Th'olympics 2016

[TANGODANCER]

Another nonesense decision in the women' boxing today. Our girl hammered the world champ, guess who won? .

[Montreal Wanderer]

Per capita isn't how it works though. (Though natural superiority might have something to do with it) There are left-wing and right-wing claims on this. It's an example of planned, centralised spending that has been hugely successful. It's also uncompromising ruthless in how it's targeted. If you don't look like medalling or at least making a final, you're getting an economy class ticket and £50 a year.

Yes, the more succcesful the sport the greater funding but we only spend double on cycling what Australia do and have what 10 times the population?

Yes, but they may have a similar number of elite cyclists on their team as the UK does - total population is irrelevant to the number of elite cyclists, but is relevant to the funds that can be collected from the public. BTW, I thought you only had about three times the populations of Oz.

[Burnden Paddock]

Farnworth is in 22nd place in the medal table!

[bobo the clown]

Farnworth is in 22nd place in the medal table!

Their house near Knutsford is 13th !!

[TANGODANCER]

Farnworth is in 22nd place in the medal table!

Their house near Knutsford is 13th !!

I'm claiming a location medal. Jason Kenny's parents live about fifty yards away from me...

[Hoboh]

My question is,

Whatever happened to Amateur Olympics?

We have athletes being paid a fair wedge on the back of their achievements whilst still competing as 'amateurs',

One bloke on the telly saying how good it was he didn't have to do a 9-5 because the national lottery money given to his sport meant he was, in a way, getting paid and had no money worries.

Tennis players who work the pro-circuit earning good cash competing.

Sorry, but all this takes the shine off the amateur bit, people like our own Ironman are the true amateurs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-team-gb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobo the clown]

My question is,

Whatever happened to Amateur Olympics?

We have athletes being paid a fair wedge on the back of their achievements whilst still competing as 'amateurs',

One bloke on the telly saying how good it was he didn't have to do a 9-5 because the national lottery money given to his sport meant he was, in a way, getting paid and had no money worries.

Tennis players who work the pro-circuit earning good cash competing.

Sorry, but all this takes the shine off the amateur bit, people like our own Ironman are the true amateurs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-team-gb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with the emotional principle but professional sportspeople have been permitted since 1986 ... 30 years ago. Prior to that, like Rugby Union, there were lots of scams whereby players got paid in various ways. Plus in controlled economies (basically Eastern Europe) the competitors were effectively professional (& often drugged to buggery).

So its a nice dream, but only that.

[Hoboh]

My question is,

Whatever happened to Amateur Olympics?

We have athletes being paid a fair wedge on the back of their achievements whilst still competing as 'amateurs',

One bloke on the telly saying how good it was he didn't have to do a 9-5 because the national lottery money given to his sport meant he was, in a way, getting paid and had no money worries.

Tennis players who work the pro-circuit earning good cash competing.

Sorry, but all this takes the shine off the amateur bit, people like our own Ironman are the true amateurs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-team-gb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with the emotional principle but professional sportspeople have been permitted since 1986 ... 30 years ago. Prior to that, like Rugby Union, there were lots of scams whereby players got paid in various ways. Plus in controlled economies (basically Eastern Europe) the competitors were effectively professional (& often drugged to buggery).

So its a nice dream, but only that.

I know that but it makes me personally not get too excited about little whoever winning a medal.

[Prufrock]

Why? Screw that, I wasn't to see the limits of what humans are capable of, not a bloke pottering around on his bike in a suit with a fag in his mouth against his handlebar moustache. They should rid of the ban on performance enhancing drugs too, our st last have a druggie Olympics. See Bolt do it in 6 seconds.

On that note read a stat the other day, of the fastest 30 100m times in history, 21 have been posted by athletes at some point banned re:drugs. The other 9 are all Bolt. Wow.

[Hoboh]

Why? Screw that, I wasn't to see the limits of what humans are capable of, not a bloke pottering around on his bike in a suit with a fag in his mouth against his handlebar moustache. They should rid of the ban on performance enhancing drugs too, our st last have a druggie Olympics. See Bolt do it in 6 seconds.

On that note read a stat the other day, of the fastest 30 100m times in history, 21 have been posted by athletes at some point banned re:drugs. The other 9 are all Bolt. Wow.

Rare I'd cheer on professionals like legal types, they are doing a (overpaid?) job, no difference.

[LeverEnd]

Why? Screw that, I wasn't to see the limits of what humans are capable of, not a bloke pottering around on his bike in a suit with a fag in his mouth against his handlebar moustache. They should rid of the ban on performance enhancing drugs too, our st last have a druggie Olympics. See Bolt do it in 6 seconds.

On that note read a stat the other day, of the fastest 30 100m times in history, 21 have been posted by athletes at some point banned re:drugs. The other 9 are all Bolt. Wow.

Rare I'd cheer on ...anyone.

Fixed.

[Prufrock]

He writes as a member of a fan forum for a professional sports team, with over 15,000 posts to his name.

[LeverEnd]

He writes as a member of a fan forum for a professional sports team, with over 15,000 posts to his name.

Without a great deal of cheering.
Not even for a pub manager with the only 100% record in the football league.

[bobo the clown]

Is "we should permit performance enhancing drugs" line a serious one Pru ?

It's been argued by people before I guess.

[BWFC_Insane]

Why shouldn't someone who devotes their life to winning an Olympic medal in a sport be paid?

What a load of nonsense. Most of these athletes (barring those in the lucrative pro sports) are not exactly rich by many standards. Some make decent livings but nothing like the footballers of this world. And they mostly work a lot harder. And their only success is being the best. They get nowt for a mid table finish.

[Prufrock]

Is "we should permit performance enhancing drugs" line a serious one Pru ?

It's been argued by people before I guess.

Ha, not really, though it would be a laugh.

Could have a go at making a semi-serious argument that people have so little faith in athletics and doing these days that we sort of assume some if them must be going so why not let them all.

Ethics, I suppose. But otherwise...

[Beefheart]

Is "we should permit performance enhancing drugs" line a serious one Pru ?

It's been argued by people before I guess.

Ha, not really, though it would be a laugh.

Could have a go at making a semi-serious argument that people have so little faith in athletics and doing these days that we sort of assume some if them must be going so why not let them all.

Ethics, I suppose. But otherwise...

A scientific argument against https://www.theguardian.com/science/bra ... re-allowed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeverEnd]

Health implications are frightening. Would come down to gold medals for those willing to take the biggest life risks.


I'm thinking of cyclists with blood like treacle hooked up to alarms and having to get up at night and do exercises to stimulate blood flow.

Risk your life or don't bother competing.

[Prufrock]

That article is bobbins! It seems to raise three arguments, one made twice, in order:

1) it still wouldn't let everyone compete in the Olympics - well duh, but so? Not everyone can compete now.

2) health - yeah, fair enough, might have led with that.

3) after a period of unpredictability results would settle down and it wouldn't be more exciting - well, that's only true if you don't think Usain Bolt doing 100m is 7 secs is exciting, but anyway the semi-sensible reason is not to make it more directly exciting but more credible. Tbf I think it would be more exciting if you had more confidence that no-one in the competition was a drugs cheat.

But yeah, health seems a pretty good un. You could only legalise some, but you'd have the same problems you do now.

[thebish]

That article is bobbins! It seems to raise three arguments, one made twice, in order:

1) it still wouldn't let everyone compete in the Olympics - well duh, but so? Not everyone can compete now.

2) health - yeah, fair enough, might have led with that.

3) after a period of unpredictability results would settle down and it wouldn't be more exciting - well, that's only true if you don't think Usain Bolt doing 100m is 7 secs is exciting, but anyway the semi-sensible reason is not to make it more directly exciting but more credible. Tbf I think it would be more exciting if you had more confidence that no-one in the competition was a drugs cheat.

But yeah, health seems a pretty good un. You could only legalise some, but you'd have the same problems you do now.

might be exciting if you see it once - maybe twice - but not if you see every contender doing it every year once results "settle down" - it just becomes the new norm... why would it continue to be exciting?