When I was a young boy, tennis was one of the hottest sports in the world. When Wimbledon took place, the world came to a halt. I don’t think there was any sport in the world that grabbed everyone’s attention as a match between tennis greats.
I remember the fading of Billy-Jean King and the rise of Chrissie Evert. I remember when the young Romanian teenager named Martina Navratilova grabbed the world by storm by taking on Chrissie and beating the icon. Then again by openly admitting that she is a lesbian and joined the great Billy-Jean as one of the very few sportsmen or –women that openly admitted the big taboo. She did, however, let her racked do the talking and during the eighties specifically she produced some of the greatest performances the world has ever seen.
Jimmy Conners took the world by storm when the old Rod Laver’s and Ken Rosewell’s started moving aside for the young, very different player. Arthur Ashe was the first black player to make any sense out of the top rankings and just as it looked like the world rebel Conners was going to control world tennis, the Swedish star, Bjorn Borg, hit the scene. I wonder if there is anyone who could ever accomplish what this man did it his short career until his shock retirement. Never had the world ever seen such a controlled performance by a player. Every loved him. He was the new machine. Add with that the amazingly fit Guilermo Vilas, the blond Vitas Guiralitis and the ice king Ivan Lendl and the world saw same of the most amazing tennis they could have asked for. The competition was touch and no clear winners of tournaments existed, except for Borg who controlled Wimbledon until…….
Yes, that until came when the world realized that Conners was actually a nice guy as the new brat on the block was the new sensation, John McEnroe. The Brat swore at player and umpires. The world hated him, but he played excellent tennis. He drew crowds everywhere he went and people wanted to se him in action. The game was no longer about the hitting of a ball across the net, but rather about the characters that played it. They put this sport right up on top on the popularity list.
One by one these players started retiring and the new generation of Edberg, Williander, Sampras, Agassi, etc. did not have the profile or presence on the court as these players had. Not even the new generation lead by Federer is grabbing the attention. They may be good players, but co character. Steffie Graff and Monica Seles continued the rivalry in woman’s tennis, but after the stabbing of Seles, people seemed to slowly loose interest in tennis. The men were boring and the woman – although they started looking much better, their rivalry was not as intense and no longer followed to the same extend a tennis was followed during the seventies and eighties.
Today, many very big tennis supporters watch the game on telly if they hit it by accident. In the past I could recite the top ten or even the top twenty in the men and women’s tennis with no problem. Today I am not even sure who the top male and female players are. With the disappearing of the true characters in the world, so did the supporters.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Steroids and the super sportsmen
On the TV program Carte Blanche we saw how young school kids were buying horse steroids to enhance their performance. It just brought the reality of what is happening in the sporting industry back into the news. The fact that kids as young as twelve are already taking creatine to improve their muscle compound is frightening. I know that creatine is a legal substance, but I am sure it will eventually be banned as well. We have not seen the long term effects of it yet. I am however sure that those young kids will somewhere in the future be tempted to use either performance enhancing stimulants or steroids. The competitive nature of sport has become so huge that people are trying their best to invent new substances in order to try and achieve the ultimate success. Just do your self a favour and go and read that international banned substances list. It is huge and still growing.
In the eighties, I am not going to look up the date – please do not slaughter me if I get a date a little wrong or little errors like that as I write freely without having any reference material close at hand. I express an opinion of what comes to mind during the time I type this blog.
In the eighties, Ben Johnson thrashed the 100m world record at the Olympic games when he was the first athlete ever to break the 9.9s time with a winning time of 9.86s. This was an amazing performance. The great Carl Lewis was second in 9.93s – also bettering the old record. After the games the most famous drug shock hit the world. Ben Johnson tested positive for the use of steroids and was banned by the International Olympic committee out of sport. Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal and the squeaky clean Americans were all happy. Ben Johnson was now no longer the man who ran the 100 meters the fasted ever. Carl Lewis was now the fastest man alive. That is what was sold to the world, but that leaves me with a question. Is it true that Carl is now the fastest man in the world? Surely Ben was still the fastest man ever – even though he had something that improved his performance.
After that we had the whole drug enforcement in sports sharpened up and people have since been expelled and banned all over all types of sports. There has even been a banning in bowls!
If you look at the number of top athletes that still get caught on an annual basis, it poses an interesting question to me. There is obvious that there are people who do not mind taking these substances although medical evidence has shown all types of side effects. Is it not a question of choice? Just like people smoke as a choice although it is obviously unhealthy? Should these people who want to use enhancing substances not be allowed to compete as well? We all know that bodybuilders have been using it legally in their sport for many years. Should other sports not go the same route?
That brings me to the generation of super sportsman. If you go for a land speed record in a car, you are allowed to mix your fuel in any way you want to get the ultimate power out of the engine. No one disputes the fact hat it is now the fastest car an no one complains because the person did not use standard fuel or that it was not a standard vehicle. Should the same rule not have applied to Ben Johnson? He was the fastest man. He did record the fasted time for the 100 meters that day. We cannot dispute it.
I know that there are many people who complain about the unfairness of using these drugs, so maybe what we should do is have a double competition. One for all the clean athletes and one for all the “druggies”. Why can we not create a match or event where the people who make the choice to use steroids and performance enhancing drug. It is surely their choice and I can promise you that many people will watch. It will be a league of extraordinary athletes who will kick out wonderful performances. A lot of them compete in today’s world in any case without bee caught yet. I for one, would definitely watch them.
To me it is all the case of choices. Personally I would have never thought of using any performance enhancing drugs. Maybe I was too good without any assistance (ha-ha), but it never appealed to me. There are however people who want to use it and I respect their will. Let them compete in their own super league and I promise you that we will have a drug free sport section. That should satisfy everyone.
In the eighties, I am not going to look up the date – please do not slaughter me if I get a date a little wrong or little errors like that as I write freely without having any reference material close at hand. I express an opinion of what comes to mind during the time I type this blog.
In the eighties, Ben Johnson thrashed the 100m world record at the Olympic games when he was the first athlete ever to break the 9.9s time with a winning time of 9.86s. This was an amazing performance. The great Carl Lewis was second in 9.93s – also bettering the old record. After the games the most famous drug shock hit the world. Ben Johnson tested positive for the use of steroids and was banned by the International Olympic committee out of sport. Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal and the squeaky clean Americans were all happy. Ben Johnson was now no longer the man who ran the 100 meters the fasted ever. Carl Lewis was now the fastest man alive. That is what was sold to the world, but that leaves me with a question. Is it true that Carl is now the fastest man in the world? Surely Ben was still the fastest man ever – even though he had something that improved his performance.
After that we had the whole drug enforcement in sports sharpened up and people have since been expelled and banned all over all types of sports. There has even been a banning in bowls!
If you look at the number of top athletes that still get caught on an annual basis, it poses an interesting question to me. There is obvious that there are people who do not mind taking these substances although medical evidence has shown all types of side effects. Is it not a question of choice? Just like people smoke as a choice although it is obviously unhealthy? Should these people who want to use enhancing substances not be allowed to compete as well? We all know that bodybuilders have been using it legally in their sport for many years. Should other sports not go the same route?
That brings me to the generation of super sportsman. If you go for a land speed record in a car, you are allowed to mix your fuel in any way you want to get the ultimate power out of the engine. No one disputes the fact hat it is now the fastest car an no one complains because the person did not use standard fuel or that it was not a standard vehicle. Should the same rule not have applied to Ben Johnson? He was the fastest man. He did record the fasted time for the 100 meters that day. We cannot dispute it.
I know that there are many people who complain about the unfairness of using these drugs, so maybe what we should do is have a double competition. One for all the clean athletes and one for all the “druggies”. Why can we not create a match or event where the people who make the choice to use steroids and performance enhancing drug. It is surely their choice and I can promise you that many people will watch. It will be a league of extraordinary athletes who will kick out wonderful performances. A lot of them compete in today’s world in any case without bee caught yet. I for one, would definitely watch them.
To me it is all the case of choices. Personally I would have never thought of using any performance enhancing drugs. Maybe I was too good without any assistance (ha-ha), but it never appealed to me. There are however people who want to use it and I respect their will. Let them compete in their own super league and I promise you that we will have a drug free sport section. That should satisfy everyone.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Die euwel van konsultante
In hierdie tyd wat ons leef het dit hoogmode geword om die verdomde goed in elke maatskappy in te bring. Hulle moet die mense kom vertel hoe om hulle besigheid te bedryf sonder ‘n idée waaroor die besigheid eintlik gaan. Hulle kom dan in met allerhande prosesse en vra die base ‘n moerse klomp geld daarvoor. Dink net aan die menslike hulpbron konsultante wat jou kom vertel hoe om jou mense te evalueer en te bestuur. Hulle is baie life daarvoor. Die vangplek is natuurlik dat daardie konsultant nog nooit een mens bestuur het nie en jy doen dit al twintig jaar. Wie kan nou vir wie hier oor mense betuur leer? Wat hulle gewoonlik doen is om prosesse in plek te stel deur gewoonlik net die bestaande prosesse in ‘n nuwe formaat oor te skryf. Of nog beter, hulle laat die mense wat daar werk dit self doen en hulle verdien op die ou einde miljoene deur net toesig te hou dat dit gebeur. Ongelukkig trap elke maatskappy in die slaggat en leer ook ie uit die proses nie. In my beroep het ek al baie met die spul te doen gehad in vele velde en ek kan seker op een hand tel die regtige positiewe dinge wat uitgekom het. Hoeveel van julle het al daardie ondervinding gehad dat julle ure spandeer om dokumente op te stel en nuwe prosesse te formuleer om net binne ses maande na die oues terug te keer, want dit werk nie? Die ding wat ek nog minder verstaan is waar die base die geld uitkrap om dit te doen en hoe hulle daardie uiteindelike voordeel of besparings van miljoene wys. Konsultante weet duidelik hoe om die boeke te laat klop.
Ek twyfel nie dat die konsultante baie goeie teoretiese kennis het nie. Dit laat my net dink aan die ou ding van die verkoopsman wat by die huis aankom en met die man en vrou gesels en hulle dan oortuig om die blink nuwe wonderlike stofsuier te koop. Hy doen die demonstrasie daar op die mat en suig alles van die hondehare tot verlede jaar se kotskol op. Die man en vrou is in ekstase en koop die wonderlike alles-in-een masjien. Daar is net een geheim. Nie een van die twee donders het nog ooit die huis gestofsuig nie! Hulle het geen idée van wat die behoefte is en wat verlang word om die huis ordentlik skoon te maak nie. Daar is net een persoon wat dit weet en dit is die bediende. Sy sukkel dag na dag met die stofsuier en weet presies wat sy nodig het om dit te doen. Om die kol op die mat in die middle van die vloer op te suig is nie ‘n kuns nie. Dit gaan oor hoe die masjien homself tussen die meubels en agter die kaste gaan gedra. Het die man of vrou ooit daaraan gedink om die bediende te vra of dit kan werk?
Dit is dieselfde konsep wat hier geld. Hoekom spandeer die baas nie eerder die miljoene aan sy eie personeel as ‘n wortel vir die mense wat met goeie innoverende idees vorendag kan kom nie. Hulle ken tog die prosesse en slaggate en met die regte motivering sal hulle darem seker ‘n idée of twee vorendag kan bring. Nee, dit werk nie so nie. Die konsultante word miljoene betaal en die werkers word ook aangemoedig om innoverend te wees en word dan vergoed vir goeie idees met …….R500? .....’n ete bewys by die Wimpy? Ek is seker julle weet waarvan ek praat.
Die vraag is natuurlik “hoekom werk die slim mense dan nie?”. Ek het ‘n konsep van hoe dit werk en gaan dit as volg verduidelik. Enige proses het twee helftes. Gestel daar is ‘n sirkel om die proses volmaak te maak.
Om dit te probeer verduidelik wil ek die voorbeeld van ‘n moordsaak gebruik. Piet skiet ‘n man. Hy kom voor die regter en na die verhoor gaan sit die regter om ‘n vonnis te formulleer. Hy kyk na al die getuienis wat voorgelê is en toets die geldigheid daarvan. Dit is duidelik. Piet het die rolwer uit sy kas gehaal en die ander persoon geskiet. Daar is absoluut geen twyfel daaraan nie. Die regter gaan kyk dan wat sê die wet. Na dit alles is dit duidelik dat Piet die man geskiet het en dat die straf die maksimum is. Dit is nou in die geval die doodstraf [ons maak maar asof dit betaan]. Die vraag is nou, gaan Piet hang? Dit voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel.
Om die sirkel te voltooi moet die regter nou na die volgende begin luister. Daar was seker omstandighede wat Piet gedryf het om die persoon te skiet. Die man was besig om Piet se kar te steel en toe hy hom konfronteer ruk die man ‘n pistool uit en trek die sneller. Die pistool het die eerste keer, gelukkig vir Piet, geweier. Piet se rewolwer het nie. Piet het geskiet om sy eie lewe te beskerm. Hy kon dit nie waag om die man nog ‘n kans te gee om die sneller te trek nie. Die regter luister dan na al die feite en gaan dan na ou soortgelyke hofsake om te kyk hoe dit prakties hanteer word. Na dit alles spreek hy sy vonnis uit en sê omonwonde dat dit selfverdediging was en spreek Piet vry om te gaan. Die sirkel is nou voltooi. Piet is terug waar hy begin het as ‘n vry man. Piet het niks gewen nie, aar die regter, aanklaer en prokureur het ‘n helse klomp geld gekry om Piet terug in sy vry status te sit.
Net so werk ‘n konsultant. Hy kom en bring al sy teorieë oor hoe die werk gedoen moet word en voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel. Daar los hy jou dan want hy het sy deel gedoen. Hy het Piet gehang. Ongelukkig is daar ‘n praktiese sy aan die teorie wat hy op die tafel geplaas het en die maatskappy se werkers het dan die werk om die teorie te probeer implementer. Hulle gaan dan met alle moeite en kyk na die nuwe verbeterde proses en doen dan aanpassings om by die praktiese wêreld aan te pas. Op die ou einde van die dag is hulle heelwaarskynlik terug by die praktiese werklikheid waar die sirkel begin het. Wat is die eindresultaat – die konsultant het baie geld verdien om jou die volle sirkel te vat tot by die begin!
Ek sê nie vir een oomblik dat alle konsultante so eindresultaat het nie. Daar is seker van die siele wat dit regkry om iets goeds te doen. Ek hou egter steeds van die ou definisie van ‘n konsultant. Dit lees:
“’n Konsultant is iemand wat jou om jou horlosie vra, jou sê wat die tyd is en jou dan geld vra omdat hy dit gedoen het”
Ek twyfel nie dat die konsultante baie goeie teoretiese kennis het nie. Dit laat my net dink aan die ou ding van die verkoopsman wat by die huis aankom en met die man en vrou gesels en hulle dan oortuig om die blink nuwe wonderlike stofsuier te koop. Hy doen die demonstrasie daar op die mat en suig alles van die hondehare tot verlede jaar se kotskol op. Die man en vrou is in ekstase en koop die wonderlike alles-in-een masjien. Daar is net een geheim. Nie een van die twee donders het nog ooit die huis gestofsuig nie! Hulle het geen idée van wat die behoefte is en wat verlang word om die huis ordentlik skoon te maak nie. Daar is net een persoon wat dit weet en dit is die bediende. Sy sukkel dag na dag met die stofsuier en weet presies wat sy nodig het om dit te doen. Om die kol op die mat in die middle van die vloer op te suig is nie ‘n kuns nie. Dit gaan oor hoe die masjien homself tussen die meubels en agter die kaste gaan gedra. Het die man of vrou ooit daaraan gedink om die bediende te vra of dit kan werk?
Dit is dieselfde konsep wat hier geld. Hoekom spandeer die baas nie eerder die miljoene aan sy eie personeel as ‘n wortel vir die mense wat met goeie innoverende idees vorendag kan kom nie. Hulle ken tog die prosesse en slaggate en met die regte motivering sal hulle darem seker ‘n idée of twee vorendag kan bring. Nee, dit werk nie so nie. Die konsultante word miljoene betaal en die werkers word ook aangemoedig om innoverend te wees en word dan vergoed vir goeie idees met …….R500? .....’n ete bewys by die Wimpy? Ek is seker julle weet waarvan ek praat.
Die vraag is natuurlik “hoekom werk die slim mense dan nie?”. Ek het ‘n konsep van hoe dit werk en gaan dit as volg verduidelik. Enige proses het twee helftes. Gestel daar is ‘n sirkel om die proses volmaak te maak.
Om dit te probeer verduidelik wil ek die voorbeeld van ‘n moordsaak gebruik. Piet skiet ‘n man. Hy kom voor die regter en na die verhoor gaan sit die regter om ‘n vonnis te formulleer. Hy kyk na al die getuienis wat voorgelê is en toets die geldigheid daarvan. Dit is duidelik. Piet het die rolwer uit sy kas gehaal en die ander persoon geskiet. Daar is absoluut geen twyfel daaraan nie. Die regter gaan kyk dan wat sê die wet. Na dit alles is dit duidelik dat Piet die man geskiet het en dat die straf die maksimum is. Dit is nou in die geval die doodstraf [ons maak maar asof dit betaan]. Die vraag is nou, gaan Piet hang? Dit voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel.
Om die sirkel te voltooi moet die regter nou na die volgende begin luister. Daar was seker omstandighede wat Piet gedryf het om die persoon te skiet. Die man was besig om Piet se kar te steel en toe hy hom konfronteer ruk die man ‘n pistool uit en trek die sneller. Die pistool het die eerste keer, gelukkig vir Piet, geweier. Piet se rewolwer het nie. Piet het geskiet om sy eie lewe te beskerm. Hy kon dit nie waag om die man nog ‘n kans te gee om die sneller te trek nie. Die regter luister dan na al die feite en gaan dan na ou soortgelyke hofsake om te kyk hoe dit prakties hanteer word. Na dit alles spreek hy sy vonnis uit en sê omonwonde dat dit selfverdediging was en spreek Piet vry om te gaan. Die sirkel is nou voltooi. Piet is terug waar hy begin het as ‘n vry man. Piet het niks gewen nie, aar die regter, aanklaer en prokureur het ‘n helse klomp geld gekry om Piet terug in sy vry status te sit.
Net so werk ‘n konsultant. Hy kom en bring al sy teorieë oor hoe die werk gedoen moet word en voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel. Daar los hy jou dan want hy het sy deel gedoen. Hy het Piet gehang. Ongelukkig is daar ‘n praktiese sy aan die teorie wat hy op die tafel geplaas het en die maatskappy se werkers het dan die werk om die teorie te probeer implementer. Hulle gaan dan met alle moeite en kyk na die nuwe verbeterde proses en doen dan aanpassings om by die praktiese wêreld aan te pas. Op die ou einde van die dag is hulle heelwaarskynlik terug by die praktiese werklikheid waar die sirkel begin het. Wat is die eindresultaat – die konsultant het baie geld verdien om jou die volle sirkel te vat tot by die begin!
Ek sê nie vir een oomblik dat alle konsultante so eindresultaat het nie. Daar is seker van die siele wat dit regkry om iets goeds te doen. Ek hou egter steeds van die ou definisie van ‘n konsultant. Dit lees:
“’n Konsultant is iemand wat jou om jou horlosie vra, jou sê wat die tyd is en jou dan geld vra omdat hy dit gedoen het”
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Die Herschelle Gibbs insident
Gibbs het in die eerste krieket toets tussen Suid Afrika en Pakistan die groot sonde begaan om iemand ‘n dier te noem. Ja, as ek nou eerlik wil wees, dit is nou seker nie die beste maniere om mense diere te noem nie en fokken diere is seker nog bietjie erger, maar dit is darem nou nie een van die erfsondes nie. Krieket sal nie ten gronde gaan daaroor nie en Pakistan sou ook nie die toets gewen het as hy dit nie gesê het nie.
Die insident het gebeur toe ‘n klomp Pakistanse idiotiese ondersteuners aanmerkings teen oor Paul Harris gemaak het. Ek was van plan om die middag te gaan kyk en is nou jammer dat ek nie gegaan het nie, want ek sou graag die spul self wou aanskou en nie uit ander monde daarvan gehoor het nie. Ek het wel die baie onduidelike opnames van die kommentaar gehoor. Om alles te kroon het die een of ander idioot in Pakistan daaroor gekla en dit is toe na die Internasionale Krieket Raad (IRK) verwys wat op sy beurt die wedstrydskeidsregter, Malcolm Speed, gevra het om Gibbs aan te kla en te verhoor. Speed het toe ‘n twee toets skorsing toegeken. Teen publiseer tyd het Gibbs appél aangetek en ons wag in spanning wanneer dit verder gaan aangaan. Verder moet hy daarna deur die SA krieketunie ook verhoor word. Dit is nou so belaglik as wat die plaaslike landros ook ‘n vonnis moet uitspreek oor iemand wat klaar in die hoogeregshof skuldig bevind is. Die proses laat my amper dink aan die chaos van ‘n munisipale hof. Jy is skuldig al voor jy verhoor word en gee nie om wat jy sê of doen nie, sonder ‘n straf gaan jy nie wegkom nie. Hulle is nooit verkeerd nie.
Kom ek kyk na die ding soos ek dit sien. Daar is die sogenaamde “code of conduct” wat bestaan en basies daarop neerkom dat alle gekontrakteerde persone hulle moet gedra. So as jy vir SA gekies word as daar baie ouens rus en jy is nie ‘n gekontrakteerde speler nie, kan jy dan maak wat jy wil? Vra maar net so terloops.
Die IRK het na die fiasko in Australië (Ntini is daar deur Expats as ‘n kaffer uitgekryt) en die kommentaarflater van Dean Jones (hy het so bietjie lelik van die sub-kontinent spellers gepraat) besluit dat rasisme streng gestraf gaan word. Hulle het wraak gesweer en dit is op die gronde dat Gibbs gestraf word. Ek wonder wat diere name met rasisme te doen het? Volgende gaan hulle seker elke Engelsman wat na sy vrou as “my pet” verwys seker in die tronk gooi? Pas tog op vir troetelnaampies!
In die hele verhoor is daar ‘n paar flaters. Ten eerste, ek het nog nooit gehoor dat die baas aan een van sy betaalde werkers vra om iemand te straf nie. In regskringe is dit tog ‘n “conflict of interest”. Jy maak tog vir wolf skaapwagter hierdeur! Die verhoor moes tog sekerlik deur ‘n onafhanlike party gehou word. Tweedens is dit seker nie mooi om fok op nasionale TV te sê nie, maar as dit is waarvoor hy gestraf word, hoort André Nel voor ‘n vuurpeleton en Shaun Pollock seker in huisarres. Die derde ding is om “animals” as rasisme op te bring. Dit sou seker, weens geskiedenis, sleg gewees het as hy na hulle as bobbejane verwys het, maar hy het nie. Hy praat van diere. Laat ons ook eerlik wees, die spul op die pawiljoen het hulle soos diere gedra. Ek wonder of dit aanvaarbaar sou wees as hy daardie mooi Engelse woord “hooligans” gebruik het? Is daar ‘n verskil?
Ek hoop van harte Herchelle se appél slaag. Nie dat ek nou vreeslik baie van hom hou nie, maar net uit die beginsel daarvan. Kom ons wees eerlik, hy is egter ‘n ongeluk wat wag om te gebeur. Ek kan net nie sien dat hy geskors moet word terwyl die IRK absoluut niks doen aan die twee wat positief getoets is vir die gebruik van verbode middels nie. Hulle het mos net gesê dat hulle nie geweet het hulle neem dit in nie. In geen sport word dit aanvaar nie, net deur die Pakistan se krieketowerhede en die hoogs heilige IRK wat hier so vinnig intrap, doen niks daaraan nie. Dit is darem net so toevallig dat dit twee van die wêreld se vinnigste boulers is wat dit ingekry het. Daardie woema van hulle….wonder net… Miskien moes Gibbs ook maar net gesê het dat hy nie geweet het die mikrofoon is aan nie. Dit sal dus die geraas van ‘n vallende boom in ‘n verlate woud wees. Jy dink dit is hard, maar niemand het gehoor nie….
Die insident het gebeur toe ‘n klomp Pakistanse idiotiese ondersteuners aanmerkings teen oor Paul Harris gemaak het. Ek was van plan om die middag te gaan kyk en is nou jammer dat ek nie gegaan het nie, want ek sou graag die spul self wou aanskou en nie uit ander monde daarvan gehoor het nie. Ek het wel die baie onduidelike opnames van die kommentaar gehoor. Om alles te kroon het die een of ander idioot in Pakistan daaroor gekla en dit is toe na die Internasionale Krieket Raad (IRK) verwys wat op sy beurt die wedstrydskeidsregter, Malcolm Speed, gevra het om Gibbs aan te kla en te verhoor. Speed het toe ‘n twee toets skorsing toegeken. Teen publiseer tyd het Gibbs appél aangetek en ons wag in spanning wanneer dit verder gaan aangaan. Verder moet hy daarna deur die SA krieketunie ook verhoor word. Dit is nou so belaglik as wat die plaaslike landros ook ‘n vonnis moet uitspreek oor iemand wat klaar in die hoogeregshof skuldig bevind is. Die proses laat my amper dink aan die chaos van ‘n munisipale hof. Jy is skuldig al voor jy verhoor word en gee nie om wat jy sê of doen nie, sonder ‘n straf gaan jy nie wegkom nie. Hulle is nooit verkeerd nie.
Kom ek kyk na die ding soos ek dit sien. Daar is die sogenaamde “code of conduct” wat bestaan en basies daarop neerkom dat alle gekontrakteerde persone hulle moet gedra. So as jy vir SA gekies word as daar baie ouens rus en jy is nie ‘n gekontrakteerde speler nie, kan jy dan maak wat jy wil? Vra maar net so terloops.
Die IRK het na die fiasko in Australië (Ntini is daar deur Expats as ‘n kaffer uitgekryt) en die kommentaarflater van Dean Jones (hy het so bietjie lelik van die sub-kontinent spellers gepraat) besluit dat rasisme streng gestraf gaan word. Hulle het wraak gesweer en dit is op die gronde dat Gibbs gestraf word. Ek wonder wat diere name met rasisme te doen het? Volgende gaan hulle seker elke Engelsman wat na sy vrou as “my pet” verwys seker in die tronk gooi? Pas tog op vir troetelnaampies!
In die hele verhoor is daar ‘n paar flaters. Ten eerste, ek het nog nooit gehoor dat die baas aan een van sy betaalde werkers vra om iemand te straf nie. In regskringe is dit tog ‘n “conflict of interest”. Jy maak tog vir wolf skaapwagter hierdeur! Die verhoor moes tog sekerlik deur ‘n onafhanlike party gehou word. Tweedens is dit seker nie mooi om fok op nasionale TV te sê nie, maar as dit is waarvoor hy gestraf word, hoort André Nel voor ‘n vuurpeleton en Shaun Pollock seker in huisarres. Die derde ding is om “animals” as rasisme op te bring. Dit sou seker, weens geskiedenis, sleg gewees het as hy na hulle as bobbejane verwys het, maar hy het nie. Hy praat van diere. Laat ons ook eerlik wees, die spul op die pawiljoen het hulle soos diere gedra. Ek wonder of dit aanvaarbaar sou wees as hy daardie mooi Engelse woord “hooligans” gebruik het? Is daar ‘n verskil?
Ek hoop van harte Herchelle se appél slaag. Nie dat ek nou vreeslik baie van hom hou nie, maar net uit die beginsel daarvan. Kom ons wees eerlik, hy is egter ‘n ongeluk wat wag om te gebeur. Ek kan net nie sien dat hy geskors moet word terwyl die IRK absoluut niks doen aan die twee wat positief getoets is vir die gebruik van verbode middels nie. Hulle het mos net gesê dat hulle nie geweet het hulle neem dit in nie. In geen sport word dit aanvaar nie, net deur die Pakistan se krieketowerhede en die hoogs heilige IRK wat hier so vinnig intrap, doen niks daaraan nie. Dit is darem net so toevallig dat dit twee van die wêreld se vinnigste boulers is wat dit ingekry het. Daardie woema van hulle….wonder net… Miskien moes Gibbs ook maar net gesê het dat hy nie geweet het die mikrofoon is aan nie. Dit sal dus die geraas van ‘n vallende boom in ‘n verlate woud wees. Jy dink dit is hard, maar niemand het gehoor nie….
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Do expats find happiness......?
One thing that you can be guaranteed of when you read any paper for a month, is that at least one day in that month there will be a day dedicated in the letters column where current South African residents and expats call each other names and have their little tiff in the paper on a public forum. It is normally expats either telling us how nice it is in their new adopted country or expats [and this is mostly true] telling us how bad SA is. The response from the residence is either a bunch who say they are longing to also leave or a number of people who get into a slinging match.
In one's life, all things around you are divided into two areas. In the one area you place all the items that are within your control and the second is the area of items you cannot control. If you can imagine the two as two circles, one will be bigger than the other - you decide which is bigger. Lets put colour to it. The things that you control is green and the things you cannot control red.
In one's life, all things around you are divided into two areas. In the one area you place all the items that are within your control and the second is the area of items you cannot control. If you can imagine the two as two circles, one will be bigger than the other - you decide which is bigger. Lets put colour to it. The things that you control is green and the things you cannot control red.
These two circles represent the balance in your life. In the green circle you find things like your work, your family, your car, your house, etc. In the red circle you will find the petrol price, food prices, exchange rates, etc. If your green circle is big, you will find that that individual is inherently happy as well. If the red circle gets to big, a person becomes unhappy.
The next question is why are there these differences in size between the circles. It is due to the law of attraction. Yes, you read correctly. Our life is controlled by one of the simple laws in nature. The law that says you attract things that are similar to yourself. Have you not found that in life? Just think what is the first question asked if you have a new friend. "Do you have anything in common?". It is a fact. When you only think of positive things, you will have a positive life and your life will be more under control. The green circle will be big. If you are only negatively inclined or go through a rough patch in life, the red circle becomes big and you must be careful that your life does not spiral out of control. The only way to address the red circle, is to concentrate on the things that you can control and get them properly under control.
Lets get back to our expats. The only reason someone will leave your country of origin is when they are unhappy. I am not talking about people who go for professional reasons, but people who emigrate because they do not like South Africa anymore. They are unhappy in this country and will give a number of reasons for it. It may vary from affirmative action to crime to education. They will always find a reason. The problem is that they are unhappy and their red circle is at breaking point. Now they pack up and leave to a new country.
Lets have a look at the reality in this adopted country. They now find themselves in a place, which is not their first choice, in a work which is forced upon them. Their kids go to school in [highly likely] a foreign language [all countries have different ways of doing things - even in English] and you live in a small crummy place in comparison to what you had in South Africa. You drive a crummy car and you have no friends. What a great life!
One thing you will notice in the paragraph above, is that all these items are things which should have been in your green circle. They should have all been well under your control, but moving to the foreign country has suddenly put them right out of your control. That means that your red circle, which was big before you left, has now even increased in size and there is very little in life you now have under control. What do you think does that do for their happiness? The expats - although they will not admit this easily - overall not very happy. They cannot be; the laws of nature can prove to you that they are not. That is why they keep reading SA papers and keep on trying to justify their move to another country. The fact they they constantly try and do it in our newspapers just proves the point about things being out of control. They keep on writing to newspapers to convince themselves that the move is right. Their lives are in turmoil and spiralling out of control and they will do anything eventually to try and get a grip on it. Even if it means packing up and returning to the place where you know how to control most things in your life.
I am not blaming any expat for moving. That is their own personal choice to do it and I respect that opinion. All I am asking is for them to leave us alone and to stop trying to convince us that their decision was right. Rather to try and find justification in SA for their move, they should rather spend their energy in their adopted country to try and move the direct environment around them back into their green circle and become a much more happy group of people.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Negativity will be the death of us...
I wish we would stop being so negative about everything in South Africa. This past weekend I read through the papers and saw a letter that pissed me off (again). It is about a subject that has been under discussion the whole week: The multi-million Rand school that was donated and opened by Oprah Winfrey.The point the person tried to make is that she (it was a female person) wondered who Oprah thought she was. If she (Oprah) thought she was some kind of saviour and also asked the question why Oprah did not rather donate the money to help resolve the teacher shortage situation. She carried on to foul-mouth Ms Winfrey. It is this negative find-fault-in-everything attitude that I am really get sick of. It is the same way that we had complaints about the FNB advert on TV where a white male is very bitchy about everything in SA in a queue at the airport. An Aussie then gives him a bit of a scolding over his negative attitude towards the 2010 World Cup.
Lets get back to Oprah. Fellow South Africans, please understand that the queen of talk television owes us NOTHING! She does not have to donate one single bloody cent to us for anything. The school that was was built cost us as taxpayers NOTHING. It is a gift by Oprah to South Africa. The girls who attend the school pay NOTHING. It is free! I know that it will not do anything to alleviate the teaching crises in South Africa and will not make any difference in the educations system's problems, but it has made one hell of a difference to the kids who were elected to attend the school. No, it is not a school for blacks only. Every parent who earns less that R5000 per month was welcome to apply. No race was ever mentioned. The poor whites just took that for granted.
Think about it it. The school has taken in 152 pupils who came from basically nothing to a school of luxury. They have the greatest facilities and will love as one big happy family. Further on, Oprah has committed to pay - if they pass grade 12 with the necessary results - for every member who wants to further her education anywhere in the world. What a change in the life of 152 kids who had no real chance in life! Thanks Oprah, you are great.
I think of in like this. Even if she adopted ONE single kid, she has made a difference, so who does the bloody idiot who wrote the letter to the Sunday paper think she is. Maybe I should pose her the question, Oprah has made a difference in the lives of 152 kids (not even to mention the staff who has to support the infrastructure). In how many underprivileged kids' lives have you made a difference?
It all comes back to attitude. It has been proven over and over in the past that if you are very negative, it influences your actions. If you believe you are sick, you will eventually become sick. If you think you are healthy, you will become better. I know it is an exaggeration and that the real world does not always work like that as there are things like broken arms that will not be fixed through thought! We, as South Africans, are currently getting trapped inside that sea of negativity. Every thing is wrong. The Government is corrupt, the police force useless, the schools terrible, education standards down, crime too high, wife too ugly - oops sorry. Cannot blame that one on anyone else. You get the idea.
The fact of the matter is that some of these thing, like the corruption of government officials should be very positive. that fact is that we KNOW and HEAR about it. that means we are transparent on that level. In the past it was also there, but hidden away. I have heard some terrible stories of things that happened in the past. These were NEVER reported in mainstream media, but it does not mean they did not happen.
I could comment on each and every one of the points above by looking at the amazing police successes there have been and by referring the the progress of my two kids who are on the outcome based education system. Stop running everything down. I have - without even thinking twice about it - a much better life now. Despite all the crime I have a better life than I had 16 years ago and I am a white South African.
To conclude, we must remember that we are in charge of our own destiny on the continent of Africa and no one else owns us anything. They did not create the situation we are in, we did it ourselves so rather than to critisise everything that someone else does, get off your arses and do something yourself to improve our wonderful country on the Southern tip of Africa. I love my country and will die defending it and it's rights it has created for all humankind.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Dood op ons paaie
Na afloop van die Desember vakansie is daar nou weer so baie mense wat probeer om antwoorde te soek vir die dodetal op ons paaie. Die eerste aspek wat onmiddelik aangespreek word is SPOED. Ja, dit klink vir my al soos 'n afgesaagde wysie om oor spoed te kla.Dit is nou nie dat ek iemand is wat teen hoë spoed rondjaag nie en ek wil dit ook nou nie goedpraat om teen 200km/h op die snelweg te jaag nie, maar dink ook die mense moet dit in perspektief sien.
Die een aspek wat ek graag oor wil praat - of kerm - is dat daar soveel ophef oor spoed en al die mesne wat vinnig jaag en gevang word, dat ek dink die liewe ou Metropolisie het dalk begin vergeet hoe om die wet toe te pas. Elke jaar is 'n baie groot persentasie van die mense wat op die paaie oor die vakansieperiodes sterf, voetgangers.
Ek luister na radioprogramme wat oor die aspek praat en dara kom die een of ander baie slim ou op en vertel ewe netjies dat dit weens die hoë spoed is dat daar soveel voetgangers op die paaie sterf. Ek luiter vir die idioot wat die een of ander verkeerskenner is wat vertel dat jy moet bietjie saam met die paramedisie uitgaan om te sien hoe sleg mense lyk wat teen hoë spoed omgery is. Hallo!? Is ek totaal toe of wat? Of 'n motor jou teen 120km/h of 180km/h tref - dink ek die uitslag is min of meer dieselfde.
Die verdere klagte is dan dat mense sukkel om die spoed van voetuie te skat wat baie vinnig ry as hulle die snelweë kruis. Miskien is ek die idioot, want sover ek weet is daar 'n wet mense verbied om eers langs 'n snelweg te loop, wat nog te kruis! Hoekom word daar nie teen die voetgangers opgetree om te keer dat hulle in die omgewing van die snelweg is nie? Die bestuurders van motors word eerder gevra om stdiger te ry omdat hulle 'n gevaar vir die voetgangers inhou! Die motorbestuurders is 'n gevaar vir die voetgangers op die snelweg! Beslis 'n geval van die stert wat die hond swaai.
Solank ons hierdie blatante ignorering van hulle pligte deur die Verkeerspolisie en Metropolisie het, sal die probleem nooit opgelos nie. Net om te wys hoe erg dit is - op die snelweg by die OR Tambo lughawe verby, naby die petrolstasies langs die pad, is daar elke dag 'n horde mense wat oor die pad hardloop. Ek sien hulle elke dag en die Metropolisiemanne wat in die Wimpy op hulle gate sit en koffie drink sit en kyk vir hulle ....... sover ek weet is dit nie wettig nie. Een maal 'n maand word iemand doodgery. Nou verstaan ek hulle wil daar 'n teken opsit om die mense teen voetgangers te waarsku - soos hulle op die Krugersdorpsnelweg naby Diepsloot gedoen het.
Ek sê graag weer, ek praat nie hierdie manne wat soos renjaers se gedrag goed nie, maar ek wil graag hê dat die kenners vir my moet wys hoeveel van die ouens en vrouens wat op daardie spoed afgetrek is, vir ongelukke, direk of indirek verantwoordelik was. Moenie die moeite doen nie, baie min. Wys my dan ook sdie statistiek van hoeveel mense wat oor snelweë hardloop is al die afgelope paar jaar gevang daarvoor. Jy hoef weereens nie, dit is ook geen nie.
Ek bly maar verder stil
I'm back!
Sorry for being missing for a while. I actually stopped writing for a while and those of you who have seen my other blog page will know that I stopped there as well.
Ek het belowe dat hier ook Afrikaans gaan wees, so kyk gerus uit daarvoor.
This is what I look like!
