The death of sport has come, according James Rose, and money killed it.   In his feature story for the Sydney Morning Herald he laments that money has come to dominate sport so completely, what was special about it is now gone.   I disagree.  

Rose is correct in many of the things he says.   Money is the cause for many of the problems suffered by many of sports stars, boys really who are drawn in and become public figures because they play sport.

English soccer does suffer from large differences between the top teams who are worth hundreds of millions and the second tier teams who are often on the edge of bankruptcy.

Murdoch and News Ltd. still have a strong grip on the NRL, and you couldn’t even watch the Australia vs. Netherlands game on TV.

But these are not the death of sport, the evolution of sport yes, but not the death.   We as the consumer’s demand everything that is provided for, and the negative results that can go with it; we want to be able to watch everything live when it happens.   A sporting tragic on any given weekend might want to watch the rugby league, the English Premier League, a PGA Tour golf tournament, motor racing, and the tennis, all live and in four different countries.   Pay TV has provided us with that option.

Free-to-air didn’t have the ability to show it, or refused to show it.   For this year’s Ashes, the pinnacle of cricket, Channel Nine actually turned down the opportunity to show the Ashes, because it clashed with their prime-time shows.   The problem has not come from News Ltd. who have answered the request of the sporting public, but from free-to-air TV and its governors, who have made it incapable and unwilling to show the vast majority of sport, which we as a sporting nation demand.

In the Rugby League World Cup last year, Channel Nine had the exclusive rights to televise the major games live, and then chose to show some of them delayed to put them in a better prime-time slot.   Foxtel wouldn’t do that to you.

It was disappointing that the soccer game wasn’t on free-to-air TV, but that fault lies more with the free-to-air channels, so if you are a true sporting tragic, pay for Foxtel because it is worth it – and here to stay – or if you are a person of principle and refuse to have it, go to a local pub or club and watch the game, they all show sport live.

As the biggest day of racing approaches once again – only 3 weeks to go – a new favourite for the Melbourne Cup has emerged.   Less than a month ago Alcopop was a $151 outsider for the Cup, and a year ago on Melbourne Cup Day it was running around Morphettville in Adelaide rather than Flemington, but with three wins in its last three races, it has quickly grown to become one of the favourites.

Alcopop is currently the buzz of the horse racing industry, with both John Schnell and Max Presnell writing articles about it.   Presnell had even gone so far as to call it the “Aussie Battler”, the one to take on the international stars and the “Melbourne giants.”

And why shouldn’t they call it a battler.   Unlike most thoroughbreds that are bred to be race horses, Alcopop started off as a polo pony, not the standard beginning for a Melbourne Cup threat.   And though it has Melbourne Cup blood through Jeune, it’s “out of a no-account mare”, according to Presnell.

His run on Saturday in the Herbert Power was one of the most dominant wins of the day, and is expected to be penalised by the handi-capper.

Presnell might have been onto something though when he labelled it the Aussie Battler.  It fits none of the normal stereotypes.   Its bloodlines aren’t particularly strong; it is not trained by one of the big time trainers, but rather Jake Stephens, who is also a part-owner and at present they are expecting to go in with the regular South Australian jockey, Dom Tourneur rather than a big time jockey.

Let’s just hope Alcopop can complete the fairy tale and when the champagne is raised it will be toasting Alcopop, the Aussie Battler.

The new whip rules instituted in Australian horse racing are arguably the worst in sporting history. The rules imply that jockeys and trainers need to be monitored, because like all smart business people, they try to injure and damage that which provides their livelihoods. The jockeys and trainers are probably the two groups of people who care most for their horses, having personal attachments to most if not all of their horses. Only the stable lads could be argued to care more about the horses.
Andrew Eddy and John Schnell have probably had one of the easier stories to cover in recent racing history, because for once, the jockeys, trainers and owners are all on the side, and now the Victorian stewards have decided to join them.
The new laws state that a jockey can only whip his horse five times before the 100m mark and then use his discretion to the line, but some horses need to be given more encouragement than this, and jockeys are using padded whips now which do less damage than before.
The article written by Andrew Eddy and John Schnell for the Sydney Morning Herald focuses on the decision by Victorian stewards to ignore the guidelines suggested by the Australian Racing Board in relation to punishment for whip-related offenses, which were generally a 4 day suspension. Instead, they have opted for fines, except for extreme cases.
The punishments were even deemed “absurd” and “manifestly excessive” by Russell Lewis, chairman of the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board, who reduced several sentences from suspensions to fines.
This legislation’s trial period ends on February 1st next year, and one can only hope that the Australian Racing Board have the sense to discontinue these laws after the trial period.

Tiger Woods has officially become the first sports star to earn a billion dollars. According to Forbes magazine, Tiger broke the billion dollar barrier when he won the FedEx Cup victory last weekend.

The article, published on the Sydney Morning Herald website on the 2nd October 2009 is surprising in its briefness in covering the achievement obtained by Tiger Woods. For one thing, he has achieved it in a sport – that although globally played and well supported internationally – cannot be considered the most popular sport.

One perhaps could have expected it from an international football player such as David Beckham, a tennis player like Roger Federer or an American basketballer such as Michael Jordan – who Forbes expects to be the next sports star to break the billion dollar barrier.

Also nothing is mentioned about the fact that Tiger Woods has African-American heritage. While Western society tries to portray the idea of equality, racial equality is still debatable, and the achievements of Tiger Woods in being not only the first African-American man but the first sports person, is an amazing achievement.

Tiger Woods is an internationally recognised sports brand, he has been the top earning sportsman each year since 2002, and he has shown skills in the game of golf never seen before. His victory in the 2008 U.S. Open when he won with two stress fractures and an injured knee was some of the most intensely fascinating and entertaining golf I have ever seen, and this story deserved more coverage than it has been given.

Australian tennis is on the rise again, Hewitt’s cries of “C’mon!!!” have been backed up by some rejuvenated performances, Stosur and Stubbs went well in the doubles at the U.S. Open, and the Great Australian Feud is back.  

Echoing the Mark Philippoussis saga at the 2000 Olympics when the “Australian men’s tilt” – as Roy and H.G. called it – played second fiddle to the off-court dramas, the newest battle is being waged by the Hewitt and Tomic parties.

As reported by Linda Pierce on The Sydney Morning Herald website on the 17^th September 2009, there are rumours of a rift between Hewitt and Tomic, allegedly because Tomic declined to ‘hit out’ with Hewitt during Wimbledon this year.

In recent times tennis has felt too politically correct, watching the great and humble Roger Federer win again and again was good, but it missed something.   It had no McEnroe about it, no fire and anger, something or someone spectators could hate and yet still love to watch.   Thankfully, this age of PC seems to be running out.  With Serena Williams threatening to kill a linesman, and the feud, there is suddenly something interesting, yet a bit naughty, about tennis again.

Channelling Jelena and Damir Dokic, Bernard and John Tomic have revived interest in Australian tennis by snubbing Lleyton Hewitt at Wimbledon.   It was made worse when the Hewitt camp asked Juan Carlos Ferrero to train with Hewitt, only to be told he couldn’t, but that Tomic was looking for a partner.   On hearing of the snubbing, Ferrero’s coach is reported to have said that in Spain Tomic would have been “strung up from a tree by his balls” for what he did.

With a possible pairing for the Davis Cup looming between Tomic and Hewitt, we can all hope for more fireworks between the two camps, and thank the sporting gods that tennis is getting interesting again.

Unfortunately for 18 year old Caster Semenya, these questions have been asked all too often about her lately. And now with the results showing that she has both male and female organs, these questions will continue to be asked for some time to come.

As Jacquelin Magnay reported on the 11th of September, gender tests have shown that she is “technically a hermaphrodite”. This will cause significant ethical and political dilemmas for the governing bodies. While it was quite obvious to most viewers and officials that physically Semenya had many male physical characteristics, it is not doping and technically not cheating, though she does have an unfair advantage over other competing women.

This story has grabbed the attention of the majority of sports followers – not just those who follow athletics – because it’s an extremely unusual case, reported to have occurred only 4 times in sport. Arguments can be made as to whether she should be stripped of the medal or not, do all the others who competed deserve to be moved up a place – even if Semenya is not stripped of her gold – and should she be allowed to continue to compete?

As Magnay notes, the case of Semenya has been embroiled with controversy since her victory, and an “African National Congress politician has filed an official complaint with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” This is just another factor that makes this such a newsworthy story. The collision of politics and sport never ends well.

The only one who really suffers in all of this is the 18 year old Caster Semenya, who has become infamous for doing nothing wrong, but the question must be asked, if everyone else could tell after just one race, how did she get all the way to the actual event?

Once again a rugby league player is dominating the headlines for the wrong reasons. Setaimata Sa of the Roosters, allegedly went on a drunken rampage around the Coogee Bay Hotel – slapping his girlfriend, assaulting police and breaking windows – continuing the fine efforts of rugby league players this year.
Recently, I supported Phil Gould’s arguments that a player should be treated as innocent until proved guilty, and I still stand by this. However, there are some differences between the case of Greg Inglis and Setaimata Sa. The main difference is that all the details of Greg Inglis’ case weren’t in the public domain, one can’t be positive about exactly what happened. Will Swanton’s article for The Sydney Morning Herald however, paints a very graphic picture of Sa’s night out.
“Intoxicated Sa slapped girlfriend: witnesses”, published on the 1st September 2009, fits the notion of a newsworthy story because it deals with a trend or pattern – that of rugby league players’ problems – it involves violence and crime, and its proximity to those in the Eastern Suburbs, coincidently Sa’s team, is very applicable to The Sydney Morning Herald. It is a clever story because it tries to have an air of objectivity by using witnesses’ descriptions, while simultaneously evicting images of “screaming matches” and “rage”.
In my opinion this is a much better story than many other stories about league players running afoul recently, for two reasons. One, it actually provides details about what happened, rather than conjecture about the incidents, as in the Greg Inglis case, and two it doesn’t drag up every previous rugby league incident that has occurred this year. Am I the only one sick of hearing about Nate Myles finding the hotel stairwell instead of the bathroom?
I know providing the details of patterns and trends adds to the newsworthiness of the story, but at some point it must stop, and I thank Will Swanton for not dredging up from the sewers the mess of Nate Myles, and for that matter any other rugby league player, in his article.

Steve Hooker pole vaulted his way to another medal on Saturday morning, despite scans and advice from doctors suggesting he shouldn’t jump at all.   He defied all logic and tradition by jumping only twice, instead of planning and practicing, yet still won gold.

Dan Silkstone’s article, “Hooker nails ‘ridiculous plan”, about this heroic effort was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on the 24^th August 2009, and does credit to such a fantastic achievement.   Huge congratulations should also go to the editor of the sports section for granting it the space it deserved.

Pole vaulting is not as highly acknowledged as cricket, AFL, rugby league and rugby union.    And all these sports have sports stars who receive more money than Steve Hooker probably ever will as a sportsman.   Yet it was Steve Hooker who demonstrated what it really means to be an Australian sports star, to go out there and defy medical advice and pull off a win similar to that of Tiger Woods in the 2008 U.S Open.

Silkstone’s article captures this achievement superbly with images of pain killing injections halfway through the tournament and descriptions of Hooker as he “watched and nervously paced for more than three hours while the entire field jumped.”   Without ever having watched a pole vaulting competition in my life, I still felt like I understood the moment and the achievement, because of this article by Silkstone.

It is great to see an article about a true Australian sports star, someone who encapsulates the ideals of competing not for the money, but for pride and honour, as sport truly should be about, and to see this passion given the attention in the media it deserves.  

Sport is becoming too commercialised and the notion of Australian ticker and competitiveness seems to be disappearing.   Watching the Bledisloe Cup on Saturday night with my family, we seemed more upset about the loss than the players did.   Instead of being down on hands and knees gutted, they shook hands with smiles and hugs, leaving one to ask where is the passion for the sport, that competitiveness that used to make it so much more intense?   It seems it was all with Steve Hooker, a true Australian sports star.

The newest saga to hit the NRL is the Greg Inglis affair, with Inglis charged for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend Sally Robinson.   The media once again “swarmed in” as Phil Gould put it in his article for the Sun-Herald on the 16th August 2009, “Not because a young man has done something wrong, but because he is a footballer who has done something wrong.”

In this article Phil Gould was one of the few not to instantly condemn Greg Inglis, but rather attacked the reactions of the NRL and the media to the incident.   His article is an excellent one and questions the NRL and the media’s reactions of late to any incident that occurs involving a player.  

Gould believes that “We [the NRL] don’t support or show enough compassion to our people, but instead hang them out to dry.”  I completely agree with Gould on this point, and his statement that ‘The NRL and the NRL clubs immediately react…without full knowledge of the facts or the accused being given sufficient opportunity to defend or explain his actions.”

With the spate of incidents that have caused havoc through the NRL this season, an article that actually acknowledges and attacks the media’s part in these affairs is refreshing and needed.  

It must be remembered however, ho w important timing is.   As bad as the timing was for Rebecca Wilson and her article about the Australian cricket side, the timing was great for Phil Gould, with reports of a different side of the Inglis story coming out before he wrote his column.   One must wonder that if the information about Sally Robinson’s new statement hadn’t come out before Phil Gould’s article, would he have taken a very different tack?    

Nevertheless, this is definitely a newsworthy story, and a much needed one perhaps for fans of the NRL who have had to cop so much this year from the media about their idols and teams.

Two and a half days are a very long time, particularly if you are an English cricket supporter, or Rebecca Wilson.   In those two and a half days “the remnants of a once proud group of sportsmen”, fielding bowlers “who are woeful” destroyed an English side that was supposedly “flogging us [Australia].”

Wilson’s article entitled “Our fallen heroes”, published on Saturday the 8th August 2009 in The Daily Telegraph, was more woeful than England’s batting on the first day.   Not only was the timing on the publication of the article terrible, many of her opinions were proved wrong over the next day and a half.

Wilson believes that “what appears certain is that something is amiss in Australian cricket.”   If something is amiss, how worried should England be coming up to the Fifth Test at The Oval, after losing in just two and a half days? 

 Mitchell Johnson’s spell of bowling at the end of the second day was sublime, and but for a dropped catch on the last ball of the day, he would have had figures for 4-21.  Wilson, however, believes that Johnson is “seriously ordinary,” and “has to be dropped.”  

 Admittedly, he bowled atrociously in the first two tests, but to label him seriously ordinary because of two bad games is unfair and harsh criticism on a player who had proved he was a worthy spearhead of the Australian team against South Africa earlier in the year.

Wilson also spouted notions that Australia were getting flogged by England, that they were lucky to escape with a draw in the Third Test, and looked incapable of taking 20 wickets to win a test.  

The idea that England were flogging Australia is ridiculous.   Except for a bad last 11 overs on the final day of the First Test, Australia would have “flogged” England, they batted well to earn a draw in the Third Test, and they have proven they can take 20 wickets in a Test, and in only 3 days of a Test.

Fallen heroes don’t win a Test by an innings and 80 runs.  The story does not work,and the on-field performances over the last two and a half days have proven many of her opinions wrong.