Copenhagen World Track Champs this week

Remind me how qualifying for the Olympics works again?

Here's how the last one worked:

2007 UCI "B" World Championships Jun 26-Jul 1, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa UCI Track World Ranking March 30, 2008

So presumably the 2011/12 W Cup and 2012 Champs will be the ones to watch

I didn't watch any of the Beijing stuff. Barely knew the Olympics was even happening. I'm not alone.

So you'll get a few short term dabblers due to the Olympics. Evans will sell more bikes. Hoo-fucking-ray.

There are more people getting into it for the long haul, and contributing to the sport at a grass roots level because of friends, family, and colleagues who cycle and maybe participate in cyclesport. And that's part of a rich heritage within which the Olympics is a very small part.

But I'll admit, my feelings are certainly driven on some level by a general bad taste in the mouth when it comes to overblown status that's ascribed to something as corrupt* as the Olympics.

*and transient too, in the context of hosting countries and their legacies.

i agree with you Scarlett. i didn't watch Beijing as I thought that hosting the Olympics there sucked big time.

More for Scarlett:

Brailsford encouraged as GB top medal table for Olympic disciplines

@hippy:

Yeah, who gives a shit about the kilo and the IP? Meaningless and worthless in equal measure :/

There's really nothing more exciting than an established man 2 in a TS squad becoming a potential man 1 for a single event in a few years' time. I'm so excited. I just can't hide it. I'm. About. To. Lose. Control. And. I. Think. I. Like. It.

Remind me how qualifying for the Olympics works again?

By getting medals in the events which will be run at the Olympics, not by performances in events which are not.

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.
:)

What was that? I'm sure that's what Brailsford is thinking. Not. GB flopped.

Your omnium winner isn't even sure he'll be racing it due to working on the team pursuit.. which we.. err.. smoked you in. The Omnium hasn't even been finalised and will likely be over 2 days, not 1.. recovery being a key factor here and which you'll agree Meyer managed rather well.

France and Oz beat your men's sprinter.
The Aus girls beat your women's team sprinters.
And in case you didn't notice, Meyer would have destroyed Clancy if he had done the Omnium instead of his chosen events.

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.

You don't have to attend every one. You just need to do what's needed to qualify.
If you can qualify without travelling around the world, so be it.
It might actually be more beneficial to do the travel as you will have to do the same when you compete at the Champs and Olympics (well, we will).

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.

You wish. Now we finally have some new blood (boom tish) you'll be buying.

It's OK, hippy. Everybody's gone to bed. :)

More for Scarlett:
Brailsford encouraged as GB top medal table for Olympic disciplines
@hippy:

For me? You're so generous.

"while Australia were the most successful nation" is all I got. Sorry, was there anything else I should read? Oh wait, here's another one.. "Less encouraging for Britain are the moves by the UCI this week to limit the technological advantage that they and the other major nations hold by implementing rules about the use of expensive bikes that are not available commercially."

Nice. :)

By getting medals in the events which will be run at the Olympics, not by performances in events which are not.

It stings, losing, doesn't it? :)

"Oh we would have won, but we decided we'd just not enter, save ourselves the embarrassment" hahaha

"Less encouraging for Britain are the moves by the UCI this week to limit the technological advantage that they and the other major nations hold by implementing rules about the use of expensive bikes that are not available commercially."

They're just board, man.

It's OK, hippy. Everybody's gone to bed. :)

Not everyone.
more posts for me..
more posts more me..
posts like our medal count
growing exponentially :)

They're just board, man.

rolls eyes

Well, that total dominance when the Aussies didn't get a look in, was a bit boring, no? ;)

What was that? I'm sure that's what Brailsford is thinking. Not. GB flopped.

Your omnium winner isn't even sure he'll be racing it due to working on the team pursuit.. which we.. err.. smoked you in. The Omnium hasn't even been finalised and will likely be over 2 days, not 1.. recovery being a key factor here and which you'll agree Meyer managed rather well.

France and Oz beat your men's sprinter.
The Aus girls beat your women's team sprinters.
And in case you didn't notice, Meyer would have destroyed Clancy if he had done the Omnium instead of his chosen events.

You don't have to attend every one. You just need to do what's needed to qualify.
If you can qualify without travelling around the world, so be it.
It might actually be more beneficial to do the travel as you will have to do the same when you compete at the Champs and Olympics (well, we will).

You wish. Now we finally have some new blood (boom tish) you'll be buying.

For me? You're so generous.

"while Australia were the most successful nation" is all I got. Sorry, was there anything else I should read? Oh wait, here's another one.. "Less encouraging for Britain are the moves by the UCI this week to limit the technological advantage that they and the other major nations hold by implementing rules about the use of expensive bikes that are not available commercially."

Nice. :)

It stings, losing, doesn't it? :)

"Oh we would have won, but we decided we'd just not enter, save ourselves the embarrassment" hahaha

Not everyone.
more posts for me..
more posts more me..
posts like our medal count
growing exponentially :)

Yes, you have gone postal. :)

Well, that total dominance when the Aussies didn't get a look in, was a bit boring, no? ;)

You mean when our only medallist was coming back from a broken spine and most of the rest of the riders should've retired after the previous Olympics? Just lulling GB into a false sense of calm before destroying them in their own yard. It's more fun that way.

I was watching a movie.. had some catching up to do.. much like the GB team :)

He only had a broken spine and wasn't riding? HTFU Australia! ;)

Oh, and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc

Hasn't been reposted for a while, I think.

the team pursuit.. which we.. err.. smoked you in.

Smoked implies a substantial margin of victory, which was not what your A-Team had over our development squad.

Meares and Mcculloch undoubtedly did great rides in the team sprint, and would probably have won it even if the prime GB lead out rider hadn't been out playing on her toy bike.

Dropping into the 32s bracket was, leaving jovial nationalism aside for a moment, one of the true highlights of the week, which is not a plaudit one could really apply to any of the pursuit titles. Mulder's Kilo in 1:00.341 was maybe an even greater achievement, showing that there is progress in the event despite the rank stupidity of the UCI/IOC. If I understand physics properly, the Ballerup track, whose long straights made for some much more exciting match sprinting than we've been used to at the more circular tracks, should not produce fast time trials.

Clearly the conditions, if not the track, favoured the sprint time trials, but even so Ed Clancy pulling a completely unnecessary PB and a time good enough for a top 10 finish in the Kilo competition at the end of the Omnium showed not only great athleticism but huge confidence and control. Going off in the last race, he would have known that whatever Leigh Howard did, a 1:03.5 would secure gold, but he still went all out to win it in style. (Pointy) Hats off to the plucky lad from Huddersfield. Finally, once again, Bauge going sub 10s in a match sprint; Hoy would have had his work cut out to stay with that kind of form even without the tactical errors in the early rounds.

For me? You're so generous.

"while Australia were the most successful nation" is all I got. Sorry, was there anything else I should read? Oh wait, here's another one.. "Less encouraging for Britain are the moves by the UCI this week to limit the technological advantage that they and the other major nations hold by implementing rules about the use of expensive bikes that are not available commercially."

Nice. :)

"The confusion over the omnium format reflects the unstable state of a sport which now has to contend with the prospect of the International Cycling Union banning kit as and when they decide, with the main criterion being whether it is "in the market place at a realistic price". The principle is that technology should be available to all, but the UCI president Pat McQuaid was unclear what the terms meant in reality, although his press officer Enrico Carpani suggested €10,000 (£9,000). The fact that Carpani's was merely a figure plucked out of the air is in itself an adequate reflection of where the UCI stands. What is clear is that the three leading track nations, Great Britain, Australia and Germany, are being targeted."

so australia are cheating too?

I want to know what the UCI is smoking. Who cares what the elite athletes bikes cost? Nobody who needs one has to pay for it, and national federations who can't afford their own bike development programs are in an even worse position on non-bike costs vis-a-vis the top countries, whose fully professional athletes, coaches, nutritionists, physiologists, psychologists ad infinitum consume much bigger budgets than the secret squirrels. Meanwhile, consumer bikes keep getting better and cheaper as the aspirational machines of the pros drive demand, and therefore economies of scale, in the mid market.

Even if the UCI were right about bike costs causing a distortion of competition between the heavy hitters and the third world (which they certainly aren't), there is a colossal problem with creating, maintaining and enforcing homologation rules which the far greater brains and resources of the FIA have struggled with, often unsuccessfully, for decades.