Presentation Training - Why Are You Here?

You walk up to the dais, you know why you’re there; you’re there to give a presentation. You’ve edited, pared down and you’ve prepared and prepared and prepared. You know what you’re going to say and you say it…

And yet, everyone still looks bored.

How can this be?

Do you lack charisma?

Is there something about you that’s just dull?

No, you’ve made one of the most common mistakes in presentation; you forgot to think about the audience.

Why are the audience there? Here are a few of the common reasons.

·         They’ve been told to be there.

·         They’ve come to hear bad news.

·         It’s all part of a new initiative; that they don’t like.

·         They NEED to be there but would rather not be.

·         They’re marking time before the keynote speaker that they WANT to see.

·         They feel obliged because you’re a client.

·         They feel obliged because they couldn’t tell you face to face that they don’t want your product and they’re stringing you along before telling you that the budget (that wasn’t there in the first place) has been cut.

·         They want the CPD points.

·         They want to be proved right and given the ammunition to go back to their workplaces and tell management that they were right all along

·         It was free and it gave them a legitimate day off.

·         They want to learn something.

The list could go on.

Without thinking about the reasons that your audience is there, your presentation will always be just about good enough, but never great.

When you’re putting your presentation together thing about the majority of the audience, put them in to context, and try to take your ego out of the equation.

It’s very difficult to be honest with yourself when (chances are), they’re not there to see you speak… or at least, that’s not the whole reason they’re there.

Presentation Training - Telling Tales.

The human brain is a remarkable thing.

It takes in information at a phenomenal rate and then forgets most of it.

Our eyes see that we’ve put our car keys on the table, our brain registers that information pops it in to short term storage and we then think about cake.

Mmmmm cake…

After a few moments thinking about cake our brains return to the problem of where the car keys are and… nope, it’s gone. It never made it into the, you know, thingy, the bit that does the whatsit…

So why do some things stay and some things go?

One of the ways that our brains have evolved is through the creation and understanding of stories.

Stories have given Homo-sapiens an advantage over other animals. Animals with higher brain function (not worms and jellyfish) learn from experience, they do something, get hurt or scared or have a positive reaction and they learn from it. Even goldfish will learn to take food at specific times from specific places; they learn that there will be a positive outcome of their actions.

We don’t bother with that, we just tell each other.

For example “my friend ate that berry and was very ill, so now we don’t eat that berry” or “I just killed a tiger, and this is how I did it.” The primitive human group now stops getting poisoned and stops getting eaten by tigers.

Brilliant.

Our brains crave stories, we look for them when they aren’t there, we build coincidence to explain difficult statistics, we create religion to explain living together, we write novels and screenplays and lie about things.

We need context and narrative to remember… it’s what our brains were built for.

Humans ARE stories.

So why has that presentation just been information?

The list of figures goes in and falls straight back out again.

So what can you do to be memorable?

• ·         Build a narrative around your information, why is it there, why is it important, what lead to this, what does it mean for me.
• 
  
• ·         Give your information context
• 
  
• ·         Think about your beginning, middle and end.

The audience is looking for all of these things, and needs these things otherwise they won’t remember why you were there in the first place.

Presentation Training - PowerPoint is not your friend.

PowerPoint has killed the art of presentation.

That’s a bold statement, but it has truth in it.

Look at some of the great orators, some of the great movie scenes, some of the most inspiring speeches ever given; do they have a large PowerPoint slide behind them?

No, no they don’t.

Think of Alec Baldwin in ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ what would that scene have looked like with a PowerPoint presentation? Yes he does have a black board with a couple of acronyms but he certainly doesn’t have a sophisticated set of slides. No, he just has a sophisticated way of swearing… and brass balls.

PowerPoint is a very powerful tool… but that’s what it is, it’s a tool.

The problem is it’s a seductive creature that allows you to make things appear and fly out and fade and wipe and appear and whirl off into the distance and jump sideways and change colour and and and….

It’s remarkable how many people in business think that PowerPoint will do their job for them.

It’s remarkable how many people in business complain about boring PowerPoint presentations and don’t recognise their own cognitive dissonance.

‘I can’t stop using slides…’ you say. ‘I have too much information to get across…’ you say.

I’m not demanding that PowerPoint should be thrown out; what I am saying is use PowerPoint properly.

• ·         One thought per slide.
• ·         If it can be said with an image then say it with an image.
• ·         Be visual.
• ·         Keep text to a minimum.

Let PowerPoint be the back-up for what you’re saying, the added impact to reinforce your presentation…

PowerPoint is the tool, not you.

Presentation Training - Eye Contact

I am British, I don’t know the name of the person who lives next door, I don’t like to be touched, I am reserved and polite.

I have been introduced to people on my first day at work, forgotten their name, and been too British to ask again. When I left that job, I still wasn’t sure what their names were.

However, one thing that sets me apart from most of the British is that I’m really good at eye contact.

When someone is speaking I look them in the eye and I listen, when I’m telling someone something important I look them in the eye, when I present I look around the room making eye contact with as many people as possible.

How did I develop this skill? Was I born in to a strange sub-species or communicative Brits? No, I forced myself to look people in the eye because as a journalist and radio presenter I knew that eye contact was one of the most powerful tools I could use.

If someone is listening to you, you want them to keep eye contact; it helps you gage their interest and it shows empathy. Eye contact keeps you talking, it makes you say the things that you may not have said to someone who looks away… it’s great from a journalistic point of view.

It’s also vital when you are talking.

Keeping eye contact that means that you have something worth saying, something that you believe, something that the listener needs to hear.

If you’re presenting eye contact can mean the difference between being presented at and being presented to; use sweeping contact, change the person you’re looking at as you pause or start a new sentence. If you’re posing questions look as many people in the eye as possible to show that it’s not rhetorical. Ask someone to answer directly, if they can’t move on. Invite people in to your world by looking at them.

Practice your eye contact today… just don’t stare at people on busses… that can end badly.

Presentation Training - Put The Notes Down

In 2005 a poll was conducted and its results stated that the top 5 fears in America were Terrorist Attacks, Spiders, Death, Failure and War.

Unless your latest intern is a psychotic extremist arachnid, with access to weapons grade plutonium, and a working knowledge of the geopolitical situation, you’re not going to see these things at work.

You ARE going to have to deal with the fear of failure, especially when doing something you haven’t been trained to do – Presenting.

Most business people at one time or another have to present to groups; and whether it’s to colleagues or pitching for a contract it’s one of the scariest things many people have to do.

That’s why we like notes… notes are our security blanket.

My son is four years old, and he loves his muzzy. 

His muzzy is any square of muslin cloth that he can chew on during the night. My wife and I know that he’s tired because he wants his muzzy…

He’s four years old… he’s allowed a security blanket.

You are in business… you’re not.

So what do you do?

This may sound stupid, but you put the notes down.

There is no excuse for lack of preparation, you know that you’re going to have to present so you prepare. Work out what you’re going to say with the help of notes, script if you want, and then pare back... Turn your script into sub headings and brief paragraphs, then pare back and turn your brief paragraphs into bullet points, then pare back and turn your bullet points into single words.

Throughout this process you’re still working from the ideas within the original script but you’re entering it into long term storage. Don’t worry about being word for word; this is a presentation not a play.

Once you have the single words that can guide you through the presentation place them on a single card. 

This is your tiny square of muzzy. It’s there if you need it, to re-set what you’re talking about.

Don’t forget that most of what you’re talking about is on a PowerPoint behind you, and on a screen in front of you.

How will putting your notes away help you?

It will stop you reading, it will stop you being flustered finding your place and killing the presentation; it will stop your brain abdicating the responsibility of remembering.
 Adrenaline is your friend, without your notes your brain has to do the work and recall the information it would otherwise not bother doing.

You are a professional; you’re being asked to talk about something that you know.So why do you need notes?

Take Advantage of The Phone In

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that Phone in programmes are for the insane.

Broadcasters know it, producers know it, and the listening public suspect it; because only extreme views are shared. It's like getting into a taxi and expecting a level headed discourse on the banking crisis that accepts it's partially our fault due to our acceptance of an extreme consumer society and our inability to differentiate between 'want' and 'need'.

The problem starts when a lazy producer thinks 'what's everybody talking about?' and comes up with the easy hit of 'Do you think [insert obvious shouty subject here] or [insert opposing view here] I'd love to hear what you think.'

They don't want to hear what you think, they really don't.

What they want is entertaining radio filled with opinions that get people cross and make them call some more. The full switch-board on a phone in isn't because they have asked an interesting question it's because they've asked an easy question.

So where do you come in?

Where does your business fit in with this vast swathe of lunacy?

Well, here's the thing, after a few weeks producing a phone in programme you yearn for a normal caller; a caller who doesn't have flecks of foam at the corner of their mouth. So when you receive a call from a business person who is measured and intelligent, who can use the right "journalist whispering" language, the heart beat quickens and you really want them to go on air and explain it for all the crazies out there.

The great thing for the business is that you get more exposure, you get the name out to a possible audience of hundreds of thousands and you are remembered by the producer... then the next time they need a business person who can talk fluently they know who to call.

Why Do You Need Media Training?

Join the latest seminar here - just £35 including VAT

JOURNALIST WHISPERING - WHAT THEY WANT AND HOW TO GIVE IT TO THEM.

It's another Vlog from the face of

6 Ways to avoid publicity.

I keep seeing over-optimistic blogs talking about the guaranteed ways to get your story covered by the conventional media.

It worries me; even if you follow these guides there are still things that will get in your way.

So why isn't your story featured? These are my top 6 reasons.





1) It's Too Commercial.
No one likes a 'puff' dressed up as a story. In the UK the dominant force in mass market news broadcasting is the BBC. They are a non commercial organisation and every journalist / producer / manager there has been bollocked for writing a 'puff' by accident. They are not going to do it again.

You may think that makes the commercial broadcasters and news media an easy target. No. No they really aren't. The commercial media (if it doesn't charge the users) survives by selling advertising. So why are they going to offer your commercial 'story' space when they would much prefer to charge you for the advertising instead?

2) It's Irrelevant...
...to the audience. Why would you approach an organisation that targets the over 50's with the latest trends in snowboarding?

...to the time scale. If it happened 3 days / weeks / months ago it's no longer news. (as added by @tonybraisby many thanks to him for the reminder!)

...to anyone outside your industry. Target trade press by all means but don't promise to get mass media coverage for the story about new ways to reinforce concrete.

...to anyone other than you. So many self produced press releases smell of "we're really excited about this, but we don't know how to make you excited". If you can't excite me then I'm not going to use it.

3) It's Dull.
Have you just sent information and forgotten to add a story? (see above)

4) It's political.
The BBC will not take stories with a strong political bias unless they can source someone from the other side; that issue kills stories, though it is getting better.

The commercial sector will not ally themselves to a political standpoint that differs from theirs. It's not just the feedback from the audience but also who sits on the board, who owns the organisation, who is married to the editor and who their friends are... For example, the Sun newspaper doesn't like the BBC unless the programme has been made by a Murdoch owned production company (see Masterchef). It's unlikely that you'll know any of this, your story will just be ignored.

5) They don't like you.

Not the organisation but the journalist. You've repeatedly called at the wrong time, you send emails with big attachments that crash their computers, you call the 'Pacific Ocean' the 'Specific Ocean', you never sound engaged with what you're doing, you push for too much coverage, you have unrealistic expectations, you don't know the producers name, you're attempting to be funny, you're not funny at all, you have stupid shoes, you drink mineral water with a twist, you have black rimmed 'marketing' spectacles, you don't understand that we are the powerful ones, you let us down last time, you promise things that you can't deliver, and (in the words of @dabberdave)

"you said "look at this attachment which has all the details in it" rather than copy and pasting the text of the it into the body of the email; that way when the journo is skimming through the hundreds in the inbox they don't have to waste time trying to open the thing. It will probably go straight in the waste bin"

Or, you are just very unlikeable... The story could be great, and we may pick it up from another source, but we won't give you the satisfaction.

6) Someone Else Got It Right.
There's always something else to cover. Always.

6 - a) They're Lazy.
This has been suggested by Ken Goodwin and really deserves a mention - "they might also be a lazy journo who can't see that with some creativity they could make a half decent package out of it"

So very true....

*******************
For more information and training go to JDoubleR Booking and see the current available seminar.

GLOUCESTER 30/04/12  
09.30 - 12.30 
£48 Per person including VAT

How to take advantage of the Phone-In

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that Phone in programmes are for the insane.

Broadcasters know it, producers know it, and the listening public suspect it; because only extreme views are shared. It's like getting into a taxi and expecting a level headed discourse on the banking crisis that accepts it's partially our fault due to our acceptance of an extreme consumer society and our inability to differentiate between 'want' and 'need'.

The problem starts when a lazy producer thinks 'what's everybody talking about?' and comes up with the easy hit of 'Do you think [insert obvious shouty subject here] or [insert opposing view here] I'd love to hear what you think.'

They don't want to hear what you think, they really don't.

What they want is entertaining radio filled with opinions that get people cross and make them call some more. The full switch-board on a phone in isn't because they have asked an interesting question it's because they've asked an easy question.

So where do you come in?

Where does your business fit in with this vast swathe of lunacy?

Well, here's the thing, after a few weeks producing a phone in programme you yearn for a normal caller; a caller who doesn't have flecks of foam at the corner of their mouth. So when you receive a call from a business person who is measured and intelligent, who can use the right "journalist whispering" language, the heart beat quickens and you really want them to go on air and explain it for all the crazies out there.

The great thing for the business is that you get more exposure, you get the name out to a possible audience of hundreds of thousands and you are remembered by the producer... then the next time they need a business person who can talk fluently they know who to call.

For more on "Journalist Whispering" Join the seminar.

£55 per person including VAT (£44 excluding)
09.30 - 12.30, Thursday the 15th of March.
Gloucestershire Enterprise Training Centre, Twigworth Court Business Centre, Twigworth. GL2 9PG

Email for more detail via info@jdoubler.co.uk

Hitting The Rocks.

Minister for Bitches and Dealers

This isn't the first time that an artist will complain about the use of their art in a political setting and it won't be the last. Primal Scream, who I last danced to in a dark club in Portrush* in about 1994, have got a little pissy with the Conservative Party for using their song 'Rocks' as a buffer to Teresa May's speech.

There are two problems with this. Firstly 'Primal Scream' have produced a public work of art and how people use it after it's out there is just tough; as long as the right money was being paid then all well and good. If I as a radio presenter used 'Rocks' as a trail bed for, say, a story on kidney stones as long as I paid the correct royalties I could. 'Primal Scream' just grow a pair and deal with it.

Secondly, have you read the lyrics to 'Rocks'?

'Dealers keep dealin'

Thieves keep thievin'

Whores keep whorin'

Junkies keep scorin'

Trade is in the meet rack

Strip joints full of hunchbacks

Bitches keep bitchin'

Clap just keeps itchin'

That's the first verse... Theresa May is the Home Secretary and if you're not familiar with the remits of cabinet jobs here is one of her main areas of work POLICING well as long as the thieves keep thievin' we'll be all right will we?

She also has control of illegal drug classification and policy but still as long as the Junkies keep scorin'...

Did I mention that she's also Minister For Women and Equality? Well that covers the whores who apparently 'keep whorin' and I assume the bitches that 'keep bitchin'.

Leaving aside the anger from a left wing band who were never going to be happy about use of their song for anything other than a socialist rally, what were the Conservative party thinking? It's a big counter culture anthem that, when I was still young enough to dance to it, spoke of a grim underbelly that we could all somehow want to be part of but enjoyed being protected from. Like any good rock song it's about the things that we fantasize about and expect our rock stars to be indulging in (rock stars and Charlie Sheen).

Please, if anyone is reading this that has any ability to influence the Conservative party advisor, can you just stick to things like 'Jerusalem' and the theme from 'Van Der Valk' when you're choosing music for your conference, it's innofensive, rousing and won't land you in the sticky stuff.

Sooooooooooo, here's the thing. It appears that it wasn't 'Primal Scream' at all, it was in fact 'Bohemian Like You' by the Dandy Warhols. It's all about the riff, it was mistaken by the band and even those who heard it, thought it was something else once Primal Scream complained. What a tricksy old world. 


Thank goodness for that eh? 


It's only about sleeping on peoples floors, and having lots of casual sex.


Phew...

* I went to university in Northern Ireland

Council Vs. Journalist

There are few things that get journalists angrier than Local Councils / Councillors (possibly the thought of having their pension changed just edges it) there is that 'heart sink' moment when you find out that you have to interview a local councillor because there is the immediate thought that they will be either slippery or dull.

Journalists don't like slippery or dull.

So what do I mean by 'slippery'?

It's more than avoiding the question, it's more than just putting the party line on an issue, it's even more than a terrible habit of using stupid phrases like 'increasing public involvement' or 'stakeholder awareness' it also covers a need to answer questions that they don't know the answer to... it's a need to be right, no matter what the cost.

Some of these difficulties can be ironed out quite easily with a greater sense of self awareness the last couple however have the potential to break any relationship that a councillor wants to build with a journalist or media outlet. No one wants to see or hear someone make stuff up on the spot but it happens with representatives of councils more than others. I'm talking with 16 years experience of interviewing councillors; there are some that have an inability to say "I don't know".

It's simple isn't it, just 3 words (including a contraction) that can be the difference between success and failure  Success in this case is trust. Why trust a representative and by extension an organisation that isn't telling the truth?

Trust is ephemeral and delicate and very easily killed.

When a councillor says 'I don't know' it needs to be followed with 'but I'll certainly find out.' and possibly even '...by the end of the programme' it shows that you're treating the audience as adults, that you trust them, that you know what you're doing.

The journalist will accept that as an answer but if you don't supply the answer later all hell will break loose.

Don't expect this to work every time; there is a danger of appearing ill informed and certainly don't expect it to work if you are, for example, Cabinet member with responsibility for council housing and you don't know how many houses there are... that's just incompetence.

The other big problem is the need to be right. All politicians suffer from this. It's all down to the adversarial nature of politics in this country. Very little gets done in partnership, things have to be argued out and not everyone can be right. Right is even a subjective word. You need to embrace 'wrong'.

There is a great fear of wrong as wrong implies fault. If you admit that you were wrong then is there a possibility of legal action? Will people think that I am incompetent? Will my career ever survive?

Sensible thoughts if you've broken the law, you're incompetent, or your career isn't worth having.

Being wrong doesn't automatically mean that you are weak, in modern media relations it's something that gives a public figure strength. It builds trust; you can trust someone who is honest with you.

In conclusion 'I don't know' and 'I was wrong' can be 2 of the most powerful and trust worthy things a councillor can say to a journalist. Don't forget, through the journalist you're saying it to the audience and after a string of denials from banks, government, utilities, corporations, they are really in the mood for some honesty.

David, David, David...

What have David Starkey and Kenneth Clarke got in common? Is it that they both like the same sort of men? Is it that they were both in the reserve 11 for the 1996 European championship squad? Is it perhaps that for a time they were controlled by the same demon? No, the thing that they have in common is that they have both caused outrage on twitterbook.

If you haven't seen David Starkey and what Emily Maitliss described as "the moment" then here it is.

I don't think that my job is to wonder which is worse, racism or making light of rape, and I certainly don't think that the reaction will be the same when the dust has settled. Kenneth Clarke and David Starkey are different; one is a politician that has to be liked and the other makes a career of being stern and not caring what people think of him. Ken Clarke had to explain and chances are David Starkey won't.

I've interviewed David Starkey on a number of occasions and the first time I did I was terrified. I was familiar with his work on BBC Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze', a programme where he was positively encouraged to destroy people with his intellect. I had to talk to him on the occasion of The Queen distributing Maundy Money* at Gloucester Cathedral. I prepped like no one else could; hours were spent researching the political significance of the ceremony and how it is part of the pact between Ruler and Subjects. It was a live telephone interview and they are often the most difficult as there's no eye contact or body language to reinforce the verbal message. We started talking, he was assured and fluent, and I had a trill of nerves in my voice, however, I got through to him, he warmed me up and the moment that he laughed with me at a shared joke everything was fine.

I spoke to him on air a number of times after that and I always found him an intellectual challenge but very giving in the interview context.

What has surprised me about his faux pas (if such a delicate term can be used) is that it was an inelegant summing up of how he saw the situation. It seems that to full fill the needs of televisual brevity he missed out some very significant nuance; he gives us the answer without letting us see the working out. I bet he'd formed a pleasing sentence in the taxi to the studio and assumed that we'd certainly pick up the background.

In contrast Ken Clarkes 'Rape gaffe' was a product of him being hemmed into a corner by a sharp interviewer and a bad choice of words.

So what do you do if your organisation has said the wrong thing, either by design, omission, or idiocy? If it's by design and it all blows up in your face then you really need a strategic rethink, if it's by omission play the long game if your reputation is one of caring and sharing then explain immediately; if you're the industrial version of prickly David Starkey then sit back and curse the world for not understanding. The last one is easier to deal with, apologise hard and fast and then fire the idiot!

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Maundy

Authentic

This morning Stephen Fry and Ian McMillan were having a conversation about an authentic voice on Stephen Frys splendid radio 4 programme 'Frys English Delight'.




Authenticity is difficult because it means different things to different observers. In this case Ian McMillan is talking about voice about position about context. His voice would be seen as authentic commentating on the North/South divide or on the quality of Poetry inspired by the industrial revolution. He would not sound like an authentic voice on Native American Rights or the Struggle of Feminism in the 1970's.

Authenticity can also be used when an organisation has to build a narrative. I've been doing some training for The Meningitis Trust, a wonderful organisation that supports people who have had their lives altered by Meningitis; they have authenticity when it comes to narrative because they have access Case Studies. There is nothing more authentic than hearing a mother speak of the day that her 3 year old lost her legs to septicaemia. This is an authentic narrative it as context and it has truth.

One of the major problems a government has is presenting difficult financial information because although they sound well informed and inteligent they have difficulty sounding 'authentic'. Governments aren't filled with ordinary people but they have to make decisions that affect the lives of ordinary people. George Osborne will one day be the 18th Baronet Osborne he has an estimated personal fortune of £4 Million (not including what legacy he may receive) and was christened Gideon. George Osborne is the man that tells us there isn't any money for the things we used to have (like universal health care, roads or benefits) and he will never sound authentic doing it.

This is a combination of factors; firstly he doesn't know what it's like to worry about money and secondly he doesn't sound like he knows what it's like to worry about money.

Most of the rest of the country worry about money but he doesn't.

It's strange how times have changed, because one of the most authentic chancellors of the last 20 years was Ken Clarke a cabinet colleague of Gideon's George's

So what can an organisation do when there is a story to tell? Think about who the messenger is; do they sound authentic delivering that message and are they the best person to deliver it?

Cadel Evans.

On my shelf is a copy of Laurent Fignons Autobiography. Last Christmas my father and I exchanged copies of it. It is a semi-regular occurrence; we buy each other the same book, last year it was inevitable. I haven't read it. I haven't even opened it. I can't. Laurent Fignon, who died last year, stands for everything that was right with The Tour De France, he was my boyhood hero and I get a lump in my throat every time I try to read it. I'm not sure why I am upset. It could be because I vividly remember hearing the Radio 4 news announce that he had lost the 1989 tour by 8 seconds; I was building a balsawood plane in my bedroom (I was 14 and had a secret uncool hobby) and my disappointment was all encompassing. I don't know if I am now upset for the loss of my hero or for the loss of that 14 year old.

This is at the heart of my emotional connection with the Tour De France. I grew up with it and its' stars. Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond, Laurent Fignon, Stephen Roche, Pedro Delgado, Big Mig, and when I moved on to University I lost track of it like an old school friend that you don't keep in touch with until you realise how much you miss them. I dipped in and out during the dope filled 90's and 00's but the racers never captured me emotionally the way that Fignon did.

Recently I have found my passion for it again. The characters are back, the racing seems as good as it always was, and the crashes would make Djamolidine Abdoujaparov proud.

However, I don't like Cadel Evans.

Sorry I had to say it. Cadel Evans will be the first Australian to win The Tour and well done to him. The time trial was a blistering example of how to win back time, and it was one of the best rides ever nearly eclipsing Sean Yates' Washquehal stage for drama.

I just don't like him.

This is why.

Since working in the media and understanding the pressures of journalists trying to get the story and knowing how the press and the TV are the things that sell the concept of a sporting event I think that Cadel Evans gives bad interview. Yes I know that he is a sportsman that got into professional cycling because he loves it and is very good at it, but without the media there would be no professional sport. The media shows the event to a worldwide audience, allows the sponsors to get the advertising which in turn puts money into the sport. Without the media the Tour De France would be a jolly little event for amateurs who could afford to get there. Don't forget that the race was started as a publicity stunt by a News Paper.

To give you an extreme example of Cadel Evans giving bad interview have a look at this...

OK, he had crashed the previous day and was a bit sore, but it still doesn't show him in the best light. There was also the occasion of him riding into his hotel the moment he got to the top of Alp D'Huez this year. The interviewers were chasing him down a corridor and he was giving 1 word answers. I know that he had just ridden up a mountain but everyone else had the ability and the humility to talk to the cameras. It was like he was the most important person in the world and the vast audience watching was irrelevant. (Andy Schleck gave a very nice interview thank you very much.)

As a media commentator I have to look at these things with a jaded eye. As a cycling fan who misses his hero Laurent Fignon I watch it with my heart not my head. Cadel Evans is a great cyclist and I will never take that away from him, but he's no Fignon. Like the title of Fignons autobiography that still sits on my shelf I can't help feeling that yes "We Were Young And Carefree" and now we're not.