Jose Mourinho might call them points from the moon. Bernard Dunne called them points for shadowboxing, but whatever you decide to call them there was something amiss about Kenny Egan’s defeat in the Light Heavyweight final. Throughout the boxing tournament there have been several examples of inconsistent judging – poor punches earning a point whilst clean connections mysteriously get missed. Egan was harshly treated to lose by four points. On more than one occasion the Chinese boxer looked to have earned a point simply for being on the receiving end of Egan’s powerful hook.

We’re paying out on Irish boxing hero Kenny Egan as the winner in the Olympic light heavyweight boxing final.* Maybe the neutrals will say the Chinese man deserved to win the bout, but surely the margin and judging in general must come into question.

Admittedly looking through distinctly green-tinted glasses means that my gripes can be dismissed as sour-grapes or being a terrible loser, but the seeds of dubious judging were sown early on in the competition. Paddy Barnes was soundly beaten by Shiming Zou in the light flyweight semi-final, but the fact that he didn’t register a point when in fact he deserved several, left a bitter taste in the mouth, prompting the Belfast man to declare:

They can keep the bronze for all I care. The judges should hang their heads in shame. There’s no doubt I lost the fight by miles but not scoring a point? I’m getting drug tested here. The judges should be getting drug tested. But we’re in China so what do you expect.

It’s not simply a problem affecting the Irish boxers. Many of the bouts were characterised by some unusual awarding of points and it’s not even the first time the judging has been queried with accusations of corruption flying around a recent press conference.

Obviously home advantage is certain to have certain benefits for the athletes involved – that is accepted as the norm, but is it right to question the level of home bias across the Olympics? Some sports involve a definitive goal such as ‘run there fastest‘, ‘throw this furthest‘ or ‘jump as high as you can‘ and the results – technical infringements aside – are clear and unquestionable. Other sports such as amateur boxing, gymnastics and diving are essentially subjective sports, relying on the opinions of a panel of judges to decide the winner.

At these games China have won 51 gold medals. 20 of these have come in events that require judges, with 31 coming in events that have clear-cut conclusion. That’s 39% of China’s gold medals relying on the opinions of judges, with 61% being more straightforward. For the USA, who came second in the medal table with 36 golds, the breakdown is 5.5% of gold medals (2) in events using judges and 94.5% (34) in events not using judges. In the case of Great Britain, the figure is 5% (1) for events with judges opinions required and 95% of golds coming in more objective events. Even Russia, who have a history of success in a number of sports involving judges only accrued 26% of their golds via the subjective events with 74% coming in the more definitive.

Now obviously, there are two ways of viewing this:
(a) China are an emerging athletic force and the breakdown is simply a reflection of their dominance in sports that for years have used judges.

(b) there are darker forces at work.

Hopefully it’s (a) and the integrity of the Games is beyond reproach, but you just can’t help wondering.

*Payout applies to singles only.

Posted in Beijing Olympics 2008, Boxing, Justice Payouts, Sportsbook | 41 Comments »

Congratulations to Michael Phelps on winning the seventy gold medals he did at the Olympics to become the most successful athlete at the modern games, but – and you knew there was going to be a but – does he really deserve all the accolades he has been getting in recent days?

True – he is a phenomenal swimmer and athlete, one worthy to be compared to any of the great athletes of all time.
True – he has overcome attention deficit disorder, bullying in school and the most unaerodynamic ears in the history of swimming to succeed.
True – he broke loads of world records and somewhat controversially has opted not to take performance enhancing drugs to do it.

But is fourteen gold medals a little too much? The sheer volume is astounding, but is it a little unfair on athletes past and present who dominated their disciplines but couldn’t compete in as many events? I know that there are different swimming strokes and Phelps is great at all of them, but essentially it’s all swimming and we know Phelps is good at that. I don’t know when I’m looking at freestyle, butterfly or individual medley. Carl Lewis’ haul of golds took in the running and the long jump, two clearly different athletic disciplines, but still has nowhere near the amount of medals as Phelps.

Obviously, the different distances of the swimming races require various degrees of stamina and speed, but again it’s hard to tell the difference in terms of pace and tactics. Phelps is undoubtedly adept at multiple distances, but Usian Bolt could probably wrack up a similar amount if there was a 50 metre sprint, a 75 metre sprint, a 150 metre sprint etc. Plus, I can’t wait until they introduce the running backwards sprint in 2012.

The very physiques and attributes required of 100 metre runners as opposed to 400m or 800 metres runners means that no athlete will be able to dominate the sheer number of events on the track no matter how brilliant they are at their events. Bolt destroyed the field in the 100 metres and looks certain to do the same in the 200, but even if he won both events at every Olympics until 2020, he would still end up with around half the medals than Phelps, and that’s not taking into account what Phelps may achieve in the future. Obviously some of Phelps’ tally comes via relays and you can’t criticise him for triumphing as part of an successful American team, but it goes on to skew his record even further.

Well done to Phelps, he’s great, but is he really the greatest?

Posted in Beijing Olympics 2008, Sportsbook | 32 Comments »

Sorry about the delay in annoucing the winner, but after sifting through the hundreds of entries, we have picked a winner that combines high fashion with relentless sporting practicality. Congratulations KN011185 who combines Hugo Boss style with the satire of Swift and gets a €50 Free Bet for his mastery of paint.

And after a solid performance in the synchronised showing people how to put on their seatbelts and where the exits are, the Irish team now attempt the running through the cabin asking if people want to buy duty free discipline.

Not only are we unlikely to win any medals in Beijing, but our athletes are going to look like flight attendants at the opening ceremony. Clearly inspired by Ryanair, John Rocha has come up with the above effort, but can you do any better?

Bearing in mind the pollution and political controversy that is likely to feature at the games, we want you to design a fashionable yet practical outfit that our athletes can wear in Beijing. Send your wonderful creations to competitions@paddypower.com, darlings.

The best one will win whatever a €50 Free Bet is worth in your currency and quite possibly a bump up the first few rungs of the career in fashion ladder.

Closing date 1pm Friday 18th July 2008. Our judges’ poor taste in fashion is final.

Posted in Beijing Olympics 2008, Sportsbook | 2 Comments »

According to Pub edict, Politics and eh…… fashion should never be brought up in conversation during a heavy night drinking, least of all combined with Sport. Fuelled by alcohol, it’s surely the most lethal, potent cocktail ever known to man. Hailing from a small town that resembles the wild west on a Saturday night, I try to stay comfortably ignorant to all other surroundings by remaining in the same position propping up the same bar that I have done so since I was thirteen eighteen. Invariably, the conversation slips to sport and, unfortunately, sometimes politics. Last weekend, the two met, not for the first time. It all ended in tears, with my best mate and I having to be separated on the saw-dusted floor because he thought Ireland should boycott Beijing 2008 as, either way, we’ll win f*ck all. I disagreed, and rather than converse with him to make a coherent point, Little Big Man/I’m-right-you’re-wrong syndrome kicked-in. Ten minutes later, feeling slightly dirtier, we were expressing our drunken love for each other over a Kebab. Something I hope we’ll both conveniently forget.

As we have seen in London, Paris and San Francisco, politics and sport should never enter each other’s realm. Granted, Tibet’s situation is one for concern, and has been for a number of years, however I’m not here to discuss China’s human rights abuses, we already knew about their record before the Olympic torch began its journey. It is the Olympics and sport as a whole that is suffering from the opportunistic protesting. Boycotting this historic event, as is the protestors’ objective (apart from highlighting the obvious issues!), would cause major embarrassment for the Chinese Government, but whether it would force their hands to address their ‘problems’ is doubtful, at best. They might make some gesture, but inaction would follow. Clearly from the official Chinese Olympic website, they are blissfully ignorant to the protests. Their Citizens don’t even know what goes on in the outside world. Only political pressure from western governments will force them to act. A few hundred activists, as courageous and committed as they are, won’t make a difference to anyone, least of all China.

Although, due to some high profile drug cases, the Olympics may not be the prestigious event it once was, it is still a celebration of sport and that is being lost amidst the ongoing demonstrations. While we shouldn’t mix sport and politics, it is being forced upon us. Should Ireland and the UK, or anyone else for that matter, boycott the games? Should sport be used as a political tool to serve other agendas? Do you even care about the Olympics? Where’s China?

Posted in Beijing Olympics 2008, Politics, Sportsbook | 48 Comments »