Skip Madness
New Member
The current fuss surrounding the proposed changes to the Olympic track schedule is bugging me. For those who don't know, the UCI - acting under pressure from the IOC - is proposing that due to the last Olympics having seven track events for men and only three for women, London sees parity between the genders: five events each. To achieve this, it is suggested that they will drop the individual pursuit, points race and madison, and introduce a women's team sprint, keirin and team pursuit plus the omnium for both genders.
It's understandable that those who specialise in the events that may go will be frustrated, but I think too much of the emphasis has been on the men having their events dropped and not enough on the new opportunities for the women. As well as many of the male riders whingeing about this, Rebecca Romero recently joined in:
In a way it all seems ridiculous, because as I have argued in the past I believe that at the Olympics both men and women should have full track programmes comparable to those at the World Championships (athletics would never accept having the 800m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, high jump, pole vault, hammer and discus missing from the Olympics, when effectively that's what the track cyclists have to put up with). The IOC's stubbornness in doggedly sticking to x number of medals and the associated juggling act being played is totally pointless. But if track cycling is going to be subject to a maximum of 10 medals then it's more important that there is gender equality than the men getting to have more events just because they like having them.
Some are arguing that the inclusion of the omnium is a bad idea because it's not a well-established event, and means dropping a better-regarded one. Although I like the omnium, I sympathise with that rationale because despite it providing mini-opportunities for some of the events that are dropped (points race, scratch, individual pursuit, time-trial), its broad nature means that specialists in any one discipline will probably give it a miss to favour better all-rounders.
Cycling News is running anarticle [edit - now to be found here] positing that the changes may kill endurance cycling due to the individual pursuit and points race being discarded. That is overblowing it. The points race will survive for - if no other reason - that a lot of the road riders like to race it during the winter to stay in good condition since it suits their characteristics better than most other track events (the scratch not being in the Olympics hasn't killed that event). Individual pursuiting will survive on the non-Olympic calendar, too, because a good team pursuit (which will still be there - and for both genders this time) will need four decent individual pursuiters, and the presence of both pursuits in the World Cup and World Championships will provide healthy competition.
In fact, if the argument that these changes will strangle endurance cycling were true, then in addition to the scratch, the time trials and the women's team pursuit would too already be dead since they have been missing from the Olympics. But those three events are very much alive.
So broadly I welcome the changes, for bringing gender equality to the forefront without destroying the track programme. However, the one change I would make would be to replace the omnium with the points race, the best track event. The others I would probably agree with the UCI on, although it wouldn't make any difference to me if the team sprint were replaced with the individual pursuit or the time trial.
There are three main questions I would like to ask in this thread:
(1) Is there anyone who thinks maintaining the Beijing programme is more important than introducing gender equality?
(2) Assuming the case of gender equality, what would your five events be?
(3) How far can the track survive without the Olympics?
Question (3) is one we got discussing to an extent in the Olympics versus Worlds thread last year, but I think we should flesh it out. I will always regard the World Championships as the high watermark of track cycling because it's proper track cycling; not the crappy, abridged, half-organised shite we get at the Olympics. But are the bright lights of the Olympics essential to the survival (ie. funding) of track cycling? If so, does the presence of a few eye-catching events to the general public provide all of the nourishment to retain a flourishing non-Olympic profile, or is a well-balanced Olympic programme (insofar as containing more pursuiting events) necessary?
If track cycling does need the Olympics, then fundamentally I see the Olympics as a means to an end and not an end in itself (in its present form anyway - a full track programme would sway me a bit). It is there to enable real track cycling - the World Championships, World Cups, Revolutions, six-days and all the other meetings - and the UCI's proposed changes do that no harm while nudging the velodrome in the direction of the modern age.
It's understandable that those who specialise in the events that may go will be frustrated, but I think too much of the emphasis has been on the men having their events dropped and not enough on the new opportunities for the women. As well as many of the male riders whingeing about this, Rebecca Romero recently joined in:
I'm not the IOC or the UCI, but I'll try explaining it: it introduces two extra events for women. It does create inclusion - the inclusion of a women's team sprint, keirin and team pursuit. Romero could elect to take part in that last one and win exactly the same number of medals she won in Beijing.The Guardian said:
In a way it all seems ridiculous, because as I have argued in the past I believe that at the Olympics both men and women should have full track programmes comparable to those at the World Championships (athletics would never accept having the 800m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, high jump, pole vault, hammer and discus missing from the Olympics, when effectively that's what the track cyclists have to put up with). The IOC's stubbornness in doggedly sticking to x number of medals and the associated juggling act being played is totally pointless. But if track cycling is going to be subject to a maximum of 10 medals then it's more important that there is gender equality than the men getting to have more events just because they like having them.
Some are arguing that the inclusion of the omnium is a bad idea because it's not a well-established event, and means dropping a better-regarded one. Although I like the omnium, I sympathise with that rationale because despite it providing mini-opportunities for some of the events that are dropped (points race, scratch, individual pursuit, time-trial), its broad nature means that specialists in any one discipline will probably give it a miss to favour better all-rounders.
Cycling News is running an
In fact, if the argument that these changes will strangle endurance cycling were true, then in addition to the scratch, the time trials and the women's team pursuit would too already be dead since they have been missing from the Olympics. But those three events are very much alive.
So broadly I welcome the changes, for bringing gender equality to the forefront without destroying the track programme. However, the one change I would make would be to replace the omnium with the points race, the best track event. The others I would probably agree with the UCI on, although it wouldn't make any difference to me if the team sprint were replaced with the individual pursuit or the time trial.
There are three main questions I would like to ask in this thread:
(1) Is there anyone who thinks maintaining the Beijing programme is more important than introducing gender equality?
(2) Assuming the case of gender equality, what would your five events be?
(3) How far can the track survive without the Olympics?
Question (3) is one we got discussing to an extent in the Olympics versus Worlds thread last year, but I think we should flesh it out. I will always regard the World Championships as the high watermark of track cycling because it's proper track cycling; not the crappy, abridged, half-organised shite we get at the Olympics. But are the bright lights of the Olympics essential to the survival (ie. funding) of track cycling? If so, does the presence of a few eye-catching events to the general public provide all of the nourishment to retain a flourishing non-Olympic profile, or is a well-balanced Olympic programme (insofar as containing more pursuiting events) necessary?
If track cycling does need the Olympics, then fundamentally I see the Olympics as a means to an end and not an end in itself (in its present form anyway - a full track programme would sway me a bit). It is there to enable real track cycling - the World Championships, World Cups, Revolutions, six-days and all the other meetings - and the UCI's proposed changes do that no harm while nudging the velodrome in the direction of the modern age.
) at this years Worlds were both riders who are strong in endurance events, so it does represent a better chance for them). But in the case of the women, the keirin specialists (who aren't always the same as the individual sprint specialists) get a new chance, a second sprinter gets a new chance in the team sprint, and two more pursuiters get a chance in the team pursuit. It is more opportunities for sprinters and endurance riders. Sacrificing opportunities for the men is the necessary price to pay for this if the IOC insist on the event limits.
