The Official Olympic Thread

[CJ]

so who has been to the games? how was the atmoshpere is the whole place buzzing while your wandering round?

is there far too many things for me to waste money on?

how long does it take to walk from one end to the other of the park ?

[Alex]

Why would you assume that the Velodrome cost is included? Then you would have to include the cost of the stadium in the Athletics cost too

[Kenneth]

Let's cut to the chase, cycling is **** and a waste of money that could be going to 'good causes'.

[Alex]

[CJ]

Why would you assume that the Velodrome cost is included? Then you would have to include the cost of the stadium in the Athletics cost too

i am not assuming the velodrome is included.

i am saying that cycling benifited hugely from the public fuinding of the velodrome. i am not saying that is wrong but surely in a table of public funding and then to go on about how great cycling is when you ignore other publicly funded things that benifit that team is a bit silly.

anyway its best to move on as this is the olympics and it should be more fun than having a tedious discussion with mr cycling who gets enjoyment from pretending to be a dog on the internet.

[Neil Young]

the level of subsidy could be a fraction of the sports budget or it could be the majority. that would change the meaning of the table quite considerably

also if that table had been done the year of the building of the velodrome it would have cost a lot more per medal wouldnt it

anyway its a very simple point and if it wasnt cycling you would probably be agreeing

anyway taking you off ignore as you requested seems to have been a bad move.

What exactly is your point? I mean, the table is talking about the cost of the subsidy, not the full cost of each medal.

Or do you think athletics, for instance, only gets money from the government, and has no sponsorship deals?

Whatever your point may be, I'm sure it's worthwhile.

[Alex]

i am not assuming the velodrome is included.

i am saying that cycling benifited hugely from the public fuinding of the velodrome. i am not saying that is wrong but surely in a table of public funding and then to go on about how great cycling is when you ignore other publicly funded things that benifit that team is a bit silly.

anyway its best to move on as this is the olympics and it should be more fun than having a tedious discussion with mr cycling who gets enjoyment from pretending to be a dog on the internet.

So will Athletics with the Stadium, Handball with the Copper-box, Swimming with the Pringle and all the others.

More sports than Handball stand to gain from the Copper Box too as I understand it.

[Neil Young]

i am not assuming the velodrome is included.

i am saying that cycling benifited hugely from the public fuinding of the velodrome. i am not saying that is wrong but surely in a table of public funding and then to go on about how great cycling is when you ignore other publicly funded things that benifit that team is a bit silly.

anyway its best to move on as this is the olympics and it should be more fun than having a tedious discussion with mr cycling who gets enjoyment from pretending to be a dog on the internet.

How has it benefited? It's just a venue. The British cyclists got no additional benefit.

If anything the other sports have benefited more from their venues since cycling was the only one where the test event was open to all the competitors for the Olympics because a round of the world cup was held there. The other venues were reserved for things like British championships and so on, meaning British competitors got experience of it which was denied to their rivals. Uniquely, as far as I'm aware, this does not apply to the cycling.

[CJ]

Let's cut to the chase, cycling is **** and a waste of money that could be going to 'good causes'.

noooo

i agree with Redhots post in the library on the matter. i suppose there is an argument (to be had in the library) on whether it would be better to spread more of the funding at the grass roots of ANY sport rather than concentrating it at the elite end. but that is for the library i would imagine,

for this thread you have to hope that the success of the games and the fact it is here will mean lots of youngsters (and those older) will take up sport and hopefully it will help some people at the disadvantaged end of our country to improve their situation in life

[Neil Young]

So will Athletics with the Stadium, Handball with the Copper-box, Swimming with the Pringle and all the others.

Except cycling is held in the Pringle. Although it could explain why British swimmers were so poor.

[CJ]

So will Athletics with the Stadium, Handball with the Copper-box, Swimming with the Pringle and all the others.

yes

the post wasnt a full in depth analysis of the table nor was it a pop at cycling

it was saying that the table was misleading and it is. well the table is leading people to make silly comparisons.

cycling was an example becasuse it was an easy one to choose not anything else.

[Neil Young]

noooo

i agree with Redhots post in the library on the matter. i suppose there is an argument (to be had in the library) on whether it would be better to spread more of the funding at the grass roots of ANY sport rather than concentrating it at the elite end. but that is for the library i would imagine,

for this thread you have to hope that the success of the games and the fact it is here will mean lots of youngsters (and those older) will take up sport and hopefully it will help some people at the disadvantaged end of our country to improve their situation in life

Ok. Let's look at which sports have seen a rise in participation since lottery funding...

Can you guess where this is heading?

[Alex]

Except cycling is held in the Pringle. Although it could explain why British swimmers were so poor.

****, sorry I meant the other Pringle shaped thing

[Chazza]

Looking good for at least one medal in the Triathlon.

[Neil Young]

yes

the post wasnt a full in depth analysis of the table nor was it a pop at cycling

it was saying that the table was misleading and it is. well the table is leading people to make silly comparisons.

cycling was an example becasuse it was an easy one to choose not anything else.

Oh I see. People are being "silly". Because the table doesn't tell us everything, it can only mean it tells us nothing.

Thanks, Marsh. You've really opened my eyes.