Jump to content

General Random Conversation..


Scottish Mag
 Share

Recommended Posts

They should let everyone dope in athletics imo. See some real freaks then, people doing 5 second 100m and jumping over the pole vault. Also if everyone is doing it nobody is at a disadvantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/08/2017 at 7:38 AM, PaddockLad said:

Cram v Johnson about Gatlin...

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/40845642

 

Think Cram gets it right tbh. Gatlin is the most high profile doper in Athletics since Ben Johnson, or as he says Marion Jones? :unsure: 


I wonder what's Crams thoughts on Christie, Chambers, etc or even Ohuruogu who missed the ADAMS 3 times.  Or I REALLY Wonder what his thoughts are about Farah and his coach.

I have though really enjoyed the Athletcis, been great watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:


I wonder what's Crams thoughts on Christie, Chambers, etc or even Ohuruogu who missed the ADAMS 3 times.  Or I REALLY Wonder what his thoughts are about Farah and his coach.

I have though really enjoyed the Athletcis, been great watching.

 

You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about doping in sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about doping in sports.

 

:lol:

I just find it laughable where you have the hypocrits like Cram who remain silent when its a Brit.  As soon as its someone else its fine.

The rules are there in place.  Is it Gatlins fault they're weak as piss?  Should they be tougher?  Elite sports are pretty big business and the pressure on these athletes is immense.  Should we ban a young athelete for life if they fail a dope test through pressures put on them by coaches etc?  Gatlin is a different case, he doped multiple times, but so did Christie.

 

People like Cram wont say anything bad about their pal Coe though will they?

 

It's always cycling and athletics that seem to take the brunt of doping whilst Rugby (Who is UKAD largest number of failed tests) and Football get away with it.  Because they have the money to make it go away, especially Football.  Swept under the carpet and allowed to continue.

This athletics has been great to watch though.  It's seriously made me want to goto an event, I have never been to one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC's athletics coverage has been on the wane for ages and it's been particularly painful this time, first the whole #boltdown and Gatlin thing and then way too much editorialising about Semenya's gender, Makwala's illness and the like by athletes (and Gabby Logan :lol: ) who seem to think they're medical experts all of a sudden. Eurosport all the way for me now (with the Beeb as backup during the ad breaks) - they're a bit haphazard and get things wrong occasionally but at least they actually show the sport. There've been times watching the BBC over the years when you wouldn't think that some of the field events even existed.

 

The action itself been great though, and I can definitely recommend going to see it live in future, especially if you can get the cheaper tickets they tend to have for certain days/sessions - we've been up in the gods for less than £20 a couple of times this week and the atmosphere and experience were easily as good as last night when we had some £95 (!) tickets that a friend couldn't use - they were trackside just on the first bend, so you got some lovely views of the 400m starting blocks and some burly hammer throwers, but not much else. :lol:

 

World Indoors are in Birmingham next year so that could be worth a look.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

The BBC's athletics coverage has been on the wane for ages and it's been particularly painful this time, first the whole #boltdown and Gatlin thing and then way too much editorialising about Semenya's gender, Makwala's illness and the like by athletes (and Gabby Logan :lol: ) who seem to think they're medical experts all of a sudden. Eurosport all the way for me now (with the Beeb as backup during the ad breaks) - they're a bit haphazard and get things wrong occasionally but at least they actually show the sport. There've been times watching the BBC over the years when you wouldn't think that some of the field events even existed.

 

The action itself been great though, and I can definitely recommend going to see it live in future, especially if you can get the cheaper tickets they tend to have for certain days/sessions - we've been up in the gods for less than £20 a couple of times this week and the atmosphere and experience were easily as good as last night when we had some £95 (!) tickets that a friend couldn't use - they were trackside just on the first bend, so you got some lovely views of the 400m starting blocks and some burly hammer throwers, but not much else. :lol:

 

World Indoors are in Birmingham next year so that could be worth a look.


Yes I was looking at the Indoors for next year, I recon that would be well cool.

Agree with the Beeb coverage.  The whole Semenya debate was cringeworthy.  Radcliffe may as well said she was a bloke and should have been shot!

I enjoy the stuff off the track as much on it.  The lasses doing the shot put and hammer are great to watch :lol:  Hard as fuck!

I'll try Eurosport for the athletics. I watch on my cycling on it and totally overlooked it for the athletics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get my head around these life insurance policies.

I got a letter telling me I can pay as little as 6 pound odd a month for £1500 worth of cover.

It makes no realistic sense when you work it all out.

 

6 quid a month x12 months is 72 quid a year.

After 10 years you've paid in 720 quid.

After 20 years you've paid in just under the pay out they promise you.

 

This is for a 50 year old who, if they manage to live to 70 will still be under the pay out promise.

 

It's easy to think about them investing your cash and what not but that doesn't seem to cut it.

I wonder what the reality is from all this.

 

My guess is, you snuff it and when the family come to claim they're told that you forgot to tell them that you had an ingrown toe nail or an arthritic finger joint, or something stupid so they don't pay out.

It would make more sense that way.

 

Anyone in this game?

Can anyone shed any light on what the real script is behind this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I can't get my head around these life insurance policies.

I got a letter telling me I can pay as little as 6 pound odd a month for £1500 worth of cover.

It makes no realistic sense when you work it all out.

 

6 quid a month x12 months is 72 quid a year.

After 10 years you've paid in 720 quid.

After 20 years you've paid in just under the pay out they promise you.

 

This is for a 50 year old who, if they manage to live to 70 will still be under the pay out promise.

 

It's easy to think about them investing your cash and what not but that doesn't seem to cut it.

I wonder what the reality is from all this.

 

My guess is, you snuff it and when the family come to claim they're told that you forgot to tell them that you had an ingrown toe nail or an arthritic finger joint, or something stupid so they don't pay out.

It would make more sense that way.

 

Anyone in this game?

Can anyone shed any light on what the real script is behind this?

It's a conspiracy, maan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I can't get my head around these life insurance policies.

I got a letter telling me I can pay as little as 6 pound odd a month for £1500 worth of cover.

It makes no realistic sense when you work it all out.

 

6 quid a month x12 months is 72 quid a year.

After 10 years you've paid in 720 quid.

After 20 years you've paid in just under the pay out they promise you.

 

This is for a 50 year old who, if they manage to live to 70 will still be under the pay out promise.

 

It's easy to think about them investing your cash and what not but that doesn't seem to cut it.

I wonder what the reality is from all this.

 

My guess is, you snuff it and when the family come to claim they're told that you forgot to tell them that you had an ingrown toe nail or an arthritic finger joint, or something stupid so they don't pay out.

It would make more sense that way.

 

Anyone in this game?

Can anyone shed any light on what the real script is behind this?

Some bloke in Nigeria nicks all the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.