Australian Tennis Players Gypped By Jacques Rogge And Cronies

Why are there three competitors from each country allowed in individual athletics events and only two in most other disciplines like swimming, yet for some bizarre reason, the Olympic committee (IOC) and International Tennis Federation (ITF) have seen fit to allow four players from each country in the men’s and women’s singles?

There are a few exceptions, such as the cycling road races, with teams of five, but that is more about the tactics of bike racing. In general, two or three competitors from each country is the limit.

This may seem like a trivial gripe and in the grand scheme of things, it is. However, aren’t the Olympics supposed to be about inclusion? Aren’t they supposed to be a celebration of sport where people come from all around the world to compete?

Even though very few countries would agree to host the Olympic Games without extensive corporate sponsorship to defray the costs, I have difficulty seeing how including the fourth ranked player from half a dozen countries instead of a few players ranked around 100 from other countries even meets corporate goals.

The men’s and women’s singles Olympic tennis competitions are draws of 64. The top 56 ranked players as of June 11 are given automatic entry. That’s the top 56 ranked players who are available to play, not just players in the top 56. The other 8 places are wild cards, 6 chosen by the ITF and 2 by the IOC. For Australia, Lleyton Hewitt got one.

In the men’s singles competition, there are 5 countries with 4 players each: Argentina, France, Russia, Spain and the USA. Here are the men’s rankings as of June 11. With six players in the top 30 unavailable due to injury (including 2008 gold medalist Rafael Nadal), Russia’s Dimitri Tursunov sneaks in with a ranking of 66, even though it is now 138 after poor performances at the French Open and Wimbledon. The USA’s Donald Young is now ranked #60 and is playing (he was #48 on June 11). Ryan Harrison was actually their fourth ranked player at #52.

What is the point in excluding people from other nations from representing their countries at the Olympics if the result is that you allow in half a dozen players with rankings around 50, when there are already three players from those same countries in the draw? Does this in any way enhance the competition?

I can understand allowing three players from each country instead of two, as the standard of the competition would be materially lowered, however the marginal increase in overall competition standard from three to four is very small and is probably outweighed by the decrease in variety.

Actually, bugger it ... why not make it two per country? There would be some first round matches featuring players ranked #120 or #150, but that happens in the Grand Slam tournaments with draws of 128 and people see it as just part of the competition.

The above five countries have, respectively 7, 10, 6, 7 and 12 players in the top 100. Germany and Italy have 6. Suppose entry was limited to the top three from any country. Then even with no pullouts due to injury, Australia’s Matthew Ebden (rank 74) would have been the last direct qualifier. Accounting for the six players in the top 30 who did pull out, the last direct entry would have gone to Australia’s Marinko Matosevic (rank 83). Australia, a nation with a great tennis history, including Olympic gold medal winners, would have had three places (Bernard Tomic being the other). Lleyton Hewitt would have missed out, but that is fair, because he isn’t in Australia’s current top 3.

Why have slimy officials like Jacques Rogge and his cronies been allowed to deprive two Aussies of a rightful place in the Olympics? Unbelievably, we have no-one in the men’s doubles.

The women’s singles draw is no different. The Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain and the USA all have four players each. Excluding these 6 players would mean roughly the same thing as for the men’s competition: a ranking of around 80 would secure a player automatic entry and the tournament would be a slightly broader church.

I haven’t analysed the women’s competition to the same degree because no Australians are affected, so we only have Sam Stosur and two teams in the doubles.

Modern sport and in particular, the Olympics needs big money to thrive. The revenue goal is not contrary to opening up competition to more nations by sensible limits to the number of competitors from each. In fact, people from those countries might be more likely to tune in and see your sponsors’ ads.

Remember Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel?  Would either the spirit of competition or corporate goals have been better served by excluding them in favour of a fourth Finnish or Norwegian ski jumper or fourth American or Russian swimmer?

We Must Demolish These Apartment Buildings Because They Are 10 Feet Too High

If a block of flats is structurally sound, but exceeds the size originally approved by the local council, how is it anything but lunacy to demolish it, so that a new block can be built which does meet the specifications of the original development application?

But that is exactly what the Land and Environment Court has ruled must happen to two blocks of a total of 12 flats at 55 Cross St, Guildford, presumably at the request of Parramatta Council. Mad though the Court may be, it is unlikely it would have ordered the vacation and demolition of the blocks had the Council not requested it.

What about the tenants? Why are they being punished because of a dodgy developer? The financial cost? The wastage of resources?

Justice Malcolm Craig states in the Court’s recent judgment, upholding the demolition order that he is “mindful of the plight of tenants” (para 59). Very mindful, turning them out onto the street. In para 51 of the judgment, Justice Craig states that

“… action in belatedly seeking to have the tenancies on the Site terminated were not taken in a manner likely to achieve an expeditious result. Initially, only an "oral notice" was given to tenants. It was not until 13 June 2012 that notices were served on tenants…”

So, the Court is well aware the tenants have had, in any reasonable person’s view, insufficient time to find appropriate, alternative accommodation. Yet the good Justice Craig still saw fit to turf more than 30 people out of their homes.

Para 52 of the judgment implies the Court has no reason to believe the apartment blocks are structurally unsound or otherwise unsafe. Thus, the only reason for their demolition must be that their construction contravenes Council planning regulations and what was approved in the DA.

The original 2006 DA approved 10 dwellings, including 2 two story apartment blocks on the site. In fact, the site now contains 2 three story blocks instead. There are a total of 14 dwellings instead of the allowed 10 and some have more bedrooms than were approved, thus providing the tipping point for runaway climate change and the end of civilization.

We can reasonably assume construction was completed in 2007, so people have been living in the apartments for approximately 5 years. The buildings are apparently safe for habitation, just about 10 feet too high and perhaps a bit wider than they should be. It’s hardly the end of the world. I doubt it’s destroyed the natural beauty of the neighbourhood. It’s fucking Guilford, for Christ’s sake.

Sydney has a well documented undersupply of dwelling stock, particularly at the cheaper end of the market. Yet the Kafkaesque response of Parramatta Council and the Land and Environment Court is to demolish the buildings and build some new ones instead of leaving the buildings in place and issuing a massive fine to the developer. How about a fine equal to the market value of the unauthorized construction, plus all legal costs? That would probably come to about $1.5M. The community would gain some income instead of this absurd wastage and dislocation of more than 30 innocent people who are probably struggling enough as it is.

Parramatta Council did not take court action against the developer until September, 2010. How could it have taken them three years to find out about the problem? By then, it was really too late.

Let’s engage in some honest analysis here. A woman named Suheir Zreik puts in a DA for two blocks of flats. Is she going to build them herself? Perhaps some alarm bells might start ringing. Maybe she’s acting as a front for someone else. Maybe we’d better closely supervise this construction project. Let’s not lie and pretend people from Middle Eastern cultural backgrounds are low risk candidates for non-compliance with DAs.

Did no-one from the Council ever think to inspect the builder’s construction plans prior to work commencing? Or to stop by and inspect the development as it was proceeding? This is just incompetence from the Council, which they now seek to compound by the dumbest possible “solution”.

A look at the composition of Parramatta Council shows that it is not dominated by any one group. There are 6 ALP, 6 Liberal and 3 independent councilors from a variety of backgrounds (thankfully, no Greens). At best, you could say it’s a diverse parade of idiots. A good example of the extremely poor calibre of local government in this country.

This episode is the kind of surreal lunacy people expected to end when the ALP was turfed out of government in NSW. The Liberals generally run on a platform of sensible, pragmatic government, in particular, cutting waste. Yet a local council with 6 Liberals and 3 independents out of 15 is responsible for this farce.

With campaigning for the local government elections about to begin in earnest, the tenants should refuse to move out. Let the ratepayers of Parramatta know who is responsible for this moronic waste of their money, not to mention throwing more than 30 people out of their homes.

Additionally, the NSW planning minister, Brad Hazzard should step in and use his powers to fix this problem in a sensible manner which looks after the interests of the tenants. In a liberal democracy, it’s citizens who decide on planning rules. Government’s role is to enact our wishes. People may wish to email the Minister and remind him of this fact.

Name Your Attackers And Dare The Judge To Lock You Up

There are occasions when it is reasonable in an open, liberal society to enact laws governing social interaction, even if the majority of the community does not agree. These are when control over individuals’ own bodies or freedom of expression or private behaviour should trump bias or tradition or subjective moral philosophies masquerading as religion. Examples are legalizing sufficiently early abortion or private, homosexual acts between consenting adults.

There are other forms of social interaction where the role of government is to reflect the wishes of the majority of the community. In some cases, different communities can have different, local laws. In other cases, it is necessary for state, or even federal governments to make a single law, covering all citizens.

An example of the former is nude bathing. Some conservative communities may wish to ban it, while other, more open minded ones may choose to allow it. An example of the latter is whether or not crime victims should be able to publicly name their attackers after a conviction. Given the reach of modern media and the internet, countries need to have a single law. Indeed, it makes sense for countries with similar political systems to co-operate on such laws, particularly if they are neighbours.

If most people believe that given the consent of victims, accurate reporting of crimes and the names of their perpetrators is reasonable, even if they are under a certain age, then it is not for politicians or jurists to impose their personal political agenda under the guise of some bogus, “human rights” argument. As long as a conviction has been secured, it is most certainly not the role of politicians or jurists to prevent victims from publicly discussing the crime that was done to them and who did it, much less to threaten the victim with jail for doing so.

If politicians, judges, lawyers or police try to place the “rights” of the convicted ahead of the rights of the victims and this position is contrary to the views of the majority of citizens, they should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

In Australia, we experienced a liberal dose of this bullshit when four Pakistani perpetrators of a series of gang rapes, all brothers, could only be identified by their initials, even after they turned 18. To highlight the absurdity, their father was effectively named as Dr. Hasan Khan, a GP, who perjured himself in providing an alibi for them.

Good on Savanna Dietrich for standing up for herself and publicly complaining about whatever bullshit plea bargain was worked out without her consent. You can’t humiliate someone by taking their clothes off, sexually interfering with them and then publicising it on the internet and not expect to have your names made public in return, if that’s what your victim wants to do. It’s the truth, isn’t it? Why shouldn’t your victim have the right to tell it? Being 16 or 17 shouldn’t protect you.

Judges and District Attorneys are elected in the United States. The citizens of Louisville, Kentucky should write to the judge and DA in this case, making clear their views and the chances of the judge and DA retaining their positions if community opinion is ignored.

The quid pro quo for such freedom of speech in an open society is responsibility to the truth. If the acts were more of a drunken prank that having sexual molestation as their primary purpose, it is necessary to make this clear, or for the convicted to be able to have their explanations for their behaviour published. It is not fair for a victim to publish the names of those convicted of a crime against them, then misrepresent the nature and intent of the crime, as Savanna Dietrich appears to have done when she Tweeted: "Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.". There does not appear to be any suggestion from the prosecution that Savanna Dietrich was raped.

If one person’s narrative is widely published, but the other’s is effectively suppressed by being ignored, that is not justice. Additionally, the acts done or their intent cannot be exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented. If such attempts at additional punishment by criminal defamation occur, that is when the law should step in, because the victim is no longer a victim and the convicted are no longer simply the perpetrators.

The attackers and victim involved in this case are all young; legally still children. That does not mean they do not have rights to freedom of expression. What they need are not illogical and draconian edicts, but guidance: the convicted on how to deal with the (brief) public vilification which will inevitably ensue before people seize on something else to be outraged about and Savanna Dietrich on her responsibilities to accurate description over opinion and the meaning and consequences of criminal defamation. Although they are teenagers and this case certainly involves a teenage act, it has had adult consequences, with which they now all have to deal.

Didn't Make The Team? It Must Be Racism

If a black person doesn’t get the outcome they want, it must be racism.

If enough black people keep trying this argument on every time they fail, they will make a self-fulfilling prophecy of the racism they perceive in every “white” institution and every social interaction with white people.

Suppose a person is falsely accused of racism when making decisions strictly according to transparent, non-racist criteria, or even going out of their way not to make negative decisions in situations involving black people, lest they be accused of racism. They will remember the injustice. If it happens enough, people who aren’t racist or are trying hard not to be will form the expectation that black people will play the race card whenever they get a negative outcome. For people who do harbour racist tendencies, witnessing such behaviour will only serve to reinforce them.

So good work, John Steffensen. By accusing Athletics Australia of institutionalized racism, you’ve reinforced the view that black people will cry racism every time they don’t get what they want and are therefore best avoided. Even worse, he’s actually accused Athletics Australia of “racial vilification”.

Do you even know what that phrase means, you dumb shit? Are you actually alleging that officials of Athletics Australia made statements to the effect of “You’re not good enough because you’re black”?

When pressed for an explanation of what, exactly were the alleged instances of racial vilification, his response was dissembling: "Read between the lines. I don't really have to explain anything to you."

Actually, if you make public allegations like this, you do.

The facts of the case are that no Australian athlete was able to meet the Olympic 400m A qualifying time of 45.30 sec, a pretty piss poor effort in itself. Consequently, Australia was allowed ONE entrant who had met the slower, B qualifying time, which had been bettered by both Steffensen and teenager Steve Solomon.

Steffensen’s best time for the year is 45.61, in February. In March, he beat Solomon at the Australian Olympic trial, but has since had difficulties with a hamstring injury. Solomon ran 45.52 in the Junior World Championships in Barcelona last week.

So, on one hand you have a guy with injury concerns who hasn’t run his best in six months. On the other, you have an in form guy, who has just run the fastest Australian time of the year. On top of that, he’s the future and Steffensen is the past.

That’s why Steve Solomon got the nod ahead of you, Steffensen, you ignorant, mouthy, bullshit artist. Additionally, without a massive chip on his shoulder, he has less weight to carry around the track.

Athletics Australia should definitely not put up with this crap. It’s much harder for institutions to sue for defamation, although clearly AA has been here. AA should try to educe an allegation from Steffensen about a specific person or people, who could them sue him.

Additionally, they should not give in to blackmail. If reports AA are wavering in their resolve are true, that is a cowardly disgrace and a travesty for Steve Solomon. Taxpayers should not stand for it. We’re the ones who are ultimately paying to watch the team on our TVs.

AA should just tell Steffensen to fuck off. Since we cannot produce even one athlete who can run an A qualifying time, Australia is unlikely to win a medal in the 4 x 400 relay. What is lost by excluding him from selection and replacing him with a young runner who will benefit from the experience and be far less disruptive to the team?

Update:

Steve Solomon just ran a personal best of 45.18 to win his heat and make the semi finals of the 400m, then another personal best of 44.97 to make the final. When did you last run sub 45, Steffensen, you mouthy cunt?

Why Isn't Russell Keddie In Jail?

Doesn’t systematic, deliberate and gross overcharging of clients equal fraud, which is the same thing as stealing ie. a criminal offence?

Russell Keddie was found guilty by the Legal Services Commissioner of “professional misconduct” for gross overcharging of clients, in particular a paraplegic. In the end, he took the blame for the firm’s behaviour, resulting in action against two of the firm’s other partners, Scott Roulstone and Tony Barakat being dropped. Several former clients are reportedly very angry these two have avoided such action.

One can only wonder what deal was done there. Russell Keddie doesn’t seem like the type of man to take the blame out of the goodness of his heart.

From the facts of the cases presented and the Commissioner’s comments, it is extremely doubtful that the systematic overcharging was due to negligence or innocent errors. Given this, how has no-one at the DPP decided that there is sufficient evidence to launch a prosecution for fraud? I have seen charges laid on far weaker evidence.

It simply beggars belief that a competent prosecutor could form the view that fraud charges based on this evidence could not succeed. Is it not in the public interest to prosecute a man who steals from cripples?

If I worked at a land mine manufacturer and began writing cheques to a charity like Paraquad, for even a tenth of the amount Keddies overcharged its clients, I’d be prosecuted. So why hasn’t Russell Keddie?

You can’t stoop much lower than stealing from cripples … except perhaps by fucking a man who steals from cripples.

Now Russell Keddie has declared himself bankrupt after transferring his share of two multi-million dollar properties to his wife for one dollar each.

They are nice properties. You could take a drive out and have a look if you’re in Sydney. The “family residence” at 10 Wiston Garderns, Double Bay is apparently worth around $5M. The beach house at 17 Karloo Parade, Newport is worth a bit over $3M. Nice buy, Sarah.

There are provisions in the Bankruptcy Act to reverse transactions which are found to have been done to defeat creditors. One might form the opinion the above transactions are of such a nature that they could be reversed by a court.

That they occurred in the first place is surely evidence of lack of contrition. Isn’t this all the more reason to lay criminal charges? If we can’t trust our legal authorities to prosecute a man like Russell Keddie, why don’t we just repeal S192G of the Crimes Act and call ourselves New South Nigeria?

You'll Go Far In The Banking Sector, Mr. Zhang

Licking a small monkey’s bum for over an hour is not strictly part of Zhang Bangsheng’s job description, but he seemed happy enough to go above and beyond the call of duty for his little, furry friend.

Groups of chimpanzees with frogs under their armpits have reportedly been turning up at Wuhan Zoo asking if Mr. Zhang could “help them with a small problem”.

Mr. Zhang is now leveraging his new professional experience to move to a middle level management position in the corporate sector.