Great Britain now truly a cycling nation

On 08/10/11 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2011 13:40, Colin Reed wrote:
On 08/10/11 12:15, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2011 07:54, Telegram Spam wrote:

From the BBC:

David Bond | 18:01 UK time, Tuesday, 27 September 2011

With Mark Cavendish delivering Britain's first world title in road
cycling for 46 years, is the sport now Britain's most successful?

UK Sport certainly seems to think so.

But millions of British football fans - most of whom nowadays pay out a
small fortune, one way or another, to follow their sporting passions -
don't.

Really? So these millions of British football fans can point out the
international success of British football?

Do you mean today?

Or over the whole history of the game (including having invented a sport
which has swept the globe with very few geographical exceptions)?

I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. Of course I'd never suggest such a thing :-)

Colin

On 09/10/2011 00:13, Colin Reed wrote:
On 08/10/11 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2011 13:40, Colin Reed wrote:
On 08/10/11 12:15, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2011 07:54, Telegram Spam wrote:

From the BBC:

David Bond | 18:01 UK time, Tuesday, 27 September 2011

With Mark Cavendish delivering Britain's first world title in road
cycling for 46 years, is the sport now Britain's most successful?

UK Sport certainly seems to think so.

But millions of British football fans - most of whom nowadays pay out a
small fortune, one way or another, to follow their sporting passions -
don't.

Really? So these millions of British football fans can point out the
international success of British football?

Do you mean today?

Or over the whole history of the game (including having invented a sport
which has swept the globe with very few geographical exceptions)?

I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. Of course I'd never suggest such a thing :-)

You seem confused between "now" in the context of national team success and
"now" in the sense of UK football being a massively successful popular
spectator sport on which its (millions of) supporters are prepared to spend a
phenomenal amount of money, week in, week out.

On Oct 9, 12:13*am, Colin Reed wrote:
I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). *I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. *A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. *Of course I'd never suggest such a thing :-)

Colin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Numpty Nugent moving the goalposts?
Whatever next? :-)

Simon Mason

On Oct 8, 6:50*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 07:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:01 pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 05:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
They do seem to have some top pharmacologists.

So good that they never fail a drug test.

They wouldn't be much good if they let their clients get caught. The
captain of the Great Britain team, David Millar, is a self confessed
past user of EPO. Earlier this year the UCI index of suspicion from
the 2010 Tour de France was leaked. *Hunt, Thomas, Wiggins all scored
between 5 and 7 out of ten in the UCI risk assessment of riders based
on blood passport results in 2010 ( a number of cyclists with scores
of 5 and above in that list have subsequently failed drugs tests). The
average index of the 198 riders in the 2010 Tour de France was 2.4.
43 had scores of 5 or over.

So no British rider was banned then?
Thanks for clearing that up.

--
Simon Mason

On 09/10/2011 07:07, Simon Mason wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:13 am, Colin wrote:
I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. Of course I'd never suggest such a thing :-)

Colin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Numpty Nugent moving the goalposts?
Whatever next? :-)


I don’t believe it!

When is a now not a now? When it was an earlier or later now?

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 23:13:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

So no British rider was banned then?
Thanks for clearing that up.

The skill of a good pharmacologist is to sail close to, but never
into, the wind. The history of cycling is inextricably mixed with
the history and development of using drugs to give an unfair
advantage, it would require an enormous optimist and a set of
industrial grade blinkers to believe cycling has turned itself around
in a few years and all is now squeaky clean.

On 09/10/2011 08:22, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 09/10/2011 07:07, Simon Mason wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:13 am, Colin wrote:

I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. Of course I'd never suggest such a thing :-)

Numpty Nugent moving the goalposts?
Whatever next? :-)

I don’t believe it!
When is a now not a now? When it was an earlier or later now?

Come back and try to make that "point" when thousands of people in the UK can
make a (good) living out of "sport" cycling at any one time.

That will be when millions of ordinary supporters are prepared to pay out
lots of their hard-earned money, regularly and dependably, more or less every
week of the year and are happy to create tens, if not hundreds, of
millionaire "sporting" cyclists annually in the UK.

Cycling - like all relatively unimportant minority sports - has its ups and
downs. It might even be in a current "up" phase. If it is, it won't last, and
you know that.

Football is the most successful sport that the UK has ever contributed to the
world and is certainly the most successful sport this country has ever seen.

Claiming that cycling is more successful than football is absolutely risible.
Perhaps one day, in the distant future, when boys (and to a lesser extent,
girls) on street corners or recreation grounds cease to kick footballs about
and start organising themselves into impromptu "sporting" cycling teams, you
will have started to have a valid argument. Until then, you haven't.

On Oct 9, 11:33*am, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 23:13:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:
So no British rider was banned then?
Thanks for clearing that up.

The skill of a good pharmacologist is to sail close to, but never
into, the wind. * *The history of cycling is inextricably mixed with
the history and development of using drugs to give an unfair
advantage, it would require an enormous optimist and a set of
industrial grade blinkers to believe cycling has turned itself around
in a few years and all is now squeaky clean.

That applies in many other sports, like motor racing and football.

Racing car designers are well known for sailing as close to the rules
as they can get.

Football managers will rest key team member on yellow cards etc.

As long as nobody, cyclist or footballer actually *breaks* the rules,
there is no problem.

--
Simon Mason

On 09/10/2011 11:54, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2011 08:22, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 09/10/2011 07:07, Simon Mason wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:13 am, Colin wrote:

I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. Of course I'd never suggest such a
thing :-)

Numpty Nugent moving the goalposts?
Whatever next? :-)

I don’t believe it!
When is a now not a now? When it was an earlier or later now?

Come back and try to make that "point" when thousands of people in the
UK can make a (good) living out of "sport" cycling at any one time.

That will be when millions of ordinary supporters are prepared to pay
out lots of their hard-earned money, regularly and dependably, more or
less every week of the year and are happy to create tens, if not
hundreds, of millionaire "sporting" cyclists annually in the UK.

Cycling - like all relatively unimportant minority sports - has its ups
and downs. It might even be in a current "up" phase. If it is, it won't
last, and you know that.

Football is the most successful sport that the UK has ever contributed
to the world and is certainly the most successful sport this country has
ever seen.

Claiming that cycling is more successful than football is absolutely
risible. Perhaps one day, in the distant future, when boys (and to a
lesser extent, girls) on street corners or recreation grounds cease to
kick footballs about and start organising themselves into impromptu
"sporting" cycling teams, you will have started to have a valid
argument. Until then, you haven't.

I didn’t have an argument.

I do not follow football as it does not appeal to me. I don’t see much
of it on tv, presumably if it exists to much extent it is on “Sky
Sports” or subscription TV channels aimed at the people who want to
watch it.

In my life, I see considerably more cycling than I do football, but that
is largely my choice. I like it that way.

I suspect though that considerably more people participate in cycling
(to some extent) than they do football. The oft quoted 2% of journeys
are made by bike. That's 2% of everybody's journeys. I doubt whether 2%
of people play football...

If I look around the people I know, I would suggest that the majority
are not really interested in football either, apart from Engerland in
the World Cup. So I guess that makes footy a minority sport too. All
sports are minority sports. It's just that some are more minor than
others.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 09/10/2011 13:39, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 09/10/2011 11:54, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2011 08:22, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 09/10/2011 07:07, Simon Mason wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:13 am, Colin wrote:

I mean now, as in currently, as in the "now" that is mentioned in the
question in the OP "..., is the sport NOW Britain's most successful?"
(my capitalisation). I think the wording in the article, and in my
response was fairly unambiguous. A more cynical poster might wonder if
you introduced football as a comparison purely so that you had some
goalposts that you could move. Of course I'd never suggest such a
thing :-)

Numpty Nugent moving the goalposts?
Whatever next? :-)

I don’t believe it!
When is a now not a now? When it was an earlier or later now?

Come back and try to make that "point" when thousands of people in the
UK can make a (good) living out of "sport" cycling at any one time.
That will be when millions of ordinary supporters are prepared to pay
out lots of their hard-earned money, regularly and dependably, more or
less every week of the year and are happy to create tens, if not
hundreds, of millionaire "sporting" cyclists annually in the UK.
Cycling - like all relatively unimportant minority sports - has its ups
and downs. It might even be in a current "up" phase. If it is, it won't
last, and you know that.
Football is the most successful sport that the UK has ever contributed
to the world and is certainly the most successful sport this country has
ever seen.
Claiming that cycling is more successful than football is absolutely
risible. Perhaps one day, in the distant future, when boys (and to a
lesser extent, girls) on street corners or recreation grounds cease to
kick footballs about and start organising themselves into impromptu
"sporting" cycling teams, you will have started to have a valid
argument. Until then, you haven't.

I didn’t have an argument.

Whoever made the claim "Great Britain now truly a cycling nation" (and who
later re-defined that as referring to from some recent fleeting success in a
bike race) was positing an argument. If it wasn't you, fair enough.

I do not follow football as it does not appeal to me.

Nor to me, very much.

That doesn't stop me from seeing it objectively as the UK's only true
national sport. One can credibly say that Great Britain [is] truly a
footballing nation in a way that has never been true for cycling, not even if
you include everyday utility cycling.

I don’t see much of it
on tv, presumably if it exists to much extent it is on “Sky Sports” or
subscription TV channels aimed at the people who want to watch it.

Quite so. And they pay a lot of money (on aggregate) to do so. It is a big
business. Football is so important to so many people that a huge media
business can be based on that fact (let alone the massive business that is
live football itself).

In my life, I see considerably more cycling than I do football, but that is
largely my choice. I like it that way.

Perhaps you do. AAMOF, it's probably true for me too. But the fact that you
and I do so is completely and utterly beside the point and carries no
implications whatsoever for the argument.

I suspect though that considerably more people participate in cycling (to
some extent) than they do football. The oft quoted 2% of journeys are made by
bike. That's 2% of everybody's journeys. I doubt whether 2% of people play
football...

The goalpost had already been moved in such a way that the thread title has
been re-defined as referring only to "sport" cycling. If everyday cycling
were included, you'd also have to include every street footie game, and
certainly every organised match on every local rec, whether in leagues,
school competitions, or whatever.

The claim was later made that UK sport cycling is more "successful" than UK
football because of some recent UK win in a bike race. Big deal.

If I look around the people I know, I would suggest that the majority are not
really interested in football either, apart from Engerland in the World Cup.
So I guess that makes footy a minority sport too. All sports are minority
sports. It's just that some are more minor than others.

And cycling is way more "minor" than football (as, indeed, is every other
sport, with the legendary - and doubtful - execption of angling).