There was an actor on TV a lot in the sixties and seventies, think he was an Aussie - think they called him Ray something or other, who made Pete Murray look like the after part of a Clearisil advert.
Might have been Leo McKern - Rumpole of the Bailey. Brilliant actor & great series. Or Ray Barrett - he was on loads of TV dramas ? http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45414000/jpg/_45414980_006731697-1.jpg https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=...qY9hR1uw_UgiBooftOyAm85g&ust=1447271553564395
Ray Barrett maybe - I added him to my post above a moment later ? Edit. Hell, never knew he'd been so prolific.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Barrett
That is the one. Cheers. You could normally assume it would be worth watching if he was in something.
Vladimir Putin: Russian president wants doping investigation http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34794489 It's a good job there are honest people at the top of the government in Russia who will find out what went wrong Unfortunately, I don't suppose there's many people - excluding Sebastian Coe - who don't think that Putin was responsible for organising the doping There seems to be a pattern to all this sport organisation: take as much money from the crooks and then distance yourself as soon as they are found out.
I think that sport and all of those associated with it, whether they be athletes, footballers, baseball players, any other participants, owners, sponsors, FIFA , IAAC, IOC, any other controlling organisation, government or the media, should all take a big deep breath, stop accusing each other and think deeply and consider where knee jerk reactions will take us all. Ban Russia and who is next. Force Lord Coe out of office and then do the same for everyone who is supposed to have known. Ask every government why it waited for the catalyst of this WADA report and why hindsight is suddenly such a valued and much used implement of moral indignation and frenzied condemnation. Blame yourselves for participating, watching, buying the products and just letting it proceed. Or draw a line, keep someone like Lord Coe, keep the ones who, once scrutinised, can and will lead with integrity and purpose. Let the innocents race and compete, don't focus on retrospective punishment and redistribution of honours, focus on making it good for those of our society who are spurning drugs, alcohol and the bright lights for linament, early starts, late finishes and hard, very hard training regimes. Think hard and long about the soul of sport in this and the next generation of hopefuls. Give them light, not rhetoric and media inspired vindictiveness.
Lord Coe will lead with integrity? He let crooks prosper before why should he do any different now? "don't focus on retrospective punishment and redistribution of honours, focus on making it good for those of our society who are spurning drugs" you don't like retrospective punishments? you think punishments should take place BEFORE the crime? make it good for those spurning drugs by letting drug takers keep medals and those who didn't take drugs not get medals they deserve? Your ideas are totally upside down
"He let crooks prosper before why should he do any different now?" You are going to have to explain to me how you justify that very damning statement. "you don't like retrospective punishments? you think punishments should take place BEFORE the crime?" Where have I said I don't like retrospective punishment? I thought I had said don't focus on them [in this particular subject matter]: No, I don't believe punishments should take place before the crime and you're a Cockwomble (I believe that is the most recent description) for twisting my words to try and make out I do. "make it good for those spurning drugs by letting drug takers keep medals" If evidence is available and easily acted upon then yes, take away the medals, out the offender and satisfy justice; but my point is that the real focus (and energies, resources, political will) should be concentrated on the future of sport as a general concept - not just athletics, football, baseball, etc - something I said on here long before this broke. People who have broken the rules and been punished are competing again at the highest levels - Bolt has to run against a few - the retrospective actions we have are weak and worthless, so move forward and focus on inventing the next set. "and those who didn't take drugs not get medals they deserve?" Whether they deserve them or not is a topic best determined by the athletes themselves (I subscribe to the views of Liz McGolgan, although I can sympathise with those of Yvonne Murray) - some might feel the need to have them awarded, some do not. My point is that there are far more important matters to focus on for the good and benefit of all sports. This might offer another point of view:
What was Coe's role in all this? Was he there just to keep his eyes shut and not do anything worthwhile? Was he there to ensure the federation was run properly? I could easily get paid a load of money to do nothing of any use. you said: "don't focus on retrospective punishment" - are you saying you like retrospective punishments? but don't FOCUS on them? what does that mean? if I was a crook and got caught out I would love people to FOCUS on the future what good will punishing people do? it's so passe (very weak joke!)
Does anyone think Russia won't be in Brazil? Brazil would rather have a totally shamed Russia appearing than no Russia. Before the London Olympics I wasn't going to watch any of it as I thought it's contaminated by drugs. In the end I watched loads. I kind of wish I hadn't bothered.
The Drug Games would be an interesting spectacle. Anything goes - let the athletes take whatever drugs they want - it would be a bit like a freak show. But we all like a freak show. They'd have to introduce a third gender though for those that have gone too far with the steroids. Men's, Women's and Hermaphrodites. It's a winner.
Drug cheats have been dealt with within the terms of the organisations they operate in; Coe has always been clear in his anti-drugs stance, but sometimes you can best change from within and that takes time, tolerance and a preparedness for the uninformed to shoot from the hip when truths and half-truths start to emerge. I think most folk were waiting for hard evidence coupled with the bigger picture that an independent WADA investigation could offer - it is here and the extent of it has shocked even the most critical. Do you blame Coe for the sins of Lamine Diack or do you accept that that revelation came off the back of a confidential investigation? My understanding is that just about everyone close to him were shocked. Do you think that people with influence should make allegations they cannot substantiate or should they await the evidence they know is on its way? Take away the Diack allegation and how is Coe different to everyone else? You say he kept his eyes shut and did nothing worthwhile, so how do you support that? How did he personally let crooks prosper - come on Peter, stop making keyboard allegations and support your argument with a few specific facts? What I mean (read my other response which I thought more than adequate) by my focus comment is that looking back (focusing retrospectively) at matters we know have existed is a strain and a distraction on the focus needed to unravel the way forward. Read my other answer and if there is something specific you don't understand than quote it. If you are trying to be pedantic and are ignoring the context and clear meaning of what I wrote then you disappoint me. The husband of Murray has written to them so an answer is appropriate (see my previous link), as would be the request of anyone else, but do not focus on it as a key and complete project; where do you stop, are there races were out of 8 runners 7th and 8th were the only legal ones? I am saying these matters are peripheral to the key issue and should only be brought into focus as requested or required to move forward. You don't have to agree, but don't twist my words to create your argument. Your last comment (in relation to my comments) was very weak and in no way a joke.
Coe has a fundamental problem, in that he has a very lucrative contract with Nike, who sponsor many of the athletes accused of cheating. Until that tie is cut, he's on dodgy ground.
Personally I think he's on more than dodgy ground. How can you be No 2 to Diack and not claim to know you knew nothing about it? He's dropped his trousers and should be shown the door. He might as well be called Blatter!
In that I totally agree with you and he should address it immediately, but that was known when he was appointed and I do not recall there being anything other than fanfare at his appointment. There has been a very poor culture of sponsorship, gifts (the Dyke watch) and largesse that has permeated sport across the board and I would be really disappointed if we lost a man of the calibre of Lord Coe from this difficult and demanding process of rehabilitation. I accept that Lord Coe has shown some poor judgment in a few of the things he has said (weak rather than wrong) and I believe his track record (sorry) indicates he will be learning very quickly of the profile now thrust upon him, I believe the allegation against Diack was a huge shock to him and took the wind out of his sails, he needs to pause for thought but the pressures on him must be immense. As I ended my opening post on this: "Think hard and long about the soul of sport in this and the next generation of hopefuls. Give them light, not rhetoric and media inspired vindictiveness." What is written on here is media and collectively it can and does make a difference.
Given the corruption involved in various federations I would think that everybody - committee members as well as employees - should have to declare any money and gifts received including salaries and including money received by linked businesses.
