Everest Part 2: Unanswered Questions

The unanswered question that some have regarding the death of David Sharp is “IF” – if assistance was provided and a rescue attempted, would he still be alive today? It is a question that cannot be answered, and one that I’m not addressing here.

The questions I have surround the decision to not attempt to rescue him. My immediate reaction after reading the original article in the NZ Herald was “how can 40 people walk past a dying person”, which changed to “I wasn’t there so what the hell would I know whether it was right or wrong”, and now after trawling through the internet it’s changed again.

First, some background information. Everest can be climbed by two routes; the south route (through Nepal) and the north route (the Chinese/Tibet side). All the drama was happening on the north side. The northern ascent of Everest has an Advance Base Camp at around 6,400m, and three further “camps” higher up (i.e. places where you can pitch a tent) with the highest being at 8,300m (Everest is 8,848 metres).

Inglis was climbing Everest as part of a group led by Himalayan Experience. The dude running Himex is a fellow Kiwi by the name of Russell Grice. By the looks of it, Himex are the “Rolls Royce” of mountain guide companies when climbing Everest from the north side (and have prices to match).

Attempting to “knock the bastard off” from the north side pretty much involves leaving the camp at 8,300m well before dawn, climbing to a ridge with three rock climbs (known as “steps”), get on top, take a photo and get the hell out of there and back down as far as possible before dark (preferably to a camp at 7,700m)

Next timing. Inglis climbed Everest on May 15. While I cannot verify this, it is a reasonable assumption to assume Sharp climbed or attempted to climb Everest on May 14. Any earlier and I think you can safely assume even his eyes wouldn’t be flickering by the time Inglis came across him.

So with that in mind, let’s start off with the original interview with Inglis that ignited this whole thing, which aired on TVNZ’s Close-up on May 22:

Reporter: “Mark has also come back to questions about a British climber who laid dying as he made his ascent”

Inglis: “And it was like, what do we do? Y’know, we couldn’t do anything. He had no oxygen, he had no proper gloves, things like that. I believe I’ve copped a wee bit of flak …”

Reporter: “Well yes, someone has suggested that maybe you should have stopped the ascent and rescued this man”

Inglis: “Absolutely. Yep, it’s a very fair point. Trouble is at 8,500 metres it’s extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive. On that morning, over 40 people went past that young Briton. I was one of the first, radioed and Russ said look Mark, you can’t do anything. He’s been there X number of hours, been there without oxygen, y’know he’s effectively dead. So we carried on. Of those 40 people who went past this young Briton, no-one helped him except for people from our expedition.”

It’s unfortunate Inglis mentions 40 people as that’s what people have jumped on. That’s rather a lot of people walking past a dying man. What Inglis left out (I’m sure innocently and unintentionally) was that the largest group climbing Everest that day was his, from Himalayan Experience. If you check the Himex website, Newsletter No.8 reports that 15 people from this expedition summited on May 15, including 8 Sherpas and other guides. An earlier newsletter (no.6) states that Team 2 (Inglis’ team) consisted of 20 people, of which only 6 were clients. So the reality is somewhat different to the perception many no doubt have that there were scores of teams walking past Sharp all day long and Inglis’ team were the only people “willing to help”. I suspect there were actually only 2 teams climbing that day (more about that later).

My first unanswered question, given the number of experienced people in that group, surrounds Inglis’ implication that the decision was made by Grice, who wasn’t even there. Fast forward to the follow-up interview with Inglis that aired on Close-Up on May 24:

Inglis: “David was just so incredibly frostbitten. He was completely rigid – just a small flickering of the eyes …he was effectively dead … it was sometime after midnight as we were climbing past, some of our Sherpas – as I’ve said very experienced people – checked him out and y’know, I guess their opinion. We climbed on. Our Sherpas gave him more help somewhat later and, including oxygen and, but y’know David passed away.”

Now I assume when climbing Everest a large group such as Himex Team 2 aren’t walking together holding hands – more like a bunch of stragglers scattered along the summit ridge. That would explain the comment that some of the other Sherpas gave him help later on. However that just begs another unanswered question if some of the Sherpas “later on” gave him some help, what did the Sherpas and/or guides with Inglis actually do apart from “check him out”?

So my uneducated guess is the people with Inglis thought Sharp was beyond help and Grice told them to keep going. Trouble is, others later on tried to assist him so how much “beyond help” was he?

Trying to unlock the sequence of events is the key in trying to understand. By Inglis’ own admission, he was “one of the first there”, and there “sometime after midnight”, i.e. the early hours of May 15. Time to introduce some further information.

From the Everestmax expedition comes this account:

"This started while we were still basecamp visiting another team to say goodbye. While we were there we heard their radio communications with their clients. They had come across a near-dead climber with severe frostbite of his face and all 4 limbs. He had been at 8,500m for at least 24 hours and all he said was that he wanted to sleep."

When first reviewing Inglis’ May 22 TV interview, I wondered how, if Inglis was one of the first there, did they know “he’s been there X number of hours”? Well, this gives us an idea, the X is 24 (which may not be true – more about that soon), but more importantly, the phrase “all he said was that he wanted to sleep” suggests that Sharp was at least in a state to indicate, by audible means apparently, that he wanted to sleep. Compare that to Inglis on May 24: “he was completely rigid, just a small flickering of the eyes – he was effectively dead”. Even allowing for the fact that accounts coming off the top of Everest are never completely accurate, something just doesn’t add up.

I initially wondered how accurate the “he had been at 8500m for at least 24 hours” was. It led me to try and ascertain exactly where Sharp was and for how long. There is a pretty picture (or not, depending on your point of view - it's rather startling to see Sharp wasn't too far away from Camp 3) at the Explorersweb site which shows Sharp was found at 8,400m. So what about the 24 hours?

Sharp was either on the way UP or the way DOWN. If he was on the way UP, then others that climbed on May 14 (including another large group from Himex) would have come across him on the way down. So it’s pretty obvious that Sharp got into trouble on the way down – and probably was one of the last coming off the top that day (as surely if others descending had passed him in trouble, they would have done something, surely?). I did see somewhere (but didn't keep the link) that it is thought Sharp was late in leaving for his summit climb.

So X = 24? If getting in trouble on the descent, and at 8,400m (a lot closer to Camp 3 than the summit), then X is a lot less than 24. While he may have perhaps been on the mountain 24 hours, he would have been in trouble for much less.

One of the misunderstood parts of this tale is that people think Sharp had no oxygen. While he was attempting to climb Everest without O2, there are reports he took 2 cylinders of O2 with him, so it is more correct to say “he ran out of oxygen”. When he used it and where of course no-one knows.

Another myth spread is no-one can be rescued in the “Death Zone”. Well of course that got well and truly debunked with the rescue of Lincoln Hall a few days ago, from 8,600m by the way. But there is another rescue, not reported, that happened on May 18th, and you can read about it here - go to the News section and click on page 2 at the bottom. A guide, Jamie McGuinness managed to get a client off the mountain that got into difficulties at the summit - yes, at the summit.

McGuinness also sent an email to Explorersweb which had this to say about David Sharp:

"Dawa from Arun Treks also gave oxygen to David and tried to help him move, repeatedly, for perhaps an hour. But he could not get David to stand alone or even stand resting on his shoulders, and crying, Dawa had to leave him too. Even with two Sherpas it was not going to be possible to get David down the tricky sections below."

Dawa? Arun Treks? Hang on, Inglis told us that no-one apart from members of his own expedition (Himex) helped Sharp.

Stumbling across the website of the Turkish Expedition explains a lot. Also summiting on May 15 were members from this expedition, and an entry dated May 16 explains their summit expedition on May 15 consisted of it seems 7 Turkish climbers and 8 Sherpas. It also recounts how one of the Turks got into trouble at 8,600m and was assisted down by four people, two of the Turks and two Sherpas, including Dawa Sherpa. And the website states their expedition was using the assistance of Arun Treks.

There are a few things to come out of this:

1. The “40 people” climbing Everest on May 15 were actually just two expeditions (plus maybe a few independents) – Himex (20ppl?) and the Turks (15+ppl?).


2. The Turkish Expedition website states that one of their climbers got into trouble at around 3 o’clock (i.e. a.m.) at the second step (8,600m), and after another 2 hours she managed to get up and start going back down with the aid of four people – who would therefore have come across Sharp at some time (well) after 5 a.m. on the way down. At that time, one or perhaps both Sherpas reportedly spent an hour trying to help him.


3. Inglis’ statement that no-one apart from his expedition helped Sharp is pure fiction – not that I’m accusing him of lying, more I suspect through not being aware.

As I said, the key to understanding is working out the sequence of events.

I. Sharp climbed Everest on May 14 and was on his way down when he got into trouble. One of the mysteries still remaining is what sightings of him were made on this day by others (including Himex Team 1)?
II. Members of Himex Team 2 (including Inglis) came across him in the early hours of May 15. The decision was made (how? by whom?) not to attempt any rescue.
III. Assistance was provided to Sharp, by both of the main teams climbing that day, but what intrigues me if you’re not going to try and rescue the guy, why bother giving him some oxygen (which is a rather precious commodity on the upper slopes of Everest)? Remember Sharp was encountered early into the day (actually, before dawn) by these people – giving away oxygen to someone who is “effectively dead” when you have about 80% of the ascent left to do (not to mention the descent) and the potential for problems of your own just doesn’t make any sense - even allowing for the fact that these teams probably have spare supplies. To be honest, it smacks of "tokenism".
IV. Sharp was presumably still alive well after 5 a.m. as a Sherpa (or two) spent an hour with him around this time. If he was “effectively dead” just after midnight, why wasn’t he “actually dead” sometime after 5 a.m.?

Unanswered questions. There are quite a few. Not would Sharp have made it off the mountain alive – but was he really that “effectively dead” to make any rescue attempt futile? Was he completely rigid with eyes barely flickering or did he actually utter a few words? If he was “effectively dead”, why give him oxygen? Rescues from the “death zone” are not impossible – but it takes the collective willpower and efforts of more than just a few people. To the people who first came across him and would have been aware that there were a substantial number of people, including by my count around 15 sherpas in total and other mountain guides, coming up the mountain behind them, was this imminent amount of support taken into account before deciding to “climb on”? Why, given the assessment by those who came across him after midnight as “effectively dead”, would a Sherpa at a time sometime later than 5 a.m. spend an hour trying to help him when he had his own sick climber to worry about?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. And despite the tenor of this, I still feel criticism of Inglis or any others is not warranted. They had to make a difficult decision “in the heat of battle”. Judging the merits of this decision is not my prerogative or anybody else’s. The problem is, with only half the story out it leaves the other half to be the subject of speculation. Remember the Commonwealth Games cyclists anybody? What hindsight does give us is enough questions that should prompt those involved to give out further details, if only to clear the huge amount of misinterpretation (no doubt including mine) that currently exists in an issue that has received global media coverage. Unfortunately, the code of silence that usually exists surrounding Everest deaths has re-emerged after the public statements made by Inglis. Perhaps those involved – especially the mountain guide companies who make a living from Joe Public climbing Everest – might need to reflect on the damage continuing speculation will have on their business. Actually, that might be a good thing.

This has been like completing a jigsaw puzzle with only half the pieces, getting that half finished and then coming to the realisation that if you had all the pieces, you might not like the picture at the end. I doubt if the full story will ever come out into the public domain, but after all the reading on Everest I’ve done, I don’t think I want to hear it anyway.

Everest Part 3 remains on the back-burner (where it will probably remain for a while).

The helping hands on Everest

Too busy (work) to blog today; in my spare time I'm putting together Everest Part 2 and in the meantime, have a read of this of an account from Everest (from EverestMax):

"I continued up the North Col and things did not get any better. I came across Vince – a Canadian we had met who was attempting Everest without oxygen. Sarah had tried to help him but he could not move up or down the mountain because we was too breathless. He clearly had HAPE and if left to his own devices was going to die on the mountain. He had no colleagues with him and his sherpas had abandoned him. I too tried to encourage him to climb the 10m up to the North Col – he couldn't. Eventually I had to clip him into my harness and pull him up to the North Col. His tent was too far away so I just put him in nearest empty tent. Meanwhile Dom had tried to mobilise help from the 7 Summits team - they refused to help despite being a large organisation. Dom then brought oxygen from our camp about 150m away which I used to treat him along with Dexamethasone and Nifedipine. Once he was stabilised I continued the climb to our camp before returning later to check on him with sleeping bag, food and fluids. I spent a nervous night before checking on him again in the morning with a fresh oxygen cylinder. I was relieved he was still alive but he was still very weak and needed rescuing. His trekking company, Monterosa, were very unhelpful. They had promised Nick, who had been liasing with them at ABC, that they would send up a Shepa team with oxygen to bring him down. One sherpa did arrive, but refused to help and instead went to Camp 3 to dismantle it. I'm not sure whether he had personal differences with Vince – but still - the guy was dying. Salvation came in the form of a Spanish team who were also clients of Monterosa. I have to say, although I'm bloke, they were all fit good looking guys. They had summited two days earlier but showed no signs of the physical deterioration that other summiteers did. They heroically got Vince down to ABC where he was seen by Jonathan, a doctor from the Irish team that Nick had organised."

With friends like these ...

Handbags and Bitchslaps

Interesting lot those Hurricanes eh?

Not only does Ma'a Nonu wear mascara, but Tana Umaga's preferred method of controlling team member's behaviour in public is a gentle swat with a woman's handbag. Even more priceless is the team member's reaction to this admonishment was to burst into tears.

I dunno 'bout you, but I'm not entirely comfortable with our macho rugby players displaying signs that they have come straight from the auditions of Brokeback Mountain. I await the next instalment - perhaps we'll learn that Paul Tito is a cross-dresser, Jerry Collins sleeps with a teddy bear or maybe Neemia Tialata moonlights in a band that does Village People covers. And of course this is Helen Clark's fault and the fact that all our primary school teachers are female.

Reading about this reminded me of one of the funnier things I've seen while watching rugby. As a young lad, on orienteering trips to Wellington I used to stay with a fellow orienteer called AJ and his best friend was a guy called Adrian McKenzie. Now Adrian was the son of a cop, extremely genial, and was a giant with size 14 feet at age 15. So it was not a huge surprise to see him some years later playing for the Manawatu rugby team (when they were half decent) as a lock, although I did wonder about the lack of fire in his belly for competitive sport.

During one game on TV, I noticed that one of the opposing forwards had worked out Adrian was a bit of a softie and was needling him throughout the game. Obviously it had the desired effect, as at one point Adrian had had enough and turned around and ...

bitchslapped him. That's right, gave him an open-handed smack across the cheek right in front of the ref and on TV. Now back in those days, any hint of trouble would spark a massive all-in brawl but this guy who had been physically assaulted just stood there with his jaw around his knees with a priceless expression that said "You .... slapped me???". The ref was also rather dumbfounded before deciding that this transgression deserved to be penalised.

Last I heard of Adrian was he was plying his rugby trade in France and I always wondered how he would handle the eye-gouging and testicle-pulling tactics over there. And yes, Adrian was from Wellington.

Humour

This clip is "from a Belgian chat show and never mind that they are speaking Flemish, just remember that the chap being interviewed has had his testicles removed by mistake during an operation. Make sure you have the volume on." (Hat tip PC )

Judgement Calls

Sometimes you have to wonder if there really is a supreme being tugging at the strings of life on this planet. The news that an Australian climber got into difficulties descending Everest, was declared dead by Sherpas attempting to assist him, and then found alive the next morning by another group of climbers and helped down to a base camp (and is still alive, although not completely out of the woods), is just plain spooky.

One of the few NZ sporting journos I enjoy reading is Richard Boock from the Herald and his piece on the Everest debate is worth a look. But I can't agree with him in one aspect: where he describes as "the truly weird" those who raise the point that we perhaps should be careful in expressing what we say about the rights and wrongs of the actions of the climbers who came across David Sharp.

We form, and express, opinions on a whole variety of things every day - I should know, I probably do it more than most. From "Richie McCaw is a cheat" (except when he's playing for the All Blacks) to "Greg Flynn talks too much", thoughts about others and what they do constantly emanate from our grey matter and sometimes are formed into audible (or written) expressions that others get to hear (or read).

I don't think there's many that would argue that we have the right to make and express our opinions. What I've struggled with over the last few days is when such opinions cross the line into questioning the morality and ethics of another, in a complex life and death situation, should we be so quick to open our mouths? Especially if we don't really know what the hell we're talking about?

Making judgements on the actions of another is something we all do. But when such judgements are on a person's core set of values, personally it's an area I'll more often than not pass up the opportunity to do so.

Boock suggests that Inglis (and others) should not feel "slighted" by the "highly subjective meanderings of a completely random bunch of onlookers". The trouble is, human nature being what it is, we do react to what others say and think about us. Boock, perhaps due to his occupation and his penchant for taking potshots at NZ cricket, probably has a fairly thick skin. Not everyone is so blessed.

Super 14 Final (yawn)

While I'm looking forward to watching the game, it holds very little appeal from a betting point of view. Current prices on Betfair have the Crusaders @ 1.36, Canes @ 4 with the Draw @ 38.

Fair prices I feel, so no bet. If anyone feels like having a wager on the Canes, my advice would be to take them winning by under 12.5 @ 5's. On the other side, rather than backing the Crusaders to win @ 1.36, I'd take a wee risk and place a bet on them winning by over 12.5 points - you could probably get 2.60 - 2.70; while I do think the winning margin will be around 10 points, the Crusaders do have this nasty habit of racking up a stack of points late in games.

O Danny Boy

NZ Soccer's - sorry, football - captain Danny Hay has got his knickers in a twist over the lack of recognition for our national side.

" I find it amazing that 95 per cent of talkback people will support rugby and bag the soccer team" he says. "In the past few weeks we have played ... (and) ... yet people in New Zealand still can't accept what we have achieved. It really angers me".

Well Danny, let me be the first to do so.

You have played three games over the past few weeks and lost all three. Congratulations. Well done, marvellous effort.

Soccer - sorry, football - has come such a long way in the last 25 years that since that glorious year in 1982 when we qualified for the World Cup finals we now can lose to Vanuatu. Outstanding stuff.

Your national administration is again in debt despite being bailed out 5 years ago by soccer, sorry football, clubs up and down the country.

Yep, your game is really achieving a lot. Please accept my apology on behalf of the NZ public and next time you lose to some third-rate European country I'll get on the phone to the mayor and organise a ticker-tape parade for when you return.

Shooting The Messenger

When initially blogging on Mark Inglis and the decision to continue an ascent of Mt Everest when stumbling across a dying climber (David Sharp), I was reacting to the NZ Herald article on the front page of Wednesday's edition that had NZ icon Sir Ed Hillary expressing his outrage. Like many who probably read this piece, it left me abhorrent that on the face of it, 40 people could walk past a dying man while continuing on their own pursuits.

Given that Inglis himself has been rescued from a mountain (indeed, that being the reason he is a double amputee), I subsequently reasoned that surely he would be the last person on earth to walk past someone in a similar predicament to one he has personally experienced. So I've spent a fair bit of time looking for information and in some respects, I wish I hadn't bothered as it's a tale full of tragedy and irony, as well as leaving a sour taste in the mouth regarding the actions of some involved in the commercial enterprises that surround the desire of people to climb the world's highest mountain.

There is too much to blog in one go, so this piece will concentrate on the reaction to the decision not to provide any assistance to Sharp, which is the thing grabbing most of the attention - and a fair bit of it, too, not just here in NZ but around the world. Given my ever decreasing reliance on mainstream media as a source of accurate information, I've transcripted the two interviews Inglis has given to TVNZ's Close Up programme (yes I realise TVNZ is also MSM but in these interviews, you get to hear what Inglis himself has to say), as well as reading many articles on this website (and others).

I'm not going to either criticise or defend Inglis, principally for the reason that I'm certainly in no position to judge his, or anybody else's, actions. One of the reasons I wish I'd not bothered is the amount of vitriolic comments directed mainly at him that I've seen from armchair critics - if you don't believe me, take a look at reader comments from either the NZ Herald or The Times (UK).

One of the tragic things coming out of this is how quick people are to judge the actions of another without full knowledge of all the facts. And one of the ironies is Inglis is copping a fair bit of flak, when (a) he is the only person who has bothered to speak about the situation encountered, and (b) given his disability, he would probably have been the last person in any position to help.

As Inglis has said, 40 people passed Sharp on their way up Everest that morning. And how many people have offered any public comment on what was happening up there? One - Inglis. Try as I might (and I have tried pretty hard), I haven't found any comments from any of the other 39. This is a classic case of "shoot the messenger" and he has my sympathy in coping with the scrutiny at a time when he (and we) should be celebrating his tremendous achievement.

That said, I'm not defending his actions. And I guess people have a right to express their opinion on whether he did the "right" or "wrong" thing. It's generating a lot of hot air as it strikes at the basic core of humanity, and certainly gives plenty of ammunition to those who think our society is more about "I" and less about "us".

However, there also needs to be some empathy shown towards Inglis (and perhaps the other 39) who was faced with a situation that let's face it, not many of us would like to deal with. Oh yes, we can all sit in the comfort of our living rooms and say we'd do all that we could to save the life of a fellow man, but I've never experienced conditions at 8500m a.s.l. and I don't have two carbon fibre sticks that substitute as legs. We can be sceptical about the real motivation as to why these 40 people continued along their merry way (we don't want to waste that $75,000, do we?), but without any evidence such thoughts start to fall into the category of baseless accusations.

So in a nutshell, Inglis should be left alone. Not because he made the right decision; those criticising his apparent lack of compassion should perhaps show some compassion themselves towards someone who was in a situation none of us would wish to face, in an environment few of us can even comprehend.

Required Reading

On the back-burner (I'm going to wait a few days to see what else comes out of the woodwork):

Part 2 - Unanswered questions: Putting together the puzzle of what happened (and there ain't many pieces).
Part 3 - The Everest definition of Professional: Not exactly what you'd find in the dictionary.

Cricket Preview

All eyes are looking up (at the weather) in Birmingham ahead of the second test between England and Sri Lanka. My view is they should be looking down.

The pitch being prepared has not been used before for a test, due to depending on who you believe, a fireworks display last November or a cold and frosty start to the English spring not allowing enough grass growth. Whatever, an untried pitch coupled with inclement weather in the days leading up to the test has me very wary as to how it will be behave.

Underprepared pitches have the ability to become a bowler's friend - but on the odd occasion they do become a batsmen's benefit. More than ever, watching how the pitch behaves in the first couple of sessions is crucial to working out the likelihood of a result or draw in this test.

However all the pregame talk has been about the weather - the draw was riding high at over 3.0 some days ago and has collpased to a low of 1.95 while it is currently sitting at 2.10 with the forecast. I think the market has over-reacted to the forecasts and while bad light may also come into play, I'm quite happily laying it at this price.

Rigged!

Some think the State of Origin league series is getting tired, but I for one will never get sick of the sight of two Australian sportsteams bashing the shit out of each other. The only shame is there has to be a winner.

But after last night's game, I'm about to hop in the bandwagon of the conspiracy theorists who reckon some sporting contests are rigged. Think about it. We're fed the line that these two teams absolutely HATE each other. Then favoured home team start off like a house on fire and score heaps of points and the game looks over at halftime. Then underdog away team stage amazing recovery only to be denied in the last minute. Of course, the matchwinning points are scored by a player who was not even in the side 24 hours before the game and only played because of an "injury in training".

Hollywood couldn't script this better. And it's not a once-only occurence - it happens time and time again, year after year.

There are other clues. Before the game, a player interviewed was asked a question about whether State Of Origin was getting tired and he replied along the lines of "Maaaate, there's always stories coming out of Origin, maaate" (I think I might have missed a mate or two there). Of course there's always stories coming out, the whole thing is one big book of fiction.

Phil Gould pregame effused that the NSW boys would not be affected by the injury to their halfback 'cause at training they just ignored it and got on with the job. Not surprising, given they read about the injury in the script handed out 3 days before. Danny Buderus, who is the kind of guy who if he saw a sick swallow on the side of the road would take it to the SPCA, just happens to be the one to take a swing at an opponent that costs his side a penalty and allows the game to be tied with 3 minutes to go.

It's rigged. So from a betting point of view, put your house on Queensland to win Game 2 in 3 weeks time.

Two tragic jokes

A man walks up to a woman and asks "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?". After a moment's consideration she coyly replies "Hmmmm. Yes I would."

The man then asks "Would you sleep with me for a dollar?" and the women angrily reacts "Of course not, what do you think I am?"

Whereupon the man says "We've already established we're going to have sex, now we're haggling about the price".

The influence of money on decision-making. Here's the other one.

A climber has just climbed Mt Everest and is returning DOWN the mountain when he runs out of oxygen. Forty people on their way UP the mountain pass him, but despite collectively having enough oxygen to get the poor sod back to Kathmandu, let alone Base Camp, continue along their merry way.

You see, most of these people have paid something like $75,000 for the pleasure of climbing Mt Everest and if they stopped to help the guy, they'll miss the chance to reach the top of the world as thanks to the weather, it's a bit hit and miss whether you'll actually get to do it. And there ain't no refunds if you don't do it.

Maybe even if they stopped to help him, the climber may still have died. But that's not the point.
Dunno 'bout you, but if I was at 29,000 feet on the express train to the gates of St Peter, and forty of my supposedly compassionate fellow human beings walked past me more worried about getting value for their 75,000 bucks, I'd be pretty pissed.

Our poor cousins

Well I was overwhelmed by the response to the quiz question provided yesterday. As all my female and transsexual readers know, the highest participation sport in Australia is netball - quite logical really, bloke's loyalties are split into league, union, AFL etc while the sheila's choice is a bit more limited.

I learnt this fascinating fact on weekend radio. However what was more interesting was the poor state of netball across the ditch when compared to what's happening here. In NZ we have this perception that Australia pours shitloads of money into sport and we will never be able to compete with them. Except in netball it seems. The top players in the Australian league are paid a whopping $6,000 - with others "earning" either $1,000 (new recruits) and $3,900. Wow. Compare that to the NZ national league players, where the top players are paid $40,000, some others $20,000 and so on.

The root of the problem is of course TV rights and income. In Australia, netball is televised on ABC but they don't pay for the privilege, hence the money needed to pay players properly is not generated. To all those who believe there is a direct correlation between money and results, perhaps the Silver Ferns will never lose to Australia again :-)

Ta Ta Tahs

Not content with bagging the ref before the game, the Tahs now deflect attention from their performance with bagging the ref after the game. Oh well, Aussies are not well known for being graceful losers.

I like the quote from Al Baxter, the prop penalised in the scrum that gave the Canes the match-winning penalty:

"He (the ref Kaplan) said I was dragging the scrum down. I said I don't think I was. But I should have been better at powering over the top. Then it wouldn't have been an issue. I'm disappointed in myself. I feel like I've let the team down."

So Al, you don't THINK you were? Having being a prop for one season in fourth-form, I think I'm well qualified to offer the opinion that you either ARE trying to drag the scrum down or you ARE NOT. Thinking doesn't come into it.

And Chris Whittaker is not happy being marched 10 metres for apparently explaining to Kaplan after being penalised for not rolling away in a tackle, that "they were rucking the **** out of me".

Chris, there are a few things you don't do in life. You don't call Mike Tyson ugly to his face. And you don't use swear words in dialogue with Kaplan. It's well known, so stop bitching about it.

The only required reading of this game's aftermath is Spiro Zavos' article in the Sydney Morning Herald. He gets it spot on - Waratahs lose crucial matches through a conservative game plan.

Now to the anonymous fkr who says "I have little faith" - listen, buddy. Betting is not about faith. Betting is not about picking the winner. Betting is about value.

Even though the Waratahs lost, backing them at $2.60 was the right thing to do even with the benefit of hindsight, as the price was value. Just as it was value backing the Canes at around $3 the week before. You don't win money plonking your hard-earned on $1.50 shots in a reasonably even game, just because you think they'll "probably" win. That's the fast road to the poorhouse. If you don't understand this concept, stay away from the TAB.

Anyway, enough about the rugby. Quiz time. What is the highest participation sport in Australia? Answer tomorrow.

Super 14 Semis

So who is going to play the Crusaders in next week's final?

It is a tough one to call - the Hurricanes were outstanding on defence last week and the Waratahs at times did not play smart. A repeat will see a repeat result. But surely the Tahs aren't that dumb?

I quite like Grant Fox's article here - it pretty much sums up how I feel; the Tahs are probably the better team but do not employ the right tactics. Anyone remembering the final from last year should remember their conservative play which allowed the Crusaders to build up a match-winning lead before the Tahs started throwing the ball around and started putting on the points. Last week the Tahs gave tries away from kicking the ball away.

Like many games, it's hard to predict because so much depends on how the teams are going to play. I suspect the Canes will win a tight one again but there is a chance the Tahs will have cottoned on that if they throw the ball around they are dangerous.

So, at the prices (Canes $1.65 Tahs $2.60) I'm seriously considering backing NSW. There is also the option of saving on the Canes winning by 12 or under at $3.20. I can't see the Canes racking up a huge winning margin.

Saturday night's game I'm not really interested in. Mainly because I had a speculator partway through the season on the Bulls in the winner's market so if the unthinkable happens I won't be complaining.

I guess I should spend my $100 for the JWOC team:

$75 on the Waratahs @ 2.60
$25 on the Hurricanes at 12 and under @ 3.20

Poker Update

If you like playing cards, don't play poker live. It's hugely addictive.

I'm getting up to the casino about once a fortnight; last night I find out they've started a no-limit game (means the size of bets are not fixed, you can bet all your money on the table in one go if you want) and I didn't feel up to it, so tried to get on the 10/25 fixed limit table (as the name implied, bets are fixed to a certain amount - $10 in early rounds, $25 in later rounds) but the trouble is all the 10/25 players have buggered off to the no-limit table.

So I played the 5/10 table for a few hours but it broke up. I had a choice of going home, playing 2/4 (which wouldn't pay for the petrol) or going to the no-limit. With a deep breath, I sat down with the serious boys again.

The no-limit table at Sky has a max buyin of $200 which is good as it means someone with a shitload of cash can't just sit dowm and bully the table. Trouble is, joining the table halfway thru the night some people already had stacks of $800-$900 and it does place you at a disadvantage.

Thankfully I was card-dead for the first hour and didn't really get involved and watched, slowly dribbling money away. During that first hour, two big stacks went to war and the pot ended up at $1700 and I'm thinking what the fuck have I got myself into. No-limit cash games certainly require big kahunas.

Anyway, the night has a happy ending and I got into the swing of things and ended up with 13 more red notes than I'd started with. Trouble with a night at Sky is by the time I get home at 4 a.m. after 8 hours of poker I'm still wired by the coffee and the buzz of the game. Sharee has this annoying habit of checking the contents of my wallet the morning after a trip to the casino and she was so excited this morning she just had to wake me up after about 2 hours of sleep and ask how much of it was profit. And, true to form, when I eventually roll out of bed I mysteriously find one of those red notes has disappeared.

Super 14 preview tomorrow (afternoon).

Porkies

Ever tried to get a straight answer from a politician?

The story so far:

1. The 2004/5 Financial Review into SPARC stated that seven (out of nine) of their board members attended the Athens Olympics.

2. An MP then submits the following written question to the Minister of Sport and Recreation:

"How many Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) board members attended the Athens Olympic games; if any, what was the cost to the taxpayer?"

3. The answer? "One SPARC Board Member attended the Athens Olympic Games – the Chairman. The cost to the taxpayer was $11,977.57 which covered airfares, accommodation and expenses."

So the other six paid their own way? Yeah, right.

Pot-Pourri

First up, a bit of humour.

Fraser has the video of a job interviewee (not cabbie Fraser) being mistaken for an IT expert and interviewed live on BBC. The look on his face when he's introduced as "Guy Kewnet, IT expert" is priceless. Hope he got the job, as he got through the interview very well considering he probably didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

Those who like fishing tales should have a read of this fishing trip in Samoa at Sportsfreak.

Now, onto slightly more serious things:

I note some apologists are coming out in support of Wendell Sailor (who, if you have been on Mars the past week, has tested positive for Cocaine) with the old "why do we expect higher standards of behaviour from our sportspeople" line. It's got nothing to do with behaviour. Assuming Mr Sailor can read (yes, a dangerous assumption but I'll go with it), he will have a contract with his employer stating something along the lines of "take any drug, including recreational drugs, and you are caught, expect two years on the sidelines".

Professional sportspeople are a little different from the rest of us in that their "job" requires the use of exceptional physical talent rather than what is usual for the rest of us, a brain (and in Sailor's case, he is lucky he doesn't have to find a job that requires use of a brain as I think he'd have trouble finding one - a job that is, although finding a brain should perhaps also be one of his things on his to-do list)

Now sports don't like their highly-paid employees taking recreational drugs as there is a suspicion it can have an impact on sporting performance, which is what they are paid for. Nothing to do with behaviour at all.

Anyway, Sailor should be thankful he doesn't live in China. In the paper today is the story of Chen Qi, an Olympic Table Tennis Champion who after a bout of "bad behaviour" was fined, had to make a public apology on TV and then spent a week in a poor village in the middle of nowhere for "re-education", which consisted of levelling dirt, weeding and plucking cucumbers. His crime? Throwing a ping-pong ball onto the ground and kicking a chair after losing the Asia Cup final to a team-mate. Boy, are the Chinese in for a surprise when the world visits in 2008.

Finally, the Aussie media are obviously worried about their beloved Waratahs as they are already having a go at the referee for the upcoming semifinal. This article makes reference to the Win/Loss record under Kaplan for the Waratahs and is a candidate for the most misleading use of statistics award.

Apparently, the Waratah's Super 12/14 record is 67 wins from 126 matches (53%) and their record when Kaplan has been the whistler is 1 win from 14 matches (7%). This conspiracy theorist probably also thinks the Stormers-Bulls game was fixed in the weekend as well.

Well here's the thing dufus. Due to the way the reffing appointments are done in the Super 12/14, Kaplan can only referee the Waratahs when they are playing a New Zealand team, and their record against NZ teams is significantly worse than 53% - this year they won 2 from 5 and that is one of their better efforts.

And I have to laugh when I read in the article that "winless away record under Kaplan includes the Super 12 final last year, the loss to the Crusaders in round nine this year, the 96-19 defeat to the Crusaders in 2002 and many other disappointing performances"

So there's 3 games already out of the 14 that involved playing the Crusaders in Christchurch, including THAT 96-19 drubbing in 2002. Of course, it was all down to the referee that the Crusaders won those games. Parlease - someone get this journo a shotgun before he makes a real dick of himself.

Actually, I hope they continue to bag Kaplan before the game. He has a nasty habit of reffing one side who gets up his nose. He's the only ref I've seen march the Brumbies 10 metres for George Gregan backchat. I am a little worried about the ability of the Hurricanes to back up after last week's sterling effort, but it will be easier if it's 16 against 15 :-)

10 dropped catches ...

goes up with 28 missed tackles (Bulls v Blues) as a statistic I'll remember for a while. Much praise is being heaped on the Lankans for saving the test, and while they deserve some kudos for the way they scrapped it out, England more than contributed to the drawn result with enough missed chances to have bowled SL out 3 times, let alone twice.

Another difficult test to get right with betting in-running; at least this time I come out with some dosh rather than contributing to someone else's retirement fund. Having spent Days 3 and 4 wondering how the hell I was going to get out of the shit with a loss on an England win, I entered Day 5 with a large profit on the draw and a small loss on the Poms - and then proceeded to chuck away a good chunk of said profit converting it to an England win having convinced myself at lunch when SL were 8 down that an England win was more probable than the 1.25-ish odds they were at the time. Another spectacular in-hindsight fucked up decision.

Wrong + Wrong = Right? Wrong!

At the recent European Orienteering Championships, half of the women's field in the final of the Long Distance race were issued with control descriptions that contained an error - a wrong control code I believe.

Such a basic error should result in the race being declared invalid. Period. Half of the runners were affected, it certainly had a significant affect on the results to the point that they are meaningless (save for the fact that the winner, Simone Niggli, would still have won), so why are the results allowed to stand and be recorded in history?

Orienteering has a problem in that it competitors are reluctant to complain - it happens in New Zealand, and it seems to happen in international elite events. We all recognise that a huge amount of work is involved in organising an event, and when mistakes occur, while some competitors are left seething, the majority don't want to penalise organisers for the amount of work they have put in.

Orienteering needs to grow up. Guess what - mistakes sometimes occur, it's part of human nature. Rather than get embarrassed about how such imperfections can invade our perfectionist sport, and allow sympathy to get in the way of making rational decisions, we need to accept than when mistakes occur, it is not in the interests of our sport to allow meaningless results to stand.

While it would be unfortunate in this case for Niggli not to be crowned European Champion (there is no question she deserves to be so recognised), a race is not just about one person, it is not held to just find the winner. There are over 50 competitors in the race, half of them were sent on a wild goose chase - their rights are also relevant.

In House-Of-Honcho land, ideally common sense would prevail and someone should make the decision to invalidate the race, but it is probably too late. The IOF Event Advisor should not be in charge of an international event again - not for allowing the mistake to happen, but for allowing the results to stand. Part of his role is to (Rule 31.6) "ensure rules are followed, mistakes are avoided and that fairness is paramount".

Well, rules were not followed, mistakes were not avoided and fairness has gone out the window. That the Senior Event Advisor allowed the results to stand just because no-one protested the result is wrong, and it is time in such situations that some balls are shown and the correct decision made. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Cricket update

Oops - another wrong public prediction. This time though at least my lack of belief in the Sri Lankan batsmen is helping me get out of the shit rather than costing me money.

And thus we enter another occasion where betting on a cricket test is more about betting on the weather than what will happen on the field. There were some wild price swings late in Day 4 thanks to players hopping on and off the field every time a dark cloud hovered over the ground.

And it will continue. Rain is forecast for the morning, and even if it doesn't arrive, no doubt the light will become an issue again. At the risk of getting it wrong again, I'll be basing betting around the following:

Some rain will happen during the morning. When - I'll try and work out when it starts to appear on the rain radar. Light will be a problem. Given they only got 66 overs in yesterday, as long as Sri Lanka continue to bat (a big if) they won't get that amount in for the final day.

So my best guess is 50 overs of play and SL need to bat 30 of them with 4 wickets left. So it remains tough to call whether it will be an England win or a draw - if there is any justice in the world, SL will escape with a draw with the amount of shocking decisions they have had to put up with in this test.

During the bad light breaks, managed to catch some chunks of the Federer - Nadal final at the ATP Masters in Rome - a high-quality game of tennis that is worth catching the highlights.

Finally, quote of the weekend goes to Jerry Collins when asked about whether rugby players should get rotated / rested: "I get paid to play 16 or 17 weeks in a row. You'll get no gripes out of me. It's the same as any other job."

Good on ya Jerry. Now bash those Tahs up one more time so my pre-season lay of them to win the Super 14 comes good without me having to sweat thru the final. Cheers.

Weekend Review

OMG - another winning weekend in the Super 14. Ended up laying the Waratahs @ 1.45 pre-game, a little uncomfortable at the price and didn't get any bet matched on the Canes at +7.5 - that had firmed to around evens.

After the regular season, the records show 39 bets made for 14 collects and a ROI (return on investment) of around +7% - disappointing but better than taking a loss - something that I'm experiencing on my bread-and-butter of test cricket (more about that later). The JWOC team donation fund is now up to $1,337.80 from $1,215.30 bet - that career change may just have been avoided.

At the moment I can't get any trading decision right with test cricket - I did back the draw pregame during the current England Sri Lanka test with a view to trading out at some stage. With England winning the toss and batting, and including their spinner, the signs were the pitch was not going to be bowler-friendly and so it proved, with the Poms racking up 550 declared.

While I got rid of some of it as the draw price shortened, I was ready to start laying the sh!t out of the draw and had money to be taken at 2.54 when Sri Lanka were 81-2 - not a penny got touched (lowest price matched on the draw is 2.56) and bang, bang, bang, bang - SL are suddenly 85-6. There are times not to come within 10 feet of me and this was one of them.

So the red ink is about to get some more use - Sri Lanka will do well to survive into the fifth day - and it is grating to see them 183-3 in their second dig. They are a bit like NZ, dodgy openers, solid in the middle and a pop-gun bowling attack; on a batter-friendly pitch I had expected them to put up a bit more resistance. Miracles can happen (and sometimes do in cricket), but I feel this will not be one of them.

Super 14 Week 14

The last round of an infuriatng Super 14 season for me - my own P/L mirrors that massive $2.50 I've added to the junior orienteering team's donation, although I do have a large chunk on the Crusaders winning the comp that will hopefully come through and pay the groceries for a month or two.

Inconsistent performances by most teams from week to week have made it tough to profit, but that's not stopping me having one last go on a couple of teams this weekend:

CRUSADERS ($1.19) v BRUMBIES ($6.80)

One to leave alone, although I am tempted by $1.65 for the Crusaders 13+. Only the weather is stopping me and the fact that if the Crusaders do get away they could take the foot off the pedal.

REDS ($1.93) v HIGHLANDERS ($2.10)

Reluctantly I'm also leaving this alone - I'd like to back the Highlanders at those odds as on paper I think they should win - but most games this season have not been played according to the script. The Reds have at times played OK this season, esp. at home - both teams put in above-average performances last week, no doubt one team will not turn up to play but which one is anybody's guess.

SHARKS ($1.24) v FORCE ($6.00)

The Force have done well to draw and win their first 2 SAF games, this one I think the ledger will be balanced by a loss. No bet.

BLUES ($1.80) v CHIEFS ($2.20)

Even as an ardent Aucklander I can't see how the Blues coming home from SAF with their tail between their legs will get up and over the Waikato visitors (who just LOVE playing Auckland don't they). Yes, the Blues can win, I just don't think they will - so I'll provide as much $1.80 as I can to people who want to back them.

WARATAHS ($1.37) v HURRICANES ($3.30)

The Canes have drifted - presumably on the news that Holwell is out. The prices are starting to get on the ridiculous side for the only game this week that has something riding on it. I won't get carried away laying the Tahs at 1.37 - IMO it is too short but they are still favs to win; the Canes at +7.5 is in odds against territory and I might have a small wedge of that as well.

CHEETAHS ($1.59) v CATS (2.78)

The Cheetahs get the worst performance of the year award for last week's effort against the Force - so they will probably bounce back and play closer to the way they should and thus win. But I find the $1.59 a little insulting to the Cats who haven't been that bad the last couple of weeks - a small lay of the favs is in order as it's another game where you have no clue as who will turn up as Jekyll and who will turn up as Hyde.

STORMERS ($2.14) v BULLS ($1.91)

I'm awaiting the outcome of earlier results before deciding whether to do anything here. It could be a nothing game, or it could be one where the Bulls kickoff believing they have a small sniff of a semifinals spot. Without that consideration, it would be a game I'd tend to leave alone. If the Bulls need a 30 point win then I wouldn't put it past them to go out and do it.

So bets for JWOC this week (assuming I can get them matched):

Lay Blues @ 1.80 (win 100, lose 80)
Lay Waratahs @ 1.38 (win 80, lose 30.40)
Back Canes +7.5; 30 @ 2.1
Lay Cheetahs @ 1.60 (win 50, lose 30)

Cricket Preview

The northern summer gets underway (barely a week after a southern hemisphere test series finished) with the first England Sri Lanka test at Lord's. I have yet to dip my toes in the water on this, and will wait for toss, teams and pics. The only media I can find on the pitch is Flintoff describing it as a nice batting strip; but I tend to take such comments with a grain of salt. More to the point, I'll wait to see if England play their spinner as an indication of what they expect the pitch to do.

I'm finding this test trickier than most - last year's test (the Ashes) saw a clatter of wickets on the first day; quite unusual for Lord's where even in May reasonable first innings scores are obtained (not least by Sri Lanka four years ago). Current prices are England 1.56, Sri Lanka 9.4 and the Draw 3.9 - I'm hesitant to lay the draw at those odds even with a reasonably good weather forecast.

So no bet for me until toss and teams.

P.S.

Sportsfreak has a column with the SPARC restructure email and a layperson's translation. Looks suspiciously like the work of my twin brother again.

On a related matter, when getting my knickers in a twist over SPARC board members swanning off to Athens, I fired off an email to a few MP's suggesting a few questions they could ask the Minister of Sport and Recreation. Well, blow me down I actually get a reply and the following written questions have been submitted to Hon Mallard today:

How many SPARC board members attended the Athens Olympic games; if any, what was the cost to the taxpayer?

How many SPARC board members attended the Melbourne Commonwealth games; if any, what was the cost to the taxpayer?

What benefits did the attendance of SPARC board members at the Athens Olympic games have for the sport and recreation sector?

What benefits did the attendance of SPARC board members at the Melbourne Commonwealth games have for the sport and recreation sector?

I'll keep an eye out for the reply.

SPARC restructure

Help me out here. Yesterday SPARC sent out an email to "the sector" (the sport and recreation sector presumably) advising "Over the last six months SPARC has been working on a project to restructure the organisation".

I didn't get past that first sentence. This organisation is supposedly up for review this year (they are currently in the middle of reviewing their high performance operations), supposedly about to (or should be) embark on reviewing their strategic direction, need to issue a new strategic plan by the end of the year, yet here they are proudly announcing they've spent the last 6 months engrossed in an internal restructure.

I know I haven't been a member of the suit-and-tie brigade for a few years, but it's the most arse-about-face example of business practice I've ever come across. I hesitate to use words such as dumb, stupid or daft, so I will settle for illogical.

If you are about to do a strategic review and issue a new strategic plan, the time to look at the structure of your organisation, staffing and roles is AFTER the strategic direction has been settled, not IMMEDIATELY BEFORE. I had to laugh when I read (OK I lied, I did read the whole thing) one of the objectives of the restructure is to:

"ensure operational and investment decisions are made consistently against strategic priorities"

Well, that's a waste of time, isn't it, when you'll be reviewing what your strategic priorites are at some stage during this year.

What worries me having received this is the cynic in me thinks SPARC have already decided on what their strategic direction is, they are not really interested in any input from their "key stakeholders" they purport to want to have a "stronger and more focussed relationship" with, and the strategic review will be massaged to fit their already decided-upon new organisational structure.

At times I'm sure people think I'm an arrogant know-it-all. One of the benefits of being an arrogant know-it-all is you can easily spot another one.

Off Topic

While not many of us really want to see Shane Warne in his playboy undies, I know at least one of my readers (lives near Helensville I think) will appreciate the opportunity to check out the knockers of the skanks he recently had a threesome with.

Click here
(Hat tip Sunnyo )

While we're off topic, I came across a blog that can be described as a NZ version of The Onion (a site where fake/funny news is presented as real news), and IMO is rather worth a read - hope it continues. Blog is Newz Land ; personal favourite was the piece about petrol price rises.

Changes

Everything needs a fresh coat of paint once in a while.

Netiquette requires me to thank the following:

Random Bytes for the "simple" instructions to change a Blogger template into three columns; Not PC for the idea to use Delicious to store previous posts and categorise them.

Not quite finished - links that I use regularly and occasionally will gradually appear on the left; but I have work to do, so enough time on this already - normal service will resume tomorrow.

PS: If anything is screwed up, please leave a comment (just because it works on my computer doesn't mean it works for everybody)

Sporting Gamblers and John Daly

Golfer John Daly is back in the headlines thanks to an autobiography where he outlines, in addition to all his other faults, a gambling addiction that he estimates has cost him US$50-$60 million dollars.

What is it with sportspeople and gambling? In recent times, Charles Barkley and Wayne Rooney have joined the list of sporting icons revealing massive losses. Not that I'm getting on their case - hell, anyone who makes a living on the punt knows you need people who are quite happy losing money so you can make yours. I just find it intriguing sporting people, who should know better than anyone that predicting the outcome of a sporting contest (or horse race) is an almost impossible science, are quite happy chucking their money away in this manner. Perhaps they think that because they can play sport better than anyone, they can predict what is going to happen in a sporting contest as well - God bless them.

Back to Daly. This latest revelation has certainly got the do-gooders crawling out of the woodwork - I found the following comment particularly insightful:

"what a f-ing idiot. No respect for you Daly. Go have another beer too you fat ass! You are a black mark on the game. No child should look at you as a role model."

Ahh those words, "role model". Does every sportsperson have to be a "role model"? Do they all have to live super-clean, boring lives so we can show our children the wholesome life we want them to aspire to?

What a load of bollox. Daly is - like a lot of us - fat, smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish, gambles like a solo mother, and trashes hotel rooms like a rock star (OK, maybe the last one is not a good example). He is also talented at hitting a little white ball, incredibly generous with his time and money (and I don't mean to casinos), and a great source of entertainment - his latest quote on drinking water I found amusing:

"My body just doesn't … it doesn't want that. It's fighting it. 'Hey what's going on, you're putting something healthy in here?' " he says. "I am to a point not very superstitious about things, but every time I drink a bottle of water I make a bogey."

While sportspeople do have to be mindful of their behaviour at times (in public), criticising Daly because he is not a "role model" is off the mark. In an imperfect world, seeing someone with obvious flaws in their character still able to achieve something in life (not just on the golf course, but his charity work as well) is in some respects a better example to show future generations than a squeaky-clean sporting pro who has had a single purpose in life since he was 4 months old (yes, I am referring to Tiger).

I might have to go and buy his book. zc3

Weekend Review

Well what a weekend of upsets in the Super 14 - 4 of the 7 favourites rolled. Slightly miffed to miss out on the Chiefs having backed them more often than not this season, but going against the Brumbies when no-one gave the Highlanders a chance more than compensates. So with that and half my stake matched laying the Cheetahs, the JWOC fund is up to $1,071.80 collected from $1,069.30 bet. My punting skills have so far added value of a whopping $2.50 on the money donated, an outstanding result that has me contemplating a career change.

Congrats to the cricketers for at least making the third test competitive, but I think they will still lose.

Finally, an article in the NZ Herald regarding NZ Soccer's financial result got me thinking and digging - the result being a column at Sportsfreak. Reading in the forum that advance payments by clubs have saved NZ Soccer from going insolvent is even more scary. For soccer's sake I hope I am wrong but Titanic and the iceberg are not far off shaking hands. zc1 zc3

Wasn't last night fun?

The NZ sportsfan had a choice last night of watching the NZ league team getting absolutely thrashed by Australia or the NZ cricket team on the road to an absolute dorking by the South Africans. All this from a nation whose sporting mission is "winning consistently in events that matters to New Zealanders".

I'm disappointed no-one has come on here to shove my prophetic words on the league down my throat. I stand by what I say - we have left the days of 30-point thrashings behind. If the Kiwis play like that in the future, we will enter the days of 40 and 50 point thrashings.

What pisses me off about the cricket is the batsmen will get it in the neck whereas the bowlers are actually more to blame for the crap they served up in the first hour. On the most NZ-type pitch they will ever encounter overseas, they tried too hard to get wickets instead of what they have learnt at home - on such pitches, put the ball in the right spot and let the pitch do the rest. The horse has bolted - at least I won't have to endure 5 days of 2 a.m. bedtimes - this should be over in 3.

Super 14 Week 13

HURRICANES ($1.09) v REDS ($10)

"And I suppose on our performance last week we really shouldn't be favourites but eight bucks is a bit rich I think. Mate, if I was a gambling man I'd get on it. I would be all over that - if we were allowed to bet." - David Croft, Reds No.7

Mate, I am a gambling man and I'm not getting on it. You will lose. Next.

(PS Wellingtonians - get to the Cake Tin and enjoy your last win of the season)

BULLS ($2.22) v CRUSADERS ($1.90)

I've long earmarked this game as one the Crusaders would lose but ironically with their flat performances in the last two weeks I think their chances of a win are, if anything, enhanced. Still, I'm surprised to see them slight favourites - in my book this is a 50/50 game and I will have a small sum on the Bulls to win (yes, for once I'm backing a team to win and hope like hell it's not a draw)

CHIEFS ($4.20) v WARATAHS ($1.33)

$1.33 on the Tahs almost looks generous. A game to avoid betting-wise.

BRUMBIES ($1.15) v HIGHLANDERS ($8.20)

As much as the Brumbies will probably win this game, I don't think the Highlanders deserve to be $8 outsiders. It doesn't cost much to lay a side at $1.15, so in we go. The handicap is +17.5, I might have a bit of that as well.

CHEETAHS ($1.37) v FORCE ($3.70+)

As is common, a game where the favourites are in my book a bit short. I'll lay them for a modest amount.

SHARKS ($1.52) v STORMERS ($3.00)

Two SAF sides playing each other; as stated before I tend to avoid them as even more than usual, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

CATS ($3.85) v BLUES ($1.39)

I don't think the Blues deserve to be $1.40 here but it's one I've decided to leave alone. If anything, the Cats at +10.5 at evens is the bet to consider.

So, bets for the kiddies are as follows (assuming I can get them matched):

30 on the Bulls to win @ 2.24
Lay Brumbies @ 1.15 (win 100, lose 15)
30 on the Highlanders at 17.5 points start @ evens
Lay Cheetahs @ 1.38 (win 60, lose 22.80)

Cricket Preview

My new-found optimism in the NZ cricket team lasted around 24 hours and I'm still kicking myself for letting a bit of heart get in the way of the head during the last test. NZ's test overseas record is poor and it will continue in the third test strating tomorrow. There are only 2 possible results - I'm not even going to entertain the Black Caps winning.

Back to altitude (something I must find out about - why do you get dew at sea level but not at altitude?), so no delayed starts UNLESS there is fog. Brilliant. No dew problems, but they can get the foggy mornings in Jo'burg. Play will be lost at the end of the day, that's a given.

However, the over-riding factor when assessing chances in the final test of a series is series score. 1-0 to SAF, NZ want to win, SAF do not care. Yes, we will read in the media the usual "we will play positively" line but I can't see SAF risking a loss in order to win. The other thing I'm wary of is the pitch - while the Wanderers may be a result wicket, it was also the venue where two teams racked up 430 each in an ODI game earlier in the season. The groundsmen will have been on the heavy roller 24/7 getting every last drop of moisture out of the pitch.

So this is not a game to go heavily against the draw. My plan is to wait for the toss - if SAF are batting first I will empty the truck and lay them as they are in a position to control the game (by batting third) - even if they are behind (in which case their price will have drifted anyway). And by controlling the game, they will not be looking to force a result.

If NZ bat first the decision is a little trickier - with NZ batting third if they are not too far behind the eight ball they will try and induce a result. However, their main problem this series has been a lack of runs/form from the top order so a lay of the draw might be worthwhile as a short-term position (in the expectation they will not be 300-2 at the end of Day 1) until a couple of sessions have been watched and the nature of the pitch assessed.

24-0

According to the site stats there are a few from across the ditch that read this, so, my Australian cousins ....

24-0. Remember? REMEMBER???

Yes, the scoreline from the last time New Zealand and Australia met in a rugby league international, and if my memory serves me correctly, the ZERO was next to Australia. Yes, I am making the most of this - I only have a day left to do so and I hope tomorrow night's match is as competitive as the last one ... heh ...

Actually, the next time Australia are held scoreless in a rugby league international I'll probably be in a wooden box six feet under and I fear normal service will resume tomorrow night. On Betfair, the Aussies are 1.27 and the Kiwis 4.7 - the Aussies are perhaps a little short and it is tempting to put a small wager on the Kiwis in case of lightning striking twice. I'm more interested in the handicap line - Kiwis +12.5 at evens - I may be wrong (and often am), but I think the days of 30 point bollockings are over.

To be honest, I do think the Aussies are more likely to win but I'd have their price somewhere around the 1.5 mark.

The Future of O in NZ

I haven't done an Orienteering-related post for a while, so while I slowly wake up with my second cup of coffee, a bit of crystal-ball gazing before settling down to work for the day.

Into the last 12 months of the Head Honcho role (and a bit of a lame-duck role at that as I'm well past my use-by date), and if I had three things to say "watch out for" to whoever replaces me, it would be these:

1. ACCESS

In New Zealand, we have been fortunate that getting access to areas we wish to orienteer on hasn't really been an issue. I'll never forget my first trip to Europe and talking with people there about the trouble they sometimes have gaining access and the conflicts they have with other recreational groups (e.g. hunters).

However, I fear that may be about to change. The Auckland clubs are reliant on Woodhill Forest and the owners, Carter Holt Harvey, now charge for recreational use and I suspect will also restrict access. The Taupo club had a problem with the Dept of Conservation over one area. We are not blessed with a huge amount of runnable forest here and if forest companies such as CHH start charging for, and restrict, access it will have a negative impact on our sport. It's one thing we need to be pro-active about.

2. MAPPING

To orienteer you need a map and a compass. Well, the compass bit is easy - you just go out and buy one, but the map? These are finely crafted works of art that take an extraordinary amount of time (and usually money) to make. Take a look around at our current stock of mappers - they are few, and more to the point, they are getting old. We can't rely on the likes of Michael Wood and the Aspins for ever, so unless we can convince some of the younger brigade that mapping might be a good way to earn some dollars (the days of making maps for free are going the way of the Moa), we might find in 10 year's time we have to use overseas mappers, and that will be even more expensive and a hindrance to the development of our sport.

3. VOLUNTEERS

A problem that is not peculiar to our sport - a dark cloud that hangs over us and sport in general. In many respects, Orienteering is more fortunate than most - most of the time the people who voluntarily contribute to our sport in whatever form, are generally competent and extraordinarily generous with their time. Will it last? In some repsects, I think we'll be OK as I see the likes of Flynn, Addison, Kerrison, Peat, Smith (apologies to any young'un that I've missed) already putting back something into the sport - fine young men who will be the role models of the future.

On the other hand, reading the local paper here in Waiuku and seeing soccer teams without coaches, badminton cancelled because no-one is available to organise it, how long before Orienteering has similar problems? Hopefully never, but it is not something we can ever take for granted.

Dear Mrs Williams

Thank you for putting the environment of drinking and abuse of the NZ cycling team under the microscope and into the front pages of the NZ Herald. According to you, "It's a very destructive culture and very unsafe for all the girls who go away with the NZ cycling team".

Riiiiiiiiiight. Let's back up the truck. What actually happened is the source of speculation (more about that later) but I feel this off the Stuff website is as close to the truth as anything:

"Sources said the two men urinated against a fence before being moved on by a security guard.
They then decided to go swimming in a pond. They stripped down to their underwear and picked up the woman and threw her into the pond with them. She screamed loudly and became irritated because she was wearing new shoes, which were ruined in the water. The security guard took details and filed a report, which was forwarded to police."

Let's back the truck up further. In the same report there is any interesting quote: "Another source close to the team said the three were probably so drunk they could hardly remember what happened." The Herald website has an update after Liz Williams spoke on Radio Live this morning, which states: "When asked how drunk she, Gudsell and Ryan were, Williams said she didn't know."

I think I'll be safe from defamation by stating on the balance of probabilities, Liz Williams (a) made a conscious and willing decision to go into town with two male members of the cycling team, and (b) it is possible she was drinking something stronger than lemonade.

So Mrs Williams, if it is "very unsafe" for the girls of the NZ cycling team, perhaps you should be asking your daughter why the hell she decided to go out on the lash with a couple of the lads rather than publicly bashing the "destructive culture" of the NZ cycling team?

The second point is how badly this has been handled in the media, firstly by the NZOC and now by Cycling NZ. Brendan Telfer had a go at Cycling NZ's President on Radio Sport this morning questioning why they can't just come out and say what happened and put an end to all the speculation. He made the reasonable point that the public have some right to know as these are by and large taxpayer-funded athletes.

I'm reminded of Norm Hewitt's antics some years ago - no, not on Dancing with the Stars - when he got pissed in Queenstown and smashed a plate glass window of a house in the middle of the night, much to the alarm of the residents. The NZRU got Hewitt to face up to the media, put all the details out in public and had Stormin' Norman make a public apology while blubbering like a baby.

And it did some good, too. Norm cleaned up his act, the "punishment" of a bit of public humiliation is more than anything the counselling the cyclists have to undergo will ever do, and the issue was dead and buried a few days after it happened. In this case, we have the incident being re-lived in the media 6 weeks after it happened because Cycling NZ refuse to end speculation about what actually happened. Their call, but I feel they are not going about burying this the right way.

Weekend Review

The cricket - yes well, I suspect I'm not the only one who has taken a bit of a bath. In hindsight, NZ losing 6 wickets on the first day led me up the garden path in thinking the pitch was not necessarily a batting paradise. Well it was, and I won't be surprised if the third test pitch is similar as SAF look to win the series 1-0. Tread with care in the next test starting on Friday.

At least in the Super 14 for the second time this season laying a team to lose rather than backing a team to win has paid dividends. Many thanks to Mr Pretorious for missing a last minute conversion that ensured the Cats Force game ended in a draw. Slightly miffed that I didn't go against the Crusaders - hate missing $5 shots that come in.

The JWOC fund is up to $941.80 from $982.90 bet. Four more weeks to salvage some pride and try and get out of the red.

Sporting definition of Irony

The Kiwis v Kangaroos Rugby League test on Friday night features a born-and-bred Queenslander who moved to NZ about five years ago playing for the Kiwis at fullback and a born-and-bred New Zealander who moved to Queensland eight years ago playing for the Aussies at fullback.