Because someone has to say it

Cheating pommie [censored] IMO. Maybe not using soap leads to an increase in performance?

From what I hear on the grapevine they have taken the professionalism up a few notches from 2004, even though they were very well prepared back then. The Aussies have stagnated in the coaching/prep dept and our old warhorses were past their best and a huge fail at Beijing.

If you look at some of the times, Wiggins was good (although apparently just past his peak and was better a few weeks earlier), the teams pursuit was phenomenal and Hoys times were really slick. The women pursuiters were slick but a bit off the WR. Personally I don't think the track was super quick compared to Athens or Manchester, so it can be hard to compare.

Higher cadence, wind tunnel testing and most important... Watch carefully - reconnaissance and studying the route.

Eldrack said:

Ok, before anyone else comes out with this I will. The British track team dominated the olympics (hell yeah) and are now beating the [censored] out of everyone in Manchester at the first track event of the year. Any road team that exerted this level of dominance on their opposition would be accussed of using a systematic doping program to gear their riders up. So, why are we not saying the same about the trackies?

Is it possible that track cycling is clean enough for a superior funding/training program to come out on top? Or are we just having the wool pulled over our eyes once more?

Obviously being a Brit I'm massively biased on this but I reckon they are, for the most part at least, clean but perhaps all that gold they brought home from Bejing has tinted my perceptions of them.

Well ... what would be your reaction if another country say the USA was dominating the same way?

Andrija said:

Higher cadence, wind tunnel testing and most important... Watch carefully - reconnaissance and studying the route.

ROFL.

Eldrack said:

Ok, before anyone else comes out with this I will. The British track team dominated the olympics (hell yeah) and are now beating the [censored] out of everyone in Manchester at the first track event of the year. Any road team that exerted this level of dominance on their opposition would be accussed of using a systematic doping program to gear their riders up. So, why are we not saying the same about the trackies?

Is it possible that track cycling is clean enough for a superior funding/training program to come out on top? Or are we just having the wool pulled over our eyes once more?

Obviously being a Brit I'm massively biased on this but I reckon they are, for the most part at least, clean but perhaps all that gold they brought home from Bejing has tinted my perceptions of them.

Britain has poured literally millions in to the development of the track squad.

The investment has been in the form of the teams facilities (velodrome at manchester), the squad (wiggins, hoy, pendleton, etc have received large amounts of national lottery funding), the backup team (chris boardman/peter keen) and finally the equipment being used by the squad (aerodynamically designed bikes - with boardman as design adviser).

The GB squad has made approaches to Roger Legeay of Credit Agricole to manage the GB team to 2012.

Legeay, Boardman and Keen have all pined their opinions to the mast re.doping.

I can tell you from personal experience that our own riders here trained with the GB squad and the improvment in riders like Dave O Loughlin on the track has been astonishing.

I hope that GB's success is built on hardwork, determination, investment etc.

earth_dweller said:

Well ... what would be your reaction if another country say the USA was dominating the same way?

The Brits have had a pretty solid base team for a number of years so plenty of world level track riders to build & work with.
The USA generally don't figure on the track, they have had a couple good ones but don't appear to have the same type of depth let alone the number of already world competative level riders.

So if the USA had come on to dominate the Bejing Olympics I think would certainly have raised some eyebrows.

Is there a list of country rankings listed anywhere?
I couldn't spot one on the UCI website only idividual rankings per event.

Trev_S said:

The Brits have had a pretty solid base team for a number of years so plenty of world level track riders to build & work with.
The USA generally don't figure on the track, they have had a couple good ones but don't appear to have the same type of depth let alone the number of already world competative level riders.

So if the USA had come on to dominate the Bejing Olympics I think would certainly have raised some eyebrows.

Is there a list of country rankings listed anywhere?
I couldn't spot one on the UCI website only idividual rankings per event.

See the thread 'Why seppos can't sprint'. :p

never mind....

Hm, whenever any individual or team is dominant it makes you wonder. However, the way i see it Britain has been pouring a lot of money into a sport that other nations dont take as seriously. I am sure the others train hard but having the extra backroom staff must give you an edge. On the continent the same resources would go into a trade team. It is therefore plausible that they are all clean although there is no way of proving this - it can only be disproven really. I suppose this is where people start throwing in Rob Hayles' name.

Money can't buy you strength...no that was love. Well money can at least buy you good team doctors but I don't know about strength.

The Brits have been more dominant in the track than even the Spanish in the road...hmm...

Eldrack said:

Ok, before anyone else comes out with this I will. The British track team dominated the olympics (hell yeah) and are now beating the [censored] out of everyone in Manchester at the first track event of the year. Any road team that exerted this level of dominance on their opposition would be accussed of using a systematic doping program to gear their riders up. So, why are we not saying the same about the trackies?

Is it possible that track cycling is clean enough for a superior funding/training program to come out on top? Or are we just having the wool pulled over our eyes once more?

Obviously being a Brit I'm massively biased on this but I reckon they are, for the most part at least, clean but perhaps all that gold they brought home from Bejing has tinted my perceptions of them.

ddff

RdBiker said:

Money can't buy you strength...no that was love. Well money can at least buy you good team doctors but I don't know about strength.

I agree. You cant turn a born and bred carthorse into a racehorse but how much difference does a legal back-up team make?

RdBiker said:

The Brits have been more dominant in the track than even the Spanish in the road...hmm...

Again, for me it goes back to where you put your effort. In most countries people are directed towards the road. In britain they are pushed IMO towards the track far more. This is my understanding but i am quite willing to admit that i dont have any hard facts🙂

Anticyclone said:

I agree. You cant turn a born and bred carthorse into a racehorse but how much difference does a legal back-up team make?

Again, for me it goes back to where you put your effort. In most countries people are directed towards the road. In britain they are pushed IMO towards the track far more. This is my understanding but i am quite willing to admit that i dont have any hard facts🙂

The way that the British Cycling elite programmes is funded depends entirely on the number of medals that the team wins. Cycling isn't a big money/sponsorship sport in the UK, so the only money has been from public funds (mix of lottery + tax payers) - this is changing slightly now with Sky Sports putting some cash in, but the whole principle of public funding is that more medals = more dosh. It's a logical step to focus on the track where there are far more medals and far fewer variables than on the road. It also ties in with a situation here where the track is the only place that young people can be brought into the sport: my road club turns away kids under 12 and directs them towards the nearest track club (about 20miles away) because there are no facilities to allow them to do anything, our insurance won't cover them out on the road and there are no closed road circuits to ride on. Unless they want to do roller racing and cyclocross for a few years then they're better off on the track. (Apparently some of the track clubs have waiting lists now because so many kids want to take up cycling after the Olympics :eek: )

The success on the endurance side is fairly straightforward to explain: you have ProTour level riders like Cavendish, Wiggins, Thomas who commit themselves to the track. In most European countries those riders would be entirely focused on their road careers. They could well be doping though, who knows? Hopefully not.

rob of the og said:

The way that the British Cycling elite programmes is funded depends entirely on the number of medals that the team wins. Cycling isn't a big money/sponsorship sport in the UK, so the only money has been from public funds (mix of lottery + tax payers) - this is changing slightly now with Sky Sports putting some cash in, but the whole principle of public funding is that more medals = more dosh. It's a logical step to focus on the track where there are far more medals and far fewer variables than on the road. It also ties in with a situation here where the track is the only place that young people can be brought into the sport: my road club turns away kids under 12 and directs them towards the nearest track club (about 20miles away) because there are no facilities to allow them to do anything, our insurance won't cover them out on the road and there are no closed road circuits to ride on. Unless they want to do roller racing and cyclocross for a few years then they're better off on the track. (Apparently some of the track clubs have waiting lists now because so many kids want to take up cycling after the Olympics :eek: )

The success on the endurance side is fairly straightforward to explain: you have ProTour level riders like Cavendish, Wiggins, Thomas who commit themselves to the track. In most European countries those riders would be entirely focused on their road careers. They could well be doping though, who knows? Hopefully not.

And throw in the heritage of track cycling, through the exploits of the likes of Reg Harris and Beryl Burton etc, Britain always did have a strong track tradition.

Other countries have the sort of weather that makes you want to cycle outside. This is not true for Britain 90% of the time😠

RdBiker said:

Money can't buy you strength...no that was love. Well money can at least buy you good team doctors but I don't know about strength.

True. And lots of money does get you the best dope program. Hmm.

Americans can't srint? Marty Nothstein?????

wolfix said:

Americans can't srint? Marty Nothstein?????

The issue of Nothstein and D Phinney is addressed in the appropriate thread.

classic1 said:

The issue of Nothstein and D Phinney is addressed in the appropriate thread.

which is?