Sports which are just too posh, rich and over-represented at the Olympics

First topic message reminder :

Swimming/Gymnatics - have too many medals on offer
Equestrian/Yachting/Shooting etc. require loads of dosh to just get on the first step (and I'll include the Pole vault in that)
And filthy rich sports like football, tennis, golf, rugby and basketball should never even have a sniff of Olympic participation - well, not the multimillionaires anyway. If the Olympics ain't the pinnacle of the sport, then they shouldn't be in.

My view is that if it doesn't require huge quantities of PEDs to get on the podium then it probably shouldn't be there.

....and no that doesn't include equid use of PEDs...... .....

has any one got in the zone from intoxication before?

i have on a few rare occasions elevated my performance levels to professional standard in sports i dont even play.

If any one wants to know the secret let me know!

mystiroakey wrote:has any one got in the zone from intoxication before?

i have on a few rare occasions elevated my performance levels to professional standard in sports i dont even play.

If any one wants to know the secret let me know!

are you talking about doing s.e.x. while being drunk?

@mystiroakey
I had a drunk 400m race at university against a mate after spending too much time drinking beer on the surrounding embankment - he collapsed at about 300m & I ended up spewing a few seconds after the finish line. I did feel like Michael Johnson when I motored along the back straight though.

260 in ten pin bolwing- best ever before was 145.

3 pints and 3 spliffs.

but you need to understand your own levels

Thing is, the tramps from the local council estates also look down on rich people. It took me a long time to become accepted at my local boxing club, jsut because I have a car and a house of my own.

260 is still a massive score. you must have a pulled a few strikes in row. my best is probably 140 which I am proud of but again never played this "sport" sober.

mystiroakey wrote:260 in ten pin bolwing- best ever before was 145.

3 pints and 3 spliffs.

but you need to understand your own levels

Yes but where you in an oxygen tent when you had the spliffs?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Thing is, the tramps from the local council estates also look down on rich people. It took me a long time to become accepted at my local boxing club, jsut because I have a car and a house of my own.

It's like Penrose's stairs. The upper classes look down on the middle classes who look down on the lower classes who look down on the upper classes.

i got the turkey at the end and only had a couple of spares. i just gunned everyone down the middle- the ball was a part of me. i cant spin it so i didnt try

I used to allways have a spliff on the golf course- i used to chip in almost every round- my short game was stuff of heros.

Also when i played semi pro 9 ball- allways needed two pints and two spliffs- and then mildly top up to retain the zone.

A beta bloker or two will also help.

But if you combine all 3- drink , betablockers and spliff- maybe even a valium- you are gonna rule the world at these type of sports

Problem is they have banned alcohal , smoking and bettablockers from these sports.. And that is why so many just couldnt handle it anymore.

Personally i think its fine, abit of help is needed and if it produces better quality sport i am all up for it!

Not sure about the use of steroids cause that is just wrong in my eyes as it changes the physicality. But only in my eyes. I am sure many would think its wrong to smoke dope,drink and take bettablockers before sport an all!

Interesting article relevant to the OP (apologies for the source):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185121/Olympics-2012-dressage-event-Laura-Bechtolsheimer-Charlotte-Dujardin-teamed-win-historic-gold.html

How a daugher of a German billionaire and friend to the Royals (Bechtolsheimer) and a stable-hand that left state school at 16 (Dujardin) teamed up to take Olympic Gold.

Dujardin in particular sums up how bravery, ambition, hard work and talent allow sport to be the great equaliser among people.

I think my highest score in a night of tenpin bowling was 289.



























But that was over 3 games.

get buzzing and try again

John Beattie's BBC blog is worth a read:

How money buys medals

By John Beattie

Poor countries cannot win at track cycling, nor swimming, nor rowing.

Rich countries have an advantage.

We have to temper our pride against the truth, which is that it's an unfair fight.

Marvellous though it is, it's only a small pool of countries prepared to spend the millions needed to win medals at expensive sports.

I write this having watched Sir Chris Hoy ride to glory in the Kierin final, but close your eyes - unless you are driving - and try to think of the most successful sports at the London 2012 games from a Team GB perspective.
Sir Chris Hoy

Let me see. I'd go for rowing, cycling, swimming, sailing and athletics. And guess what?

That's the five sports funded to a far greater extent than most of the others - and one sport has received huge sums of cash but hasn't delivered the medals.

Put it this way. You'd have to be a fairly rich country to build indoor velodromes.

The tracks are built to fractions of an inch, the indoor climate is controlled, and the doors are air-sealed.

Then you'd have to invest in the most high-tech bikes in the world; so light you can pick them up between your fingers, so strong they don't fail, so fast they have no rolling or internal resistance, and so aerodynamic they cut through the air.

So, take a look at how much money UK Sport gives to some sports.

There are five sports getting more than £20m each between 2009 and 2013. And all the sports have agreed targets.

At the very top of the money list is Rowing.

Again, remember all the medals Team GB won in rowing, including Katherine Grainger in the double sculls and Heather Stanning in the rowing doubles.

Rowing is richer to the tune of £27,287,600.

Yes, a huge sum, and that buys the best sport physiotherapists, the sleekest boats, access to the best training, world travel and, well, the list goes on.

Rowing's performance target for London 2012 was six medals, it produced nine. A good return, but £3m per medal.

In second place in terms of funding from UK sport is cycling.

Sir Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton are the top of the tree that shares £26m give or take a few pennies.

The first indoor velodrome in the UK was built for the Manchester Commonwealth Games of 2002, and at the moment there are only three in the UK.

The medal target agreed for that money was six to ten. As I write this cycling, both track and on the road, has won a combined total of nine medals.

Cycling's performance director Dave Brailsford will be a happy man. Just.

He promised those medals.

Swimming is getting £25,144,600. State-of-the-art pools and training and science back up all cost money.

Their performance target was five to seven medals and they have failed to meet even the lower level of that deal as swimming sits at just the three medals.

Someone is in trouble, or should be given that massive investment.

The fourth richest sport is athletics with £25m, give or take a few pennies.

They promised five to eight medals and sit at four as I write with quite a few solid medal prospects.

Sailing is funded to the tune of £22m, has a performance target of three to five medals, and, even before Rhu's Luke Patience gets his guaranteed silver, sits on three medals.

These are huge sums of money. Swimming, obviously, has underperformed.

Other underperformers include canoeing, who get £16m but came up with two medals against a target of three to four.

Diving received £6.5m, had a performance target of one to three medals, but won none.

I could go through the list and pick the underperformers - whose directors of performance will have difficult interviews to come - and those who have done well.

But as I sit in the velodrome and, rightly, applaud Sir Chris Hoy and his team mates on their stunning success, it's worth remembering that, actually, it's not a fair fight.

Cycling's success cost millions and yet, as I write, there is no sign that the performance was vastly greater than what was promised.

Money talks.

There you have it, SA literally has no chance against over 100 million spent vs most likely the cost of getting our athletes there. The fact that we got 3 medals in the pool is testoment to those individuals and their parents

"Rowing's performance target for London 2012 was six medals, it produced nine. A good return, but £3m per medal."


people throw this about. I think its a great return per medal as well- I think the norm is around 4.7 mill per medal in the UK.

Its not just about the medals though is it. Its about the base level- getting kids out there playing sport. And we need the champions to get more involved.

Is not a simple case of- oh we have an extra 30 mill here- that will get us 10 medals!!

Its about putting this stealth tax(the lottery) into something we all care about which is sport.

You are offcourse correct with your last comment

money does talk when it comes to the olympics- it really is only about the top economies. and its a how big is your $$$$ contest!

nice article though- good read.

dont we still have a change of a medal in diving though!

and we seriously need to up the swimming money- considering the amount of medals up for grabs we need to be pumping that up!

The article also fails to point out that other countries will have put in similar amounts of money with less success such as Australia, Russia etc.

Beattie can do one.

A decent mate of mine sails competitively, requires his own boat (you can't race a loaner competitively apparently), needs repairs, insurance, new mast/sail dependent on use, car big enough to tow it, petrol for races, fees (races, club) etc

It isn't cheap, let's not confuse competing with leisure when we google club fees - and nor should we forget the homogenisation of the classes.

It's true, but lots of so called proletariat sports aren't exactly cheap either while plenty of "elitist" ones aren't expensive at all.

THe point is that access at grass roots level is affordable and accessable to all in virtually all sports.

No one is going to buy a showjumping horse or 8 berth rowing boat as they begin in a sport but part of being in a sailing, rowing, shooting club is the use of their equipment.

Ent wrote:A decent mate of mine sails competitively, requires his own boat (you can't race a loaner competitively apparently), needs repairs, insurance, new mast/sail dependent on use, car big enough to tow it, petrol for races, fees (races, club) etc

It isn't cheap, let's not confuse competing with leisure when we google club fees - and nor should we forget the homogenisation of the classes.

super_realist wrote:It's true, but lots of so called proletariat sports aren't exactly cheap either while plenty of "elitist" ones aren't expensive at all.

Football and rugby are on an almost identical par in terms of accessibility, cost etc and would probably be placed at either sides of the spectrum.

Excellent point top hat, whilst Tennis, Athletics, Triathlon etc are hardly expensive.

I played cricket at the local club when I was younger, the bat was expensive but gloves and pads could be loaned or bought second hand pretty cheap and everything else added up to less than friends were spending on Adidas Predator football boots.

there is no major cost in rugby and football- however it clearly depends on where you come from. as to what sport you re gonna play as a kid. thats the problem. there are parralels apart

Can't think of too many sports that can't be done relatively cheaply.

I've known top amateur golfers with very cheap equipment and municipal club membership.

If you want to play something, you find a way.

mystiroakey wrote:there is no major cost in rugby and football- however it clearly depends on where you come from. as to what sport you re gonna play as a kid. thats the problem. there are parralels apart

one state school produced an England international footballer and a F1 world champion, in the same year group. If you really want it where you come from doesn't matter.

Its not about wanting it, the lewis hamiltons of this world are rare beasts, he demanded to kart at a young age- good on him, a very talented and motivated individual. If mclarean hadnt sponsered him at 12 or whatever he wouldnt be in F1 today

Motorsport is a private sector thing and shouldnt be put into the same regards to football and rugby..

The reality is most of our footballers are from state school s and most of our rugby lads are from public or private. That what we need to consider

how is motorsport different to football?

Lewis came from exactly the same background as Ashley Young, same schooling, same opportunities, same drive and hunger. Lewis was picked up by McLaren because of his talent. Young was picked up by Watford because of his (as were several others in n around that year group). Lewis was kept because he performed whilst I'm sure there are others that weren't. Young was kept whilst others were dropped for the same reason.

Because its private sector funded- motor sport, golf, whatever

You learn footy and rugby first and foremost from being in your school team- if you dont have that school team- you are behind the others that do, or you just dont bother ever getting into the sport

football is private sector funded exactly the same??!!

I can assure you, Ashley Young learned NOTHING from his school football team.

100% yes he did..

he wouldnt get picked for playing in a club unless he had played the game at school and every lunch break etc

So is football privately run.
None of the sports I play, I learned at school, I learned them because I wanted to.

It isn't the schools responsibility to provide access to all types of sport. All I expect schools to do is provide physical education in a variety of sports, not provide a framework for people to succeed. THere are specialist clubs for that.

It's a silly argument.

mystiroakey wrote:100% yes he did..

he wouldnt get picked for playing in a club unless he had played the game at school and every lunch break etc

No, he didn't. I know, I went to school with him!! (was hoping that'd already come through)

He learnt by kicking a ball around with his mates and playing for his local club (which has some public subsidy but is a quasi-private enterprise). He then got picked up by Watford where he excelled under the expert tutillage (sp?) of the private coaches there.

Your thinking on a very different mindset- All kids have access to football, we play it in almost every school. However not rugby and cricket.

Many schools dont play the game.

Football and rugby are played by totally differently people- thats the reality of it- And anyone can argue against that untill they are blue in the face- but they are very much classist sports. I hate the idea that we are losing out on players due to this classest attitude to sport

I see where mystir is coming from with this.

My school sports curriculum can be summarised football, football, football, a bit of athletics, more football, all other sports.

Also if you weren't good at football you were put in the second tier group at everything else . So even though I was the best triple jumper in my school year I wasn't ever selected for the school team. Hardly inspiring for a young athlete!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:100% yes he did..

he wouldnt get picked for playing in a club unless he had played the game at school and every lunch break etc

No, he didn't. I know, I went to school with him!! (was hoping that'd already come through)

He learnt by kicking a ball around with his mates and playing for his local club (which has some public subsidy but is a quasi-private enterprise). He then got picked up by Watford where he excelled under the expert tutillage (sp?) of the private coaches there.

your totally missing the point completely- there is readilly available football teams -be it within the education system or at local level to all of us. Its not the same for sports like rugby- however much you want to think it is. Your argument is that football and rugby are both avalable to all. The reality is the kids that play each game are polar opposites

VTR wrote:I see where mystir is coming from with this.

My school sports curriculum can be summarised football, football, football, a bit of athletics, more football, all other sports.

Also if you weren't good at football you were put in the second tier group at everything else . So even though I was the best triple jumper in my school year I wasn't ever selected for the school team. Hardly inspiring for a young athlete!

Don't get me wrong, the state school sports programme (in my experience) is definitely lacking but, given the limited resources, it did provide a good taster across multiple sports.

My school was very much football football football (helps when you have guys at Watford, Tottenham and Arsenal academies!) but we also did tennis cricket (boys) and hockey (girls) in summer, rugby in winter and some athletics. Everyone I know got a taster at school then went to clubs outside of school to take the sport seriously, training properly and developing their skills. For some it went further (e.g. Lewis and Ashley) for most it didn't.

Oakey,
I went to a (state) school where you do sports in relation to the season or in blocks of sport.

For instance Football, Rugby, Cricket, Swimming, Lacrosse, Hockey, Athletics, Badminton etc, however anyone who ever got to a decent level at anything did it in a private club.

Schools provide a launchpad, but that's all they can provide. INcidently I guarantee in every region of the UK south of ABerdeen there are local rugby clubs open to all ages.

mystiroakey wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:100% yes he did..

he wouldnt get picked for playing in a club unless he had played the game at school and every lunch break etc

No, he didn't. I know, I went to school with him!! (was hoping that'd already come through)

He learnt by kicking a ball around with his mates and playing for his local club (which has some public subsidy but is a quasi-private enterprise). He then got picked up by Watford where he excelled under the expert tutillage (sp?) of the private coaches there.

your totally missing the point completely- there is readilly available football teams -be it within the education system or at local level to all of us. Its not the same for sports like rugby- however much you want to think it is. Your argument is that football and rugby are both avalable to all. The reality is the kids that play each game are polar opposites

No. They're not. There are half a dozen rugby clubs in north hertfordshire, each as free and accessible as any local football team. I think your views have been tainted by a bad experience as nothing you've said so far comes close to reality in my experience.

Thats the point your missing SR- My point is that they dont play rugby or cricket in the state schools were i am from.. That was allways the point

I actually went to private school and didnt even play rugby - but there you go!

Tophat i come from london- it has a quarter of the population- and there is just no rugby in the state system(only grammer or private schools play it) however much you want to believe it is- or blame it on some unforseen personal experience

So what Oakey, that doesn't mean people can't go and do it in private clubs.

I refuse to believe that any school, state or private only does one sport for each gender and that you have no access to any other.

mystiroakey wrote:Thats the point your missing SR- My point is that they dont play rugby or cricket in the state schools were i am from.. That was allways the point

I actually went to private school and didnt even play rugby - but there you go!

If you went to a private school then how are you so aware of the state school curriculum?

Not sure if Surrey is only a recent move for you but I have plenty of friends that played cricket (in school and local clubs) in Surrey.

SR who has told you that schools only do one sport- because that certainly isnt me!

I am arguing against the point someone made on here that football and rugby is available to all. Yet i am arguing that there are very much classist sports(100% factual i may add) and that maybe if we played rugby in all schools as we do with football it may chnage that attitude and we could utilse more of the population

mystiroakey wrote:Tophat i come from london- it has a quarter of the population- and there is just no rugby in the state system(only grammer or private schools play it) however much you want to believe it is- or blame it on some unforseen personal experience

Dare I say, at 35, you're 20 years out of the school system therefore maybe your views/understanding are a little out-dated?

mystiroakey wrote:SR who has told you that schools only do one sport- because that certainly isnt me!

I am arguing against the point someone made on here that football and rugby is available to all. Yet i am arguing that there are very much classist sports(100% factual i may add) and that maybe if we played rugby in all schools as we do with football it may chnage that attitude and we could utilse more of the population

a 100% subjective statement

You sound very much like the minority. All the state schools in my area where I grew up play and continue to play a variety of sports.

It sounds like you were unlucky, but it certainly doesn't represent what most people are saying Oakey.