Wiggone!!

12467…11

Comments

  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    Pross wrote:
    Daz555 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    You've not ridden a horse seriously I guess? I'd drop the dressage (subjective as the others in your list plus it's an element of the 3 day event) but show jumping and 3 day event test a lot of sporting skills.
    I have ridden a horse or two - not seriously of course. However I do know enough horsey-people to know that the horse is far too big a part of the package.

    You need a good rider on an exceptional horse to win gold. We are really giving gold medals to horses.

    Motorsport would be a better fit than horse-nonsense for the Olympics. At least it is 100% human endeavour.

    In many cases the horses are schooled and trained by the rider though so not only are they having to prepare themselves they also have to prepare the animal.
    Animal training an Olympic sport? No thanks. The guys at Seaworld are surely more impressive than the horse dancers - that girl who won Britains Got Talent with the dog dancing was pretty cool too.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    If you take a show jumping horse, put it in a show jumping ring and leave it to its own devices it doesn't then go and jump over the fences and it certainly doesn't 'dance'. It just stands there considering what is edible while having a crap. There's considerable horsemanship involved.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    RichN95 wrote:
    There's considerable horsemanship involved.
    I agree.

    I just have no idea why it is an Olympic sport.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    Daz555 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Daz555 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    You've not ridden a horse seriously I guess? I'd drop the dressage (subjective as the others in your list plus it's an element of the 3 day event) but show jumping and 3 day event test a lot of sporting skills.
    I have ridden a horse or two - not seriously of course. However I do know enough horsey-people to know that the horse is far too big a part of the package.

    You need a good rider on an exceptional horse to win gold. We are really giving gold medals to horses.

    Motorsport would be a better fit than horse-nonsense for the Olympics. At least it is 100% human endeavour.

    In many cases the horses are schooled and trained by the rider though so not only are they having to prepare themselves they also have to prepare the animal.
    Animal training an Olympic sport? No thanks. The guys at Seaworld are surely more impressive than the horse dancers - that girl who won Britains Got Talent with the dog dancing was pretty cool too.

    You need to train the horse to world beating 'athletic' standards. A fat and unfit horse won't win anything no matter what its pedigree. It's a pet hate of mine that people speak as if anyone could jump on a top class horse and take it over a set of fences. It requires strength, agility and balance by the rider - trying to stop a superfast ton of flesh and muscle going at its own speed and in its own direction isn't easy and you have to position it the right distance from the obstacles. But still, stick with your prejudiced view if it helps.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    Daz555 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    There's considerable horsemanship involved.
    I agree.

    I just have no idea why it is an Olympic sport.

    Well to be fair equestrian events were part of the original Olympics and have been in the modern games since 1900 so it has history on its side.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    edited July 2014
    Pross wrote:
    But still, stick with your prejudiced view if it helps.
    None to be seen here. Simply an opinion that in a limited Olympic program there are far more worthy sports than horse dancing and the like.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,031
    I've no problem with it being in the games - it's very hard to justify the inclusion of one sport over another and very often the reason why one is in and one not is historical. Clearly the horse does play a big part but that's the sport, there are financial obstacles to entering any sport they are just bigger in some than others.

    A mate of mine has a son aged about 10 who is a good BMXer - not been into it forever but has won national level races - but he can't afford to take him abroad for an international event and he baulked at paying £50 for a weekend programme of races recently. I know the local BC employed coach and local authority coaches deliberately plan cycling activities (not BMX now - road, cross, MTB) in better off areas of the city because they know they will get a better turnout and a better chance of the kids continuing the sport than if they organise stuff in the inner city or more deprived suburbs. If we look at track cycling how many countries have a decent network of velodromes - I bet not that many.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,390
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    IIf we look at track cycling how many countries have a decent network of velodromes - I bet not that many.

    Since Britain started winning sackloads of medals in the OGs, I think around 80% have come in sports with massive barriers to entry for "non-traditional" countries and high ongoing costs prevailing e.g. track cycling, sailing, rowing. There's nothing wrong in this - someone's got to win the OG events and I'd sooner it was GB than another country - and the amount spent is not a large sum on the grand scale of things.

    Money undoubtedly talks, but it's not everything. In sports that other nations take really seriously e.g. track athletics and particularly swimming, the GB £millions don't have so much impact.
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    I would argue track cycling in Britain is, or was until very recently, a "Massive barrier" sport. I lived in Northumberland and the nearest velodrome was Manchester. Now Glasgow has one but still hardly a realistic trip for an evening session after work.

    From what I have seen most athletes who make the top are driven and are prepared to overcome obstacles to training and competing most of us would consider too daunting. The young Cavendish had to get a ferry from the IOM with his bike to train with the young GB squad and to get good competition.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,094
    Whay didn't Cav just hitch a lift in Clarkson's helicopter?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • vinnymarsden
    vinnymarsden Posts: 560
    To get back on topic......IF Wiggins is finished with the road etc etc, then I do NOT want him milking Sky for a salary if all he is interested in is track, oh and the odd classic...Sky subs pay the ridiculous wages of Premiership footballers, are we going to see Sir DB retain Wiggins just for the "kudos" of having him, with no real desire from Wiggins to do any hard work to justify his money??
    I'm not saying the track etc isn't hard, god knows it ALL is, and mere mortals like us can only begin to imagine the pain of becoming a cycling pro, however, if as he has stated as many times as the press seem willing to hear it, that he is "done with the road" then surely, Sir DB needs to look elsewhere for a team joint leader, because quite frankly he appears to genuinely be trying to manouevere himself away from Team Sky, and it looks at odds when Sir DB keeps saying we can keep him etc etc, Sky subs are outrageous as they are, but to continue spending money on someone who has publically "denounced" his own craft is akin to just buying a footballer, paying him silly money to stop others having his skills...does that happen?? Of Course it does..look at Chelsea's bench for proof!!
    Wiggins is/has been a marvellous ambassador for all that is good in British Cycling, and truth, if he wants to go back to the track, let him, there's enough money in British Cycling itsself to keep him focused, I just think the will he/wont he yo yo of his last year needs to be sorted out, he deserves his family life, he has given all that can be expected for British Cycling, but he appears to want the best of everything, which, with the direction Team Sky have took recently is something unnatainable, however this is only my opinion!!
    Shoot me down if you like, but please respect my freedom to voice my opinion, it is as valid as anyone else's...isn't it?? :):)
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,390
    VinnyMarsden wrote:
    Shoot me down if you like, but please respect my freedom to voice my opinion, it is as valid as anyone else's...isn't it?? :):)

    I think Sky needs Wiggo more than the other way round tbh. If Wiggo leaves Sky then Sky has a sole team leader who whilst qualified to ride for GB isn't really perceived as British (brought up in Africa, previously raced for Kenya, lives in Monaco) with the remaining riders, including "Plan B" Ritchie Porte from overseas. Thus without Wiggo, Sky is just another multinational team with no obvious appeal to its initial target market of the UK. With the greatest of respect to Thomas, Swift and Stannard, it's not going to be possible to build a world beating "GB" team at Pro Tour level round these three British riders.

    Re your opinion, the one bit I'd question is your view on Wiggo working hard. You imply Sky shouldn't pay him if he's not prepared to work hard then acknowledge that training for the track is hard. There's a certain inconsistency here. Are you saying that Sky shouldn't pay riders to train primarily for the track?
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,390
    mike6 wrote:
    I would argue track cycling in Britain is, or was until very recently, a "Massive barrier" sport.

    True, but on the grand scale of things, for a promising GB trackie, it's not that hard to base yourself close to Manchester if you want access to world class facilities and coaching. Committing to any sport is a non-trivial enterprise, even if facilities are on your doorstep.

    If you're in a country with no velodrome, no budget for the latest aero kit etc then you realistically have little chance of success. Even if some enterprising teenager relocated to Manchester I doubt they'd be able to join the GB academy as track cycling is an Olympic sport and funds/facilities are likely to be reserved for GB riders.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    VinnyMarsden wrote:
    Shoot me down if you like, but please respect my freedom to voice my opinion, it is as valid as anyone else's...isn't it?? :):)

    I think Sky needs Wiggo more than the other way round tbh. If Wiggo leaves Sky then Sky has a sole team leader who whilst qualified to ride for GB isn't really perceived as British (brought up in Africa, previously raced for Kenya, lives in Monaco) with the remaining riders, including "Plan B" Ritchie Porte from overseas. Thus without Wiggo, Sky is just another multinational team with no obvious appeal to its initial target market of the UK. With the greatest of respect to Thomas, Swift and Stannard, it's not going to be possible to build a world beating "GB" team at Pro Tour level round these three British riders.

    Re your opinion, the one bit I'd question is your view on Wiggo working hard. You imply Sky shouldn't pay him if he's not prepared to work hard then acknowledge that training for the track is hard. There's a certain inconsistency here. Are you saying that Sky shouldn't pay riders to train primarily for the track?

    I agree sort of but I would simplify it and say that Wiggins just gets the team a huge amount of media attention, particularly in the UK but also on the recent trip to the US and ultimately that's why Sky plough money into the sport.

    The thought of Sky as some benevolent company being 'milked' for a huge salary by some washed up, has-been ex-cyclist is hilarious.

    As for the comment above about subscribers paying footballers inflated salaries there's an easy solution to that - don't subscribe! Again, the whole business model is based on attracting subscriptions and football is the single biggest way Sky attracts customers. By paying huge amounts for the rights the clubs can buy the best talent and more people subscribe. It isn't the BBC.
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    /\
    Quite right. Sponsors have always put money into Cycling for one reason, exposure. Wiggins gets Sky tons of publicity, If they were not getting there moneys worth they would pull out of cycling, or if they felt an individual was not giving good value you can bet his or her contract would not be up for renewal.

    Thomas was allowed lots of time away from the road to concentrate on the Olympics, that would have been agreed, Wiggins is no different. Even if he is making an a**e of himselfe on TV the report will say "Team Sky rider Sir Bradley Wiggins".

    Cycling sponsors have by and large been ruthless, as long as they are getting value they will stay in the sport, once they are not the money men pull the plug.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    A huge part of this is Wiggins using his influence to set the agenda for contract negotiations.

    With regard to GT's he was unceremoniously dumped for the new big thing. Rightly or wrongly, that can be hard for any person to accept. He opted to look at other objectives during 2013 but these did not work out. For 2014, he was clearly very motivated to ride the TdF. In pursuit of this goal, he did everything right, trained hard, got fit, kept his mouth shut. The outcome was that the team still didn't want him at the Tour. Why should he just accept everything the team decides without trying to influence the agenda himself? That is what he is doing right now.

    I suspect the convenience of Sky suits him, but not at any cost. He is looking at securing a contract that will suit his competitive and domestic needs. Why the hell shouldn't he use every bit of influence he has to make that the best deal possible.
  • vinnymarsden
    vinnymarsden Posts: 560
    My issue isnt that Wiggins doesnt work incredibly hard, I would put him in the top 10 fitness/ability wise it's just that having stated he has "bled road racing dry" I find it hard to think how Sky could keep him on for track and the occasional classic.
    There aren't many other teams that have one of their "headline" acts riding such a limited calendar I don't think.

    If there are then I stand corrected, but his sideways digs at the entire set up are becoming tiresome/boring.
    If he really isn't up for more road stuff, then HE can walk away, no new contract, the decision is purely his own, its not Skys role to cajole him into something he doesn't really want is it.
  • lyn1
    lyn1 Posts: 261
    edited July 2014
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:

    Thus without Wiggo, Sky is just another multinational team with no obvious appeal to its initial target market of the UK. With the greatest of respect to Thomas, Swift and Stannard, it's not going to be possible to build a world beating "GB" team at Pro Tour level round these three British riders.

    But is it a world beating team that attracts sponsors and interest from their target market? Probably not, as many of the less successful WT teams are still sponsored, as are less successful teams in other sports.. That lack of appeal to the initial target market (presume you mean British) may be as you suggest ..it's a multinational team with few British riders...... In this respect Sky is different to many other WT and virtually all PC teams that have far higher numbers of domestic riders. Supporting domestic riders may take precedence over being the best for these teams or they may fill the key roles with foreign stars if necessary, then fill their allocation with nationals in order to get the best of both Worlds. If Sky were not as successful, but offered more opportunities for domestic riders, this would not reduce my interest in the team.
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    VinnyMarsden wrote:
    My issue isnt that Wiggins doesnt work incredibly hard, I would put him in the top 10 fitness/ability wise it's just that having stated he has "bled road racing dry" I find it hard to think how Sky could keep him on for track and the occasional classic.
    There aren't many other teams that have one of their "headline" acts riding such a limited calendar I don't think.

    If there are then I stand corrected, but his sideways digs at the entire set up are becoming tiresome/boring.
    If he really isn't up for more road stuff, then HE can walk away, no new contract, the decision is purely his own, its not Skys role to cajole him into something he doesn't really want is it.

    The way I read his comments he was talking about the Tour being a circus, and for the media it is. Killing yourslf to get the yellow jersey and then putting up with constant questions about doping would hack me off no end. It is , for three weeks, the eye of the storm.
    Also I thought he was talking about a certain team mate not being loyal to the cause in 2012. A team rides for the team leader, thats the way its always been, and if that leader is in yellow a domestique putting him under needless pressure is less than loyal. Being dropped from the Tour roster for othere who seemed to be less fit would also give pause.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    It's the modern way of dealing with contract negotiations, just look at the antics of footballers (not that this makes it right of course!). If he is kept on then it would suggest he is of continuing use to the team / sponsor or maybe part of their deal will be he gets to ride to his own agenda for less money and that freedom is the driving force that keeps him there.
  • vinnymarsden
    vinnymarsden Posts: 560
    Re Pross's answer just above this one.... Yes i could live with that...if he takes a reduced salary for reduced input appearances then maybe it will be beneficial to all concerned, I would also agree with the other reply about his being a "True Brit". I for one am ambivalent towards Froome, he is not really British, albeit he has now got a UK passport through family links.
    Sky did not have any Plan B at the Tour, and it horribly exposed the one man leader thing that seems to be prevalent in Grand Tours for almost all teams, I for one would have relished Wiggins as back up leader, but given the 2012 thing that has NEVER really gone away, W would never agree to it, and being quite frank I don't blame him, suffice to say if there isn't a desire to ride GT's by Wiggins then the reduced salary for track/classics would definitely work for me.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    if he was a Belgian* focusing on cyclocross and doing a bit of road on the side there wouldn't be a thread.










    *don't go there.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,094
    TailWindHome wrote:
    if he was a Belgian* focusing on cyclocross and doing a bit of road on the side there wouldn't be a thread.










    don't go there.

    I am and I will.

    A 'bit' of road cycling isn't going to get him a classics win.

    er...throw...cat...pigeon...amongst...the
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    pinarello001 wrote:
    A 'bit' of road cycling isn't going to get him a classics win.

    He won't win a classic

    Ever
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Macaloon
    Macaloon Posts: 5,545
    VinnyMarsden wrote:
    ... being a "True Brit". I for one am ambivalent towards Froome, he is not really British, albeit he has now got a UK passport through family links.

    Same as my kids then. Take these pathetic notions of Britishness to the Nick Griffin is a National Icon thread. They've no place in an adult discussion of sport.
    ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,031
    Let's just say he's as British as Zola Budd and leave it at that.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    Let's just say he's as British as Zola Budd and leave it at that.

    But he's not. His father is British, therefore he is British.

    Neither of Zola's parents were british, but one of her grandparents was.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    I find it interesting the same questions arent asked of David Millar's Scottishness or Britishness. Millar's not born in the UK, has lived in Britain only intermittently, and only extremely briefly in Scotland, calls Hong Kong home, and has been based outside the UK as a pro. There's parallels between him and Froome, both globalised, expat citizens with Britishness as a component. Sad some people still can't really deal with that. For me it makes them a bit more interesting; kids from Kilburn don't win the Tour de France; kids from Nairobi certainly don't
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    FJS wrote:
    I find it interesting the same questions arent asked of David Millar's Scottishness or Britishness.
    That's because he's Chinese
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • meagain
    meagain Posts: 2,331
    As Pross says "...and say that Wiggins just gets the team a huge amount of media attention, particularly in the UK but also on the recent trip to the US and ultimately that's why Sky plough money into the sport.

    The thought of Sky as some benevolent company being 'milked' for a huge salary by some washed up, has-been ex-cyclist is hilarious."

    Just so. In corporate investment brand exposure terms (at least in the UK) Wiggins is worth more than the rest of the team put together - whether or not he turns a pedal. A knighted, Olympic gold, CYCLIST. How many of those are available? He is unequivocally British - and even looks it!

    Marketing dream. And cheap - don't know what he's paid but I doubt costs Sky more than a couple of million a year.

    Personally I avoid Sky as far as possible - its the most successful far right propaganda machine ever - if Goebbels had had 10% of the control of mass opinion as does Sky then we'd all be writing in German!
    d.j.
    "Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."

Categories