French is accusing British cyclist Cheating

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 20, 2012
12
0
0
lemoogle said:
NZ got about the same start. What about a team that started much better the first go than the second one? Would they be happy? It's much easier to mess up once you know you were doing really well before the restart.

By other restarts I meant in the UK's favour, not the men's double sculls in particular, sorry for the imprecision.

Also,
It took 30 minutes to disqualify Pendleton each time, for the team sprint, they even let the men go first before making a decision.
it took them however one minute to disqualify the chinese team for an infraction that was a million times less obvious and much more debatable.

Also stuffing a batton change is not really luck. It happens to loads of other teams and it's due to them messing up, not luck. Pendleton's first disqualification was also by quite some margin ( compared to the chinese at least ) and I wouldn't call it luck. The second one was similar, although we can debate wether mears was at the origin of pendleton's mistake.
No it didn't you snail eating tosser , **** you and you're ****hole country.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
lemoogle said:
Listen, I'm not arguing it, the officials didn't make a mistake for the men's Team Sprint that's not the point that he was the same for pendleton ( there was one same leading official for the whole of the events in the velodrome ). The bias came when the badminton players were banned for unsportmanship but it was completely ignored ( and twisted to the british media ) that hindes had said that they fell on purpose.

To me more than twice the difference of the chinese is quite enough to say a lot more. On the distance of a 2 person team sprint, half a wheel is miles.

And they did take AGES to take the decision. They started discussing it early but no decision was taken, it was only announced to the crowd and taken into account officially after the men had done their qualifying, the bbc commentators had no clue either. For the chinese they announced it before the chinese could even get halfway through the journalists.

IMO I dont even see how Brailsford was even allowed to argue with them for 10 minutes, didn't see them discussing it for 10 minutes with the chinese coach before announcing it.
I've tried to look up what the infringement for the British and Chinese teams was supposed to be, however it's being said that the UCI website is out of date and doesn't have the new rule. However others online are saying that it had nothing to do with wheel overlap on the line. The wheel overlap theory appears to have been due to sloppy reporting. The infringement was beginning the changeover before the 30 metre zone where this was supposed to take place, that is 15 metres before and 15 metres after the start/finish line. It is being reported that the Chinese broke the rule twice, and the British once during the rounds. The evidence the officials are said to have used is head-on footage that we were not shown, using this they were able to see both lead riders pulling out before the zone. As to the time it took for both judgements these were the same officials who were overseeing team sprints rounds that afternoon that were separated by 13-15 minutes each (the schedule is available online), I would imagine that the judgements were made whenever they had the chance to given the packed schedule
 
Jul 30, 2012
14
0
0
I think comparing Hindes to the badminton lot is stretching it.

The badminton players were booted out for deliberately trying to LOSE after several warnings from the match offical and then an investigation from whatever body. Hindes stretched the rules in order to try and WIN.

I can accept that using the rules to your full advantage can be seen as unsportsmanlike but it is still a world away from throwing a match.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
There is no difference in that 2 cases : both played with rules and more importantly have broken the swearing of fairplay :
In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Oath#cite_note-history-0
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
hotrats said:
I think comparing Hindes to the badminton lot is stretching it.

The badminton players were booted out for deliberately trying to LOSE after several warnings from the match offical and then an investigation from whatever body. Hindes stretched the rules in order to try and WIN.

I can accept that using the rules to your full advantage can be seen as unsportsmanlike but it is still a world away from throwing a match.
Losing to play someone else is to WIN. It happens often and it happened with spain in basketball against argentina at the olympics, in my eyes it's less unsportsmanlike than to fall to try again. When losing to play someone else, you 've already done the hard job of qualifying, falling on purpose to restart is completely different.
They decided to disqualify the badminton teams. Where is uniformity?
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
lemoogle said:
Losing to play someone else is to WIN. It happens often and it happened with spain in basketball against argentina at the olympics, in my eyes it's less unsportsmanlike than to fall to try again. When losing to play someone else, you 've already done the hard job of qualifying, falling on purpose to restart is completely different.
They decided to disqualify the badminton teams. Where is uniformity?
Except if they had already been warned by the umpire they only had themselves to blame. Plus if you set out to lose a badminton match don't do it in such a way what the whole audience knows what you're doing.
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
Hawkwood said:
Except if they had already been warned by the umpire they only had themselves to blame. Plus if you set out to lose a badminton match don't do it in such a way what the whole audience knows what you're doing.
Look I agree , I don't like it either and I'm not saying it was okay.
I'll reply to your point anyway:
"If you set out to fall on purpose to get a retry don't do it in such a way that you tell the press afterwards"
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
lemoogle said:
Look I agree , I don't like it either and I'm not saying it was okay.
I'll reply to your point anyway:
"If you set out to fall on purpose to get a retry don't do it in such a way that you tell the press afterwards"
Yes and to rephrase your line above `if you set out to lose a badminton match don't do it in such a way that an audience, at least half of which had probably played badminton at school, realise what you're doing'!

I'd be interested to know when the UCI is actually going to post the rule amendments on its website, not exactly helpful for our debates if the rules are out of date.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
86TDFWinner The Clinic 4

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS