Fool's Gold?

[vernonk]

People are starting to question how Team GB are doing so well at the Olympics when, not long ago, we struggled to get even one Gold medal. Do you also have your doubts or do you think/believe "Brits don't cheat"?

[EDDIE51]

Only those who are deemed sufficiently 'Politically Correct' and can be trusted not to defect are allowed to compete for China.
Many athletes have been on TV saying how lottery funding has been the key to success. They can now give up work and spend their entire time training.
The downside is that it has eroded the idea that amateurs have a chance.
Our 'lottery funded' athletes are effectively professionals.

[vernonk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743993/Team-GB-s-gold-medal-winning-cycling-stars-accused-cheating.html

[Khandro]

mikey; Though France famously hosts le tour, it hasn't had a winner since the mid-eighties with Fignon and Hinault. They have though had several stage wins, though.
Regarding China, though bikes are the most common form of transport they don't seem as yet to have organised cycling as a sport, (I may be wrong on this) they certainly haven't produced any world class professional riders as have other countries, - there was even an Eritrean rider in this year's T.d.F..

[Khandro]

veronk;

The claims of cheating are sour grapes from bad losers and should be challenged as being libelous forthwith.

[mikey4444]

I'm quite prepared to believe, that if there is sufficient funding, and that it is put into training athletes in any sport, champions will "emerge" in any nation.

While Britain has done stonkingly well this summer, I have no doubt that any other country could do as well, or at least better than they do at the moment.

So....... perhaps its not just better funding.....our training would seem to superior to other countries as well, in the sports that we are successful at.

Whichever way you looks at it, everybody involved in our successful sports deserve all the praise that is going, not just the medal winners.

[youngmafbog]

Yes Eddie, but professionals can also compete - eg Murray.

If there is a big change then it stands to reason that very careful testing should be done. This not only ensures the sport remains clean but exonerates those athletes that have managed to do well.

In the UK's case it really looks like funding has paid off, and it should do. No reason though not to do thorough testing for the reason above.

[EDDIE51]

The Olympics were until recently exclusively amateur. Then it started to be more about money and professionals were allowed to compete. Now it is all about money and amateurs stand no chance. I hold the view that the modern Olympics are becoming ever further from the 'Olympic Ideal'.I realise this is not going to be the view of the majority though, so I expect criticism.

[ToraToraTora]

not an unexpected angle from the anti British, we are doing well so we must be cheating. Of course based on BS from vernon "not long ago, we struggled to get even one Gold medal." - go and find me an Olympics where we got 1 gold, 1976 was the last worst, a mere 40 years ago!

[vulcan42]

The UK is now doing what other countries have been doing for years and that is pouring money into the sports that appear at the Olympics. These other countries were quite happy to receive the medals and accolades that the UK wasn't getting but as soon as we level the playing field by spending a great deal of money they accuse us of cheating. This is nothing but sour grapes.

[dannyk13]

From the link:-
///In what could be interpreted as sour grapes, the team’s Australian, French and German rivals have made thinly veiled comments questioning why Britain’s cyclists are streaking past them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743993/Team-GB-s-gold-medal-winning-cycling-stars-accused-cheating.html#ixzz4HZtkzq9d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[jno]

you are correct, Eddie. A fun time is no doubt had by contestants and viewers and sponsors, but not by amateurs.

Plenty of people have been wondering how Team GB has done so well, but that's not to say they all ascribe it to drugs. The answer is money, skilfully used.

[ToraToraTora]

ok 1996 we got 1 gold, so you focus on that, worst performance, when both before and after we do much better, right oh!

[dannyk13]

This is probably behind the reason we are doing so well-:
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-uk-sport-funding-works

[jim360]

TTT -- 1996 is important not because how bad we were is something to jeer at but because how bad we were back then was the catalyst for making Team GB so good right now. It made people realise that the previous approach simply wasn't working and producing competitive atheletes. So we changed, and now we are good.

It's not anti-British to focus on our weak points -- it's pro-British, in fact, because how the hell else do you expect to fix the problems we do have except by acknowledging them? 1996 was an embarrassing Olympics for Great Britain. And thank goodness, because it left us with no choice but to stop tolerating mediocrity.

[Gromit]

Eddie,

Not sure amateurism was ever an olympic ideal. In ancient times, it was a contest of the best men to please Zeus.
The resurrected modern games came in before there was any prfesssionalism in sport, so everyone was a amateur. The downside of that is that it was elitist and favoured the rich.
The real olympic ideal should be to find the best performing human body. Whether they earn from that talent should be irrelevent.

[alavahalf]

Over the years all I can remember is USA, Russia and China with the large haul of medals ... and somewhere towards the bottom of the list you would see GB.
That wouldn't suggest that the big nations have been cheating for years on end would it ?
With testing being as thorough as it is now, the cheats days are numbered.
Perhaps GB's success is down to us being in the .. 'Year of the underdog'

[jim360]

As to the accusations of cheating: I don't believe them really. It's just an unfortunate legacy of the history and sheer volume of drugs cheats, including British athletes such as Dwain Chambers, that it's hard not to dismiss such thoughts. It's an ugly cloud that hangs over sport, and taints the innocent along with the guilty. Nothing to do with being anti-British either.

[ToraToraTora]

"It's not anti-British to focus on our weak points" - quire right, it is anti British to denigrate our successes because of some perceived invalidating factor.

[jackthehat]

Who are you to decide quite what is Anti-British, TGT?

I am as patriotic as you are but don't view acknowledging deficiencies (in any field) as running the country down.

The comments from the losing competitors are nothing more than sour-grapes and should be treated as such and roundly dismissed.

[jambutty]

I've not heard anyone questioning this !