Adam Bylthe - Cycling's Bad Boy ?

DeVlaeminck

I think you have the quote wrong

tailwindhome

Bad boys ain't what they used to be.

little ring needed

eh wrote:

Nicole Cooke could fall out with a house brick. She had a terrible rep within the Welsh team. So anything she says about BC or whoever you have to take with a pinch of salt.

Did Nicole Cook turn you over when you were a youth at the track league at Maindy - your weird fixation is showing again ! I think you are making this up, but the floor is yours - correct me - put some evidence out there to support your claim. If the evidence is Shane or his puppet Julian who tested positive twice, whilst Shane was coaching him, beware, I have a lot of counter facts from Welsh riders about their behaviour. But let's hear it - who are these Welsh team-mates she fell out with - by the way she is female so I presume you are going to tell us about other girls she turned over.

little ring needed

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Must be a coincidence that all the most successful GB female cyclists are a complete pain in the ars* then.

When a succession of female athletes are running into the same issues then the simplest explanation is they have a valid point.

I can't work out how there isn't mutiny from the road women at the way they have been treated. One of the vaunted "secret squirrel" achievements for 2012 was the McLaren Technology road bike. At some exorbitant cost to the the Lottery public, bikes were prepared for every Team GB rider selected on both the short list and the long list.

Every Team GB member that is unless you were female, in which case you just turned up with your team bike. So "bad boy Blythe", who was on the long list, had a machine prepared for him, but the management team decided his girlfriend, silver medalist Lizzie and the rest weren't worth it. What other sport could get away with such gender discrimination ?

On topic with Adam, I was surprised he made the long list, his face never really seemed to fit with the management team at Manchester and I think, subliminally, that sends out a message that this rider is a target for gossip and innuendo, much of it based on absolutely nothing.

Paulie W

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I think it's a bit like Sinead O'Connor was talking about on the news the other day - when a woman is assertive she is seen as difficult - when a man does it he's seen as a leader. British Cycling is a very controlling environment at the best of times - they don't like individuals that don't conform - it does seem that when it comes to women that goes doubly so. http://banbossy.com/

Some women are genuinely complete pains in the ars* though (as are men).

This may be true but if you want to argue that across society as a whole successful women are not in general viewed differently to successful men (by both men and women), you're on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

BenderRodriguez

It is very tiresome when discussions such as this fall back on cliched 'gender discrimination' explanations of attitudes to a given individual, when the reality has much more to do with the individuals themselves.

I think that this certainly applies to Nichole Cooke, who has often given the impression that she believes that the whole world should revolve around what she wants, to the extent that at times she would probably only have been happy if 'Team GB' was renamed 'Team Cooke'. To be fair, I am tempted to think that her having such attitudes might well have had a lot to do with her father!

As to Victoria P being 'difficult' or even 'flaky', this might well have some justification, given here penchant for self-harming and so forth.

To look at things from the opposite direction, just look at the near-reverential respect from someone like Beryl Burton, who dominated the sport like no other woman, even beating the men, was totally single-minded and driven, but still respected by everyone. Why? Because of here personal qualities, with her gender being pretty much an irrelevance.

Paulie W

BenderRodriguez wrote:

It is very tiresome when discussions such as this fall back on cliched 'gender discrimination' explanations of attitudes to a given individual, when the reality has much more to do with the individuals themselves.

Back in the real world...

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

if you want to argue that across society as a whole successful women are not in general viewed differently to successful men (by both men and women), you're on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

Thing is, whilst attitudes with regards gender tend to be seen as favouring men and discriminating against women, things are not so simple. For example, I think a reasonable case could be put forward arguing that, whereas being guilty of misogyny is almost universally seen as being only one step up from being guilty of child abuse, misandry is often regarded as being 'empowering' or even as not really existing. (I have always been amused by the fact that the word misandry is not even recognised by any of the version of MS Office that I have owned, or this site's spell checker come to that!)

Similarly, whereas violence towards women is, quite rightfully, seen as being reprehensible, it often seems that violence towards a man by a woman is regarded as being a natural response and even funny: just look at how many American TV shows and films dub in laugher as some guy is punched, kicked or slapped across the face by some 'feisty' female.

Later retirement ages despite a shorter life expectancy, forced conscription into national services (still a reality for millions around the world), being sent out as the cannon fodder for wars from which only the elite benefit, being expected to do back-breaking labour for a pittance in order to keep their families. All these and more have been the realities of the 'patriarchy' for countless millions of men.

Such realities seem to be glossed over in the 'gender wars' just as much as the fact that the story about women being granted equal voting rights usually 'forgets' to mention that even men were not granted universal suffrage until after the first world war. Also, the only reason that women were only given the vote in 1918 if they were over the age of 28, rather than 21, was because that so many men were killed in WW1 that an equal voting age would have meant that men would have constituted a minority voting group! (It is also often forgotten that many early suffragettes had no real interest in concepts such as truly universal suffrage. Rather they were upper middle class women who thought that they should have the same rights as upper middle class, property owning men, with no interest in expanding the vote to the working classes, male or female.)

Before anyone claims that the above is evidence of 'misogyny', I would emphasise that I would fully agree that, on a global scale, woman is indeed the 'nigger of the world' as Lennon put it and, I think that it is outrageous the way women rights are restricted in so many places across the world. That said, the biggest 'victims' of discrimination world-wide are probably the 'working' classes, both male and female.

Tom Dean

mike6 wrote:

Cav is borderline OCD, he admits that. Never heard a bad word about him from a team mate or a trade team so he is not a pain in the a**e. He hates losing, he is a winner why not?

You mean those people whose livelihoods depend on keeping Cav happy don't slag him off in the press? That's weird isn't it?

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

It is very tiresome when discussions such as this fall back on cliched 'gender discrimination' explanations of attitudes to a given individual, when the reality has much more to do with the individuals themselves.

Back in the real world...

I take it that you would quite like to do a couple of years doing national service in the Russian Army?

Perhaps you would prefer service in Germany, where until only a couple of years ago young German men who opted to do 'civilian' national service had to do a 'double' term and were typically used as cheap labour in care homes and so forth, being paid a fraction of their female colleagues?

chrisday

Tom Dean wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Cav is borderline OCD, he admits that. Never heard a bad word about him from a team mate or a trade team so he is not a pain in the a**e. He hates losing, he is a winner why not?

You mean those people whose livelihoods depend on keeping Cav happy don't slag him off in the press? That's weird isn't it?

Think that's a bit of an oversimplification - we don't tend to hear bad words from former team mates, either, where there's no incentive to not mouth off.

BenderRodriguez

To return to the topic, I think that it is disgraceful that people like Adam Blythe should be described using terms such as 'bad' boy. Can't we just write off such behaviour as being due to testosterone, a sort of male equivalent of 'PMT', with Adam, Cav et al not really being responsible for their actions?

Paulie W

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

It is very tiresome when discussions such as this fall back on cliched 'gender discrimination' explanations of attitudes to a given individual, when the reality has much more to do with the individuals themselves.

Back in the real world...

I take it that you would quite like to do a couple of years doing national service in the Russian Army?

Perhaps you would prefer service in Germany, where until only a couple of years ago young German men who opted to do 'civilian' national service had to do a 'double' term and were typically used as cheap labour in care homes and so forth, being paid a fraction of their female colleagues?

Well you've got me there; I couldnt possibly respond with an almost infinite number of examples of the reverse.

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

Well you've got me there; I couldnt possibly respond with an almost infinite number of examples of the reverse.

Mmmm. I wonder if you would be so quick to write off discrimination against, say black Americans, on the basis that many women have also suffered from discrimination?

Paulie W

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

if you want to argue that across society as a whole successful women are not in general viewed differently to successful men (by both men and women), you're on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

Thing is, whilst attitudes with regards gender tend to be seen as favouring men and discriminating against women, things are not so simple. For example, I think a reasonable case could be put forward arguing that, whereas being guilty of misogyny is almost universally seen as being only one step up from being guilty of child abuse, misandry is often regarded as being 'empowering' or even as not really existing. (I have always been amused by the fact that the word misandry is not even recognised by any of the version of MS Office that I have owned, or this site's spell checker come to that!)

Similarly, whereas violence towards women is, quite rightfully, seen as being reprehensible, it often seems that violence towards a man by a woman is regarded as being a natural response and even funny: just look at how many American TV shows and films dub in laugher as some guy is punched, kicked or slapped across the face by some 'feisty' female.

Later retirement ages despite a shorter life expectancy, forced conscription into national services (still a reality for millions around the world), being sent out as the cannon fodder for wars from which only the elite benefit, being expected to do back-breaking labour for a pittance in order to keep their families. All these and more have been the realities of the 'patriarchy' for countless millions of men.

Such realities seem to be glossed over in the 'gender wars' just as much as the fact that the story about women being granted equal voting rights usually 'forgets' to mention that even men were not granted universal suffrage until after the first world war. Also, the only reason that women were only given the vote in 1918 if they were over the age of 28, rather than 21, was because that so many men were killed in WW1 that an equal voting age would have meant that men would have constituted a minority voting group! (It is also often forgotten that many early suffragettes had no real interest in concepts such as truly universal suffrage. Rather they were upper middle class women who thought that they should have the same rights as upper middle class, property owning men, with no interest in expanding the vote to the working classes, male or female.)

Before anyone claims that the above is evidence of 'misogyny', I would emphasise that I would fully agree that, on a global scale, woman is indeed the 'nigger of the world' as Lennon put it and, I think that it is outrageous the way women rights are restricted in so many places across the world. That said, the biggest 'victims' of discrimination world-wide are probably the 'working' classes, both male and female.

Ah poor you - I'm assuming your a man. Life must be tough! Your argument is the very one I used to throw at my mother - a fairly militant feminist- when I was about 14: "you know, men have had it tough too"!

Paulie W

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Well you've got me there; I couldnt possibly respond with an almost infinite number of examples of the reverse.

Mmmm. I wonder if you would be so quick to write off discrimination against, say black Americans, on the basis that many women have also suffered from discrimination?

The problem I have with your argument style - and why I cant really be arsed to engage with you properly - is that it is based on anecdote. It is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes discrimination. The men who you describe as being 'discriminated' against in Russia and Germany are not actually being discriminated against based on the fact they are men and in reality there is unlikely to be any lasting discrimination - those lads will go on to have a significantly higher average wage than women for example.

Anyway, this is drifting way off topic.

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

Ah poor you - I'm assuming your a man. Life must be tough! Your argument is the very one I used to throw at my mother - a fairly militant feminist- when I was about 14: "you know, men have had it tough too"!

And your point is?

Do you, or would your mother, not agree with the view that "on a global scale, woman is indeed the 'nigger of the world'"? Do you support the concept of male only national service? Do you think that the upper-middle class suffragettes were really fighting for votes for 'the lower classes', rather than women like themselves? Do you laugh when some guy on TV is punched in the face by a 'feisty' female?

In my view one reason why there is still so much discrimination in the world is because far too many supposed campaigners for 'justice' and 'fairness' are, in reality, only really interested in justice and fairness for their own restricted in-group, be that based on race, colour, gender or whatever. The reality is most people are, one way or another 'screwed by the system' and the factional self-interest of many campaigning groups simply plays straight into the hands of the ruling elite who live by the maxim 'divide and conquer'.

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

It is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes discrimination. The men who you describe as being 'discriminated' against in Russia and Germany are not actually being discriminated against based on the fact they are men and in reality there is unlikely to be any lasting discrimination - those lads will go on to have a significantly higher average wage than women for example.

So, being forced to do forced labour or military service just because of your gender does not constitute gender-based discrimination? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

For me any form of military-style service would be my idea of hell, and this is from someone who actually spent doing 3 months of residential military-style training when I was a fire service recruit many years ago. Life as a conscript in the Russian military is a thousand times worse than anything I experienced and such service rarely is of any career benefit. Similarly, when I was doing a doctorate one of my fellow students was a Greek lad who had just finished his national service, and he told me how hard it was to get into the job market afterwards, especially when his was applying alongside females of the same age who already had a couple of years of directly job-related experience to put on their CV's. This was on top of the fact that the Greek national service allowance was so low that most recruits had to take out loans simply in order to be able to buy such essentials and clothes and toiletries, which then had to be paid back once they got a job.

Paulie W

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

It is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes discrimination. The men who you describe as being 'discriminated' against in Russia and Germany are not actually being discriminated against based on the fact they are men and in reality there is unlikely to be any lasting discrimination - those lads will go on to have a significantly higher average wage than women for example.

So, being forced to do forced labour or military service just because of your gender does not constitute gender-based discrimination? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

For me any form of military-style service would be my idea of hell, and this is from someone who actually spent doing 3 months of residential military-style training when I was a fire service recruit many years ago. Life as a conscript in the Russian military is a thousand times worse than anything I experienced and such service rarely is of any career benefit. Similarly, when I was doing a doctorate one of my fellow students was a Greek lad who had just finished his national service, and he told me how hard it was to get into the job market afterwards, especially when his was applying alongside females of the same age who already had a couple of years of directly job-related experience to put on their CV's. This was on top of the fact that the Greek national service allowance was so low that most recruits had to take out loans simply in order to be able to buy such essentials and clothes and toiletries, which then had to be paid back once they got a job.

Anecdote again Bender! Anecdote! You've done a PhD - you should know better.

Tom Dean

deleted. Note to self: don't read gossip threads in the first place...

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

Anecdote again Bender! Anecdote! You've done a PhD - you should know better.

What would you prefer, a break down on the number of men forced to do male-only national service across the world over the last 30 years? The points I make are perfectly valid and I am not putting forward my illustrative examples, or 'anecdotes', as the basis of my argument.

If you dislike anecdotes so much, how about taking issue with the following, which is pure anecdote and proof of nothing.

little ring needed wrote:

I can't work out how there isn't mutiny from the road women at the way they have been treated. One of the vaunted "secret squirrel" achievements for 2012 was the McLaren Technology road bike. At some exorbitant cost to the the Lottery public, bikes were prepared for every Team GB rider selected on both the short list and the long list.

Every Team GB member that is unless you were female, in which case you just turned up with your team bike. So "bad boy Blythe", who was on the long list, had a machine prepared for him, but the management team decided his girlfriend, silver medalist Lizzie and the rest weren't worth it. What other sport could get away with such gender discrimination ?

BenderRodriguez

Paulie W wrote:

It is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes discrimination. The men who you describe as being 'discriminated' against in Russia and Germany are not actually being discriminated against

OK, so, without resorting to 'anecdotes', explain to me what is gender-based discrimination, if it is not treating men differently to women on the basis of their gender, forcing them on pain of jail to do forced labour or military service?

DeVlaeminck

Wouldn't disagree that discrimination can work both ways Bender but if we are looking at sport, specifically the position of women in cycling and within BC, there's enough evidence to suggest a woman who doesn't just take what they dish out and be grateful is labelled as problematic.

tom3

Regardless of Blythe's private life. Mr Yates seems to do a bloody good job at getting the best out of people said to be difficult to deal with.

long may that continue.

little ring needed

Bender, you have way more time than ever I can commit to, so you will have the last word, regardless of whether that is based on fact or fiction. Beryl is seen as revered right now. You need to understand that contemporaneously, she suffered near identical problems with the GB team staff to Cook, Pooley and Armitstead. She repeatedly complained bitterly of being not treated as well as the men and the men grabbing all the resource and belittling her achievements. She even went so far as to accuse the incompetent men in charge of robbing her of a world title with the way they forced a botch of her preparation at the track.

But one thing she did achieve in the time of her career was gain a popular an appeal beyond the narrow confines of her sport. That rendered her somewhat invulnerable, in certain aspects of what she did to those who sought to bring her down. It did not stop many including some in the cycling press, stirring up her disputes with her daughter and enjoying watching the spectacle as it all fell apart. In the digital internet age, with BC and SKY controlling the press releases, and standards of journalism declining, she would never be able to achieve that wider appeal.

How she is seen now is entirely different to her own experiences and how a section of the sport viewed her at the time.

mike6

I have no idea what all this gender discrimination has to do with Mr Blythe, but my 2p?

I have worked with, and for, lots of women and they are no better or worse, just different.

Some are good managers some are bad some indifferent, just like men.

Some women, doing the same job as me have been paid more than me, some less. As the saying goes "You dont get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate". If someone negotiates a better salary than me, good luck to them, regardless of gender. Personaly I would not bleat to management about discrimination I would ask what I have to do to get more money.

I think some people wallow in victim culture and blame personal failings on discrimination. I could do the same thing..."Its because I am short, Its because I'm bald, Its because I'm old"....but no its not. Sometimes its just because at a point in time I was not good enough or someone was better than me.

Paulie W

One of the reasons that things are so slow to change is that a lot of men - Mike being another example - dont think there is a problem. (The gender pay gap exists - the notion that this is a product wholly of negotiating skills seems highly unlikely). This is where I came into this debate as a number of posters were dismissing the idea that successful women in cycling are often characterised in a particular way. The relevance of that to Adam Blythe I forget!!

BenderRodriguez

little ring needed wrote:

Beryl is seen as revered right now. You need to understand that contemporaneously, she suffered near identical problems with the GB team staff to Cook, Pooley and Armitstead. She repeatedly complained bitterly of being not treated as well as the men and the men grabbing all the resource and belittling her achievements.

I raced through through the latter part of Burton's era and she was revered by her fellow cyclists. Just take a look at the reports of her achievements in Cycling to see how much she was respected.

True enough she was disdainful of the UCI and its attitude to women's racing, but that does not undermine the way those in the sport in the UK viewed her achievements. In fact this one of my favourite passages from her book makes this clear.

I had my reward the following January at the fortieth R.T.T.C. dinner and prize presentation held in the Great Hall of the Assembly Rooms in Derby. Mary Peters, M.B.E., the Olympic pentathlon gold medallist, presented the prizes, and she was an apt choice, her bubbling personality and recognition of the effort required to be at the top in sport making her a success with the assembled cyclists. The Lord Mayor of Leeds (Councillor Martin J. Dodgson, J. P.) sent a civic greeting, and there was also a message of congratulation from the Minister for Sport, the Right Honourable Neil McFarlane. Among my awards was a beautiful gold necklace in an inscribed case presented by the Road Time Trials Council, something I shall always treasure. Best of all was the acclaim from all those who had ever faced a timekeeper. They knew the worth of what I had done. The chairman brought a halt to the standing ovation after nearly five minutes. lan Cammish, bless him, had won the men's B.A.R. for the fourth successive year, a marvellous achievement in face of the competition, but graciously he took a back seat on that night. Charlie and I were carried shoulder-high round the hall by Phil Griffiths and others, and I had to fight back the tears.

In the early hours of the morning in a room at the Midland Hotel a small gathering which constituted just about all the active members of the Morley Cycling Club had a quiet party. They gave me a lovely cake in the form of a '25' and iced in the Morley colours; there was a racing wheel also decked out in the club colours and covered with orchids and a scripted message of congratulation; there were mince pies, cakes and chocolates and lots of other goodies. I sat on the floor and munched cake, drank apple juice and realised that this, really, was what it was all about. The fellowship of like-minded folk who, in their various ways, were part of the greatest sport in the world. They knew what it was like to push through a howling wind in pouring rain with a determination to finish; they knew the discomfort of standing and shivering in the road at a junction to point the way, not only for riders such as B. B. but for any novice junior who happened to be riding; they knew the tediousness of collecting entries and typing out start sheets; they knew that, for there to be a winner, there had to be losers - except that in this sport there are no losers. To be part of it gives you something nobody else has. Others may not fully understand - but if you are a cyclist you understand, don't you?

mike6

Paulie W wrote:

One of the reasons that things are so slow to change is that a lot of men - Mike being another example - dont think there is a problem. (The gender pay gap exists - the notion that this is a product wholly of negotiating skills seems highly unlikely). This is where I came into this debate as a number of posters were dismissing the idea that successful women in cycling are often characterised in a particular way. The relevance of that to Adam Blythe I forget!!

Er...hang on, hang on, I didn't say that. I said "I" dont have a problem. I also said that "Some" people wallow in victim culture and blame discrimination for all there troubles and that I could do the same thing, but I dont. Because some women got paid more than me for the same job I didn't jump to the discrimination conclusion, usualy I presumed it was because they were better at there job, or better at negotiating.

You seem to have an agenda here, when you jump on someone who believes we are all the same.

BenderRodriguez

mike6 wrote:

I think some people wallow in victim culture and blame personal failings on discrimination. I could do the same thing..."Its because I am short, Its because I'm bald, Its because I'm old"....but no its not. Sometimes its just because at a point in time I was not good enough or someone was better than me.

But you are a man, and as such have probably been brought up to take responsibility for your own actions. Unfortunately, the prevailing feminist narrative hardly encourages women to think the same, although naturally many do. This is something that is reflected in many areas of society. For example, as Stephenson in The Psychology of Criminal Justice notes, there is a degree of bias in criminal justice system that favours women, so even though men are responsible for more crime, men on an individual basis are also much more likely to face jail than a woman who has committed the same offence. As he puts it:

Women are treated preferentially, being treated as if they are not fully responsible for what they do, or have psychiatric or social problem which accounts for their behaviour... Things ‘happen to’ women. Men are responsible for their actions.

A similar example is that way 'biological' factors are more likely to be held to be responsible for female behaviour in general, as with 'PMT'. (Hence my joke about dismissing the behaviour of 'bad boys' as being due to testosterone, something which just doesn't happen.)