CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling

Richmond Racer 2

Blazing Saddles wrote:

A casual visitor to the forum, reading this, might wonder when you were due to hit puberty.

I'd like to know why Pooley is quoted as saying: "The report is pretty shocking."
She hasn't read the report. The report, as I understand it, is some way from being completed.
Surely, to comment upon an unconfirmed leak is a bit rash?
Why not wait for the official report.
It all seems a bit too orchestrated to me.
In fact I'm pretty sure it has been since day one.

A regular would wonder the same tbf

Richmond Racer 2

The report is not complete, much less released

Very odd.

TheBigBean

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

bobmcstuff

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

cal_stewart

Is it just me or is Chris Froome pretty unmarketable from a commercial side. I kind of agree with the comments on road pros chipping in as BC are pretty limited with road racing input and kind of only use it for training for the track.

Rio was a joke, surely Cummings up the road and ride for G was the only way to go. I wouldn't of even taken froome

RichN95.

Delete

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

I don't understand what Emma Pooley and Nicole Cooke expected from British Cycling. They were road pros. They rode for BC once a year. It was their pro teams that were the key to their career. Lizzie Armitstead seems to require nothing from them. Has Chris Froome ever even been to Manchester?

To be fair, Cooke should have had way more support off BC (BCF?) in her early career. She was the UK's first genuinely world class road cyclist in years. However, the organisation back then was only just transferring from a truly amateur operation - they didn't have structural issues as they hadn't really got a structure! Her problem is that she struggled to overcome those original experiences and never really integrated into the system that developed. She was forced into being a bit of a lone wolf and never really fitted into a team whether at national or pro level afterwards.

RichN95.

Cal_Stewart wrote:

Is it just me or is Chris Froome pretty unmarketable from a commercial side.

Are many cyclists though? Maybe a couple in Belgium and a couple in Italy. I haven't seen too much in personal endorsements. And Froome doesn't seem interested in the celebrity side of things much.

Cal_Stewart wrote:

Rio was a joke, surely Cummings up the road and ride for G was the only way to go. I wouldn't of even taken froome

He got a medal in the Time Trial. The time triallists had to be selected from the road race team.
GB did OK in the road race. Thomas was with GVA when he crashed.

TheBigBean

bobmcstuff wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

The point being to spend money on participation rather than medals.

Pross

TheBigBean wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

The point being to spend money on participation rather than medals.

Isn't the principle that medals create participation though? That's why everything is Olympic focussed as Olympic medals catch the imagination more than Worlds in virtually every sport. The principle seems to work in practice too, our club was inundated with kids at our Saturday coaching sessions after 2012 most of whom kept going and even more joined this summer. Everything I hear from other successful Olympic sports seem to be the same.

TheBigBean

Pross wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

The point being to spend money on participation rather than medals.

Isn't the principle that medals create participation though? That's why everything is Olympic focussed as Olympic medals catch the imagination more than Worlds in virtually every sport. The principle seems to work in practice too, our club was inundated with kids at our Saturday coaching sessions after 2012 most of whom kept going and even more joined this summer. Everything I hear from other successful Olympic sports seem to be the same.

There's no doubt it helps, but I think that local clubs and facilities are far more important. There are lots of sports with good levels of participation and no medals e.g. squash. I would rather the money was spent on encouraging participation, especially kids, in any sport whether that is parcours, rounders or track cycling.

awavey

Pross wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

The point being to spend money on participation rather than medals.

Isn't the principle that medals create participation though? That's why everything is Olympic focussed as Olympic medals catch the imagination more than Worlds in virtually every sport. The principle seems to work in practice too, our club was inundated with kids at our Saturday coaching sessions after 2012 most of whom kept going and even more joined this summer. Everything I hear from other successful Olympic sports seem to be the same.

the Guardian quoted Sport Englands most recent sports participation figures that among 14- to 25-year-olds participation in cycling has dropped by 25% over the past decade.

andyp

Cal_Stewart wrote:

Rio was a joke, surely Cummings up the road and ride for G was the only way to go. I wouldn't of even taken froome

Yet he won a medal. Funny that.

cal_stewart

andyp wrote:

Cal_Stewart wrote:

Rio was a joke, surely Cummings up the road and ride for G was the only way to go. I wouldn't of even taken froome

Yet he won a medal. Funny that.

My bad.

cruff

awavey wrote:

Pross wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

The point being to spend money on participation rather than medals.

Isn't the principle that medals create participation though? That's why everything is Olympic focussed as Olympic medals catch the imagination more than Worlds in virtually every sport. The principle seems to work in practice too, our club was inundated with kids at our Saturday coaching sessions after 2012 most of whom kept going and even more joined this summer. Everything I hear from other successful Olympic sports seem to be the same.

the Guardian quoted Sport Englands most recent sports participation figures that among 14- to 25-year-olds participation in cycling has dropped by 25% over the past decade.

Not in Lancashire it hasn't. My club has more young members than ever before, races are full of junior riders, and they seem faster keener and 'better' than ever before (though that might just be because I'm older and slower). Every week someone new seems to join up, or ask abiut joining up.

Pross

awavey wrote:

Pross wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I suggest abolishing UK Sport and sending the money to Sport England/Wales/Scotland/NI.

Well UK Sport will be reduced to England and Wales Sport within the next few years anyway, wouldn't worry about that...

The point being to spend money on participation rather than medals.

Isn't the principle that medals create participation though? That's why everything is Olympic focussed as Olympic medals catch the imagination more than Worlds in virtually every sport. The principle seems to work in practice too, our club was inundated with kids at our Saturday coaching sessions after 2012 most of whom kept going and even more joined this summer. Everything I hear from other successful Olympic sports seem to be the same.

the Guardian quoted Sport Englands most recent sports participation figures that among 14- to 25-year-olds participation in cycling has dropped by 25% over the past decade.

I'd be shocked if that is the case. Racing fields in all disciplines are huge compared to when I stopped racing regularly and the amount of recreational cyclists I see must have multiplied ten fold albeit they are generally older. We do seem to lose the late teens / early 20s riders though I suppose. At my club we have huge numbers from 5-15 and then their parents or people who used to race and are getting back into it. I suspect all sports suffer in that in between age group and there's little that funding will do to stop it.

awavey

Pross wrote:

awavey wrote:

the Guardian quoted Sport Englands most recent sports participation figures that among 14- to 25-year-olds participation in cycling has dropped by 25% over the past decade.

I'd be shocked if that is the case. Racing fields in all disciplines are huge compared to when I stopped racing regularly and the amount of recreational cyclists I see must have multiplied ten fold albeit they are generally older. We do seem to lose the late teens / early 20s riders though I suppose. At my club we have huge numbers from 5-15 and then their parents or people who used to race and are getting back into it. I suspect all sports suffer in that in between age group and there's little that funding will do to stop it.

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-f ... ng-active/

"...and cycling is down 85,200 (four per cent). Both sports remain popular with people in midlife, but are attracting and retaining fewer young people under 25."

thats a 4% drop in just 1 year, so I presume the Guardian went back over the previous surveys to get their 10 year stat, although the survey has only been running for about 10 years, but it is noticeable 2012 seems to have been peak cycling, and its been tailing off since, different rates for different age groups and locations as youd expect. Id have always said cycling in the UK had a strong core around Lancashire, its the non traditional cycling areas that might have got on board in 2012, but are losing out to present those figures.

pedro118118

Vino'sGhost wrote:

LOLOLOL a very very qualified response from Froome on the subject

Surely until the various investigations/reports have been finalised, everyone would be well advised to do the same. I don't see it (Froome's statement) as being illustrative of his 'true feelings' one way or the other. He's merely exercising caution, given the process is ongoing. It's consistent with his personality and his approach throughout his career.

As I understand it...

UKAD have confirmed (as things currently stand), there is no evidence of wrongdoing/rule-breaking, nor evidence of a deliberate cover-up at Sky re: TUEs, jiffy bags or any other accusation
As for the outcomes/recommendations from the review of BC, we're still waiting aren't we?

DeVlaeminck

I always think youth cycling seems a very structured activity - you go from it being something very much organised by your parents to being controlled by your club coaches and then on into a sponsored team. I see very few of these teenage road cyclists out cycling in groups having a laugh giving their mates a battering - I wonder if having a coach at 15 is really giving ownership of the sport to the riders and the best way to build a love of the sport.

There are only so many rollers sessions and zone whatever rides you can do before it becomes boring and if all riding is seen as instrumental and geared towards winning races why would those who aren't winning races continue ?

I know I'm exaggerating to make a point but it seems a bit that way to me.

yorkshireraw

awavey wrote:

Pross wrote:

awavey wrote:

the Guardian quoted Sport Englands most recent sports participation figures that among 14- to 25-year-olds participation in cycling has dropped by 25% over the past decade.

I'd be shocked if that is the case. Racing fields in all disciplines are huge compared to when I stopped racing regularly and the amount of recreational cyclists I see must have multiplied ten fold albeit they are generally older. We do seem to lose the late teens / early 20s riders though I suppose. At my club we have huge numbers from 5-15 and then their parents or people who used to race and are getting back into it. I suspect all sports suffer in that in between age group and there's little that funding will do to stop it.

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-f ... ng-active/

"...and cycling is down 85,200 (four per cent). Both sports remain popular with people in midlife, but are attracting and retaining fewer young people under 25."

thats a 4% drop in just 1 year, so I presume the Guardian went back over the previous surveys to get their 10 year stat, although the survey has only been running for about 10 years, but it is noticeable 2012 seems to have been peak cycling, and its been tailing off since, different rates for different age groups and locations as youd expect. Id have always said cycling in the UK had a strong core around Lancashire, its the non traditional cycling areas that might have got on board in 2012, but are losing out to present those figures.

Aren't these 'participation' figures always a bit open to debate though - are they looking purely at the numbers who are club members etc., or including anyone who identifies themselves as riding a bike - which might include tootling to school on it.

I'm pretty sure 'running' numbers are up massively, but 'competitive' club athletics is really suffering.

Richmond Racer 2

I THINK I'm correct in saying that the way in which they categorise 'participation' excludes those who 'only' ride to commute to work. Which is bloody daft, and a major omission.

Had a chat with someone at Sport England about this last year.

Richmond Racer 2

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

I THINK I'm correct in saying that the way in which they categorise 'participation' excludes those who 'only' ride to commute to work/school. Which is bloody daft, and a major omission.

Had a chat with someone at Sport England about this last year.

TheBigBean

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

I THINK I'm correct in saying that the way in which they categorise 'participation' excludes those who 'only' ride to commute to work. Which is bloody daft, and a major omission.

Had a chat with someone at Sport England about this last year.

I'm not sure I would go as far as saying it is daft. It is an issue which is probably unique to cycling though. Many people riding to work will not consider themselves to be participating in a sport (clearly some do - see silly commuter racing thread). Certainly, when I do it, it is a way of getting from A to B.

It would be interesting to see some stats from another sport as to whether funding some olympic medals has had an impact on participation. No doubt it will be hard to assess as there will be lots of other factors at play.

I think, without any factual support, that most kids play sports that involve someone (a coach) volunteering and some cheap facilities. My original point was that I would prefer the funding to go towards these kind of things as opposed to a wannabe pro that is actually an amateur by all other definitions.

Richmond Racer 2

Bean, if you ride a bike, you participate.

The word is participation.

You go out for a 30 min ride once a week - thats included in the participation count

You ride your bike to and from work or school 5 days a week - not included

Doesnt add up.

bompington

I'm currently commuting 120 miles a week - always going as hard as I can. I hardly get out at all apart from that, so I guess I'm Not A Real Cyclist.

TheBigBean

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Bean, if you ride a bike, you participate.

The word is participation.

You go out for a 30 min ride once a week - thats included in the participation count

You ride your bike to and from work or school 5 days a week - not included

Doesnt add up.

I understand your point of view, I just don't think it is quite that clear cut. At the moment, I walk to work. I do not consider myself a racewalker.

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

I'm currently commuting 120 miles a week - always going as hard as I can. I hardly get out at all apart from that, so I guess I'm Not A Real Cyclist.

What's that based on?

Dorset_Boy

Most sports see a drop off in 15-24 yo participation. Boys and girls discover each other and would prefer to hang out together than play sport.

Also up to 15 they can ride comparatively cheap bikes and still be and feel competitive.
Buying and maintaining a bike and entering races then becomes significantly more expensive too, and many won't be able to afford to continue.

Carlton Kirby

TheBigBean wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Bean, if you ride a bike, you participate.

The word is participation.

You go out for a 30 min ride once a week - thats included in the participation count

You ride your bike to and from work or school 5 days a week - not included

Doesnt add up.

I understand your point of view, I just don't think it is quite that clear cut. At the moment, I walk to work. I do not consider myself a racewalker.

I drive to work - judging from some others using the roads - they do consider themselves F1 participants...

rick_chasey

Yeah, I do cycle chuffing fast to work.