I have done. You claimed that it was an anti-British move in your first post. The passing mention that it affects non-British riders too can hardly be read as a concession of the point, although if that's what was intended then fair enough. There is simply no element of anti-Britishness whatsoever.BestButter said:
Gender parity is the goal, and the decision isn't perverse since these changes achieve gender parity in event numbers. Women's interest in all events is as strong as the men's, with the exception of the madison. All this comes down to is whether or not we think the individual pursuit merits being there. I think on balance it probably does (ie. I'd take it over the omnium), but if the choice is between a sexist track programme with the individual pursuit and a non-sexist one without it, I'll go with the 21st century option.
What went before was wanting because women had three events compared to the men's seven. That is shameful. What was wrong was that the framework of Olympic cycling was sexist, and that very much is starting to be resolved thanks to these changes.
The individual pursuit is not gone forever, banished; it simply won't be at the Olympics, an event which cyclists and cycling fans shouldn't regard as the pinnacle of the sport anyway (that being World Championships). The Olympics already lacked the men's and women's scratch, time trial and omnium and the women's team sprint, team pursuit and keirin. Would I like the individual pursuit there? Yes, of course. Would I like it in place of the women's keirin, team pursuit and team sprint? Absolutely not.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram