Britain's new rising star, Lewis Hamilton, has taken a lot of people by surprise. Last year, he was just one of many talented, up-and-coming racing drivers who had yet to make it into the public eye; this year, he's a Formula 1 driver, and he's leading the world championship.
With the sudden levels of massive hype in the British media, I suppose it's not very surprising that the young sportsman's biography is to be published in time for Christmas. But I was slightly shocked by the alleged contents, according to the book's synopsis on Amazon.
In case it gets taken down (and I hope it is, quickly, for Lewis's sake!), I'll reproduce it here:
This is the story of the boy who proves fairytales do come true. The boy who grew up on a council estate, who, at the tender age of 22, came through against all the odds to dominate and revolutionise the world of motor racing.Thrown in at the deep end 'on a mighty whim' by F1 team owner Ron Dennis, Lewis Hamilton crowned his 2007 debut season by winning the title in Japan in October [ed - the Japanese GP is actually in September] - and was in the running for the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year 2007. It was an outcome no one seriously could have predicted: not only did he have to combat his own nerves and fears; he had to overcome a dissenter within his own camp.With behind-the-scenes insight into the intense rivalry between Hamilton and his team mate Fernando Alonso which threatened to derail the young Briton's dream, bestselling sports author Frank Worrall describes how the rookie rose above his critics, keeping his dignity and emerging triumphant as he racked up sensational wins around the world.
Now, unless I missed a meeting, there are six races left in the season, and Lewis hasn't won it yet. There are 60 points left for the taking, and Lewis's cushion is only seven. The fight is far from over. And whilst he is very likely to be "in the running" for Sports Personality of the Year, nobody's announced the shortlist yet.
Frank Worrall, if you're reading this, drop me an e-mail. With your powers of clairvoyance, I could clean out the local bookies!
Showing posts with label sport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sport. Show all posts
Saturday, 18 August 2007
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Sport and politics will always go together
The Australian Government has banned the national cricket team from playing against Zimbabwe. Australian PM John Howard threatened to seize the players’ passports if they didn’t fall in line, claiming that their presence in Zimbabwe would be a “propaganda boost” to the “grubby dictator” Robert Mugabe.
It’s been a popular decision; MPs from across the political spectrum tabled an early day motion in Parliament welcoming the move. Whatever people think of Howard, he’s shown a lot more gumption than Jack Straw a few years ago, who shied away from a difficult decision. Straw, then Foreign Secretary, passed the buck to the England and Wales Cricket Board, saying that it was a matter for the sporting authorities, and not for the Government. That effectively forced England to play, because without the force majeure of a Government intervention, they would have had to pay a substantial fine to the International Cricket Council.
When politicians like Straw argue that sport and politics don’t mix, they’re merely running away from a difficult decision – a decision which they ought to tackle directly. For as long as national sporting teams have competed against each other, Governments have used them as a proxy, fighting for political prowess and recognition. More often than not, it’s the least pleasant and least democratic regimes, the ones with something to prove, who feel the need to inflate the national ego with a major sporting event. Sport and politics have always gone hand in hand.
Just as a case study, take the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Government bankrolled the construction of a massive, state-of-the-art racing circuit in Shanghai, where they’ve been hosting a Formula 1 Grand Prix since 2004. The project cost 240 million US dollars; the track is shaped like the Chinese character “Shang”, and has a racing paddock the size of a reasonably large village. It also has two gigantic, impossibly-balanced, glass-and-metal viewing platforms suspended over the start finish line. I have no idea how many people had to slog away to build the thing, but whoever they were, I’m pretty certain they weren’t earning a fair minimum wage, weren’t protected by workplace safety standards, and weren’t entitled to join a union or to strike. They also certainly didn’t have the chance to vote, in a general election, on whether or not a Formula 1 track was the best possible use for $240 million – or on any other political issue facing China.
I should point out that the 2007 Freedom in the World survey awarded identical (and identically atrocious) scores to both China and Zimbabwe – so perhaps if British super-kid Lewis Hamilton is still leading the World Championship at the end of the season, as F1 heads to China, the new Foreign Secretary should have his car impounded. It would devastate the fans, and almost certainly cause a diplomatic crisis – but is it any less morally justified than Howard standing up to Mugabe?
The truth is that sport will always be political. If the Governments of democratic nations stand back, and refuse to sully the purity of sporting competition with external affairs, they’ll simply allow undemocratic regimes the freedom to promote themselves without challenge. Instead, we should play Mugabe and friends at their own game, and use the sporting arena to isolate countries that fail to respect the human rights of their citizens.
We may not be able to stop sport from being infiltrated by politics, but at least we can make sure that it’s the right kind of politics.
It’s been a popular decision; MPs from across the political spectrum tabled an early day motion in Parliament welcoming the move. Whatever people think of Howard, he’s shown a lot more gumption than Jack Straw a few years ago, who shied away from a difficult decision. Straw, then Foreign Secretary, passed the buck to the England and Wales Cricket Board, saying that it was a matter for the sporting authorities, and not for the Government. That effectively forced England to play, because without the force majeure of a Government intervention, they would have had to pay a substantial fine to the International Cricket Council.
When politicians like Straw argue that sport and politics don’t mix, they’re merely running away from a difficult decision – a decision which they ought to tackle directly. For as long as national sporting teams have competed against each other, Governments have used them as a proxy, fighting for political prowess and recognition. More often than not, it’s the least pleasant and least democratic regimes, the ones with something to prove, who feel the need to inflate the national ego with a major sporting event. Sport and politics have always gone hand in hand.
Just as a case study, take the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Government bankrolled the construction of a massive, state-of-the-art racing circuit in Shanghai, where they’ve been hosting a Formula 1 Grand Prix since 2004. The project cost 240 million US dollars; the track is shaped like the Chinese character “Shang”, and has a racing paddock the size of a reasonably large village. It also has two gigantic, impossibly-balanced, glass-and-metal viewing platforms suspended over the start finish line. I have no idea how many people had to slog away to build the thing, but whoever they were, I’m pretty certain they weren’t earning a fair minimum wage, weren’t protected by workplace safety standards, and weren’t entitled to join a union or to strike. They also certainly didn’t have the chance to vote, in a general election, on whether or not a Formula 1 track was the best possible use for $240 million – or on any other political issue facing China.
I should point out that the 2007 Freedom in the World survey awarded identical (and identically atrocious) scores to both China and Zimbabwe – so perhaps if British super-kid Lewis Hamilton is still leading the World Championship at the end of the season, as F1 heads to China, the new Foreign Secretary should have his car impounded. It would devastate the fans, and almost certainly cause a diplomatic crisis – but is it any less morally justified than Howard standing up to Mugabe?
The truth is that sport will always be political. If the Governments of democratic nations stand back, and refuse to sully the purity of sporting competition with external affairs, they’ll simply allow undemocratic regimes the freedom to promote themselves without challenge. Instead, we should play Mugabe and friends at their own game, and use the sporting arena to isolate countries that fail to respect the human rights of their citizens.
We may not be able to stop sport from being infiltrated by politics, but at least we can make sure that it’s the right kind of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
