The Cambridge Women’s boat won the 2018 boat race with a dominant performance, winning by 20 seconds.
They entered the race as the favourite crew and were strong throughout, finishing with a time of 19m 10s. By the mile post, they were already one and a half lengths ahead.
This is first time they have won the race back to back since 1999 and follows a run of good for the Cambridge boat. Since their disastrous performance in 2016, the crew has strengthened and has now repeated their success in the 2017 boat race.
The Cambridge crew took a quick lead on an overcast but calm day and increased the gap to three lengths by the halfway point.
Despite putting in a strong effort, the Oxford crew were behind from the start and couldn’t make up any ground on Cambridge. Oxford’s lower stroke rate and lighter crew weight damaged their chances in the highly anticipated event.
Cambridge had won the toss and chose the Surrey side, which is often seen as the better side of the river. 62% of teams who have won the toss and chosen that side have gone on to win the race.
Cambridge Cox, Sophie Shapter, said: “We just knew we had to go out there and do a job.”
Oxford’s Women’s Boat Club President, Katherine Erickson, said: “I’m crying, but I’m actually really proud.”
The Cambridge Women’s reserve boat, Blondie, were also victorious against Oxford’s Osiris.
Wadham College played host to a £500-a-head ketamine conference last week.
The conference saw experts on the Class B party drug speak on their “cutting-edge clinical research and practice”, and its possible antidepressant effects.
24 speakers appeared at the conference between Wednesday and Friday, and attendees enjoyed dinner in Wadham’s 400-year-old hall on Thursday night.
Wadham has long held a reputation for both its liberalism and its ties with experimental science. In the 1650s, it regularly played host to meetings between Sir Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, and Robert Hooke. The trio went on to found the Royal Society.
In 2014, Dr Andrew Farmery – a tutor in medicine and physiology at the college – attracted national attention for his research, which explored the possibility of using intravenous infusions of ketamine to help combat treatment-resistant depression.
#Research by Wadham's Andrew Farmery says Ketamine could be a lifesaving therapy for acutely suicidal patients http://t.co/QNHRWkk5iA
The conference cost £350 to attend for academics and those working in NHS, or £500 for non-academics. The prices cover attendance, as well as two nights of accommodation at Wadham, lunches, teas and coffees, and conference material – but no ketamine, Cherwell understands.
Thursday night’s dinner cost guests a further £40.
According to the conference’s website, the discovery of ketamine’s potential antidepressant effects “is the most important advance in psychopharmacology in 50 years.
It claims: “Clinical adoption in the US has been rapid, with over 100 clinics established in the last two years. Clinical experience has moved ahead of research – an unusual situation which creates opportunities as well as risks.”
A second-year Wadham student told Cherwell: “I’m a bit annoyed that the college turfs out students over the vac to hold ket conferences.
“But then again, I’m probably just jealous I wasn’t invited.”
Ketamine – which is known for giving its users dreamlike, floaty feelings, is banned for recreational use in the UK, but is currently a licensed drug, which means it can be prescribed by doctors.
Last April, Oxford University research suggested that ketamine could be used as a last-resort method to treat clinical depression.
A month later, students at Exeter College were warned by a junior dean against posting about their use of the drug on social media.
In an email to all undergraduates, Michelle Hufschmidt said: “Exeter students have alleged to ketamine use [sic] on public Facebook groups.
“This means your comments can be seen by anyone, including your friends, tutors, and fellows of the College. It can also be seen by future employers, which is especially important for those studying law or medicine.”
A spokesperson for the conference said: “Clinical trials over the last 15 years have shown that very small doses of ketamine given under strict clinical supervision can be an effective treatment for some patients with treatment-resistant depression, which does not otherwise respond to more commonly used treatments.
“As with other academic meetings, the conference in Oxford resulted in fruitful discussion and an exchange of ideas about research on the broad topic of treatments for depression.
“It should be emphasised that the treatment uses very small (milligram) doses of ketamine, far lower than those used when ketamine is used as a drug of abuse, and this treatment is closely supervised by clinical professionals.”
In the words of the self-proclaimedgay Canadian vegan genius who helped to mine data from over 50 million Facebook profiles, Facebook has now become a “psychological warfare mindfuck tool”. But how much is this being blown out of proportion? And should we really take measures to ensure that we can no longer be ‘mindfucked’?
Naturally, many have seen the best step is to just #deleteFacebook. Numerous newspapers have put together how-to guides explaining the best way to do so, and public figures like WhatsApp’s co-founder, Brian Acton – a company now owned by Facebook – tweeted bluntly: “Delete and forget. It’s time to care about privacy.”
The story goes that a British tech firm named Cambridge Analytica has been targeting psychological profiles on Facebook to sway political opinion. Using a personality test developed at Cambridge, a Facebook quiz app matched270,000 users’ personality traits to everything they and their entire networks of friends like and post.
To give some degree of “data” to this seemingly fun and innocuous quiz was completely voluntary. But the consent box to tick before taking it presumably didn’t read “Are you happy for us to use these inner workings of your psyche to make you more likely to vote for Trump or Brexit?”
Simply put, we all know a personalised ad for a pair of shoes will pop up on Facebook because you nearly bought them the day before. Or that you’re likely to seeumbrellas for puppies if you’re a dog-owner in Scotland. What we’re learning now, however, is that you might be pitched home insurance not just because you own a house, but because you worry more than the average person. Or, you could be shown a different kind of anti-immigration ad to your sibling because they’re more aggressive than you.
Here, we can find a few different narratives. There’s the full-on 1984 scenario – those in power are increasing control over how we think. There’s the more legal take – data firms like Cambridge Analytica are breaking more rules than just transparency by knowingly spreading lies and claiming to entrap politicians with “beautiful Ukrainian girls”. And there’s the more pragmatic view that Facebook’s not taking as much care as it should, so we should probably all just leave.
But then there’s the more sceptical, but nonetheless concerned, approach. Can I, as someone who takes pride in researching and articulating my political opinions, really be changed by a few Facebook videos somehow targeting my insecurities? This is likely an opinion voiced on all sides of the fence from those facing and throwing accusations that only the stupid can be brainwashed. That the solution is not to merely delete Facebook but to wise up on what you truly believe and not succumb to populist tactics.
Yet still this approach belies a fair bit of what this scandal is really about. From what we know so far, Cambridge Analytica obviously targeted the more likelyswing voters at first, but from there paid more attention to “what kind of messaging you’d be susceptible to”rather than just isolating the most susceptible people. From this perspective, we could all quite likely be transformed by paid content. This content wouldn’t make us suddenly vote for our enemies – instead it bolsters or adjusts our pre-formed ideals.
Secondly, though the data was gathered through this Facebook quiz app, Cambridge Analytica’s scope stretched far beyond Facebook content and instead towards the entire “bloodstream of the internet”. Its managing director, Mark Turnbulll, has boasted about how the firm’s vast “Crooked Hilary” campaign was spread across innumerable blogs and websites. So, again, from this perspective, it’s hard to argue that you wouldn’t shift your outlook on something the whole internet seems to agree with.
With these points combined, could it be the case that elections will now always be won by the candidate which has the money and power to wield the greater force from psychological data? For many have been quick to note that, of course, similar tactics were used to electBarack Obama, and many more votes throughoutthe course of political history.
My gut answer is still a strong and hopeful no. The power of this science cannot be ignored, but doubt has been cast on how important it actually was to theTrump campaign and whether Cambridge Analyticawas even involved in Brexit. To consider this as any kind of “data breach” has also been refuted by Facebook as no real sensitive information, like passwords, was leaked. Instead, we can just agree that a mere 50 million of its users (2.5% of everyone on Facebook) had their deep cerebral demons remoulded and individually drip-dropped onto their screens.
The moral for now is probably to just use Facebook less fora number of reasons and to go about life “with a healthy dose of scepticism”. But then again, am I not also just a part of the barrage of information gradually shifting your opinion on this through Facebook? Like me, you should probably keep looking around to make sure you believe it.
Oxford University’s quality of data protection is far better than Cambridge’s, according to a leading cybersecurity firm.
RepKnight searched the dark web – a seedy but massive back-alley to the normal internet – and found more than twice as many stolen Cambridge email addresses as Oxford email addresses.
As part of their campaign to raise awareness of hacked credentials, the firm scoured the dark web for stolen Oxbridge email addresses using their monitoring tool Breach Alert. They found around 400,000 stolen addresses with the cam.ac.uk domain, and less than half that number with the ox.ac.uk domain.
The addresses were found across numerous dark web sites that serve as warehouses for stolen information. Collectively, those warehouses store “more than five billion stolen, leaked or hacked credentials.”
Though the term “credentials” might suggest passwords or security answers, email addresses alone could be turned against users and institutions. RepKnight warns of how hackers use stolen university emails, including doing anything from conducting phishing scams to using university systems as proxies to conduct illegal operations.
Patrick Martin, the firm’s cybersecurity analyst, said: “It is often assumed that cybercriminals are primarily targeting commercial businesses. However, it’s not hard to see why the confidential data stored at universities might be a valuable commodity for criminals, given the links those institutions have to government agencies, supra-national organisations like the EU, and the private sector.
“Like most industries, universities are working hard to improve their cyber security capabilities. But the best network security often can’t defend against someone logging in using a stolen username and password. The vast majority of the credentials we see on the Dark Web are from third-party breaches, where an email address had been used on a site like LinkedIn or Dropbox, and that site was subsequently compromised – often including the user’s password.”
The findings come after Christopher Wylie’s revelations regarding his former employer Cambridge Analytica’s data gathering practices. Andrew Nix, CEO of the British Big Data firm, bragged to an undercover reporter of swinging elections using prostitutes and sting operations, among other underhanded methods.
Facebook employees have also come forward accusing Cambridge Analytica of mining users’ data to influence their vote.
Sandy Parakilas, former platform operations manager at Facebook, told the Guardian that hundreds of millions of Facebook users could also be targeted by other companies using the same methods as Cambridge Analytica.
Oxford will go into Sunday’s Varsity football matches as slight favourites as they aim for a double victory for the third consecutive year.
The fixtures, which will be played at Barnet’s North London home, The Hive, are being played as a double-header for just the second time, even though the Varsity Match is widely believed to be the oldest regular fixture in world football.
They will also mark a first in Oxbridge sporting history: as Cherwell revealed in January, this is the first time in a major sport that the women’s fixture has formed the second half of a double-header.
OUAFC and OUWAFC told Cherwell: “The decision to play the women’s game second was a joint decision with all four teams agreeing: alternating the order seemed the obviously fair way to run the event.”
After underwhelming ticket sales last year, the club is understood to be optimistic about Sunday’s attendance, especially with the fixture returning to Boat Race weekend.
Around 1000 tickets have been sold so far, and they are still available here.
Men’s Preview Kick-off: 2pm
Oxford celebrate the opening goal in last year’s Varsity [David Bauckham/Centre Circle Publishing]
Form
Oxford finished third in this year’s Bucs Midlands 1A, two points off winners Cambridge. The Dark Blues made a strong start to the season, and were top of the league at the end of Michaelmas, but dropped points against the bottom two – Warwick and Oxford Brookes – damaged their title chances.
A postponement to the original fixture meant that the final two games of the season would be against Cambridge, and Oxford knew that defeat was not an option.
But, unfortunately, a 1-0 loss in the away leg meant that the Light Blues sealed the title with a game to spare.
However, a 2-0 victory in the home fixture against the same opposition means that Oxford go into Varsity with the upper hand; and with last year’s hero Dom Thelen scoring twice and getting sent off in that game, it is clear that the Dark Blues are up for a fight.
Women’s Preview
Kick-off: 5pm
Oxford celebrate Becca May’s first goal last year [David Bauckham/Centre Circle Publishing]
Form
The Women’s Blues enjoyed a stellar league season after the disappointment of relegation in 2016/17.
The Dark Blues won Bucs Midlands 2B at a canter, ending the season seven points clear of second-placed Warwick, and were defeated just once in the league.
In fact, the Blues conceded only once in their four league games in 2018, and put eight past opponents Northampton in the final fixture to seal the title.
And they were not far away from sealing a rare league-and-cup double: following a convincing run of four wins to reach the final, Oxford were beaten 6-5 by cross-city rivals Brookes in the Midlands Conference Cup, and finished as runners-up.
Their opponents have struggled in the division above – Midlands 1A – this season, finishing fourth out of six teams. Indeed, Cambridge have conceded 26 goals in their ten league fixtures this season: Oxford’s forwards will be keen to test a leaky defence right from the start.
Key Players
Dom Thelen
Thelen celebrates his opening goal in last year’s Varsity
Thelen’s opener in last season’s Varsity sent Oxford on the path to victory, and his goalscoring form has continued in 2017/18. He has netted 16 times in 18 appearances this season, and match-winning braces in derby games against Cambridge and Brookes underline his ability to rise to the occasion.
Ellana Slade
Slade celebrates after last year’s 3-1 win
Slade, who set up the first of Becca May’s three goals in last season’s fixture, will be one of Oxford’s main attacking threats on Sunday. A hat-trick against Bedfordshire was the standout performance in an impressive season for Slade, who will look to make the difference in her second Varsity.
Alex Urwin
Urwin celebrates last year’s victory
Urwin put in a stellar performance at left wing-back in last season’s Varsity, but is likely to form part of a back three on Sunday. He will look to spray channel balls to wing-backs Jack Witt and Jamie Shaw, and is deadly from a set-piece situation. However, his heading ability will be particularly important: Cambridge’s Stefan Wolf has tested sides all season with his delivery, and Urwin will need to be on top of his game to make sure his corners don’t do too much damage.
Beverly Leon
Leon brings the ball forward in Brookes Varsity
Leon, a graduate student, is vastly experienced player. She spent 2016/17 playing for Sunderland in the Women’s Super League, and previously enjoyed a stint with Chievo Verona in Italy. Leon has been a vital addition to the Blues squad this campaign, and although she will likely start up front, her role goes beyond simply finding the back of the net: the majority of Oxford’s attacking moves go through her.
Jack Witt
Witt looks for a pass in Brookes Varsity
Witt was the match-winner in Brookes Varsity with a wonderful, curled effort from the edge of the box, but it is his energetic running and defensive ability that will be put to the test on Sunday. If he is tasked with marking Ben Bolderson, Cambridge’s diminutive attacking midfielder, then Witt will have a busy day defensively; if Bolderson is on the other flank, then it will be Witt’s responsibility to push on and help out in attack.
Maddie Hooper
Hooper shields the ball under pressure in Brookes Varsity
A rock at the back, Hooper has captained the Blues with credit in 2017/18, and will lead the side out in what is her third Varsity. Her side conceded only eight goals in ten league games, and is part of an experienced defence that contains fellow returning Blues Lucy Harper and Claudia Hill. Hooper’s defensive nous will be crucial, but her creative ability may also prove important: she impressed in Brookes Varsity when playing the ball out from the back.
[td_smart_list_end]
Oxford squads to play Cambridge:
Men’s
1. Sean Gleeson, Exeter
2. Jamie Shaw, Hertford
3. Leo Ackerman, Somerville
4. Laurence Wroe*, Pembroke
5. Cian Wade*, Green Templeton
6. Sam Hale*, Worcester
7. Mohamed Eghleilib, Harris Manchester
8. Wulfie Bain*, Brasenose
9. Dominic Thelen*, Wycliffe Hall
10. Till Wicker, St Catherine’s
11. Takahiro Tsunoda, Wolfson
13. Jack Witt, Hertford
15. Alex Urwin*, Exeter (captain)
17. Tom Faktor, Pembroke
18. Harry Langham, Wadham
20. Matthew Naylor, Merton
Women’s
1. Anna Garcia, Madgalen
3. Claudia Hill*, Linacre
4. Kiah Rutz, Kellogg
5. Maddie Hooper*, LMH
6. Issy Stainsby, New
7. Lucy Harper*, St Peter’s
8. Helen Bridgman*, St Hugh’s
9. Mary Hintze*, Trinity
10. Beverly Leon, Green Templeton
11. Sherona Claro Forrester, Linacre
12. Ellana Slade*, Trinity
13. Louise Nolan*, Wadham
15. Erin Robinson, Oriel
16. Katie Plummer*, Wadham
19. Brigid Lahiff, Regent’s Park
20. May Martin*, Hertford
A new deal has been proposed by Universities UK (UUK) in an aim to solve the ongoing pensions dispute, potentially bringing widespread industrial action to a halt.
Under the proposed agreement, the current defined benefit pension scheme will remain in place until at least April 2019. According to the University and College Union (UCU), it will also ensure that a full switch to a defined contribution scheme is entirely off the table.
It follows vice chancellor Louise Richardson sending an email to all staff this afternoon, outlining her hope that the “University can come together in recognition of the concerns of many of our staff”.
Following further negotiations this week, the UUK board met this afternoon and agreed a proposal aimed at resolving the pension dispute. That proposal has now been sent to UCU members, with branch representatives due to deliver feedback on Wednesday.
#UCU confirm that proposed pension switch to DC taken off the table as part of today's revised offer from #UUK.
Alongside a commitment to maintaining the current pension system until 2019, the deal also proposes a “Joint Expert Panel”, comprised of actuarial and academic experts nominated in equal numbers from both UCU and UUK.
It is hoped the panel will agree to the key principles which will underpin the future joint approach of UUK and UCU to the valuation of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) fund.
The valuation of the scheme has been a serious source of contention throughout the dispute, with UCU consistently criticising the methodology used to calculate the USS’s supposed £6.1 billion deficit.
According to UCU Secretary Sally Hunt, the work of the group will also “reflect the clear wish of staff to have a guaranteed pension comparable with current provision whilst meeting the affordability challenges for all parties, within the current regulatory framework.”
Oxford University said in an online statement that the proposed deal “would be very good news for our students, preventing further disruption to their studies.”
Earlier this afternoon, vice chancellor Louise Richardson sent an email to all staff where she bemoaned how “the collegiality of our community has been undermined” by the ongoing pensions dispute.
She said: “We face a shared problem: a pension scheme to which both employers and employees contribute which has been assessed as having a substantial deficit. We have a shared interest in finding a solution that offers the best possible affordable pension now and into the future.
“Like other employers and employees we have signed on to collective bargaining and are bound by it. I know that this is frustrating for many of us who would like to find our own solution right away, but we can’t. I can personally commit, however, to accepting any solution agreed at the Joint Negotiating Committee by UCU and UUK.
“Much of the disagreement arises over the validity of the estimate of the deficit (£6.1 billion). I know we would all be delighted to learn that the current estimate exaggerates the deficit. I very much hope that the proposals for an independent panel of experts, with membership agreed by UCU and UUK and working transparently, will be accepted, will start work immediately, and will command confidence in their conclusions.
“Congregation will be convening on April 24 to discuss the issue and to solicit proposals that can be fed into our Pensions Working Party for analysis. I hope that this can be a moment when the University can come together in recognition of the concerns of many of our staff and in collective pursuit of a solution to the shared problem we face.”
Last week, it was confirmed that Oxford had excluded USS members from the University’s Pension Working Party on conflict of interest grounds. This position has now been formally reversed, and there will be a greater input from USS members going forward.
“You look like you need to drink more… to forget,” one of our friends said to me recently after I got sconced about you. She implied I should regret what happened between us. What followed was a moment of lucidity, as with bewilderment I replied “Why would I want to forget?” The experience you gave me helped to shape me immensely and was filled with realisations – I dread to think of the person I’d be without them.
When I stumbled back into my room in the early hours of the morning the night you rejected me, amidst the tears I had a joker-like grin on my face. This was heartbreak shown to me for the first time. What I felt for you was my first taste of a fraction of love. I’d been in a stale year-long relationship with someone else I felt nothing for, and I’d dumped him to be with you for a matter of days. It was worth it.
All we are in this world is a series of moments, and the search of beautiful moments is to me this world’s purpose. In first week I wrote an essay while I had the flu on how D. H. Lawrence only allows his characters one great epiphany – for it not to be seized is for them to waste their lives forever. In my fever the Talking Heads songs Once in a Lifetime and This Must be the Place probably were left to play over a hundred times. I was poised for my life to change, to leave my bad relationship, for a great moment to strike, and in second week I met you.
Monday: a vague hope for an Oxlove… Wednesday: sending you bad messages from Parkend… The rest of the week, a struggle waiting to see you again. When just the two of us went to Burning Down the House the next week and Once in a Lifetime played, I felt like destiny was converging in on me. A song about the flow of the universe being interrupted by a profound second of clarity. This was a moment, a night, that would change my life – not necessarily because it promised any future, but because in memory I could always return to its intensity. The first kiss you gave me is still the best kiss I’ve ever had.
None of what happened may have meant anything to you, and the attachment I developed came far too quickly. There is no need to pity me, though. I said, in vain hope I could make things work, that I was happy to get hurt. I’m so glad you crashed through the prison I was in and showed me a piece of what the world had to offer like the extravagant, boisterous wreck of a guy you are. Remember I liked you for who you were – for standing up for yourself and smiling through choruses of boos. I have moved on and grown up a great deal, but I’ll be here if you change your mind.
Lawrence’s Ursula says ‘As an end in itself, I could love a hundred men, one after the other.’ You were the real start, and I can only ever look back on those experiences with gratitude and elation – never an ounce of regret.
After Putin’s recent victory in an election that was a foregone conclusion, the question of how Britain should react to the use of illegal and potentially devastating chemical weapons on its soil increases in significance. If indeed Putin is directly culpable for the attack on ex double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, as seems to be the almost unanimous consensus of both the security services and Parliament, how Britain reacts sets the frame for its future dealings with the man who is going to be leading Russia for at least another six years.
The evidence of Russian responsibility for this attack seems overwhelming, and the most obvious explanation is that the use of the deadly Novichok nerve agent was ordered by Putin. The use of Novichok, a Soviet and Russian developed nerve agent, was a calling card from Russia, designed to show Britain, and the wider world, that defectors and perceived traitors would never be safe. Moreover, Britain, an old adversary, was seen to be an easy target, increasingly isolated on a global stage, detached from its old European allies and unable to rely on an erratic American president. The response of Theresa May’s government is vital in showing Russia, and other hostile groups who perceive Britain as an easy target, that any attack that endangers the British public will be met with severe consequences. The initial response from the British government, expelling 23 supposed Russian spies, suggests that the government is taking this attack seriously, in contrast to the feeble response to the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006.
Expelling diplomats or spies and preventing royals and ministers from attending the world cup in Russia may be strong measures in the world of diplomacy, and are a natural first step, but in terms of meaningful acts that will actually hurt Putin and his supporters, Britain must go further. Russia will naturally retaliate and has already expelled 23 British personnel in a tit-for-tat response. Now is the time for Britain to step up and match the harsh condemnation with meaningful action.
The government can start by using existing powers, and where necessary seeking new ones, to finally take action against corrupt and illegal money used to finance the lavish lifestyles of Russian oligarchs and associates of Putin. The assets of those responsible for attacks on British soil should be frozen, and effective sanctions imposed on the Russian state, actions that will hurt those responsible and put pressure on Putin. The difficulty for Britain lies in walking the tightrope between a measured response and a meaningful one. If Britain condemns Putin for flouting conventions and the rule of law, the government must act within the law, and not target Russians simply for association, there is plenty of scope for the government to hurt Putin and his cronies by targeting those who have operated outside of the law.
In addition, calls to ban RT, the Russian state-sponsored television channel which effectively acts as a propaganda piece for the Kremlin, should be ignored. Britain claims to be a bastion of liberalism and free-speech, and banning those who disagree, even if they shroud their arguments in lies and support states that use chemical weapons to assassinate dissenters, would be a shift away from liberalism and a small victory for those who seek to undermine it.
Of course Britain’s response depends heavily on the attitudes of its Western partners and, in a post-Brexit world in which Trump is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and Britain’s closest ally, this is not to be taken for granted. However, the initial response from key players such as France, Germany and the U.S., even if slightly delayed, has been encouraging. Britain is still a huge player on the international stage, possessing a seat on the UN Security Council, being a nuclear power, and having the sixth largest economy in the world ensures that Britain still retains global clout. Britain must now use all legitimate and necessary powers to hit back at Russia, with the help of Western friends, and show the leader of Russia for the foreseeable future that he no longer has carte blanche to endanger western citizens and advance his own schemes which make the world a more dangerous place.
More than 250,000 people will line the banks of the Thames this weekend, and a further 15 million will be glued to their TV screens, as the flagship Varsity sporting event of the year rolls into town. With the women’s race starting at 4.31pm, and the men’s just over an hour later at 5.32, we are set for a fantastic afternoon’s viewing.
History of the race
An engraving of the 1841 boat race
Oxford are playing catch-up in both the men’s and women’s event. This – the 164th men’s boat race – will kick off with Cambridge narrowly ahead with 82 wins to Oxford’s 80. The sharper among you will have worked out that 82 and 80 don’t add up to 163. The “missing race” can be accounted for by a dead heat in 1877.
Cambridge hold an even greater lead in the history of the women’s event, with 42 wins to Oxford’s 30. The light blues also hold the course record in both events, the women completing the 4.2 miles from Putney to Mortlake in a time of 18 minutes and 33 seconds in 2017, the men in a time of 16 minutes and 19 seconds in 1998.
That said, certain omens don’t work in Cambridge’s favour. Both the men’s and women’s crews have sunk more recently than their dark blue counterparts – in 1984 and 2016 respectively. To their credit, the women’s crew of 2016 managed to resurrect the situation and at least complete the course, but the result was a lost cause by that stage.
Where to watch
Rowers pass Furnivall Gardens
If you’re at home for the race, then coverage begins on BBC1 from 3.50pm.
If you’re in London on the day, then there will be fan parks with big screens showing the race in both Bishop’s Park near Putney Bridge beside the start line and at Furnivall Gardens, close to Hammersmith Bridge in the middle of the course. Unless you arrive very early on the day then it can be difficult to see the boats coming past due to the depth of the crowds, so the fan parks are to be recommended.
Other popular viewing spots include Hammersmith, Barnes and Chiswick Bridge.
The Cambridge women are on average 3kg heavier than the Oxford crew and have a more experienced crew; the Dark Blue boat contains only one returning blue. That said, form is on the side of Oxford, who have won four of the last five races.
Despite winning four of the last five races, Oxford’s men go into the race as underdogs, with just two returning blues after the controversial withdrawal of Joshua Bugajski through illness.
They will also be fielding a considerably lighter crew than the Cambridge boat, who will pack in at an average of 86kg per man. Ominously for Oxford, 58% of boat races have been won by the heavier crew. A combination of these factors will see Cambridge start as the odds on favourites.
The coin toss. History shows this to be a crucial moment in determining the outcome of the race. The captain who wins the coin toss chooses whether to row on the Middlesex or the Surrey side of the river. As the course winds around bends in the river, there is a huge advantage to be gained from being on the inside of the bend.
Particularly successful crews get out in front early on in the race, and are then at liberty to take the inside track on each and every bend. Crews who have won the toss and subsequently chosen the Surrey side have gone on to win 62% of Boat Races.
The start of the race is of crucial importance, with 88% of crews who have reached Hammersmith Bridge first going on to be victorious.
The crews
The 2018 Boat Race crews (Photo: The Boat Race/Twitter)
Women: Bow: Renée Koolschijn (Keble, 73.4 kg)
2: Katherine Erickson (Wolfson, 69.6 kg)
3: Juliette Perry (Somerville, 73.4 kg)
4: Alice Roberts* (St Edmund Hall, 67.0 kg)
5: Morgan McGovern (St Catherine’s, 72.1 kg)
6: Sara Kushma (Christ Church, 73.5 kg)
7: Abigail Killen (St Cross, 70.4 kg)
Stroke: Beth Bridgman (St Hugh’s, 67.8 kg)
Cox: Jessica Buck (Green Templeton, 53.5 kg)
Men: Bow: Iain Mandale (St Edmund Hall, 75.1 kg)
2: Felix Drinkhall (Lady Margaret Hall, 83.8 kg)
3: Will Cahill (Chris Church, 84.3 kg)
4: Anders Weiss (St Hugh’s, 91.5 kg)
5: Will Geffen* (Keble, 87.2 kg)
6: Benedict Aldous (Christ Church, 95.6 kg)
7: Claas Mertens (Christ Church, 73.9 kg)
Stroke: Vassilis Ragoussis* (Linacre, 88.2 kg)
Cox: Zachary Thomas Johnson (Wolfson, 54.7 kg)
