Cullingworth nestles in Yorkshire's wonderful South Pennines and I have the pleasure and delight to be the village's Conservative Councillor. But these are my views - on politics, food, beer and the stupidity of those who want to tell me what to think or do. And a little on mushrooms.
Like a lot of sports fans I've taken an interest in the ongoing debate across many sports about the use of performance enhancing drugs. I'm not an expert any more than most fans are experts and there's perhaps a need for a broader discussion about the role of drugs in sport. But in the meantime just about every sport has to deal with the problem.
And it matters. It matters because rules matter. Without rules sport changes as an entertainment losing much of what sets it apart from sports-like entertainments such as 'professional wrestling' that are simply well-choreographed shows. The reason rules matter is usually presented as being for the competitors but I see them rather as protecting the sport by ensuring that fans consider the spectacle they pay to watch is fair. So it matters that the rules exist and it matters that those rules are enforced.
Some readers will be old enough to remember Marita Koch and the systematic cheating by the then East Germany:
I am haunted by the photo of East German sprinter Marita Koch smiling in the midst of a group of young fans. The photo was taken in 1986 when Koch was 29 years old and just ten months removed from the most astonishing performance of her long, illustrious career, a world record 47.60 for 400m in which she split 22.4 for 200m and 34.1 for 300m. Since she ran that time almost 30 years ago, only one other woman has come within a second of the record. Even more astounding, only four other women have even broken 49 seconds. It’s as if that 47.60 came from another world, and in a sense it did.
The problem is that athletics can't come to terms with this historic doping - despite plenty of evidence showing how East German athletes were systematically doped in a state-run programme, the international body for athletics, the IAAF, included Marita Koch in its 'Hall of Fame'.
Zoom forward thirty years and we come to the case of Justin Gaitlin - twice the recipient of a ban for using drugs (he either denies or wriggles mightily about both accusations but then so does Marita Koch), Gaitlin has just won the World Championship 100m defeating the freak of nature that is Usain Bolt. My response, like thousands of other athletics fans, was instant - "drugs cheat" we cried, angry that the marvellous thing that is Usain Bolt lost to such a man. Paul Hayward at the Daily Telegraph described the moment Gaitlin received his medal:
Halfway between a cheer and a jeer is an uncomfortable groan - the sort of awkward sound British people make when they would really rather just change the subject. This is noise the London crowd made when Justin Gatlin, who has served two doping bans, stooped to receive his 100m World Championship gold medal...
Others were less kind and called the crowd's response 'boo-ing'. Now I don't know how I'd have responded but I would have found it very difficult to cheer one of the living embodiments of the abject failure of athletics to deal effectively (or at all, some would say) with the persistence of drug cheats in the sport. The unfairness here isn't that the crowd boo-ed but that we - the fans - believe our sport is being corrupted by the greed and vainglory of its governors, some of its competitors and too many officials of national or international bodies.
And the important point here - one that can't be stressed too much or too often - is that sport doesn't belong to players, to officials or to international institutions. Sport belongs to the fans. Without people paying a lot of money to go and watch eight men race, you haven't got a sport. Without fans Usain Bold couldn't earn $33m. And Justin Gaitlin wouldn't be worth more than $6m. The money is in sport because us fans pay to watch and sponsors pay stars to put their brand in front of us fans while we're watching.
And this is why we get angry when competitors cheat. Not just because they're getting lots of money through that cheating but also because by doing so the cheat undermines the integrity of the sport and makes the game unfair. It may be that Gaitlin is redeemed and is now clean and honest (only time and drug tests will tell) but for many fans he's still the cheat who got away with it. Gaitlin is the poster boy of athletics' two-faced attitude to drugs - running the testing and administering bans but then creating a Hall of Fame filled with athletes from the old 'Eastern Bloc' where systematic, state-administered doping programmes are a well-documented fact.
If athletics - and especially the 'blue riband' events like the 100m - wants to avoid ending up like WWE this hypocrisy has to end.
The marathon was the crowning blunder in an all-round odd event, and it just gets stranger from there on in. The organisers, to begin with, decided to start the marathon in the afternoon instead of the morning, with the result being an event held in temperatures of over 30 degrees Celsius. It was also run entirely on dirt roads, with cars and horses riding ahead and behind kicking up dust clouds that became hugely problematic for the runners. The only water the competitors had access to was a well around the 11 mile mark — and spectator Charles Lucas notes that “the visiting athletes were not accustomed to the water, and, as a consequence, many suffered from intestinal disorders.”
The whole story is quite remarkable - from a runner who travelled most of the distance by car through to the first African's to compete in a marathon. And drugs, of course.
The Snail. Its coat of arms shows the contrada’s colors – red, yellow and turquoise, with a snail on a white shield. Underneath, there’s a tile motif in red and yellow. It’s allied with the Porcupine, the Panther and the Forest, while its enemy is the Tortoise – their rivalry is probably the most ancient and deep rooted!
Flags are a source of great debate dispute and disagreement. We proudly wave them, bury dead soldiers draped in them, and engage in complicated occult examination of what they symbolise. For some people another's flag is a source of offence - the "Butcher's Apron", a bloodied rag or a statement of oppression. People burn them, states pass laws preventing this and supreme courts spend hours discussing whether this is allowed or whether flag-burning is an act of free expression. In Northern Ireland a whole industry grew up around the matter of flags (and associated parades).
Flags embody a history, they are not merely a decorative banner available for successful athletes to drape round their shoulders as they do their lap of honour. And the colours or style of the flag isn't the issue but rather the importance of the banner to the place and the moment. It's true that flags grew up as a feudal statement, they were waved by kings, dukes and barons to signal their presence (and self-importance):
It is generally accepted that the banner and the pennon were both derived from the gonfanon, the war cloth, which was originally a flag fixed laterally to the staff. The gonfanon was in origin a lance flag, but already in the Bayeaux Tapestry some are larger and more ornate than others. It was natural for size to be indicative of the rank of the bearer. Hence in the 13th Century, after the development of that system of personal devices which we term armoury or heraldry, the larger flag, the banner, was the privilege of the barons and greater knights while other knights carried pennons, The significant point about the banner and the pennon is that they were personal flags: they identified not a military unit, but the baron or the knight as an individuals.
Some of these associations still remain - not just the pomp of heraldry or the cherishing of coats of arms but in the way footballers kiss the badge on their shirt to demonstrate their allegiance to the team (and in the importance of those symbols of the team - badges, banners, songs and slogans - to the fans).
So just as the flag was a means of identifying friends and allies, it was equally a way to see the enemy - armies weren't uniformed so the flags, colours and pennons were the essential identifier. As feudalism matured and the modern state began to emerge, the flags were adopted by those cities as symbols of their independent identity. With the birth of revolutionary governments - born as secular states from violent uprising - the importance of the flag became more pronounced. Citizens of the United State salute the flag - not as an act of worship but as a celebration of liberty. But this sanctification of the flag makes it an easy target for those who wish to oppose the USA.
In recent times we've seen various eruptions of anger, offence and self-righteous bleating around different flags - most notably the persistence of the flag (or one of the flags to be precise) of the Confederate States. But the acme of vexatious vexillology remains Northern Ireland birthplace of the 1954 Flags and Emblems Display Act and where the agreement dragged by John Major and Tony Blair from the bigots in Sinn Fein and the DUP included a reference to those flags and symbols. The Agreement recognised the:
“...sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division”
So the debate about flags became a core debate in Ulster politics featuring such things as the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 and statements like this:
“While it is legitimate for organizations and individuals to seek to celebrate cultural or sporting events in the public space, this needs to be time limited. If left on public display after a reasonable time, they cease to be an expression of celebration and can become a threatening attempt to mark territory”
All this reminds us that - however attached we are to that flag we love - these things are divisive. Sometimes this is deliberate and planned such as the recent 'online petition' from Scottish Nationalists over the union flag appearing on driving licences but often it is genuine. In my city of Bradford we have a flags policy that came about because of disputes about requests to fly flags to mark some event, anniversary or other occasion. Even then, there's the possibility of dispute as we discovered during the recent Israeli operations in Gaza - the Council flew the Palestinian flag (in the square not from City Hall) but refused a request to fly the Israeli flag. And across the year we have a cycle of flags flown - from the Pakistan flag on that nation's independence day through to the Welsh dragon on St David's Day.
All this takes us to the latest flag-related matter - or rather an absence of flag matter:
Olympic long jump champion Greg Rutherford says not having a union jack on Great Britain's World Championships kit is a "terrible choice".
The Briton, 28, tweeted a picture of his vest for the championships in Beijing, showing a British Athletics logo instead of the union jack flag.
Scot Eilish McColgan replied by saying "it looks like you're representing British Athletics instead of GB".
Rutherford agreed with the steeplechase star and said the change was "stupid".
Coming at a time of rampant Scottish nationalism (despite the majority of Scots voting to stay in the union) some will see the exclusion of the Union Flag as an act of cowardice while other will see the corporate nature of international professional sport as being at fault. Indeed the response from British athletics shows this (and that they miss the point entirely):
‘We discussed it with a number of people and athletes who thought it was a good idea. Remember England football have the three lions, England rugby the red rose, everyone has a distinctive logo except us. It’s not about rejecting the Union Jack — that’s why it’s still on the shorts and socks. And of course red, white and blue are still on the kit too.’
Referencing England rugby and England football is, to be kind, not exactly helpful to the debate! The point the athletes are making is that the flag symbolises what they are competing for at the world championships - when they set out as athletes their daydream will have been to run, throw or jump for their country.
It won't come as a surprise however that others have leapt into this discussion, taking issue with Greg Rutherford over the kit (and the flag):
Look at it, if you can bear to. With its cluttered burst of both
right-angled and diagonal radiating lines, the British flag is heavy and
overbearing, forceful and strident. On a battlefield it would make
sense. Sure, this virulent standard served to rally regiments at the
Battle of Waterloo. But today? At sporting events? It looks crap.
Instead of suggesting unity, its sharp-angled divisions imply
fragmentation. In fact, the relentless dynamism of its design evokes the
shock and shatter of a cannon ball smashing into a French ship at the
Battle of Trafalgar.
Discussing the aesthetics of the Union Flag is a fine matter (and yes there are some better looking flags) but that completely misses the point - our association and attraction to that flag isn't about its looks but about what it means to us. It is the symbol of our place, our nation. It is the banner under which millions of our ancestors fought and it is a representation of what we stand for as a nation and of our history. It is true that some are vexed by its presence but that remains, in part at least, the purpose of the flag - it symbolises a successful, free and united nation. And some people - whether quasi-republicans like the author of that last quote or chip-balancing Scots separatists - simply don't like this fact.
The quote at the top is from a tourist guide to Siena and is one of that city's contrade. What is reflects is that the use of symbols to mark a place is ancient and not a bad thing. The bad thing is when people want to take down those symbols because they've decided they are offended by them. For a long time - thankfully no longer - England's Cross of St George was banished as a racist symbol only to be seen waved by the violent and extreme. While there are still people who don't understand how we've recovered England's flag (and we've sport to thank for that), it is welcome that we can now fly it with pride and enthusiasm.
When flags and symbols are pushed aside - or worse still banned or abandoned - we succumb to those who see the flag as a problem or worse see the contest of symbols as a matter of little victories against the enemy. Those athletes heading to Beijing will be representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - it's welcome that they are proud of this fact and that they want to display the symbol of that pride, the Union Flag.
In the otherwise euphoric post-race interview with Phil Jones there was a little aside about tax. You'll mostly have missed it amidst all the "wow", "amazing" and "fantastic" but it was there - in response to a question about why Usain Bolt didn't run much in Britain:
The Jamaican also said he would come and race in the UK more if the tax laws
were changed. He has previously avoided competing here in protest at what he
considers an overly punitive tax system.
The International Olympic Committee insisted that HMRC suspend its normal tax
regime for those coming to Britain to compete as one of the conditions of
awarding London the Games.
"As soon as the law changes I'll be here all the time. I love being
here, I have so many Jamaican fans here and it's wonderful," Bolt said.
And it is a stupid tax rule. One that means sponsored performers won't appear in the UK:
Usain Bolt and other overseas personalities can finish up
paying well in excess of 100pc on the money they might earn from competing
in the UK because the taxman grabs a share of their offshore sponsorship.
So we're denied the chance of seeing these great athletes compete and the taxman doesn't get any money either. Stupid or what?
We'll see tears, smiles, rage, excitement and sheer exhaustion. And -
for all our cynicism - we'll love the spectacle and marvel at the talent
displayed. This is what the Olympics are about.
Today we saw all that and more - the expression of surprised delight on Kat Copeland's face, Mo Farah's daughter and pregnant wife rushing onto the track to celebrate his win and tens of thousands singing the National Anthem in celebration of Jess Ennis winning heptathlon gold.
There are still grumpy old curmudgeons who are trying not to be blown away by Michael Phelps' staggering achievements, who stick out their bottom lip unimpressed by the incredible near dead heat at the end of the women's triathlon and who chunter on about how much the event has cost rather than consider the real value of the Olympics.
It is a brilliant occasion - packed stadia, an Olympic park filled with delighted and delightful crowds and athletic performances to make us swell with pride. And not just patriotic fervour - although there's plenty of that - but an enthusiasm for the games themselves. Witness the massive roar that greeted Usain Bolt or the noise that accompanied the finish of the women's gymnastics.
I really do love the Olympics. And even more when we're winning!
