wejo:
Forget about Mark Block. Go tell your wife that you love her instead.
wejo:
Forget about Mark Block. Go tell your wife that you love her instead.
Basso wrote:
Not really fair comparisons. Ian Stewart isn't setting up a track meet for his own personal amusement. A man in his position has a duty to do what is right for the sport. He didn't have a legit reason to call Symmonds a "liability" and stop him from competing with no other explanation given. Journalists in London should have been sticking a microphone down his throat instead of giving him a free pass.
I'm not hiring limos for my personal amusement, either. I disagree that his position is to do what's right for the sport. His position is to please his employers and that means arranging athletes that help sell out the stadium and bring media coverage and television viewership to the meet. He isn't placing a ban on Symmonds from competing in the sport (that would be against EU rules).
Invite him or not, it doesn't make much difference to me and it certainly didn't make much difference to his managers (Richardson, Jeter and many others from his group were there so it's not like they threatened to pull their athletes out of the event for not inviting Symmonds) and it clearly didn't make much waves in the British press there (which would have been a whole different story if it had been Philips Idowu or Perry Shakes Drayton not receiving an invitation for one reason or another).
I don't like this idea of being forced to do business with someone I don't want to. It seems simple to me: there are standards for receiving an automatic entry to a Diamond League meet and Symmonds didn't make that. He wasn't invited so he wasn't there. How is this different from me hiring Limo Company B instead of Company A?
He got away with it this time because it was 'only' Nick Symmonds. Does the same thing happen if decides he doesn't like Usain Bolt anymore? Absolutely not.
Just because nobody picked him up on it doesn't make it alright.
"His position is to please his employers and that means arranging athletes that help sell out the stadium and bring media coverage and television viewership to the meet"
Leaving out Symmonds and Lolo Jones is not how you do that. There were a rake of 'unknown' athletes in their events. It seems the main standard to gain entry is to be mates with the meet director. That's complete horseshit.
Both of them deserved to be running based on performances & reputation. Instead they are left out because some clown and his wife have a backwards way of looking at things.
Basso wrote:
He got away with it this time because it was 'only' Nick Symmonds. Does the same thing happen if decides he doesn't like Usain Bolt anymore? Absolutely not.
Just because nobody picked him up on it doesn't make it alright.
Bolt won't come because of Britain's tax laws.
Basso wrote:
"His position is to please his employers and that means arranging athletes that help sell out the stadium and bring media coverage and television viewership to the meet"
Leaving out Symmonds and Lolo Jones is not how you do that. There were a rake of 'unknown' athletes in their events. It seems the main standard to gain entry is to be mates with the meet director. That's complete horseshit.
Both of them deserved to be running based on performances & reputation. Instead they are left out because some clown and his wife have a backwards way of looking at things.
Was the meet not sold out? Were there discussions in the Guardian, Independent or on the BBC or SkyNews about two American Olympians not receiving invitations to the meet?
I don't know why you think Symmonds' managers don't get on with Ian Stewart. They had Carmelita Jeter, Jason Richardson, Keston Bledman, and Dylan Armstrong all competing in London. And besides that, you and I both know that getting somewhere because you are friendly with someone else is a way of life.
People should not be forced into doing business with someone just because a level of ability has been demonstrated. That's not very much in line with the free market, is it? I should have every right not to hire someone if I don't like them personally (and we're not talking about protected classes).
Just for the record, I have it on good authority that two major networks are in talks with a guy in the know about the whole Nike clout, drug issue, USATF problem and conflict of interest with Hightower and Stewart. A big name with proof to f*ck everyone and plenty of political clout of their own, and some not so political "clout". I have a hard on just waiting to hear what drops.
Media man wrote:
Just for the record, I have it on good authority that two major networks are in talks with a guy in the know about the whole Nike clout, drug issue, USATF problem and conflict of interest with Hightower and Stewart. A big name with proof to f*ck everyone and plenty of political clout of their own, and some not so political "clout". I have a hard on just waiting to hear what drops.
Is it the same guy who is writing the Kip Litton article?
This guy wouldn't even know who Kip Litton is because he is so far under the radar of top-level athletics. This guy is the real deal.
Who cares.
This seems like a total coincidence. I often fly into Eugene for granola bars, Daegu for sushi, and Monaco is a fine place for nice haircuts.
Drug use is rampant at the Elite level. Leave Mark Block alone. You don't have enough fingers to point at the ones who weren't "caught" cheating. Every 4th or 5th person Mark passed on his way to the VIP tent and in Monaco probably cheated.
This tells you all you need to know about the sport of track and field http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=37415
Conte wrote:
Drug use is rampant at the Elite level. Leave Mark Block alone. You don't have enough fingers to point at the ones who weren't "caught" cheating. Every 4th or 5th person Mark passed on his way to the VIP tent and in Monaco probably cheated.
Spoken like someone who was last there in 1989.