Sports Personality of the Year

On tv right now. I'm not even watching as the Spurs/Chelsea game looks quite tasty.

Can't help but feel that golf has been stitched up somewhat with 3 nominees that will split the golf vote. Any votes likely to go to golf will be for the sentimental aspect of DC's win at The Open, or young Rory because of his epic fail at ANGC followed by victory in the US Open

In reality Luke would be the only fair golf winner but that's never going to happen. Cavendish is hot favourite and TBH I can't see another winner when considering the general public voting patterns.

Andy Murray may get the Scottish vote but no one else - England Cricket will get the team award. Amir Khan could get a lot of votes from the Asian voting public

My picks would be Luke to win but he'll probably come last of the golfers, and Cavendish will win it

I'm amazed that Cavendish is favourite. It's hardly a popular sport, and he's not even good at it generally, just one specialist element of it. Who's voting for him?

SJ - I think the BBC propoganda machine has been at work

But what does that gain them? They don't show cycling, and if it's because of the Olympics then surely either of the athletes would have got the interest up more?

Hmmmm - Djokovic as overseas SPOTY? Ahead of Vettel and Messi?

I wonder if the fact the BBC still show some tennis (as opposed to losing the F1 deal and not showing any Euro football) has anything to do with it

That was rather presented as a fait accomplis, wasn't it? Not much of a short list!

I notice that Cavendish's film was near the beginning, more time for people to vote. Wonder if seeing Clarke's lads on the screen will swing some votes his way.

I can remember when SPOTY was the highlight of the Sunday evening before Christmas. Shame it's lost it's appeal.

It's interesting that they're listing them alphabetically for voting purposes but seem to have picked another order to present them in. I still don't see that being on first will get Cavendish that many more votes in itself.

I'd love to know who voted for him, I really would.

Hmmm - thought Cavendish would win it but can't say I agree with it. DC 2nd? Not for me

Davie wrote:Hmmm - thought Cavendish would win it but can't say I agree with it. DC 2nd? Not for me

Why did you think that, Davie? I'm honestly amazed that enough people considered his 'achievments' worthy of the award, or for that matter that enough people even knew who he was and what he did this year.

I only thought he would win it because he was the bookie's favourite and everyone said he was the one

Of the candidates presented, Luke was by far and away the most deserving - yet he finished nowhere

But he had to get the votes from somewhere, who voted for him and why? He's not high profile, his achievments weren't covered by the Beeb, cycling isn't that popular here, and as far as Joe Public is concerned he didn't even win the TdF, so wasn't even that successful.

If my appreciation of the British public's appreciation of cycling as a sport and Cavendish's achievements therein is lacking, I apologise but I'm certainly not aware of any great affection for or knowledge of it as a sport.

Clearly everyone's been keeping their cycling light under the proverbial bushel. He got nearly 50% of the vote, Darren got 12%.

Any award that's given based on the opinion of people means nothing.

It's achievements that count.

Only viewed Cavendish's action while watching Le Tour coverage. He was spectacular in his finishes and has steadily improved well enough to hang with most of the peloton but nothing compared to what Luke accomplished. Heck, we may not have another golfer win the money titles on both sides of the pond in our lifetime again. Now if Mark had taken any of the 3 grand tours of cycling, it would be added merit. Regardless, Mark is a world class athlete and he has the aggressive personality to go with it. Seems like the voters want Luke to do a few more fist pumps to up his 'wow' factor.

If you know cycling then you would understand that to win 5 stages as a sprint specialist in the TDF and to win the world championship medal is an outstanding achievement . I would have loved one of the golfers to have won, but in all honesty what Cav has achieved this year makes him a worthy winner in my eyes

Mark Cavendish 169,152 (49.47%)
Darren Clarke 42,188 (12.34%)
Mo Farah 29,780 (8.71%)
Luke Donald 23,854 (6.98%)
Andy Murray 18,754 (5.48%)
Andrew Strauss 17,994 (5.26%)
Alastair Cook 13,038 (3.81%)
Rory McIlroy 11,915 (3.48%)
Dai Greene 9,022 (2.64%)
Amir Khan 6,262 (1.83%)

Even if it was the case that having 3 golfers meant the 'golf vote' was split, a golfer still only got 23% of the vote for 2nd place.

I like watching cycling and have watched Cav over the last couple of years and his achievement is amazing. But cycling is still a minority sport as far as the UK goes, so don't get it. Luke's achievent this year was to be the best golfer on the planet and he did something no other golfer has ever done.

All this nonsense about Cav not deserving it and one of the golfers being more deserving is complete nonsense.

I think Donald came closest to matching Cav this year, and has pretty much dominated Golf, but Cav outside this country and their lack of cycling knowledge is a superstar, similar to what Beckham is seen as here (but with actual achievements to match the hype). He is probably going to go down in the same regard as Mercxx, Indurain and Armstrong. Not winning TDF has nothing to do with it, he's never even attempted to win the event but in terms of Cycling he is outstanding. Being 6th on Tour Stage wins at 26 and World Sprint Champion is something which every other country would see as truly remarkable.
Let's not forget that Cycling is actually a sport and golf, as much as we love it is only walking and hitting between 30-40 full shots a round. Hardly a particularly athletic pursuit.

But that's the point, s_r, this is the British Sports Personality award. We Brits know nothing about cycling, and have very little interest in it. I never meant to suggest that Cavendish didn't deserve to win, merely that I didn't understand where so many votes came from since cycling isn't as popular as any of the other sports represented.

And if it was about the amount of effort required, Eddie Izzard would have won last year, not AP.

That's irrelevant Smithers, Cavendish is British, and someone who has achieved as much as Cavendish shouldn't be ignored because of British ignorance.

I think you'd be surprised at just how popular cycling actually is (for the record I'm not a big fan of cycling at all, i'm just aware of it's popularity and Cavendish's relevance)
It's a bit like running clubs, you know they exist, but you'd be astonished to know how many events/clubs/participants there are in the sport.
Cycling is one of those sports that the Football/Golf/Rugby fans usually have no interest in and therefore assume it isn't popular.
Surely the fact that he polled 49% of the votes, shows it is more popular than you imagine, perhaps even more popular than golf, which collectively, didn't even poll half that amount.


Eddie Izzard wasn't competing, similar to that idiot Walliams so doesn't deserve any form of recognition on a Sports Award show. I'm sure there were hundreds of people who did a similar thing last year.

Golf is second only to angling in terms of participant numbers, yet the three golfers combined amassed fewer than half his votes. In fact, the other 9 together only just got more than him. That doesn't tally with the general level of knowledge of the general public, who supposedly did the voting.

super_realist wrote:That's irrelevant Smithers, Cavendish is British, and someone who has achieved as much as Cavendish shouldn't be ignored because of British ignorance.

If the British public is doing the voting, how can it not be ignored because of their ignorance?

super_realist wrote:I think you'd be surprised at just how popular cycling actually is (for the record I'm not a big fan of cycling at all, i'm just aware of it's popularity and Cavendish's relevance)
It's a bit like running clubs, you know they exist, but you'd be astonished to know how many events/clubs/participants there are in the sport.
Cycling is one of those sports that the Football/Golf/Rugby fans usually have no interest in and therefore assume it isn't popular.
Surely the fact that he polled 49% of the votes, shows it is more popular than you imagine, perhaps even more popular than golf, which collectively, didn't even poll half that amount.

I simply don't know of anyone who's that into cycling, nor do I know anyone who knows anyone, etc etc. I said at the start that it seems everyone has been keeping their passion for cycling secret from me, and that may well be the case. I've never know such a thing before, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Perhaps Boris' bikes have turned everyone on to cycling and because I avoid London like the plague I haven't been caught up in the frenzy!

super_realist wrote:Eddie Izzard wasn't competing, similar to that idiot Walliams so doesn't deserve any form of recognition on a Sports Award show. I'm sure there were hundreds of people who did a similar thing last year.

Cavendish didn't win a race, didn't stop him from winning

So you are considering it was a stitch up? Take your tin foil hat off.

Perhaps the British public are simply better informed than you are and able to determine that Cavendish's achievements amounted to more worth than any of the other nominees.

I'd also doubt that Golf is Britains second most popular sport for participation.

In fact a survey by Sport England has it at 7th, with exactly half as many participants a month than Cycling.

super_realist wrote:So you are considering it was a stitch up? Take your tin foil hat off.

Perhaps the British public are simply better informed than you are and able to determine that Cavendish's achievements amounted to more worth than any of the other nominees.

I'd also doubt that Golf is Britains second most popular sport for participation.

In fact a survey by Sport England has it at 7th, with exactly half as many participants a month than Cycling.

And yet another of their surveys has golf with ten times as many club members as cycling. Riding a bike once a month doesn't mean someone's going to know who Cavendish is, much less the scale of his (remarkable) achievements. Joining a golf club is much more of a commitment, and is much more likely to indicate an interest in the sport as a whole.

We have the Olympics next year, cycling is one of our strongest medal chances and is probably most in need of more public knowledge and support if we're to do well in London. Golf is doing just fine on its own.

How many golf club members are virtually dead though and play no more than a few times a year. I certainly know that St.Andrews and Carnoustie are like that and scores of other clubs around my area. Active members are not as numerous as you'd imagine.

In any event you don't have to be a member of a club to participate in any sport, which is what you were claiming golf to be the second most participated sport.

Even though I love golf, I've never heard anyone claim it to be that popular to be the 2nd most particpated sport in the UK.
I'd wager that more people regularly run or play football than play golf.

super_realist wrote:How many golf club members are virtually dead though and play no more than a few times a year. I certainly know that St.Andrews and Carnoustie are like that and scores of other clubs around my area. Active members are not as numerous as you'd imagine.

In any event you don't have to be a member of a club to participate in any sport, which is what you were claiming golf to be the second most participated sport.

Even though I love golf, I've never heard anyone claim it to be that popular to be the 2nd most particpated sport in the UK.
I'd wager that more people regularly run or play football than play golf.

It was one of those stats you hear and assume is correct. Angling being the most popular would tend to suggest that if there's any truth to it, it would be based on how many people have ever tried a sport/pastime at least once, but excluding running for the bus and riding a bike to work as they're not in a sporting context. The Sport England regular participation surveys clearly don't make that distinction (unless there's a lot more lycra wearing going on than I've noticed). The club membership survey does have golf second, but as you suggest to football and not angling.

If it doesn't seem in any way strange to you that a cyclist, who didn't win a major race (once again, I understand that the stage wins are very impressive but does the public at large really have that level of appreciation for this minority sport?) and didn't even receive that much publicity at the time for what he did do, can win such a large proportion of a public, telephone vote against sportsmen whose exposure, both generally and on the BBC in particular was much greater, then I'm happy to accept that cycling is in fact really popular as a spectator sport in this country.

Smithers, the majority of golf is also not competitive and so like running or cycling is similar in respect of the way in which participants partake, and by the very nature of the game of golf, membership of a club is usually the route most golfers go down. To run or cycle regularly does not require membership of a club, but that doesn't make them any less popular.

I really don't see how being a club member puts more worth on the sport than one that isn't.


LIke you, i'm not a fan of cycling, but it's a bit silly blindly defending golf as being bigger in the public consciousness just because you have more of an affinity to it.
All it means is that Cycling is probably bigger than you think it is, and people rate Cavendish's year as being more noteworthy than anyone elses, unless of course you are suggesting that the votes were rigged by the BBC, which is frankly ludicrous.

super_realist wrote:Smithers, the majority of golf is also not competitive and so like running or cycling is similar in respect of the way in which participants partake, and by the very nature of the game of golf, membership of a club is usually the route most golfers go down. To run or cycle regularly does not require membership of a club, but that doesn't make them any less popular.

I really don't see how being a club member puts more worth on the sport than one that isn't.

It's the nature of the process that underlies these things, though. If someone runs or cycles regularly without joining a club they're generally doing so for the fitness benefits, not because they are interested in the competitive side of the sport. If that interest develops, they'll normally join a club in order to gain access to competitions and to meet people who share their interest. If someone plays golf regularly without joining a club it's normally because they can't justify spending that amount of money on a membership. By contrast, cycling or running clubs will be considerably cheaper. I therefore don't think it's unreasonable to take club membership as reflective of the relative numbers of people interested in the sport in question at its top level. Obviously some participants in any sport will have no interest whatsoever in the pro game, but I'd venture to suggest that the more technique is involved, the less it's possible to be if nothing else envious of the top proponents.

super_realist wrote:

LIke you, i'm not a fan of cycling, but it's a bit silly blindly defending golf as being bigger in the public consciousness just because you have more of an affinity to it.
All it means is that Cycling is probably bigger than you think it is, and people rate Cavendish's year as being more noteworthy than anyone elses, unless of course you are suggesting that the votes were rigged by the BBC, which is frankly ludicrous.

I'm not blindly defending golf, I'm questioning how he managed to poll almost more votes that all 9 other, worthy candidates combined. The fact that I think Luke should have won is irrelevant. DC winning because of his back story I could have understood. Having learned more last night about Dai Green I think he'd have been just as worthy a winner. It just doesn't add up as far as I'm concerned.

Not necessarily true Smithers.
I run on a daily basis and have run a marathon in three hours, now that puts me in the top 1-2% of runners at that distance, but I've no compulsion to join a club. To me it's a solo activity that I prefer not to join a club to partake in. In Cycling and Running, you can enter anything you like as an "Unattached" participant.
To me, there is no benefit for me of being in a running club, similarly I can't see what benefit you'd gain from being in a cycling club, whereas the benefit of being in a golf club is patently obvious, organised competitions, cheaper per round green fees. Road/Pavements are free to use, golf courses are not. Being in a golf club also doesn't mean you automatically have an interest in being competitive, most golf club members probably play relatively few competitions a year, enough to keep a current handicap. Most times they play will be bounce games and many won't even play in the winter.


What is in question is what captures the public imagination and simply because you don't agree with the choice of Cavendish by 49% of the public, all it does is simply demonstrate that you don't agree with the British public, it doesn't denegrate the win, sport or the number of people who participate in it.

I really can't see why you think it "doesn't add up" People vote for what captures their imagination, perhaps Clarke, Donald, Greene etc simply didn't have as much of a public impact as you'd hope, and that Cavendish did.
Previous years have thrown up far more controvertial winners like Zara Philips or Ryan Giggs.

super_realist wrote:Not necessarily true Smithers.
I run on a daily basis and have run a marathon in three hours, now that puts me in the top 1-2% of runners at that distance, but I've no compulsion to join a club. To me it's a solo activity that I prefer not to join a club to partake in. In Cycling and Running, you can enter anything you like as an "Unattached" participant.
To me, there is no benefit for me of being in a running club, similarly I can't see what benefit you'd gain from being in a cycling club, whereas the benefit of being in a golf club is patently obvious, organised competitions, cheaper per round green fees. Road/Pavements are free to use, golf courses are not. Being in a golf club also doesn't mean you automatically have an interest in being competitive, most golf club members probably play relatively few competitions a year, enough to keep a current handicap. Most times they play will be bounce games and many won't even play in the winter.

What is in question is what captures the public imagination and simply because you don't agree with the choice of Cavendish by 49% of the public, all it does is simply demonstrate that you don't agree with the British public, it doesn't denegrate the win, sport or the number of people who participate in it.

Most people who want to compete do join running clubs, though. I think we all know you'd not join a golf club if it weren't necessary to play with other people.

People who join golf clubs, regardless of how often they play and whether they play in competition, will be aware of the top echelons of the game. The same is true of those who join running or cycling clubs. It's also true of those like you who participate in competitions in those disciplines independently. It's not the case that someone who rides a bike to get fit will necessarily have any interest in or knowledge of the sport itself.

All of this is irrelevant. If Sport England's figures are to be believed, Cavendish polled 3.5 times as many votes as there are cycling club members in England. Where did those additional 120,000 votes come from? If the general public's imagination was indeed captured by Cavendish's story, where did they hear it? It was one of the first to be told last night, but came after Rory's so that hardly explains the disproportionate vote. I remember hearing mention of his stage wins in the daily sports bulletins, but they were back in the summer, and Luke's exploits were completed and lauded far more recently. If nothing else, the polls for '100 greatest films of all time' will demonstrate that anything fresh in the memory has more impact than it possibly deserves.

super_realist wrote:I really can't see why you think it "doesn't add up" People vote for what captures their imagination, perhaps Clarke, Donald, Greene etc simply didn't have as much of a public impact as you'd hope, and that Cavendish did.
Previous years have thrown up far more controvertial winners like Zara Philips or Ryan Giggs.

Giggs was indeed controversial, but given football's level of exposure and general public interest it was hardly surprising. Similarly, the royal family are still popular and so Zara winning wasn't that amazing. Looking back over recent years, this is the biggest majority by such a large margin that I really can't believe there's nothing untoward about it. It may simply be that the bookies took a position and so the votes reflected vested interests, but I just don't believe that the winner can be so clear from such a field without some sort of undue influence.

smithers, you seem to be assuming that you have to be a participant in a sport in order to vote for it, and that you can only know about a sport if you take it seriously enough to join a club. its absurd. how many football fans are in a club?
whether or not you agree with the winner, the truth is that Cavendish polled 49% of the vote, the fact you think this isn't possible flies in the face of popular opinion. simply because you don't like cycling, don't know anything about it or simply can't understand who voted for him isn't proof of a gerrymandered poll.
Why would the BBC bother rigging a vote for a sport that they barely even show? It makes no sense at all. They would be more likely to rig a golf or athletics vote as at least they have rights for some of those events.
Did they rig it when Chris Hoy won? Or did the general non cycling public vote on the basis of his achievements just as they did with Cavendish.

super_realist wrote:smithers, you seem to be assuming that you have to be a participant in a sport in order to vote for it, and that you can only know about a sport if you take it seriously enough to join a club. its absurd. how many football fans are in a club?
whether or not you agree with the winner, the truth is that Cavendish polled 49% of the vote, the fact you think this isn't possible flies in the face of popular opinion. simply because you don't like cycling, don't know anything about it or simply can't understand who voted for him isn't proof of a gerrymandered poll.

No, quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that the number of votes he received is disproportionate to the general level of interest in his sport, as evidenced by the numbers of people who are members of clubs. All other things being equal, that would be a good indicator of relative popularity. Looking at the actual numbers of votes cast, his share is not only out of proportion with general interest, it's out of proportion with all other recent winners. If there was a wave of publicity for Cavendish and his achievements which somehow passed me by, but influenced the public to such a large extent then I assume you'll be able to point me to it, or some evidence of it?

Hoy won with a much smaller share of the vote in the year he won 3 gold medals at the Olympics. Winning stages at the annual TdF is hardly a comparable feat.

super_realist wrote:
Why would the BBC bother rigging a vote for a sport that they barely even show? It makes no sense at all. They would be more likely to rig a golf or athletics vote as at least they have rights for some of those events.
Did they rig it when Chris Hoy won? Or did the general non cycling public vote on the basis of his achievements just as they did with Cavendish.

The Olympics next year. I've already pointed out that if anything, interest in cycling is disproportionately low in relation to our strength in the sport. The BBC wouldn't necessarily have a direct interest in ensuring cycling has a higher profile, but they wouldn't be averse to doing Lord Coe a favour in anticipation of getting something in return when it comes to allocating high profile events to the terrestrial broadcasters.

Smithers, I think you are a crazy conspiracy theorist I see no reason why the public SHOULDN'T vote for a sport just because they aren't a member of a club. can't they make their own minds up who deserves it?
You seem to also be forgetting that Cavendish also won the world Sprint championships.

All I read into the votes is that the public are educated and open minded enough to see the bigger picture in regard to Cavendish, and that you cannot.

Athletics will be a far bigger part of the Olympics than cycling. So why wouldn't they rig the vote to reflect that.

I don't need to present any evidence, as its you who is questioning the credibility of the poll, perhaps you ought to show me some evidence that the British public can only have knowledge of cycling if they are members of a club. Did you need to be a rower to know that redgrave was a worthy winner in 2000 or a regular at newmarket to know that ap mccoy deserved it last year.

Sport England already say in a poll that more people cycle than play golf. Just because they aren't in a club doesn't mean they know nothing about it.
Seriously, take off your tin foil hat.

Do they do drugs testing for SPOTY?

gaelgowfer wrote:Do they do drugs testing for SPOTY?

Did notice Luke looking a little bulked up this past year. And his hands seemed a bit calmer when addressing his putts.

super_realist wrote:Smithers, I think you are a crazy conspiracy theorist I see no reason why the public SHOULDN'T vote for a sport just because they aren't a member of a club. can't they make their own minds up who deserves it?
You seem to also be forgetting that Cavendish also won the world Sprint championships.

Without looking it up, tell me when and where that took place. If you can, great, if you can't, ask yourself how much Joe Public knows about it.

super_realist wrote:
All I read into the votes is that the public are educated and open minded enough to see the bigger picture in regard to Cavendish, and that you cannot.

This is the same public that votes for Little Mix? And you think they're open minded and educated? That's fine, but I'd like to know where they learned about cycling, to this extent, without my even noticing it in the mainstream media.

super_realist wrote:

Athletics will be a far bigger part of the Olympics than cycling. So why wouldn't they rig the vote to reflect that.

Because our chances in athletics aren't as good but its support is better

super_realist wrote:

I don't need to present any evidence, as its you who is questioning the credibility of the poll, perhaps you ought to show me some evidence that the British public can only have knowledge of cycling if they are members of a club. Did you need to be a rower to know that redgrave was a worthy winner in 2000 or a regular at newmarket to know that ap mccoy deserved it last year.

Sport England already say in a poll that more people cycle than play golf. Just because they aren't in a club doesn't mean they know nothing about it.
Seriously, take off your tin foil hat.

Riding your bike down the pub once a month is not really partaking in cycling, is it? I'm surprised walking wasn't top of that poll, but I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere.

I'm being somewhat frivolous with this, but my surprise is genuine. If the British public really is that into cycling then fair play to them. If, on the other hand, the gambling fraternity realised after getting together to help AP McCoy win last year that this was an event they could bet on and then influence the outcome of, then perhaps......

SR does talk a very good argument but I'm with you on this one SJ...For Cavendish to receive practically half the votes, when there were 9 other candidates, suggests to me that it is at least possible that something dubious has occurred.

Smells of sour grapes to me. You must have been going with your head in the sand not to be aware of Cavendish in 2011. Even a cursory glance at a sports section or one ear open on the radio would inform you of his presence.

Like I say I'm not a cycling fan, not even close but I know about him, so it stands to reason that other people would have.
Golf is not even that mainstream compared to football, rugby etc and is often relegated to footnotes and end of reports, especially outside of the majors, but people still know about it.

I'm not even suggesting that the public is 'in to' cycling. They are just aware if it and Cavendish is hard to ignore.

If you really think anyone other than Cavendish, farah, Clarke or Donald had a realistic chance then you are kidding yourself. The other six were mere filler.
Cook, Strauss, Murray, khan, Greene and mcilroy just didn't tickle the sport viewing public.

This whole conspiracy theory about a rigged vote is really quite laughable.



P

Thanks, BCM. As I said, I'm being a bit frivolous with this but it does seem a bit off, doesn't it?

The fact that Cavendish won the SPOTY award didn't surprise me, and to be fair, he may well have deserved it.

Proper or not, the split in the number of votes seems very odd or could it be, as is often described, 'he caught the imagination of the British public' or maybe bookies

At least there was some golfing recognition though: Teenage golfer Lauren Taylor was named Young Sports Personality of the Year. The 17-year-old won the Ladies' British Open Amateur Championship at Royal Portrush in June, becoming the tournament's youngest winner in its 112-year history. Out of interest, does anyone know how the other awards are determined either votes or selection?

Super - I'm not a tin hat subscriber but I do think the BBC propoganda machine went into overdrive a little with Cavendish.

From talking to people on forums, at work, and down the pub it seems to me that there weren't a whole lot of people who could see the achievements that Cavendish made until it was brought to their attention by the media

Likewise, not many of the general (not golf playing) public were aware of what Luke did this year, but if he'd got the pushes that Cavendish did, maybe he'd have done better

I don't see anything untoward whatsoever in Cavendish winning, maybe his candidacy was pushed, so what? Personally I do feel the great British public do need prodded from time to time. He WAS the outstanding candidate and I'm guessing the BBC were desperate to ensure the right person won after the "no wimmin on the shortlist" debacle so he may have been fairly well promoted.

For the record, I'm not a cyclist although I have been through a triathlon phase in my younger years so I recognise the magnitude of Cavendish's achievements. To not recognise the significance of 5 TdF stage wins (bringing him up to a total of 20 and 6th on the ALL time list) is really quite little englander parochial. Cycling is huge in most other European countries and Cavendish & Hoy before him really have put Britain on the world cycling map.

Apart from that he's a born winner and I find it so bloody sad that we seem so quick to bend over backwards to try and find something somehow unworthy in our born winners....sheeesh...no wonder we have so few of them!!

Ive seen no evidence of Cavendish being 'pushed'. One moment you're saying its incredulous that so many voted for him due to his lack of media presence and low percentage of population in cycling clubs(as if that makes a difference) then you are saying was given disproportionate coverage to unduly influence votes. Make your mind up.

What agenda would the BBC have anyway. It's a really odd assumption to make. Sure you subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories too.

super_realist wrote:Ive seen no evidence of Cavendish being 'pushed'. One moment you're saying its incredulous that so many voted for him due to his lack of media presence and low percentage of population in cycling clubs(as if that makes a difference) then you are saying was given disproportionate coverage to unduly influence votes. Make your mind up.

What agenda would the BBC have anyway. It's a really odd assumption to make. Sure you subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories too.

We are not a collective, hive mind, s_r. It's not you against the Borg! I said I didn't understand it because I'd seen no coverage or pushing for him, that was precisely why I found it strange that he polled such a majority. It appears Davie's experience, or that of his friends is different.

For the last time, it's not that I think he's not a worthy winner. His achievements in the context of his sport are great. Arguably not as great as Luke's, but that's by the by. It's the proportion of the vote he got which strikes me as unusual, given that it was a much greater share than, say, Chris Hoy got in an Olympic year when he won 3 golds. I doubt even the most ardent cheese eating surrender monkey would consider stage wins more significant than 3 Olympic golds, so don't give me that little Englander shit (and please don't think that bit of irony wasn't intentional). His sport is not as popular, from a viewing perspective, as others on the list and yet he polled half of the votes. Following on from last year, when the horse racing fraternity (and hence the betting fraternity) combined to ensure that AP McCoy won, is it so unreasonable to suspect that they settled on a contender and bet and then voted to ensure their bets won?

Sorry SMithers, I think you are looking into it far too deeply and with far too much suspicion.

In reality there were only two people who ought to have been up there in terms of achievement.

They were Donald and Cavendish. However despite what you think, golf simply isn't that popular amongst anyone other than golfers, is seen as fuddy and duddy, boring and for fat rich men. WHich for many it is.

Is Cycling any more popular. Who really knows, but I think that people rate Cavdish's achievement as higher because it's a real athletic pursuit.
Donalds year, as superb as it was didn't have the elusive major, which is what they (and I stress they, and not golf fans) see as the real measure of success. Had Donald won a major. I think the result might have been different
McIlroy and Clarke of course one majors, but in their eyes that's all they did.

As for it being 49% of the vote, well I don't think you can compare two years because the sportsmen on offer change as do the sports. People might not vote in a year when people they like or don't like appear or not.

Would the French consider 6 stage wins and a World Sprint Championship as a better achievement than Hoy's 3 Track Golds. Undoubtedly they would, and it shows how little you know about Cycling in the global perspective if you don't see that.

Is Cycling any less popular than Cricket, Boxing or Athletics? I'm not so sure.
In any event, it's not about how popular Cycling is, it's about people acknowledging what he's done.

s_r,

Agree on Donald had he won a major and especially The Open. If any ever takes Wimbledon, the tally for the winner will be at 70% minimum. (Unless it's Andy ) Not a conspiracy but good odds that the organizers chose the word: "Personality" to allow plenty of room to endorse a winner. I think most groups giving awards incorporate tactics to sway the choice while still remaining above board. And now the mention of odds makers involved...? Not a valid comparison, but base on the history of gambling and sports and awards within the U.S., I lean towards the theory that Cavendish's vote count was running on high octane fuel but he still would have won without the "juice."

The odds aren't made by the BBC though, they are made by bookmakers who seldom get this sort of thing wrong. So if the public is swayed by Bookmakers odds, then that isn't really the BBC's fault is it?

I'm no fan of the BBC or even cycling, but I don't see what they'd have to gain by promoting the sport of Cycling instead of say Boxing, Athletics or Cricket.
It's got a monopoly already for the Olympics in terms of broadcasting, given the marketing hype of that every product is trying to make a tenuous link to, it's hardly likely to need to try and persuade viewer to switch over from Heartbeat or some other ITV drivel.