Holmes_and_Watson

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.

From just the opening summary... While the IBA indicated it was a genetic test, although they disagreed with themselves around that press conference, we have no detail on the result. They were widely discredited on practically everything except testing. As the story progressed, that was also disputed. And all that was before one of them went on a religious based rant, that undermined any shred of credibility they had. It's not sufficient to say "read between the lines." That sort of insinuation could be used for practically anything. It's not evidence that can be tested, and the IBA testing is in doubt. There's no indication that the athletes "know that about themselves." At all. No evidence has been presented. The IOC is less likely to be "ideologically captured" than it is not wanting to enter a legal and cultural minefield. Which is why it's keen to pass it over to another body, and why it's keen to let the countries decide through things like passports, birth certificates etc. It's why the ground on this issues has been shifting, as sporting bodies have had to adapt. Less "ignoring science for woo woo" and more avoiding a number of another issues. Just because an organisation has gone against the wishes of the programme makers, doesn't mean it's automatically captured. "Main stream media" is never a good look. Neither was "woo woo" Since we have no details or evidence, they can moan about other people's use of "men" and "women" " male" and "female" all they like. I hope that the programme itself gives a lot of depth to the summary. Because, regardless of their credentials, jumping to unsupported conclusions is poor science.

When are we signing Tom Davies, to properly show off the kit?

It could be worded to support Baz. "Does Russell think that his comment saying he should have brought in Alex sooner, reflect badly on Baz's contributions to the team?"

What his country thought of Humza, even while he was standing for office. For anyone not keeping up with McPolitics, the seemingly random policy stuff later in this clip all refer to utterly botched policies (there were many, many more) And although there's a "made before Peter resigned" card, the fix was well and truly in by then. Many consider the timescale of the entire contest, electing Humza, to be linked to the stage the police investigation had reached. Handy to have the Lord Advocate as a political appointee who sits on a cabinet ruthlessly controlled by a few.

I know I got more used to them as set season went on. Martin looks to deliberately channel opposition attacks to where they are having to shoot at speed from certain angles, that have a lower chance of going in. It took a while for everyone to know how to implement it and it won't always work. But there's a reason for it happening, even if it looks like a disaster !one t is about to happen.

When the SNP brought in their hate crime bill, Humza's racist speech was near the top, if not the top reported hate crime. I've heard it. Repeatedly calling out positions of office, before referring to the ethnicity of those in them/and therefore the people he'd like to be in them. Had it been a white person doing the same thing, they would have been rightfully hounded out of office. A speech so racist that the official recording records, break their rules, to lessen the impact of the deliberate repetition and pauses. Humza standing in the shortbread assembly hall, delivering a speech with the approach of Nuremberg. I've no particular support of Musk. But none for Humza, who got into office when his party did all they could to rig it (everything from number of ballots, time frame of election, debate rules, comms to members backing him). He was an utter disaster in everything he touched before and during his time in office. He was happy being led by those still under police investigation. When he strayed to be led by another faction, it cost him his job.

Lavia and Livramento went right to their heads, and they thought every young talent they brought in, for whatever position, was going to be a world-beater they could maximise profits on fairly quickly. Even the owner got quoted as that not being a great approach (although, in fairness was just part of the recruitment, it was one they'd clearly sold him on)

Look at "written off" as a statement of reminding the club that they could be doing worse than expecting nothing from him for quite some time, and look to recruit on that basis. Particularly as SR's history with us is to smugly tell us that the striker positions would be fine before we went into our relegation season. They then got caught out having not recruited for one manager they sacked only to recruit too late for the next manager they sacked with players that were no use to their next managerial choice, who has now also gone. All while telling how smart and left field their innovative approach was. Fine to keep drip feeding that at some point in the near future, Stewart will be back. But not something I'd be basing the squad around happening. He's not had the expected pre season, and will be eased extremely gently back in, if he comes back any time soon. The club updates aren't really helpful, and will be less so if we're struggling. He'll be back when he's fit, if at all for us. We'd not be the first club to have a player not recover. We'd be in a smaller group to buy the player while they're injured. But that's the left field SR way. I'm sure everyone wishes him a full, and career lasting recovery. And that he goes on to be brilliant for us. As a group, we're going into the season with BBD and AA as striking options, with Tall Pall and Mara not being direct fits into the way we play. I'd not be including Stewart in that group until he's getting back to match sharpness, with no recurrence/ new set backs. SR should be honest with themselves and recruit accordingly.

It's the pennies dropping in their minds that's the problem. They believe he is heir apparent to Pep led Man City team. The perfect possession based goalkeeper. They dream of 70 million coming their way along with the plaudits of being genius scouters and developers.

Agreed. I think a combination of their own willingness/ability to put in funds, club debts, PSR, that daft transfer window, the relegation and the knowledge of just how many players they'd need to bring in. Alex's end of season performances made a big difference. Russ looked as though he was practically offering him a contract on the pitch after the final. I still argue he looked better because he was behind a team who could pass out quickly, in part due to Baz's strengths. In the back of their minds, SR will also be looking at Baz coming back and being number 1 again. The new deal may well have been on reduced terms, hitting the SR goal of reducing wages on individuals. Like THB, it immediately filled a massive gap, allowing them to move on.

Ha ha! Yes, he is indeed a fool comrade Whelk!

Lin also wins gold https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/c1w7q075pw0o Olympic committee will be looking for another body to oversee this, so it has a place in the next Olympics. It will be interesting to find out the tests used by other boxing authorities, how that impacts their sport, as well as others and also the legal ramifications of that testing. The Beeb have also put up an article with some general science based information. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko The Beeb coverage annoyed on this as well. Reporting facts, but adjusting the narrative around them, to fit a point they wanted to make. I expect better of them, but it's probably always been like that, and just more noticeable in today's media cycle. Nowhere near the lunacy of the IBA in all of this. Any data they may have had or concerns about advantage lost in biblical rants, and inconsistent claims.

Breaking is in there to capture a younger generation... ... from 1984. Who are more concerned with breaking a hip these days. I was going to say I was looking forward to hula hooping being another event the committee could use to capture a youth market. But there's already a hoop in the gymnastics they could use. Perhaps Space Hopper races?