@eamonn7
People may be a little more inclined to take the slightest notice of your own childish nonsense if your spelling and grammar were not so abominable. It actually requires two or three readings to even understand what you are saying in your single sentence (which is lacking in any suitable punctuation and should at least have been split into two sentences, as there are two separate subjects). Given that there are spelling and grammar checks built in to most computers so you don't even have to rely purely on your own proof reading, you really have to work at sounding so, well....dim!
How about you quit your ignorant insults of a culture about which you clearly know nothing; and the rest of us won't insult your culture. Oh, that's right - no one else on the thread HAS stooped to such insults when they couldn't otherwise make a decent argument for their position - only you.
There has never been any real evidence of bribery - who are the 'they' you speak of? The whole AB team? As that's what it would take. There has however been evidence - plenty of it - that the AB team were ill, apparently from food poisoning; but there is no evidence as to whether that was deliberate or an unfortunate accident, so all the discussion around that point is purely speculative, and a waste of time as nothing could be proven at the time, never mind so many years later.
I watched the coverage at the time (live telecast - getting up at some ungodly hour in NZ to do so), and there WAS mention at the time of the ABs being ill (although I can't honestly remember who said it). The recorded versions that are still available to watch are obtained from different sources, depending which countries filmed the footage from which these versions were obtained (as there were a variety of different cameras, filming from all angles). They are also not necessarily the complete original footage broadcast (in whichever country), regardless of source - they are all edited to some degree or another. So to watch one and say there was no evidence of illness among the ABs based on just that is frankly naive.
There are comments here about only believing 'official' footage - anything released (such as on DVD etc) is even more likely to be edited, to make a good product, so is unreliable as your only source of 'evidence'. An editor is hardly likely to leave in footage of players vomiting on the sidelines, rather than footage of what was happening on the field at the time! And again - from what source do you consider the 'official' footage should come? It is clearly impossible to know exactly what happened based only on film publicly available 20 years after the event.
Maybe the ABs would have won if members of the team were not ill; maybe they wouldn't. As it is, the Springboks played well, and the victory had meaning for them beyond just a rugby game, so surely that's not a bad thing?
Get over yourself eamonn7, and do try and grow up a bit before you come back to play with the big kids!
reply
share