Talk about a knee jerk reaction.
Hmmm. I don’t know. Kennett has made some outright pathetic, offensive and misinformed comments about cross sections of our community.
It’s not unreasonable to be keeping him honest on these sorts of outlandish opinions.
But those past comments have nothing to do with this topic
Beats me how Larkins qualified as a Doctor. He justs loves throwing in these obscure “facts”, about hormones and ligaments. I reckon he is a very selective reader of research, and lots the bits that suits his agenda.
Women have been doing ACLs for a long time playing sport just like men. Netball is a great killer of knees and tennis and squash also have had their share of such injury.
Agree with that. I’ve thought he’s shown a lack of understanding in the past but I really don’t think on what I heard today that he was showing such insensitivity. He holds legitimate safety concerns for participants in AFLW & outlined why. It’s ok to disagree with his view but I’m not convinced it was necessary to go down the track that it was steered.
Kennett’s been around long enough to recognise a coward asking a coward’s question.
“What do you think of what other people think of you?” is how you ask the question you want to ask but don’t have the guts to come out and ask it directly.
Kennett knew exactly what the question was and who was asking.
That gutless coward Whately.
I get it that most of the players in opposition clubs, commentators, “experts” and footy administrators are regarded as “flogs” by footy fans. Larkins himself was an olympic athlete, perhaps thats why he is involved in sports medicine rather than being a proctologist.
I agree in that up until the point that he became argumentative, JK represented his view well and it appeared researched and plausible. The question from GW was then reasonable as there is significant commentary on JK’s view as misogynistic as he has voiced them previously.
Never trust a doctor, a psychologist, a lawyer, or any other professional person in a high paying profession who is a talking head. If they were any good, they would spend all their time actually practicing their profession where there is real money to be made.
Disagree completely. I don’t believe that GW thinks JK a misogynist in any form. However many do and question his views on female sport because of this. It was quite reasonable for GW to raise it as many of his audience probably think it. Coward?
Disagree. It plays the man (so to speak) rather than the ball.
We end up avoiding the complexity and sensitivity of the issue because we choose instead to make our goal the discrediting of the messenger.
Long bow to draw to say the GW was trying to discredit the messenger. He was asking a question that a portion of his audience (not me) want an answer to as they believe that JK’s views on injuries to female sport players are outdated.
Kennett is an obnoxious bully, who has spent his life telling others what to think.
Might just as well say never trust a salesman.
You’d think he was a liberal party member or something.
Even the great Gerard Whately has in the past shown an ability to put across his own opinions (see interview with Brent Prismsal) by the way he phrases a question etc.
Dont know why anyone shld care what he thinks or says, has as much relevance as a viewers twitter comment during MKR
Fair enough. I’ve never been a particular fan of GW but I do think his show is much better than anything SEN has done for a long while and he interviews well and is very knowledgeable. I just disagree with the way a few detailed the way the interview played out. I too still suffer saga scars.
Respectfully disagree. The discussion was on his views of AFLW players injury rates. I don’t think it was necessary for GW to take the conversation down that path and can fully understand why JK was offended by it.
FWIW, I don’t think JK “went ape” as suggested earlier, I’d say he defended his position & made GW aware he felt offended by his use of such words. I don’t think anyone wishes such words to be associated with their character, hence, fully understand why he was offended.
All good, different viewpoints. Good discussion.