[Hopple]

As you probably know, Jason Kenny won the sprint for Britain, so big up him and his gold. However, Sir Chris "His Royal" Hoy"ness" (big up him and his golds too) was the defending champion from Beijing, yet some nitwit had decided not to let countries enter more than one athlete into the event.

Compare this to the running 100m sprint (and others, but this is a clear example), and you'll see Jamaica and the USA each had 3 athletes, so were theoretically capable of filling the podium. Similarly the swimming events, though to a lesser extent than the running. Not that I'm complaining, but also in the triathlon which actually includes a bike stage, Britain entered 3 athletes and came away with 2 on the podium (big up the Brownlees with their medals, and to Hayes for that help ).

The only thing I can think of is that you can slipstream in cycling, hence having more than one person from your country can allow one person to help the other (to the detriment of their own race) to victory. However, in sprints it is one on one so the only way you can help your fellow country(wo)man is to effectively give them a free pass into the next round, which doesn't actually help them versus other racers. Things with tons of riders would allow an advantage to be gained by packing the field, but not the sprint. So, any ideas?

Also, why in the keirin does that guy on the motorbike stay setting the pace for so long? He does it for over two thirds of the race!

[Miracle Day]

Because the Union Cycliste Internationale hate Team GB..

1. Cut down the amount of cycling events.
2. Petty reasons to religate, for example if you have common discretion Pendleton & co would have won in the team persuit even if they hadn't accidentally went past eachother and today.. Pendleton had no choice but to wobble and cross the line to maintain balance.

[Drewski]

(Original post by Hopple)
So, any ideas?

Also, why in the keirin does that guy on the motorbike stay setting the pace for so long? He does it for over two thirds of the race!

As to why we were only allowed one entrant? The UCI wanted to stop Britain dominating. So we'd either have the same one rider doing everything but getting exhausted and not winning, or we'd have to bring in lesser riders who also wouldn't win.

[Blackadder]However, there was a slight flaw in that plan... It was bolleaux[/Blackadder]

Derny rider is there to build the pace at a manageable rate so that we don't just get some guy running away with it early on. Makes it more tactical and more of a spectacle. Blame the Japanese.

[Atmos]

They changed the rules of track cycling so that each nation has been limited to one participant in individual events, because in track cycling you can work together which you cant do with other events like swimming.

I do think the rule should be applied to other events though.

And the Keirin, the person sets the pace because it's supposed to be a sprint, if he didn't set the pace for so long then it could/would be an endurance event.

[DaveSmith99]

Because apparently we aren't allowed to dominate cycling, but its cool for America to dominate swimming.

[The Mad Dog]

Cos Britain won too many medals in Beijing. We most likely would have had a pretty much 90% gold rate in cycling if Pendleton and Vanish hadn't been kicked out the Team Sprint and if Pendleton's first race in the Indiviual Sprint hadn't come down to a minor technicality we could have seen a different outcome. But British Cycling is in its best position for years, that's good enough. Hopefully we'll see a lot more cyclists out on the roads and bike paths in future. Although if the government built more cycle lanes it might encourage more people to cycle to work and back.

[callum9999]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Because the Union Cycliste Internationale hate Team GB..

1. Cut down the amount of cycling events.
2. Petty reasons to religate, for example if you have common discretion Pendleton & co would have won in the team persuit even if they hadn't accidentally went past eachother and today.. Pendleton had no choice but to wobble and cross the line to maintain balance.

Rubbish...

The claim that they hate Britain (why on earth would they?) is absurd and the first relegation was completely justified (no matter how incredibly annoying it was - it's against the rules). Granted the second relegation is a bit off, but I highly doubt that happened because the boss of UCI told the judges to try and penalise Britain if they can get away with it...

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by callum9999)
Rubbish...

The claim that they hate Britain (why on earth would they?) is absurd and the first relegation was completely justified (no matter how incredibly annoying it was - it's against the rules). Granted the second relegation is a bit off, but I highly doubt that happened because the boss of UCI told the judges to try and penalise Britain if they can get away with it...

I think what's more annoying was the inconsistency of the judges moderation. And the fact that the rules aren't actually set in stone but open to the connoisseur discretion

[Drewski]

Atmos, stop being a child and negging everyone.


Ok, the 'UCI no longer wanting Britain to dominate' is a bit of a lie. Obstensibly they wanted to bring equality into cycling, which at the time was believed to favour other nations because we didn't have as many strong women.

So, previously there had been 10 velodrome events, 7 for men, 3 for women. Now there are 5 a piece.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Because the Union Cycliste Internationale hate Team GB..

1. Cut down the amount of cycling events.
2. Petty reasons to religate, for example if you have common discretion Pendleton & co would have won in the team persuit even if they hadn't accidentally went past eachother and today.. Pendleton had no choice but to wobble and cross the line to maintain balance.

They did DQ the Chinese pair as well, so it can't be racism just against the British. But I suppose having fewer entrants per country means it's easier to organise the whole event with fewer competitors overall.

(Original post by Drewski)
As to why we were only allowed one entrant? The UCI wanted to stop Britain dominating. So we'd either have the same one rider doing everything but getting exhausted and not winning, or we'd have to bring in lesser riders who also wouldn't win.

[Blackadder]However, there was a slight flaw in that plan... It was bolleaux[/Blackadder]

Derny rider is there to build the pace at a manageable rate so that we don't just get some guy running away with it early on. Makes it more tactical and more of a spectacle. Blame the Japanese.

More tactical? Hoy's tactics were "Get to the front and beast it" as far as I could tell XD Can Britain (or have they) appeal against the targetted restrictions?

(Original post by Atmos)
They changed the rules of track cycling so that each nation has been limited to one participant in individual events, because in track cycling you can work together which you cant do with other events like swimming.

I do think the rule should be applied to other events though.

I see that, but that isn't the case in the sprint since it's just two riders at a time.

And the Keirin, the person sets the pace because it's supposed to be a sprint, if he didn't set the pace for so long then it could/would be an endurance event.

They could make the race shorter, if he buggered off after a couple of laps and left them for a couple more then that'd seem more sensible

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Because apparently we aren't allowed to dominate cycling, but its cool for America to dominate swimming.

I think the two sets of events are regulated by different bodies, I was wondering why the cycling one (apparently it's French so that along with this explains some bias ) thought differently to the swimming and athletics.

(Original post by The Mad Dog)
Cos Britain won too many medals in Beijing. We most likely would have had a pretty much 90% gold rate in cycling if Pendleton and Vanish hadn't been kicked out the Team Sprint and if Pendleton's first race in the Indiviual Sprint hadn't come down to a minor technicality we could have seen a different outcome. But British Cycling is in its best position for years, that's good enough. Hopefully we'll see a lot more cyclists out on the roads and bike paths in future. Although if the government built more cycle lanes it might encourage more people to cycle to work and back.

Yeah, it'd be good to have more people cycling. As long as they have cycle lanes, of course

[Drewski]

(Original post by Hopple)
More tactical? Hoy's tactics were "Get to the front and beast it" as far as I could tell XD Can Britain (or have they) appeal against the targetted restrictions?

Yeah, but it's get to the front at the right time, sprinting 3 laps is damn-near impossible, Hoy nearly lost the final today, the German was on top of him into the last bend.

And no. Because noone would admit that that's what they were and then the team wouldn't want to show weakness to other nations.

[Atmos]

(Original post by Drewski)
Atmos, stop being a child and negging everyone.


Ok, the 'UCI no longer wanting Britain to dominate' is a bit of a lie. Obstensibly they wanted to bring equality into cycling, which at the time was believed to favour other nations because we didn't have as many strong women.

So, previously there had been 10 velodrome events, 7 for men, 3 for women. Now there are 5 a piece.

I'm negging people who seem to think that the ruling was done because they hate and wanted to spite Britain.

[callum9999]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
I think what's more annoying was the inconsistency of the judges moderation. And the fact that the rules aren't actually set in stone but open to the connoisseur discretion

What rule isn't set in stone? The commentators certainly made it seem like the first disqualification was made on the basis of a rule "set in stone", and until they saw the manager shouting at the judge and so looked at it more closely, they agreed that Pendleton had broken another rule - again "set in stone".

[Drewski]

(Original post by Atmos)
I'm negging people who seem to think that the ruling was done because they hate and wanted to spite Britain.

Like it or not, that's what the rule changes did. As Hoy at the time said, no riders agreed with it, and nobody liked the idea that you could be number 2 in the world at something and not go to the Olympics.

And considering your negs are - literally - worthless, it's all rather futile on your behalf. Especially when you can't even be bothered to argue the other way!

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by callum9999)
What rule isn't set in stone? The commentators certainly made it seem like the first disqualification was made on the basis of a rule "set in stone", and until they saw the manager shouting at the judge and so looked at it more closely, they agreed that Pendleton had broken another rule - again "set in stone".

I agree that the first was a clear rule violation - but the penalty was pretty ridiculous, the clear favourites got dropped out of the competition completely because of an unintentional and by the looks of it easy to commit error. Surely a time penalty of some sort would be more proportionate?

The second one was way more contentious - the ruling basically suggests that barging your opponent across the line so that they're relegated is a legitimate tactic.

I'll happily concede that before the Olympics I had no interest in or knowledge of track cycling rules, so it may be that there are some really good reasons for the three penalty rulings that are unknown to me. But from the outside looking in it looks frankly like the Commissaire throwing his weight about because he can.

[callum9999]

(Original post by MancStudent098)
I agree that the first was a clear rule violation - but the penalty was pretty ridiculous, the clear favourites got dropped out of the competition completely because of an unintentional and by the looks of it easy to commit error. Surely a time penalty of some sort would be more proportionate?

The second one was way more contentious - the ruling basically suggests that barging your opponent across the line so that they're relegated is a legitimate tactic.

I'll happily concede that before the Olympics I had no interest in or knowledge of track cycling rules, so it may be that there are some really good reasons for the three penalty rulings that are unknown to me. But from the outside looking in it looks frankly like the Commissaire throwing his weight about because he can.

Oh yes, I definitely agree that they were utterly ridiculous on both counts (the first one more-so), but I'm just saying rules are rules.

And although I'd personally say barging the person is a good enough reason to overlook going over the line briefly (though technically it wasn't the actual barging that took her over the line, it's how she recovered from being barged), if the rules don't then it's tough luck! I wish they did allow discretion (particularly as it's cost us 2 golds!), but in an event as prestigious as the Olympics, I can see why they don't.