´óÏó´«Ã½

Could anyone explain to me ..

Comments

1. At 10:59 AM on 02 Dec 2007, Mrs Sam Carrington wrote:

   I don't think she should be. She is purely there to make up the female numbers. Typical PC ´óÏó´«Ã½.

2. At 01:45 PM on 02 Dec 2007, wrote:

   When, as my work organisation is (working with homeless young people trying to turn their own lives around) , you are trying to help all manner of young people learn about the consequences of timely action and inaction, and their own responsibility for what they do and say, this is frustrating, and tricky!!

   I choose to believe that she was not actually using drugs; but she did break clear rules, that she should not have done and could have not done. She appealed the consequences in relation to British Olympics' representation - her right. She 'won' and I respect that. But she was originally the architect of her own problems. I gloried in her success this summer. But 'personality' of the year - I think not.

   Most young people do not get such considerate treatment when they end up convicted for what some people might characterise as a 'technicality' or let themselves down through sloppy planning and behaviour. "I did not mean to speed" is no defence. "I did not intend to walk out of the shop carrying this" is many times not enough to avoid a shop lifting conviction.

   I wish her well; I hope she will win a gold in China. Perhaps, now I think about it, we may try to persuade her now, after her problems, amazing come back, and good fortune, to help us as one of our ambassadors! But just at the moment, 'personality etc'.......in this competition, no!

3. At 02:22 PM on 02 Dec 2007, Richard Bowell wrote:

   because a substantial number of people put her name forward perhaps? Or do you think there might be other reasons? Or are you looking for reasons behind the reason I suggest? Whatever the reasoning it is going to be the public that decides anyway.

   Richard, from Manningtree, Essex.

4. At 02:47 PM on 02 Dec 2007, PT wrote:

   Because it is panto. season, of course, and it would be hugely amusing if she won and forgot to turn up to receive the award.
   

5. At 01:28 AM on 03 Dec 2007, Peter Kinghorn wrote:

   Christine Ohorugu is a worthy candidate for SPOTY as she has fought against the odds to produce an outstanding achievement in the world of sport.

   It has nothing to do with making up the female numbers, it was all to do with showing strength of character and actually achieving something.

   Granted she did make a mistake with the drugs tests and was suitabley punished for it. But there has been nothing to suggest she is a drugs cheat. Even Paula Radcliffe supports her and you know how anti-drugs she is!

   During her ban she had to endure huge pressure from the media questioning whether she's a clean athlete or not, she lost her funding and was forced to train outside the normal comforts afforded to other athletes.

   Most people would have crumbled under such circumstances but she took her punishment on the chin and got on with the job.
   Throughout her ban and at the World Athletics Championships she demonstrated enormous strength of character, a mental strength sadly lacking from a number of British sports stars - take the England football ball team for example.

   In fact if it wasn't for Lewis Hamilton's outstanding season I would have Christine winning the award.
   

6. At 09:25 AM on 03 Dec 2007, wrote:

   That was a properly surreal radio moment you had earlier.
   I was sure I heard a Jewish and a Muslim guy trying to out-British one another on your show?
   You could be forgiven pre-judging each of them as representatives of the most bellicose cultures on the planet and yet they seemed to be competing to prove themselves more tolerant than the other -- and thus more "British" ...
   That's cultural integration for you. Only in this country could people take moral oneupmanship quite so earnestly. And all of this at the tail-end of the saga about misnamed furry animal!
   Priceless!