RugbyRebels

Anyone watch this last night ?

Interesting that no Olympics or big sporting event has ever had a health benefit on the population.

One of the profs pretty much suggested that if we had redirected the money from elite athletes to infrastructure like cycle paths, plying fields etc we would have a far healthier society than we do.

I think Johnnie Beattie did a brilliant job at holding sport Scotland to account although I don't think the program was long enough to really give him the chance to really get to the core of the problem.


Fr my 2 cent, I still think and will remain convinvined the way to improve our nations health is by accepting the live in a country with shit weather and if we want kids to play sports we have to meet them half way and build many more free sports centres where kids can play sport in a warm dry place which would maximise skills, but also we need to start convincing parents that if they want their kids to go far in sport it has to beby playing multiple different sports, the evidence supports this as 90% of first draft players from the NFL were multi sport disciplined which does suggest that playing multiple sports is the best way forward for kids.

I found it quite disjointed, and at times difficult to discern the point that JB was trying to make. At one point he ignored the statement that the Sport Scotland fella had made about the large percentage of their funding going to participation sports (active schools etc.), whilst dwelling on the background of elite athletes, then immediately flipped over to elderly people taking a walk. What's the connection?

Personally, I thought it was a missed opportunity to properly examine the funding, access to, and supposed benefits of the elite sports programme. Alternatively, he could have focussed on the result of their research into the background of elite sportsmen and given us some enlightenment into why it is that 80% come from either private schools or schools in relatively wealthy areas. As it was, this nugget was thrown in seemingly to discredit Sport Scotland (or their funding programme) but without context or explanation it struck me as being fairly meaningless.

I'm afraid that it's not the first time that I've thought that JB isn't as good a journalist as he thinks he is.

Stones of granite wrote:
I'm afraid that it's not the first time that I've thought that JB isn't as good a journalist as he thinks he is.

I can agree with most of that, but I wonder if it was down to the editing cutting a lot out to make it fit into a 30 minute program. It was a bit disjointed and more an overall state of Scottish health rather than an depth look at any one point

whatisthejava wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
I'm afraid that it's not the first time that I've thought that JB isn't as good a journalist as he thinks he is.

I can agree with most of that, but I wonder if it was down to the editing cutting a lot out to make it fit into a 30 minute program. It was a bit disjointed and more an overall state of Scottish health rather than an depth look at any one point

Yeah, I guess the editing probably didn't help. I've no idea how much input he would have had in that.