Entertainment desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 30[edit]

Doping[edit]

Is it true that Paavo Nurmi was a doper? (Reliable sources please -- not Snopes.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a WP:RS on that:

Services, From Times Wire (13 December 1990). "THE SIDELINES : Nurmi's Drug Use in '20s Noted". Los Angeles Times.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4BF:6AED:D301:8167 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes is good at debunking urban legends and the like. Regarding Nurmi, it's interesting that he was essentially advertising it. Like nobody thought it was any big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the era in which Nurmi competed (ca 1920–1934), nobody did. Use of what we now call "recreational" and "performance enhancing" drugs was generally legal (allowing that worldwide, there was some variation) and quite widespread both in everyday life and in sport. With the exception of one particular athletics governing body ((I can't now re-find the reference), performance enhancing drugs had not yet been ruled illicit and were used openly: the medical attitude seems to have been "we know that in some cases this could be dangerous, but you are free to do it on your own responsibility."

These attitudes, laws and sporting regulations were gradually changing over the period, but Nurmi appears not to have been in any violation of such regulations (which generally seem to have been brought in some time after WW2, but our various relevant articles, such as Doping in sport, are unclear on the dating – room for clarification here). He does not appear in any of the relevant Lists (for example: List of doping cases in athletics).

The controversy that embroiled Nurmi was over professionalism: he was alleged to have secretly received some payments for a few races, which was utterly forbidden for amateur (including Olympic) competitors. (This was still the case during my own adolescence, when, for example, illicit "boot money" payments for Rugby Union players was a major issue.) The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The iron grip that Avery Brundage and the like held over athletes started to relax as soon as Brundage croaked. However, the advent of compensation would also have incentivized athletes to dope. So instead of trying to control professionalism, now they try to control doping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but what is the current thinking as to whether Snopes is a reliable source? If there is a discussion of this elsewhere on Wikipedia, please direct me there. John M Baker (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes is a bit of a grey area. The main objection people have to Snopes is usually that it is amateur and not corporatized the way mainstream media is; it's basically run by one married couple. There thus could be seen as a lack of editorial control; it is basically a two-person "wiki". On the flipside, it is very well referenced in the way that a feature-quality Wikipedia article is. Just like FA-level Wikipedia articles, as noted at Snopes.com#Accuracy, the site regularly ranks highly for its fair-handedness, comprehensiveness, and most importantly, in citing its own sources. So, would I consider Snopes a proper "citation" for a Wikipedia article? No, but only for the same reason I wouldn't consider one Wikipedia article (even an FA) to be a WP:RS for citing text in Wikipedia. On the other hand, their consistently high rankings, comprehensiveness, and well-cited articles make it a fine source for the reference desks because anyone can follow up on their conclusions there. That is, Snopes gives you its sources to check yourself, just as a good Wikipedia article does. For the same reason, insofar as we would direct someone to a well written Wikipedia article as a starting point for their research, Snopes is a good starting point for research. No person should EVER look for ANY answer to ANY question EVER by seeking a single authority; but Snopes is as good a place as any to start research because they cite their sources. --Jayron 32 18:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Snopes is that it isn't just "Snopes." It is a collection of editors. You will see that every article ends with the author. Some are very good. They find resources and implement critical thinking in a very effective manner. Others, such as Dan Evon, are terrible. Take an example that is easy Hillary Clinton in Blackface. Everyone knows that it isn't actually the Clintons. What proof does Evon give? It can't be real because nobody published it until now. When heavily criticized, he added that Hillary's eyes are not brown and included a few old photos of the Clintons. In the current state, I still wouldn't consider that a reliable resource as it is still proving a point by asking a question. Therefore, Snopes is reliable article by article, not as a whole. 47.49.128.58 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true of any source. I wouldn't cite the Op-Ed section of even the most well-respected newspaper for statements of fact; because editorials are not the same thing as journalism. --Jayron 32 15:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life insurance for formula 1 (and other motor racing) drivers[edit]

As an aspiring financial planner, I was looking at the underwriting rates for various occupations for life insurance (as in, how much they charge over the standard premiums due to a person being in a high-risk occupation). The highest risk-rated occupation, from what I could see, was motor racing. If a formula 1 driver wants a life or TPD (total and permanent disability) insurance policy from a standard insurer which will cover him from death in a motor accident on the track (be it competition racing or training), he or she is going to be paying an absolute fortune in premiums. And for TPD insurance, they may just be deemed "uninsurable".

My question then is, given that standard life and total-and-permanent disability insurance is pretty much nonviable, do formula 1 drivers (and drivers in other motor sports) have a clause in their contract with their racing team, under which the team they race for effectively insures them itself (commits itself to a million-dollar-plus sum to the injured driver, or the dead driver's family), in the event of a driver dying or becoming permanently disabled due to an accident behind the wheel? (I assume that rich teams like Ferrari and Mercedes could well afford such a commitment - it's small beer in the scale of their overall budget - but I'm not sure about smaller "minnow" teams, the "also-rans"). Or would the driver or his team have some sort of specialised insurance from an insurance firm? Eliyohub (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blog posting (which says it originally appeared in F1-centred Paddock Magazine) gives some details of the insurance for individual drivers. This story talks about the organisers of each race having to take out a $100M policy (which presumably covers lots of things, including injuries to spectators, marshals, officials, etc. - it's not specific about whether team members are covered too), in addition to F1 Group's own insurance. And this report about the fallout from Williams team officials being criminally prosecuted in Italy over the death of Ayrton Senna says "they do not want to race in a country where an accident can lead to criminal charges - and they cannot get insurance to cover the possibility" - that implies (at least to me) that they do have insurance to cover civil liabilities. Clearly F1, and especially F1 drivers, is an unusual, and unusually dangerous, business, so obviously it would require specialist insurance, and with high risks and high costs then surely premiums and deductables will be high, but I don't think this makes motorsport participants in general, and F1 drivers particularly, completely uninsurable. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's by definition impossible to get insurance against getting locked up. Fines and lawyers' fees are another matter. Your response is helpful, though others may be able to add more. Ayrton Senna's case is somewhat unusual, as there was negligence in the modifications to the car, as opposed to the inherent risk of a fatal or crippling accident. Almost nothing is "uninsurable" as long as the risk can be calculated, and the insurance company has the resources to cover the payout. Nuclear power plants are an exception, as insurance firms would lack the resources for the billion dollar payouts an incident could involve, unlikely though such an incident could be. My question is, do the teams cover the payout to the driver themselves in the event that they die or suffer a TPD, or do they have specialist insurance?

Also, how much was Ayrton Senna's family paid? Do we know? Our article doesn't seem to cover any details on compensation or insurance payouts related to his death. Eliyohub (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not an RS but has some figures and a search finds they may come from [2] whichs says there are rumours Ayrton Senna had a life insurance of $19 million, Williams has an insurance against the loss of their drivers of $6 million and Rothmans insurance of $12 million. Tbere is no info on any possible additional compensation paid by Williams due Senna's next of kin perhaps due to any possible negligence. (The source is from not long after the accident.) Nil Einne (talk)