Like others, Chris Chavez used to mine reports of malfeasance by Nike for clicks and was even almost a reporter. Like others, he has basically been paid to stop
You made passing mention of the 2022 World Championships and had previously commented about the poor turnout of spectators in Eugene. This is in stark contrast to the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, UK, which finished today. The Commonwealth Games are like a scaled-down verion of the Olympics, in that there are a wide variety of sports for spectators to choose from. Yet apparently the track and field events were very well attended. In one of the YouTube videos of the heats of the women's 800m I heard the commentators mention that the stadium was almost full even for morning sessions, which are generally less well attended than afternoon/evening sessions.
It seems like the ‘how to grow the sport’ talk is massive, has that always been the case or is it relatively recent (last five-ish years)? I’m curious because it provides great cover for people like Chavez. Skepticism or critical thinking equals negativity/toxicity equals #notgoodforthesport.
I’m especially curious about where it comes from because I’ve never heard doping discussed. Very little mention of the governing bodies and corporations who run the sport (when there is it seems pretty short lived, just as you said we all magically forgot about Nike’s maternity policy!). Yes, people are bringing up good ideas. But maybe friend-of-the-pod Phil has more influence on how athletes are compensated than the fan paying $5 for a pay per view track meet?!?!
Maybe I am giving him too much credit for making this a hot topic and it has always been around! It just seems so convenient- we think “oh Chris Chavez cares about the sport!”, while he completely avoids addressing some pretty major problems
You made passing mention of the 2022 World Championships and had previously commented about the poor turnout of spectators in Eugene. This is in stark contrast to the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, UK, which finished today. The Commonwealth Games are like a scaled-down verion of the Olympics, in that there are a wide variety of sports for spectators to choose from. Yet apparently the track and field events were very well attended. In one of the YouTube videos of the heats of the women's 800m I heard the commentators mention that the stadium was almost full even for morning sessions, which are generally less well attended than afternoon/evening sessions.
It seems like the ‘how to grow the sport’ talk is massive, has that always been the case or is it relatively recent (last five-ish years)? I’m curious because it provides great cover for people like Chavez. Skepticism or critical thinking equals negativity/toxicity equals #notgoodforthesport.
I’m especially curious about where it comes from because I’ve never heard doping discussed. Very little mention of the governing bodies and corporations who run the sport (when there is it seems pretty short lived, just as you said we all magically forgot about Nike’s maternity policy!). Yes, people are bringing up good ideas. But maybe friend-of-the-pod Phil has more influence on how athletes are compensated than the fan paying $5 for a pay per view track meet?!?!
Maybe I am giving him too much credit for making this a hot topic and it has always been around! It just seems so convenient- we think “oh Chris Chavez cares about the sport!”, while he completely avoids addressing some pretty major problems