<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:review="http://api.wikio.com/syndication/feed/module/review/1.0" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Wikio Blogs - sport</title>
    <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/blogs/sport</link>
    <description>Wikio Blogs - sport</description>
    <copyright>wikio</copyright>
    <dc:rights>wikio</dc:rights>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Cheating doesn't pay (Stephen Pollard)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/669790</link>
      <description>Today has been a good day for cheats having to suffer the consequences of their actions. First , Dwain Chambers has failed in his bid to make cheating pay. Athletics is struggling to be seen any longer as a fair sport rather than a freak show, and a High Court imposition of Chambers on the British Olympics team would have made things a lot worse. Secondly, the Charity Commission's report into the Smith Institute is pretty damning, finding against it on most of the charges. Since Gordon Brown is happy to lie to the House of Commons, it should come as little surprise that what is, in effect, his own private think tank should be so cavalier about complying with the law. As something of a think tank veteran (and having recently been involved in setting up a new one ), I know that the laws concerning think tanks which operate as charities are onerous and ought always to be at the front of any director's mind. Onerous, yes; but also pretty clear. It's easy to know where the line should be drawn. And I simply refuse to believe that those involved in the Smith Institute did &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;David Naylor a UK SEO : Chambers loses Olympic ban case ...&lt;br/&gt;Tangled Blog : be the best! ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Heresy Corner,David Naylor a UK SEO,ThePickards,Stephen Pollard,Tangled Blog...&lt;br/&gt;(5 posts, last update: 18/07/2008 18:32)</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/669790</guid>
      <dc:creator>Stephen Pollard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-18T16:32:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Wednesday Open Clippings: 17th Green Edition (GeoffShackelford.com)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/667717</link>
      <description>It's only Tuesday and Mt. St. 17th-Green-At-Birkdale is about to erupt. Just imagine the possibilities when the tournament starts and the wind blows! Before we get to the articles and after a lengthy search (because Lord knows we need more photos of guys hitting out a bunker), I finally found a shot of the 17th green in Golfweek's roster of images from Tuesday (the volume lowering tool is in the lower right). No. 17 at Birkdale, courtesy of Golfweek (click to enlarge) ....we have several fine stories full of all sorts of rich, compelling and incriminating detail. and quoting : "If Birkdale were a one-hole course this green would be out of character with the rest of the course. It's out of character with the land; it's out of character with the hole. "You can see from 250 yards away that something has gone wrong. Sadly, it could be a decisive factor in who wins the championship. You could get some really crazy putts going on there. Funky bounces, too. A guy could hit a great shot in and see his ball take a really weird kick left or right. It's fine to have a tough green, but it has to look right. It just doesn't fit the spot that it is in, or the hole that it is on, or the rest of the course." But other than that...Huggan also shares this from Robert Allenby : "The problem is that whenever they try to change these great courses, they always stuff it up by doing something like that. You can argue they do these things because of how far the ball goes these days, but this has nothing to do with that. It's a mess that has obviously been made by someone who doesn't know how to design golf courses. He's built a green that isn't even close to the other 17. It's just stupid. If they revisit it after the championship I hope they use someone else." So Huggan went to the vision behind the green and well, Martin Hawtree probably didn't help matters with either the players or his architectural Godfather Peter Dawson : "In previous Birkdale Opens the 17th had been the easiest or one of the easiest holes," said Hawtree, who will lay out Donald Trump's proposed new course near Aberdeen should the present public inquiry into the project give the go-ahead. "So it needed stiffening. I will spare you a Viagra joke here. Continue... We moved the green back to the point where the front of the new green is where the back of the old one was. Then we added another tier. In my original concept of the hole there was nothing at the back of the green. The two big dunes there create an amphitheatre effect so I felt that the green should run on into a hollow at the rear. I wasn't allowed to do that though; the R&amp;A wanted spectator mounds. So now the green forms too much of a bowl shape. "I'm taken aback by the depth of the reaction. It was a weak hole and demanded something be done. I have heard that the club want to redo the green complex after the Open. I'd be more than happy to move the mounds at the back and create my original idea." Just guessing by the comments, the lack of a rear hollow seems to be the least of the problems here. Mike Aitken in the Scotsman talks to the other culprit behind this mess, R&amp;A Executive Secretary and in-house architect Peter Dawson: "Well, this has caused a little bit of controversy," he said. "And, as a result of that, I'd like to say a few things about it. It's a par 5, so it's not as if we're expecting the green to be hit at with long irons. It's a green the pros are accustomed to facing on many of the courses they play. "If you look at Augusta, there are probably 18 more sporty greens than this one." Lee Westwood echoes some of his fellow competitors' concerns about the 17th green, which is described in the official course guide as a "tiny, two-tier target with extreme undulations". "I think everybody has accepted that something has gone wrong with it," said Westwood. "It's just out of character with the rest of the course, (let's] basically leave it at that. "It's not to the standard of the rest of the greens. The rest of them are brilliant." Bloomberg's Michael Buteau also looked at the 17th green and shares this from Steve Stricker : "You wish they'd just leave them alone because they're good for a reason,'' said Steve Stricker, the No. 8-ranked player. ``They've withstood the test of time, equipment and everything else.'' Buteau also shares the same excuse reply from Dawson and I thought by printing it again it would make sense, but it still does not. Dawson said organizers weren't expecting many golfers to attempt to land their second shots on the putting surface. ``It's not as if we're expecting the green to be hit at with long irons,'' he said. ``We're aware that it's a green that could get away from us if we're not careful. We'll have to see how it goes.'' So if the green could be "hit at" with long irons, that would make it better or even worse? I really need Peter's book of design guidelines to help here, because I think he's really onto something. Competitors such as Stricker said they wish they could roll back the clock. James Corrigan files an excellent look at the controversy , also ends the piece with his breakdown of the "12 to follow" at Birkdale. But first, his take on the 17th green, using overheard player comments: One labelled it "a sloping mess of mounds" while another concluded that it looks as if it's "contracted a severe case of mumps". Even those not totally anti the mogul run have agreed that it is not in keeping with the other greens that have help confirmed Birkdale's reputation as the finest and fairest course in England. In Westwood's opinion they should unload the shovels and start again. That is exactly what the members are planning. But perhaps not before next Monday. Jack Nicklaus played here in April and was aghast. "You've got one of the greatest golf courses in the world, and they changed 16 holes because of a stupid golf ball," said the 18-time major champion. "That is just ridiculous." Okay, how did I miss one of the best quotes ever? Where did he say this? Please readers, guide me! Nicklaus was speaking for an ever-growing number who believe that the authorities should have placed limits on how far the modern golf ball travels. They failed to act, however, and now the only defence they appear to have to protect the dignity of old courses is either course lengthening or course toughening. Or in the case of the 17th, both. On occasions, the powers that be have gone overboard like at Shinnecock Hills at the US Open in 2004 when the greens were quick to the point of unplayable. The R&amp;A is blessedly not the United States Golf Association and is not about to let their stubborn mistakes re-occur here. But they have created an eyesore. Slam, bam in the middle of golfing beauty. I'm not sure about the USGA reference, since they didn't create the 7th green at Shinnecock. It's one thing go blunder a set-up, because with a little bad luck, bad planning and a steep green, anything can happen. But to make a mess of things before you even set the course up takes a special talent that takes things to an entirely different level. This is yet another reminder as to why governing bodies should not design golf courses, particularly when it's in response to their own (continued) inability to regulate equipment. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Independent : Westwood weighs in as Birkdale's bumpy blot on the landscape gets a flat reception ...&lt;br/&gt;BBC Sport Editors' Blog : A very 'open Open' ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : BBC News,The Independent,BBC Sport Editors' Blog,GeoffShackelford.com...&lt;br/&gt;(4 posts, last update: 16/07/2008 11:17)</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/667717</guid>
      <dc:creator>GeoffShackelford.com</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-16T09:17:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Max is Back (Heresy Corner)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/662227</link>
      <description>My article about Max Mosley and his friends was consigned to an even deeper, darker dungeon than that for which it was intended after a court order was received at the end of May. The lawyers were kept very busy for some weeks, attempting to scrub the web of all references to the women involved, especially "Mistress Abi" (E) whose seems to have been the most determined to disappear. She even managed to make her extensive archive vanish from WayBackMachine (although there is an Italian newspaper site, which I had better not link to, just in case the lawyers are looking, which still maintains an extensive photo-gallery of the lady in question showing off her collection of not-quite-Nazi uniforms). For the time being, the legal restrictions remain in force. However, since most of the details which I so painstakingly tracked down in May have come out in open court over the past three days, there seems no danger in putting my original article back up. Sans photos, I'm afraid. Here's the link . It's impossible to say for sure which way the case will go, but the tendency in recent years (and especially since the passing of the Human Rights Act) has been to incorporate more and more privacy-related restrictions into English law. Mr Justice Eady, who will decide this case, has himself been the presiding judge on several such occasions. I was also struck by the words of Max Mosley's barrister, James Price, in his opening speech: It's not a surprise to me or to others who don't live in an ivory tower or a monastery or, I am sure, to your lordship , to learn that quite a lot of people, men and women, have a fascinated interest in this sort of thing. Senior members of the English legal profession are not unknown in the demi-monde frequented by the ladies Max Mosley invited to the flat in Chelsea. The woman known as A, or "Mistress Switch", used to specialise in courtroom scenarios, in which she would preside in the character of a judge by the name of "Lady Penelope". Various "miscreants" would be taken to her for sentencing, punishments to be administered without delay. I do not know for a fact that any of those appearing before her in this capacity were members of the bar, or even the judiciary. But I wouldn't be altogether surprised. © 2008 Heresy Corner, all rights reserved. Not to be republished in any form without permission. Email me: heresycorner@yahoo.co.uk&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Times Online : Dominatrix quits Mosley case, dealing blow to tabloid's Nazi claim against F1 boss ...&lt;br/&gt;Tom Jackson Online : Mosley takes on the World ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Heresy Corner,Times Online,Tom Jackson Online...&lt;br/&gt;(3 posts, last update: 10/07/2008 15:44)</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/662227</guid>
      <dc:creator>Heresy Corner</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-10T13:44:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] The Ted Heath Toilets (Enough is Enough)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/658683</link>
      <description>The Presidential Memorial Committee of San Francisco want to pay an ironic tribute to President Bush - by naming a sewage plant after him . This reminds me of my time at Southampton University. We wanted to replace the Nelson Mandela Building concept so beloved of students' unions by creating the Norman Tebbit "On Your Bike" Racks, the Cecil Parkinson Mother &amp; Baby Room and - in honour of all the good that he did for Britain(!) - the Ted Heath Toilets. The Daily Telegraph reported on it at the time, I recall. Unfortunately the meeting which debated our motion was inquorate. Will they have more success in San Francisco in November when it's voted on?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;BBC News : San Francisco's Bush tribute plan could get up president's nose ...&lt;br/&gt;The Appalling Strangeness : Brown-Bashing: Give him a fitting tribute ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Progressive Bloggers,bog-brush,NBC11.com - Local News,Denver Post,Examiner...&lt;br/&gt;(11 posts, last update: 08/07/2008 12:33)</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/658683</guid>
      <dc:creator>Enough is Enough</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-08T10:33:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Max Mosley vs News of the World begins (F1 Fanatic)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/658605</link>
      <description>Max Mosley has begun his case against the News of the World over the pictures of him engaging in a sadomasochistic orgy with prostitues that were published in March. I’m not going to be doing blow-by-blow coverage of the case (pardon the pun!) because it’s a sensitive legal matter and the conditions on reporting these things [...]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Times Online : Max Mosley: sado-masochism yes, but Nazism no ...&lt;br/&gt;Formula One Blog : The privacy case of Mosley(who should have resigned 99 days ago as FIA president) has begun ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Times Online,The Appalling Strangeness,F1 Fanatic,Dissensus,Formula One Blog...&lt;br/&gt;(6 posts, last update: 09/07/2008 13:24)</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:24:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/658605</guid>
      <dc:creator>F1 Fanatic</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-09T11:24:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] T-Minus One Month (China e-Lobby)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/658435</link>
      <description>In thirty-one days, the Communist Olympic propaganda bonanza will begin, and already the regime is reaping dividends. Columns like this from the Washington Times - by mentioning everything about the Olympics except where it will be held - are all but certain to dazzle the eyes of billions and let the cadres show off their ersatz paradise (for those interested in reality, see the BBC , the Epoch Times , and Boycott 2008 ). It didn't have to be this way. The Communists knew that themselves; they've left nothing to chance, not even the possibility of bad publicity from exiles in America ( Epoch Times ). This regime craves respectability so much that they're prepared to do anything to get it - which is deeply ironic in two ways. First, they didn't need the Olympics for that. Whit the job the Communists have done manipulating that situation in their Korean colony ( BBC , CNN , and the Washington Post ), they have already hoodwinked much of the world's leaders into accepting their "peaceful rise" nonsense. If anything, the "engagement" crowd has more at stake with these Olympics than the Communists themselves (who by now must be at least dimly aware that the memories of these Games will vanish quickly when angry factions through corruption charges - most of which will be true - at each other). The deeper irony, however, is this: with these Olympic Games, the xenophobic regime is telling the Chinese people that its rule has been ratified by foreigners . Sure, they've dressed it all up as a terrific event for China, but they have refused to answer the simple question: why? Why does a two-week sporting event that will be forgotten within a decade (at most) matter so much? Why are the opinions of foreign guests more important than those of the Chinese people? Why is the regime that supposedly stands up for China demanding China stand down and accept a regime endorsed by outsiders? Of course, no one can even begin to come close to these questions without getting whisked away to a jail cell, but in time, the questions will arise nonetheless - and I can't see sufficient answers coming from the Communists. Once that reality sinks in, anything can happen. The one thing the Communists cannot afford is the undermining of their radical nationalist mantra. It is literally the last political refuge for these scoundrels. Without it, they have nothing but naked force, and the last century already has two examples of naked force falling flat in China. As for the Games themselves, I have decided I will not be watching them. The far better, more entertaining, and more important contest will come after the closing ceremony.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;AMERICAblog : Beijing air quality failing tests ...&lt;br/&gt;BBC News : Beijing 'failing pollution test' ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : China e-Lobby,Examiner,AMERICAblog,Green Bloggers Digest,BBC News...&lt;br/&gt;(11 posts, last update: 08/07/2008 16:37)</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:37:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/658435</guid>
      <dc:creator>China e-Lobby</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-08T14:37:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] McEnroe: This is the greatest match I've ever witnessed ... ever (Farther Off the Wall)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/657408</link>
      <description>AP Photo/Ian Walton John McEnroe can't be serious. But he was. How else was NBC's lead tennis analyst supposed to describe today's Wimbledon men's final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer? Maybe it was stepping a little past his...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Times Online : Rafael Nadal shows superhuman spirit ...&lt;br/&gt;The Rafael Nadal Blog : "My dream come true": how Rafa won Wimbledon in his own words ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Times Online,Farther Off the Wall,The Rafael Nadal Blog...&lt;br/&gt;(4 posts, last update: 07/07/2008 13:55)</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:55:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/657408</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farther Off the Wall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-07T11:55:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Well done Rafael Nadal in winning Wimbledon - the best tennis game I have ever watched (PalmAddicts)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/657200</link>
      <description>Well done Rafael Nadal in winning Wimbledon - the best tennis game I have ever watched. "Rafael Nadal held off an incredible fightback from Roger Federer to win his first Wimbledon title and end the Swiss star's reign at the...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;BBC News : Nadal wins epic Wimbledon final ...&lt;br/&gt;BBC News : Federer &amp; Nadal face final clash ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Mark Byron,wongaBlog,BBC News,Afrigator,PalmAddicts...&lt;br/&gt;(11 posts, last update: 07/07/2008 13:04)</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/657200</guid>
      <dc:creator>PalmAddicts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-07T11:04:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Was McLaren’s $100m fine illegal? (F1 Fanatic)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/656917</link>
      <description>An article in today’s Independent on Sunday alleges the $100m fine given to McLaren by the FIA last year was illegal. According to the story: Not everyone who voted on the fine may have been authorised to do so. According to Article 14 of the FIA statutes, the WMSC “shall consist of … a total of 26 [...]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Independent : F1 authorities 'broke the rules' over McClaren's $100m fine ...&lt;br/&gt;BlogF1 : Should The FIA Be Allowed To Break Their Own Rules? ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : BlogF1,Brits on Pole,The Independent,F1 Fanatic...&lt;br/&gt;(4 posts, last update: 06/07/2008 12:23)</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:23:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/656917</guid>
      <dc:creator>F1 Fanatic</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-06T10:23:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Murray was Doomed the Moment Gordon Wished Him Well... (Guy Fawkes' blog)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/655073</link>
      <description>Asked whether the Prime Minister would send his good wishes to Andy Murray for his next match, the PMS said it was the Prime Minister's view that the whole of the country would want to see Andy Murray continue his good progress. Lobby Briefing July 1, 2008 Andy Murray is beaten up in own backyard: you had to feel for Andy Murray yesterday. It is never nice to be beaten up in your own backyard. Times report, July 2, 2008 Jonah Brown strikes again...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Times Online : Andy Murray is beaten up in own backyard ...&lt;br/&gt;The Lone Voice : Andy Murray loses - (James) Gordon Brown to blame. ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Times Online,The Lone Voice,Guy Fawkes' blog...&lt;br/&gt;(3 posts, last update: 04/07/2008 01:53)</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:53:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/655073</guid>
      <dc:creator>Guy Fawkes' blog</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-03T23:53:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Your Wimbledon questions answered (BBC Sport Editors' Blog)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/654203</link>
      <description>Hi, thanks for all your emails about our coverage of the Wimbledon Championships on BBC Television. I've answered the most frequently asked questions below. Q. Have you been pleased with Tim Henman's contribution? Tim's contribution has been impressive. We have been really pleased with how he's taken to what is a brand new discipline for him. Obviously he has had a sore throat which prevented him from commentating on Andy Murray's match yesterday , but he'll be back for the semis on Friday. He has taken to the commentary box environment very well and he gets on fantastically with the other commentators. He has had to get used to working with the likes of John McEnroe and their style of commentating. We feel his insight and knowledge of the game has added immense value to our coverage. Q. Where is Jimmy Connors this year? Jimmy is no longer working as Andy Roddick's coach so his plans are a bit different from previous years as he wasn't coming over here to fulfil his obligations. For that main reason we weren't able to get Jimmy on our team this year. Q. Why do commentators talk over play so much? It's probably the largest complaint we get. It is certainly something we try to avoid. We have fairly strict rules and guidelines that commentators shouldn't talk over the umpire, they should give nice clean ins and outs at the start and end of games and also just not overtalk. We tend to ask commentators to pause over at least one or two points a game to let the atmosphere and images speak for themselves. Q. Could you explain why you switch matches from BBC One to BBC Two and vice-versa without warning? It's a fair complaint. What we are trying to achieve when we do this is bring the climax of a high profile match such as Andy Murray v Rafael Nadal , to the widest possible audience. Clearly it does affect people's video recordings and that can be annoying, but with the advent of iPlayer and other online initiatives, where you can review matches in full, I think it will be become less of a problem in years to come. We do recognise that it is a irritant to some people. Q. Who is the man that is always sat in the Players' Box with the beard and the hat? That is David Spearing who is the honorary steward for the Players' Box. Q. Why are the highlights on at the earlier time of 2000 BST? We are trying to provide the best possible schedule for Wimbledon fans. Audience research suggests there is a real appetite for people coming in from work wanting to join our coverage of the Championships. We've therefore extended the daily BBC Two schedule so that it runs from 1800 to 2100 BST. We want to make this programme as strong and consistent as possible and include all the best action of the day, so we are devoting the final hour to a full round-up of 'Today at Wimbledon'. Looking back at previous years we have found that our live coverage of Centre Court and Number One court is often finished by 2000 - weather permitting! However, on occasions we appreciate significant live play may run past 2000, so we do have provision for running a later highlights programme at 2320 if we are not able to bring viewers a highlights programme at the billed time. Live tennis is always available via BBCi's interactive service when play is happening on one of the televised courts. So with the five separate streams coming from Wimbledon, streamed live coverage and on demand highlights at bbc.co.uk/wimbledon, and our programming on BBC One and BBC Two we do offer our viewers an enormous choice. Q. Why do you come off games on your interactive service while they are midway through? It's inevitable in the day-to-day decisions we make regarding the transmission from Wimbledon that we won't please everyone! If we choose to overrun our pre-arranged transmission schedule to stay with a match we upset the non-sport audience and similarly if we cut away at a crucial point we upset our tennis fans. It's often a close judgement call on the day. We will try to go with what we believe the majority of our audience would want. Lots of factors affect our decisions, it depends who is on court, when the match will finish, if it will finish that night etc and also the billed programmes that would be replaced or delayed. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;BBC News : Confident Murray ready for Nadal ...&lt;br/&gt;The Amiable Heretic : I Thought This was Illegal? ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : The Amiable Heretic,BBC News,BBC Sport Editors' Blog,icWales,Scotsman.com...&lt;br/&gt;(6 posts, last update: 03/07/2008 18:01)</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:01:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/654203</guid>
      <dc:creator>BBC Sport Editors' Blog</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-03T16:01:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Learning by example. (Obsolete)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/650806</link>
      <description>Churnalism or not , the story of the examiner who gave two marks to a candidate that simply wrote "fuck off" in answer to a question is getting some rather unfair criticism . I mean, let's be sensible for a second. Are we certain that the person taking the exam isn't a blogger? Who could possibly demure that telling individuals to "fuck off" via posts on the internet cannot at times be incredibly witty ? Considering that one of the doyens of the blogging scene has come to much attention via the fact that he consistently comes up with new ways to call someone a fucking cunt, who are we to judge what is and what isn't worthy of marks at the GCSE stage? Besides which, the examiner and the board are completely right in the view that if some sort of effort has been made to answer a question, regardless of its apparent inadequacy and wrongness, it still deserves to be given consideration. Let's also face it: at least the candidate bothered to turn up for the exam, whilst most of the others with a similar mindset would have done the opposite. In the circumstances, the candidate deserves to be applauded for overcoming the fear of failure for not even attempting a cogent answer, and when the youth of today have such glorious examples to learn from, just why are we so surprised when the first thing they can think of is to fire off an expletive? If he hadn't filled in any response, he most likely would have received a 'U', or ungraded. Instead, he might have achieved a 'G'. Under this glorious New Labour government, I think that's an achievement we can all be proud of.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;BBC News : Review as expletive gets marks ...&lt;br/&gt;Critical Mass : Cursing for credit ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Fox News,WCBSTV.com: Your Source For New Yor,Critical Mass,Boston Globe,cbs4denver.com: Water Cooler...&lt;br/&gt;(25 posts, last update: 02/07/2008 04:49)</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:49:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/650806</guid>
      <dc:creator>Obsolete</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-07-02T02:49:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Is Hamilton PR machine helping or hurting (Formula 1 Blog)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/650083</link>
      <description>The Telegraph’s Kevin Garside has written an interesting article dissecting Lewis’s PR appearances and the reaction to it.Is Lewis doing more damage by being over promoted or is he improving his career? Is his appearance at everything, endorsements for all things and comments just opportunistic or is he really helping his cause. Read the story [...]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Telegraph : F1: Lewis Hamilton should take a back seat ...&lt;br/&gt;Brits on Pole : F1: Hamilton aboard sponsor’s boat for collision and disqualification ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : The Telegraph,Formula 1 Blog,Brits on Pole,The Telegraph India...&lt;br/&gt;(4 posts, last update: 29/06/2008 20:10)</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:10:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/650083</guid>
      <dc:creator>Formula 1 Blog</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-29T18:10:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Tennis star's disgustingly sexist attack on Anna Kournikova. (The F-Word Blog)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/650065</link>
      <description>The Times reports that former mixed doubles Grand Slam title winner Justin Gimelstob verbally laid into Anna Kournikova and made sexist comments about other female tennis players during a US sports radio show, resulting in a one match suspension without...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Huffington Post : Justin Gimelstob, Anna Kournikova: Gimmelstob Calls Kournikova A "Bitch," Threatens To "Hurt" Her ...&lt;br/&gt;Times Online : Fault! Tennis star’s sexist attack on Anna Kournikova was way over the line ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : Times Online,The F-Word Blog,The Huffington Post...&lt;br/&gt;(3 posts, last update: 29/06/2008 18:04)</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:04:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/650065</guid>
      <dc:creator>The F-Word Blog</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-29T16:04:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sport] Airstrip One Bans Winning at Soccer (Moonbattery)</title>
      <link>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/649125</link>
      <description>Moms love to send their tykes out to play soccer because it's so harmless. The kids run around on the grass kicking at a ball until they run out of gas without any danger of getting beaned with a baseball...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Telegraph : Football Association bans competitive matches between under-eight teams ...&lt;br/&gt;Nothing To Do With Arbroath : Football Association bans competitive matches between under-eight teams ...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;blogs : The Telegraph,Nothing To Do With Arbroath,Moonbattery...&lt;br/&gt;(3 posts, last update: 28/06/2008 11:25)</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:25:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.wikio.co.uk/discussion/649125</guid>
      <dc:creator>Moonbattery</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-28T09:25:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

