Holmes_and_Watson

You know it mocks sense. Makes sense. I mean makes sense.

Emphasis there.

There will be some nervousness, but Stephens' leadership at the back steadies us, and we see it through.

1 -0 to us. They push up, to put pressure on us, only to be undone with a couple of incisive passes and a AA goal.

From fullfact "During the 2019 general election campaign, the Labour Party registered donations of £5.4 million, of which just over £5 million came from trade unions. It also received £160,000 from individuals and £200,000 from companies. By comparison, the Conservative Party registered donations of £19.3 million, of which £13.2 million came from individuals and £5.9 million came from companies. No funding was received from trade unions." Basically, whichever one is in power will look out for the people/ unions that paid donations to help them get there. Much of the rest of the time is looking out for those they are told to, or for their future careers (whether from donations to their own campaigns or relating to jobs they get along the way in government). During the campaign, I heard a couple of union interviews, where they tried to be coy, but we're salivating at the thought of their upcoming negotiation. A representative in a recent dispute (quite possibly junior doctors) was saying that the bumper deal on offer, really wasn't a good deal. It was just the start, and they'd be looking for the rest of their lost pay since the financial crash in due course. For balance, the head of a train drivers union said something like "Yes. We do try to get the best deal for our members. That's what everyone else should have been doing."

From all the posts of him having iffy injuries and not pulling his weight as we got relegated. They just assumed he didn't have one. 🙂

Strayed into 5 live, who are devoting a programme to their double promotion. I've not been listening closely, but Aaronson (accused of not trying by tator) and Bamford at fault for Leeds conceding twice. Farke making 5 subs, as they nearly concede a third. Tators mentioned the continued clear out.

That will haunt her forever. And that's just fine.

And on the seventh day, he rested. Put his feet up with a big bag of crisps and watched the football.

More links than a decent sized butchers, at this time of the season.

Russ is sitting there, frustrated, thinking "it better not be like that window at Swansea, when we got nothing done." 🙂

You could have a nice wine with it. That's quite refined. 🙂 Now, I shall read on , as I was a bit surprised to see normal spuds there.

A cheat code for a championship manager. Exactly what Russ said about... Flynn Downes! ....rats...back to the drawing board...

We'll look back on Nathan as a calm sea of reason in the hype storm of the PL. 🙂

Perjury

Was that an invite only thing at some point? I'm an early abandoner of things like like twitter. But I think I got an invite a year or two back. Insert ACME gag about thst being blue sky thinking on my part.

Access

I thought after Baz's striker exploits, a Lumley McCarthy front 2, was the way forward. The true evolution of total football.

Martin plays a much more fluid system than this though. Stephens will move through all positions, during the game. It would be madness to just keep him in goal and deprive us of his striking ability.

Probably the two signings that taught me to do a bit of digging and get a grip. I couldn't get past that they'd been part of a relegated defence. Both were really good for us, Telfer in particular. Loads of other folk were telling me that they were going to be good aquisitions, but I wasn't for listening at first. Mind you, I was still sniffy about Scottish Premiership signings for quite a while... I was pleased when we got Le Saux, Lambert, Tadic, Ripley, Osman (the hair), Wright...

Word

Song

Dying

Fire

As the medical information hasn't been released, we don't know what's in it. Neither do the people in that interview. The athletes were cleared to compete in the Olympics. It's under the same rules as the last one, I believe. The IOC eligibility rules are very clear. The athletes didn't have to depend on a tiny amount of ambiguity to take part in them. Under the rules, there was absolutely no doubt that they could have competed, based on the information held. There's absolutely no pressure on the athletes to clear up anything in order to compete in those olympics. Why should they allow the release of sensitive medical information, based on information from a discredited organisation (and doubt was thrown on the tests, as well as everything else the IBA touched.)? Since there's no evidence to assume they knew anything untoward outside of those tests, why would they lose the chance to compete? I get that the other line of the argument is along the lines of they failed a IBA test - they must have known before - if they didn't know before they did then -they should have pulled out of competition until resolved. But to follow that line is to support evidence that's just not there. Further, to support an interpretation of evidence that's just not there. For me, this is a different part of this. Above, the athletes met the eligibility criteria to compete. Going forward, the IOC will look to get in another organisation. What criteria are they going to introduce, if any? Perhaps they will introduce a whole set of new tests (there are a number of them at varying levels of intrusion - so even what tests would be required are up for debate.) But then you're going to have adult athletes identifying as one sex, only to be told that they are not by a sporting governing body. Testoserone levels is one thing. Being the arbiter of someone's biological sex, when it's not something their own country would do, is something else. I've seen some calls to introduce the testing when the athletes first compete (and if you're doing it for boxing, why not everything else). That would be done by their national/regional federations. Again, a massive fallout from tests not reflecting the country's own laws. Perhaps testing the world's population at birth, just in case they become athletes? At least everyone would know at the start. And this is assuming that everyone interprets the test results in the same way. Which they clearly don't. And then there's debate around if/how some of the results actually impact biological sex definitions, let alone sporting advantage. From aobve the IOC would have to put into place set of testing that had the agreement not only from the sporting bodies, but the scientific community, their lawyers and every entering country. The countries the boxers represented refused to allow the release of any data. There is no cultural, scientific or sporting agreement. You bet the IOC walked slowly away from it. 🙂 I've not heard anything from the athletes camps afterwards. They met the Olympic entry criteria, won their competitions, and will no doubt look to see what comesinto effect, if anything, going forward. They are under no obligation to demand anything. In the absence of evidence, they haven't done anything wrong. Is that not the coach referring to the IBA testing? The IBA disqualified her. We don't know what the issues were, no one is releasing it, and the tests themselves are now disputed. The closing paragraph on the beeb article was:- "For now, science is not yet able to offer a definitive view on how people with differing chromosomal make-ups should be categorised for the purposes of elite sport. For those who spend their lives trying to make sense of the science, their hope is that this latest row will propel much-needed research." You could argue that the Beeb has been ideologically caputred too, I suppose. But the point being that there's still a lot of issues involved. It will be interesting to see if the IOC can get to the bottom of all that before the next Olympics.