.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Shane Warne's private difficulties, says this report, has cost him one at least of his jobs -- Channel 9 has axed him from its commentators' lineup, after a 11-year-long association.
Raises, anew, the debate about the private lives of public personalities. Is a sports star supposed to be a champion on his preferred field of play, or does he also have to possess the moral fibre of a Mahatma Gandhi? If yes, why?
We fans don't pay good money and put our butts in seats to watch Warne because we think he is a wonderful husband and father, surely? Or tune in to his commentary because listening to him will make us all better men and women?
And we will not watch him on the field -- or listen to his take on the game -- any less avidly because he had sex with a consenting female?
Yet, his private peccadilloes have resulted in public disgrace. So where, really, is the line drawn? Who draws it? And above all, why do sportspeople have to be models of all that is proper? Questions you guys might want to bend your minds around...
PS: Been a long day... am calling it one. Over and out for the day, see you guys tomorrow. :-)


Post a Comment

<< Home