Digust at BBC Simply the Best

Watching the BBC's "Simply the Best" sports personality of the year I was disgusted to see that the 65 winner of the "BBC Sports Personality" was among the the nomminess and not the 1965 runner up Jim Clark. Clark was a a sportsman par excellence a true gentle man , where as Simpson's performances were drug assisted, the same drugs that were to cause his death less than 2 years later.

Reply to
bonzo
Loading thread data ...

The Evening Standard had an article on the same theme yesterday (part 2 today), concluding that Sportsview PotY had a nack of coming up with the wrong winner and favouring the 'glorious runner up' over the true champion. They should have had Mike Hawthorne in '58 but not Stirling Moss in '61.

Reply to
Richard Porter

Tough, but the contest is between previous winners. Can't change them retrospectively. As far as the drug issue is concerned, very different attitude back then to things like amphetamines (which all cyclists used as a matter of course) - and even cocaine - in sport. Ever hear the story about how Moss took one of 'Fangio's famous little white pills' before the '55 Mille Miglia. He was still awake three days later.

That's good, coming from someone who can't even spell Hawthorn ;-)>. Fact is, of course, Stirling was the true champion of '58. Mike only won because of a ridiculous points system which was changed for the following season.....so if any GP driver should have won Sports Personality in '58 it should have been Stirling.

As far as '61 is concerned, Stirling produced two of the greatest post war GP performances to beat the much superior Ferraris at Monaco and Nurburgring in an obsolete, privately-entered car. These were two of the finest sporting achievements of the century, let alone the year. I think we should be congratulating the voters for getting it right. I've voted for him to win it overall.

David Betts ( snipped-for-privacy@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery:

formatting link

Reply to
David Betts

Sorry I spotted that but forgot to correct it.

I only reported what was in the paper, so complain to them, not me! I would certainly have voted for Moss in '61.

Reply to
Richard Porter

Fair enough. I think I probably did .

David Betts ( snipped-for-privacy@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery:

formatting link

Reply to
David Betts

Errrr the break point was for "winners" not runners up, your argument is about 38 years too late!

F1 wasn't the cleanest of sports in the 60's and probably isn't now, drugs by drivers aren't used now because they have no performance enhancing affect , but I'm sure that if they did they would be. What does have an effect however is cheating in engineering and I for one have no doubt that if there was any being done then Clark's team would have been at the forefront. As for Simpson's "performances were drug assisted" he was presented with the trophy that year for among other things being the first UK cyclist to make the breakthrough into continental Pro cycling, that performance wasn't "drug assisted"and even if all his wins including his WC title were, you have to remember that not only were the drugs not illegal ( they were made so the year he died) but that there were no tests for them, so the question of whether he was "drug assisted" is moot, we shall never know

The drugs plus the heat, and the dehydration caused by his 3 day bout if sickness and the then rules that said that riders coudn't be re supplied by the team, plus the half bottle of brandy that he consumed ( to "settle his guts") after one of the "water raids" before starting the climb, and not forgetting his apptitude for riding himself into the ground...

Reply to
marc

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.