2008 Beijing Olympics

their daily podcast is here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/comedy/golden_ring/ and is destroying my productivity for 30 minutes of each day. impossible to keep a straight face while listening to it...

Thank you my good amn, I shall cackle like a loon when I get home.

not going to be able to get on the track for a few weeks now then. was planning it before my fall now i think i'll wait.

shows though, that in technical sports that you can "buy" medals. however, where there is more focus on raw talent eg track and field; money doesn't necessarily get you medals!

I didn't see much difference in the equipment the other top contenders were using. There's been some muttering about the amount of time team GB has been able to devote to training given their lottery funding, but I'd argue that it's brought track racing up to the level of running races like the 100m and 200m, where American athletes in particular had been gaining huge financial backing from commercial supporters.

I think the difference is that previously the most money had been devoted to the most televisual disciplines, like the 100m sprint, because most of the money had come out of marketing budgets from the private sector. The UK approach was to distribute government money amongst disciplines that we were good at, which has meant that we devote more money to stuff like track cycling than other countries.

So basically, the money played a part, but only in that it gave our athletes the opportunity to train themselves for their achievements. I think accusing them of unfair technological advantages is below the belt and cheapens what they've done.

so no one is allowed to comment, then if they aren't a pro cyclist? grow-up. this is what enjoying sport is about, people chatting about it. not everyone is expert, but so what? that shouldn't matter.

what a bloody stupid thing to say, frankly.

We'll have to agree to disagree then as I thought your original comments were childish in the extreme. Cavendish's achievements in the Tour far exceeded expectation. His achievements in the Olympics didn't meet up to the standards he, and the rest of the GB cycling team, have set. However, winning a madison isn't as simple as turning up and being the strongest. You also need tactical nous and some luck. It looks like Cavendish and Wiggins were short in some or all of these today.

I'm all for debate and comment.

shows though, that in technical sports that you can "buy" medals. however, where there is more focus on raw talent eg track and field; money doesn't necessarily get you medals!

shows though, that in technical sports that you can "buy" medals. however, where there is more focus on raw talent eg track and field; money doesn't necessarily get you medals!

i'm surprised you actually typed that but then i remembered you are australian.
so was the aussie dollar worth more 4 years ago then?

fucking great mornings racing, watched it all, now i have to do some work...

We'll have to agree to disagree then as I thought your original comments were childish in the extreme. Cavendish's achievements in the Tour far exceeded expectation. His achievements in the Olympics didn't meet up to the standards he, and the rest of the GB cycling team, have set. However, winning a madison isn't as simple as turning up and being the strongest. You also need tactical nous and some luck. It looks like Cavendish and Wiggins were short in some or all of these today.

I'm all for debate and comment.

it's hardly unreasonable to suggest that it wasn't worth throwing away an almost certain victory on the Champs Elysees ( plus the invaluable experience of finishing a TDF) in order to ride one race, which, by your own admission, would have required some luck to win. Add to that the fact that clearly Wiggins will not be at his best after a full programme of racing in the Olympics, and it starts to look like an error of judgement, however childish you may find it to say so.

you may be 'all for' debate and comment, but calling my comments 'spastic' is hardly an intelligent way to go about it.

I watched the whole thing on the BBC website. Luckely I am tucked away enough at work that knowone can see what the hell I am doing. The Madison is prety bafferling with no sownd though.

I watched the whole thing on the BBC website. Luckely I am tucked away enough at work that knowone can see what the hell I am doing. The Madison is prety bafferling with no sownd though.

it's pretty baffling with sound.

it's hardly unreasonable to suggest that it wasn't worth throwing away an almost certain victory on the Champs Elysees ( plus the invaluable experience of finishing a TDF) in order to ride one race,

That would have required Cavendish to not get eliminated on time getting to Paris though and by Cav's own admission, that was looking rather unlikely with a chunk of mountain in the way.

I didn't see much difference in the equipment the other top contenders were using. There's been some muttering about the amount of time team GB has been able to devote to training given their lottery funding, but I'd argue that it's brought track racing up to the level of running races like the 100m and 200m, where American athletes in particular had been gaining huge financial backing from commercial supporters.

I think the difference is that previously the most money had been devoted to the most televisual disciplines, like the 100m sprint, because most of the money had come out of marketing budgets from the private sector. The UK approach was to distribute government money amongst disciplines that we were good at, which has meant that we devote more money to stuff like track cycling than other countries.

So basically, the money played a part, but only in that it gave our athletes the opportunity to train themselves for their achievements. I think accusing them of unfair technological advantages is below the belt and cheapens what they've done.
i'm not taking away from there achievements. just saying that if you invest a lot of money into a certain discipline where the money can make a difference it shows. millions of pounds has been poured into british cycling from b4 manchester commonwealth games, replicating what was previously achieved by australia 8 years earlier. money buys better facilities, better coaches; then you get the top athletes to there potential; then they feed off each-other ie Eady, gray neiwan, sean kelly, macgee

however, as has been evidenced by australia this olympics (just like many championship football/rugby teams) that after long run at the top you drop when your top athletes get too old and fail to bring in the youth. It then takes a few years for the team to build up again.

i bet at 2012 the british swimming team will improve, due to the £££'s they have been pouring in the last couple years ;)

Seriously though, with a four medal difference, do Australia actually have enough remaining medal hopes to bring it back?

Yeah, they can.
There's the surfing, the drinking, sun-baking, chook-eating and most doughnuts in a Commodore to come. They're shoo-ins in all those events...

How do you get doughnuts in one of these?

it's hardly unreasonable to suggest that it wasn't worth throwing away an almost certain victory on the Champs Elysees ( plus the invaluable experience of finishing a TDF) in order to ride one race, which, by your own admission, would have required some luck to win. Add to that the fact that clearly Wiggins will not be at his best after a full programme of racing in the Olympics, and it starts to look like an error of judgement, however childish you may find it to say so.

you may be 'all for' debate and comment, but calling my comments 'spastic' is hardly an intelligent way to go about it.
I would have said calling comments 'spastic' was a pretty tame insult on here. HTFU.

One final point on this utterly pointless willy waving competition - there is no such thing as an almost certain victory in cycling, especially in the Tour. Just ask Cadel Evans.

Or is this man a bit partial?

Dogsballs - Fair enough. I think I read too much into your use of the word 'technical' - I've heard accusations of millions spent on R+D for team GB's bikes, but evidently what you were saying was different, and I think you have a point.

VL commodore, Group A Walkinshaw

I would have said calling comments 'spastic' was a pretty tame insult on here. HTFU.

One final point on this utterly pointless willy waving competition - there is no such thing as an almost certain victory in cycling, especially in the Tour. Just ask Cadel Evans.

fair enough, you complete and utter spasticated willy.

I'm off to ask Cadel Evans.

Dogsballs - Fair enough. I think I read too much into your use of the word 'technical' - I've heard accusations of millions spent on R+D for team GB's bikes, but evidently what you were saying was different, and I think you have a point.
they spent a lot on bikes as well, but so did the aussies. swings and roundabouts.

point is, there are some sports that lots of funding will make a big difference and track cycling is one, where big ££'s really helps.

How do you get doughnuts in one of these?

Use one of these:

Or one of these:

Do you not think you might be over estimating the technical capacity of a C64?

they spent a lot on bikes as well, but so did the aussies. swings and roundabouts.

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Swings and roundabouts. That's two more possible Golds for Aus.

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Swings and roundabouts. That's two more possible Golds for Aus.
as opposed to stabby stabby, bike theft and best dressed chav, at 2012