Olympics 2012 track cycling

who is john terry?

Football Thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

he posts there?

If you don't know who John Terry is you are lucky.

I miss the Velodrome already.

http://vimeo.com/47100629

when does it go public? three years or so?

Hopefully sooner than that.

This thread went dead.

"permanent expression of cycling excellence"

yeay

Before the end of 2013 is what has been said in public statements. Though a few statements also say that they expect to be able to handover much sooner than that, so about a year from now.

This is really going to matter.getting groups and schools in there, setting.up friendly staff and coaching in, making.kids welcome.
Potentially take the sport to the same weekly level of.involvement as HH, and likely to a lot higher level.massive boost for London.
Very intrigued to hear which sport governing.body steps up.

those pesky kids better not take up our track time !
let them use herne hill in the rain .... it'll build their " characters "

Hehe.its lit.its covered.
I wouldn't want to be the admin person,
We are getting more enquiries than you would believe, and the kids that are coming to track are dedicated, interested and great to coach.
I got texted as I typed.this about working.on another additional session tommorrow!

Carrying on the heat theme:

"The number of condoms supplied at London tops the 100,000 made available to athletes in Beijing four years ago. In Sydney in 2000 organisers had to order 20,000 more condoms after the initial allocation of 70,000 ran out."

These athletes are a randy lot...

all that bare flesh on show
and the fine hot sultry weather

Carrying on the heat theme:

"The number of condoms supplied at London tops the 100,000 made available to athletes in Beijing four years ago. In Sydney in 2000 organisers had to order 20,000 more condoms after the initial allocation of 70,000 ran out."

These athletes are a randy lot...

Yeah, but 2/3rds of them were used by Usain Bolt.

He only lasts for 19.32 seconds...

That's in his second event. He is much quicker over a shorter distance

China launch second appeal against team sprint relegation..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/china-launches-second-appeal-against-team-sprint-relegation?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

didn't the USA already try that
there are a few of their athletes who hooked up

sadly i think they merged a shot putter with a 1500m runner not the best combination

and before you ask i don't know how the progeny is shaping up

I'm doing just fine ta. Neither use nor ornament mind.

China launch second appeal against team sprint relegation..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/china-launches-second-appeal-against-team-sprint-relegation?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

Sour grapes, but if it works Jess and Vicky should try too. It would be great if China were awarded the gold on appeal but then had it immediately taken off them again and given to Britain.

We should have set to them
"It's our fucking track, we will change where we want you officious suit wearing cunt. Now give us the gold medal"

Nah.

China should have won.

There was no evidence, it was a subjective decision by the commissaire. The Chinese were on the line together and there is no evidence one way or the other, but the commissaire chose to view it negatively... half empty rather than half full.

With Team GB though, Pendleton was definitely in front of Varnish. By a couple of inches sure... but the rules are black and white and Pendleton was in front of Varnish. So the rules apply.

With China that wasn't the case. And as there were no high-speed cameras on the changeover lines benefit of doubt should have been given.

China won Gold for sure. But Team GB did break the rules, and so it's fair for that decision to stand.

Though I feel that Pendleton's sprint final should have been allowed. Leaning back is part of the sport.

Leaning back is part of the sport.

Pfft. You haven't talked to Scoble.

Is he going to say that cycling is non-contact?

If so... then Mears should have been relegated for touching Pendleton.

Mears leant in, and positioning is a fine part of the strategy of sprinting. And Pendleton leaned back, which is fine because if you don't you fall over.

It's hard to hold a line at those speeds when you're shifting your body weight.

Nah.

China should have won.

There was no evidence, it was a subjective decision by the commissaire. The Chinese were on the line together and there is no evidence one way or the other, but the commissaire chose to view it negatively... half empty rather than half full.

With Team GB though, Pendleton was definitely in front of Varnish. By a couple of inches sure... but the rules are black and white and Pendleton was in front of Varnish. So the rules apply.

With China that wasn't the case. And as there were no high-speed cameras on the changeover lines benefit of doubt should have been given.

China won Gold for sure. But Team GB did break the rules, and so it's fair for that decision to stand.

Though I feel that Pendleton's sprint final should have been allowed. Leaning back is part of the sport.

You clearly have access to a version of the UCI rules on team sprint that nobody else is party to, care to share it?

I think this is the problem, not the rule, but the way it has been elaborated on by a certain chief comm. I've still yet to see footage of jess and vic breaking the ACTUAL rule on changeovers.
If the picture of the overlap shows the pursuit line, the change was legal. If it shows 15m before the pursuit line (where there's no track markings) then it's foul.

Also as the audience were never shown any replay which bears this out, there's bound to be confusion. With a dropped baton or change outside a zone in a running relay its easy for everyone to see, disappointing but obvious. Runners don't run at 45mph.

The only way you can enforce a rule like this is to have each rider do thier lap from a standing start. Which would make for some messy crashes.

...The Chinese were on the line together...

You know all those replays they kept showing of the Chinese pair being dead level as they crossed the pursuiter's line are completely irrelevant don't you? The points in question are 15 meters either side of that which which would have been indicated with pads on the cote d'azur, giving a 30m changeover zone. If the following rider starts to pass the front rider before the first point then it's a DQ, if you haven't started passing by the second point then it's a DQ. Even just slightly overlapping wheels before the 15m point would lead to a disqualification.

Unfortunately there were no TV cameras on the changeover marks so I can't say for certain whether they should have been disqualified or not but I would have thought the comms would have there own camera or a line judge watching them.

It's not a massively complicated rule and it's been in place for some time so all the riders know about it, it's just a shame none of the commentators or TV director made an effort to even understand it as all the replays they kept showing of both incidents meant nothing.

Re pendleton.

Again, the rules are not being interpreted correctly. It's ludicrous that people who know racing are split 50/50 on the decision, IMO Vicky only at fault after Anna deviated from her line, and also impeded. The red line "rule" is a red herring. If you are riding a few inches from the red in the sprinters lane the. You can drift over it without deviating from your line. The rule is designed to stop a rider from hindering an opponent from overtaking, there is also another rule designed to stop an overtaking rider hindering the inside rider.

The comm was out of line, especially as there was no complaint from the Aus camp after the match. Anna didn't put here hand up and neither did Vicky, they felt it was a fair race. Anyone with half a brain lets that result stand.