主题：【原创】震惊 -- 大西洋14
对羽毛球的国际形象本来就损害很大，现在再来这么一出，还是当着罗格的面搞，羽联不出狠手还怎么保持形象？连自己小弟都管不了，奥委会要给你正式资格也难呀。
袋鹿
哺乳动物，偶蹄目， 反刍亚目， 袋鹿科。 现存南方袋鹿和北方袋鹿两个亚科。这种有袋类珍惜动物，臀部有斑马一样醒目的条纹, 追踪时不容易跟丢.
[IMGA]https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKl0zqCWBcOH1LsV44mcxVVE3DHISPkBvNHOI0IPXyru2tBx5K[/IMGA]
袋鹿和熊猫一样只吃某些特异化食物： 泥蔻 (5美分硬币Nickle)
袋鹿发情的时候， 尾巴会拍打在臀部上，发出奇特的声音，像是"Follow me. This way!"
但也有不同意见认为， 这是一种寄生在袋鹿直肠内的异化蜘蛛, 雄性用连接胸部和腹部的小肉茎快速摩擦发出的声音。 生物学家对这种异化公蜘的情况还了解得不多。
奥运会升国旗奏国歌就是最政治化的表现。
在这里，其实运动员是弱势群体，在规则设定不好的情况下，当然会出现利用规则的情况。看多少国家为一块金牌要给多少奖励，这本身是不是就违背体育的纯洁性？
顾拜旦先生说：重要的不是胜利而是拼搏。可是看看多少国家为了实现金牌零突破那是下了血本啦。
再有，不是不认同处罚，而是不认同把焦点集中于运动员身上。也不能全怪羽毛球队。回想不远的过去，1984年中国首次夺得金牌，那时的欢呼声。我们整个国家乃至全世界对金牌的狂热，都是这种情况的诱因。
新华社的文章：中国队该醒悟了，仔细看了一遍，平心静气地将，是道理的。有待商榷的地方：
卖门票的是奥组委吧？球员能得到门票的一毛钱的分成吗？球员签合同了吗？球员和观众有直接商业交易吗？球员没进入市场干嘛让人家负市场义务？
新华社评论员是不是首先提高一下自己的专业素养？逻辑严谨些？不要动辄
这道理说的都很对，但是对的道理不一定解决问题。讲人应该怎样，是容易的，空洞的，让人怎样做才能达到怎样的标准是难得的，更难的就是这样要求自己，我提议，新华社所有员工宣誓遵守新闻精神，从此不发软文。
整篇评论的整体感觉就是，对内高高在上指点江山，对外小心翼翼陪尽欢颜。
昨晚她们打的那场不是比赛那又是什么？
你放一局是为了赢一局当然没有问题，因为这一局不是one match。
体育赛事是由多方（运动方，组织方，赞助方等等）共同炮制出来的一种现代商品，运动员是参与制作方之一，虽然门票收入不归运动员，但运动员有其它方式的收入（不然他们费那劲干啥呢，当然了，这种收入分配是很“考究”的）。所以运动员作为制作方和收益方，自然有义务保证商品质量。
因为这样会很难有证据判断是不是在尽力比赛。
但她们那场能算得上积极表演吗？
还有看表演的是不是洋大人有关系吗？他们只是买了票期盼看到精彩比赛的体育观众。难道这样的比赛如果放在北京奥运会就可以接受了吗？
表演不到位是关键，太单纯，以为利用规则没人会抓把柄，所以李永波说规则理解不透。其实说的是潜规则没理解透。
自以为人家是法制社会，依法办事没问题，没想到人家是君主制的，你戏没演好，皇帝下不来台了，只好杀你。
1:奥运会退出项目有相关规矩，是一个项目推广影响力和收视率等的综合打分决定的，目前羽毛球排名在中下游，在可见未来并无此危险。
2：羽毛球全球推广并不差，群众基础还不错，只是职业化水平很差，这与国际羽联反复更改各种比赛安排比赛规程有一定关系，比起国际网联推广比赛的能力，羽联就是一堆渣渣。
3：长久以来，国际羽联的各种愚蠢的出尔反尔的决定层出不穷，比如七分制，比如强制女球员穿裙子，别个国家协会鄙视不尊重羽联是其咎由自取
为什么，就是为了在关键的时候能够跟这群黑心裁判申诉辩论，我不能死都窝囊死。
当年印尼完美的让陶菲克排名落在叶诚万之后参加汤姆斯杯，也曾经引起讨论，不断产生这种事情只能说明国际羽联脑残，制定的赛事规程不合理
92年奥运会女单决赛，王莲香对谁，可能是方诛贤。难得萨马兰奇到场准备给冠军颁奖，偏偏两人大打拉吊，当时又是互换发球得分制，段时间内无法分出胜负。萨马兰奇也是大忙人，最后实在没法等比赛结束，半道离去。这成了羽毛球后来每球得分制改革的动力之一。这次罗格到场捧场，也闹出这么一出，看看事后能拿出什么招数。
但是你不能逼人家做对自己不利的事情，这个应该算普世价值吧？显然普世价值高于所谓的体育精神，对吧。
再说，暂时的退让是为了更大的胜利，怎么能说是违反体育精神的呢？
给你转一段，自己好好思考下吧：
贝尔特-布什奈尔和迪克-不纳，是1948年伦敦奥运会双人桨冠军，但他们夺冠的路程非常曲折。
1948年伦敦奥运会的双人桨比赛在亨利皇家赛道举行。贝尔特与迪克为了在半决赛中，避开丹麦的的强力组合（艾博-帕森和阿格-劳尔森），故意在第一轮，输给了一对法国组合。在接下来的比赛中，他们闯过两关复活赛，最终决赛夺冠。
据赛后贝尔特承认：“迪克决定了，为了不提早在半决赛中，遇到丹麦人，我们应该在第一轮中输掉比赛。。。”
这样一个没有体育精神的策略，却被英国人誉为 “ 有冒险精神的 “ 和 “ 深思熟虑的 “ ，并被BBC，作为欢迎2012年奥运会的电视主题
运动员在赛场执行的是教练的计划，应该处罚教练
Justin Murray Wrote:
Perfectly fine strategy. If you introduce penalties for "not playing your hardest", that creates too much subjectivity as we have no standards on what "hardest" means. This is done in sports all the time. NFL teams that secure home field advantage for the playoffs put their second and third string players in the final games. World Cup teams that secure a spot in the elimination round will back off in the final game of group play to avoid wasting energy.
If the organizers don't like the behavior, don't have group play or round robin stages and use the single elimination format.
----------------------------------------
Stephen Borsher Replied:
When you consider that the women's gymnastic all around excludes the best qualified athletes by limiting each country to only two qualifiers, what choice do athletes have but to game the system. Honesty, integrity, and sensible rules start at the top. The politicians don't adhere to that either.
-----------------------------------------
10 hours ago
David Corwin Wrote:
The goal is to win the gold medal, not this particular match. The is a commonly strategy in sports. During the EUFA European Cup last month, there was a debate on whether Spain should have score the goal in the last few minutes of the group match to revive Italy. Even armies will retreat temporarily to secure a better position for battles.
--------------------------------
jack wang Wrote:
This is totally unfair to the players. The organizer made up this stupid rules of ' win for a loss'. So the players would rather 'lose to win the interest'. The officials who made the game plan not making sense should be punished, not the players.
-------------------------------
Sean Wang Wrote:
With all the top seeds removed, perhaps now Denmark or Australia may finally have a chance in this sport.
--------------------------------
David Wilson Wrote:
If the pair wins, they don't gain anything but they hurt their country's interests. Who made such stupid rules?
国外淫民不够普世，不理解“奥运精神”啊？不如国内的好忽悠啊。链接：http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/asias-question-day-783/topics/fair-athletes-try-lose-order
再加两条：
Disqualifying the players is wholly unfair. They are punished for the failings of the administrators. Apparently it was the organiser's wish that the players expend their best efforts in reducing their chances of winning the tournament. Would that have been any more ludicrous?
------------------------------------------
Believe me, the British would do the same if they were given the opportunities, but they have a better system to prevent their sports men/women from making these kind mistakes. For example, in football, the last group matches all have to be played at the same time...... So, this is really an administrative issue rather than a scandal as portraited by the British press. I am sure the British reporters knew this was a consequence of the bad administrative system and can be prevented, but they are not interested in that. They just want to make a meal out of this for themselves.
Please stop pointing the fingers - Chinese, Korean, badminton..... Human beings are more or less the same. The British is no better species. However, there is indeed a hard lesson to learn for the sports administrators of the developing countries - you need to improve your system, learn something from that of the western dominated sports!
The Olympics is fortunately not run by the British press, so believe me again, badminton is safe in Olympics.