Tyson Fury deserves to win Sports Personality OTY
- Thread starter Hoops
- Start date
Spurrific
Well-Known Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 13,501
- 57,356
Root would be a worthy winner, imo. Love him
tototoner
Staying Alert
- Mar 21, 2004
- 29,408
- 34,139
Tyson Fury is a contender for Sports Personality not Archbishop of Canterbury. Or does everyone need to pass a "PC" test now ?
Compared to the plastic modern sportsperson at least he has a personality.
He lives in a caravan, he is named after Mike Tyson and his surname is Fury, he's a writers dream.
Compared to the plastic modern sportsperson at least he has a personality.
He lives in a caravan, he is named after Mike Tyson and his surname is Fury, he's a writers dream.
Last edited:
WalkerboyUK
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2009
- 21,658
- 23,476
Some chump has now reported Fury's comments to to police as a hate crime.
Fair enough if he said it specifically at someone in particular, but this claim is political correctness gone mad
Fair enough if he said it specifically at someone in particular, but this claim is political correctness gone mad
tototoner
Staying Alert
- Mar 21, 2004
- 29,408
- 34,139
Seen that, hopefully they will be done for wasting police time
I dunno - I guess if it's important to fans to see the real person behind the on screen persona then yea
Personally it's not much of an issue to me, I don't have any desire to have his views debated because he's an uneducated moron who's views are merit-less, same for giving him stick about his views - he's never going to care what people say, if anything he likes the controversy as it all adds to his persona and the only reason he retracted his statement at all is for mainstream marketing and potential monetary loss as a result (not because he gives a damn that people give him stick for his comments)
I find a lot of what he says amusing, in a laugh at him clownish type of way and over all I like/enjoy him being in the boxing scene. I think his homophobic/end of days views are dumb, but then I think he is dumb and personally I just think he should keep his views to himself in that respect and everyone should ignore them as I don't personally see the point of debating with a fool.
But I understand those who feel strongly about what he says and who want him to face consequences for his comments
I don't think he does
It's the BBC, a state funded broadcaster via the general public which means it carries a much stricter set of guidelines than a commercial entity would do. Giving a quite openly sexist, homophobe a high profile award is probably not something that's going to sit too well within those guidelines. The fact he's even up for the award demonstrates to an extent that the BBC isn't keeling over and avoiding all controversy and theoretically if he stays on the list and wins then they'll give it to him but I can understand why plenty of people think it's not something the BBC should be doing.
If a commercial broadcaster did so then you can argue that people pissed off by it can stop playing subscription fees or stop watching that particular channel. That's not something you can do with the BBC due to the license fee.
He said something along the lines of "their place is in the kitchen or on their back". Sounds pretty sexist to me.
And to be honest saying it's better to have a stay at home Mother rather than a career Mother can be construed as sexist. If you'd said stay at home Parent then fine but why limit caring for children full time to a female occupation.
Mustard
Well-Known Member
- Nov 14, 2012
- 10,781
- 20,142
He can never win. One he is a twat. And only twats will vote for him. Their reasons being; some misunderstood belief that their vote will allign the chakras of 'righting the political correctness gone mad' syndrome in the universe; Jeremy Clarkson and giving the ruddy BBC a bloody nose. None of this demographic will vote anyway though.
Two. And this is the important one fight fans. It isn't down to the phone vote. The final decision lies with a BBC appointed 3 person panel.
Bloody BBC. Tut.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2003
- 9,276
- 11,322
Goughie took five minutes on talksport the other day to explain why he jacked it in all them years ago. He worked out that the last year he was playing he spent nine months away from his family....that's just bonkers.
tiger666
Large Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 27,978
- 82,216
nightgoat
Well-Known Member
- Sep 12, 2005
- 24,604
- 21,898
There isn't any suspicion about Nibali, other than the appalling record of his team. But that doesn't mean he himself is a cheat, and has actually been one of the more vocal cyclists when it comes to anti-doping. Cadel was always clean, too. Now you tell me why they were rarely asked about doping during the years they won the Tour, but Wiggins in 2012 and Froome in both 2013 and 2015 were asked if they were doping in just about every single press conference they did. This despite neither of them ever having failed a test, both of them being extremely vocal about anti-doping, and their team having a strict anti-doping policy that means they won't hire anyone with a known history of involvement in doping, and any of their riders or staff who it transpires has done so whilst being employed by Team Sky have immediately had their contracts terminated. There are few cyclists who have done more when it comes to anti-doping than David Millar, but Brailsford refused to sign him because he had previously doped.
I'm no chemist, but presumably because "Unlike the inhaled microgram-doses of albuterol, which have been shown to have no significant acute ergogenic effects in cyclists by Norris (1996) and Koch (2013), for example, Ventoline (8mg) pills deliver the results "chemical athletes" are looking for." (That's from your link, by the way.) The level found in asthma treatments is permitted by WADA, which is why Froome is allowed to use what he does. Ulissi had twice the permitted level in his system, which was why he was banned. And if Froome did have more than the permitted level, he'd have been caught as the maillot jaune is tested after every stage.
Ultimately it comes down to whether or not their performances are suspicious or not. As I said earlier in this thread, Farah's times for 5k and 10k are way down on world record times. His times don't stack up against the likes of Haile Gebreselassie or Kenenisa Bekele. The reason he wins so many major races are because he is tactically far superior to every other athlete he's up against.
Likewise Froome. He gained most of his GC winning margin on one stage where he attacked and went solo 6km from the end where the gradient was about 6% average, maximum 8%. In professional cycling that's fairly unremarkable, especially considering the reasons for his rivals' poor performance on that stage, as I outlined earlier, yet he had idiots like Jalabert comparing him to Armstrong. Those type of insinuations weren't present when Nibali put more time into Froome on stage 19, or on stage 20 when Quintana took a minute and 20 seconds off Froome. No one threw piss at Nibali when he won the Tour in 2014 by the biggest margin since Armstrong's first 'win' whilst riding for a team with the worst doping record of any current World Tour team. No one threw piss at two time convicted doper Alberto Contador when he won the Giro d'Italia with a dislocated shoulder. So you tell me why British cyclists are getting more flak than other riders with much more cause for suspicion.
Colonel_Klinck
Well-Known Member
- May 19, 2004
- 12,725
- 23,331
If you can't see why that would be taken as sexist then yeah maybe you're sexist. He didn't even mention kids. He said a woman's place is in he kitchen or on her back. If that doesn't tell you something about his views on women I don't know what will. And what's wrong with you staying at home and liking after the kids while your wife goes to work?
Last edited:
Similar threads
