Cycling: No clear outcome in the Lance Armstrong saga

A lifetime ban and the vacation of seven consecutive Tour de France titles is the apparent sad conclusion to the Lance Armstrong story, after today's announcement that he would not contest the US Anti-Doping Authority's case against him. It is an odd decision for a man previously defined by his refusal to quit. Despite his protestations that he is innocent and simply refusing to engage with biased proceedings, this decision has largely been greeted as either a tacit admission of guilt, or a final desperation play to ensure that the evidence will never be heard publicly, allowing him to continue professing his innocence.

This is an unsatisfactory outcome. Despite the USADA case, it remains hard to take a clear position on Armstrong. The circumstantial case against him is strong, but has not been subjected to independent scrutiny, and as he points out, there is little physical evidence. The basis of the verdict was an aborted Federal Drug Administration prosecution that came from an investigator with a controversial track record. The suggestion that the testimony against him was gathered through offers of immunity to other implicated riders, the way that details of the case seem to have been selectively leaked, and the fact that none of the evidence faced any third-party examination before judgement was passed, means that the USADA has arguably harmed its case in the court of public opinion with the way that it has conducted itself.

Armstrong's supporters will continue to defend him, and the rest will condemn him, but it remains impossible to make a conclusive judgement, which is why today's decision, which robs us of the chance to have the case examined during the arbitration process, means that we are no closer to the truth than before.

UPDATE: The debate is raging on, but the USADA are exptected to publish their decision in the next couple of weeks, that will apparently contain evidence, and more should come out once the cases against other individuals are resolved.

London 2012: Enjoy Team GB's success while it lasts, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't

A young fan waves a Union Flag at the Olympic Women's 10k Swim in Hyde Park

The reaction to Great Britain's success in the London 2012 medal table has been euphoric. After the disappointment of Atlanta 1996 (one gold medal, 36^thoverall), top ten finishes in Sydney (11 golds, 10^th) and Athens (nine golds, 10^th), were seen as great successes, but the performances in Beijing (19 golds, fourth) and London (29 golds, third), have taken Team GB to new heights. The achievements of Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and their team mates have been a joy to behold, but should not be allowed to spoil future Olympic accomplishments for the public either.

Host nation success is a well-documented phenomenon, and usually begins four years prior, as funding has already been improved in anticipation of the home games. This goes some way to explaining British success in Beijing, but the roots of that performance go back to the steady improvement after Atlanta, when the introduction of lottery funding coincided with national humiliation, and a recognition that the sporting landscape had changed since the end of the amateur era, requiring a more professional outlook from administrators. Factor in the increased funding that then arrived after London's successful bid in 2005, and the advantage of home crowds and conditions, and Team GB's performance is less surprising.

Britain has not seen this level of success since the days when far fewer nations took part. However, every team in every sport has its ceiling, Team GB cannot compete with China or the United States due to population size and funding, so third is the highest realistic place available. Without home conditions and support, it will be harder to find a competitive advantage. Meanwhile the chasing pack includes more populous nations, many of them emerging into the economic maturity necessary for Olympic success. As a fascinating article by Grantland's Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier explains:

“If a country is made up of subsistence farmers, it is not going to have much athletic infrastructure, government or private support, or even enough well-nourished citizens to excel in sports on the global stage... So, being rich in raw materials (people) and having the wealth to develop them are the main economic determinants of Olympic success ”

The chasing pack can, for these purposes, be divided into groups.

1. The sleeping giants: Brazil, host of the 2016 games, has one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world, and the number of Brazilians who will have access to sports infrastructure is only going to grow. Several nations, including India, are at different stages of this process.
2. The former powerhouses: those such as Russia who once dominated, covet that status again, and have the national will to ensure the prerequisite levels of funding are in place.
3. The specialists: nations that are unlikely to challenge across multiple sports, but which focus their attention on specific areas, allowing them to punch above their weight, for example Kenya in long distance running, or Bulgaria (highlighted by Cowen and Grier) in weight-lifting, wrestling and shooting, which have provided 32 of their 51 gold medals to date.

The first two groups will all have their eyes on Britain's third place, and the third group will be aiming for top ten finishes. Economic and population growth in the UK and other developed nations is slowing in relation to these challengers. Combined with the increased number of Olympic nations since the splintering of Eastern Europe, the end of the era of boycotts, and the rise in interest in countries with no real Olympic tradition, and the spread of medals is only going to become more diverse.

What does this mean for public perception of Team GB? Setting aside the argument that the medal table is somewhat artificial, as is the idea of an Olympic team, since what Chris Hoy does in the velodrome has no bearing on what Anthony Joshua does in the ring, London 2012 was probably the high water mark for the British team. The government has promised to maintain current levels of funding through 2016, but there are no long term guarantees.

The public reaction to Team GB is reminiscent of that towards the England rugby and cricket teams in 2003 and 2005. In the short term, both benefited from the increased attention, but when results declined, it meant greater scrutiny of their failings than before. Will there be a backlash when Britain inevitably drops down the medal table? Athletes performing to the best of their abilities may no longer be feted, but unfavourably compared to their 2012 predecessors. Falling out of nightclubs a sign of malaise, rather than well-deserved letting off of steam. The intense public disappointment at Australia's tenth place finish in London illustrates the dangers of raised expectations.

What is the solution? The British Olympic Association and other organising bodies must continue to seek new competitive advantages, but those are hard to find and harder to maintain, so perhaps the onus is instead on the media and the public to enjoy this success while it lasts, be nostalgic about it when it passes, but not to greet that passing with anger and disappointment.

So long as the Olympians of 2016, 2020 and beyond perform to a level commensurate with Britain's position in the world, 2012 need not become a millstone around their necks. Cherish this moment, and if Team GB returns to its positions from Athens and Sydney, those performances were once cause for celebration, and in an increasingly competitive Olympic world, would deserve to be celebrated again. London 2012 was a once in a lifetime moment for the British, not just as hosts, but also because of the performance of their team. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't let it become cause for future disappointment.

Sport on TV: Celebrity preoccupation puts BBC at fault

The men's final atWimbledon may have been a chance to see one of the greatest players of all time chase a record-equalling victory by taking on a home favourite with a winning record in head-to-head match ups, but it was also a chance for the BBC's coverage to do some unashamed crowd watching and celebrity spotting.

For as long as television cameras have had the range to capture faces in the crowd, broadcasters have picked out spectators at sporting events, both famous and not, with the non-famous used to illustrate the atmosphere inside the arena, and the famous used to add glamour. Sunday's final took it to a new level though, with the director cutting to the famous (and occasionally the not so famous) faces so quickly after each point, that we could see their live reactions, as opposed to a replay a few seconds later.

The responsibility of the broadcaster is to show the game first, and the BBC did not miss any of the action, but by cutting away so often and so quickly, viewers were often denied the chance to see how Roger Federer and Andy Murray reacted, what their body language was like after each point. Letting the picture dwell on the court for a moment or two allows the viewer to digest what they have just seen. By instantly cutting away to a reaction shot, the director is distracting and detracting from the experience.

That is not to say that viewers are not interested in seeing who is present, and not just for the gossip. Knowing who is in attendance helps to get a sense of the event, and showing the David Cameron, Boris Johnson and the Middletons is not unreasonable a couple of times per set.

However, it became so frequent during this final, that it began to feel voyeuristic and uncomfortable, as it did for the close-ups of the players' families and coaches. Again, there is some merit in seeing how they are reacting, but when almost every point is followed by Judy Murray or her son's girlfriend, it begins to feel less like a valid journalistic choice, and more like an invasion of privacy. Moreover, it quickly became apparent that none of these people were showing much reaction to the match. They were cheering and clapping, but nothing unusually demonstrative. The BBC was not showing anything that enhanced the public's understanding of the final or the atmosphere.

There is also something seedy in the way that crowd shots are selected. The coverage of Euro 2012, produced in-house by UEFA, became famous for its preoccupation with attractive female fans. Meanwhile how often did the BBC zoom in on the boyfriends and husbands of the top female players, compared to the wives and girlfriends of the male players?

The Euro 2012 coverage was also tarnished by the revelation that the producers had been pre-recording reaction shots to insert into the coverage and present them as live. When Mario Balotelli scored against Germany in the semi-final, one of the defining images was of a German fan in tears. Yet she had been recorded 45 minutes earlier, crying at the national anthem. This sets a dangerous precedent, a broadcaster such as UEFA, that is also the organiser of the event, has a vested interest in presenting a positive image of the tournament.

This entire preoccupation with showing how the crowd is reacting, stems from the need to convey the atmosphere of the live event to fans at home. However, broadcasters are ignoring the sounds of the fans, and that's what really conveys atmosphere. The odd shot of the fans is one thing, but when images of fans, celebrities and family members become so frequent that they are detracting from the coverage of the sport itself, then it is time to make a change.

Euro 2012: Spain prove not to be so boring after all

If Sunday's Euro 2012 final helped Spain cast of their unwarranted 'boring' tag, it also proved that responsibility for any dull matches earlier in the tournament lay with their opponents. Many bemoaned the level of entertainment on offer during Spain's quarter and semi-final wins over France and Portugal, yet as noted by Corinthian Spirit yesterday, it was those teams' decision to sit deep and play with men behind the ball that made it difficult for Spain to play the more direct game that many were hoping for. Once Portugal went on the attack in extra time of the semi-final, Spain found that the pitch had opened up for them and responded accordingly.

Instead of setting out to defend, as Italian sides of the past would have done, and as Spain's other opponents in this tournament have done, Italy attacked, trying to play the more open, creative game that served them so well against Germany. This created space for the Spanish to operate in, and they were able to create more scoring opportunities than in previous rounds, resulting in four goals.

That said, this new-found aggression was not entirely a response to Italian tactics. The champions set out to play more aggressively than in previous rounds, attempting more shots from long range, and making more forward runs from midfield and fullback. Despite the selection of Fabregas, the Barcelona midfielder effectively played as an out and out centre forward, staying high up the pitch and making runs into the box, unlike his earlier appearances in the tournament when he played as a false nine and dropped into midfield (for more tactical analysis, see the excellent Zonal Marking blog).

Not only was Italy's defence overwhelmed, but thanks to Vicente del Bosque denied Andrea Pirlo the space to operate that Germany and England had given him, thanks to the tactical master stroke of using Iniesta and Silva to squeeze the midfield when defending, allowing Xavi to push up and press the Italian playmaker. Cesare Prandelli's team was left unable to create clear cut chances, and Spain's domination was secured.

Before the final was even over, the plaudits for the Spanish performance were flooding in, but many were coupled with the question as to why they could not produce this performance earlier in the competition. Their performance justified a little of the criticism, as they showed what they're capable of when they press forward, but even Spain can only do what the opposition allow them to do, and previously in this tournament, they have not been given space to work in, resulting in long periods of playing for possession and the accusations of being boring. But if yesterday's final illustrates anything, it is that whilst, they could have been more aggressive earlier in the tournament, they were working with what they had, and that their opponents had two choices: defend deep and be boring, or attack and be exciting, but either way, the result is the same.

Euro 2012: Are Spain Boring or Unappreciated?

Spain are the reigning world and European champions, the best international team so far this century, and possibly the best for twenty years, have spent the run-up to Sunday's final, their third in three tournaments, defending their style of play from the charge of being boring.

Regardless of whether or not they are, the backlash was inevitable. Spain have been the best side in the world for four years, and there is always a reaction against success, especially in Britain where the underdog is king, but this is not just a debate that is taking place in the British press. Two years ago, tiki-taka football was envied and admired, now it is seen in some quarters as stifling and negative.

The charges are not completely without merit, Spain have had 68 percent possession during Euro 2012, but the fewest attempts on goal of any of the four semi-finalists. Their style of play creates few chances, instead of going for a killer blow, they often overlook opportunities to play a final ball into the box, preferring to pass backwards or sideways and maintain possession, waiting for a clear-cut chance to come along. Football watchers tend to value ambition as highly as any other quality, and this apparent lack of it has contributed to their alienation.

What the accusation also shows, are the short memories of many fans and journalists who watch football. The Spanish are far removed from the long ball teams that featured heavily in English football in the 80s and early 90s, teams coached by George Graham, Howard Wilkinson and Graham Taylor, or even the route one tactics employed by England in the second half of their quarter-final match with Italy seven days ago. In that match, England's most frequent pass combination was Hart to Carroll, and as a result, England's attack was not only highly ineffective, but also incredibly dull. The excitement in that match for English fans was that England were involved, not that it was a good game. The Spanish game involves some of the most skilful footballers in the world playing a technically demanding brand of passing football, whilst winning consistently. The only thing that's boring there is their success. Contrast that with the teams coached by Sam Allardyce, where long ball tactics, men behind the ball and a reliance on set pieces are the foundations of his game plan. Describing Spain as dull, whilst teams like these are in recent living memory seems forgetful at best, and the football world is in for a shock when Allardyce's West Ham return to the Premiership next season.

A similar accusation is often levelled at Jose Mourinho's teams, but his teams still score plenty of goals, and are playing skilful football with the ball on the floor, whilst his former charges at Chelsea are alleged to have parked the bus in the Champions' League last season, but they outscored Barcelona 3-2 over two legs in the semi-final. Those who watch the game have been spoiled by 20 years of Champions' League football, worldwide coverage of the top domestic leagues, and for English fans, a diet of end-to-end, high scoring football, that has perhaps diluted appreciation for some of the game's finer arts.

It is true that Spain have not played in any classic matches so far in Euro 2012, but that does not mean that they are not a classic team. Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all time, but he was sometimes labelled as boring because of the relentless and one-sided nature of many of the big matches he played in, whereas other, less successful stars, who could not destroy opponents like he could, played in what are regarded as great finals, because their imperfections allowed for a closer, more unpredictable result, such as the 2001 Ivanisevic-Rafter Wimbledon final.

Spain's opponents should be apportioned with at least half of the blame for any dull matches, not just because of their inability to challenge the world champions, but because of their refusal to try. If the quarter and semi-finals were unexciting, blame the Portuguese and the French for playing with men behind the ball. Look at what happened when Portugal began to attack the Spanish in extra time, the game opened up, and Spain started to play at a greater tempo and with more direct intent than before.

The argument over the level of excitement that one can get from watching Spain play, comes down to what the viewer wants to get from them. Appreciation for the fine arts of the game, outplaying and dominating an opponent, or playing in an incident packed and close fixture, filled with imperfections and mistakes. Both have their merits, but do we really want a football culture where a team is criticised for playing a passing game that keep the ball on the floor and relies on skill and technique?

Rugby: England's Third Test Plan

With the series already lost, England face South Africa in the third and final test match of their series this Saturday. After two defeats, Stuart Lancaster must be sick of valiant losing efforts, and will be looking to end the tour on a win. Here are three things his side must do, if they are to win in Port Elizabeth.

Cut out the Mistakes

England have not given themselves a chance to get into a winning position in the first two matches thanks to mistakes at key moments. These are inevitable for a new and inexperienced side, but players who fail to learn from their mistakes rarely last long in international rugby. Four minutes into the second test, the England front row failed to secure possession at a five metre scrum. The ball found its way to the feet of flanker Tom Johnson, who failed to react before it squirted out and was pounced on by Willem Alberts to score the opening try. England cannot gift their opponents opportunities like this in test rugby, the margins are too fine. Similarly, there have been too many missed tackles, which means that the English defence is always scrambling to catch up with play.

Improve in attack

Stuart Lancaster's team has shown more intent to attack with the ball in hand than in the Martin Johnson era, but there is still a long way to go. English players often seem unsure about what to do at key moments, and although the amount of aimless kicking has been reduced, there are still traces of the previous regime's conservatism. South Africa's final try last Saturday came from a misdirected and poorly chosen kick from Jonathan Joseph. The centre, making only his second appearance, failed to notice that no-one was in position to chase the kick and instead of retaining possession, he aimed his kick straight down the throat of JP Pietersen, who set up the try. Reverting to Toby Flood at fly-half was a positive step, and he was more assertive than in the past, but England's players still need a clearer idea of what they are going to do when they are inside the opposition 22, and need to be more precise when they do it.

Start fast

Like the 2009 Lions, England were slow out of the blocks last Saturday, and found themselves two scores down before they had had any significant possession This ultimately doomed the Lions, and it has doomed England in this series. Whether this was due to young players being overwhelmed by the moment, the intensity of the Springboks, or the effects of altitude, Lancaster and his team must diagnose this problem and solve it before the third test. A team cannot afford to give head starts to an opponent as powerful as the South African side.

Hansie Cronje: Ten Years On

Currently available as a podcast on the BBC website and on iTunes is 5 Live's recent documentary about Hansie Cronje, broadcast to commemorate ten years since his death. It is a timely moment to revisit the Cronje story, after a winter which saw three Pakistani cricketers convicted of spot fixing in a 2010 test match, Essex's Mervyn Westfield convicted of a similar offence in a county match, and the announcement of a new ECB initiative to tackle the threat of match fixing in the English game.

The most striking item in the programme was how little we still know about what went on in that period. Journalist Neil Manthorp mentions a series of bank accounts that were allegedly linked to many prominent cricketing figures, yet the investigation into those accounts was shut down after Cronje's death. These accounts had been previously mentioned in a television documentary, 'The Captain and The Bookmaker', made by political journalist Peter Oborne. This film was also critical of the report by the King Commission, which had investigated Cronje's crimes in the immediate aftermath, accusing it of being insubstantial.

Both programmes interview Marlon Aronstam, the bookmaker behind the infamous 'leather jacket test match' between South Africa and England in 2000. One thing that Oborne's documentary gets out of him is the suggestion of an ongoing relationship between Cronje and the bookie after that test match, but no details are forthcoming, nor is this elaborated on in the 5 Live documentary.

Aronstam's testimony is clearly difficult to trust, but what is alarming is the notion that the authorities only scratched the surface. Will this investigation ever be resurrected? The suggestion that dozens of other major cricketers were involved in match fixing but got away with it, would undermine an entire decade's worth of international matches. Perhaps most worrying for the game in the future is the thought that whatever bookmakers or gamblers were involved in these accounts were never identified publicly, leaving them free to continue their efforts.

This is, of course, pure speculation, based on an investigation that was terminated. But unless it is proven that those mysterious bank accounts are a myth, or were unrelated to match fixing, the doubt will always linger. That is perhaps Cronje's greatest crime against cricket: creating a nagging suspicion, that seems unlikely to be lifted any time soon.