主播大秀

In previous years it was the cycling bodies or local law enforcement who literally pursued those involved in doping, while the cyclists and the teams attempted (in ever more bizarre circumstances) to avoid being caught. Now, however, it is the teams themselves who are taking on the role of the authorities. Not, it should be said, for the sake of the sport's future, or even out of some sense of sporting integrity. Instead it is the sponsors who are leaning on teams to take action and remove those who taint, not the sport, but their corporate images. Action is only taken in any sport when the incomes of those concerned are under threat. Doping has been endemic in cycling for years, but only now have the commercial interests finally reached breaking point. What we are actually seeing now is the first attempts to take positive, pre-emptive action, rather than simply wait for the prizes to be handed out and the have the rumours subsequently confirmed. This is certainly damaging in the short term, but may prove to be cathartic for its future prospects. Having been to France this year to see it at first hand, Le Tour reminds me of a fallen Hollywood star - still drawing a crowd but more out of curiosity than attraction. But it is and will always remain an institution on the continent. For whatever reasons 鈥� good or bad 鈥� cycling is now in a position to purge itself of those who are slowly killing it. Just don鈥檛 be surprised to see more mainstream sports face this situation in the coming years...

Isn't it time we just accepted the fact that the Tour de France is so bloody hard that unless you take some kind of substance or undergo some sort of procedure to enhance your performance you might as well cycle the course like this bloke -

The Tour de Farce is a self-imposed-money-grabbing-exhausting-process for any human being. Some laps last 4 hours others 6 hours in one go. There is no human capacity that can endure that, even for an athlete. That is why and in view of the huge financial deals, contracts, merchandising, etc that is also part of the Tour de France, the runners are desperate to win, and so are their sponsors and the companies they represent. So, who can blame them that "anything goes" in order to win? Maybe it is time that the sport and financial authorities and even the politicians revise the whole competition rules and basis and return it to be what it used to be at a more "human" scale.

Scrap the Tour de France !!!!

=====================================

Why would anyone want to download pictures YouTube style from their TV ? That is ridiculous, whatelse are they going to come up with ??

=====================================

cycling was among the first sports to implement doping rules [golf doesn't have any, nor mps who make laws, nor the yaparazzi who comment on sport, and the examples go on]

what about cricket and football match fixing or the international espionage of motor racing?

sky had an interview with the british rider who has won the most stages of the tour the france from the uk. He said the tour now is shorter by about 1000km [stages could be 380km then], your form doesn't come out of the chemist shop but by training, it is possible to win the tour clean, 90% of riders are clean and soon cycling will be among the cleanest of sports.

The TDF is a bit strange if a non frenchman or team is not winning anything. Lance had 7 years of yearly accusations. Its now a tradition.

I sent this to Working Lunch. Do you think its fair? I also sent it to Newsnight and no response there except from a 'What else do you expect' 7:84 Scots socialist.

B.b.b.b.b.but. you ain't seen nothing yet!

The 主播大秀 Pension Fund benefits from (the atmosphere created by) stock market gains and got hugely in the red during the dotcom bubble burst.

So, classically wrt to information theory there are massive principal - agent problems when the 主播大秀 reports the stock exchange.

I think noticeably the 主播大秀 under reports huge losses and over reports gains.

The net effect (and I suspect, intended consequence) of this asymmetric treatment is to encourage viewer entry into the market and to persuade them to preserve their share holding.

The effect is that spending power (as bottomless as a widow's cruse) is generated by those who have and their pensions grow pleasantly.

As for us have nots the increase in private spending deters government from raising government spending (for fear of inflation) and so my state pension suffers accordingly as do those on tax credit.

As for public facilities in the NHS etc they are sacrificed for a few yachts in the Solent and second homes in Tuscany.

So it was no surprise when last week in the face of falls you (i.e. Liquid Lunch) got in an 'expert' to tell us that things would not go below 6,500 on the stock exchange. Wasn't that cunning?
Very protective of your pensions and your spending power.

For those who trust you would have been discouraged from selling given how high they were told the safety net was.

And as the index crashed 3 percentage points below the 'safety net' today those following you would be reluctant to bale out 'cos a bounce back might be round the corner and holding on avoids realising the full shock of loss.

Personally I think the way the Beeb in general and you in particular (but you are not the worst offenders) report the overall index changes would result in you all in clink if the name of the 主播大秀 was Enron. But then I think if the Enron judgements were made universal the whole financial services industry would bee run from Alcatraz and Newgate.

Isn't how the Beeb reports the FTSE a story in itself - particularly in newscasts and on 主播大秀24 Business News and on morning radio and TV?

And isn't how come private spending power creation is cushty although hugely unfairly distributed whilst equitable government spending is frowned upon also a story in itself?

So what about it Newsnight people (both sides of the glass screen)?

Sorry, I menat to say I also sent it to PM

What a mean, 3rd-rate country we're becoming. The Welsh Assembly's bowing to their farmers' lobby over killing an animal that posed no risk to their herds, was self-righteous and predictable enough.
But Gavin Esler's sneering judgement on David Cameron 'mistake' in fulfilling his Ruanda commitment rather than take photo calls in his flooded constituency, also assumed a putative and stupid lynch-mob, responding to appearance over substance.
Interestingly, both Esler and your 'pit-bull' political reporter Michael Crick,have equally ugly mouth shapes when denigrating others. It's worth turning down the sound just to guess at their predictable attempts in savaging and derision.
Perhaps Newsnight should take a holiday from politics too, and think about raising all our sights.

David Bateman

*Interestingly, both Esler and your 'pit-bull' political reporter Michael Crick,have equally ugly mouth shapes when denigrating others*

Mere puppies compared to Kirsty Wark !!
Now that does merit the sound being turned down - ask Alex Salmond