http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzI...c1f0257519e896606dac59bd19592#wechat_redirect Comments/insights from Cai Yun on badminton women's single Sent from my SM-J111F using Tapatalk
http://bwfbadminton.com/2016/09/01/badminton-leads-china-ratings/ BADMINTON LEADS CHINA RATINGS 01 SEPTEMBER, 2016 - OLYMPICS, RIO 2016 TEXT BY DEV SUKUMAR | BADMINTONPHOTO Badminton captured a significant chunk of China’s television viewership during the Rio 2016 Olympic The Men’s Singles final featuring Malaysia’s Lee Chong Wei and China’s Chen Long (featured image) was the most-watched match on state broadcaster CCTV5, logging 7.08 percent share of viewership. Badminton dominated the most-watched list, with seven matches featuring in the top ten. The Men’s Singles semi-final between Lee Chong Wei and two-time Olympic champion Lin Dan came in third at 5.91%, followed by the Men’s Singles quarter-final between Lin Dan and India’s Kidambi Srikanth at 4.95%. The Top-Ten List: Badminton: Men’s Singles final: Lee Chong Wei vs Chen Long: 7.08% Volleyball Women’s final: China vs Serbia: 7.03% Badminton: Men’s Singles semi-final: Lin Dan vs Lee Chong Wei: 5.91% Badminton: Men’s Singles quarter-final: Lin Dan vs K Srikanth: 4.95% Table Tennis: Women’s Team semi-final: China vs Singapore: 4.46% Badminton: Men’s Singles Bronze play-off: Lin Dan vs Viktor Axelsen: 4.39% Badminton: Women’s Singles semi-final: Li Xuerui vs Carolina Marin: 3.97% Badminton: Men’s Doubles semi-final: Fu Haifeng/Zhang Nan vs Marcus Ellis/Chris Langridge: 3.64% Badminton: Men’s Doubles bronze play-off: Chai Biao/Hong Wei vs Marcus Ellis/Chris Langridge: 3.57% Volleyball: Women’s semi-final: China vs Netherlands: 3.56%
I thought the women's volleyball final between CHN and SBR was top garnering about 50% on CCTV5 and about 20% on CCTV1 http://www.bjreview.com/Lifestyle/201608/t20160826_800065901.html "Figures from China Central Television (CCTV) showed that the audience rating for the women's volleyball final was 70 percent on two CCTV channels."
I finally realise why Chinese badminton has been in decline for the past 4 years but not table tennis. LYB did it on purpose so that viewership would go up across China and the World!!
CCTV charged its advertisement client RMB 2.11 million for a 5-second time slot during the volleyball final!! http://sports.qq.com/a/20160903/012431.htm I wonder how much they charged for LD vs LCW.
http://english.cctv.com/2016/08/26/VIDE8CZQN0rmhidOO1ZP3Xzo160826.shtml http://www.fivb.com/en/about/news/china-ride-wave-of-fans-support-to?id=64544 Seems like figures reported to each federation is different Sent from my SM-J111F using Tapatalk
Wow... "A 60-second advertisement shown during the game sold for 14.3 million yuan while a 30-second spot cost 7.7 million yuan."
There are some LATEST, pretty hot developments to REVISIT on the the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in particular after its controversial decisions in the Rio 2016 OG... and it's quite fishy!! WADA ON TWITTER the twits are accompanied by many amusing pics.... too fun to be missed (I like the most the pic of William vs Sharapova in bikini)... just take a look on your own... https://twitter.com/hashtag/WADA
Also come across these articles by US renowned sports lawyer, Ronald S Katz http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2...ate-sponsored-doping-have-merit/#73980c9d29c6 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2...-page-article-on-russian-doping/#42ccf4f35b91 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2016/09/13/wada-is-broken-and-should-be-replaced/#261022be20f2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2...ban-have-not-yet-been-published/#7c33924b1c34
Also come across these articles by US renowned sports lawyer, Ronald S Katz http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2...ate-sponsored-doping-have-merit/#73980c9d29c6 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2...-page-article-on-russian-doping/#42ccf4f35b91 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2016/09/13/wada-is-broken-and-should-be-replaced/#261022be20f2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rkatz/2...ban-have-not-yet-been-published/#7c33924b1c34 "Second, the basis for the decision to ban many Russian athletes from the Olympics that CAS arbitrators reviewed was the so-called McLaren Report on alleged Russian state-sponsored doping. This report, however, has major flaws, including: 1) McLaren was not neutral; 2)Mclaren relied on anonymous witnesses; 3) McLaren relied on an informant not subject to cross-examination; and 4) McLaren, according to his own report, “only skimmed the surface of the extensive data available” (see “Russian Complaints About McLaren On Alleged State-Sponsored Doping Have Merit, forbes.com, August 30, 2016)."
Those doubts are confusing US justice-system with world affairs. It is irrelevant, though it points to real difficulties. McLaren served previously as an Independent person on cases with Russian athletes. It might makes him less credible regarding the tribunal requirements in USA, but the tribunals in the USA has its own regulations, not universal norms. This point alone does not invalidate M. McLaren as an Independent observer to me - other facts would have to be given. The fact that no counter-interview was given to the Russian side with the persons condemning it, is indeed a great flaw if one consider the normal procedures of the US tribunals - or a great number of nations. But the accused here is the FSB. The FSB would make anyone disappear in a wink. The hacking of WADA is certainly no coincidence. The problem is that there is no world governance, with a judicial arm serving it. Thus no body with authority could conduct the jugement with respect to procedures previously defined. The Independent commission is the best WADA could do in those circumstance, but even this body, as was shown by the Armstrong case, is even too lenient.
I'm afraid you don't even realize how flawed your argument is. I'd advise you to read Ronald Katz's impartial,objective views and expert legal points with an open mind without any preconceived notions and you'll be much the wiser. What does confusing US justice-system with world affairs mean? You don't mean they are playing politics with Russia and not interested in justice or due process,do you ? Even if there's no world government doesn't mean justice should not prevail or that might is right or that universal values of right and wrong can be selectively applied as certain power wishes for their geopolitical agenda. “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” - Abraham Lincoln
You misread my post. To have a judicial rules recognised by everyone you need to belong to the set of norms, recognise the same procedure, belong to the same social body. There is no universal justice up to now, and no body to pronounce it. To affirm that the commission of McLaren would not fulfil the requirements of the US tribunal is just beside the point, because there would never be the possibility to bring everyone to a US tribunal. This arguments just reveals mental confusion.
I beg your pardon, what are you trying to say??? If the McClaren Independent Commission cannot even stand up to the US justice system, presumably the standard bearer in the world, how can we expect the rest of the world to accept its authority or credibility ? What Ron Katz queried aren't anything only specific to the US laws but ordinary standard requirements and legal procedures applicable and demanded by any judiciary anywhere in the world. Don't tell me there is one standard for the US and a different one for the rest of the world, preposterous, as that would give rise to subversion of justice and truth.
Of course there are judicial standard for each culture. For example in France there is no confrontation between defence and accusation, the investigation and charges are made in the name of the State by the 'instruction judge', supposed to be impartial (because the State is said so). Now when we use the word "justice", we can refer to the righteousness of something, like you did in your post above when saying "that would give rise to subversion of justice and truth". But justice also designates an institution some societies have (not all of them) that declare the rights and wrong and the retributions accordingly. This institution needs to be relied to the society in a way that everyone accepts its authority and its procedures. In the case of WADA, there is not such an institution. Nobody is there to judge, there is no accredited lawyer, etc. So to apply the regulations of the American judicial institution to WADA is not appropriate. Specially as the accused body is the Russian State.
Pardon me for saying this, you're the one confused. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2014-12/wada-announces-details-of-independent-commission : "The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) today announced details of the three-person Independent Commission that will investigate the serious doping allegations recently aired in a series of German television documentaries. The Commission, which will formally initiate the investigation in January 2015, will be chaired by former WADA President Richard W. Pound. Joining Mr. Pound on the Commission is experienced Legal Counsel, Professor Richard McLaren. Professor McLaren has significant experience in the world of international sports law, and is a longstanding member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA will announce the third member of the Commission in due course. The role of the Commission is to establish: if there have been any breaches of World Anti-Doping Code or International Standard processes or rules by signatories to the Code; if there have been any breaches of rules by WADA-accredited laboratories; if there have been any breaches of anti-doping rules by athletes and their entourage members (including coaches, trainers and doctors); and, to gather information and explore whether sufficient evidence exists that could lead to sanctions against any individual or organization under rules of the World Anti-Doping Code. The Commission will undertake its work under the provisions of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, which takes effect on 1 January 2015." Also see https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/independent-commission-report-1 and https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/independent-commission-report-2
So now we know , for years, there have been a 'legal' way to dope by the use (or misuse or abuse ?) of the TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions).
