This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: Olympics

Why I can’t stand the Olympics (and the SNP)

9 August 2008 01:42

Categories: Current affairs, Media, Politics, Scotland, Sport, Television

This week there was a little stooshie in the media and the blogs about the “banning” of the Saltire during the Beijing Olympics. Jamie Hepburn noticed that the Olympic authorities in Beijing will be enforcing an age-old IOC rule which says that “flags of non-members of the Olympics” should not be displayed during the Olympics.

I suppose the reason why this is a particular issue now, as opposed to previous Olympic meetings, is the fact that the Beijing games enables the nationalists to piggy-back on the Free Tibet campaign (as you can see in the penultimate paragraph of the SNP’s press release). Is it just me who thinks this is particularly low?

It is not even as though Scotland is in anything like the same situation as Tibet. The reason Tibet is an issue is because freedom of speech and freedom to choose your own political beliefs is not an option in Tibet. Without these rights, the people of Tibet are left without a voice. That is the issue. The issue in Scotland is that we do have these rights. The problem for the SNP is that despite this great freedom to express a preference for independence, there is precious little clamour for it in Scotland.

Anyway, I agree with most — e.g. Scottish Unionist, Jeff Breslin, Malc in the Burgh — in that the IOC’s rule on flags is absolutely ridiculous. Stephen Glenn points out why the IOC’s strange rules are inappropriate for someone from his kind of background.

But I still think it is pathetic that the SNP even brought the subject up. As has been noted in some of the posts above, it is not even as though the rule is policed that strictly anyway. But as Political Dissuasion notes, all of Britain’s Olympic athletes agreed to take part as a member of Great Britain’s Olympic team so I hardly think it’s beyond the pale to expect them to stick to that commitment.

After all, could you imagine, for instance, a Scottish international footballer scoring a goal then taking his shirt off during the celebration to proudly reveal, say, a Celtic top underneath? Of course, he could be proud of being both a Scotland player and a Celtic player — but it’s just wrong to confuse the two notions.

As Political Dissuasion points out, this is just the sort of guff we have come to expect from nationalists. I don’t mind people expressing their opinion about this sort of thing, but this is blatant political point-scoring and for what? SNP people always come up with this stuff about the Saltire, whether it’s what flutters above Edinburgh Castle or what athletes fly at the Olympics. It’s just pathetic. Aren’t there, you know, important things to worry about?

It’s worth pointing out, too, that even if Scotland were to become independent this would still be an issue. Because while Scotland would enter an Olympic team, flags like this and this would still fall foul of the regulations. For some reason (*cough*oil*cough*) the SNP are quieter about these flags.

My attitude towards this is affected somewhat by the fact that I just don’t “get” flags in general. What on earth are they for? I certainly don’t know what the appeal is. Maybe it is because I’m not so insecure about myself and my identity that I don’t need to attach myself to these symbols. I might be a Scot, but I don’t go around the place grinning about it. First and foremost I am Duncan Stephen, and that’s what concerns me. I would still be Duncan Stephen no matter what nationality I was, so I just don’t see what flags are all about.

This is also one of the many reasons why I can’t stand the Olympics. The emphasis on the nation just gets me down so much. I have written before about why the notion that sportsmen represent their countries is just absolutely ridiculous. A follow-up post at the height of the media-driven rivalry between Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso subsequently became the most popular post on this blog (according to post ratings).

The Olympics is just the place that shows all the worst aspects of national sport teams. Gibbering, gormless housewives stare at the idiot-box for hours on end watching events such as “discus”, “ping pong”, “yngling” and all manner of other sports that they would otherwise not touch with a bargepole. Yes, it’s great that minority sports get coverage during the Olympics. But they should be getting coverage anyway. At least, if you genuinely did like minority sports you would think that. The fact that it takes the Olympics to get badminton on the television is nothing to be pleased about.

Then when a representative of their country wins a medal, the housewives declare themselves to be “so proud”. Proud of what? They didn’t win the medal — the athlete did! All they have done is sit on their fat arses watching people throwing sticks around. This kind of nationalism only promotes supreme mediocrity and laziness.

And don’t even get me started on the “non political” nature of the Olympics. My hairy arse hole! The fact is that the Olympic Games are the planet’s primary platform for pathetic political posturing. What is the Olympic Spirit? I think it has something to do with Cold War willy-waving.

Then there is all the drugs. I bet you if the Olympics never existed, we wouldn’t even think about drugs in sport. All those countries with dodgy Communist governments come along and drug their athletes to the brim so that they can go around the world feeling smug about themselves for being 13th in the medals table. Yes, the Olympic Games are so noble!

Ah, and don’t forget the great selling-out when they decided there was more money in dropping the requirement that Olympic athletes be amateur. Because of course the pros don’t have enough places to rake in the cash already!

Bleeargh. I’m with Mr Farty. The Olympics can take a running hop, skip and jump.

5 comments

The Chinese Grand Prix and human rights

11 April 2008 19:15

Categories: Opinion

This week the decision to hold this year’s Olympic games in Beijing has come under intense scrutiny. The Olympic torch relay has been disrupted by demonstrators protesting against China’s appalling human rights record. The fear is that holding the Olympics in Beijing will legitimise the authoritarian Chinese government. The flipside to that argument is that the Olympics will shine a light on human rights abuses in China and force the government to clean up its act.

The thing is, as we F1 fans know, the Olympics is not the first major worldwide sporting event to be held in China. The Chinese Grand Prix is almost certainly one of China’s biggest annual sporting events, providing worldwide exposure. I have to admit that I was disappointed that little was made of the human rights issue when Formula 1 first arrived in China in 2004.

There are a whole host of reasons you could use to protest against the Chinese regime. Its treatment of the people of Tibet is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese Government an undemocratic, totalitarian, Communist one. Corruption is rife. Indeed, one man who was instrumental in bringing F1 to Shangai, Yu Zhifei, has since been jailed for corruption. Political and religious freedom is severely restricted. Even the number of children people can have is restricted to one, leading to widespread infanticide, particularly of young girls.

Yet Formula 1 is all too happy to race there. I can’t help feeling that there is some hypocrisy in the F1 community here. Currently Max Mosley finds himself under intense pressure for simulating torture. Meanwhile, nothing is said about a government that actively engages in torture.

It could be argued that F1 and politics shouldn’t mix. Maybe it is not the role of the F1 community to make value judgements on these issues. A frequent argument put forward by governments like China’s is that its critics judge on the basis of western values and should be more tolerant of local traditions. Can Formula 1 legitimately call itself a World Championship if it insists on western values?

Even then, you can even turn many of the criticisms of China’s regime back on western governments. Even the most liberal western governments engage in freedom-restricting behaviour.

You could even say that the Olympics is a special case because it is an inherently politicised event. For all the platitudes about the “Olympic spirit” and how the Olympics can bring the world together, the fact is that several times in the past century the event has been one of the world’s prime platforms for political willy-waving and Cold War posturing. The Olympics go hand-in-hand with politics and international relations.

Yet Formula 1 has not been immune to the influences of international relations. The South African Grand Prix was taken off the calendar for several years from the mid-1980s as international boycotts of the country intensified due to its policy of apartheid.

In a sense, Formula 1′s reaction to China is simply a reflection of the wider world’s Janus-like approach towards human rights. Cynics say that western governments keep quiet about the Chinese regime because it is such an important trading partner which has helped keep inflation low for the past few decades.

Still, I am surprised that there is never much fuss made about the fact that Formula 1 is happy to race in China. I wonder if the extra publicity being generated for the cause of human rights in China this year will lead the spotlight to be turned on Formula 1 just as it has been turned on the Olympics.

This could be a developing issue for F1. From next year, a grand prix will be held in another totalitarian country. The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix will be held in the United Arab Emirates, a country which does not hold democratic elections and has a poor human rights record.

What do you think? Is it acceptable for F1 to turn a blind eye to despotic regimes? Am I making too much of an issue of this?

9 comments

In defence of the London 2012 logo (again)

5 June 2007 02:45

Categories: Admin, Current affairs, General, Sport

This is another post about the new London 2012 logo. I have to admit it; I am actually becoming more fond of the logo. This now reminds me quite a lot of the time when I felt like the only person who didn’t think the Scottish Parliament building was a steaming pile of crap when it was being built.

Despite the fact that it looks like so many unfortunate things (the growing list now includes: Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob, someone getting a sex up the bum, somebody vomiting). Apart from that, I actually quite like the logo.

Anyway, I have started this post because I have seen a lot of people saying similar sorts of things, and I disagree with most of it. A popular one (too popular to link to any) is that the ideas sent into the BBC are better. But this is not really true.

The first one is actually really good; much better than the real logo. But of course, there is no way the IOC would allow the five rings to be chopped like that. Plus, it would give busybodying ethnic minority pressure groups plenty of scope to complain because, of course, it would be the black ring that has a bit missing.

Number two is just that: a load of number two. Just the sort of silly “Big Ben and London Eye” twaddle that I am glad was avoided.

Three is quite funny but, of course, couldn’t be the logo. 4 is another cheesy one that really is primary school art class standard. It also breaks the IOC’s rules concerning the five rings.

5: Bzzzp! London Eye. 6: Hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is a “no”.

7: Not really awful, but you can’t see it as the logo of the Olympic games. The Union Flag takes far too much prominence. And the outline of London is not recognisable enough (you might recognise it, but would you recognise the outline of Paris or New York for instance?).

8 is just bloody awful. Even though the real logo’s “2012″ is pretty illegible, at least you do not have to actually physically turn upside down to read it. 9: London Eye and terrible handwriting font!

10: Nice idea, but do you really want to be reminded of the London Underground the whole time? If this is the Olympics, you should be bloody sprinting to work, not taking the train.

Having dealt with that, another popular comment is, “I could have drawn that!!” Yeah, but the point is that you didn’t, did you? They did.

Bellgrove Belle compares the logo to those of previous Olympic Games. But I think it kind of proves the point that I made in my previous post. Just look at them all. They are all the bloody same! Okay, so there is a bit of evolution as time goes on. But broadly, each logo looks very similar to the previous one.

(Also, you will notice, it shows that London is not the first city to ditch the colours from the Olympic rings, as Atlanta did it in 1996. It’s not all that an uncommon thing to do anyway.)

But I am beginning to think that the biggest crime that the logo committed is just this: it bucks the trend. I’m pretty sure most people will have been expecting something pretty much exactly on the lines of the logos Bellgrove Belle featured — I know I was. To see something different is refreshing.

As for the widespread comments that it looks like something from the 1980s, this is admittedly true. But this is also one of the things that I quite like about the logo.

When I came up with the current design of this blog, part of my idea was to make it look like what the future was like in the 1980s (a prototype version was called “Ceefax”). You will also notice that the “garish” pinks, yellows and greens of the 2012 logo are near the same as the colours I use on this blog. So I think semi-consciously I am taking criticism of the logo’s colours as a criticism of my blog’s design. Sad, I know…

The most convincing arguments against the design have come from Chris Applegate, who makes several good points. He points out why the logo is unsuitable for the internet, despite London 2012′s claims that it was designed with things like the internet in mind.

Still, I do quite like the logo. While, if I had the responsibility, I probably would not have given it the thumbs-up, I am just glad that we didn’t get yet another derivative, unimaginative logo. Some bland, forgettable red, white and blue symbol with “London 2012″ written underneath is what we could have got.

What we have got is something quite different and, I would say, endearing (come on, the way it moves in that video is kind of cute). It was a risk though, and it looks like it hasn’t paid off. Maybe it would have been more suited to an album cover.

6 comments

It’s not THAT bad! Is it?

4 June 2007 21:01

Categories: Current affairs, Entertainment, General, Music, Sport

I just posted this on Twitter:

Am I the only one who thinks the new London 2012 logo isn’t THAT bad?

And pretty much instantly two people, Will Howells and Chris Applegate, told me that, yes, yes I am. (Update: And Sarah…)

I mean, I don’t think it’s a great logo or anything. For a start, it took me bloody ages to work out where “2012″ was written (everywhere, illegibly, apparently).

But I like it for being bold and different. I like it for not being yet another one of those bland, anonymous, forgettable logos that usually accompany such massive events.

Imagine if we had got one of these, which is really the most likely other alternative.

Usually these logos are shocking for just how similar they are to all the others. Love hearts, scrawly handwriting, use of national symbols. I can easily imagine a London 2012 logo where, for instance the London Eye made the ’0′ and Big Ben made the ’1′. Thank goodness they avoided that sort of thing.

So congratulations to the London 2012 people for not just making do with some bland squiggly emblem with “London 2012″ faux-handwritten under it.

…Having said that, the “Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob” thing is… er, unfortunate.

MatGB has collected some of the reactions to the logo. At first I couldn’t see the thing about it being a Designers Republic rip-off. (It’s not as if TDR are the only people who have ever used that kind of vibrant Japanese-influenced style.)

Then I watched the video. It has to be said that one particular part of the video reminded me very strongly of an iconic TDR-designed album cover.

Update: Forgot to include this rather funny suggested logo that ended up on the BBC’s website!

7 comments

Sports, individuals, teams and nations

22 May 2007 20:17

Categories: Current affairs, Entertainment, Formula 1, Newspapers, Politics, Scotland, Sport

As I said, this kind of follows on from my last post. But I know a lot of you just skip past the Formula 1 posts, so I will briefly summarise the relevant bit here:

ITV’s Formula 1 coverage sucks, partly because it is fixated with hyping up mediocre drivers because they are British.

As it happens, there is a debate about sport and nationality in Scotland at the moment. It appears as though Alex Salmond has called for Scotland to enter a separate team in the Olympics. Apparently the media have acted surprised, although I’m not. It seems to be quite a common view held by a lot of nationalists, so indeed it would be surprising if Mr Salmond wasn’t in favour of it.

It seems to bit a bit of an overblown media story (ho! This blog is becoming a bit one-note). But it has nevertheless sparked a bit of a debate, so here is my view on it.

Often I don’t care where a sports person is from. My interest might be coloured by media coverage. That just means that I end up being more interested in whatever I hear about on the radio. But that’s just because I hear it on the radio. This can go either way, because obviously if I’m pissed off with the media coverage I will suddenly have a burning hatred of whoever is flavour of the month.

Take Andrew Murray for instance. At first I was interested because he was young and Scottish and sounded like he had a lot of talent. Then whenever I heard him being interviewed he turned out to be a sour, sullen, ungrateful little whiner. So now, while I would marginally rather see him winning than losing, I am more ambivalent than anything else.

Similarly, whether or not I feel like rooting for England in cricket or football mostly depends on how bearable I find the media coverage. During the football World Cup, it is easy to get sick of England. At other times I wouldn’t mind seeing them win.

Obviously in football I would root for Scotland first and foremost. An obvious choice because I was born here in Scotland. But here is where the whole thing falls to bits, because I am actually not very interested in football so it doesn’t really affect me either way. I like to see Scotland winning, but you certainly wouldn’t catch me sitting through ninety minutes of it at a time.

In fact, the only sport that I am really interested in is… well, take a guess. That one, and snooker (if I can be bothered). And cricket is okay too. I couldn’t tell you why I was interested in any of these sports. As Richard Thomson says, there is nothing rational about this sort of thing. It’s just the way you turn out.

But I do have quite firm beliefs about nationality and sport. Like I said, I usually support Scotland if they are playing. But that wouldn’t stop me from supporting any British team. And neither does it preclude me from rooting for England. And here is why: nationality doesn’t matter a jot. Not to me as a spectator, and not to a sports person either.

A couple of years ago I saw part of a documentary about Ben Johnson. A relative of his was asked a question about whether or not Ben Johnson let down his country by taking performance enhancing drugs. The response was very firm: “Don’t be so stupid! He wasn’t running for his country. He was running for himself.”

While I don’t doubt that there might be the odd athlete who gets a real kick out of performing for their country, at the end of the day you have to be realistic about athletes’ real motives. If we are talking about professional athletes, we are also talking about careers. They want to win for the good of themselves and their own career, not for the good of their country (whatever that means).

Most sports people might say that they are very, very proud to be representing their coverage. But I think this is probably mostly, once again, for selfish individualistic aims. Saying such things helps get the media off your back and gets the general public supporting you.

Crowds at home matches are less hostile, giving you the confidence to perform. Merchandise sales skyrocket. You can make tons of money appearing in adverts. And once you get old you might even become a TV sports pundit. All by playing the game correctly, by playing up to the image of a “plucky Brit” or a “gritty Scot” or whatever.

I am under no illusions as to what a sports person’s motives are. They want to win, and they would want to win no matter where they happened to be born. So I don’t buy into the nationalistic hype that surrounds sport stars.

That is also why I am somewhat sceptical of the idea that entering a separate Scottish team would, overnight, turn Scotland into a sports-mad nation, driven on to win because of national pride.

Richard Thomson says:

…the idea that our athletes would win fewer medals than they would as part of a UK team is utterly risible, epitomising all that’s worst about the ‘awww, we’re rubbish!’, ‘expect the worst and you’ll never be disappointed’, loser mentality that stifles so much talent and potential in Scotland.

But it is just a matter of numbers. With a smaller pool of talent to choose from, Scotland’s sports teams would wilt. At least as part of TeamGB, any talented Scots there are can be part of a bigger, more talented team that has a better chance of winning a medal.

As Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting says,

…would a Scottish relay sprint team, or rowing team, or badminton team even qualify to the Olympics proper without the undoubted benefits of competing with our English/Welsh/Northern Irish brothers and sisters. One could argue that the benefits of extra places is cancelled out by not being able to qualify for half of the disciplines.

Some people find this difficult to believe, but I watch Formula 1 as a neutral. I don’t have any particular favourite drivers or teams (although I used to quite like Jordan). I have some drivers and teams that I prefer to others, but this certainly doesn’t run along nationalistic grounds.

For instance, I cannot stand that smug (even though he has nothing to be smug about) Jenson Button. “Plucky Brit” he may be, but this is just code for “talentless fuckwit”. As I said in my post below, he is utterly incapable of winning a race unless everyone in front of him breaks down.

Even worse, he seems to be quite a dodgy individual, as he has twice signed contracts with teams which he has subsequently tried to wriggle out of. So he is a slippery character as well as an average racer.

What about that fine Scot, David Coulthard, you ask? I actually quite like him — but not because he is a Scot. I admire him for the fact that his career is still going strong after so many years. I also think he is quite a likeable personality, quite engaging and funny when being interviewed.

But I lost a lot of respect for him following the 2001 Monaco Grand Prix, where he was unable to overtake Enrique Bernoldi, an inferior driver in an inferior car. In a way, this is understandable because the Monaco circuit is very difficult to overtake on due to its narrow and twisty nature. What did it for me was when after the race he complained, saying that Bernoldi should have just let him past. Err, no. It’s motor racing — the point is that you have to overtake him if you’re good enough.

If I was held at gunpoint and asked to choose my favourite F1 team, I would say McLaren. And there has been an interesting row about the “nationality” of that team in recent months. German newspaper Bild tried to claim that McLaren is a German team because it is partly owned by DaimlerChrysler under the guise of Mercedes-Benz. As such, a fuss was caused when McLaren won a race and the German national anthem wasn’t played.

But McLaren is “officially” a British team, and the British national anthem is played when a McLaren driver wins a race. It has been like this for many, many years. And why not? After all, it is based in Britain, Chairman Ron Dennis is British and I would guess the majority of employees are British.

But the story doesn’t end there. You see, Bruce McLaren, the founder of the McLaren team, was a Kiwi! So if anything, surely New Zealand’s national anthem should be played when McLaren win a race!

Many teams face this dilemma of having multiple nationalities, particularly when their parent company is based in a different country to where the factory is based. Is Renault British or French (the team is based in Britain, the parent company is from France and the car is built in both!)? Is Honda British or Japanese. Is Toyota German or Japanese. Is Spyker British or Dutch? Is Red Bull British or Austrian? Is Toro Rosso Italian or Austrian? Is BMW Swiss or German?

The point is that it doesn’t matter what national anthem gets played. McLaren is McLaren is McLaren, whether it is British, German, Kiwi or Cloudcuckoovian. And I guess if they were to officially change their nationality, it would not have a single bearing on the race result.

And the controversy over McLaren’s nationality? Nothing to do with national pride or any tosh like that. It was in fact stirred up by BMW for their own self-interested ends.

At the end of the day, you might have guessed, I don’t really care whether or not Scots perform as part of Scotland or as part of TeamGB in the Olympics. Really, who cares? After all, the medals table (more a reflection of population size than anything else) has only ever been useful for Cold War propagandists.