russian” ex PoW’s returned; so he could deal with the Ukranians?

Them and the Cossacks, who were handed over in 1945 with their families and all shot, including children, less than two hours later. Not one of the finer moments in the annals of the British army.

I think you will find that decision to hand over the Cossack PoWs was taken by politicians not soldiers.

The senior soldiers involved were Harold Macmillan, MP for Stockton, and Austin 'Toby' Low, candidate for Blackpool North. The order came I think from Eisenhower, although it may have come from Roosevelt's earlier deal with Stalin. Both protested angrily to Churchill but when the order was confirmed, obeyed it even though they could in theory have resigned in protest.

Of course, how realistic such an option would have been is another matter. Curragh in 1913 showed the limits of what soldiers could and could not do even in peacetime.

What bothers me about it frankly is not the men - if you fight for another country, especially Nazi Germany, then you should know the risks - but the families.

Incidentally I haven't forgotten we are supposed to be meeting for lunch but I've been very tied up for the last fortnight for which I hope you will forgive me. If you are still interested, how are you fixed on either Tuesday 30th or Thursday 1st?

HurstLlama said:

MTimT said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.

Wasn’t that why Stalin wanted all”Russian” ex PoW’s returned; so he could deal with the Ukranians?

Also worth reading Hitler's Willing Executioners (poorly written but well researched) to get a sense of who was involved in the Eastern Front massacres.

Quite so, Mr. T. What I have long struggled to understand is the German army in WW2, the Heer, behaving on the whole, correctly when fighting against the Brits and the Yanks but behaved so abominably on the Eastern Front.

The myth that the massacres and ill-treatment of locals there was down solely to the SS is amply documented, as Beevor in his Book "Stalingrad" makes plain. The Heer and some of its supposedly honourable generals, such as Von Manstein, were utterly complicit in the mass murders and other crimes that took place.

Even more surpising when there’s some evidence that anti-Communist Russians initially regarded the Germans as liberators.
Is there a deep-seated Germanic fear of “the enemy from the East”? Dating back, perhaps to the Golden Horde or similar (although it didn’t get as far as modern Germany.

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary. It is amazing how someone in this country can look there and find something admirable, they are the enemies of liberal democracy (like their extremist friends elsewhere).

Just because they do not cherish liberal democracy, and may even regard it with contempt if it leads a nation to act against its own interests, it does not make them its enemy.

PlatoSaid said:

alex. said:

MaxPB said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........

One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".

Clearly the Team GB funding model needs to be more ruthless.

Not everyone in Team GB gets funding.

Andy Murray...

Amount spent on golf by UK Sports Council = £0 in 4 years.
Medals won = 1 gold.

nunu said:

So who won Vote Leave football competition?

Are you referring to the PB referendum forecast?

williamglenn said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary. It is amazing how someone in this country can look there and find something admirable, they are the enemies of liberal democracy (like their extremist friends elsewhere).

Just because they do not cherish liberal democracy, and may even regard it with contempt if it leads a nation to act against its own interests, it does not make them its enemy.

Support for such as Assad and Erdogan, coupled with the assymetric warfare attempts to destabilise liberal democracies suggest it does. We are in a very dangerous period, Russia is an economic basket case, it has waning power and waning powers are unpredictable.

OldKingCole said:

Even more surpising when there’s some evidence that anti-Communist Russians initially regarded the Germans as liberators.
Is there a deep-seated Germanic fear of “the enemy from the East”? Dating back, perhaps to the Golden Horde or similar (although it didn’t get as far as modern Germany.

There had always been a dislike of Russians which Hitler's racial theories played on and amplified.

And there is huge and overwhelming evidence that the Ukrainians in particular saw the Germans as liberators. They hoped to leave the hated collective farms and get their land back. As early as 1936, Stalin was warned by the NKVD that if the Germans invaded Ukraine the locals could not be relied on.

Of course, they found later that they were wrong, but as has been noted upthread, it is easy to be wise with hindsight.

Alistair said:

Well knock me down with a feather. Trump is actually pivoting. Let's see what his illegal alien amnesty is going to be like then.

For clarification- I take it you mean amnesty for illegal aliens, not his illegal amnesty for aliens?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

nunu said:

So who won Vote Leave football competition?

Are you referring to the PB referendum forecast?

No. Vote leave or leaveE.U had a Euro competition where u could win £50mill or £50,000.

Thrak said:

williamglenn said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary. It is amazing how someone in this country can look there and find something admirable, they are the enemies of liberal democracy (like their extremist friends elsewhere).

Just because they do not cherish liberal democracy, and may even regard it with contempt if it leads a nation to act against its own interests, it does not make them its enemy.

Support for such as Assad and Erdogan, coupled with the assymetric warfare attempts to destabilise liberal democracies suggest it does. We are in a very dangerous period, Russia is an economic basket case, it has waning power and waning powers are unpredictable.

They look after what they see as their national interests using the same means the other global powers demonstrate through their actions that they believe are fair game. Nothing more or less.

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

The number of Corbyn supporting Trumpites always surprises me...
....tho both seen to have a hardcore of conspiracy theorists so maybe I shouldn't be.....

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........

One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".

What is it with GB athletics backing permanently crocked athletes. It's harsh but if you have somebody in the programme who will never be able to train full time again they have f##k all chance of winning. It took 6 years to decide to pull the plug on ones funding despite only being able to train on a cross trainer.

Compare to cycling, a saw a clip on YouTube where they have to go for a regular full body fat scan...no progress in shifting some hidden chubby bits you are in big big doo doo.

We now have a Brit at the front, Callum Hawkins. But your point about our crocked one begs the question why the athletics team have no substitutes ready for the period before the deadline. I suspect that may be due to the lack of athletes actually funded by the Sport Council. If there is only money for 3 per event, then when 1 gets partly crocked we have no one to fill their slot. Cycling has depth and funds more people (110 vs 86).

On the medals front we have 7 of the 138 athletics medals awarded, which is 5%. Same % as London. But only 2 were gold this time. When Mo retires, our athletics team will be very bare.

I think more worrying is that in so many events we don't really have athletes in the top handful and some no representation at all e.g. No javelin, no triple jump.

Now javelin I would have thought would be ideal for a "marginal" gains type approach, as its such a technical event and one which not that many years ago we had a number of the world best.

We know there is only such much you can do in for instance in the 5km, there is a massive in built genetic advantage which means 90% of the athletes are direct decedents of just a few small areas in Africa. But javelin the tiniest change in technique can result in massive differences in distance.

williamglenn said:

Thrak said:

williamglenn said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary. It is amazing how someone in this country can look there and find something admirable, they are the enemies of liberal democracy (like their extremist friends elsewhere).

Just because they do not cherish liberal democracy, and may even regard it with contempt if it leads a nation to act against its own interests, it does not make them its enemy.

Support for such as Assad and Erdogan, coupled with the assymetric warfare attempts to destabilise liberal democracies suggest it does. We are in a very dangerous period, Russia is an economic basket case, it has waning power and waning powers are unpredictable.

They look after what they see as their national interests using the same means the other global powers demonstrate through their actions that they believe are fair game. Nothing more or less.

No.

They look after *their* interests by attempting to persuade the people - often through a forced-compliant media - that their actions are in the national interest.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........

One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".

What is it with GB athletics backing permanently crocked athletes. It's harsh but if you have somebody in the programme who will never be able to train full time again they have f##k all chance of winning. It took 6 years to decide to pull the plug on ones funding despite only being able to train on a cross trainer.

Compare to cycling, a saw a clip on YouTube where they have to go for a regular full body fat scan...no progress in shifting some hidden chubby bits you are in big big doo doo.

We now have a Brit at the front, Callum Hawkins. But your point about our crocked one begs the question why the athletics team have no substitutes ready for the period before the deadline. I suspect that may be due to the lack of athletes actually funded by the Sport Council. If there is only money for 3 per event, then when 1 gets partly crocked we have no one to fill their slot. Cycling has depth and funds more people (110 vs 86).

On the medals front we have 7 of the 138 athletics medals awarded, which is 5%. Same % as London. But only 2 were gold this time. When Mo retires, our athletics team will be very bare.

I think more worrying is that in so many events we don't really have athletes in the top handful and some no representation at all e.g. No javelin, no triple jump.

Now javelin I would have thought would be ideal for a "marginal" gains type approach, as its such a technical event and one which not that many years ago we had a number of the world best.

We know there is only such much you can do in for instance in the 5km, there is a massive in built genetic advantage which means 90% of the athletes are direct decedents of just a few small areas in Africa. But javelin the tiniest change in technique can result in massive differences in distance.

Didn't we also have the world record holder for the triple jump. Jonathan Edwards still owns the WR if I am correct.

MTimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........

One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".

What is it with GB athletics backing permanently crocked athletes. It's harsh but if you have somebody in the programme who will never be able to train full time again they have f##k all chance of winning. It took 6 years to decide to pull the plug on ones funding despite only being able to train on a cross trainer.

Compare to cycling, a saw a clip on YouTube where they have to go for a regular full body fat scan...no progress in shifting some hidden chubby bits you are in big big doo doo.

We now have a Brit at the front, Callum Hawkins. But your point about our crocked one begs the question why the athletics team have no substitutes ready for the period before the deadline. I suspect that may be due to the lack of athletes actually funded by the Sport Council. If there is only money for 3 per event, then when 1 gets partly crocked we have no one to fill their slot. Cycling has depth and funds more people (110 vs 86).

On the medals front we have 7 of the 138 athletics medals awarded, which is 5%. Same % as London. But only 2 were gold this time. When Mo retires, our athletics team will be very bare.

I think more worrying is that in so many events we don't really have athletes in the top handful and some no representation at all e.g. No javelin, no triple jump.

Now javelin I would have thought would be ideal for a "marginal" gains type approach, as its such a technical event and one which not that many years ago we had a number of the world best.

We know there is only such much you can do in for instance in the 5km, there is a massive in built genetic advantage which means 90% of the athletes are direct decedents of just a few small areas in Africa. But javelin the tiniest change in technique can result in massive differences in distance.

Didn't we also have the world record holder for the triple jump. Jonathan Edwards still owns the WR if I am correct.

We had Edwards and a guy called Philips Idowu, who at the ability to be as good as Edwards.

williamglenn said:

Thrak said:

williamglenn said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary. It is amazing how someone in this country can look there and find something admirable, they are the enemies of liberal democracy (like their extremist friends elsewhere).

Just because they do not cherish liberal democracy, and may even regard it with contempt if it leads a nation to act against its own interests, it does not make them its enemy.

Support for such as Assad and Erdogan, coupled with the assymetric warfare attempts to destabilise liberal democracies suggest it does. We are in a very dangerous period, Russia is an economic basket case, it has waning power and waning powers are unpredictable.

They look after what they see as their national interests using the same means the other global powers demonstrate through their actions that they believe are fair game. Nothing more or less.

You are talking about different things, it isn't about tactics it's about the underlying style of government. The eastern bloc were not just looking after national interests, more obvious given the nature of their 'elections', but populist demagogues use the cover of liberal democracy and then pervert it to their own ends, Putin - Erdogan - Trump?

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary.

Pity, I have marginally more respect for the former.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........

One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".

What is it with GB athletics backing permanently crocked athletes. It's harsh but if you have somebody in the programme who will never be able to train full time again they have f##k all chance of winning. It took 6 years to decide to pull the plug on ones funding despite only being able to train on a cross trainer.

Compare to cycling, a saw a clip on YouTube where they have to go for a regular full body fat scan...no progress in shifting some hidden chubby bits you are in big big doo doo.

We now have a Brit at the front, Callum Hawkins. But your point about our crocked one begs the question why the athletics team have no substitutes ready for the period before the deadline. I suspect that may be due to the lack of athletes actually funded by the Sport Council. If there is only money for 3 per event, then when 1 gets partly crocked we have no one to fill their slot. Cycling has depth and funds more people (110 vs 86).

On the medals front we have 7 of the 138 athletics medals awarded, which is 5%. Same % as London. But only 2 were gold this time. When Mo retires, our athletics team will be very bare.

I think more worrying is that in so many events we don't really have athletes in the top handful and some no representation at all e.g. No javelin, no triple jump.

Now javelin I would have thought would be ideal for a "marginal" gains type approach, as its such a technical event and one which not that many years ago we had a number of the world best.

We know there is only such much you can do in for instance in the 5km, there is a massive in built genetic advantage which means 90% of the athletes are direct decedents of just a few small areas in Africa. But javelin the tiniest change in technique can result in massive differences in distance.

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into track / field events we could compete in by concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics with quite a lot of success. Just throwing the idea out there.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

I note that the current main headline on the ARD German news site is that Germans are, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, being advised to keep at least 10 days worth of food and 5 days of water stockpiled at all times in case of disaster. I'm sure this won't concern anyone here though

Hamstern für den Katastrophenfall

P.S. The German word for stockpile/hoard - hamstern - always amuses me.

It's easier than turning eichhoernchen into a verb like we do.

Without meaning to offend Tyson (well, a little bit ...) I was giving some thought as to why there are so many public-school athletes representing the UK in sports.

Whilst facilities and opportunities are part of it, might there be another component? My school week was six days, with Wednesday and Saturday being half-days academically. On those afternoons, we mainly played sports and/or other activities (Pathfinders, CCF etc). We could also got permission to do academic work.

If this pattern is common in private schools (and it was true for friends who also attended private schools) might it be a large factor in why children who attended them perform so well? Two afternoons a week dedicated to sports and activities.

According to (1), the average time dedicated to sports in secondary schools a week is just 107 minutes.

(1): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226505/Evidence_on_physical_education_and_sport_in_schools.pdf

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics.

But we are funding 100+ cyclists and 100+ rowers and (I guess) fewer than 20 long distance runners... If we only fund 3, then when 1 or 2 get crocked there are no substitutes and little competition.

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Thrak said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.

And yet the Governments since the 2014 elections did not. Their current position (correct me if I'm wrong) is pro-Western

It is, after an overthrow of their democratically elected pro-Russian President.

Are you Paul Manafort by any chance?

At a bit of a loose end now your dealings have been found out?

I had to Google. Run along now.

Putin apologists in the UK, are you the far left or far right? That unholy alliance are just about the only people who support that vile regime.

People whose stock in trade are words like 'apologist' and 'vile regime' in order to shut down all debate tend to come in two categories too - paid trolls or bien pensant virtue-signalling twats - which are you?

So, far right then. I despise Putin for free, getting paid seems unnecessary.

Pity, I have marginally more respect for the former.

I had fun during the Ukraine conflict, it became obvious Putin's troll army were on the Guardian website (god knows why the Guardian) so I signed up and proceeded to ridicule how poorly they were being paid. Any political argument they'd just gloss over but pointing out how worthless their job was annoyed the hell out of them.

I've done the same with Scott P. Especially when they took away his chair.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

Not everyone is in the "programme". And people who aren't in the "programme" have the right to try and qualify through their own efforts - it should never be a closed shop. For all the talk about "marginal gains", I suspect the real reason we are successful in cycling is that we have a group of individuals who train harder than anyone else, and constantly drive each other forwards. The improvements that are driven by competitive activity are not limited to international competition, but from training each and every day that they turn up to work. It is no coincidence that when we look back to past areas of British strength in athletics it was often not limited to one athlete, but several in the same discipline, driving each other onwards.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics.

But we are funding 100+ cyclists and 100+ rowers and (I guess) fewer than 20 long distance runners... If we only fund 3, then when 1 or 2 get crocked there are no substitutes and little competition.

I know...what I am saying is if the pot is limited for track / field, perhaps we just don't bother with long distance runners who don't have a chance, and funnel it towards things we could gain from. Also it isn't 1 or 2 getting crocked at a late stage....6 years and permanently crocked, that isn't a heart breaking injury in the trials for the Olympics.

Another point, we still fund Mo and a number of other multi-millionaire athletes. Again if funds are limited, perhaps we have to redirect some of that funding.

The womens running where there are "testosterone" ladies, does seem to be a bit pointless.

Thrak said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics.

But we are funding 100+ cyclists and 100+ rowers and (I guess) fewer than 20 long distance runners... If we only fund 3, then when 1 or 2 get crocked there are no substitutes and little competition.

I know...what I am saying is if the pot is limited for track / field, perhaps we just don't bother with long distance runners who don't have a chance, and funnel it towards things we could gain from. Also it isn't 1 or 2 getting crocked at a late stage....6 years and permanently crocked, that isn't a heart breaking injury in the trials for the Olympics.

Another point, we still fund Mo and a number of other multi-millionaire athletes. Again if funds are limited, perhaps we have to redirect some of that funding.

I think of it like central contracts where players aren't chasing around playing matches and being under the weather for tests. I suppose the top like Farah might have enough to allow for significant gaps without needing to fund through results but there can't be more than a handful of British athletes like that.

You will be surprised how much a world level athletes can earn these days, but it isn't evenly distributed and yes some events don't allow to compete as often e.g. heptathlon / decathlon hardly ever compete, where as 100m -> 400m can run many times during a season.

Just throwing out some ideas...it doesn't seem like more of the same is the solution to athletics. We are seeing progression in not just cycling and rowing, but diving, gymnastics, taekwondo, swimming, but not athletics.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics.

But we are funding 100+ cyclists and 100+ rowers and (I guess) fewer than 20 long distance runners... If we only fund 3, then when 1 or 2 get crocked there are no substitutes and little competition.

...Another point, we still fund Mo and a number of other multi-millionaire athletes. Again if funds are limited, perhaps we have to redirect some of that funding.

Mo's funding is propping up the entire success that the athletics team can claim. He probably costs not much more than the average and makes all their activity look worthwhile.

PlatoSaid said:

SeanT said:

Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit, so we won't be able to afford tea and we will forced to boil nettles and dockleaves etc

If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit.

Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....

ttps://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/767357947873722368

Out of curiosity - do kids still know that a nettle sting is salved by a dock leaf? I used them all the time as a little 'un.

Mine do. They also know about the Irish use from the other side of the family!

PlatoSaid said:

SeanT said:

Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit, so we won't be able to afford tea and we will forced to boil nettles and dockleaves etc

If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit.

Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....

ttps://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/767357947873722368

Out of curiosity - do kids still know that a nettle sting is salved by a dock leaf? I used them all the time as a little 'un.

The way he's running about, I'm expecting my little 'un to learn that very soon ...

PlatoSaid said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics.

But we are funding 100+ cyclists and 100+ rowers and (I guess) fewer than 20 long distance runners... If we only fund 3, then when 1 or 2 get crocked there are no substitutes and little competition.

I know...what I am saying is if the pot is limited for track / field, perhaps we just don't bother with long distance runners who don't have a chance, and funnel it towards things we could gain from. Also it isn't 1 or 2 getting crocked at a late stage....6 years and permanently crocked, that isn't a heart breaking injury in the trials for the Olympics.

Another point, we still fund Mo and a number of other multi-millionaire athletes. Again if funds are limited, perhaps we have to redirect some of that funding.

The womens running where there are "testosterone" ladies, does seem to be a bit pointless.

I see no point in competing against Caster for years unless injured/retires. It's PC nonsense - she's testes and no womb or ovaries. That isn't a marginal physical gain from having big feet or long legs.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/story-e6frexni-1225771672245

Perhaps in that event, they should let all the other athletes dope....although to match 3x the normal level of testosterone, they will have to pumped to the gills...there are former East German doped women athletes that had less testosterone than that.

JosiasJessop said:

Without meaning to offend Tyson (well, a little bit ...) I was giving some thought as to why there are so many public-school athletes representing the UK in sports.
Whilst facilities and opportunities are part of it, might there be another component? My school week was six days, with Wednesday and Saturday being half-days academically. On those afternoons, we mainly played sports and/or other activities (Pathfinders, CCF etc). We could also got permission to do academic work..........According to (1), the average time dedicated to sports in secondary schools a week is just 107 minutes.

Are you asking for state schools to run 6 days a week? The Teachers Unions are more militant than the doctors! Of course the grammar schools also produced more athletes when they were more prevalent.

PlatoSaid said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Compare the range of skills required in athletic events with cycling. Cycling has a narrow range of skills and funds 110 people. Athletics has an enormous range from running, jumping and throwing yet athletics only funds 86 people individually. Athletics so far has had 138 medals awarded, Cycling had 51 medals awarded. We are clearly underfunding athletics and choosing Cycling instead becuase we have a better chance of winning cycling medals.

I think my point was maybe it isn't just underfunding athletics, perhaps we are funding people in events we have an inbuilt genetic disadvantage and with limited scope for marginal gains type approach. Cycling and rowing were identified as perfect for this approach, where as we have chosen to fund crocked 5km women runners rather than perhaps pumping money / research efforts into events we could compete in by being concentrating on technique.

This is what South Korea did for Winter Olympics.

But we are funding 100+ cyclists and 100+ rowers and (I guess) fewer than 20 long distance runners... If we only fund 3, then when 1 or 2 get crocked there are no substitutes and little competition.

I know...what I am saying is if the pot is limited for track / field, perhaps we just don't bother with long distance runners who don't have a chance, and funnel it towards things we could gain from. Also it isn't 1 or 2 getting crocked at a late stage....6 years and permanently crocked, that isn't a heart breaking injury in the trials for the Olympics.

Another point, we still fund Mo and a number of other multi-millionaire athletes. Again if funds are limited, perhaps we have to redirect some of that funding.

The womens running where there are "testosterone" ladies, does seem to be a bit pointless.

I see no point in competing against Caster for years unless injured/retires. It's PC nonsense - she's testes and no womb or ovaries. That isn't a marginal physical gain from having big feet or long legs.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/story-e6frexni-1225771672245

She won a two year exemption from anti-androgen medication, which is being challenged. As you say, it's a nonsense.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JosiasJessop said:

Without meaning to offend Tyson (well, a little bit ...) I was giving some thought as to why there are so many public-school athletes representing the UK in sports.
Whilst facilities and opportunities are part of it, might there be another component? My school week was six days, with Wednesday and Saturday being half-days academically. On those afternoons, we mainly played sports and/or other activities (Pathfinders, CCF etc). We could also got permission to do academic work..........According to (1), the average time dedicated to sports in secondary schools a week is just 107 minutes.

Are you asking for state schools to run 6 days a week? The Teachers Unions are more militant than the doctors! Of course the grammar schools also produced more athletes when they were more prevalent.

No, just noting that it'd be hard for a school that only dedicates 106 minutes of organised time to sports to compete against a school of the same size that dedicates 400+ minutes.

Yet it would be hard for a school that is trying to compete academically to dedicate more time to sport. There're only so many hours.

As for your comment: a few years ago I made the mistake of suggesting to a teacher friend that schools should perhaps stay open slightly longer (in the form of breakfast clubs and after-school activities.

Her response: "We're not a child-minding service."

I did not dare a reply.