The media in a number of countries have been asking what lies behind the success rate of British athletes at the Rio Olympics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-37108833
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-37108833
World asks how the Brits do it
- Thread starter Sultan Of Swing
- Start date
Oafman
Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
I was watching an interview with 2 girls who won sailing gold. They explained that they had made 10 trips to Rio over the last 2 years, spending a few weeks each time practicing in the areas which were going to be used for competition, to get to know the local winds etc. It struck me that competitors from most countries simply don't get that kind of funding.
The success of Team GB at recent Olympics is the result of huge amounts of lottery money being handed to them. It pays salaries to these athletes, as well as covering all the costs for elite training, travel, equipment, top foreign coaches, etc etc.
And of course, as the lottery is a tax on the poor/dumb, the situation is effectively that poor people are taxed to pay for the lifestyles of olympic athletes - half of whom went to private school! Still, they cheer and wave their flags like the mindless simpletons they are!
The success of Team GB at recent Olympics is the result of huge amounts of lottery money being handed to them. It pays salaries to these athletes, as well as covering all the costs for elite training, travel, equipment, top foreign coaches, etc etc.
And of course, as the lottery is a tax on the poor/dumb, the situation is effectively that poor people are taxed to pay for the lifestyles of olympic athletes - half of whom went to private school! Still, they cheer and wave their flags like the mindless simpletons they are!
Upvote
0
keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
The article made a big deal over the Russians being the main competition and that the Russians had been heavily penalized for doping. The obvious conclusion being the Brits doped too but were better at not getting caught.
I have a different thought. That the Brits followed the Russian pattern of looking for sports where funding was most apt to have a huge impact. Track cycling definitely fits and taking it a step farther track cycling where everything is pointed to one event fits even better. Cycling, swimming and athletics are all sports where preparing for a specific competition interferes with overall training. Who here knows anything at all about the last track cycling world's? If we have 3 people I'll be shocked. That the Brits did not have good showings was used as innuendo to point to doping. I'll present the alternative. The money for the British program was assured, they did not need results and they pretty much trained through everything else. They had no training interruptions. Come the one competition every 4 years that they care about that uninterrupted training pays off.
I have a different thought. That the Brits followed the Russian pattern of looking for sports where funding was most apt to have a huge impact. Track cycling definitely fits and taking it a step farther track cycling where everything is pointed to one event fits even better. Cycling, swimming and athletics are all sports where preparing for a specific competition interferes with overall training. Who here knows anything at all about the last track cycling world's? If we have 3 people I'll be shocked. That the Brits did not have good showings was used as innuendo to point to doping. I'll present the alternative. The money for the British program was assured, they did not need results and they pretty much trained through everything else. They had no training interruptions. Come the one competition every 4 years that they care about that uninterrupted training pays off.
Upvote
0
Oafman
Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
By all accounts, most elite sport funding is directly attached to Olympic performance. So they can flunk every other competition, and get more and more funding from doing well solely at the Olympics.
Incidentally, the coverage of Team GB's success has become creepy over the last week. Especially from our state broadcaster. Jingoistic and nationalistic. It's felt a little like North Korea, but with more food.
Upvote
0
Oafman
Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
I shouldn't moan, things could be worse:
Turkmenistan leader: our medal-less Olympians ‘betrayed the motherland’
As far as I'm aware, betraying the motherland is not advisable in Turkmenistan.
Upvote
0
Britain is a former great power, and now a nation in decline.
Of course the state broadcaster would over-exaggerate sporting success to inspire some national pride, when there are far more important areas that Britain is no longer successful at...
Upvote
0
keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
And he need only look in the mirror to see the cause of the problem. He has now put the final nail in the coffin of elite sport in Turkmenistan.
Forced exercise before work turns exercise into work. It cripples sporting endeavors as it makes it dreary. This drives most away and it takes up the time and energy of many who somehow retain the desire.
Now he has made it dangerous to be an unsuccessful Olympian. How many of those who went this time will retire and be safe? Check the greats. Phelps when to Sidney in 2000 and 'failed' his best (I think only) result being 5th in the 200 fly. He was lauded for such a finish at his age. If he was instead accused of betraying his country it could have shattered him. I think he did fairly well next time round.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
From what Britain was in the past, global clout, reputation, influence, wealth etc.
Over the decades, not looking at some year on year GDP or anything.
Upvote
0
Oafman
Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
The Sun does now set on the British Empire. If you look back far enough, it's not hard to find a time when Britain was the world's dominant superpower.
But why look so far back? How about a comparison between where we were in, say.. 1956 (Suez Crisis), and where we are now? I think we bounced back rather well from the inevitable (and morally necessary) decline of the Empire. We're one of the world's richest countries, and one of the most influential, across so many different fields. Our culture, language, literature, music, art, TV, science, technology and engineering all resonate globally. Maybe we can even add sport to that these days.
I don't see any good reason for such negativity. You should be proud that we no longer maintain an empire, not mournful for it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
