British Cycling sucks!!

gweeds

Is the OP his mum?

Matthewfalle

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

It should be Zwift sucks at maths as the cheating occured on their platform which didn't alert them to a rider maintaining 2,000W over 200km.

BC weren't in control of the platform but applied their existing rules to a BC event on that platform, and after a Zwift Terms of Service breach they enacted their existing rules.

Gaining upgrades is an interesting one. Computer games have long used gaining upgrades as a way to keep people playing and cyclists like to upgrade so it appears a perfect match as long the chance to upgrade is equitable and fair.

On this occasion the cheating was more akin to him entering a road race with a small child on an electric moped under his name, so pretty blatant.

you haven't understood how he cheated.

he didn't use the bot in the race.

he used the bot to unlock the tron bike - this requires you to do a certain amount of climbing in the game. so the bot did the climbing not the rider - you keep the bike forever once unlocked.

he then used that bike, which is meant to be one of the most aero and lightest, in the race which he raced legitimately, so the watts he put into the trainer were the ones used in the race.

get it now?

sorry - am new to all this kind of training so am starting on a blank.

the tron bike thing - would it give an advantage over the other bikes on/in the game?

ddraver

As I said in the other forum, it's easier just to treat the whole thing with the disdain it deserves...

craigus89

Matthewfalle wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

It should be Zwift sucks at maths as the cheating occured on their platform which didn't alert them to a rider maintaining 2,000W over 200km.

BC weren't in control of the platform but applied their existing rules to a BC event on that platform, and after a Zwift Terms of Service breach they enacted their existing rules.

Gaining upgrades is an interesting one. Computer games have long used gaining upgrades as a way to keep people playing and cyclists like to upgrade so it appears a perfect match as long the chance to upgrade is equitable and fair.

On this occasion the cheating was more akin to him entering a road race with a small child on an electric moped under his name, so pretty blatant.

you haven't understood how he cheated.

he didn't use the bot in the race.

he used the bot to unlock the tron bike - this requires you to do a certain amount of climbing in the game. so the bot did the climbing not the rider - you keep the bike forever once unlocked.

he then used that bike, which is meant to be one of the most aero and lightest, in the race which he raced legitimately, so the watts he put into the trainer were the ones used in the race.

get it now?

sorry - am new to all this kind of training so am starting on a blank.

the tron bike thing - would it give an advantage over the other bikes on/in the game?

Yes. Which is why the whole thing is a massive farce. Not dissimilar to a rider in the WT being allowed to climb ventoux on a 3 kilo bike.

chris_bass

Matthewfalle wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

It should be Zwift sucks at maths as the cheating occured on their platform which didn't alert them to a rider maintaining 2,000W over 200km.

BC weren't in control of the platform but applied their existing rules to a BC event on that platform, and after a Zwift Terms of Service breach they enacted their existing rules.

Gaining upgrades is an interesting one. Computer games have long used gaining upgrades as a way to keep people playing and cyclists like to upgrade so it appears a perfect match as long the chance to upgrade is equitable and fair.

On this occasion the cheating was more akin to him entering a road race with a small child on an electric moped under his name, so pretty blatant.

you haven't understood how he cheated.

he didn't use the bot in the race.

he used the bot to unlock the tron bike - this requires you to do a certain amount of climbing in the game. so the bot did the climbing not the rider - you keep the bike forever once unlocked.

he then used that bike, which is meant to be one of the most aero and lightest, in the race which he raced legitimately, so the watts he put into the trainer were the ones used in the race.

get it now?

sorry - am new to all this kind of training so am starting on a blank.

the tron bike thing - would it give an advantage over the other bikes on/in the game?

yes but not massively so and you can get it legitimately, the only issue here is he got it sooner than he should. There are better bikes for climbing, more aero, faster etc (there are lots of youtube videos about the best bikes on zwift) this is a bit of an all rounder though - when people don't ride for a team and sponsorship is no issue i have no idea why they don't just create a "race" bike and make everyone use it - that's the bigger issue really

chris_bass

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

It should be Zwift sucks at maths as the cheating occured on their platform which didn't alert them to a rider maintaining 2,000W over 200km.

BC weren't in control of the platform but applied their existing rules to a BC event on that platform, and after a Zwift Terms of Service breach they enacted their existing rules.

Gaining upgrades is an interesting one. Computer games have long used gaining upgrades as a way to keep people playing and cyclists like to upgrade so it appears a perfect match as long the chance to upgrade is equitable and fair.

On this occasion the cheating was more akin to him entering a road race with a small child on an electric moped under his name, so pretty blatant.

you haven't understood how he cheated.

he didn't use the bot in the race.

he used the bot to unlock the tron bike - this requires you to do a certain amount of climbing in the game. so the bot did the climbing not the rider - you keep the bike forever once unlocked.

he then used that bike, which is meant to be one of the most aero and lightest, in the race which he raced legitimately, so the watts he put into the trainer were the ones used in the race.

get it now?

Don't give a toss really. That he was brought to justice is what matters.

you seemed to give a toss earlier

PhilipPirrip

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

It should be Zwift sucks at maths as the cheating occured on their platform which didn't alert them to a rider maintaining 2,000W over 200km.

BC weren't in control of the platform but applied their existing rules to a BC event on that platform, and after a Zwift Terms of Service breach they enacted their existing rules.

Gaining upgrades is an interesting one. Computer games have long used gaining upgrades as a way to keep people playing and cyclists like to upgrade so it appears a perfect match as long the chance to upgrade is equitable and fair.

On this occasion the cheating was more akin to him entering a road race with a small child on an electric moped under his name, so pretty blatant.

you haven't understood how he cheated.

he didn't use the bot in the race.

he used the bot to unlock the tron bike - this requires you to do a certain amount of climbing in the game. so the bot did the climbing not the rider - you keep the bike forever once unlocked.

he then used that bike, which is meant to be one of the most aero and lightest, in the race which he raced legitimately, so the watts he put into the trainer were the ones used in the race.

get it now?

Don't give a toss really. That he was brought to justice is what matters.

you seemed to give a toss earlier

A gave a toss about someone falsely accusing an organisation of breaching their own rules, I don't give a toss how Zwift works but glad to see their Terms of Service does.

Matthewfalle

Chris Bass wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

It should be Zwift sucks at maths as the cheating occured on their platform which didn't alert them to a rider maintaining 2,000W over 200km.

BC weren't in control of the platform but applied their existing rules to a BC event on that platform, and after a Zwift Terms of Service breach they enacted their existing rules.

Gaining upgrades is an interesting one. Computer games have long used gaining upgrades as a way to keep people playing and cyclists like to upgrade so it appears a perfect match as long the chance to upgrade is equitable and fair.

On this occasion the cheating was more akin to him entering a road race with a small child on an electric moped under his name, so pretty blatant.

you haven't understood how he cheated.

he didn't use the bot in the race.

he used the bot to unlock the tron bike - this requires you to do a certain amount of climbing in the game. so the bot did the climbing not the rider - you keep the bike forever once unlocked.

he then used that bike, which is meant to be one of the most aero and lightest, in the race which he raced legitimately, so the watts he put into the trainer were the ones used in the race.

get it now?

sorry - am new to all this kind of training so am starting on a blank.

the tron bike thing - would it give an advantage over the other bikes on/in the game?

yes but not massively so and you can get it legitimately, the only issue here is he got it sooner than he should. There are better bikes for climbing, more aero, faster etc (there are lots of youtube videos about the best bikes on zwift) this is a bit of an all rounder though - when people don't ride for a team and sponsorship is no issue i have no idea why they don't just create a "race" bike and make everyone use it - that's the bigger issue really

isn't the issue not that he got it earlier than he did but that he didn't actually do any of the effort involved to get it unlike his fellow competitors?

ok, its only sitting on a bike in your garage, but its the principle, n'est ce pas?

Dorset_Boy

The Tron bike is considered the fastest all round bike, and it is bloody hard work to earn it.
Cheating his was to get it broke Zwift's ToS so potentially he should have been thrown off the platform before the qualifiers and therefore unable to compete at all. As you say, there is also then the principle / concern that if he cheated to get the bike, where else has he cheated?

However it has also been suggested that some of the pros were given Tron bikes, and so didn't earn them in the game either, but I don't know if that applies to any of the other finalists.

It is totally daft though that either a standard bike, or a limited stable of bikes, wasn't used. I suspect that will change going forward.

shiznit76

moon howler alert

smudgerii

Wow! 3 pages....


OP it’s a game get over it...

john1967

Zwift is in its infancy and problems like this will be ironed out and before long the prize money will far outstrip what a road race offers.

daniel_b

DeVlaeminck

john1967 wrote:

Zwift is in its infancy and problems like this will be ironed out and before long the prize money will far outstrip what a road race offers.

Well the Tour has a prize pot of a few million now so I'm guessing there is a way to go - even then the real money in cycling is a rider's salary not a prize fund.

john1967

DeVlaeminck wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Zwift is in its infancy and problems like this will be ironed out and before long the prize money will far outstrip what a road race offers.

Well the Tour has a prize pot of a few million now so I'm guessing there is a way to go - even then the real money in cycling is a rider's salary not a prize fund.

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.
It won't take long for zwift to overtake with prize money especially as most races don't offer large prize funds.
Yes salary is what gives a cyclist security but eSports will be the domain of the semi pro.

gweeds

There’s a lot of opinion presented as fact there.

imposter2.0

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

norvernrob

Imposter wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

Well no. Because the guy that won actually races bikes for a team in real life. He’s not a 20 stone slob sat doing something he couldn’t ever be physically capable of IRL. So a more accurate comparison would be a soldier winning a fortnite tournament.

PhilipPirrip

Imposter wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

Plenty of people want to belittle it even making false comparisons as here.

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

Unfortunately, for the 40 odd years I've been involved in cycling you do come across characters who think only their cycling is the true cycling and woe betide anyone who comes with new ideas that don't fit their narrative. You don't have to like it or participate in it but it doesn't make it any less cycling.

DeVlaeminck

Imposter wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

Plus Zwift isn't fortnight. About 50% of young people seem to play Fortnight - I've yet to see a similar number taking up sitting on a turbo trainer.

DeVlaeminck

john1967 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Zwift is in its infancy and problems like this will be ironed out and before long the prize money will far outstrip what a road race offers.

Well the Tour has a prize pot of a few million now so I'm guessing there is a way to go - even then the real money in cycling is a rider's salary not a prize fund.

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.
It won't take long for zwift to overtake with prize money especially as most races don't offer large prize funds.
Yes salary is what gives a cyclist security but eSports will be the domain of the semi pro.

I've no doubt there will be some people who make money off it, maybe even a living, but you implied it was going to surpass actual road racing which I really doubt will happen or anything like. I'm aware of esports - I actually know a girl whose ex boyfriend (who I've met a few times) is a pro Fifa player for #united - but I'm also aware that the money in something like that pales into insignificance compared to the money in professional football.

imposter2.0

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

Plenty of people want to belittle it even making false comparisons as here.

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

Unfortunately, for the 40 odd years I've been involved in cycling you do come across characters who think only their cycling is the true cycling and woe betide anyone who comes with new ideas that don't fit their narrative. You don't have to like it or participate in it but it doesn't make it any less cycling.

Not sure I agree. It might be a 'thing' - nobody can argue with that. But the point I was making is that it's about as far removed from 'actual' cycling is as Fortnight is from an 'actual' military operation..

pblakeney

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

PhilipPirrip

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

I did say the whole of cycling. The UCI don't control the whole of cycling.

pblakeney

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

I did say the whole of cycling. The UCI don't control the whole of cycling.

They do however control professional racing. Including Zwift.
https://www.uci.org/news/2019/uci-and-z ... discipline

PhilipPirrip

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

Plenty of people want to belittle it even making false comparisons as here.

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

Unfortunately, for the 40 odd years I've been involved in cycling you do come across characters who think only their cycling is the true cycling and woe betide anyone who comes with new ideas that don't fit their narrative. You don't have to like it or participate in it but it doesn't make it any less cycling.

Not sure I agree. It might be a 'thing' - nobody can argue with that. But the point I was making is that it's about as far removed from 'actual' cycling is as Fortnight is from an 'actual' military operation..

But again you've made a false comparison. As already said, you still have to actually ride in Zwift, you don't actually fight in Fortnite.

It is cycling regardless of what some may think. The question is why do such people feel the need to be so precious about their definition of cycling? Cycling is so diverse their's room for everyone, why operate with a closed mind when they should be encouraging people of all interests and abilities to get active.

To be clear, as I've mentioned previously I've no interest in using Zwift, I just hate to see such open prejudice, discimination, elitism and snobbery in cycling.

PhilipPirrip

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

I did say the whole of cycling. The UCI don't control the whole of cycling.

They do however control professional racing. Which is where this thread was heading.

You took a sample of my post and took it out of context, I gave it back it's original context. Does the UCI control the whole of cycling? No. It's not that hard to understand and acccept.

The thread can go wherever we take it. Most recently it's been about tournament gaming.

pblakeney

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

I did say the whole of cycling. The UCI don't control the whole of cycling.

They do however control professional racing. Which is where this thread was heading.

You took a sample of my post and took it out of context, I gave it back it's original context. Does the UCI control the whole of cycling? No. It's not that hard to understand and acccept.

The thread can go wherever we take it. Most recently it's been about tournament gaming.

Which in cycling is Zwift. Which is controlled by the UCI.
Accept it.

PhilipPirrip

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

I did say the whole of cycling. The UCI don't control the whole of cycling.

They do however control professional racing. Which is where this thread was heading.

You took a sample of my post and took it out of context, I gave it back it's original context. Does the UCI control the whole of cycling? No. It's not that hard to understand and acccept.

The thread can go wherever we take it. Most recently it's been about tournament gaming.

Which in cycling is Zwift. Which is controlled by the UCI.
Accept it.

I get it. I really do.

I made a statement of fact and, for whatever reason, you can't understand or accept it, instead repeating the same out of context line.

Does the UCI control the whole of cycling? No. No-one controls the whole of cycling.

pblakeney

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

The UCI might disagree regarding professional racing.

I did say the whole of cycling. The UCI don't control the whole of cycling.

They do however control professional racing. Which is where this thread was heading.

You took a sample of my post and took it out of context, I gave it back it's original context. Does the UCI control the whole of cycling? No. It's not that hard to understand and acccept.

The thread can go wherever we take it. Most recently it's been about tournament gaming.

Which in cycling is Zwift. Which is controlled by the UCI.
Accept it.

I get it. I really do.

I made a statement of fact and, for whatever reason, you can't understand or accept it, instead repeating the same out of context line.

Does the UCI control the whole of cycling? No. No-one controls the whole of cycling.

You are quite right. No one controls what I do on my bike. (Laws withstanding).
But the UCI effectively controls professional cycling gaming, i.e. this thread.
No one controls what music I listen to either. That is about as relevant to this thread as your point.