You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Have we done this yet? Any way of forcing their hand? Petition? Or am I being naive? Makes me so cross.
[url= https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20161223-about-bc-news-Update-on-British-Cycling’s-Olympic-Programmes-0 ]https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20161223-about-bc-news-Update-on-British-Cycling’s-Olympic-Programmes-0[/url]
Does mountain biking get any funding?
I don't really know about Women's BMX, but we clearly didn't have anybody capable of getting anywhere near a medal this time in men's MTB and there's no particular sign of that being any different in Tokyo (whereas on the women's MTB side there is at least one rider I know of who appears to have the potential). What do you expect when funding is being cut in general and it's all about funding potential medallists at that level (there is funding at lower levels)?
I'll just note that Badminton has had its funding completely cut despite getting a medal in Rio and having definite potential for medals in Tokyo. If you want to petition something for being unfair I suggest that is more worthy.
No medals? No money!
That looks to be U.K. sport not funding rather than BC's call. That said I suspect BC didn't cry a river.
Title is surely wrong? As it is UK sport not BC that are cutting it. And even then only one gender in each discipline.
The reality is UK sport have a finite pot to share around, and are likely to invest it where 2020 medals are most likely. IF your hypothetical petition were to succeed it would be at the expense of some other sport (which UK sport has already decided is likely to have more success/medals/impact/publicity)
BC make the case, UK Sport decision
The budget was reduced due to governance issues at BC
That and the revelations in the pipeline about how toxic it is within BC
Expect more cuts
but we clearly didn't have anybody capable of getting anywhere near a medal this time in men's MTB and there's no particular sign of that being any different in Tokyo
To be fair to Grant Ferguson, he had a great start to the uci World Cup in his first year of elite and wasn't scheduled to go to Rio so wouldn't have had that as the season focus unlike some other athletes. It's not totally unreasonable to think he could be a contender in Tokyo with hte right support
It has been shown that the great success in 2012 and 2016 has done little/nothing to increase participation in sport.
I'd suggest that the main problems are:
1. Many of the medals were achieved in 'non-democratic' sports - where people are either disinterested because the sport is alien to them, or get behind the athletes but in real life, most people can't access the sports for financial/geographical/social reasons.
Instead, sports like basketball, easily accessed and played by countless urban youth, lost funding, while archery, clay pigeon shooting, horse dancery, continued.
2. Engaging in sports/ an active lifestyle requires influence at a much earlier stage and on a deeper level than seeing it on telly. It depends on the culture in the individual's family, school and community, pretty much from birth. Many young people I've worked with loved the Olympics as an X-Factor style TV event, but the idea of me cycling 3 miles to work blew their minds. But the only reason that's normal to me is because my family did it when I was growing up. Some people will want to blame the parents - but the parents were developing humans once too and if noone modelled it to them either, they won't have the capital to pass it on to their own kids.
UK sport had a decision to make - either engage in a concerted effort with the health service and education to change the sporting/activity culture of the country at a deeper level, which would have required addressing inequality as a serious policy, or send contestants Strictly-style to get the most shiny medals and make everyone happy for a bit, which is much cheaper!
Some people point to the fact that many athletes (especially in track and field, boxing and other sports) are from less privileged backgrounds and argue that they have succeeded therefore there is no social/class/equality problem with regards to sporting participation. This is reductive and akin to saying 'when I did an online Asda shop, some of the food was tasty therefore it's all fine'. Some will suggest that having a difficult background [i]helps[/i] because it makes people more hungry/desperate for success because they have known hardship/want to help their family/had few other options than sport. Bollox!!! This is to (a) to ignore the vast majority of under privileged young people who never even look at a tennis racquet or running track, (b) to ignore those who [i]do[/i] engage with sport but don't have a dedicated Judy Murray figure bussing them to tournaments.
I'm forgetting this is just a bike forum. I suppose the point of my rant is that we ought to consider (a), what the point of our participation in the Olympics is and (b), what we then do about this.
If the purpose is only to win medals and finish in the top 3 in the medal table, we should stop bullshitting about inspiring people to do sport, give the funding to sports which already draw revenue from elsewhere and have well-developed existing structures and practices (either rich people sports or ones which have a commercial/professional side) and whoop and cheer every 4 years like it's one massive X-Strictly come Jungle.
If the purpose is to engage people in sports, then the Olympics should only be the tip of the iceberg of a deeper policy shift. But as far as the Olympic Sports go, we should be focusing on funding and promoting the sports that the most people can access, most affordably, and fit into everyday lives. Basketball would fall into this category.
Where would cycling fall?
[quote=ferrals ]It's not totally unreasonable to think he could be a contender in Tokyo with hte right support
I suspect you'll find that other sports and disciplines which have funding have athletes with rather more than potential.
Two issues come to mind:
As the Olympic spots are allocated based on the results of the top 3 ranking riders, you really need a concerted effort of at least 3, but better 4 or 5 riders at a high level to be sure of a spot and be in genuine contention for a medal and providing ROI for UK Sport, otherwise you're relying on your star rider being fit, healthy and injury-free for the 2 counting years to qualify himself and be in good shape for the main event.
2) MTB and BMX are seen as somewhat unpredictable with a lot of uncontrollables on the day. On the track, the most powerful people usually win, so once the training, nutrition, equipment (all of which you can throw money at) are dialled in, you've got a very good chance of a medal. Throw in mass starts, first corner melees, roots, rocks, changing weather, punctures etc and the certainty of achieving a medal diminishes, which makes it a riskier investment.
It's not nice, but that's the business UK sport and BC are in.
A related issue is just how arbitrary the Olympic medal system is - Michael Phelps (23 Golds!) is not 5.75 x the athlete that Mo Farah (4 Golds) or 11.5 x the athlete Alistair Brownlee (2) is. He just happens to compete in an sport that allows lots of events within the same physiological capacity and skill set. BMX is a really good example of this - I'm not a close follower of BMX racing so tell me if I'm way off whack, but if Phelps can have a go at 100m freestyle, 200m freestyle, 100m butterfly, 200m butterfly, 200m medley, 400m medley, etc, then why can't Liam Philips race over 100m, 200m, a bermy course, a roller-y course, etc...?
2) MTB and BMX are seen as somewhat unpredictable with a lot of uncontrollables on the day. On the track, the most powerful people usually win, so once the training, nutrition, equipment (all of which you can throw money at) are dialled in, you've got a very good chance of a medal. Throw in mass starts, first corner melees, roots, rocks, changing weather, punctures etc and the certainty of achieving a medal diminishes, which makes it a riskier investment.
It's not nice, but that's the business UK sport and BC are in.
MTB XC is relatively predictable compared to the road race, it is just that the BC focus has always been the road programme which to be fair puts a lot more £ in the riders pocket
I have to agree with sb88
we ought to consider (a), what the point of our participation in the Olympics is and (b), what we then do about this.
It feels rather reductive to treat the Olympics as another cost benefit analysis exercise where merit is measured in medal potential every four years and the wider social value of participation in any sport, or even simply being more active is treated as irrelevant.
This is of course what you get from the modern age of austerity, sport as well as the free time, support and funds to take part in it is a form of 'luxury' no wonder it's becoming more and more reserved for the privileged...
Imagine if UK sport doled out their funding based on social benefit rather than Olympic medal tables, it would be harder to measure and justify perhaps and not such an easy jingoistic tool for politicians to wield but might actually reflect the Olympic ideal better than a treasure hunt every four years...
If you really want to get worked up by this, ask why basketball - which has a massive participation among young people (2nd after football for boys, 1st for girls) gets so little funding.
(and half of those kids coming from black and minority ethnic communities).
My thoughts: The cut in funding for XC racing is a good thing. Too many kids are having the joy of cycling sucked out of them by BC pushing them towards racing.
The big problem that I see funding wise is that the sports don't generate there own money, or enough of it. There are tons more cyclists now then there used to be say 10 years ago, and I mean proper committed serious cyclists. Especially in road cycling and this can easily be seen with the growth of Wiggle and Evans Cycles. The MAMIL has huge disposable income and BC needs to work out ways to tap into this to raise funds that can then be ploughed back into the sport. I not saying this is an easy job but the environment for them to raise money has never been so good.
Likewise with basketball, if its so popular then why is it not generating money. You don't get central government / Lottery funding for football, rugby, cricket, horse racing, etc, etc
The problem with only funding historical medal sports is that any amazing sportsperson not in one of these other sports is stuffed, even though they could be a hidden Michael Phelps.
It's not nice, but that's the business UK sport and BC are in.
It's certainly the context they are in - it's certainly not a business. As we now know, some of it's definitely not nice!
Imagine if UK sport doled out their funding based on social benefit rather than Olympic medal tables, it would be harder to measure and justify perhaps and not such an easy jingoistic tool for politicians to wield but might actually reflect the Olympic ideal better than a treasure hunt every four years...
Indeed.
We've ended up here after a disastrous Olympics where we got very few medals (was it one gold?).
The UK Sport way of funding is ruthless but as has been said above, it's easy to measure and justify, and has been reasonably successful. If the funding was used in a more socially beneficial way, then ten years down the line we'd have the press and politicians demanding to know why large sums of money were being spent for no medals...
For minority sports, or at least minority sports where the technical factors can't be controlled, it's a bit rough, but it is what it is. Also, didn't the funding for UK Swimming get brutally cut after a really poor showing in 2008? Aren't the BMX/MTB funding cuts just a repetition of that?
Woody74 asks a fair question about basketball's popularity and lack of funds...
'Disasterous' you say?
[img] 
[/img]
I'd contend that we are still reasonably successful at gathering medals, of course if you're looking for a constant improvement in medal hauls or believe that only Golds matter every four years, then you need to question the logic of ceasing/cutting funding for any sport based solely on their previous Olympic showing, how can you hope to increase the score with fewer participants going?
I still have to question why the only measure of British sporting achievement anyone seems to be bothered by is Olympic medals... "UK sport" should have more national, "grass roots" priorities, as it is they're basically just the UK Olympic aspiration fund, if Claire Balding isn't going to be gushing over it in Tokyo and the armchair athletes haven't heard of it, don't expect a penny...
Instead, sports like basketball, easily accessed and played by countless urban youth, lost funding, while archery, clay pigeon shooting, horse dancery, continued.
Archery lost all its funding too. And is probably more accessible across more of the country than basketball.
Good! BCF have done nothing good for BMX. Hopefully they'll let go of the sport altogether and allow the true BMX race community to take it back and run it independently.
Disasterous' you say?
You need to extend that graph to the left.
As for basketball and archery, this is funding for elite level performance, so that article is deceptive at best - the funding we're discussing here is ringfenced so would make no difference to grass roots. In any case, as I mentioned earlier badminton is more hard done by than either of those (I understand archery was expecting the cut).
BCF have done nothing good for BMX. Hopefully they'll let go of the sport altogether and allow the BMX community to take back their sport.
Still funding the men, and in any case that's never going to happen while it is an Olympic discipline of cycling. Not that I'm sure what BCF is stopping the community from doing.
Good post from sb88
I do find the whole elite performance to encourage mass participation model odd.
I'd love to see some really good research on what interventions and activities lead to the best life styles. I often worry that football increases activity in the young but has little impact in say the 40-50 or 50-60 segments. I'm not saying football has failed if there are no 55 year old footballers. But if playing football in your teens has no impact on your activity levels at 55 I think we need to have a complete rethink on school and sport activity
Isn't pro football effectively subsidised as the teams don't pay the full policing cost? This is probably true of other sports like rugby too, just more visible with soccer.
It's predominantly football because it's the policing outside the ground they don't pay for, and other sports need rather less of that...
BC are heading the same way as the canoe lot.
Neither really function as a proper governing body for all. Both are just concerned with ensuring funding though the Olympics rather than being concerned with grass roots and access.
Comparing against the bmc for example shows the massive short comings and deficiencies but then bc and the bcu are self serving rather than concern themselves with their members
Comparing against the bmc for example shows the massive short comings and deficiencies but then bc and the bcu are self serving rather than concern themselves with their members
Yes, but you can only read between the lines at what is/was being planned there with the proposed change to "Climb Britain" just as climbing got an Olympic spot...
True, but fundamentally they are committed to the access part whereas the bcu and bc couldn't care less.
I hope the bmc don't go pear-shaped
Yes, I hope they continue to regard that as their ultimate priority, it would be all too easy to palm it off to the Ramblers.
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/current-funding-figures
some sports are getting huge amounts compared to what they achieve for average joe on the street, better to reduce the cash and spend on local initiatives and time to re design shrink the number of alledged sports that are included in the money pit of the olympics.
shrink the number of alledged sports that are included in the money pit of the olympics.
Is skateboarding still a candidate?
It's predominantly football because it's the policing outside the ground they don't pay for, and other sports need rather less of that...
I didn't know that, cheeky
Football clubs were today urged to pick up the Met’s £2 million-a-year bill for policing top-flight matches in London.New figures show that the Met spent more than £1.9?million on policing match days in the capital last year, most of it on overseeing crowds and travelling fans outside grounds.
Now, a London Assembly member has called on Home Secretary Theresa May to change the law to allow the police to reclaim the full costs of policing league games. Labour’s Andrew Dismore said: “With the Met facing deep cuts to their budgets and police officers facing the axe, it’s high time that clubs cover the full cost of policing their games.
"If top-flight clubs can afford to pay players hundreds of thousands of pounds a week, they can afford to cover the full cost of policing their games, instead of expecting the taxpayer to fork out millions to police money-making matches. It’s down to the Home Secretary to make sure clubs are properly contributing to the cost of keeping their fans safe.”
His call came as the Met faces a 20 per cent cut to its budget and senior officers say they will be forced to cut police numbers. While stewarding in stadiums and grounds are picked up by clubs, the police presence required outside the stadium is covered by the police alone.
There is no legal right to recover these costs. Last year, it emerged that London’s football clubs paid 40 per cent less for match-day policing over the previous two seasons after a High Court ruling in 2012 that a club was only responsible for paying for policing within its ground or on its land.
The £1.9?million cost to the Met in 2013/14 compared to £3.25?million it spent on policing matches involving the top six London clubs in 2012/13.
The Met said that it was in continual discussions with the Premier League and clubs in relation to the costs of policing matches
Saw an interesting presentation by the technical director of british cycling a few weeks ago. He explained it as a medal factory and most of the cycling medals are in the track events where it is relatively predictable so this where all the investment goes. The road race is not predictable and not many medals, mtb has very few medals and we don't have the riders so no investment:(
One of the UK Sport Performance Directors gave a presentation at a conference I attended - money was deliberately invested in sailing, rowing and track cycling because of the 'controllable' parameters meaning you know that results in training are an effective predictor of success. Some folks confusing performance sport funding with grass roots - they have nothing to do with each other, but each sport governing bodies are expected to demonstrate investment in grass roots and participation. The problem for MTB is where do you go? Where are the clubs and events for juveniles - compare that to the growth in CX in the last 10 years where you have full fields from under 10s to Vets - most MTB events are full of V40+ and very juniors and below.
Saw an interesting presentation by the technical director of british cycling a few weeks ago. He explained it as a medal factory and most of the cycling medals are in the track events where it is relatively predictable so this where all the investment goes. The road race is not predictable and not many medals, mtb has very few medals and we don't have the riders so no investment:(
MTB has the same number of medals as the road race
The time trial is a different event to the road race as shown by the number of riders who won both in the same year. BC count this way because it suits them
Ive said it on here before but id sooner see the millions pumped into essentially peoples hobbies, put into real grass roots sports training and facilities.
We are using the poorest peoples money to fund a global peeing up the wall competition whilst my kids school has no after school sports.
Sb88 - superb first post in this thread!
superb first post in this thread!
Erm, you do realise that the bicycle is a more recent invention than the foot yes? And also that cycling off road is even newer again, and faaaaar more niche?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see off road cycling on telly box, but it isn't remotely about me. It's about the general public and medal hauls. If we/BC don't support a sport sufficiently to threaten for a medal then why should the olympic committee?
MTB has the same number of medals as the road race
How many british XC riders are world champions, or even 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th place?
How many british XC riders are world champions, or even 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th place?
Ah, the BC excuse, you could have said that about the track if you care to look back as well, of course there is no correlation with talented xc riders essentially pulled into the road/track programme since the programme started is there....
There are good young male mtb riders coming through, and BC now give their academy riders the same input as the other disciplines, which hasn't been the case previously. If the programme stops now it won't be replaced, the critical mass which has been established will be lost, and there won't be the riders to get the UCI points needed to qualify.