What a very sad few days it has been for New Zealand sport.
They say we suffer from the tall poppy syndrome in this little nation but it appears that has been usurped by the sour grapes disease.
Part of me hopes Dick Tayler can be remembered as one of our outstanding athletes, and that Mahe Drysdale's status as one of our greatest rowers is not in danger.
But I fear their blinkered comments in the aftermath of the most polarising Halberg Awards in recent memory have forever tarnished their legacies.
Tayler has come out of this looking myopic, at best; the more extreme view is that his decision to quit as a Halberg judge in protest at the All Whites winning the supreme award is based only on ignorance.
But if Tayler's decision to spit the dummy was at least partly obvious, given his links to rugby, it was unfortunate to see Drysdale take up the case yesterday.
Drysdale told the Herald on Sunday he did not believe the All Whites should even have been a finalist at the Halbergs, because they won nothing.
At least Tayler had the excuse of being 30 years behind the times.
Drysdale, you would think, has a decent understanding of international sport and the magnitude of the All Whites' achievements.
By Drysdale's own definition, his bronze medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics - when he battled through severe illness and captured the public's imagination - is as good as useless.
One of the worst things about post-Halberg debate is how the blinkered critics force those of us with a broader mind to reach for mean-spirited rebuttals.
Tayler's stance makes us point out the Commonwealth Games, especially in track and field, is essentially a C-grade event.
And Drysdale's outburst leads us to suggest New Zealand rowers win more medals only because the sport offers multiple classes, its world championships are held every year, and the world's biggest nations barely give a hoot about the sport.
It's all quite sad.
At a time when we should be celebrating our great sporting achievers, we are mired in an ultimately pointless bitchfest.
I am not on the Halberg judging panel but I would have voted for the All Whites.
Why? Because they drew three games in the world's biggest sporting event, they achieved far beyond expectations AND they were the feel-good story of the year.
There are those who appear obsessed with the fact the All Whites only won one game last year, obviously deciding to class three remarkable draws in South Africa as losses.
But that is being churlish.
Any fool can see you can't simply compare, say, the All Black win-loss record with the All White equivalent.
One is a global sport; one is not.
One team is a superpower with an established record of dominance; one is the very essence of a minnow.
Then, to top off the Halberg brouhaha, along comes the venomous Michael Laws with an attack on sportspeople with disabilities.
My distaste for the man - Laws, as my mother would say, is a nasty piece of work - is matched by my sympathy for athletes like Adam Hall, who have had to overcome enough hurdles without dealing with bigotry.
A small country shouldn't have to be full of small minds.
• Did the All Whites deserve to win the Halberg Award? Or do Tayler and Drysdale have a point? Send your thoughts to Hayden Meikle (hayden.meikle@odt.co.nz).
