Bolt to the rescue!

After Usain Bolt's 100m victory in World Championships last Sunday, I felt almost guilty for ever doubting him. After the 200m final I felt a sense of relief when Bolt crossed the finish line with meters to spare over Gatlin.

Of course I always wanted Bolt to win but I admit its been really exciting having Gatlin running so well. For the first time since Bolt broke the 100m world record in 2008, we generally didin't know whether he would win or not.




The good v evil narrative might be journalistic hyperbole but clearly the symbolism of either Bolt or Gatlin winning was always going to be huge. With Bolt prevailing he can be pushed as the saviour of the sport but in many ways his victory has little impact on the greater challenge of eradicating drug cheating in athletics.

I remember hearing the comments of former British sprinter Darren Campbell who argued that if Justin Gatlin had won the title it would force the IAAF to really confront the issue of drugs in the sport, what with a 2 time banned doper returning to win the blue riband event in athletics. I understand this argument and partly agree with it but ultimately Bolt beating Gatlin was the best result for the sport.


Athletics has has a rough ride in recent weeks and has been under a huge amount of scrutiny, particularly following the investigation into doping by The Sunday Times Insight team.

As an athletics fan I don't want to see the sport I love discredited and undermined which in effect is what happens everytime somebody is reported to have tested positive for a banned substance.

Like cycling, people have always taken drugs in athletics, and people will continue to do so. The key is to catch those individuals particularly before they compete in major championships and win any medals.

When I started getting into cycling and began learning more about drug abuse in the sport, I learned that people took drugs because they didn't think they could compete or win as clean athletes.

Athletics is an incredibly competitive sport, a sport that is truly global and to win medals is hard. Again taking cycling as an example, athletes and coaches need to understand and believe that they can compete as clean athletes.

The second point which I think differs from athletics is that I hear stories about athletes testing positive and to be honest I'm not always convinced that every athlete that tests positive for drugs has done so deliberately. There are so many medicines and supplement that athletes can take which include banned substances that I sometimes wonder if they've been ignorant or just naive.

I came across the following statement on the website of British Athletics:

Before using any medications, whether prescribed by a GP, bought over the counter in a Pharmacy or even straight from a supermarket shelf, it is vital that athletes check whether they contain prohibited substances. Medicines bought in the UK, USA, Canada or Japan, can be checked using GlobalDRO (www.globaldro.com)

It makes it clear that athletes have to take the responsibility of knowing what substances they are putting into their body even if it's for medical reasons - I think this makes the argument about drug cheating a little more complex.

When it comes to sanctions imposed I think this is an area where things need to improve. Justin Gatlin has been able to return to the sport like many other athletes because the length of his ban has been too short. I think drug bans should be for at least 5 years.

That's long enough to potentially take away the best years from a younger athletes career - alternatively for older athletes such a ban could end their career. I don't think 5 years will come into effect but I can see 4 years being introduced.

When it comes to athletics punditry I always love listening to Michael Johnson, so have a listen to some of the things he had to say on BBC Radio 5 this week.

What should be done about drugs cheats? @MJGold says there should be a minimum 4-year ban for anyone found guilty. http://t.co/83PzPMc3qL

— BBC 5 live Sport (@5liveSport) August 27, 2015

People like me are always going stick with athletics. If you're a sports fan you love different sports for different reasons. With athletics there's something I love about the simplicity of it all. It's just about who can run faster, throw further and jump higher than their competitors. But you need to have credibility about what you're seeing and that's the challenge for athletics.

A good example of this is when I look at many of the womens world records for 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m I shake my head, there's a question mark over everyone one of them. It's this type of question mark which I don't want to hang over the entire sport of athletics and I hope that with the election of Seb Coe as head of the IAAF things can move forward and improve.

I get Jeremy Corbyn's appeal but a #Labourleadership victory would be a retreat into Labour's comfort zone.

Anyone who has been reading my Twitter feed over the last week will know that I won't be voting for Jeremy Corbyn for leader of the Labour Party.

Labour are currently experiencing an existential crisis, struggling to decide who and what they want to be and stand for. Lurching back to the left will clearly appeal to traditionalists and new younger labour members but I don't see this left wing platform sweeping Labour to power in 2020.

Clearly this election campaign hasn't gone according to the script. I like most people assumed that Corbyn would be the token candidate from the left, running for symbolic reasons but with no chance of actually winning! But that's all changed.

A YouGov poll claiming that Corbyn is on course to win the leadership and stories of left wingers joining the party to vote for Corbyn - mean the Labour establishment is now in a state of panic. Last week Tony Blair issued his warning to the party, that lurching to the left will result in further election defeats. I couldn't agree more.

I've been reading a lot about the leadership election and thinking about Labour and left wing politics in general. Lets be honest Labour are in a total mess. Not only are they struggling to understand why they lost the election and what they should stand for, they're also being completely outmanoeuvred by the Tories who have claimed the centre ground and stolen some of Labour's policies.

So what is going on with Labour?

There's a number of things I've started to realise about the Labour Party, particularly in the last few years. I voted for the first time in 1997 and my vote helped usher in New Labour under Tony Blair. Despite his 3 election victories, the truth is that many inside the party always have and continue to resent the lurch to the right and the centre ground which New Labour represented. I mentioned in one of my previous posts, that you rarely here Labour supporters saying anything positive about their 13 years in power! For them New Labour was completely inauthentic.

After the 2010 election, Ed Miliband's leadership was meant to return Labour back to its roots after the New Labour years but despite appearing to take the party to the left, he and Labour were roundly rejected by the electorate in May. The argument from the left is that voters were not presented with a clear enough choice, they see Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid as a unique opportunity to 'reclaim' the party and take Labour back to its authentic socialist roots and ideals.

Do I think Corbyn can win the Labour leadership? I've come to the conclusion that yes he can. Do I think Labour could win a general election under his leadership? No I do not!

I wouldn't go as far to say there's a civil war in the party (that may come later) but there's clearly an ideological struggle taking place between the traditional Socialist left of the party and the more moderate, centre left, social democratic wing. I've started to realise that those on the left don't want, moderate centre left politics, they don't want to claim the centre ground, they want a Left wing socialist party.

Pragmatism v Principles

What I've started to understand is that the difference between the Conservative Party and Labour is this.

The Tories exist to be in power, they see it as their right and duty. Conservative politics relies on a degree of pragmatism and understanding on what policies will win votes and achieve power. It explains why they've been one of the most successful political parties in the Western world over the last century.

Labour, however are a party steeped in its own history, ideals and principles. You could argue they have more of a soul than the Tories. I now realise that for some in the Labour party, it's not about the winning - its about remaining true to the party's founding principles and beliefs. This is all very noble and admirable but my problem with this is that ultimately if you want to implement change then at times you have to be in government and that means winning elections.

I think a lot of people in the Labour party would rather lose and remain out of power than win and compromise on their principles. This may explain why I now keep hearing this phrase of 'Tory-lite' from those on the left.

Tony Blair and New Labour were 'Tory-lite', the policies put forward by Ed Miliband were 'Tory-lite', Liz Kendall is a Tory. In fact it now seems that those of us who aren't left wing socialists are all 'Tories'.

The left don't want to occupy the centre-ground, they don't want to appeal to former Conservative voters, they want left wing purity and want to appeal to those that share those values. Jeremy Corbyn is the man that embodies this.

Corbyn's appeal

I get Jeremy Corbyn's appeal. He's not the political establishment, he's not part of the 'Westminster bubble' we hear so much about, he's "principled" (why is everyone that's left wing principled?). He's a champion for the Labour left that for too long has felt ignored and marginalised. He's also benefited from the fact that his rivals are all in different ways so uninspiring.

We've seen all across Europe and in America in recent years that there's a great deal of disillusionment with the political establishment and people are looking for something different; this explains why Corbyn's campaign has appealed to so many. However it is one thing to be the leader of a growing political protest movement but very different to be the leader of the opposition and potential future Prime Minister.

The appeal of Corbyn particularly amongst the young, is like someone telling me about some great new band or singer they've just discovered. You listen to a few tracks and it sounds kind of new, but when you listen more closely you start to recognise a lot of the influences and styles that you've heard before. It's been repackaged and updated. Jeremy Corbyn is introducing 'New Skool' socialism. Nothing wrong with it but I've seen and heard it before!

You can't win elections in a comfort zone

I have no doubt that if Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership election he would appeal to more voters who have become disillusioned with the Labour Party in recent years. I'm thinking of people who have switched votes to the SNP in Scotland and UKIP and the Greens in England and Wales. The question is whether these are the voters that will help win an election?

This is the point I have about Labour moving to the Left. It may satisfy their core voters and make them feel warm and comfortable about themselves but that doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into an election victory.

Politics is always about striking a tricky balance between principles and pragmatism. A Jeremy Corbyn victory for me would send out a message that it is more concerned about appealing to itself and its principles rather than trying to appeal a wider electorate.

Too many on the left show a disdain and at times contempt for those on the centre-ground of politics and floating voters who have previously voted Conservative. Some simply don't want to appeal to those voters as they think it would be somehow 'selling-out'. When will they realise it isn't.


Conclusion

There's a part of me that's now beginning to think that perhaps it would be a good thing if Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour party. It's what a lot of Labour grass-roots members and activists want.

We constantly hear about how the parties are all the same and people want a real choice - well Labour under Corbyn would be a complete and utter contrast to the Conservatives. There can be no more complaints about a lack of choice.

In the same way you can get excited about two great football teams playing against each other in a big final. Or a boxing world title fight like Pacquiao v Mayweather, I'm quite intrigued to see a left wing socialist Labour party go up against the Tories in the 2020 election. I would love to see it.

I've got a good idea of what the result will be, but perhaps it's something that needs to happen. Having received the following tweet last week from a member of the Labour Party I have some idea of what the response would be following a Labour defeat.

@Rodneyd75 labour didn't 'lose'. They failed to win election,there's a difference. They need to take the next one with both blood red hands!

— mardymum (@helenturley68) July 21, 2015

Interesting semantics from mardymum!

Even if under Corbyn Labour get annihilated in the 2020 General election, there will still be some like the tweeter above who will claim that they didn't lose. They will self-righteously claim that they somehow won the moral argument, or that the electorate were scared off by the right wing media.

Whatever happens in the next few months or years, what we've seen is that many in the Labour party are happy to retreat into their comfort zone where it's as much about satisfying their own collective beliefs and values rather than appealing and meeting the electorate where they are.

If Labour elect Jeremy Corbyn they're effectively saying they're not interested in being an alternative party of government - instead they're choosing to be nothing more than a glorified left wing pressure group something which will not be of benefit for the Labour Party or democracy in the country.

Race and guns - the fatal flaws in American society

There are so many recurring news stories that we witness in the media. Some are so familiar that they barely register as news anymore. When it comes to America, you can normally guarantee that excluding politics, stories about gun violence and race always seem to dominate.

With this in mind, the fatal shooting of 9 African Americans at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston at the hands of a white racist was so depressingly predictable.

As the world's leading super-power, America likes to present itself as the country that the world should aspire to. It's culture and values were exported around the world throughout the 20th Century and it continues to be seen as the leader of the free world.

As much as I like America and love many aspects of its culture, I'm coming to the conclusion that America is not somewhere that I'd want to live and there are aspects of its society that are totally flawed.

America seems incapable of dealing with its issues around gun control and race and seems destined to continue with this 'groundhog day' narrative of gun violence and racism.

Despite many of the advances made by African Americans since the Civil Rights era, on many levels I sometimes wonder if any progress has been made on race relations in America since the end of slavery! Why is it in 2015 we need a #Blacklivesmatter movement?

As for gun control, like many people in Europe and around the world, you can only shake your head at the attitude some American's have towards guns. This is summed up by the idea that if members of the attacked church had been armed with their own guns, the killer Dylann Roof wouldn't have been able to kill!

Guns and race are the fatal flaws in American society and have been since the country was created. I loved this sentence from Jonathan Freedland's article in the Guardian. He wrote:

"Race and guns are the birth defects of the American republic, their distorting presence visible in the US constitution itself."

I've sometimes imagined how interesting it would be if you took a country's history and turned it into a 12 part drama series along the lines of a Mad Men or a Game of Thrones.

I think it would be fascinating to watch - all history is effectively an ongoing story. If we took American history, the opening episode would begin with America's Founding Fathers finalising the constitution. The birth of a brand new idealistic country that would go on to dominate the world.

The great irony in the story is that the fault lines of race and guns were enshrined in the constitution. The rest of the series chronicling American history throughout the 19th and 20th century would be dominated by the recurring themes of race and guns which they got so wrong at the very start.

No country can every truly escape its past but America seems incapable of addressing gun control in terms of what's needed for a 21st Century society and not one for the 18th. As for race, America has always struggled with the issue and place in society of its African American community. The land of the free still struggles to afford that right to African Americans.

Now there's a chance for FIFA to clean its act up

It was my intention this evening to write a few thoughts on the FIFA corruption investigation, but after Sepp Blatter's shock resignation today my thoughts on this blog have had to change.

Firstly I think I'm like most football fans in this country when I say this is brilliant news. It's made even better by the fact that it seemed so unlikely. I think people cyncially assumed that Blatter would ride out this current storm and keep going like he has done for so long.

I've always thought that to reform FIFA it would need three separate groups to take a stand against the organisation. The three groups are: The major international football nations of Europe and South America, FIFA's main sponsors and the television broadcasters.

If the major football nations decided to boycott a future World Cup and form their own alternative competition, FIFA would have no choice but to bow to pressure to reform. A World Cup simply wouldn't be viable without the big European and South American teams.

This leads us onto the second group, the sponsors. FIFA's biggest sponsors include Adidas, Coca Cola and Visa and it's clear that any World Cup without the biggest nations is not in their interest, the second issue for them is their continuing association with an organisation tainted by sleaze allegations. If they withdrew sponsorship FIFA would be screwed.

The final group are the television broadcasters. Can you imagine if the likes of the BBC and ITV decided not to bid for broadcasting rights in protest against FIFA? Without broadcasters who is going to watch the World Cup and bring audiences to advertisers and sponsors?

In the end none of these groups needed to threaten or take this action. The twin investigations by the FBI and the Swiss attorney general's office have found evidence of criminal wrongdoing so strong, that Blatter and FIFA find themselves in a position that is untenable to maintain.

Blatter simply had to resign, and with an organisation mired in corruption allegations, Blatter has to take responsibility as this has happened under his leadership.

Last Sunday I was reading about the investigation led by the US Justice department and FBI in the Sunday Times, they also had a feature on their Insight team who have conducted their own investigation into FIFA corruption for a number of years.

It reminded me of what great investigative journalism is all about. The time, effort and resources to compile and gather information to tell a story.

With Blatter shortly to step down, there's a great opportunity to reform and restructure FIFA completely. What's probably needed is a whole new guard of officials and executives to take over the running of the organisation. People who hopefully have few links with many of those currently accused of corruption.

There's a long way to go, but today is a good day for world football - lets hope that Sepp Blatter's resignation is the start of a new beginning.

Election 2015: Where does Labour go from here?

What an total disaster last week's election was for Labour, turning the clock back to the worst election defeat since 1987.

The result highlighted three failings and future challenges for the party. They failed to take votes away from the Conservatives, they lost votes to UKIP in the North and worst of all they were wiped out in Scotland by the SNP. If Labour are ever going to get back into government they need to address these points.

Apparently Ed Miliband and his closet colleagues were aware through their own internal polling that things weren't going their way but this was kept inside Miliband's inner circle.

People have attacked Ed for the way he supposedly stabbed his brother in the back by running for and winning the race to become leader of the Labour Party, but it should be remembered the differences each brother was offering to the party and the country.

David Miliband essentially wanted to continue down the 'New Labour' path while Ed wanted to move away from it. For me this was a legitimate reason to run and is not a sign of so called treachery.

This issue I have is that many people have said Labour lost the election because they were too Left wing. This depends on your definition of Left wing.

There's no doubt Ed has in many people's eyes moved the party away from the centre ground. It's been commonly reported that following the Financial crisis in 2008, Ed believed that the centre ground in British politics had moved sharply to the Left. He was wrong as the election results proved.

However, there are those in the party and those firmly on the left that believe that Labour and Ed weren't left wing enough and point to the success of the SNP in Scotland. This got me thinking about what Labour want to be as a party and who it is they think they are representing.

Does the Labour Party know what it wants to be or who it's meant to represent?

One thing that has baffled me for sometime about Labour is this. The Conservatives had a leader in Margret Thatcher who won three General elections, she is revered and remains an icon of the party. Labour have a leader who wins three General Elections in Tony Blair and he's treated like a slightly embarrassing uncle who nobody wants to invite round to the family party!

Labour seem to view it's 'New Labour' era as an inauthentic period in its history, like a romantic relationship which they look back on and think: What was I thinking of'.

Here's the stark truth for Labour, if you take away Tony Blair's 3 election victories, Labour have failed to win a solid majority in an election since the 1960s so Blair and New Labour was clearly successful and attractive to the electorate.

Reading comments on the Guardian (something I'm going to stop doing) you commonly hear comments that Blair was 'Tory lite' that Ed Miliband is not much better, that Labour has abandoned the very principles it was founded for. But what do these people actually want?

When I was growing up, the then Labour leader, Neil Kinnock was accused of being to right-wing. Do people on the left want Michael Foot, Harold Wilson, Clement Atlee?

Labour seem to live in this romantic past, congratulating itself on its triumphs of building the welfare state, of creating the NHS, these should of course be remembered but we're now in the 21st Century and the challenges and achievements of the last century are not always relevant to today.

When I compare Labour and the Conservatives, a characteristic of conservatism is defined by slow evolution. What has made the Conservative Party so successful over the last 150 years is that they've always managed to evolve and adapt and remain relevant to the electorate and the changing society. When I think about the Conservative Party I think about pragmatism over ideology, although this was reversed under Thatcher.

Labour is a party that in many ways has more of a soul than the Tories. Those on the Left tend to be more ideological, with firm and at times dogmatic beliefs. By capturing the middle ground Tony Blair embraced more pragmatism by attempting to break away from previously held beliefs and policies (I'm thinking Clause 4 here).

After being roundly rejected by the electorate, the Labour Party have to figure out how to continue appealing to their core voters but at the same time appealing to the wider electorate. There were many things about 'New Labour' that appealed to the electorate and as part of the process of thinking what the party should stand for, they should look back at recent history to see what proved to be successful rather than rejecting it.

Do Labour grimly hold onto the founding beliefs and principles or do they start adapting to the realities of Britain in the 21st Century?

They can still make up ground in the 2020 election, 70 seats will give them the chance to look at a possible minority government but there's a huge amount of work to do in the next five years.