Channel 7 - you SUCK

Rob Woozle said:

Why Channel 7 felt the need to have their long newsbreak towards the
end of the cycle leg of the triathlon is beyond me. Surely they could
have had this at some other time instead of highlights ad infinitum.
We missed the end of the cycle leg, the transition to the run and
quite a bit of the run which was quite exciting.

Sorry to be slightly off-topic, there was cycling in there, but I had
to vent!

Rob

They did it yesterday as well...

"Walrus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rob Woozle said:

Why Channel 7 felt the need to have their long newsbreak towards the
end of the cycle leg of the triathlon is beyond me. Surely they could
have had this at some other time instead of highlights ad infinitum.
We missed the end of the cycle leg, the transition to the run and
quite a bit of the run which was quite exciting.

Sorry to be slightly off-topic, there was cycling in there, but I had
to vent!

Rob

They did it yesterday as well...

--
Walrus

Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The hosts are
idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond woman who's cried
every night), they put commercials in the most annoying places. In general
very disapointing... I've been watching SBS whenever they've had something
good on...

I love how Channel 7 dramatise all the drama of the Olympics. Like the English marathon runner & the Yana lady with her dodgey ankle. All soft fous & slow motion. Minutes & minutes of weeping athletes over & over. It’s like war footage from Iraq. I feel like we all need to intervien & put a stop to all this misery.
I actually haven’t caught much live footage (channel flicking back to 7 catches ad breaks), do channel 7 do live footage or just play highlights (with visual effects)?

SBS do one sport at a time, easy to follow, easy to get into. Almost looks like they’re covering a sporting event, not a mini-series.

"LT" <luis_the at NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The hosts are
idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond woman who's cried
every night), they put commercials in the most annoying places. In general
very disapointing... I've been watching SBS whenever they've had something
good on...

Their coverage of the Madison was pretty awful - cut to breaks and
updates for two of the three times teams stole a lap on the field. Not
great to be told after an ad break that you've missed the exciting and
decisive parts of the race.

As I said, Channel 7 SUCKS. About 45 seconds of the Mountain Biking so far
tonight.

SBS, however, are doing a great job.

Rob (home now - hence different address)
Rob Woozle
http://www.geocities.com/robwoozle
"Hello, is there anybody.....out there?"

"LT" <luis_the at NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The
hosts are idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond
woman who's cried every night),

Tony Squires and Rebecca Wilson are far from idiots. They've probably
forgotten more about sport than you'll ever know.

Quoted message said:

they put commercials in the most
annoying places.

That's nothing to do with the hosts.

Quoted message said:

In general very disapointing... I've been watching
SBS whenever they've had something good on...

SBS are getting their feed - including commentators - from Channel Seven.
The only difference is that they don't show ads during events.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS said:

"LT" <luis_the at NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The
hosts are idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond
woman who's cried every night),

Tony Squires and Rebecca Wilson are far from idiots. They've probably
forgotten more about sport than you'll ever know.

Quoted message said:

they put commercials in the most
annoying places.

That's nothing to do with the hosts.

Quoted message said:

In general very disapointing... I've been watching
SBS whenever they've had something good on...

SBS are getting their feed - including commentators - from Channel Seven.
The only difference is that they don't show ads during events.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Just to [censored] everyone off, DRS again raises the tone of the debate.

Do you call the sloughing off of the 'minor' sports to SBS and their cavalier treatment of those they can ill-afford to publicise ("better not show too much mountain biking, or everyone will want to do it, and stop buying shiny new Commodores"😉 professional? Tony Squires' only averagely intelligent questions? The [censored] triumph and tragedy approach they take as good for sport in general? The only things TS and RW are averagely good at is climbing the greasy corporate pole after fattening themselves on the public purse, in Tony Squires case, fattening his head. If they're so good, why did their show bomb when it got away from the ABC? I always thought The Fat had something to do with his fizzog, anyway.

The greatest benefit the Olympics have is to get people interested in unusual and unfamiliar sports they haven't seen before, IMO. That's why AFL isn't an Olympic sport, because only parochial and backward us play it. Broadening the mind - you see? Or maybe you don't.

M H

"mfhor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Do you call the sloughing off of the 'minor' sports to SBS and their
cavalier treatment of those they can ill-afford to publicise ("better
not show too much mountain biking, or everyone will want to do it, and
stop buying shiny new Commodores"😉 professional?

Of course it is. Channel Seven depends on ratings for its survival. We
should be grateful they agreed to let SBS show anything at all since every
viewer watching SBS was a viewer not watching Seven's ads. I know I swapped
between the two stations a lot, especially in the first week.

Quoted message said:

Tony Squires' only
averagely intelligent questions? The [censored] triumph and tragedy
approach they take as good for sport in general? The only things TS
and RW are averagely good at is climbing the greasy corporate pole
after fattening themselves on the public purse, in Tony Squires case,
fattening his head. If they're so good, why did their show bomb when
it got away from the ABC?

So did Good News Week in the end. Big deal. Different audience, different
scheduling. These things make a difference. I quite like Tony Squires. I
think he's a refreshing change from your run of the mill commentator.

[...]

Quoted message said:

The greatest benefit the Olympics have is to get people interested in
unusual and unfamiliar sports they haven't seen before, IMO. That's
why AFL isn't an Olympic sport, because only parochial and backward
us play it. Broadening the mind - you see? Or maybe you don't.

There's nothing the least backward or parochial about having homegrown
sports. Lots of countries do. Having a sport played widely enough around
the world that it qualified for the Olympics might mean more if moronic
non-sports like synchronised swimming weren't included.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS said:

"mfhor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Do you call the sloughing off of the 'minor' sports to SBS and their
cavalier treatment of those they can ill-afford to publicise ("better
not show too much mountain biking, or everyone will want to do it, and
stop buying shiny new Commodores"😉 professional?

Of course it is. Channel Seven depends on ratings for its survival. We
should be grateful they agreed to let SBS show anything at all since every
viewer watching SBS was a viewer not watching Seven's ads. I know I swapped
between the two stations a lot, especially in the first week.

Quoted message said:

Tony Squires' only
averagely intelligent questions? The [censored] triumph and tragedy
approach they take as good for sport in general? The only things TS
and RW are averagely good at is climbing the greasy corporate pole
after fattening themselves on the public purse, in Tony Squires case,
fattening his head. If they're so good, why did their show bomb when
it got away from the ABC?

So did Good News Week in the end. Big deal. Different audience, different
scheduling. These things make a difference. I quite like Tony Squires. I
think he's a refreshing change from your run of the mill commentator.

[...]

Quoted message said:

The greatest benefit the Olympics have is to get people interested in
unusual and unfamiliar sports they haven't seen before, IMO. That's
why AFL isn't an Olympic sport, because only parochial and backward
us play it. Broadening the mind - you see? Or maybe you don't.

There's nothing the least backward or parochial about having homegrown
sports. Lots of countries do. Having a sport played widely enough around
the world that it qualified for the Olympics might mean more if moronic
non-sports like synchronised swimming weren't included.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Yes, he's amusing, in short doses. AFL - No, I was just chucking a line in to see who'd bite 😉

Live pigeon shooting was an Olympic sport for 12 years. Perhaps we could prove that synchronised swimming actually hurts living things and get it banned. I know it hurts me . . .

MH

$1000 to anyone who can get me more than 2 mins of Olympic MTB footage!

Free to air viewer numbers is plummetting across the board. In this day and age, chucking those amounts of ads during programs wont cut it anymore, Free-to-air ain't the only ride in the fairground now-a-days. Channel 7 will never see ratings like Athens anymore. I would rather pay $35 for a DVD of my desired Olympic event, than sit through 2.5 weeks on the off-chance I might catch a 5min throw to it.
TV viewers have lives to live & most (viewers up to about 50yrs old) can do without with whats available today.

mfhor said:

Yes, he's amusing, in short doses. AFL - No, I was just chucking a line in to see who'd bite 😉

Live pigeon shooting was an Olympic sport for 12 years. Perhaps we could prove that synchronised swimming actually hurts living things and get it banned. I know it hurts me . . .

hehehe.. damn you beat me to it! I was going to claim much unnecessary
suffering and distress from the other night when I accidentally switched on
syncro swimming.. ;-)

Get rid of that rubbish equestrian "sport" too! If you let people sit on horses
and call it sport.. why don't they make F1 or touring car racing an Olympic
sport? Faster, Higher, Further (or whatever it is) shouldn't be referring to a
horse!!
How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related "sport"???
Total pile of [censored] if you ask me (oh wait.. you didn't.. tough! :P).

hippy
- fan of 'real' sports in the Olympics

Marx SS said:

$1000 to anyone who can get me more than 2 mins of Olympic MTB footage!

Hey lawyers? Is that a legally binding statement?

I'll take your $1000.. I just checked my tape and I have at least 7
minutes of the women's olympic mtb race.. nyer nyer.. I'm rich!!
Rich I tells ya!! 😉

hippy

In article <[email hidden]>,

hippy said:

Get rid of that rubbish equestrian "sport" too! If you let people sit
on horses and call it sport..

Spoken like someone who has never tried. Think about the skill in riding
a bike, and then consider what it would be like if the bike had a mind
of its own.

The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
talented athletes.

Quoted message said:

How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related "sport"???

Get out of the city some time and into the country. Go to a pony club
meeting on a Sunday morning and you'll see a lot less flash gear than
you'll see hanging around some popular cafes. It's probably one of the
the most popular participation sport outside metropolitan areas.

In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
($300).

--
Shane Stanley

hippy said:

Hey lawyers? Is that a legally binding statement?

I'll take your $1000.. I just checked my tape and I have at least 7
minutes of the women's olympic mtb race.. nyer nyer.. I'm rich!!
Rich I tells ya!! 😉

hippy

Sorry Hippy, not legal binding.
Besides, I was really meaning the men's MTB race, as that was supposed to be on Satuday pm.

Doesn't matter, SBS will play something MTB one Sunday just before lunchtime as always.....

(I don't want to bag 7 because they're commercial, I just reckon they make no effort to dress up the Olypmics beyond a filler between the ads they run. C'mon, it's not that hard to make it work, channel 7 gotta realise that we tune in to view the programs, therefore they should present them in a fashion thats easliy digestable. I can't sit down & do it live it's too hard, I tape it & fast forward later to the bits I want to watch.)

Shane Stanley said:

In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
($300).

and if your bike breaks down on you in the middle of the outback, the BIKE aint edible LOL 😄
(they eat Mr.Ed in Holland... )

[email hidden] (Rob Woozle) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Why Channel 7 felt the need to have their long newsbreak towards the
end of the cycle leg of the triathlon is beyond me. Surely they could
have had this at some other time instead of highlights ad infinitum.
We missed the end of the cycle leg, the transition to the run and
quite a bit of the run which was quite exciting.

First Post Here

FUNNY FUNNY FUNNY

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley

Quoted message said:

hippy wrote:
Get rid of that rubbish equestrian "sport" too! If you let people sit
on horses and call it sport..

Spoken like someone who has never tried.

You know this for a fact? I've ridden a horse. I might not have jumped it
over stuff or sat on it while it dances to music in a pen though..

Quoted message said:

Think about the skill in riding a bike, and then consider what it would be like
if the bike had a mind of its own.

Think about the human energy needed to power the bike, think about the
lack of human energy to power the horse.

Jumping motorbikes over stuff takes a lot of physical energy but I don't
think it really fits in with the Olympics, just like horse riding doesn't. I'm
talking about the jumping here too.. not that ridiculous dressage(?) event
where the horses 'shake some booty' for the appreciation of the crowd.

Quoted message said:

The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
talented athletes.

"Extroardinarily fit and talented athletes" that sit on the back of a horse
while it runs over stuff. Would it not be possible for a fatty to win the sport?
Something that is highly unlikely in cycling or running or high jump or etc, etc..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related "sport"???

Get out of the city some time and into the country.

I spent 17 years in the country.. thanks.. try again.

Quoted message said:

Go to a pony club meeting on a Sunday morning and you'll see a lot
less flash gear than you'll see hanging around some popular cafes. It's >probably one of the the most popular participation sport outside
metropolitan areas.

No, that would be football or rugby or cricket or netball or hockey. Most
of my friends come from country areas and none of them ride horses but
quite a few of them play squash, netball, ride bikes, play footy, soccer, etc.

Quoted message said:

In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
($300).

I find that VERY hard to believe! I would imagine most saddles would cost
quite a bit more than that, let alone the horse, the feeding of the horse,
the grounds to run the horse on, the trainers, etc, etc. Actually, while
looking for horse costs I found this:

pinfever.comridec1.htmOpen ↗

hippy

In article <[email hidden]>,

hippy said:

I've ridden a horse. I might not have jumped it
over stuff or sat on it while it dances to music in a pen though.

Right, and everyone once rode a bike so they know exactly what's
involved in, say, a team persuit. I mean, they just sit on a bike and
turn the pedals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Think about the skill in riding a bike, and then consider what it

would be like

Quoted message said:

if the bike had a mind of its own.

Think about the human energy needed to power the bike, think about the
lack of human energy to power the horse.

To control a horse takes quite a lot, actually. Are you also going to
ban sailing because it's really just wind power? And diving -- that's
just gravity. And I suppose you'll also then ban skiing from the winter
games? Perhaps slip-streaming in bike events?

Quoted message said:

Jumping motorbikes over stuff takes a lot of physical energy but I
don't
think it really fits in with the Olympics, just like horse riding
doesn't.

There's a big difference between the two.

Quoted message said:

I'm
talking about the jumping here too.. not that ridiculous dressage(?)
event
where the horses 'shake some booty' for the appreciation of the crowd.

One of the great things about the Olympics is that it gives people the
chance to learn about sports they might never see otherwise. It also
gives them the chance to parade their ignorance -- I don't understand
it, so it must be [censored].

I guess you're throwing out the gymnastics here, too, BTW...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
talented athletes.

"Extroardinarily fit and talented athletes" that sit on the back of a
horse
while it runs over stuff. Would it not be possible for a fatty to win
the sport?
Something that is highly unlikely in cycling or running or high jump or
etc, etc..

And as unlikely in equestrian events. But I presume you've also just
thrown the weigth-lifters out of the games. And the shot-putters,
probably the discus-throwers...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related

"sport"???

Quoted message said:

Get out of the city some time and into the country.

I spent 17 years in the country.. thanks.. try again.

Quoted message said:

Go to a pony club meeting on a Sunday morning and you'll see a lot
less flash gear than you'll see hanging around some popular cafes.

It's >probably one of the the most popular participation sport outside

Quoted message said:

metropolitan areas.

No, that would be football or rugby or cricket or netball or hockey.

If you want to hunt up club membership stats, especially among girls,
you might get a bit of a surprise.

Quoted message said:

Most
of my friends come from country areas and none of them ride horses but
quite a few of them play squash, netball, ride bikes, play footy,
soccer, etc.

It's a big country.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
($300).

I find that VERY hard to believe!

It's the exception; it's also a fact. It was a failed racehorse,
destined for the nackers.

Some of the riders don't actually own the horses -- the horse that
(briefly) won the eventing gold medal for the German rider, for example,
is actually owned by a Victorian. It's just another form of sponsorship.

But you'll find that most of the Australians end up selling their horses
because they can't afford to bring them home.

Quoted message said:

I would imagine most saddles would cost
quite a bit more than that, let alone the horse, the feeding of the
horse,
the grounds to run the horse on, the trainers, etc, etc.

No, it's not cheap -- being a full-time athlete in any sport isn't.
Unless you're rich, to compete at the top level is always going to
require some form of sponsorship.

But at the basic level, it's not necessarily that much more expensive
than a lot of other sports. It's probably a lot cheaper than, say,
alpine sports. The biggest thing it takes, again like most other sports,
is enormous amounts of time.

There are two very good reasons for keeping equestrian events, IMO: the
historical connection, and the fact that it's the only Olympic sport in
which men and women compete as equals.

--
Shane Stanley

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley

Quoted message said:

hippy
I've ridden a horse. I might not have jumped it
over stuff or sat on it while it dances to music in a pen though.

Right, and everyone once rode a bike so they know exactly what's
involved in, say, a team persuit. I mean, they just sit on a bike and
turn the pedals.

Okay then.. give me the rider input required to make a horse walk around
the dressage area. I've not competed in dressage but it doesn't look like
the rider is doing much at all. Please feel free to enlighten me, but when I rode a horse it involved sitting and making small arm and leg movements.
This is not what I would call an Olympic sport. Maybe if they carried the
horses onto the field..?

Quoted message said:

To control a horse takes quite a lot, actually.

Maybe when jumping but I managed to ride one and the only reason my
heart rate went up was when the one I was on had a go at my mate's.
Scared the [censored] outta me and dumped my mate on his backside.

Quoted message said:

Are you also going to ban sailing because it's really just wind power?

Fine by me.

Quoted message said:

And diving -- that's just gravity.

Gravity makes them spin around does it?

Quoted message said:

And I suppose you'll also then ban skiing from the winter games?

Um.. you know unless you push them down a hill skis don't move by
themselves? Yes, that's right! The skiers actually have to expend energy
to move along!

Quoted message said:

Perhaps slip-streaming in bike events?

So, riders conserve 30% of the energy it would take to ride the same
pace, alone. Big deal! There's still a massive amount of energy needed
to ride as fast as they do, drafting or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jumping motorbikes over stuff takes a lot of physical energy but I
don't think it really fits in with the Olympics, just like horse riding
doesn't.

There's a big difference between the two.

Really? What is it?

Quoted message said:

One of the great things about the Olympics is that it gives people the
chance to learn about sports they might never see otherwise. It also
gives them the chance to parade their ignorance -- I don't understand
it, so it must be [censored].

You aren't doing a very good job of explaining to me why it should be an
Olympic sport..

Quoted message said:

I guess you're throwing out the gymnastics here, too, BTW...

I don't particularly like gymnastics, especially the rythmic variety, but at least it usually requires highly trained "athletes" to perform difficult physical tasks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
talented athletes.

"Extroardinarily fit and talented athletes" that sit on the back of a
horse while it runs over stuff. Would it not be possible for a fatty to win
the sport?
Something that is highly unlikely in cycling or running or high jump or
etc, etc..

And as unlikely in equestrian events. But I presume you've also just
thrown the weigth-lifters out of the games. And the shot-putters,
probably the discus-throwers...

No, because they are Olympic athletes.. Swifter Higher Stronger
(higher is this case does NOT refer to how high a horse can jump)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related

"sport"???

Quoted message said:

No, that would be football or rugby or cricket or netball or hockey.

Quoted message said:

If you want to hunt up club membership stats, especially among girls,
you might get a bit of a surprise.

No, you are trying to prove this to me.. hunting stats is your job. I'll stand
by my assumption until I'm proven otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
($300).

I find that VERY hard to believe!

It's the exception; it's also a fact. It was a failed racehorse, destined for
the nackers.

How much did it cost as a racehorse? How much does it cost to keep alive?
How much does it cost to retrain as a show horse? How many people can
keep a horse? You are leaving out the obvious problems associated with
competing on a horse.

Quoted message said:

Some of the riders don't actually own the horses -- the horse that
(briefly) won the eventing gold medal for the German rider, for example,
is actually owned by a Victorian. It's just another form of sponsorship.

.. and I'm sure that that Victorian spends a LOT of money keeping the
horse in tip top condition. I don't care who owns the horse.. the fact is
that they are expensive.

Quoted message said:

But you'll find that most of the Australians end up selling their horses
because they can't afford to bring them home.

Gee.. sounds like you've just done a backflip on what you said before...
You're not doing to well with this are you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would imagine most saddles would cost
quite a bit more than that, let alone the horse, the feeding of the
horse, the grounds to run the horse on, the trainers, etc, etc.

No, it's not cheap -- being a full-time athlete in any sport isn't.

What happened to your great value $300 horse?

Quoted message said:

Unless you're rich, to compete at the top level is always going to
require some form of sponsorship.

I could buy the same bike as Ryan Bayley.. I'm pretty sure I could not
afford a horse nor the funds required to maintain the horse.

Quoted message said:

But at the basic level, it's not necessarily that much more expensive
than a lot of other sports. It's probably a lot cheaper than, say,
alpine sports. The biggest thing it takes, again like most other sports,
is enormous amounts of time.

Don't change the argument. Simple fact is equestrian sports should not be
in the Olympics. We want swifter, higher, stronger athletes.. NOT horses.

Quoted message said:

There are two very good reasons for keeping equestrian events, IMO: the
historical connection, and the fact that it's

You wanna see men only run naked too?

Quoted message said:

the only Olympic sport in which men and women compete as equals.

That's why there's separate divisions!

Isn't shooting equal? Archery?

If equestrian sports are so equal.. then you're admitting it's not the rider
that makes the difference.. but the horse. Case closed.

hippy