UCI has announced that all participating countries will only be allowed one rider per track event in London 2012 Olympic Games
Source: Cycling weekly
Source: Cycling weekly
FeralMetal said:............ Track Cycling needs a new governing body to look after it's interests,as the UCI is doing it's best to destroy it. ....................
D Avoid said:I do hope this is dead in the water and is celebrated as the last Quack Pat Made.
Big GMaC said:so what about 1 swimmer in each swimming event?
no point for the americans bothering apart from phelps if that were the case.
kurtinsc said:They used to allow 3 per country in swimming. They knocked it down to 2 because of the 1968 summer olympics. Of the 72 individual medals awarded, the US won 48... or 2/3rds of those offered. They swept the medals in 5 events.
I've always thought in "speed" events that are raced against the clock or measuring tape (swimming, track and field) the top 25 qualifiers in the world should be admitted regardless of country... and any country without a participant after the 25 who has a qualifying time should be allowed one..
kurtinsc said:I've always thought in "speed" events that are raced against the clock or measuring tape (swimming, track and field) the top 25 qualifiers in the world should be admitted regardless of country... and any country without a participant after the 25 who has a qualifying time should be allowed one.
Obviously that wouldn't work with team sports (basketball/hockey), "judged" sports (figure skating/gymnastics) or "competition" sports where you just try to defeat your opponents rather then put up the best time (road cycling, short track speed skating)... but if it's simply about the time... then give me an olympics with the fastest competitors regardless of the country.
FeralMetal said:He who quacks last quacks loudest (longest?)
Who is it that is really driving this ? McQuaid or Rogge, and who gains most from it? not the NGB's, not the host cities, (less return per $ invested in velodrome,in terms of competition or entertainment) certainly not the athletes.
If the benefit is not transparent and open then it's underhand and covert BUT someone will benefit in some way.
balena said:Swimming isn't getting bigger; it’s just a sport with many events. The reason swimming isn't getting cut is that it’s considered a traditional sport, like athletics.
I presume your talking about Michael Phelps, who is one of those athletes that'll come along every 50 years. The range of events he's succeeded in is ridiculous. It’s like a track rider winning the Madison, Individual Pursuit, Kieren and Sprint in one outing.