Saturday, 11 August 2012

11.8.12 Olympic Mountain Bike Women's Final

What an amazing amount of effort needed to participate in this event!  I think that this has to be one of the most challenging events of all; there is simply no let-up in the physical demands, and the participants all need congratulating.

Rather less impressive was the commentary, which at times was as far removed from the excellence of the riders' efforts as it could be.  The two blokes talking drivel were Chris Boardman and Ed Leigh.

Boardman Biking Bollocks 

1 - "This course is so quick and fast."  [So, both then, Chris, eh?]
2 - "They're constantly changing direction all the time."  [Another double-up, Chris!]
3 - "She was bested by the French rider."  [Fuck off with the bollocks; "bettered" would be okay, but please don't be such a twat with "bested".]
4 - "A metronomic performance from her."  [Two or three times this word was used; go back to sleep, Chris.]
5 - "Descent".  [Don't be confused - this is noted for the pronunciation.  Chris, you are not American, so the stress is on the second syllable!  Numerous twattish instances of D-sent provided for our displeasure.]
6 - Uncontrolled use of the word "Technical" which was thrown at us at least fifty times.

Ed Leigh from Hadleigh

1 - "She can smell a silver medal here at Hadleigh Farm."  [Talking shit.]
2 - "A great souvenir for a spectator."  [Ed's idea of a souvenir is a used plastic water bottle discarded by a sweating bike rider!]
3 - "We can just see her start to crest now."  [This is Ed using the word "crest" as a verb - for fuck's sake!]
4 - "Both the French riders went down in practice."  [Hopefully not on you and Chris!]
5 - "We've got a little game of mountain bike musical chairs going on."  [What complete shite.]



We also had the usual repeated references to "overcooking it" and adverbs devoid of the proper "ly" endings.  There was much else to remark upon, but nothing to commend, from the commentators.  The cyclists, however, deserve admiration.

... 

Monday, 6 August 2012

6.8.12 Team GB - Olympic Cycling

Congratulations to Team GB for some really good performances in the Velodrome.  It is quite clear that Britain has got a real affinity for cycling.  I must say, though, that the 'dodgy' basis for the win in the three-man sprint was rather embarrassing.  Chris Hoy, Jason Kenny and Philip Hindes were allowed a second go after Hindes contrived to fall off his bike after starting badly.

Strangely, and unlike any other sport I can think of, it's apparently all right to have another go if there's a mishap at the start of a race.  This unique and 'generous' approach within the world of cycling means it's relatively easy for cyclists to introduce some manipulation when necessary.  This is exactly what Hindes did; he purposely used a loophole in the competition rules to get a second go for the trio.

I think there's a clear case for a change in the rules, which are lax enough to result in this blatant gamesmanship.  Nevertheless, rule deficiencies aside, the unsportsmanlike antics of GB were hardly things to be proud of, and they remove any rights we felt we may have had to criticise other teams, whether for drawing 0-0 on the football pitch to avoid relocating from Cardiff to Glasgow, or in Badminton, where bizzarely a number of competitors in the doubles matches were trying to lose.

What is rather pathetic is the useless 'cover up' engineered by members of the GB team and endorsed wholeheartedly by the BBC.  Philip Hindes admitted most publicly and comprehensively how he fell on purpose, to gain a restart.  He even went so far as to explain how this was discussed the night before the race, as a tactic that could be put into action if the appropriate circumstances arose.  I suspect he admitted this so readily because he knew he was not technically breaking the rules, and felt no need to be coy or embarrassed.  Unfortunately the spirit of the competition had been tainted to fuck.



British Backpedal

The subsequent scurrying around (back-pedalling if you'd like a pun) to try and promote this whole thing as a 'misunderstanding', and that details were 'lost in translation' was so much more reprehensible, damaging and fucking ludicrous than the falling off by Hindes.  Double standards, Team GB.  I am sure that Hoy was, as reported, rather angry because his marvellous achievement (5th Gold) was indeed embroiled in some controversy.  I am not talking of the fact that one of the three in the team was born in Germany [NB: The rules on nationality, and the fickleness of countries who are desperate to attract new citizens is a can of worms far too big to open on this post] but that really the three-man sprint team should not have been given a second chance to start.  We will never know if the Gold Medal would have been won without this manipulation.

The BBC conspired in the cover-up, and is unlikely to re-examine events in any details, let alone with an objective view.  Instead, it will hail the efforts of all British cysclists (with good reason) and hope we'll all forget about the one episode that should have left a bad taste in the mouths of genuine sporting enthusiasts.  I remember a doubles match at Wimbledon a few weeks ago where a player accidently touched the net at the end of a rally; despite not being seen to do so or penalised for it, he owned up, and so voluntarily forfeited the point because it was the right thing to do.  That's sportsmanship and integrity.  There would at least be some integrity if the cyclists and the BBC admitted that there had indeed been some clever use of the rules to gain an advantage.  Everyone knows this to be the case, yet we are now expected to swallow some guff about 'translation issues' and that nothing as distasteful as falling on purpose took place.  This is the only disgraceful thing I have seen by GB in terms of competition.  I obviously have to discount the non-competitive disgrace of certain Team GB members who when it comes to singing/acknowledging the National Anthem are suddently not British, but Welsh or Scottish and anti the team they are representing!

Summary

1 - Unsporting tactics employed
2 - Admission of the tactics employed
3 - Delayed denial of the tactics so obviously used
4 - Cover-up that was a worse display than the tactics employed!

...

6.8.12 Boris Johnson Flying the Flag

Politicians tend often to be useless individuals who are typically more self-serving than interested in doing the best possible job.  So often, their efforts are annoying, pathetic and devoid of any personal responsibility unless things are going well.  In all of this, there is no room for amusement - except for the antics of Boris Johnson. 



I am sure there will be those who are unimpressed with his politics, and who will on principle oppose him because he's a Conservative.  However, I must say I find him thoroughly entertaining, and erratic.  His latest comedy input left him dangling on a zip-wire.



Conkers, or bonkers?  Clever people are quick to create images, as per the above, and this simply adds to the fun.



There are lots more available online, but these photos suitably exemplify the efforts being put in by amateur comedians.



I think he's an asset to the UK - for all the wrong reasons, but still more interesting than the rest of the fuckers.

...

Friday, 3 August 2012

3.8.12 Socks in a Box

It has been a full month since Mrs MWSC placed the box full of socks on the landing.  Since this action, the only attention given has been the removal of the lid to allow the photo below, and in all other respects, the socks have been given free rein to fester.  No efforts have been made by Junior to provide attention by washing the socks, and so for some considerable time, there has been no removal of sweat, algae, smell or other contaminant from the attire.  Nor has there been any benefit to daily living for Junior, through having 82 (extra) socks at his disposal.



Sock-gate

The forced room clearance (I won't go into the background of this) some weeks ago meant progress in our quest to explain the missing socks.  The 'Bermuda Triangle' effect had been frustrating for so long, and Junior was of course the suspect - and the culprit.  The recovered socks from Junior's bedroom raised a number of questions.

1 - Considering I have only ever seen him buy one mutipack of socks, where the hell does he think they are supposed to come from?

Junior is clearly a wearer-of-socks, but is most certainly NOT a buyer-of-socks.  Yes, there are the occasional presentations to him, whether linked to an occasion or simply out of generosity.  It still defies logic that he thinks his pool of socks is so large.

2 - How is it that the eighty-two socks in the box form a collection that is from multiple sources, and that there are many more pairs involved than the mathematical 41 that ought to make up the total?

I suspect that there are over fifty different socks involved.  50 would mean 50 original pairs have dwindled to 32 complete pairs and there are 18 orphans.  This is a guess, though, and I've no intention of undertaking an audit!

3 - Why does Junior think it's okay to steal his younger brother's socks?  NOTE: The answer is not, never was and never can be: Because he couldn't get hold of any more of mine!

Junior Junior's own supply of socks is basically used as a source for Junior's addiction (WOPS) and until he kicks this habit, JJ's socks are being monitored closely.  It's true that some of the socks were once JJ's, and that after 'contamination', they were left with Junior because it would be intolerable to expect JJ to wear them afterwards.  However, that seems to have given Junior the impression that he can add extra JJ socks to his collection at will.

4 - If a box of 82 socks can sit on the landing not attended to for over a month, what the fuck is Junior wearing now?

He clearly has a supply that has satisfied his further need of socks over a 30-35 day period!  I have not seen him buy any, or receive any from kindly benefactors - so where are they coming from?  He must have a further 70 and counting!  If not, he must be re-wearing them, or be secretly washing a smaller number to keep going.  But why, then, would he not wash the 82 in the box, as prompted to by me on more than one occasion?

Confronting the problem

I emptied the large whicker laundry basket earlier this week, and found at the bottom of it, three black socks.  Two matched, and were once upon a time mine.  They were then (after being illicitly worn by Junior) begrudgingly surrendered to him.  The transfer of ownership was accompanied by a directive from me that in relinquishing any claim to the socks of this particular pattern, I was expecting co-operation through his "leaving-the-fuck-alone" of those socks of a different design, and I set out the groups that were out of bounds / out of feet.  The other black sock was instantly recognisable as mine - and one of the designs supposedly still within my ownership.  The reason for there being no possible mistake or possible contention was the embroidered pattern and writing - which said "Dad".  Yes, these were socks that were presented to me just over a year ago, for Father's Day.  Here I now was, looking at one of my socks in a ball, at the bottom of the basket, clearly the worse for wear - pun fucking intended!  It was mullered.  I did not actually want to touch it, let alone unfurl it or transport it to a washing machine.  I would not in any event want to wear it again, and submit myself to the psychological damage that would accompany the further association with what was once a respectable and hygienic sock.

Later on, I raised the subject with Junior.  "How the fuck do you decide it's all right for you to wear a sock that you bought for me, and that had the word "Dad" written on it?  You had to know that it wasn't yours when you put it on, and that it should not have been going on to your foot!  I sounded incredulous, as you'd probably expect.  Junior was unphased, and whilst he was not actually moving, what with us standing in the kitchen, he took it in his stride.  The mild smirk/grin revealed he was bang-to-rights.  "It had "Dad" on it, for fuck's sake!  That should have stopped you!" 

Junior remained unphased, and said:  "So!?  Having "Dad" on it doesn't matter.  A sock is not foot-specific."  Foot-specific !!!!!!!    Arghhhh !!!!!

I have forty-eight intact pairs of socks which are definitely (still) mine.  I know this because I have just counted them; 43 in the drawer, one pair on my feet, and four 'in the wash'.  One might argue that this is excessive, but considering the Schindler's List that's clearly in play, I'll expect heavy losses in the coming weeks and months.  JJ's supply is under greater threat.  I have found seven orphans, and there are just nine pairs in play.  I have a conundrum now - how do I top up JJ's supply without inviting a dawn raid by Junior?

[ Note: WOPS = Wears Other People's Socks ]
...

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

1.8.12 Chinese Olympic Machine

Training from a young age in China doesn't match the expectations of any western view of such input.






How can any parent want this for their child?

...

1.8.12 Olympic Boxing Farce

I watched a referee being a complete nob, disqualifying an Iranian boxer for no good reason.  The Cuban bloke won after the Iranian was warned again for holding, and disqualified.  The supposed offence was so minor that it was not worth commenting upon.  The Cuban had himself already been warned.  I think the Cuban was embarrassed to be declared the winner in these circumstances.

I do not blame the disqualified boxer for refusing to stand next to the ref for the result.  He left the ring having congratulated the people in the Cuban corner.  Pathetic refereeing, and not for the first time, boxing in the Olympics is a bit of a farce.



Next up, an Italian turned up, stepped into the ring, and was then declared the winner.  It was all a formality because his opponent had not attended the weigh-in earlier in the day.  The Italian held his gloves aloft and celebrated the 'walk-through' win.  Olympic entertainment of the highest order.

I've often heard commentators wrongly refer to Ukraine as 'The Ukraine', but was not expecting to hear during the commentary:

"The man from The Ecuador"

Kazakhstan put a six-foot-nine-inch boxer into the ring, against a tiny six-feet-three German, in the Super-heavyweight category.  It was unsurprisingly an uneven contest.

I missed the absurd refereeing that led to a boxer from Azerbaijan being declared the winner in a contest against Japan.  I believe the reports completely, as I cannot see how anyone has much faith in officialdom when it comes to Olympic boxing.

...

1.8.12 Quotes of the Month - July

It was a very close run thing this month, with Jess and Faye matching each other at 4 entries each.

1st - "Between now and Christmas, I'm warming myself up by touching my eyeball."  [Jess - preparing for a switch to contact lenses]

2nd - "Is Cameroon the capital of Africa?"  [Faye]

3rd - "A little small round square box."  [Man on his mobile in Sainsbury's]

4th - "How tall are you in knowledge in your mind?"  [Jess, overly complicating a simple question]

5th - "We're always jumping out at you when we're at home."  [Faye, ref Charlie, aged 3]

6th - "I don't hold anything in, me!"  [Debs]

7th - "I was smacked the length of Manless Terrace."  [Jess, reminiscing]

8th - "I've played with a seven-incher; Bellamy's ten-incher is too big."  [Faye, regarding tablets]

9th - "I've got a threat of indigestion coming on."  [Emma, ref possible arrival of a threat]

10th - "Your own bodily fluids are acceptable, Jess."  [TMWSC - cross ref 1st Quote]

11th - "He looks like a bollock - a shaved bollock!"  [Liam, ref a bald diver with pronounced veins]

12th - "They've certainly dug into the bottom of their diving toybox and pulled that out."  [BBC commentator on Synchronised Diving]

13th - "They were both doing a good impression of a banana."  [Same commentator talking about the Italian pair]

14th - "What do they need that person sat at the end for?  I think they know what they are doing!"  [Jess, annoyed at the cox for free-loading and the other eight rowers doing extra work]

15th - "Yes, when you've done your ace; oh, you forget there's an 'f' at the beginning of 'face', don't you!"  [Faye - who else!]

16th - "Winning this third set could be pivotal."  [Tim Henman stating the obvious, when the Murray v Federer match went to 1-1]

17th - "A monkey's escaped and they're trying to round it up."  [Dad of TMWSC, deciding it's possible to 'round up' a single monkey (?)]

18th - "I've got an exact same similar one."  [Channel 4, The Hoarder Next Door]

19th - "Official cereal bar to the London Olympic Games."  [TV advert with a concept that defies logic and any sense of human values or priorities]

20th - "Engulfed within his own paranoid ideations."  [Channel 5, Born To Kill: The Fred West Story]

Specific Grammar Supplement + Talking Bollocks

21st - "I believe a prison workforce are capable of pulling it off."  [Gordon Ramsay]

22nd - "How is it this question mark got raised?"  [BBC1 - raising marks rather than questions]

23rd - "It ended up okay at the end."  [Diving commentary - ending up in a mess]

24th - "The hospital have decided."  [Have it, indeed.  Narrator on 24hrs in A&E]

25th - "The band are celebrating their 50 years."  [Are it, now?  Radio 2 news report]

26th - "She's been successful on many backhand down the lines today."  [Tracy Austin, struggling with where to put an 's' to make something plural]

27th - "The amount of volume of water."  [David Coulthard talking shite, as ever]

28th - "Psychopathologicalness."  [Channel 5, Born To Kill: The Fred West Story]

29th - "There'll be highs of 22."  [TV weather forecast, giving a single high temperature]

...