|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2017 13:27:54 GMT
It's just the opposite of applause, innit? One is a recognisable audible way for a crowd (or a part of a crowd) to show their appreciation, and one is a recognisable audible way for a crowd (or a part of a crowd) to show their displeasure. I don't think anyone expects anything to *happen*, they just want to audibly voice their displeasure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2017 13:59:45 GMT
And just as we augment our applause by joining in a standing ovation, we accentuate our boos by turning our backs and mooning at the target.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2017 16:01:11 GMT
What do people think is achieved by booing? It's not like it's going to do anything to prevent cheating, and it's not as if someone's going to shrug off a formal punishment and only realise the severity of their actions when they get booed. It seems to be more a matter of people wanting to reduce complex situations to heroes and villains and then petulantly vent their anger at the fact that nobody's perfect. Taking testerone does mean that he is a villain, it is criminal to take money under false pretences. The fact that others haven't been booed doesn't mean that the worst offenders should be able to get a free pass on it, either, it just means that crowds need to be presented with more. At the moment too much is presented to them as though all bans are of the more extreme type, as Gatlin's is, when most are for mistakes or carelessness (proved, usually, through testing of supplements). I doubt that a crowd would boo Yohan Blake, for example, knowing that his ban was for a substance not actually banned. Crowds do react in shades of grey but to do nothing, in this instance, is to condone. Someone who does not deserve it is Chris Froome who has French crowds saying and doing vile things to him when he has had no drug issue but others, who bizarrely get a free pass in that area, have. I imagine that is mainly as a result of a lack of factual information, as well. As for its effect, this is broadcast globally, a sport that is allowing drug cheats to prosper deserves bad publicity and to be affected in the wallet as advertisers back out and crowds dwindle. Mass booing is a precursor to both of these things. In a theatre analogy, it is as though a company was allowing some actors to walk on with scripts. The audience would be livid and vote with their feet. I fundamentally disagree with booing something because it is not to your taste but if an audience is being taken for a ride then they should do so. One other issue, the Russian groups, of Trump and Clinton fame, have been spreading misinformation in sport as well. Partial information that does not tell the truth, in some instances, and inserting fake data in others. Why are they doing this? Because their state sponsored doping was found out and they want to make others look bad, even if they have to spread untruths and distortions. Because of the UK's relatively harsh approach, these hackers are doing their best to smear Farah and others, so approach anything they do or say with a high degree of scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 8, 2017 16:41:42 GMT
It's just the opposite of applause, innit? One is a recognisable audible way for a crowd (or a part of a crowd) to show their appreciation, and one is a recognisable audible way for a crowd (or a part of a crowd) to show their displeasure. I don't think anyone expects anything to *happen*, they just want to audibly voice their displeasure. They are not symmetrical though. For example booing in the theatre is ill-mannered and totally unacceptable under any circumstances in my view.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 8, 2017 22:57:06 GMT
What do people think is achieved by booing? It's not like it's going to do anything to prevent cheating, and it's not as if someone's going to shrug off a formal punishment and only realise the severity of their actions when they get booed. It seems to be more a matter of people wanting to reduce complex situations to heroes and villains and then petulantly vent their anger at the fact that nobody's perfect. What is achieved by booing? It validates even further that the man is a cheat and a disgrace to his sport and his flag, his final moment of glory has been forever tarnished by the audience who reminded him in no uncertain terms of their contempt for him, he can now retire and join the roll of shame with other 'Athletes', such as Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and Linford Christie as cheats and failed champion. However I don't remember George Osbourne being a drug cheat?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 9, 2017 7:29:17 GMT
What do people think is achieved by booing? It's not like it's going to do anything to prevent cheating, and it's not as if someone's going to shrug off a formal punishment and only realise the severity of their actions when they get booed. It seems to be more a matter of people wanting to reduce complex situations to heroes and villains and then petulantly vent their anger at the fact that nobody's perfect. What is achieved by booing? It validates even further that the man is a cheat and a disgrace to his sport and his flag, his final moment of glory has been forever tarnished by the audience who reminded him in no uncertain terms of their contempt for him, he can now retire and join the roll of shame with other 'Athletes', such as Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and Linford Christie as cheats and failed champion. However I don't remember George Osbourne being a drug cheat? To be honest if you widened your disapproval of drug taking beyond sport you'd never go to another play again - in another thread we were discussing actors who dislike being in Stratford because it is so boring, hence the drug taking culture there of the recent past with actors snorting lines of coke off the main stage.
|
|