asdfadsfadsf wrote:
John Oliver is not funny and not insightful.
Nobody cares what you think.
asdfadsfadsf wrote:
John Oliver is not funny and not insightful.
Nobody cares what you think.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
agip wrote:He didn't even mention Diack taking bribes...that should have been the coup de grace
Well, there's so much corruption you have to narrow the focus to get the point across.
Mentioning FIFA as looking good was hilarious. I don't think his writers/he realizes FIFA is an IOC federation.
https://www.olympic.org/international-association-football-federationI'm glad to see the institutional corruption story finally hitting a wider audience.
Great job by Mr. Oliver and his writers.
Yeah. It's becuase IAAF does drug testing. Why don't they tell us more about FIFA drug testing?
tripleG wrote:
Yeah. It's becuase IAAF does drug testing. Why don't they tell us more about FIFA drug testing?
Again, the broader point is NOT the number of tests, but, how positive scores are being hidden through a wide array of corruption.
The IAAF did the barest minimum of drugs testing until finally shamed into doing more OOC testing for 2015.
By their own records, it's mostly urinalysis BTW, so, don't fail the IQ test and it's all good.
In the big picture, there is no monetary incentive to catch drug cheats.
Not by any branch of the sport including drug testers.
If you destroy the sport the testers will have no jobs.
habs wrote:
habs wrote:Who is the "Burroughs" (sp?) guy in the clip at 0:26?
Meant to say 0:36 to 0:42
It's Jordan Burroughs. Olympic and world gold medalist. Freestyle wrestling.
I now pledge to call the next convicted doper... A roided out Teddy Ruxpin. Absolute gem. Great work
Good stuff.
barry mccockiner wrote:
Yea. They neglected to tell you that Montano is a front runner who always gets passed in the last 150 when she loses. Easy to paint her in a sympathetic light when it's the dopers beating her.
I'll admit to finding that section rather cringe-worthy. I've become cynical after seeing too many "clean" athletes in tears over losing to dopers, only for it to turn out later that the supposed "clean" runner, wasn't.
I guess they're all clean until they're caught.
I do agree they shouldn't have tried to use any presumed clean athletes in that piece.
Just stick with the facts and it is compelling enough.
John Oliver's HBO show "nails" nothing other than its target market of retards and morons.
It is an entertainment property.
You are a shill wrote:
John Oliver's HBO show "nails" nothing other than its target market of retards and morons.
It is an entertainment property.
I bet your patriot-network short-wave radio show is amazing at nailing the hypocritical liberals through outraged name-calling, though.
You fit squarely into his target market.
"Name-calling"? Your attempted use of a pre-school term to disparage is laughable, especially in view of your own "name-calling".
The only remaining issue is whether you are in the moron or the retard category.
How do non runners perceive this episode? Anyone discussed it at work? I obviously haven't, but what do your coworkers say.
asdfadsfadsf wrote:
John Oliver is not funny and not insightful.
Says the Trump supporter
the friends I saw it with had no idea about how messed up the system is. They were pretty shocked. Unfortunately I think the thing they probably will remember best is Dick Pound's name though.
edward teach wrote:
How do non runners perceive this episode? Anyone discussed it at work? I obviously haven't, but what do your coworkers say.
I'm sure cyclists won't be super happy with Oliver dissing the sport and calling them "bikers".
I'm not a "Trump supporter", and I happen to agree with him. I felt the same way about his US predecessor "Jon Stewart".
In fact, I'm not even 'Murican.
John Oliver is a liberal blowhard.
I thought it was a pretty good primer on the situation. Honestly he could have done the entire show on doping and still not have gotten to all the "good" (facepalm) stuff.
amarite? oreally? wrote:
John Oliver is a liberal blowhard.
PUSH IT!!!