Women in men’s sport, Aussie cricketer’s assignments and Josh Dugan

I haven’t blogged the last couple of weeks, so this blog will cover some things that might seem a bit old.

Women competing in men’s competitions is something that has always annoyed me slightly. I’m not talking about local level and junior sport, but elite and professional sport. I’ve played and coached with and against girls in sports like rugby, rugby league, cricket and Oz Tag, plus others in classes like P.E. at school. From these experiences i know that girls can compete and often out-do boys in a lot of sports.

I’m all for gender equality but think that when it comes to professional sport, men and women need to be separated, and i question how beneficial it really is for a female to ‘step up’ and take on the men. What got me thinking about this again was the story of Lauren Silberman, the first female to try out at a regional level American football combine. Lauren had a background in playing soccer and had not played in a competitive game of football before. After a lot of publicity, often hyping up how important this was for female athletes to be given a shot at competing with the men, Lauren only managed 2 kicks of about 20 yards and had to withdraw due to a leg injury. After reading her story, I’m not sure whether this was a publicity stunt from the NFL to get some media attention during their off season, or a genuine chance for an elite female athlete to have her shot at playing in one of the biggest leagues in the world. I question how beneficial Lauren’s case is for other women wanting to compete against men. In my opinion, seeing her success would be motivating for other women, having seen that ‘hey, if she can do it i can do it’. However what actually happened is detrimental, and i think that it may cause some women to think twice about trying to take that next step up.

The first example i can think of, although im sure there were many before her, is golfer Annika Sorenstam playing against the men at a tournament in 2003. At the time she was the best golfer in the world, having dominated the LPGA for the last couple of years and had her chance to put it to the men. She finished 96th out of 111. In 2008 Michelle Wie skipped a LPGA major, the British Open, to compete against the men at a regular tournament. Sorenstam was quoted saying ‘I really don’t know why Michelle continues to do this’, as at the time Wie was yet to win an LPGA event. I think that this example of Wie missing one of female golf’s biggest events is even more downgrading for women’s sport, especially when she failed to make the cut at the men’s event.

It might just be my ignorance, or it isn’t as highly publicised as the opposite, but i can’t think of an example of a man competing in a female sport at the pro level. I think it would be interesting to see how a man playing netball in the ANZ championship would unfold for example. Perhaps occasional mixed gender competitions spread out over the year will give the chance for female athletes to take on men, without the added controversy of competing in male competitions and forgoing female events.

The next issue thats happened over the last week or so is the standing down of 4 Aussie cricketers for failing to hand in an assignment assessing the team’s play in the first 2 Tests and ways to improve. I can understand this policy for school or university sports, but not for adults playing professional sport for a team that is struggling big time and already under scrutiny. I can see from a coaching standpoint how giving each player the mission of assessing the team’s play and thinking up ways to improve can be beneficial in presenting new ideas, but when the punishment for not doing so is to drop them from the team regardless of performance is too harsh for me. A fine seems the most simple form of punishment and only effects the player; while dropping them is effecting the whole team. It would be interesting to know if the players knew what the punishment would be should they not complete the assignment. Surely these guys, who have sacrificed a lot and worked hard to make it to international level would complete their homework if they knew what would be taken from them.

The last thing i wanted to cover was the Raiders sacking Josh Dugan, which i think is a brave and good move. They may have sacked probably their best player, but they’ve showed some guts and sent a message to their other players about what will happen if they break club policy/muck up time and time again. Its refreshing to see they didnt take the ‘send player to rehab, claim they’ve reformed’ approach which seems to be the way to go for clubs dealing with unruly players recently. I know that that method can be helpful for the player and shows that the club does care for its players (thinking about my previous blog about Ben Barba here), but its good to see a club say its had enough and sack someone. Its just unfortunate that another club will possibly benefit from the Raiders tough decision to sack him. I look forward to seeing how the new rugby league commission handles Dugan signing with another club, and if they register his contract, or show some tough love like Canberra has and have him sit out a year, like Todd Carney a couple of years ago.

‘Faces of the game’ Week 3

Another year and another ‘face of the game’ for the NRL in trouble. Yesterday it was revealed that Bulldogs player and 2012 Dally M Medalist Ben Barba has been stood down by the club for behavioral issues. The full story is yet to be released about what he has actually done, but the reports so far say that alcohol and gambling are at the forefront of his problems, as well as joining a hard partying group from Cronulla. It just seems to me that the title of the face of the NRL is cursed, whoever it is seems bound to get into trouble. Off the top of my head i think of Brett Stewart with his sexual assault case, causing the NRL to scrap their entire pre season campaign which featured Stewart. Benji Marshall just a few years ago was also labelled the ‘face of the game’, but was accused of assault just a few hours after the official season launch.

It makes me think that putting one player on a pedestal is too much, especially in what is supposed to be a team game. Not only does it seem to always end badly for the player, but the NRL surely has to be getting the message that this sort of marketing isnt working. I cant think of who the ‘poster boy’ is for the AFL, Super Rugby and T20 Big Bash.

I understand that having a young star as the centre of the marketing campaign is going to raise a lot of interest in the game, but despite how good someone like Barba is, maybe 22 years old isnt old and experienced enough to handle being at the centre of attention. Even though he is retired now, i think that someone like Nathan Hindmarsh, an established, representative player who was in his early 30s could have been a better choice if there really is a need for one player to face the game.

The thing that annoys me the most about this is how the press relays the stories onto the public. Reading a report of Barba’s partying online at the moment, the effect that this will have on the odds offered for the Bulldogs season is mentioned a couple of times and there are quotes from bookmaking representatives. Nothing from anyone in a position to help Barba, or shed light on what has actually happened. Makes it seem that the odds for his team drifting out are more important than helping an obviously troubled young star. Interestingly it will probably be the same media mediums which accuse the NRL of not educating their players, not showing any responsibility for the actions, or being able to help troubled individuals.

Performance Enhancers Week 2

The news during last couple of weeks has been dominated by athletes in Australian leagues, mainly NRL and AFL using illegal performance enhancers. It got me thinking of where and how we draw the line and classify what is ‘performance enhancing’ and what isn’t.

Why is HGH banned but not sports drinks like Gatorade and Powerade? Both will aid an athlete in improving their performance. Maybe the fact that sports drinks are cheap and readily available to basically everyone makes them alright, as the advantage they provide is hardly an unfair one if the opposition can just as easily buy a bottle. The same can be said about compression garments, sticky spray and drugs like No-Doz. They help the athlete to perform better than what they would have without that aid.

The talk of peptides being used by professional athletes to rapidly repair and build muscle has headlined the backpages lately. What is not being reported in the papers, possibly because its a bit too scientific for what the general public wants to be reading about, is to what extent these peptides are enhancing the athletes performance. Personally I think this would be interesting, as without much knowledge of what they are actually doing for the athlete, it sounds like a super protein shake; helping the athlete repair muscle and prepare them for their next session, which in turn means they can increase their muscle.

I understand that what the athletes being investigated are using are at the extreme end of things. But technology will always develop and one day the gap between what the every day person can buy from the supermarket compared to what WADA and ASADA have on their banned list will get closer and closer. If the peptides the players are using are made legal and available to everyone, would this still be a problem?

I believe that one day in the near future an entrepreneur with a strong financial backing will create their own ‘super Olympics’ open to athletes using performance enhancers. Watching Usain Bolt run the 100m in 9.58 seconds is impressive yes. But someone running it in 8 seconds? High jumping 4 metres? Admittedly i would watch a clean and drugs Olympics, because I just watch and enjoy a variety of sports. But i think that with more and more athletes being outed as drug cheats, and the possibility to make money out of their extraordinary performance, we will soon see events for people on performance enhancing drugs.

I thought it was interesting of the AOC to put to Australian athletes that if they are found guilty of doping at the Winter Olympics next year they will be sentenced to a 5 year jail term. I think 5 years is a bit much, given the public humiliation and tarnished reputation they will always have. Still, being such a big punishment might just be enough to make some athletes think twice and shy away from drugs.

Although I mention a ‘tarnished reputation’ in the paragraph above, i think of some of my favourite athletes; Andrew Johns, Shane Warne, Lance Armstrong, who have all had a background in drugs however some people, me included, still support them. When Armstrong was revealed to be a drug cheat, i purchased a new Livestrong shirt. Which leads me to another point: what if the athlete uses their (drug fueled) success for good causes, such as Lance and Livestrong? Lance the cancer fighter will always achieved more than Lance the cyclist in my opinion.

A thought to finish on in my very scattered and hard to follow blog. The last 2 years ive coached a junior rugby league team. In the first year i coached the team, while driving to an away game with the family of a player (aged 10 at the time) his mum handed him a 500ml can of Mother energy drink, and told me that he plays better when he drinks it and does it every week. I soon found out that there were several kids in the team whose parents were doing the same thing. Despite me pointing out that these cans are more than whats recommended for a fully grown adult, almost definitely not doing any good for their kids health, the parents kept giving their children energy drinks before games. Where does something like this fit into the picture of performance enhancers?