Too Late, Too Furious: Tokyo Drift - The 2020 Olympics Thread

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The simple answer to everything is to cut the keirin from the Olympic program. Jason Kenny has won enough already.
The medal program is such BS atm, so focused on sprinters and not enough endurance track events. Why things like IP, Points, Scratch and Madison have at various times had to make way for the X-Games nonsense but none of the sprint events do, I've no idea (the kilo is the only major loss on this side).

The Team Sprint is my least favourite track event. It has neither the tactical attraction of the match sprint, nor the cohesive demands or endurance and tactical pacing requirement of the Team Pursuit. It's just a straight watts showdown.

The dominance of the Britons has not just been the result of the money ploughed into a relatively shallow field of competition, but they've also been fortunate with the changes in the track program, as these have reduced the available haul for the mass start events which have a wider range of variables (and a more varied field of entrants as well), and increased the available haul in the events with fewer variables, and where their increased funding and technology has a disproportionately larger impact, and that happening at the same time as they have some absolute monster riders for those formats has meant that the medal haul of a rider like Kenny is inflated compared to what would have been available to that same rider 20-30 years ago. Endurance events other than the TP have only existed as part of the Omnium for the last decade, the Madison is back but there are no other field start events and the IP remains absent too.

In 1992, Kenny only really has the match sprint available to him unless he fancies the kilo, while an endurance trackie would have points, IP and TP. In 2000, two sprint events (keirin and team sprint) were added while one endurance event (madison) was added, redressing the balance in the men's events while the women still had a very limited program. The kilo was removed in 2008 to make room for BMX. In 2012, the program was balanced between the genders, but the men's events saw zero sprint events removed while three endurance events (madison, IP and points) were removed. And while the omnium does largely favour endurance, it's also one event replacing three, and 2 of its 6 events are sprint events (the kilo and the flying lap) and it basically pays one medal for the entire endurance program whereas the sprint specialists have three medals available to them, which is BS.
 
Last edited:
LS, to be fair, shouldn't sprinters in cycling get the majority of chances for glory though, since outside of the Olympics their chances to prove their greatness (or at least to be appreciated by a wider audience) are quite limited? Sprinters (in the pure sense) don't get to race in 20 monuments every 4 years (nor 12 grand tours).
 
Reactions: Cookster15
LS, to be fair, shouldn't sprinters in cycling get the majority of chances for glory though, since outside of the Olympics their chances to prove their greatness (or at least to be appreciated by a wider audience) are quite limited? Sprinters (in the pure sense) don't get to race in 20 monuments every 4 years (nor 12 grand tours).
Track cyclists in general don't get that, either, it's just that it's harder for a roadie to swap to match sprinting or vice versa than to endurance track disciplines so you'll find a lot of pursuiters and endurance trackies will moonlight on the road, or countries without the level of funding for the track that the likes of the UK and Australia throw at it will entice road riders to enter endurance track with the carrot of an Olympic opportunity they mightn't otherwise have.

Track cycling is a completely separate discipline to road, to cross and to MTB, and as such its balance of events should not be dependent on that of other disciplines of the sport. I mean, we wouldn't say that the number of cyclocross races and mountainbike races on rough unpaved surfaces justifies downgrading Paris-Roubaix or removing Strade Bianche from the calendar, because they have their unique position within road cycling, so similarly I don't see why the IP or the points race can't exist as medal-paying events when the Team Sprint is, or if they feel there are too many medals given out, they can't have a sprinters' all-round event akin to the omnium to put the kilo, keirin and team sprint in and balance out the events like they had in the 2000s, rather than saying "anybody that isn't a match sprinter, unless you're from a country with four athletes, you'd better be good at the omnium".
 
Reactions: Carrick-On-Seine
LS, to be fair, shouldn't sprinters in cycling get the majority of chances for glory though, since outside of the Olympics their chances to prove their greatness (or at least to be appreciated by a wider audience) are quite limited? Sprinters (in the pure sense) don't get to race in 20 monuments every 4 years (nor 12 grand tours).
But a road sprinter hasn't time to bulk up like these gym monsters who do track sprint.
 
Well, the thing is... at the moment I'm watching climbing. Pretty much everyone I know in my age and younger does climbing/ bouldering from time to time. Some do it regularly, in clubs. But there is only one Olympic combined event, and only from this year on. I'm an advocate that the Olympics should have their broad base in everyday, leisurely done sports. Like I said, swimming is also very important, but there is no denying there are new sports (well, most not soo new, when a sport has been done competetively for decades I think it deserves some respect as such), and, like you said, if there are too many medals, it devalues the meaning of a medal. Also, for viewers it's not great.

There is a perception that Olympic sports are certain, special, classic sports, including something like shot-putting, with which the everyday exercises, sports in clubs, things you do for fun, have nothing to do. But that is not the core, in my opinion, and it will make it harder for children and teenagers to persue a sport, if it is practically a part of an Olympic bubble not at one, high-performance point, but from the beginning on.

I would rethink the whole system... the problem is that often the money/ support in a whole sport in a country depends on the medals gained in the Olympics, and also that there is only recognition for the sport through the Olympics, so that if you have only one event, it just can't sustain. I would like for a way to be found to change this.

Well, it's a complex topic. If you leave everything else the way it is and only cut half of for instance, the swimming and the cycling events, of course that has rather devestating effects. Hence it's all just mind play from my side. But if I think about what the Olympics should be, what the core is, it's not medal hording in a thousand events which are all pretty much the same, by one athlete. It also shouldn't be about certain countries strategically investing all their money into equipment and structures so that they can gain a bunch of medals and rake the international success. It should be the pinnacle of sports that people know and at best even do themselves.
Finding a balance between tradition and contemporary is difficult of course, but I would like to keep the "core" of Olympic sports, like wrestling, running, swimming, gymnastics, but not necessarily with the rules/ distances they have traditionally had, while integrating broadly done sports like climbing and karate.
Well I'm glad I'm not the one, who has to decide which sports make it in or not (or I would actually love to do it, but too many people would probably be offended by it :sweatsmile:).

I would never think of climbing as an Olympic sport. I didn't even know it had been added, but it wouldn't be the first one I'd cut, if had the power though, that would always be golf.
 
Well I'm glad I'm not the one, who has to decide which sports make it in or not (or I would actually love to do it, but too many people would probably be offended by it :sweatsmile:).

I would never think of climbing as an Olympic sport. I didn't even know it had been added, but it wouldn't be the first one I'd cut, if had the power though, that would always be golf.
Climbing's a great Olympic sport. Think of the Olympic motto - it ticks all the boxes. And it's a basic human activity or endeavour - like running, jumping, swimming, weight lifting, sailing. No Olympic tradition, obviously, but it absolutely deserves to be there.

The ones I have the problem with are the sports where the Olympics aren't the very pinnacle of that sport - golf, tennis, baseball, basketball, football and, yes, road cycling. They really don't need the Olympics.
 
Something enjoyable about all this money being poured into the track, having to constantly hear them drone on about it, then all the glory being taken by Piddles and a teaching assistant who had her funding taken 5 years back.
There was some clown on Radio 5 yesterday bemoaning the lack of gold and saying that the other countries had adapted "our" technology and marginal gains.
I expect feisty discussions within British Cycling when the next round of funding comes around. BMX-ers vs the track elite!
 
Reactions: Tim Cahill
Climbing's a great Olympic sport. Think of the Olympic motto - it ticks all the boxes. And it's a basic human activity or endeavour - like running, jumping, swimming, weight lifting, sailing. No Olympic tradition, obviously, but it absolutely deserves to be there.

The ones I have the problem with are the sports where the Olympics aren't the very pinnacle of that sport - golf, tennis, baseball, basketball, football and, yes, road cycling. They really don't need the Olympics.
I mostly agree, but disagree about basketball. Sure, a great players career is largely rated via exploits in the NBA, but that's a bit like Messi being valued for Champions League and La Liga exploits despite lack of World Cup success; the World Cup is the biggest event, but not everything is dependent on it. Basketball is a truly international sport and easily deserves a place in the Olympics imo (whereas baseball isn't played by many countries).
 
Reactions: gunara
Jul 29, 2021
135
202
530
It was so niche that the British Olympic Committee realised that if they spent a few million they'd get a medal haul as so few countries take it seriously.
Yeah, track is niche, the infrastructure is painfully expensive, the bike serves only for the track. Only european countries and ANZACs. In road we've got a South American Gold Medal and perhaps in the future the people from Africa will also be competitive.

But cycling is one of the most important and healthier means of transportation out there and showing cycling would send a good signal everywhere. I'm not a Brit, but the bike craze over there certainly was positive for the society (and bad for us fans of competitive racing because we were given that great Sky train...).
 
Reactions: Carrick-On-Seine
Could we keep this thread on cycling please ladies and gents.

A reminder there are Olympic posts in both the non-cycling discussion and the track sub-forums. It would be great to keep the track talk in its own place, but I understand there is a crossover.

Other sports should be discussed in the Olympics thread here:

 
But when that thread appears on neither the "New Posts" nor the "What's New" tab, then it is no wonder that people who visit this forum several times a day are totally unaware of it.

I have said it several times before, the New Posts function here does not work reliably at all.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY