Tom Waterhouse Is Not Your Friend

When it comes to advertising, I'm of the firm opinion that a fool and his money are soon parted (it certainly happens to me more often than not). It's not that I'm unaware of the pernicious power of advertising, but that influence is not the same as determination, and I fully endorse putting more responsibility on individuals to make up their own minds. In other words, banning is merely a cover-up for a failure in education.

I really don't have strong feelings towards live odds being part of a broadcast. And as far as targeting problem gamblers, to me it would make more sense to fight for sensible poker machine legislation. Unfortunately, there's not enough political will to overcome the clubs, but there does seem to be enough political will to overcome Tom Waterhouse.

Since Aussie rules is my winter sport of choice, my exposure to Tom Waterhouse has been limited to ads and news stories. But it is the ads I want to talk about, because I think they warrant the heuristic of the title - "Tom Waterhouse is not your friend".

What distinguishes Tom's ads from other ads is how personal me makes it. When I first saw his ads last year, he used his insider knowledge as a credential to be the best source for gambling. This struck me as odd as I wasn't sure just how that insider knowledge would help the punter (the fallacy of the dubious advantage), but now I've come to realise it's part of making Tom Waterhouse seem personal. It's not a business, it's his business - a very important psychological distinction.

It's a clever strategy, but a psychologically misleading one. There's no meaningful difference between Samuel L Jackson being a celebrity spokesperson for bet365 (their slogan should be "Gambling motherfucker, do you do it?"), nor is there any meaningful distinction between Tom Waterhouse and a mouthpiece. So when Tom advertises that he's willing to give money back when the scores are within a goal, how good this deal is depends solely on the odds are relative to other gambling companies.

On one level, all this is fairly obvious. We know that it's another business, and that it's appearances. But the thing to remember about cognitive biases is how they distort our thinking. Even with conscious knowledge, our biases are still present in our cognition. It's why it helps to remember that Tom Waterhouse is not your friend, as the presentation of the company is geared around the personality behind it.

If one is still sceptical, just remember that the whole reason you see Tom Waterhouse on TV is that he's able to buy advertising space with the profits he makes from you. Would a friend do that?

Lance Armstrong Is The Victim Of A Conspiracy!!!

Lance Armstrong was to go down in history as the greatest athlete in the history of humanity. If he were born in another age, we'd learn about the demigod he would no doubt have been come to be recognised as. Instead, in our cynical sensationalistic time, driven by a corrupt media and the insatiable desire to destroy all that is good, his name has been driven through the mud.

I didn't see his "confession" on Oprah (obviously you use Oprah because she's not going to ask the tough questions), but I'm sure it wasn't really him. It's obviously a stunt double, and you can tell it's not him because he looks nothing like the real Lance. This is an actor who people see as Lance because they want to see him as Lance. There's some serious schadenfreude going on, stemming from the jealously that they are all too fat, ugly, and stupid to even know how to ride a bike.

And it's that jealousy that has driven those absurd accusations against him. All those other riders, the dopers who couldn't touch Lance even when cheating themselves, have to make up stories about the one clean rider who embarrassed those cheaters time and time again. Are we really meant to take the word of cheating cheats who lied about cheating? They are self-confessed liars and cheaters! Hence their word is worthless.

Since there is no real evidence against Lance, this witch-hunt is wrong. To strip away the greatness from the greatest sportsman in history is the greatest injustice our society has ever done! Lance Armstrong passed all his drug tests - FACT. Lance Armstrong was never caught using or with drugs - FACT. Everyone testifying against him is a self-confessed liar or being threatened by the US Government - FACT. The only FACT we can take away from this is the FACT that the facts don't add up.

The media even admits it themselves. In trying to account for the overwhelming absurdity of their own conspiracy, they admit that this would have to be the most elaborate doping conspiracy in the history of sport. Absurd!!! Might as well allege that Lance was bribing other racers too. Hah! What does the media take us for?

We shouldn't stand for this! Those of us who care about the Truth should stand up for Lance Armstrong. His only crime was being the best, and those who hate that fact have ruined his reputation. They may take away his records, they may take away his Olympic bronze medal, they may his prize-money, but they can NEVER take away his TRUE greatness.

The Offside Rule... In Coin Form

A coin that explains the offside rule in football produced to commemorate the London Olympic Games has sparked criticism for getting the offside rule wrong. Except it doesn't. Reading the referee criticism, they've made an elaborate technical point about a rule change made in 1995 and that the coin would be misleading. The only problem is that the coin doesn't say that at all. Take a look for yourselves.

Nowhere on this coin does it suggest passing to either player would make it offside. Indeed, I think the most reasonable interpretation is that it's saying that if you passed to one player it would be offside while passing to the other player wouldn't be.

In other words, the coin got it right! To quote the designer of the coin:

With all due respect, I reject Mal Davies's interpretation of the coin (rather than his interpretation of the offside law). Nowhere on the coin does it say that the 'offside' player is committing an offence – that is a supposition entirely of Mal's creation.

The coin simply states that the player is 'offside' – which is true, irrespective of whether or not an 'offside offence' results from this scenario. Furthermore, there are clearly space limitations on the coinface so it was obviously impossible to go into the finer details of the offside rule.

I think this incident highlights an important point. If you're going to mouth off about something, it's first a good thing to check that it's not you who has misinterpreted the information at hand. A simple rule of thumb to follow is that if there's a charitable and uncharitable way of interpreting what was said, it's probably best to give the benefit of the doubt and take the charitable option.

Unique To Humanity

There was a great article in New Scientist early last year on humanity and it's place in nature. As far as unique behavioural patterns go, sport was one of the few human endeavours that is so far unmatched in nature. The abstract organisation of competition under specified rules is something humans do, and it's a great means of enjoyment whether participating or watching.

Last night I went to an ice hockey match and immediately I felt at home. If it weren't for the fact that everyone is speaking Finnish I could have sworn I was at a sporting event in Australia. The vocal fans, the dedicated opposition supporters, the tribal colours, overpriced beer, advertising everywhere, cheerleaders (It must have been cold to be in such short skirts while dancing on the ice), constant advertising, even the chants where almost identical.

If anyone were to ask me what the universal constant of humanity is, sport would be my suggestion. The obvious tribalism at the very core of conflict, yet the spirit of fair play (though it's stretched slightly when one can smash another into the barrier of the rink) embodies what humanity is to me. The need for competition, to show one is better than another, for the chance for fans to live vicariously through the achievements of their team, yet at the end of it to shake hands is paramount to the human condition.

The game itself was quite scrappy for periods of time, the first two periods showed a few moments of brilliance but a rhythm couldn't be established. Plenty of goals though, it was 3-2 to the home team going into the final third. Then the game came alive and it felt more like a spectacle. 4-4 it finished in regulation time, and despite gaining a penalty in overtime, the home team couldn't convert and the game went to penalties. The shootout was miss after miss, but the away team finally got one in and they deservedly won the game. I was on the edge of my seat for the very end, that tense feeling I get watching football (soccer) was the same for this.

Even without knowing all the rules, I could get into the spirit of the game. What was happening was fairly easy to deduce, though occasionally I had to ask what was exactly going on. I didn't understand why the players rotated every couple of minutes or why some of the fouls were called, but that confusion didn't impair the enjoyment in the slightest. Sport is a wonderful expression of human nature.