Originally Posted by DirtyWorks
You are enabling the name-calling idiocy by letting the end of his post slide.
I could be wrong. Right/Wrong I don't care. I care that we now have some more information to work with thanks to your post about the sport groups.
Always happy to help, Dirty. I like actual information, too - indeed, it's the demand for information/evidence over pure conjecture and frankly, in many cases, devout wishful thinking has got me the most abuse in this forum!! If the conversation revolves around info, you will usually find I try to explore that, and look that up, etc- it's when, and you are by no means key offender in this, the whole thing turns into an emotional bilious shambles that I get tetchy.
So i will readily admit, for once, I went right down what might be called the sarcasm/satire route - i don't think it's off topic to do so, i was still debunking possible accusations, and it was great fun - and a couple of the more snide full time anti-sky, anti-brit posters in here took sudden hurt-feely offence, which given how they act generally in here, was kinda funny too. seems a lot of mockers don't like being mocked. Who'd have thunk it.
But let's return to normal programming. The IOC look at 'programmes' for each 'sport' and 'discipline' every few years. you may remember Golf and rugby sevens got in last time, and Karate and Squash are front runners now.
In addition, IOC look into programmes, and attempt to agree with the Federations the number of events, competitors, officials and venues - with a key eye on cost sustainability and gender equality (gymnastics excluded - apparently, and I asked!, you'll never see the olympic Men's beam or women's pomell) - gender equality is their 'thing' right now...
Now every sport makes compromises of a sort - even the biggies like athletics (no cross-country event), and swimming (no 50m other than freestyle, only one of the long distance events per gender) anf gymnastics (no individual apparatus for rythmic, no aerobic gymnastics (thank god) and no double trampoline or acrobatic gymnastics)
UCI made a relatively big sacrifice to gender equality in 2012 - they ditched a rather large number of track events (by ioc standards) to allow for women's team events.
The UCI world track programme is 19 events - the olympics only 10 - in addition there are no 'freestyle' (artistic) bike events, and no mountain bike downhill. For a Group 2 sport (one of the main ones after Athletics) that's pretty limited.
The UCI have been trying to get more track events since they brought in BMX (it was brought in at the moment IOC were getting most worried about X-Games) - not least because velodromes are specialist and expensive buildings. As are purpose built BMX tracks.
Byt he way, I'm reliably tiold the worst offender for expensive specialist buildings is the canoe slalom course - incredibly expensive, environmentally difficult, fit for absolutely nothing by canoe slalom - of which there are 4 olympic events - only 4! wheras canoe sprint, just reuses the rowing course - IOC like that kinda thing!
So in that sense, the new events thing is not new, and the Brit dominance in it is actually unhelpful - IOC don't like giving out 'certain' medals to already successful teams.
So are Pat and Hein corrupt b*stards?
Abso-f***ing-lutely, as Mr Big used to say.
Are they using their olympic contacts, particularly Pat Hickey, to smooze something out of the IOC?
I'd be shocked if they weren't - the Keirin is a great fun event, but how it got in the games is a disgrace - a disgrace i might add, uncovered by British TV journalists if memory serves...
Would it suit TeamGB to see the existing track programme expanded to include say Individual pursuit and Kilo?
definitely, especially since GB - who are much more about science than tactics - specialises at these 'time trial' style events.
Does a Sky/Wiggins win in he tour de france help that fight?
Not one bit.
1. IOC don't like the number of cycling golds GB wins as it is - they are quite open about it - they don't like China's divers either, for the same reason - it's not going to just give more events if they won't be competitive - burgeoning GB dominance on the road only going to make them more jittery.
2. Velodromes are usually easily enough sold out at the games - small packed atmospheric venues - there's no financial gain, because they won't be allowed extra sessions - it'll be the same bums on seats - just a half hour more each per session. Frankly if the IOC had a a titter of wit, it would beg UCI to run all nineteen events over a whole week - hell, even invent a few new ones - anytihng to increase the room for good ticket sales - but that's not the IOC way...