Olympic Track Cycling

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/petercossins/status/765853836066062336
‏@petercossins
French coaching dir Jacquet admits to "problem of leadership, of management" in @lequipe . Says team sprint trio were a team in name only

https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/765855244412649472
‏@petercossins
Jacques apparently looking for a Shane Sutton-type figure as link between him and track coaches
French disfonctionnality at these games has been epic, clearly the failure they experienced will be a good opportunity for a tabula rasa. They have noone to blame but themselves for not having had better haul of medals, at least talking silver and bronzes...
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
TheSpud said:
zalacain said:
I wonder whether we'll see other teams (eg GB) doing the same.
On the BBC commentary Boardman said BC had looked into the idea several years ago but dismissed it
Interesting - I guess it doesn't make a big difference then
Surely it must have to make no difference or be detrimental for GB to not do it? If they did look at it several years ago they were basically making the frames as one offs so design costs can't have been a worry and in terms of the actual crank it's just a case cutting the pedals threads in the opposite direction. For a team of marginal gains I find it surprising it would be dismissed as I can't really see a down side.
Well, absolutely it must be no difference or detrimental as you say. The fact that no-one else has done it would also suggest that it makes no difference. Strange that the Americans would get something like that wrong.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.
But they did cut some of the races that GB were better at didn't they to try and cut their dominance - IP and 1k TT? Or did I dream that?

Also I think its also valid to consider Silver & Gold. The margins as so small in the final (generally) that losing out could happen for all manner of reasons other than outright performance. Either way you cut it GB are still dominant.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
King Boonen said:
Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.
But they did cut some of the races that GB were better at didn't they to try and cut their dominance - IP and 1k TT? Or did I dream that?

Also I think its also valid to consider Silver & Gold. The margins as so small in the final (generally) that losing out could happen for all manner of reasons other than outright performance. Either way you cut it GB are still dominant.
Kilo was already gone by 2008. They cut 5 events, three of which, mens madison, mens points and momens' points GB only managed 1 bronze in, in the mens points. They also cut the IP, but the events added were mainly womens' events where GB had the strongest riders, womens' ominum, TP and keirin (Pendleton Vs Meares here obviously).

The narrow margins aren't that narrow, especially in sprinting. If you ask the sprinters they'll tell you if you win by the width a from rim you knew you were going to win easily. Even the smaller gaps they usually know a good few metres before the line.

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser ;)
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser ;)
Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.
 
Re: Re:

veji11 said:
King Boonen said:
You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser ;)
Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.
Did you actually understand what I wrote?
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
veji11 said:
King Boonen said:
You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser ;)
Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.
Did you actually understand what I wrote?
Well to some extent... You say silve medals don't count and I say that overall medal numbers are also a way to measure density at the highest level.
 
Re: Re:

veji11 said:
King Boonen said:
veji11 said:
King Boonen said:
You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser ;)
Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.
Did you actually understand what I wrote?
Well to some extent... You say silve medals don't count and I say that overall medal numbers are also a way to measure density at the highest level.
Sorry no, I will try and be more clear. In 2012 nations could only select 1 rider per event. This means that the total number of medals a nation can win will be less. It also means that medals below gold may go to someone who is not necessarily the second or third best rider, as they may be from a nation which the gold medalist came from and so couldn't compete. This can go either way, but it very likely reduced the total number of medals GB won. You can scale it for total number of medals available per rider per nation, but unless you count all three medals the same you will bias the results through ranking them. Including lower medals in knock-out competitions is also problematic as riders who may have progressed to the final or bronze medal race could be knocked out early.

The easiest way to do it is just to look at the Gold medals which have a downward trend over the only comparable competitions we have. It's really too short a period to draw any conclusions anyway and this getting very far away from the original point so I'm going to stop.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
TheSpud said:
King Boonen said:
Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.
But they did cut some of the races that GB were better at didn't they to try and cut their dominance - IP and 1k TT? Or did I dream that?

Also I think its also valid to consider Silver & Gold. The margins as so small in the final (generally) that losing out could happen for all manner of reasons other than outright performance. Either way you cut it GB are still dominant.
Kilo was already gone by 2008. They cut 5 events, three of which, mens madison, mens points and momens' points GB only managed 1 bronze in, in the mens points. They also cut the IP, but the events added were mainly womens' events where GB had the strongest riders, womens' ominum, TP and keirin (Pendleton Vs Meares here obviously).

The narrow margins aren't that narrow, especially in sprinting. If you ask the sprinters they'll tell you if you win by the width a from rim you knew you were going to win easily. Even the smaller gaps they usually know a good few metres before the line.

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser ;)
Ah ok - I just seem to remember seeing / reading about them cutting certain events that GB had been good in. I didn't consider that they added in Women's ones that we were equally good in! Good point re: silver and London.

I'm annoyed they didn't have the Madison as its a great race to watch - although explaining it to Mrs Spud would have been a nightmare, it was hard enough explaining the Sprint and the Keirin!
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Sorry no, I will try and be more clear. In 2012 nations could only select 1 rider per event. This means that the total number of medals a nation can win will be less. It also means that medals below gold may go to someone who is not necessarily the second or third best rider, as they may be from a nation which the gold medalist came from and so couldn't compete. This can go either way, but it very likely reduced the total number of medals GB won. You can scale it for total number of medals available per rider per nation, but unless you count all three medals the same you will bias the results through ranking them. Including lower medals in knock-out competitions is also problematic as riders who may have progressed to the final or bronze medal race could be knocked out early.

The easiest way to do it is just to look at the Gold medals which have a downward trend over the only comparable competitions we have. It's really too short a period to draw any conclusions anyway and this getting very far away from the original point so I'm going to stop.
Ok thanks for the explanations of the first paragraph, regarding the end, I suppose I will have to stop arguing with you too because I find your "downward trend" hilarious in its absurdity. the Brits have had 7;7;6 gold medals and 12;9;12 medals overall over the last 3 olympic games for track cycling. Arguing that that one gold medal less in 2016 is evidence of a downward trend is just absurd to me. The dominance has been equivalent, the statistics support it, there is no "downward trend" at play here whatsoever.
 
Oct 28, 2012
31
0
0
Re: Re:

veji11 said:
Singer01 said:
does anybody think the Netherlands are just as suspicious as the UK? 2G 2S 1B from a country with about 1/4 of the population of the UK?

Third the main issue here is that one country managed to crush everybody else. No single talent from any other country could compete. In swimming for example numbers (talent pool) and quality of training, infrastructure, etc do speak and mean that countries like the US get lots of medals. But individual great talents from other countries still have their chance : a great hungarian or aussie or french or welsh swimmer can win, and the usual ebb and flow of great generational talent applies : give a country 2 or 3 great athletes and they get many medals on one olympic games or 2 but once that specific generation falters, that peak fades.
If you look across many of the sports at the Olympics there is one dominant country. South Korea took all four archery golds. China have taken 5 of the 6 diving golds and have won all of the table tennis events so far. USA took 16 golds in swimming (the next highest took 3!). Why shouldn't a country be dominant at cycling?

I think there were really disappointing performances from Australia and France on the track. I also think that the Netherlands did pretty well. Will the British continue to dominate? With the current Olympic track program and the age of the British cyclists, I don't see why not.
 
Aug 17, 2016
56
0
0
Not that anybody cares anymore but the video replay clearly showed that Awang, kenny and that german all broke the rules. The camera angle was from slightly behind the riders. Which means that the riders could have been just slightly overlapping the durny and would still have looked to be behind it. However all three were shown to be clearly overlapping the durny and it would be impossible for them to be doing anything other than cheating . It's all due to parallax or something. The same applies when you watch the baseball and the camera is always offset to the 3rd base side. If a pitch looks wide on the right as you look then is even wider in reality. A pitch which looks slightly wide on the left as you look is almost certainly a strike.

The judges shat it. Same with the non ruling on Cavendish hospitalising another rider.
 
Aug 17, 2016
56
0
0
While I'm here.

There's a clear problem with the women's omnium. Both men and women get 40 points for the first 5 events. So they could have an identical spread of points.
However the men then have 16 x 5 points for sprints and 160 laps in which to gain 20 points for gaining one.
The women only have 10 x 5 points in sprints and 100 laps in which to gain one for 20 points.

Either the women need to race 160 laps for the points race or their points ratio needs to be changed. Currently it's a nonsense.
 
If a 15% loss isn't downwards to you I recommend you pay someone to manage your finances. At least you've dropped your claim they have been improving in each Olympics.




The makeup of the British squad at the next world championships is going to be interesting. With retirements and road taking priority for a good few I reckon we'll see a very big drop.

I was glad to see Vogel get gold, she's always struck me as a very nice character.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
If a 15% loss isn't downwards to you I recommend you pay someone to manage your finances. At least you've dropped your claim they have been improving in each Olympics.
If a nation getting 7,7,6 gold medals over 3 olympic games and 12,9,12 medals over the same time span overall which is an incredibly consistent ratio of medals is a downward trend to you, I recommend you never do statistical analysis, every tiny bleep would seem to you like a massive trend reversal....
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
pastronef said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/olympic-games-australia-to-re-think-approach-to-track-after-coming-up-short-in-rio/

Tabotta suggests less focus on world championships ahead of 2020 games

chose your goals and focus on those ones

seems the AUS team is going the British way
The thing is I think all teams kept some improvements and equipment under wraps for the Olympics, the difference is that it only makes such a massive difference for team GB... It looks like everybody is going to treat other events like Regular Season in the NBA and the Olympics will be considered the playoffs, ie the only thing that really matters. In a way it's sad because it reduces a sport to an event every 4 years.
 
Re: Re:

veji11 said:
King Boonen said:
If a 15% loss isn't downwards to you I recommend you pay someone to manage your finances. At least you've dropped your claim they have been improving in each Olympics.
If a nation getting 7,7,6 gold medals over 3 olympic games and 12,9,12 medals over the same time span overall which is an incredibly consistent ratio of medals is a downward trend to you, I recommend you never do statistical analysis, every tiny bleep would seem to you like a massive trend reversal....
Again with comparing total medals after being explained why you can't do it, it's apple to oranges. People pay lots of money for me to do their data analysis including statistics and publish the results in journals such as these:

http://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/analyst/

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/

Journal of lipids research

Not had anything retracted yet.
 
pastronef said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/olympic-games-australia-to-re-think-approach-to-track-after-coming-up-short-in-rio/

Tabotta suggests less focus on world championships ahead of 2020 games

chose your goals and focus on those ones

seems the AUS team is going the British way
It makes sense if you can guarantee the funding and support. Track cycling in the UK is only about the Olympics at the top level, the World Championships might get mentioned a bit but not really. Due to the success of the GB track squad it's a massively popular event at the Olympics, I think it was one of the most subscribed in 2012.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
veji11 said:
King Boonen said:
If a 15% loss isn't downwards to you I recommend you pay someone to manage your finances. At least you've dropped your claim they have been improving in each Olympics.
If a nation getting 7,7,6 gold medals over 3 olympic games and 12,9,12 medals over the same time span overall which is an incredibly consistent ratio of medals is a downward trend to you, I recommend you never do statistical analysis, every tiny bleep would seem to you like a massive trend reversal....
Again with comparing total medals after being explained why you can't do it, it's apple to oranges. People pay lots of money for me to do their data analysis including statistics and publish the results in journals such as these:

http://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/analyst/

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/

Journal of lipids research

Not had anything retracted yet.
Let's drop it King. you consider 7;12 than 7;9 than 6;12 to be a downward trend, I see it as sustained and constant excellence.
 
Re: Re:

veji11 said:
Let's drop it King. you consider 7;12 than 7;9 than 6;12 to be a downward trend, I see it as sustained and constant excellence.
No, I have no opinion on the total medals because they cannot be compared, do not attribute things to me I have repeatedly told you are wrong.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
veji11 said:
Let's drop it King. you consider 7;12 than 7;9 than 6;12 to be a downward trend, I see it as sustained and constant excellence.
No, I have no opinion on the total medals because they cannot be compared, do not attribute things to me I have repeatedly told you are wrong.
Gee. ok let phrase it again better : you can choose to discard total number of medals as a further element to illustrate the dominance of the british teams and focus only on gold where 7,7,6 shows indeed that there is one less gold. If you want to say that that one less gold is a decline, brilliant, one less gold is indeed, incredibly enough, one less gold, meaning that there is less of it so it is a decline...

Now the way I see it discarding other medals is bogus, because performance and dominance are illustrated not only by gold medals but by density at the highest level and in that regard other medals matter.

So i'll restate my view that there is constant and sustained dominance by the british team in track cycling in the same proportions as in previous olympic games. You see a downward trend because you chose to focus only on gold (an a change of one point makes no sense statiscally but hey you know better than me), I think it's ridiculous to use those words "downward trend" in regard to team GB track performance.
 
You can only compare like for like. As explained due to the selection changes for 2012 you cannot compare lower level medals as competition was artificially removed. This is not hard to understand, it is a basic concept in experimental design. You can't even really compare 2008 with anything because the events were massively changed.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
You can only compare like for like. As explained due to the selection changes for 2012 you cannot compare lower level medals as competition was artificially removed. This is not hard to understand, it is a basic concept in experimental design. You can't even really compare 2008 with anything because the events were massively changed.
So don't compare anything with anything !
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Track Cycling 0
Similar threads
Track Through the Back!

ASK THE COMMUNITY