Heartland

markfiend wrote:Man City were playing Liverpool, not one, but two teams not exactly known for their admiration of Man Utd; I heard that the "minute's silence" at (I was going to type Maine Road then...) The City Of Manchester Ground lasted 18 seconds?

The City fans were (apparently) fine, it was the scousers who kicked it off from most reports although I wasn't there to know. As you say it was never going to happen - the article on the link suggests an applause was requested by City but the Premier League said no with predictable results.

Although I'd also point out that any City occupation of a moral high ground will last exactly as long as it takes for some idiot to start singing about Munich.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/latest/2005/ ... witem.html

FWIW I wouldn't have been silent for a minute out of respect for him. I would have done it out of respect for others who wanted to but, imho, he didn't warrant it. It all ended up a bit Lady Di.

ruffers wrote:It all ended up a bit Lady Di.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. People have been saying that he was the greatest footballer ever? Please. Short career with no international success. (I know that playing for Northern Ireland wasn't going to get him any world cup winners' medals, but still)

Best's playing career was well over by the time I'd heard of him as a kid, and my only real memories of seeing him on TV were the likes of his humiliating appearance on Wogan*. He was a famous p*ss-head rather than a famous footballer (sadly). And I think that in a way, his drink habit was tantamount to the longest, most drawn-out suicide bid in "celebrity" history.

*Incidentally, I blame Wogan and his production team for that; what do you expect when you put a notorious alcoholic in a green room with tons of free booze?

They did the same trick with Oliver Reed.

Planet Dave wrote:How exactly have we taunted you in the past? By winning stuff, and buying your best player? Fair do's then.

The last taunt was unveiling a Galstasaray Reds banner at Elland Road after the murders, and throwing Turkish Delights into the crowd

I believe that the animosity started way back when a minutes' silence for Don Revie was disrupted by Man Utd fans.

Anyway, like I said, let's not dwell on it and move on, eh..? We're not all morons you know - there's at least one of us who was a bit ashamed. A fella was dead - respect shoulda been shown, no matter what club. End of.

(And as soon as I get my copy of Mourning Sun, you'll get yours, too...)

markfiend wrote:People have been saying that he was the greatest footballer ever? Please. Short career with no international success. (I know that playing for Northern Ireland wasn't going to get him any world cup winners' medals, but still)

so you can only be great at something if you do it for a long time? and does the european cup not count as international success? let alone being voted european footballer of the year. best might have thrown it all away tragically early but that shouldn't detract from the fact that while he was at the top of his game there were few anywhere in the world who could touch him.

Best's playing career was well over by the time I'd heard of him as a kid, and my only real memories of seeing him on TV were the likes of his humiliating appearance on Wogan*.

that's a shame. i recall bbc2 devoting an entire night's programming to best on the occassion of his fiftieth birthday. this included masses of archive footage including (if i remember rightly) the entire 1965 european cup quarter-final against benfica. it was that night that really demonstrated to me that george best was as good as my dad had always told me he was.

He was a famous p*ss-head rather than a famous footballer (sadly). And I think that in a way, his drink habit was tantamount to the longest, most drawn-out suicide bid in "celebrity" history.

that all depends on how you view alcoholism. to suggest that best's drinking was a suicide bid indicates that you feel that he was able to control his drinking but chose not to. i think it is fairer to see alcholism as a disease which is, unfortunately, not always treatable. and whilst i know of no evidence for any genetic link, it is interesting to note that george's mother also died as a result of years of alcohol abuse.

I get your points there RJ. Heh.

1. I guess I forgot about the European Cup and player of the year. But still, no World Cups, European Championships, International international football (if you see what I mean).
2. I guess it is a shame; but hey, I didn't see the program to which you refer. And from archive footage I have seen, I wouldn't say he was crap by any stretch. Well, maybe I just haven't seen enough to be convinced.
3. Tricky. I see what you mean about the disease aspect of alcoholism. But when you get down to it, you can't really argue that his death wasn't the result of his drinking even though that drinking was beyond his control. Hence the phrase "in a way" in my previous post.

markfiend wrote:I get your points there RJ. Heh.

1. I guess I forgot about the European Cup and player of the year. But still, no World Cups, European Championships, International international football (if you see what I mean).
2. I guess it is a shame; but hey, I didn't see the program to which you refer. And from archive footage I have seen, I wouldn't say he was crap by any stretch. Well, maybe I just haven't seen enough to be convinced.
3. Tricky. I see what you mean about the disease aspect of alcoholism. But when you get down to it, you can't really argue that his death wasn't the result of his drinking even though that drinking was beyond his control. Hence the phrase "in a way" in my previous post.

1. by that logic when chris birchall plays in the world cup next year he'll automatically be better than george best. and ryan giggs. and john charles. and any number of other great players who, due to an accident of birth, never played in a major international tournament.
2. that's the point i was trying to make. in your first post you were effectively dismissing best as he had the misfortune to be born thirty years before you and you, therefore, never had the opportunity to see him play. by that argument pele was rubbish as well.
3. you accept that his drinking was beyond his control yet still suggest that his death was "in a way" suicide? does that mean a skydiver who's parachute fails is "in a way" committing suicide?

OK I lose.

Being from the same part of the world, I'm not neutral but there was no-one better IMHO.

RicheyJames wrote:i think it is fairer to see alcholism as a disease

I've never really understood that theory. Surely it's an addiction like cigartettes or heroin? A disease is something that you catch or acquire against your will and have no physical capacity to fight, isn't it? Seems to me alcoholism is something you choose not to fight due to low self-esteem or something you decide to embrace cos it makes life more bearable. Either way, it don't make you a footballing legend.

I hope everyone is sitting down.................I don't actually have an opinion about this. I can see both sides of the argument and I fecking hate it!!

I'm leaning more towards Francis' point about diseases though but.

Francis wrote:

RicheyJames wrote:i think it is fairer to see alcholism as a disease

I've never really understood that theory. Surely it's an addiction like cigartettes or heroin? A disease is something that you catch or acquire against your will and have no physical capacity to fight, isn't it? Seems to me alcoholism is something you choose not to fight due to low self-esteem or something you decide to embrace cos it makes life more bearable.

i think the problem is one of definitions. "alcoholism" is a rather vague term and certainly one with no specific diagnostic criteria. from a medical point of view it tends to be split into two distinct categories of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. i would suggest that what you describe is the former whilst what i was focussing on (and believe the late mr best suffered from) is the latter. the main difference is that there is a physiological element to alcohol dependence which has the effect of removing the "physical capacity to fight" the addiction. to suggest that alcoholics either choose not to fight or actively embrace their problems is at best trite and at worst plain offensive to those who have lost loved ones in this way.

Either way, it don't make you a footballing legend.

agreed. on the other hand it doesn't stop you being one either.

I was referring to dependence. Why is alcohol dependence considered different to nicotine or heroin dependence? Dependence is something that happens gradually. An alcoholic doesn't become one overnight. He knows what's happending and has the power to stop it at any time. Yeah, it may get harder and harder as the physical and psychological dependence increases, but it can't be a 'disease' if all you have to do is stop to 'cure' it. Seems to me calling it such just gives him an excuse not to stop ('it's not my fault') and an acceptable rational to those who care ('it's not cos he doesn't love me enough').

Francis wrote:I was referring to dependence. Why is alcohol dependence considered different to nicotine or heroin dependence?

because it has a different physiology?

Dependence is something that happens gradually. An alcoholic doesn't become one overnight. He knows what's happending and has the power to stop it at any time.

bollocks. this may well be true of alcohol abuse but at the point where someone has become clinically dependent they are powerless to stop without intervention.

Yeah, it may get harder and harder as the physical and psychological dependence increases, but it can't be a 'disease' if all you have to do is stop to 'cure' it.

but that implies that it is the drinking itself which is the disease rather than the need or compulsion to drink. how do you stop that compulsion? you might as well say that sufferers of clinical depression should "just snap out of it." furthermore, alcoholism cannot be "cured" it can only ever be treated and controlled.

Now you're just laying a smoke screen because you know you're wrong. Every alcoholic is well aware of the ultimate consequences continuing to feed their dependence. Thus, they are choosing to die prematurely. A bitter man might say that calling it a disease is an affront to the millions suffering from cancer, HIV, altzheimer's etc. But I drink Stella.

Francis wrote:Now you're just laying a smoke screen because you know you're wrong. Every alcoholic is well aware of the ultimate consequences continuing to feed their dependence. Thus, they are choosing to die prematurely. A bitter man might say that calling it a disease is an affront to the millions suffering from cancer, HIV, altzheimer's etc. But I drink Stella.

it is entirely true that every alcoholic is aware that without treatment their disease will almost certainly kill them. indeed a subjective awareness of their condition is one of the clinical criteria which define alcohol dependence. where your argument continues to fall down is in your insistence that alcoholics choose to drink. they do not. they are compelled to do so. merely re-iterating your view that alcoholism is some sort of lifestyle choice does not make the argument any less fallacious. if you could point me to a single medical opinion supporting your view i might be able to take it a little more seriously.

Francis wrote:Every alcoholic is well aware of the ultimate consequences continuing to feed their dependence. Thus, they are choosing to die prematurely.

When they started drinking they chose when they did and didn't drink, but once you're hooked its not your decision anymore.

An addiction is a state of physiological or psychological dependence on a drug liable to have a damaging effect.

When you're dependent on something you don't really have a choice, do you.

The American Medical Association defines both alcoholism and drug dependence (including nicotine addiction--in fact, the AMA "encourages physicians who treat patients with alcohol problems to be alert to the high probability of co-existing nicotine problems") as treatable diseases.

In their Brief Intervention literature, the AMA encourages medical professionals to emphasize the patient’s responsibility for changing drinking behavior, and to convey confidence in the patient’s ability to change drinking behavior. Alcoholics are not powerless to stop drinking, just as drug addicts and smokers are not powerless; they are in fact the only ones with the power to fight the dependency. It feeds into the larger issue of addictive/obsessive personalities, I suppose. Yes, alcoholics are compelled to drink, and will always be alcoholics even if they stop drinking, but it's their choice not to take a drink no matter how badly they want or need it. The dependency is still there, as it is with smoking and other drug addictions, they've just chosen not to give into it on that particular day. That's AA in a nutshell for you.

To take all power or responsbility for drinking out of the alcoholic's or a drug addict's hands is to pronounce the disease untreatable (short of the strapping poor kid to a table in a white room for the rest of his or her life). After all, the only requirement for membership in Alcoholics Anonymous is a desire to stop drinking on the part of the alcoholic. That's a choice.

Click on Definitions

Scroll down and click on Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much

AA

Well that was a fun way to kill the morning! Reeeesearch...

Thankyou CP. Looks like one each then. I still think the term 'disease' is at best misleading.

I agree, but I think the term itself is used to combat the stigma of addiction, as well as to define the chronic compulsion/predisposition aspect. Something the public can understand easily and possibly relate to.

I am keeping score, by the way...

CorpPunk wrote:The American Medical Association

Now we're getting somewhere. I've always thought this alcoholism as a disease business smacks of a certain States-led mentality.

While the physiology of addiction to different "drugs" may vary, I find it fairly obvious that it's all variations on the same theme, and I think the point that CP touched on about addictive/obsessive personalities is very relevant. That is the disease, if anything.

Mr. Wah wrote:

CorpPunk wrote:The American Medical Association

Now we're getting somewhere. I've always thought this alcoholism as a disease business smacks of a certain States-led mentality.

Ah yes, of course. I didn't have to wait long for someone to pick that one out.

Makes no difference to me, as all I ever knew about football was just an excuse for hatred or bigotry in some disguise or another.

Zuma wrote:Makes no difference to me, as all I ever knew about football was just an excuse for hatred or bigotry in some disguise or another.

and often not a very good disguise.

And as often it's got nothing to do with it.

nick the stripper wrote:

Francis wrote:Every alcoholic is well aware of the ultimate consequences continuing to feed their dependence. Thus, they are choosing to die prematurely.

When they started drinking they chose when they did and didn't drink, but once you're hooked its not your decision anymore.

Think that's very right. And the difference between drinking and eg. smoking is that about everyone has a beer/wine/whatever every now and then when they go out, which people don't see as a bad habit that'll hook you rightaway. Whereas when you start smoking, I think, you'd be far better 'informed' on the risk of getting hooked, and the chance of stopping is quite a bit less from your one on...

Probably more alcoholics just start as 'leisure drinkers' and fall into addiction without realising, and obviously when you do realise you're hooked, you're too far gone...