Author Topic: Liggett goes off on one  (Read 5899 times)

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2012, 07:20:09 pm »
But nobody has ever come up with any reasonable explanation as to why cycling can't have Y medals rather than X

I don't want to libel anyone, so I'll phrase this quite carefully.

A sport's governing body has a very strong incentive to get more events into the Olympic Games, because most countries use medal prospects as a factor in how they allocate sports funding. Each extra medal for your sport means millions of pounds invested globally in facilities, talent development etc, which will be beneficial to the sport as a whole and to the governing body.

There is a long history of allegations of bribery against members of the IOC. In the case of the Salt Lake City bid for the Winter Games, ten IOC members were expelled and another ten sanctioned for "accepting inappropriate gifts"; An IOC report stated that these gifts may have influenced the voting decisions of members. There are only very broad objective standards for the inclusion of a sport in the Games and the selection process hinges on a vote of IOC members.

Although there is no evidence that any governing body has attempted to corruptly influence the decision-making of the IOC in their selection of events, there would be ample motive and opportunity for any of them to do so.

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2012, 08:24:11 pm »
And according to Addlington Swimming is the hardest sport to win a medal in! No it isn't! You've got about a million events to have a crack at...

A million events?

I must be unaware of some.

Could you name them as I might even join young Addlinngton in having a crack at one

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2012, 08:34:02 pm »
I'll let you into a little secret - when I said "about a million" I was kinda exagerating. Silly, I know. I didn't realise anybody would actually think there are literally a million swimming events. I'm really sorry that I confused you...
Those wonderful norks are never far from my thoughts, oh yeah!

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2012, 08:46:31 pm »
But nobody has ever come up with any reasonable explanation as to why cycling can't have Y medals rather than X

I don't want to libel anyone, so I'll phrase this quite carefully.

A sport's governing body has a very strong incentive to get more events into the Olympic Games, because most countries use medal prospects as a factor in how they allocate sports funding. Each extra medal for your sport means millions of pounds invested globally in facilities, talent development etc, which will be beneficial to the sport as a whole and to the governing body.

There is a long history of allegations of bribery against members of the IOC. In the case of the Salt Lake City bid for the Winter Games, ten IOC members were expelled and another ten sanctioned for "accepting inappropriate gifts"; An IOC report stated that these gifts may have influenced the voting decisions of members. There are only very broad objective standards for the inclusion of a sport in the Games and the selection process hinges on a vote of IOC members.

Although there is no evidence that any governing body has attempted to corruptly influence the decision-making of the IOC in their selection of events, there would be ample motive and opportunity for any of them to do so.

The UCI can influence which cycling event gets into the Olympics, and if the people who run a certain cycling event in a certain country give enough "material support" to the UCI...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7525072.stm

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2012, 10:07:26 pm »
I've wondered if it's not only the sports' governing bodies "lobbying" the IOC - USA, for example, are very strong in swimming, so they would certainly have a motive for making sure lots of swimming events are included, and they're a big, powerful nation...

d.

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2012, 10:15:05 pm »
I'll let you into a little secret - when I said "about a million" I was kinda exagerating. Silly, I know. I didn't realise anybody would actually think there are literally a million swimming events. I'm really sorry that I confused you...

No surprise to me and no need for apology.

Obviously, I was drawing attention to the irony of your posting about what Addlington said immediately after giving maximum effort in a race where she lost her Olympic title, which she had worked like mad over the last 4 years to try and retain. Full of emotion and physically drained, she spoke from the heart without having chance to gather her thoughts. Disparaging comments about what Addlington said were inappropriate IMO. 

I agree your comment was silly and I thought it was worth pointing that out.

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2012, 10:20:09 pm »
There are a large number of swimming medals, half of the US gold medals have come from swimming, and they lead the board

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2012, 08:46:30 am »
It's obviously, to us cyclists, unfair, that there are shedloads of events in swimming, with multiple entrants from each country, and this huge limitation in the velodrome.

Ultimately these hings are decided by politicians (albeit that they might have once been competitors), and it becomes all about deals, giving a bit to get a bit etc. Many of these people have persoanl ambition beyond their own sport, to to rise higher in their own infrastructure.

It would be nice if the competitors had a say; but it appears that this doesn't, and can't, happen.

I disagree that track is some weird sidewater -  it's been the basis of cycle racing for as long as there have been bikes. It's also much more easily understood and televised. Try explaining the whole load of tactics going on in the road race last week to someone who's never raced, or even never raced at a serious level.

John Henry

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2012, 09:06:29 am »

I disagree that track is some weird sidewater -  it's been the basis of cycle racing for as long as there have been bikes. It's also much more easily understood and televised. Try explaining the whole load of tactics going on in the road race last week to someone who's never raced, or even never raced at a serious level.

I did... I've never raced, but I basically understood what was going on. To be fair, most people who were genuinely trying to understand managed to. The ignorance of the mainstream media didn't help.

Anyway, you're right about the track. It's accessible and makes better TV. I think we have to ask what the Olympics are for. In very few sports are they the pinnacle of 'pure' competition. They're a celebration and an opportunity to expose people to new sports, and hopefully inspire them. (And they're a commercial venture, of course).

If that means that we have to 'dumb down' a bit and not do the full range of disciplines, fair enough. It's just the way that cycling has done this seems a bit eccentric. Taking out the individual pursuit and keeping, say, the keirin seems to me a bit like athletics deciding to keep the 20km walk and lose the 100m sprint.

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #59 on: August 05, 2012, 08:20:07 pm »
I disagree that track is some weird sidewater -  it's been the basis of cycle racing for as long as there have been bikes. It's also much more easily understood and televised. Try explaining the whole load of tactics going on in the road race last week to someone who's never raced, or even never raced at a serious level.

Nearly everyone knows what it's like to run or swim or cycle on the road. Most people had a go at javelin and discus and the long-jump at school. Only a tiny minority of serious cyclists have ever rode on a velodrome, let alone the general public. When I take people down to Manchester velodrome for Revolution, they're inevitably astounded by the whole experience - the speed, the steepness of the banking, the dernies and the riders on rollers in the pit. It's a fantastic sport, but it's clearly the form of the sport that's most distant from everyday cycling.

As I said in my original post, I love track cycling, but I just don't think it's going to engage the general public, especially children, in the same way MTB or BMX can. I dearly hope that I'm wrong in this, but I think that a vastly greater number of girls will relate to Shanaze Reade than to Laura Trott.

Track cycling just isn't very accessible. Even if you're lucky enough to live near a velodrome, it's not a cheap activity for a young person, it's inherently intimidating, you've got to get accredited etc. Rightly or wrongly, mountain bikes and BMXes are the sorts of bikes kids get for christmas. Up and down the country, youngsters are building their own BMX tracks on bits of waste ground. It's cycling as young people know it. If the UCI doesn't prioritise grass-roots engagement, it's ultimately a betrayal to all of us - we can't survive without new blood.

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #60 on: August 05, 2012, 08:29:50 pm »
If that means that we have to 'dumb down' a bit and not do the full range of disciplines, fair enough. It's just the way that cycling has done this seems a bit eccentric. Taking out the individual pursuit and keeping, say, the keirin seems to me a bit like athletics deciding to keep the 20km walk and lose the 100m sprint.

See the link in hubner's post. The Keirin Association provided substantial funding to the UCI. Of course, the UCI are clear that this had no bearing on their decision to lobby for the inclusion of keirin in the Olympic Games.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #61 on: August 06, 2012, 08:31:14 am »
Track cycling inaccesible? I don't get this.

Kids take to it quite happily, so being 'astounded' doesn't seem to be a problem. If the "steep banking" is a problem, why do you say they want BMX tracks?!?


And I'm not sure that we suddenly need to leverage BMX/MTB - these pastimes are 30-40 years old. Kids have always ridden round dirt tracks with their mates, and they have happily got into road/track racing (usually ditching the BMX as they mature).
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Rig of Jarkness

  • An Englishman abroad
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #62 on: August 06, 2012, 08:41:34 am »
Track cycling just isn't very accessible. Even if you're lucky enough to live near a velodrome, it's not a cheap activity for a young person, it's inherently intimidating, you've got to get accredited etc.

Basic track bikes are very inexpensive.  And many velodromes have a shed full of them that youngsters can borrow.  And as Mattc says, it's not at all intimidating to an eager 12 year old.
Aero but not dynamic

fuzzy (retd.) AAGE

  • SWMBO's Toy Boy.
  • Apprentice Leathery Old Git
    • The Secret Cyclist blog
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #63 on: August 06, 2012, 08:50:19 am »
Track cycling just isn't very accessible. Even if you're lucky enough to live near a velodrome, it's not a cheap activity for a young person, it's inherently intimidating, you've got to get accredited etc.

Basic track bikes are very inexpensive.  And many velodromes have a shed full of them that youngsters can borrow.  And as Mattc says, it's not at all intimidating to an eager 12 year old.

I should imagine that the only distress the avearge 12 year old would suffer in learning track cycling is that the lessons start on the blue bit as oppsoed to the top of the banking.

I know they are an expensive resource but, I wish there were more indoor velodromes around the country.

I understand from a former Olympian that the 'short' track at Calshott is very similar to those that used to be used for the '6 days of' type events on the continent and that some of those were temporary affairs, put up in a town for the '6 days of whereversville' then struck down and moved on. Perhaps BC should consider doing something like that- commisioning a mobile velodrome and touring the country, setting it up on local parks like they do wih fairs and circuses.
Quote from: tatanab
The mark of a true cyclist - prepared to try anything on offer

If it ain't bad for you it ain't worth doing

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #64 on: August 06, 2012, 08:50:38 am »
How many velodromes are there in comparison with swimming pools in the UK?
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2012, 09:06:30 am »
Perhaps BC should consider doing something like that- commisioning a mobile velodrome and touring the country, setting it up on local parks like they do wih fairs and circuses.

That's a great idea.  :thumbsup:

Does anyone know what's going to happen to the Olympic velodrome after the games finish? Will there be opportunities for the likes of me to have a go on it, eg like there are at Herne Hill?

d.

fuzzy (retd.) AAGE

  • SWMBO's Toy Boy.
  • Apprentice Leathery Old Git
    • The Secret Cyclist blog
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2012, 09:12:53 am »
How many velodromes are there in comparison with swimming pools in the UK?

Wikipedia lists 25 tracks in the UK including one grass track and one listed as to be constructed.

As to swimming pools, I dont know but think that most towns have one and some places several, or at least more than one (though very few olympic size pools exist in the UK).
Quote from: tatanab
The mark of a true cyclist - prepared to try anything on offer

If it ain't bad for you it ain't worth doing

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2012, 09:26:42 am »
The one under construction in Glasgow is the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome (obv.) and is due for completion in October. I'm certainly going to go for a taster session with a bunch of mates. I think you're right about the 12yo indestructability of youth thing, 'cos I expect to be shitting myself when I get to riding around the banking.
Allow me to explain through the medium of interpretive dance

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2012, 09:35:36 am »
I too am hoping to get a chance to ride the SCH velodrome. Our local one has just been resurfaced (outdoor 400m tarmac) and could do with being a bit steeper on the bends.

"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

fuzzy (retd.) AAGE

  • SWMBO's Toy Boy.
  • Apprentice Leathery Old Git
    • The Secret Cyclist blog
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2012, 09:47:01 am »
I have never ridden an outdoor velodrome (even though I have one within an hors ride at Palmer Park in Reading). I know they have served an excellent purpose in being the introduction for some (if not many) to the glorious art of track cycling. Laura Trott learned her trade at the outdoor track at Welwyn didn't she?.

I think that we still need to up the ante as far as covered tracks are concerned though. I don't know how useable the outdoor venuse are in the extremes of weather we have in the UK.

How much does a wet track reduce its useability at somewhere like Palmer Park or Welwyn?
Quote from: tatanab
The mark of a true cyclist - prepared to try anything on offer

If it ain't bad for you it ain't worth doing

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2012, 09:50:31 am »
Wet concrete tracks generally stop racing as track tubs use hard rubber to reduce rolling resistance. Asphalt tracks are a little more forgiving of dampness and Japanese kieren tracks are all-weather surfaces with racing continuing regardless of rain.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2012, 10:02:09 am »
How many velodromes are there in comparison with swimming pools in the UK?

Not to disagree, but how many of those pools are of olympic standard and don't contain water slides and flumes etc.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2012, 10:23:46 am »
How many velodromes are there in comparison with swimming pools in the UK?

Not to disagree,
You can't disagree - he asked a question! (to which the answer was pretty obvious)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2012, 10:52:51 am »
Track cycling just isn't very accessible. Even if you're lucky enough to live near a velodrome, it's not a cheap activity for a young person, it's inherently intimidating, you've got to get accredited etc. Rightly or wrongly, mountain bikes and BMXes are the sorts of bikes kids get for christmas. Up and down the country, youngsters are building their own BMX tracks on bits of waste ground. It's cycling as young people know it. If the UCI doesn't prioritise grass-roots engagement, it's ultimately a betrayal to all of us - we can't survive without new blood.

Bring back grasstrack, ffs!

All you need is a field.


(but I agree about mtb and bmx being 'more accessible'. It's more attractive to teenagers as well, looks more 'fun')
<i>Marmite slave</i>

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Liggett goes off on one
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2012, 11:34:13 am »
I was riding my BMX round the dirt track we* "built" up in the local woods before I even knew such a thing as a velodrome existed.

d.

*"we" being me and some other local kids.