Women in short supply in the Liberal Party
Jason King writes: Re. “Where are the women in the Liberal Party?” (yesterday). Stephen Luntz’s article does seem to put a spotlight on one of the elephants in the room when it comes to the Coalition’s talent in Parliament. One thing he doesn’t mention though is that all five of the women in the shadow ministry were lawyers of sorts before entering into politics. So a narrow pool is in fact narrower than it seems.
James Tiffin writes: Re. “Down Under, the red carpet was rolled out for Armstrong” (yesterday). I wonder if they will get around to holding Lance Armstrong’s medical support team responsible for their expert role in this affair?
It strikes me that if Lance’s medical team are also publicly “de-frocked/relieved of their rewards” for their role in what is essentially a multi-million-dollar fraud over several years, we might go a bit further to removing this problem of drug-cheating from high-profile sport.
Otherwise … perhaps we could introduce two categories of sport from here on: “drug free” and “drug assisted”, and let the cheats compete openly and let them “just do it”. The sight of a 200 kilogram monster-‘roids cyclist booming through the stages of the Tour de France until his oxen-sized heart bursts through the front of his chest, will still get a TV audience (and sell product), just like “WWF” does. Perhaps here’s a chance for expanding the demographics of cycling fans ?
Tom Richman writes: Assuming that all professional cyclists are on the same drugs, doesn’t that mean there’s a level playing field of sorts?