Alex Dowsett interview

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I had the numbers somewhere but from memory the male peloton will be cut from 150 this time to 90 next time with 90 allocated to the women as well, there will be some extra track places for women's sprint as the teams are going from 2 to 3 and I think the other disciplines are already at parity. The overall number of places allocated to cycling is going down slightly too.

Edit:

Here's the link, I was mainly right but there are a couple of other changes. Mens track reduced, both MTB reduced and freestyle BMX increased.

Anyway, it makes totally no sense to have an equal number of men and women starting in cycling events. There's probably like 20 times more males in pro cycling at any level than females and logically this proportion shuold be reflected in the size of men's and women's peletons at the Olympics. The chances for a male pro cyclist to take part in Olympics are 20x lower than for a corresponding female pro cyclist.

Gender parity at its best.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, it makes totally no sense to have an equal number of men and women starting in cycling events. There's probably like 20 times more males in pro cycling at any level than females and logically this proportion shuold be reflected in the size of men's and women's peletons at the Olympics. The chances for a male pro cyclist to take part in Olympics are 20x lower than for a corresponding female pro cyclist.

Gender parity, at its best.
Hopefully quality and breadth will follow opportunity from the top to the bottom.

I don't think your suggestion is logical necessarily. Reportedly Coubertin said the important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part, so why shouldn't men and women have the same number of participants?
 
so why shouldn't men and women have the same number of participants?
Just for the reasons I brought up in my last post.

Imo Coubertin's words that you cited, only confirm further my point of view. If just the participation aspect alone is the most improtant thing, then why women need to be put in a much more favourable position to take part in the Olympics than men (simple maths here)?
If he had put this the other way around (winning>participation) then we could've argue that there's indeed no difference between 130 or 90 men starting in the event, because it's very likely that in both cases the strongest riders are present in the race anyway.
 
Anyway, it makes totally no sense to have an equal number of men and women starting in cycling events. There's probably like 20 times more males in pro cycling at any level than females and logically this proportion shuold be reflected in the size of men's and women's peletons at the Olympics. The chances for a male pro cyclist to take part in Olympics are 20x lower than for a corresponding female pro cyclist.

Gender parity at its best.
I 100% disagree with you but this isn’t really the place to discuss it.
 
Reactions: Leinster
Ok, but who takes the spot then, if Australia won't to use it? It should be redistributed according to the rules.
When countries have a total allocation of cyclists which includes all disciplines then often the track wins out - Then when you are mixing and matching between the RR and the ITT you are restricted in your selections - My understanding is that spot will be redistributed at the time - That's how Dan Craven of Namibia got a last minute call up at the 2016 Olmpics.
 
When countries have a total allocation of cyclists which includes all disciplines then often the track wins out - Then when you are mixing and matching between the RR and the ITT you are restricted in your selections - My understanding is that spot will be redistributed at the time - That's how Dan Craven of Namibia got a last minute call up at the 2016 Olmpics.
Yes, but if they have already decided not to make use the spot, then I thought it would be redistributed before the games, unless they officially named someone who was never actually going to ride it.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I think the biggest problem with the Olympics is the wide range of sports that are added where the Olympics isn't the pinnacle of that sport. Arguably cycling is one of these, and while riders clearly would like to win it, I think most would pick, for example, the WCRR over an Olympic win. My opinion is that if the Olympics isn't the highest accolade in a sport, it shouldn't be in the Olympics, and they should give higher athlete allocations to the sports where it is (within reason).
On the other hand if some sport is not a part of the Olympic games. What does that say about that sport. All in all i feel that wide verity of different sport disciplines is a good thing regarding Olympic games. But obviously the systems needs to work in a way best of the best do get a chance to compete. As this is where some appeal can get lost. If for example you don't compete against the best in your discipline. When this criteria is satisfied then in my opinion being an Olympian, especially if you win a medal, does rate rather high.
 
Lets say you win an Olympic road race or ITT on 2021 edition of Olympic games. There is a rather big chance, fifty years from now, that will still mean something.

P.S. Olympics are a serious thing and that is why Alex Dowsett feels like his dreams where crushed and i must say i feel his pain.
 
Reactions: spalco
Or lets say Slovenians. Roglič, Pogačar and Tratnik. All eligible of doing a good ITT. Only one spot available.

In my opinion letting more cyclist in the competition would further increase the appeal of wearing the medal.
I tend to think it would have the opposite effect.
And if you let more cyclists then you have to let more 100 mt runners and swimmers and... It would become a logistical and scheduling nightmare (much more than it already is).
 
On the other hand if some sport is not a part of the Olympic games. What does that say about that sport. All in all i feel that wide verity of different sport disciplines is a good thing regarding Olympic games. But obviously the systems needs to work in a way best of the best do get a chance to compete. As this is where some appeal can get lost. If for example you don't compete against the best in your discipline. When this criteria is satisfied then in my opinion being an Olympian, especially if you win a medal, does rate rather high.
There are several very big sports that either aren't part of the Olympics or the Olympics isn't the highest accolade. As far as I'm concerned, these sports shouldn't be in the Olympics and they only are because of money.

Lets say you win an Olympic road race or ITT on 2021 edition of Olympic games. There is a rather big chance, fifty years from now, that will still mean something.

P.S. Olympics are a serious thing and that is why Alex Dowsett feels like his dreams where crushed and i must say i feel his pain.
Surprisingly, I'm quite aware that the Olympics are a "serious thing", pretty sure my post you quoted makes that clear.

Or lets say Slovenians. Roglič, Pogačar and Tratnik. All eligible of doing a good ITT. Only one spot available.

In my opinion letting more cyclist in the competition would further increase the appeal of wearing the medal.
Which athletes are you getting rid of?




Dowsett should really be angry with BC if he feels one of the spots should have been his and was instead given to a climber for the RR. They've known about the course for a long time and the rules are the same as the last Olympics. It sounds like they haven't been very honest with him.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
dowsett sure likes a good whine......it's not as though he would have beaten many others...
I totally understand his disappointment. He wouldn't be a likely medal-winner, but he has at least seriously contended TTs in the past. In most other sports the 10th or 20th best athlete in the world usually has no problem getting to the Olympics (unless you're a Kenyan long-distance runner or something), and I think the rule about not letting specialists ride the TT is very stupid.

But it was known in advance how these things go.
 
Reactions: 42x16ss
In my opinion, what should be reduced is the number of competitions which are so similar that they are at least in not neglectable parts contested and won by the same athletes.
So, track cycling: Make it two or at best three competitions for each men and women. Sprint, Omnium, done.
Swimming: 10k, 50m breast stroke, 50m free style, 1500m free style, 200m butterfly, plus one relay competition.
Shooting: Two competitions at best!! And for men and women together.
Gymnastics: Combined, plus team events.
Get rid of the 200m track sprint.
Fencing: Two weapons at best.
Canooing: can be reduced substantially.
Get rid of BMX.
(Also get rid of modern pentathlon, which sounds cool in theory, is hardly done by anyone and most of all the horses are treated so badly there, I never want to see that again.)
There are also too many weight categories in martial arts and such. You don't have cycling for different weight categories either, and rightly so.

I know it won't happen, but if I was queen of the world or at least the Olympics...

Now, about the women's peloton size, I will have to write a longer post some other time.
 
In my opinion, what should be reduced is the number of competitions which are so similar that they are at least in not neglectable parts contested and won by the same athletes.
So, track cycling: Make it two or at best three competitions for each men and women. Sprint, Omnium, done.
Swimming: 10k, 50m breast stroke, 50m free style, 1500m free style, 200m butterfly, plus one relay competition.
Shooting: Two competitions at best!! And for men and women together.
Gymnastics: Combined, plus team events.
Get rid of the 200m track sprint.
Fencing: Two weapons at best.
Canooing: can be reduced substantially.
Get rid of BMX.
(Also get rid of modern pentathlon, which sounds cool in theory, is hardly done by anyone and most of all the horses are treated so badly there, I never want to see that again.)
There are also too many weight categories in martial arts and such. You don't have cycling for different weight categories either, and rightly so.

I know it won't happen, but if I was queen of the world or at least the Olympics...

Now, about the women's peloton size, I will have to write a longer post some other time.
What? You want to take out practically all the swimming? And put in the 50 breaststroke? Are you mad, woman?
But I will agree, that now having both the 400, 800 and 1500m freestyle for both men and woman, while keeping the 400m, as well as three medley relays, are a bit overkill, unless you just want to see the best freestylers win a bucketload of medals. We already have the WCs and ECs for that. Maybe have the 25K in there instead to give the open water swimmers better opportunities, so they don't have to fight against the pool swimmers to win gold like in the 10K.

Replace the keirin with the individual pursuit and reform the Omnium, so it goes back to being a two day event with scratch and elimination races, individual pursuit, flying lap and a points race, for instance. It was wrong to have three TT events in it before, but now only having four events, which are all mass starts and where three of them are pretty similar, is just stupid. This should of course apply to every Omnium event, and not only during the Olympics.

The 200m is an iconic event, so there's no way we can get rid of that.
 
Last edited:
What? You want to take out practically all the swimming? And put in the 50 breaststroke? Are you mad, woman?
But I will agree, that now having both the 400, 800 and 1500m freestyle for both men and woman, while keeping the 400m, as well as three medley relays, are a bit overkill, unless you just want to see the best freestylers win a bucketload of medals. We already have the WCs and ECs for that. Maybe have the 25K in there instead to give the open water swimmers better opportunities, so they don't have to fight against the pool swimmers to win gold like in the 10K.

Replace the keirin with the individual pursuit and reform the Omnium, so it goes back to being a two day event with scratch and elimination races, individual pursuit, flying lap and a points race, for instance. It was wrong to have three TT events in it before, but now only having four events, which are all mass starts and where three of them are pretty similar, is just stupid. This should of course apply to every Omnium event, and not only during the Olympics.

The 200m is an iconic event, so there's no way we can get rid of that.
Actually that was a completely spontanous draft, and one would have to think more carefully about which events should really make it in the end.
But I'm serious about cutting these competitions drastically. Not because I don't like them (then I would get rid of stuff like golf and weight lifting), but because there are way too many competitions.
Nobody can watch all of them, even if they are, like me, trying to. The events require so much organization already, they are expensive and inflated, which is why the committees are trying to shed some sports now and then when they take up new ones, and while I think it's very good to take new sports like climbing/ bouldering, which most of my friends, unlike shot putting or keirin, actually do in their free time, into the program, I was really shocked when a few years ago they wanted to ditch wrestling (is it wrestling in English? you know what I mean, the classic greek-roman style, not the showy one...). Not because I am such a fan per se of that sport, it does have its own problems with rules and so on, and it's not trendy, but that one is a classic, the core of the Olympics! (Not track cycling. ;) )
One more thing that's ridiculous about certain sports having so many sub-disciplines is when they are mostly done or financially supported in one or only a handful of countries (if only to win as many medals as possible, uhem...) and then that country wins 12 medals in basically one sport... (and even better with one or two athletes...)
I know there are so many topics linked to that... and one would have to find other reasons and ways to support a sport / discipline around the world, although not 100 Olympic medals await... but it could make this huge circus more watchable and bring it closer to its roots or at least its proclaimed goals.
 
Which athletes are you getting rid of?
Exactly.

Answering such question at best leads to a compromise. A compromise where often a couple of the best athletes in some discipline do miss out. And that is why some cyclist would rather choose some other title (worlds), compared to the Olympics. In my opinion Olympic title should be equal or to weight a bit more. And until that happens folk organising Olympics still have some job left to do.
 
I tend to think it would have the opposite effect.
And if you let more cyclists then you have to let more 100 mt runners and swimmers and... It would become a logistical and scheduling nightmare (much more than it already is).
I don't believe it would have the opposite effect. You have 3 eligible athletes and you must assume the other two would perform worse. As for the logistics. They could i guess build one less stadion and put more emphasise on the sports side. That would likely resolve such issues.
 
Actually that was a completely spontanous draft, and one would have to think more carefully about which events should really make it in the end.
But I'm serious about cutting these competitions drastically. Not because I don't like them (then I would get rid of stuff like golf and weight lifting), but because there are way too many competitions.
Nobody can watch all of them, even if they are, like me, trying to. The events require so much organization already, they are expensive and inflated, which is why the committees are trying to shed some sports now and then when they take up new ones, and while I think it's very good to take new sports like climbing/ bouldering, which most of my friends, unlike shot putting or keirin, actually do in their free time, into the program, I was really shocked when a few years ago they wanted to ditch wrestling (is it wrestling in English? you know what I mean, the classic greek-roman style, not the showy one...). Not because I am such a fan per se of that sport, it does have its own problems with rules and so on, and it's not trendy, but that one is a classic, the core of the Olympics! (Not track cycling. ;) )
One more thing that's ridiculous about certain sports having so many sub-disciplines is when they are mostly done or financially supported in one or only a handful of countries (if only to win as many medals as possible, uhem...) and then that country wins 12 medals in basically one sport... (and even better with one or two athletes...)
I know there are so many topics linked to that... and one would have to find other reasons and ways to support a sport / discipline around the world, although not 100 Olympic medals await... but it could make this huge circus more watchable and bring it closer to its roots or at least its proclaimed goals.
Yes, I also think there might be too many sports and competitions in the Olympics nowadays, but I don't mind that it's impossible to watch all of them. That's part of the charm, that multiple event are on at the same time. And when the Olympics are held in Asia like this year, us Europeans will defintely have to be more selective about which events to follow. Watching the women's 800m freestyle final from Beijing at four in the morning, is still a highlight for me, and that would probably not have been the same experience if it had been at four o'clock in the afternoon.
 
Yeah I thought about the amount of swimming competitions too, could be reduced to one race for each distance; 50m, 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, longer distance, relays. All those different styles are like if cycling had additional disciplines with a mandatory handicap, like you could only use one leg or have to ride backwards.
 
Yeah I thought about the amount of swimming competitions too, could be reduced to one race for each distance; 50m, 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, longer distance, relays. All those different styles are like if cycling had additional disciplines with a mandatory handicap, like you could only use one leg or have to ride backwards.
It's more like having both regular running as well as race walking, steeplechase and hurdles in athletics. While I aslo think there are too many Olympic competitions in swimming now, limiting it to just one per distance wouldn't be right either and would go against the fundamentals of swimming events in general.
 
Before you cut anything else, the first sport to cut completely is soccer/football (probably basketball too), because it's absolutely pointless, and nobody gives a *** about the Olympic football tournament. That's nearly 500 athletes alone that you could distribute to other sports. Or maybe tweak the gender equality formula a little and leave the women's tournament.

Tennis is also dumb, that's 172 athletes. I can't easily find how many athletes participated in handball and basketball, but it's got to have been at least 500 in total as well.

I'm with King Boonen on this, sports where the Olympic tournament is only an afterthought shouldn't be in the Games, unless it is strictly amateurs who are competing, but that's in the past.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS