| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Sporting heroes; ...too big an ask? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 1 2008, 12:02 AM (78 Views) | |
| Eral | Apr 1 2008, 12:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/for...6850811917.html This here is Wayne Carey. He was an AFL football God. He fell gradually from grace after story after story about him assaulting women, having affairs, getting drunk: and the crunch came when he was arrested in America. He lost his TV job. He is attempting to resurrect himself: presumably so he can return to his media work. Not quite working. The Age found a psychologist who watched the interview and can tell he wasn't really contrite. :rolleyes: (Diagnosis by TV image: gee, why don't analysts use it more?) However, they also interviewed a former team mate -very sympathetic article. I have always despised Carey for his womanising and arrogance: but I have never expected him to be smart. He's a footballer. He has lived in a world where everybody adored him because of his physical abilities, and he got away with everything because of his status. It comes out that his dad was abusive: well, what a surprise his son has got a bad attitude. I think he is going to get his job back. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sin...6850811000.html This here is a young fella on our swimming team. All you have to say in Australia is "member of the swimming team" and people genuflect. The swimming bosses are horrified with D'Arcy. He has brought swimming into disrepute. They have dropped him from the next round of events, and might drop him from the Olympics. I find myself making excuses for this awful assault. Boys can do really dumb things when they are drunk. There he was, celebrating his place on the team, gets into an argument, swings a punch, and now everything he has worked for is going up in smoke. He is twenty years old, has literally lived in a goldfish bowl. He is obviously very strong, if one punch can do so much damage: but I bet most swimmers are strong. If he had beat the bloke repeatedly, causing the injuries, I wouldn't be so sympathetic. As it is, I think they are being too harsh on him. Go on, let him go to the Olympics and win a lot of medals, I think to myself. I am kind of surprised I'm not being more The thing is, how much of this "baby did a bad bad thing:reject" should apply to sports people? I also question pollies having to quit because of marital infidelity. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 1 2008, 01:26 AM Post #2 |
|
Unregistered
|
The sports thing? Well, I'd like them to have a sense of responsibility to their young fans -- and many are young -- but I'm not sure how far that should go. If they break the law, prosecute them. If they cheat, they should be punished. If they're just not very nice? Well, isn't that their prerogative? Thing is, though, many of them get off on the attention. Negative behaviour should get negative attention. As for the politicians, I don't much care about who they have sex with, but I do think they shouldn't lie. Not that they don't lie all the time, but I think they shouldn't. Sex lives? Meh. |
|
|
| Regullus | Apr 1 2008, 01:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Reliant
|
As to athletes, I think it can be a fairly intense life, especially professional sports. Usually everybody is quite young. I think there are probably a lot of challenges that are difficult to meet. There are groupies, they are people testing you much of the time and a certain amount of exploitation. Not to mention if you are in an agressive sport, they're keyed to respond aggressively. I would suppose temptation and a sense of exceptionalism is pretty easy to feel and not so easy to control. I'm sure there are a lot of pressures. As to the pols, well, our most recent case, a moral crusader who behaves immorally whether pol or religious is always a hypocrisy and people don't like hypocrites. As to how much I care about indiscreet pols, it depends. Clinton annoyed me no end with "that woman" remark and I do think a serial cheater is flawed whether it really affects their job perfomance, it depends. Also there is an air of ridiculousness about it. Clinton, POTUS and he's banging a chubby intern w/a cigar. Or Spitzer w/his prostitutes, it's pretty immature and slightly ridiculous. I think a pol or anyone who stays in marriage but has a long term contemporary lover is a little more tasteful. It's quite possible everybody concerned knows about it on some level, a sorta don't ask, don't tell type of thing. My accountant is also a semi friend and I like her. She's competent at her job and I know her enough to know she's suffers insecurities. One time I saw her w/a friend of mine and she was all excited after a sexual encounter w/ a relatively good looking man in his family SUV. I'm not close to his wife but I know her and they have five children. I don't really hold this encounter against either of them, well, maybe him more than her because he is serially cheating on his wife w/just about anyone but I didn't approve either. I sympathize w/both of them to a certain extent: He married young, five children's tough and I know he felt he missed his youth. She has always been insecure about her attactiveness and worth and she gains validation or did thru sexual encounters. Pretty sad, really. Ultimately, I disapprove for variety of reasons. |
| |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 1 2008, 05:54 PM Post #4 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I guess for me, the point is, how much does it affect the job? Personally, I find long-term mistresses distasteful -- I'd rather people just divorced and moved on -- unless it's working for both of them. Frankly, the Clintons seem to have found something that works for them, and here's betting Hilary verbally beat up Bill for being indiscrete, not for having an affair. An intern is a questionable choice, as well, although it doesn't seem to have hurt Monica too much. It could be crushing for a young, idealistic girl, and that's wrong. It also suggests a willingness to use power for selfish ends, which I don't approve of, but the actual affair itself bothers me not in the slightest. But what's their business -- what doesn't affect the job -- doesn't concern me. Sarkozy, for example. I find it all a little distasteful, but if he can continue to do the job well despite the distraction, I don't think it matters how I feel about his personal life. The Spitzer affair, on the other hand -- as Reg said, he was a huge hypocrite, and then there's the fact that what he was doing is illegal. I don't like my lawmakers breaking the law. The women in our prime ministers' lives don't tend to get a lot of attention. Laureen Harper, our current PM's wife, is just a bit astounding to those of us who find our PM repellent -- she seems so nice, sensible and fun -- but she doesn't get much attention. I can't even remember Paul Martin's wife's name. Chretien's wife, Aline, was apparently quite scrappy about her husband -- really pushed him to fight anyone against him -- but it was all very much behind the scenes, with just rumours getting out. The only one who really got any attention was Maggie Trudeau, but that was only because she was a flower child who did things like hang out with the Rolling Stones. It's a bit different here. Again, with the sports figures, I agree, Eral, a punch is a punch and it wasn't intended to cause long-term damage. While he should face the law, his career probably shouldn't be over. But we both hate sexist pigs and all they've stood for, so we don't like that other guy, partly because his sexism seems to elicit little more than a shrug. It's indicative of society's feelings on the importance of women and their "feelings" as opposed to sports heroes, perhaps, and that upsets us. Really, it's society's acceptance that pisses us off more than the guy's actions. And I suppose that's the point. If people are role models and they reflect negatives in society, it's upsetting. We want our role models to be something more, fair or not. |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Apr 1 2008, 07:01 PM Post #5 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Kobe Bryant. We want our role models to be worthy of the name. Often, I suppose that means wishing they could be great persons in more than just the sphere of their speciality. Unfortunately, I think the strain of living under public scrutiny probably causes some of the problems we then view as poor rolemodelling. It's all rather a vicious cycle. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 2 2008, 12:05 AM Post #6 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I question the concept of role model, I guess. Hey kids, when you grow up you too can have an extremely limited career using your muscles. Let us all aspire to have big feet like Thorpie.
Is winning a game or race really important and fulfilling? It's so transitory. Back when AFL football was VFL, and players all had real jobs too, there was none of this role model crap. Jeza was a great player: end of story. He may have been a boozing wife-beater, but I certainly was unaware of it. Now, promotion of the game is big bucks. I don't think they care so much about how the kiddies see it, it's the sponsors who don't want to be associated with drunken scumbags. Fair enough. The other concern is probably that parents will say "No, I don't want you to play football" which will be bad for the game. AFL is built on a culture of sexism and blokes-together. I know a footballer who was actively punished by his coach because he wouldn't go on the "team-bonding" end of season trips. He wanted to stay faithful to his wife. He was in the same team as Carey. As for D'Arcy: the law is going to address his crime. He's been charged: really damn quickly, too. They want this settled well before the Olympics. Funny how the legal system can do that: everyone else has to wait for years. Perhaps because they are always fast-tracking athletes. But why should it affect his career? If he was habitually violent, then sure: he's a danger to others. But one assault? If we were all strung up for doing something dumb when we were young, there'd be very few of us with our feet still on the ground. Pollies: we know they lie, manipulate and regularly sacrifice what's right for what is expedient. But damn, if they cheat on their wives, sack 'em immediately. My plumber might be cheating on his wife: something that I would very much disapprove of - but it's got nothing to do with fixing my blocked downpipe. Is it my business to know? I might want to have only morally unimpeachable people in my house. Do I have a right to know? Spitzer just goes to show how unrealistic the moralisers are: no-one is immune to wrong-doing. If he had been using public money for his prostitutes, get rid of him and charge him. But infidelity is between him and hios wife. We should stop setting false standards. Bill Clinton will go down in history as the man who got sympathy for lying. When's that going to happen ever again? |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 2 2008, 12:42 AM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
It wasn't just infidelity. He broke the law. He's supposed to uphold it. It's not just between him and his wife once he breaks the law; it's now him and the law. |
|
|
| Eral | Apr 2 2008, 11:39 PM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Jaywalking is a crime, too. He was discovered when people noticed he was moving his own money through the government system: the activity was suspected as money laundering or bribes. Nope, just paying some bills he didn't want his wife to see. Spitzer's lawyers have already negotiated that he gets off with a fine if he resigns the governorship, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Sounds like political witch hunt, rather than due process of the law. What a shame Hugh Grant couldn't have gotten off by resigning from movie stardom. A new story has hit the papers today :"D'Arcy bashed me too!" ooh, is young Nick as serial offender? :o No. He got into a fight last year with another young bloke over a girl. Having exchanged abuse for several hours, they stepped outside in the traditional manner of all drunken pub brawls. The other bloke lost. That is kind of different from being set upon and bashed. <_< Both Carey and D'Arcy have engaged in behaviour that is wrong: yet is socially accepted for young men. It's only a problem when it hits the news. I'm all for revision of male gender roles: they're very unattractive. But it's a bit rich to encourage bad behaviour on one hand, and then punish with the other. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |






in his family SUV. I'm not close to his wife but I know her and they have five children.

4:32 PM Jul 13