Copenhagen World Track Champs this week

bauge, the new beast

Greeeeeeeeeeg.

I've only just realised that he's called Baugé, not Bauge. I remember looking it up on his own web-site a while ago, where it's mis-spelled on the front page, as well.

Er, Clancy? The performance of the whole championships, and no-one's mentioned it yet :/

is he australian?

Er, Clancy? The performance of the whole championships, and no-one's mentioned it yet :/

Who?
Er, no, the Aussie girls double world records or the NZ team's world record would be the performance of the champs or the total annihilation of the opposition by Meyer in the Points and then Madison or the outstanding effort from the Aussie pursuiters (who are far younger than the GB's 'young' team pfft) and INCLUDED Meyer. That bloke just didn't get tired.

I notice this thread was a lot quieter than the Beijing thread. :)
Get used to it.. 2012 will be ours.

Sorry, nope, it's Shaaaaaane! It doesn't work for Bauge.

I agree that Meyer was amazing. But I still think Clancy was the stand-out performance, due in part to the fact he was a last minute choice for the role, but also for the speed displayed by a team pursuit rider in shorter events, his spontaneous aptitude for points racing, and his one-day stamina.

And Meyer, along with his male pursuiting cohorts, showed us the worst collection of bowl haircuts in the history of cycling. You have to mark him down for that.

I reckon there was some kind of bet on with their haircuts.. trying to out-dork Wiggans or that forun bloke with the mullet..

^another Aussie victory then.

Congrats to Australia for dominating events that aren't in the Olympic programme any more. Well done. Thats the way to win the Olympics I'm pretty sure.

Other team's focus on events that brought them 8 medals in Olympic disciplines vs Australia's 5 might be viewed by some as disrespectful to the WCs but kudos to Australia for plugging away in those second tier events.

:)

Er, Clancy? The performance of the whole championships, and no-one's mentioned it yet :/

Oh, and he's called Ed, by the way, not Er.

I dislike the whole 2012-ocentric approach. It's bollocks. The Olympics - big fucking deal. And anyway, it's 2 years away. There's more to life than protracted peaking e.g. the confidence gained by winning world championships; riding to your full potential in any given competition; giving supporters the performances they've turned up to see; the negative impact of supporters and media disillusioned by 'restricted athletes'; the threat of longterm psychological cracks in athletes who wanted to win and knew they would've been able to without Olympic shackles.

What's the deal? Is it just an excuse, a façade to distract us from ageing athletes progressing beyond their golden years, or the obligations of top riders to their pro road teams? Is it driven by politics and economics, pleasing a jingoistic government whose future funding will be measured against Olympic success?

It's fucking bollocks. Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks.

I concur.

A director's duty is to provide value for the shareholders, no more nor less. Team GB is funded to win Olympic medals. If you think money should be spent on winning world championships, stop funding British Cycling and spend your own money on funding athletes to hit the targets you set.

I think you'll find that the remit set by Sport England is to win medals at World Championships and the Olympic games.

does anyone take the WC rounds that seriously? some don't even bother going to rounds that involve a lot of traveling or clash with road racing or periods of less intensive training.

No, WCs are not in everyone's plans. The goal is to win more gold at home in 2012, a worlds this early (there are two more before the Olympics) is a good place to start building and testing in a world class arena, of course we would have liked better results, but considering the form some of the other countries are producing, have we really done that badly?

Don't forget BB (before Beijing)

Hippy will still be buying my beef.

My opinion remains unchanged so far. It's not the results that bother me. It's the tedious fucking Olympic rhetoric. Let world class performers be world class performers every year. Life's too short and unpredictable. And fuck the shareholders.

A director's duty is to provide value for the shareholders, no more nor less. Team GB is funded to win Olympic medals.

The thing I found interesting was Brailsford specifically mentioning several times the goal of getting more people cycling as being integral to Team GB operations. If it genuinely is part of the 'bigger picture' of what he is doing then aiming for road/track global domination in Olympics and TdF in a 24 month window supported by an evil media conglomerate seems the right way to go about it.

DB is basically the Schickster with a budget and a slightly more flexible moral compass.

Flexible? He's just another one of Murdoch's bitches.

And some more people will get into cycling next week because Pendleton and Clancy won, and clearly enjoyed doing so, rather than barely containing their disappointment at 'focusing on London'.

This week maybe, but more will start cycling if they win in London. If the two results are mutually exclusive, the total benefit is greater if they choose the London win over the Copenhagen one.

Cyclists watch the worlds, everybody watches the olympics, especially when it's in your own country.

Non cyclists will be inspired by success at the Olympics, existing cyclists will just moan about WCs

Remind me how qualifying for the Olympics works again?

Nobody is saying the wcs don't matter, and although there is certainly a focus on 2012 it's not the be-all.

I said:

of course we would have liked better results, but considering the form some of the other countries are producing, have we really done that badly?