Sport hypocrisy?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Can I ride you?

Hell, yes

what you really want is a little jockey on your back riding you for over 4 miles isn't it? With 30 jumps too;

Hell, yes

[James.]

Humans DON'T understand the risks but they fool themselves that they do. Do you think that Claire would have ran in the Marathon for charity if she knew that she would die? Would the samaritans let her do it in their name if they knew there was even the smallest of chances she would die? Of course not. People (and especially young people) do not understand how fragile they are they think they are indestructible.

The London Marathon has become an event that fools put themselves forward to do without the proper training nor the proper medical checks. they do it for a laugh or whatever. If they really wanted to run they'd do a lot of other events before even considering a marathon. Marathons are hell.

You've completely ignored the points I raised.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure that horse legs can be repaired (maybe not all breaks). I know of at least one famous racehorse who broke it's leg and had it repaired.

I still disagree that people understand the risks. They just think they do.

Would people really take up smoking if they understood the risks?

would they really have unprotected sex if they understood the risks? etc...

People don't understand reality. It's only after suffering something that they start to understand and then they begin to forget the reality. That's part of being human instead of being extinct.

Even if the people did understand the risks (which they don't). no self-respecting charity is going to put their name to someone risking their life to get them some money - but these charities are run by people who also don't understand the risks.

If I said to a charity I'd like to raise money for you, there's a chance that I'll die doing it but I need your permission first. how many charities would say okay you have our permission? And if they did would that be responsible or irresponsible?

Now back to horse racing , which I agree shouldn't be compared, so consider it a parallel argument not a comparison. The RSPCA worked with the Aintree commitee on making the National safer for this year, they signed off on the race and then afterwards (when the public furore started) condemned it. The only stance that they can reasonably take is that all racing should be banned, as should any ownership of animals for sport or leisure or food (including dogs and cats and goldfish). This would of course drastically reduce the numbers of these types of animals being bred as well as research in animal and human areas and a reduction in financial income for the charities themselves.

[Finnegan]

Animals are for eating and using. Race horses are amongst the most pampered creatures on the planet, they probably lead better lives than most council tenants.

****ing hippies.

[21st Century Fox]

How is horses being born and bred for racing justification for it?

At one point slaves were born and bred into slavery. I'm sure a lot of them would've forfeited their existence.

Unless horses are just holding out for imancipation.

[Guest]

You've completely ignored the points I raised.

Of course I have, I have been married a long time and realise that sometimes it's better to ignore than confront.

I don't see the point in getting into an argument with you, when you won't change your mind, that would just cause bad feeling.

I respect that you have a completely different opinion than I do and that any discussion would be a waste of time and energy and only provoke bad feeling.

I am not saying that you are wrong, just that my limited wisdom sees things in a different way.

Animals are for eating and using. Race horses are amongst the most pampered creatures on the planet, they probably lead better lives than most council tenants.

****ing hippies.

some race horses lead better lives than posh arrogant mps.

[James.]

If I said to a charity I'd like to raise money for you, there's a chance that I'll die doing it but I need your permission first. how many charities would say okay you have our permission? And if they did would that be responsible or irresponsible?

People raise money for charity doing dangeous things all the time. People are not fools, they understand the risks but they also have a desire to challenge themselves while at the same time trying to make a difference to those that need it.

I climbed Kilimanjaro for charity. People die doing that. But I assessed the risks and made a judgement based on what I knew. And I'm still alive but with the experience of a lifetime in the bag as well as a few thousand quid for a small charity.

Many charities would probably be on their knees if the world took your view - i.e. don't take any risks because you might die. Where's your spirit of adventure?

Of course I have, I have been married a long time and realise that sometimes it's better to ignore than confront.

Fair enough.

By the way I wasn't looking for an argument, was genuinely interested in seeing you back up your view in light of what I said. There's a difference between debate and confrontation.

[Finnegan]

How is horses being born and bred for racing justification for it?

At one point slaves were born and bred into slavery. I'm sure a lot of them would've forfeited their existence.

Unless horses are just holding out for imancipation.

Enslaving ethnic minorities is like keeping livestock?

[Guest]

People raise money for charity doing dangeous things all the time. People are not fools, they understand the risks but they also have a desire to challenge themselves while at the same time trying to make a difference to those that need it.

I climbed Kilimanjaro for charity. People die doing that. But I assessed the risks and made a judgement based on what I knew. And I'm still alive but with the experience of a lifetime in the bag as well as a few thousand quid for a small charity.

Many charities would probably be on their knees if the world took your view - i.e. don't take any risks because you might die. Where's your spirit of adventure?

Fair enough.

By the way I wasn't looking for an argument, was genuinely interested in seeing you back up your view in light of what I said. There's a difference between debate and confrontation.

We just have completely different views on humanity and humans that I didn't think there'd be much point.

I just posted in the other thread that the average yearly donation in 2008 was £2.34. If people wanted to donate to charity they DON'T need people putting their lives at risk they could just put aside a little money from each month's earnings and give it - that's what I do.

Why do people need you to climb Kilimanjaro in order to give money - that's not charity. They should give the same amount without you doing it and then you could put all the money it cost in doing that to the charity as well. If the real aim is to help charities. It's not.

You climbed kilimanjaro because it was challenge for you, an adventure. That is humanity. we do things for egoistical reasons that is why we are at the top of the food chain and full of invention and innovation.

I congratulate you on your feat. but I maintain that you didn't do it for charity you did it because you wanted to, you did it for yourself when you could have given them the money without doing it.

I take risks - I told you I'm married but I don't do them for charity.

my other point is that charities SHOULDN'T be backing risky ideas to get money. They should simply ask for the donations because they are required and we should give them for that reason.

We have lost the meaning of charity. but we haven't lost our spirit and adventure - let's not confuse the two.

[Captain...]

I'm pretty sure that horse legs can be repaired (maybe not all breaks). I know of at least one famous racehorse who broke it's leg and had it repaired.

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/broken-leg-horse.htm I am sure some could if a very simple break of one minor bone, but this articles says that in most cases it is just not possible, because they are supposed to spend most of their lives standing up they just can't actually rest.

I still disagree that people understand the risks. They just think they do.

Nobody truly understands everything, but we are capable of assessing risks, those that can't die, those that can survive, it's evolution.

Would people really take up smoking if they understood the risks?

would they really have unprotected sex if they understood the risks? etc...

Yes, because being governed by risk is no sort of life, if you look at all the possible dangers you will be too scared to leave your house. I have had unprotected sex, but with a girl I was in a long term relationship with and she had a recent clean bill of health, and she took contraceptive measures afterwards to prevent pregnancy. Yes there was still a risk, but then you manage to risk to make sure it is as small as possible.

People don't understand reality. It's only after suffering something that they start to understand and then they begin to forget the reality. That's part of being human instead of being extinct.

Even if the people did understand the risks (which they don't). no self-respecting charity is going to put their name to someone risking their life to get them some money - but these charities are run by people who also don't understand the risks.

If I said to a charity I'd like to raise money for you, there's a chance that I'll die doing it but I need your permission first. how many charities would say okay you have our permission? And if they did would that be responsible or irresponsible?

Depends on how big the chance was, there is no activity you could partake in that has zero risk, even walking for 1 mile as people were doing for sport relief could cause dehydration and extra strain on the heart in elderly or obese people, who were being encouraged to be more active.

Anyway Charity is not the issue here, nobody runs the Marathon for charity, they do it for their own personal sense of acheivement they raise money as an aside. If you want to raise money for charity there are many ways of doing it, a marathon is one option amongst many fund-raising activities that is only chosen by people that want to run a marathon.

[Finnegan]

Or course he climbed Kilimanjaro because he wanted the challenge. But why should that stop him using the achievement to draw attention to a decent cause and get people to donate to it?

Two birds one stone.

[21st Century Fox]

Enslaving ethnic minorities is like keeping livestock?

Capturing and enslaving, no.

Breeding them for a purpose is the same principle, yes.

[Daggers]

We had a maid we had to have put down after she broke her Vileda mop.

To be fair she had led a pampered life with us as we only made her work 12 hours a day and not the standard 15.

[Captain...]

Or course he climbed Kilimanjaro because he wanted the challenge. But why should that stop him using the achievement to draw attention to a decent cause and get people to donate to it?

Two birds one stone.

Was going to put the same thing,

It is people who do "wacky" things for charity that annoy me, like Movember, just fvcking grow a 'tache if you want to, don't do it under some bullshit excuse of charity, you are doing it because it is a safe way to experiment with facial hair.

" You look like a twat with a moustache!",

"It's for charity,"

"Oh ok, you're cool."

I was conincidentally having one of my frequent facial hair growing moments when someone said:

"Oooh, are you doing movember?"

"No, I just couldn't be fvcked shaving for a few days."

"Oh"

"But if my laziness and patchy clumps of facial hair have inspired you to want to donate to charity, there is a charity box over there, feel free to donate away."

"Twat!"

[Webbo]

Was going to put the same thing,

It is people who do "wacky" things for charity that annoy me, like Movember, just fvcking grow a 'tache if you want to, don't do it under some bullshit excuse of charity, you are doing it because it is a safe way to experiment with facial hair.

" You look like a twat with a moustache!",

"It's for charity,"

"Oh ok, you're cool."

I was conincidentally having one of my frequent facial hair growing moments when someone said:

"Oooh, are you doing movember?"

"No, I just couldn't be fvcked shaving for a few days."

"Oh"

"But if my laziness and patchy clumps of facial hair have inspired you to want to donate to charity, there is a charity box over there, feel free to donate away."

"Twat!"

Little bit harsh, he only asked you a question.

[21st Century Fox]

But isn't that because wacky things make good PR and stand out in a crowded market, so you hear about causes you probably wouldn't otherwise.

[Guest]

The London Marathon has become an event that fools put themselves forward to do without the proper training nor the proper medical checks. they do it for a laugh or whatever. If they really wanted to run they'd do a lot of other events before even considering a marathon. Marathons are hell.

That's rubbish. People who take part spend weeks training for the event, and they train to their own ability so they can complete the course in their own time, whether it be 2:30 or 6:30 finish times.

Some people do take part in other events first. Not everybody goes straight for a marathon, but the fact that thousands of people do decide to run a marathon, and complete it, after 20 weeks of training is something to be applauded, not criticised.

As for the risks, these are pointed out when you enter the ballot, or contact a charity. They are repeated throughout the training schedule, and when you collect your number, you have to sign a disclaimer.

People choose these 'risky' events for the sense of achievement it brings, and to belittle my efforts by suggesting I didn't understand the risks, or train properly for it is, quite frankly, insulting.

I thought that with the London Marathon you had to have completed at least 2 half Marathons before you apply, and maybe even one other Marathon, as a way of stopping just anybody take part. this may have changed, but there used to be entry criteria.

As far as I know, there's never been any requirement to have run any kind of race before entering any marathon, even London.

[m00nie]

It was sad that a couple of horses were put down after the Grand National again this year but this happens with horses. whether in a race or running around in the fields if they break a leg then they are put down. The hysteria that followed and the calls for the race to be ended made me sick.

This is a unique historic race that defines our culture.

People are killed in all sorts of sports , boxing , motor racing even football but these people like the horses are well trained and well checked and every prevention is taken. It's a part of sports.

A 30 year old women died in the London Marathon and what has the aftermath been? Lots of money sent to the Samaritans (her charity). Where are the people calling for the London Marathon to be banned?

Here we have thousands of fools who DON'T have professional training or care deciding to run a distance that they shouldn't. Are they checked - not well enough.

I know that some on here ran in the marathon and I'm not getting personal but people do this without the preparation and are foolish.

Leave the Grand National alone and perhaps look at how many people and what physical state they should be in to run the London Marathon.

Or better still look at the state of the health of the man/woman on the street and do soemthing about that. Obese pigs costing the state money in order to feed their faces with food that isn't needed.

Rant over.

do you really think people just run the marathon without preparation??

when was the last time you ran 26 miles?? i mean it must be physically and mentally easy if you dont need to prepare for it..

[James.]

Or course he climbed Kilimanjaro because he wanted the challenge. But why should that stop him using the achievement to draw attention to a decent cause and get people to donate to it?

Two birds one stone.

Basically this. I have no idea why anyone would be against someone fulfilling an ambition while at the same time using that to galvanise people into donating money to a charity they may not even have heard of before it was brought to their attention.

Doing challenges like that or the marathon or whatever is also a hugely effective way of raising awareness. It's not all about money.

FIF you say charities shouldn't back risky ideas but they're only risky according to your own view of risk. For some running a marathon would be considered incredibly low risk - who are you to tell them otherwise? The risk should be defined by the particpants risk appetite, not by the charity or by wider society.

[Captain...]

Little bit harsh, he only asked you a question.

That was him calling me a twat, for being a twat, hence the separate quotation marks.

I thought it was clear, unless you are from the bookworld.

(If you haven't read Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series that probably makes no sense).

[Captain...]

But isn't that because wacky things make good PR and stand out in a crowded market, so you hear about causes you probably wouldn't otherwise.

You are such a kind hearted person, the cynic in me thinks self publicising, attention whore, it's not like comic relief needs it's profile raised, and what about all those starving pricks you are trying to save, how do you think they feel seeing a hairy sweaty Manc swimming around in a bathtub full of baked beans, for an extra fifty pence, they probably think: "You know what if they stuck those beans in a jiffy bag and sent them to my hut I would still fvcking eat them, pubic hair and all."

[21st Century Fox]

You are such a kind hearted person, the cynic in me thinks self publicising, attention whore, it's not like comic relief needs it's profile raised, and what about all those starving pricks you are trying to save, how do you think they feel seeing a hairy sweaty Manc swimming around in a bathtub full of baked beans, for an extra fifty pence, they probably think: "You know what if they stuck those beans in a jiffy bag and sent them to my hut I would still fvcking eat them, pubic hair and all."

Beans in a bath has been done to death

With Movember, I get what you mean but I guess its the equivalent to having a bumper sticker stuck under your nose for a month, most charities would kill for that kind of exposure.

[Guest]

Some people do take part in other events first. Not everybody goes straight for a marathon, but the fact that thousands of people do decide to run a marathon, and complete it, after 20 weeks of training is something to be applauded, not criticised.

As for the risks, these are pointed out when you enter the ballot, or contact a charity. They are repeated throughout the training schedule, and when you collect your number, you have to sign a disclaimer.

People choose these 'risky' events for the sense of achievement it brings, and to belittle my efforts by suggesting I didn't understand the risks, or train properly for it is, quite frankly, insulting.

As far as I know, there's never been any requirement to have run any kind of race before entering any marathon, even London.

Point 1. I didn't critisize anyone for running the marathon, I was critisizing the donation givers who wouldn't have given money to the Samaritans if the woman hadn't died.

Point 2. How cynical. We're setting up an event but we're not going to take responsibility for our actions which we realise are dangerous (which is why we've made you waive any claims against us), we just hope that you are stupid enough not to realise how dangerous we realise it is. Why should anyone have the right to a disclaimer?

Point 3. I realise that it's for personal gratification - personal ego - I was pointing this out. I have no problem with that. In fact that IS what people are.

point 4. I'm sorry that you feel I've insulted you and I tried to make it clear that it was nothing personal to anyone who ran the marathon or who "does things for charity". I didn't really insult you as much as I'm insulting humanity (which includes me). humans are fools who think they are not fools. We think we understand so much when we really understand almost nothing. But that's another reason that we are top of the food chain and causing a lot of the problems which we raise so little money for charities to combat.

A final question. To get a place in the London Marathon is it now obligatory to be running it for charity (apart from the professional athletes who obviously are doing it for personal reasons)?

[Guest]

I should stick to unfunny one liners and not alienate people - I'll never become a politician or world leader.

[Guest]

Point 1. I didn't critisize anyone for running the marathon, I was critisizing the donation givers who wouldn't have given money to the Samaritans if the woman hadn't died.

It comes across that way!

Point 2. How cynical. We're setting up an event but we're not going to take responsibility for our actions which we realise are dangerous (which is why we've made you waive any claims against us), we just hope that you are stupid enough not to realise how dangerous we realise it is. Why should anyone have the right to a disclaimer?

The law is that people accept risks, but it doesn't stop them trying it on when things go wrong. To be honest, I'd be covering my own back!

Point 3. I realise that it's for personal gratification - personal ego - I was pointing this out. I have no problem with that. In fact that IS what people are.

There's no better feeling

point 4. I'm sorry that you feel I've insulted you and I tried to make it clear that it was nothing personal to anyone who ran the marathon or who "does things for charity". I didn't really insult you as much as I'm insulting humanity (which includes me). humans are fools who think they are not fools. We think we understand so much when we really understand almost nothing. But that's another reason that we are top of the food chain and causing a lot of the problems which we raise so little money for charities to combat.

It was the insinuation that just because we don't train like professional athletes, we either haven't trained enough, or don't deserve to have a crack. If you knew the hours of running the likes of me, Andy, and Reynard have put in for this event, you might be just a teeny-weeny bit impressed? It's also why it took us all nearly twice as long to complete the course!

A final question. To get a place in the London Marathon is it now obligatory to be running it for charity (apart from the professional athletes who obviously are doing it for personal reasons)?

No. There is a ballot for places, but I think there's a one in five chance of getting a place. I had a ballot place in 2008, but I still raised over £1,300 for Asthma UK, even though I didn't need to do any fundraising. It just seemed a good opportunity to raise money for a good cause, which is why I was happy to get a place through a charity this time. It's not a black and white thing.