RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:I don't care if no-one likes it, that Russian synchro was amazing

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I don't care if no-one likes it, that Russian synchro was amazing

Synchro, rather like women's gymnastics, is a series of extraordinary athletic feats partially masked by sequin-y bullshit.

OptimisticJock wrote:

switchskier wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: If he'd called me over like he did to the Slovakian lad I'd have slapped him. He wasn't interested in what the guys had to say unless it was about the brownlees. Twat!

Varga is their training partner and effectively acts as a domestique to set such a high pace on the swim that they've got a chance to get away on the bike. The questions seemed reasonable to me and it was Varga that brought the brothers up, not Edwards, noting that working with them was to his benefit too.

Haven't seen the splits but no way that they'll be comparable for the 10k this time. Open water swim, hilly cycle course, hot day and some waving to the crowd at the end mean that it will be (relatively) slow.

You're right it was, however that doesn't give Edwards the right to call him over like an arrogant diner in a restaurant. And the other (2?) athlete he interviewed he didn't give a fuck about until he asked about the brothers.

Which Tyler wrote:Meh, more interested in watching sport than listening to talking heads, so only really listen to the commentators and live pundits.

Up to 55 medals now, 10 shy of London, 7 up on Beijing.
Chances still to come (off the top of my head, I'll be missing plenty)
Women's hockey
Farah (5k)
Gemili (200m)
Adams (Boxing)
Jones (Taekwondo)
Walkden (Taekwondo)
Jenkins (Triathalon)
Men's 4x100 relay
Women's 4x100 relay
Daley (Diving)
Couch (Diving)
Hull (Not a Sport)

That's 11 viable opportunities, anyone care to add?
Didn't we do we'll in the cenutry-out-of-date Pentathlon last time? Any chances in BMX Bandits? Any more sail boats we can win? Any obvious track and field options I've forgotten?

kk67 wrote:I don't remember the medals table being particularly important in the 'limpics of my youff.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:I don't remember the medals table being particularly important in the 'limpics of my youff.

probably because we were so far down it.

kk67 wrote:The vast majority of these people are individual athletes. It's nice for them to have a team event but I think we could certainly do with a bit less jingoism in regards to their collective effort.

It's easy to get the feeling that with so much lottery money funding this success, we are being sold some sort of jingoistic lie.
I don't actually do the lottery so I guess it's not for me to comment.

Which Tyler wrote:Listen to the interview with the hockey captain ahead of the SF. Comparing her Olympic debut in Sydney, to now. It is literally the difference between being a full time professional, versus being an amateur getting in some practice after work and no further support.

Surely we rugby fans should appreciate this difference.

Lottery funding means that our athletes are now full-time professionals, on £15k-£28k per year (+ private sponsorship, and depending on success), with professional support structures, coaches, nutritionists, phyio.s, analysts etc. Having hosted 2 commonwealths and an Olympics recently, they have access to elite facilities, Olympic sized swimming pools, velodromes etc.
For cycling, its also caught some media attention (off the back of Olympic succeeds) and Team Sky is now a thing, garnering external investment.

Which Tyler wrote:

OutsideBath wrote:I didn't realise the athletes only received between £15k-£28k, they should be getting much more than this to increase our success even further.

it was in the BBC article I linked a couple of days ago [1], £15k for an up and comer, they mentioned Peaty with world record and an Olympic gild could get up to £28k. Of course, there's private sponsorship and places like Team Sky that can increase that, but lottery/central funding seems to top out at £28k.
Obviously, the extra cash is going to be limited by appeal, so Jess Ennis will get quite a bit beyond, whilst Laugher, whom we've never heard of before probably gets no extra. IIRC women's hockey is amateur, or semi-pro at best here, whilst Team Sky's riders probably draw a decent wage beyond the £28k

The amount is enough that you don't HAVE to hold down a full-time job, which I guess is the point, especially when funding however many hundreds, presumably thousands of individuals.

I can't find anything on funding for the coaches, support staff etc beyond the gross figures per sport. eg. [2] Athletics (track and field), got £6.7M p.a. since 01/01/13 and last year they funded 64 at "podium" level, and another 66 at "podium potential" level [3], with who-knows how many for future potential. That £6.7M will also take into account all the support staff, facilities etc.
So in rugby, our Salary cap is £6.5M + 2 marquees, for 40-odd players, Athletics gets £6.7M for 130 players, AND all their support.
Then, of course, you've got cycling, swimming, gymnastics, shooting, rowing, diving, hockey etc etc

And people complain that we invest far too much into elite sport; others complain that this level of funding is cheating, equating it to doping.

Links (can't hyperlink on the phone):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37085873
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/inve ... ng-figures
http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/worl ... -athletes/