Lack of Joy, Lack of Success?

First topic message reminder :

After watching England lose to Australia in the rugby league world cup and watching the post match interviews something dawned on me.

Is the inherently joyless nature the Brits bring to sport responsible for their continued inability to foot it with the sun blessed fun loving boys from the southern hemisphere?

In the south, rugby is about passion, fun, running, showing off, executing outrageous skills, scoring tries, having fun with mates, the joyful bonding and rivalry with mates and opposition team members. A lot of rapturous jubilant elated uplifting energy is injected and out comes some sublime rugby and a history of success.

Contrast the wind beaten, rain lashed, grey of the north. The attitude brought here is the stiff upper lip, the grinding steely faced men, collars upturned against the elements, grim determination, phalanxes of dour faced combatants marching into war, and what I would call "fearful" rugby. It propagates control, order, slow, plodding monotonous structure, set pieces, kicks at goal. A win is a nervous grinding, painful, thing extracted like a venemous prickle with a hot needle.

More often than not these sullen faced ranks of northern hardship are simply overwhelmed and overrun by the smiling, jubilant dancing willow-the-wisps who bring a festive mood to the game.

Contrast Israel Dagg in full flight, wide grin on his face, trying something audacious, enjoying expressing himself in his contribution to the arrogant presence of a tight lipped Chris Ashton punching at the air before the try line, face burning with intent like he's out for revenge over some generations old nemesis. One continues to thrive, the other appears burned out.

Haile Gebrselassie was a very wealthy sportsman who raced in Europe all the time... if he wanted sports enhancing drugs and a doctor to administer them on the sly he would have found them easier then had he wanted paracetemol.

Its not that he did, or is suspected of doing so... but modern athletes who compete on the international stage have these things readily available.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:
Distance races are run tactically. It's not all about pure speed, but more about timing breaks.

He was the slowest winner for 7 Olympics. That has nothing to do with tactics.

But he is the 15th fastest Athlete over 10,000 metres of all time with a PB set 1 year before his Olympic triumph faster then any Olympic final in history. I would imagine tactics have a lot to do with it.

However your statement is only partially correct. He was faster then the 92 winner in Barcelona which means its been the slowest of the last 5 Olympics, not 7.

I missed that one but still the last 5 is still significant. Lots of the top 10,000 meters have pb that are above the Olympic record. Gabreselasse's is 26:22.75 for example. Bekele 26:17.53 (WR). These guys dominated previous Olympics.

fa0019 wrote:Haile Gebrselassie was a very wealthy sportsman who raced in Europe all the time... if he wanted sports enhancing drugs and a doctor to administer them on the sly he would have found them easier then had he wanted paracetemol.

Its not that he did, or is suspected of doing so... but modern athletes who compete on the international stage have these things readily available.

Maybe but he wouldnt have at the start of his career. Logically there is less opportunity for a Ethopian fledgling to be exposed to drugs than a UK athlete.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Haile Gebrselassie was a very wealthy sportsman who raced in Europe all the time... if he wanted sports enhancing drugs and a doctor to administer them on the sly he would have found them easier then had he wanted paracetemol.

Its not that he did, or is suspected of doing so... but modern athletes who compete on the international stage have these things readily available.

Maybe but he wouldnt have at the start of his career. Logically there is less opportunity for a Ethopian fledgling to be exposed to drugs than a UK athlete.

And what kind of logic would that be?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Cant be a drugs as previous winners came from countries that would not have the funding or research capabilities for chemical assistance such as my favorite Olympian Haile Gebrselassie. Id say the odds of Mo Farrah taking drugs are higher than someone from Ethiopia.

  Gunsgerms
Dont be so naive, look at last years London Olympics, Nadzeya ostapchuk  denied  she was taking drugs ,on the basis that because she came from a poor country (Belarus) and that she couldnt possibly have access to drugs, what it was that she was deprived of was masking agents, but it stood out like dogs balls at the time to anyone with an iota of gumption/common sense that she was chemically assisted.

What a terrible example. Think you're the naive one. Belarus is a former soviet constituient and until 1990 would have had access to any drug programmes that the former soviet union had. They have a mirky past. Old habits die hard.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Cant be a drugs as previous winners came from countries that would not have the funding or research capabilities for chemical assistance such as my favorite Olympian Haile Gebrselassie. Id say the odds of Mo Farrah taking drugs are higher than someone from Ethiopia.

  Gunsgerms
Dont be so naive, look at last years London Olympics, Nadzeya ostapchuk  denied  she was taking drugs ,on the basis that because she came from a poor country (Belarus) and that she couldnt possibly have access to drugs, what it was that she was deprived of was masking agents, but it stood out like dogs balls at the time to anyone with an iota of gumption/common sense that she was chemically assisted.

What a terrible example. Think you're the naive one. Belarus is a former soviet constituient and until 1990 would have had access to any drug programmes that the former soviet union had. They have a mirky past. Old habits die hard.

OK you give me a better example from last years Olympics?????

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Cant be a drugs as previous winners came from countries that would not have the funding or research capabilities for chemical assistance such as my favorite Olympian Haile Gebrselassie. Id say the odds of Mo Farrah taking drugs are higher than someone from Ethiopia.

  Gunsgerms
Dont be so naive, look at last years London Olympics, Nadzeya ostapchuk  denied  she was taking drugs ,on the basis that because she came from a poor country (Belarus) and that she couldnt possibly have access to drugs, what it was that she was deprived of was masking agents, but it stood out like dogs balls at the time to anyone with an iota of gumption/common sense that she was chemically assisted.

What a terrible example. Think you're the naive one. Belarus is a former soviet constituient and until 1990 would have had access to any drug programmes that the former soviet union had. They have a mirky past. Old habits die hard.

 OK you give me a better example from last years Olympics?????

http://news.discovery.com/adventure/extreme-sports/ye-shiwen-doping-scandal-olympic-swimming-120801.htm

Ye Schiwen from China. Would you be surprised if she was doping?

The difference between her and the Belarusian is that the Chinese dont get caught because they have more advanced doping programmes.

GunsGerms wrote:One of the things that I found interesting at the last Olympics is that some of Britain's top names won gold with very slow times.

Mo Farrah's time of 27:30.42 for 10,000 meter gold would not have been good enough to win gold for any of the previous 7 Olympics and would only have been good enough to get bronze twice at best in the previous 7.

Why the sudden and very sigificant drop in quality? The previous gold winner in 2008 Kenenisa Bekele did it in a time of 27:01. Why the big difference?

farah did what he needed to win. he has the fastest last lap of anyone at 5k or 10k. so if they wanted to beat him someone should have gone much harder much earlier. farah won at 5k and 10k at the olympics, then again this summer at the world champs. even your fave heile hasnt done that. time is completely irrelevant - no mdeals for a particular time. winning is all that matters.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Haile Gebrselassie was a very wealthy sportsman who raced in Europe all the time... if he wanted sports enhancing drugs and a doctor to administer them on the sly he would have found them easier then had he wanted paracetemol.

Its not that he did, or is suspected of doing so... but modern athletes who compete on the international stage have these things readily available.

Maybe but he wouldnt have at the start of his career. Logically there is less opportunity for a Ethopian fledgling to be exposed to drugs than a UK athlete.

Perhaps, but you could also argue that the UK has more obstacles to using and getting away with drugs then someone in a developing nation. Its true that out of competition testing is near zero in countries where athletes do not compete in sanctioned international competitions. Athletes from these countries have enough time to take their "supplements" whilst training at home and then returning to Europe clean and ready for competition and testing.

That chap anyhow was world class as a teenager. Like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete. Farah is the best at the moment. Its a different class but his multi-skilled achievements means he should be celebrated as such.

Then again, everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt.... until 2 years ago, Lance Armstrong would have ranked high as a role model, the most tested athlete of all time etc.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Cant be a drugs as previous winners came from countries that would not have the funding or research capabilities for chemical assistance such as my favorite Olympian Haile Gebrselassie. Id say the odds of Mo Farrah taking drugs are higher than someone from Ethiopia.

  Gunsgerms
Dont be so naive, look at last years London Olympics, Nadzeya ostapchuk  denied  she was taking drugs ,on the basis that because she came from a poor country (Belarus) and that she couldnt possibly have access to drugs, what it was that she was deprived of was masking agents, but it stood out like dogs balls at the time to anyone with an iota of gumption/common sense that she was chemically assisted.

What a terrible example. Think you're the naive one. Belarus is a former soviet constituient and until 1990 would have had access to any drug programmes that the former soviet union had. They have a mirky past. Old habits die hard.

 OK you give me a better example from last years Olympics?????

http://news.discovery.com/adventure/extreme-sports/ye-shiwen-doping-scandal-olympic-swimming-120801.htm

Ye Schiwen from China. Would you be surprised if she was doping?

The difference between her and the Belarusian is that the Chinese dont get caught because they have more advanced doping programmes.

And isnt that what I told you an hour ago? its not the access to the drugs its the access to the masking agents.

Fa I'm not saying Farrah is on drugs at all. With his times it is unlikely. Just wondering where the competition has gone.

From what I read about him he was not world class as a teenager but got to where he is now through a lot of hard work and an abundance of resources and good choices. He didnt qualify for the Bejing 5000 meters final for example.

Bolt by contrast won everything as a teenager. I dont think you can compare him to Bolt.

GunsGerms wrote:Fa I'm not saying Farrah is on drugs at all. With his times it is unlikely. Just wondering where the competition has gone.

From what I read about him he was not world class as a teenager but got to where he is now through a lot of hard work and an abundance of resources and good choices. He didnt qualify for the Bejing 5000 meters final for example.

Bolt by contrast won everything as a teenager. I dont think you can compare him to Bolt.

Wasn't comparing Bolt to Farah, was comparing Bolt to Gebrselassie

aucklandlaurie wrote:

And isnt that what I told you an hour ago? its not the access to the drugs its the access to the masking agents.

So basically you're happy to admit you are contradicting yourself. Logically countries with greater resources are more likely to take drugs because they are more likely to get away with it.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Fa I'm not saying Farrah is on drugs at all. With his times it is unlikely. Just wondering where the competition has gone.

From what I read about him he was not world class as a teenager but got to where he is now through a lot of hard work and an abundance of resources and good choices. He didnt qualify for the Bejing 5000 meters final for example.

Bolt by contrast won everything as a teenager. I dont think you can compare him to Bolt.

Wasn't comparing Bolt to Farah, was comparing Bolt to Gebrselassie

"Like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete."

Dwain Chambers a UK drug cheat got his drugs not by a UK state sponsored programme but by emigrating to the US and joining a programme (free for all athletes of all nations) at the time dependant on talent obviously.

You guys are talking of state sponsored. Nothing stops athletes from all over the world going to Europe, America etc and doping.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Fa I'm not saying Farrah is on drugs at all. With his times it is unlikely. Just wondering where the competition has gone.

From what I read about him he was not world class as a teenager but got to where he is now through a lot of hard work and an abundance of resources and good choices. He didnt qualify for the Bejing 5000 meters final for example.

Bolt by contrast won everything as a teenager. I dont think you can compare him to Bolt.

Wasn't comparing Bolt to Farah, was comparing Bolt to Gebrselassie

"Like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete."

"That chap anyhow was world class as a teenager. Like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete. Farah is the best at the moment. Its a different class but his multi-skilled achievements means he should be celebrated as such".

That chap is Gebrselassie. like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete. Farah (on the other hand) is the best at the moment. Its a different class (i.e. between Bolt, Gebrselassie....... and Farah).

GunsGerms wrote:One of the things that I found interesting at the last Olympics is that some of Britain's top names won gold with very slow times.

Mo Farrah's time of 27:30.42 for 10,000 meter gold would not have been good enough to win gold for any of the previous 7 Olympics and would only have been good enough to get bronze twice at best in the previous 7.

Why the sudden and very sigificant drop in quality? The previous gold winner in 2008 Kenenisa Bekele did it in a time of 27:01. Why the big difference?

Its all about tactics - Farrah is a fast sprinter so wouldn't want the sustained fast pace which would suit the slower, stronger guys. For him it is all about timing his breakaway and leaving the other fellah's for dust.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Fa I'm not saying Farrah is on drugs at all. With his times it is unlikely. Just wondering where the competition has gone.

From what I read about him he was not world class as a teenager but got to where he is now through a lot of hard work and an abundance of resources and good choices. He didnt qualify for the Bejing 5000 meters final for example.

Bolt by contrast won everything as a teenager. I dont think you can compare him to Bolt.

Wasn't comparing Bolt to Farah, was comparing Bolt to Gebrselassie

"Like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete."

"That chap anyhow was world class as a teenager. Like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete. Farah is the best at the moment. Its a different class but his multi-skilled achievements means he should be celebrated as such".

That chap is Gebrselassie. like Bolt he was a once a generation athlete. Farah (on the other hand) is the best at the moment. Its a different class (i.e. between Bolt, Gebrselassie....... and Farah).

Ok get you now.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

And isnt that what I told you an hour ago? its not the access to the drugs its the access to the masking agents.

So basically you're happy to admit you are contradicting yourself. Logically countries with greater resources are more likely to take drugs because they are more likely to get away with it.

Quite the contrary, Im saying that athletes from lesser resourced countries have outdated " Drugs" that are more easily traced, plus the fact that they have less access to masking agents, and return a positive test.......There is no evidence to prove that athletes from more sophisticated countries are more likely to be chemically assisted at the Olympics.

fa0019 wrote:Dwain Chambers a UK drug cheat got his drugs not by a UK state sponsored programme

Like a wise man once said - find me the sub 10 second sprinter and I'll find you a cheat but find me the sub 9.9 sprinter or a tour de france winner and I'll find you a systematic wide spread doping program.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

And isnt that what I told you an hour ago? its not the access to the drugs its the access to the masking agents.

So basically you're happy to admit you are contradicting yourself. Logically countries with greater resources are more likely to take drugs because they are more likely to get away with it.

Quite the contrary, Im saying that athletes from lesser resourced countries have outdated " Drugs" that are more easily traced, plus the fact that they have less access to masking agents, and return a positive test.......There is no evidence to prove that athletes from more sophisticated countries are more likely to be chemically assisted at the Olympics.

No Ethiopian for example has ever tested positive for drugs at the Olympics.

i think only 1 long distance runner (a Finn in 1984) has failed a doping test at the olympics. thing is, everyone knows when the olympics are, so you'd have to be as stupid as ben johnson to fail a test at a race that you knew the dates of years in advance.

did you ever consider that the reason mo farah is winning in slower times might have something to do with the fact more rigorous doping testing in africa (out of competition and random, although its still pretty patchy) in recent years has dragged the times down? thats certainly more likely than mo farah having taken PEDs.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

And isnt that what I told you an hour ago? its not the access to the drugs its the access to the masking agents.

So basically you're happy to admit you are contradicting yourself. Logically countries with greater resources are more likely to take drugs because they are more likely to get away with it.

Quite the contrary, Im saying that athletes from lesser resourced countries have outdated " Drugs" that are more easily traced, plus the fact that they have less access to masking agents, and return a positive test.......There is no evidence to prove that athletes from more sophisticated countries are more likely to be chemically assisted at the Olympics.

No Ethiopian for example has ever tested positive for drugs at the Olympics.

Well altitude and a couple of genetic advantages help a great deal. But a doping culture doesnt always need a big budget. One expert former East German is all that it takes.

It is a very cynical view though. If every performance you see is in your mind dominated by artificial aids whats the point in watching sport?

Oh and as for GB buying success at the last Olympics. Well, yes we did- but what does that actually mean? Mostly that means atheletes actually being able to train full time instead of part time, and having better access to good coaches and decent training facilities. Its not actually some sinister process or even rocket science...

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

And isnt that what I told you an hour ago? its not the access to the drugs its the access to the masking agents.

So basically you're happy to admit you are contradicting yourself. Logically countries with greater resources are more likely to take drugs because they are more likely to get away with it.

Quite the contrary, Im saying that athletes from lesser resourced countries have outdated " Drugs" that are more easily traced, plus the fact that they have less access to masking agents, and return a positive test.......There is no evidence to prove that athletes from more sophisticated countries are more likely to be chemically assisted at the Olympics.

No Ethiopian for example has ever tested positive for drugs at the Olympics.

Well altitude and a couple of genetic advantages help a great deal. But a doping culture doesnt always need a big budget. One expert former East German is all that it takes.

It is a very cynical view though. If every performance you see is in your mind dominated by artificial aids whats the point in watching sport?Oh and as for GB buying success at the last Olympics. Well, yes we did- but what does that actually mean? Mostly that means atheletes actually being able to train full time instead of part time, and having better access to good coaches and decent training facilities. Its not actually some sinister process or even rocket science...

Its hardly cynical if you see an athlete turn up at the London Olympics after 3 months disappearing from International mcompetition and throwing shot putts consistently at the distance that that same athlete could only throw once every two or three tournaments, and then prove positive for drugs like testosterone.

Well thats why we have drug testing and sanctions. doping in sports does ebb and flow, but its uses and effects vary from event to event.

Doping is also not the only reason why atheletes improve their game.

lostinwales wrote:
Oh and as for GB buying success at the last Olympics. Well, yes we did- but what does that actually mean? Mostly that means atheletes actually being able to train full time instead of part time, and having better access to good coaches and decent training facilities. Its not actually some sinister process or even rocket science...

Quite. British funding of sport is something to be proud of, not criticise.

Exactly, if only they diverted some of that "foreign aid" paid out to countries with space programmes And nuclear weapons programmes Britain might hit it's potential per capita wise.

GE you know you can sod off home if you hate it so much here.

Cyril wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
Oh and as for GB buying success at the last Olympics. Well, yes we did- but what does that actually mean? Mostly that means atheletes actually being able to train full time instead of part time, and having better access to good coaches and decent training facilities. Its not actually some sinister process or even rocket science...

Quite. British funding of sport is something to be proud of, not criticise.

I didnt suggest otherwise. Its great to be able to invest in sport. I think it should be as much a consideration as per capita tables. All Olympic athletes have talent the medalists are usually the ones who have had access to the best and most resources. As such a for country like Lithuania with very little funding and approx 3m people 5 medals is an excellent return and every bit as impressive in my opinion as GB's haul.

bad example guns. lithuania's gold medal winning swimmer ruta meilutyte lives and trains....at school in Devon. so strictly speaking that's GB's resources again.

quinsforever wrote:bad example guns. lithuania's gold medal winning swimmer ruta meilutyte lives and trains....at school in Devon. so strictly speaking that's GB's resources again.

Where does Mo Farrah live and train?

Mo Farah is like a one-man athletics version of the Barbarians.

for the last two years with alberto salazar in the US.

they have pretty good resources over there too, i agree.

quinsforever wrote:bad example guns. lithuania's gold medal winning swimmer ruta meilutyte lives and trains....at school in Devon. so strictly speaking that's GB's resources again.

I am aware of how people in GB try to claim Ruta Meilutyte as one of their own as is the norm there there exists any obscure link. Mark Foster idiotically claimed it was a triumph for GB in his commentary of the race only to be told off by Clare Balding. Basically she is as Lithuanian as they come regardless of where she trains.

Should Ireland claim Bolt's victories are a victory for Ireland because his manager is Irish?

GunsGerms wrote:

quinsforever wrote:bad example guns. lithuania's gold medal winning swimmer ruta meilutyte lives and trains....at school in Devon. so strictly speaking that's GB's resources again.

I am aware of how people in GB try to claim Ruta Meilutyte as one of their own as is the norm there there exists any obscure link. Mark Foster idiotically claimed it was a triumph for GB in his commentary of the race only to be told off by Clare Balding. Basically she is as Lithuanian as they come regardless of where she trains.

Should Ireland claim Bolt's victories are a victory for Ireland because his manager is Irish?

grow up. i am pointing out that the 3 years where meiluyte has spent the most important developmental swimming years were on scholarship at plymouth college. i wasnt claiming she was any nationality, just that the resources which you directly mention were in this instance british resources. you werent discussing nationality, just resources, and you used lithuanian olympic performance to make your case.

if you're just trolling you're going to have to be a bit cleverer about it. GE could teach you a few lessons. At least he reads and understands everyone's posts before trying to wind up.

A little difference on an established athlete having a manager from country x and an athlete moving to UK aged 13 and has for the last 3 years been developing under the facilities within the country.
Nevertheless given she was already by accounts a top swimmer when she arrived it didn't mean much anyhow. Just one of those rare persons who would have been successful whether she was in the Gabon, Russia, the UK or Bolivia... it wouldn't have mattered.

I think its really funny how its quite common for people in GB to claim it as a victory for GB. Wierd.

GunsGerms wrote:

quinsforever wrote:bad example guns. lithuania's gold medal winning swimmer ruta meilutyte lives and trains....at school in Devon. so strictly speaking that's GB's resources again.

I am aware of how people in GB try to claim Ruta Meilutyte as one of their own as is the norm there there exists any obscure link. Mark Foster idiotically claimed it was a triumph for GB in his commentary of the race only to be told off by Clare Balding. Basically she is as Lithuanian as they come regardless of where she trains.

Should Ireland claim Bolt's victories are a victory for Ireland because his manager is Irish?

Not such a far fetched concept.

For many years the Welsh media couldn't make any reference to Jonah Lomu without adding "and his Welsh manager".

Wow

This thread took a wrong turn down serious avenue...

GunsGerms wrote:I think its really funny how its quite common for people in GB to claim it as a victory for GB. Wierd.

Well to be honest Guns I hear a lot of chat from people from Ireland saying things like... "ah Rooney, he has Irish ancestry, you can say thank-you anytime etc".

Same with people of obvious Irish ancestry all of the world.

I honestly have never heard anyone in Ireland claim Wayne Rooney. JFK yes, Rooney no. You can keep Tyson Fury too...unless he beats Haye, in which case he's ours.

Thanks.

Cyril wrote:GE you know you can sod off home if you hate it so much here.

Who would stimulate these interesting discussions if I left Cyril?

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think its really funny how its quite common for people in GB to claim it as a victory for GB. Wierd.

Well to be honest Guns I hear a lot of chat from people from Ireland saying things like... "ah Rooney, he has Irish ancestry, you can say thank-you anytime etc".

Same with people of obvious Irish ancestry all of the world.

Well unfortualtely he does. Look at the head on him plus Rooney is a fairly common name in Ireland. Mind you you wont hear me boasting about that, you can have him. Ruta Meilutyte couldnt be any less British though.

rodders wrote:I honestly have never heard anyone in Ireland claim Wayne Rooney. JFK yes, Rooney no. You can keep Tyson Fury too...unless he beats Haye, in which case he's ours.

Thanks.

That actually came from a Dara O''Briain performance I saw long ago.

Lets not talk about JFK on here... we don't want the chat to skew too much... we're already way into conspiracy's already.

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
Oh and as for GB buying success at the last Olympics. Well, yes we did- but what does that actually mean? Mostly that means atheletes actually being able to train full time instead of part time, and having better access to good coaches and decent training facilities. Its not actually some sinister process or even rocket science...

Quite. British funding of sport is something to be proud of, not criticise.

I didnt suggest otherwise. Its great to be able to invest in sport. I think it should be as much a consideration as per capita tables. All Olympic athletes have talent the medalists are usually the ones who have had access to the best and most resources. As such a for country like Lithuania with very little funding and approx 3m people 5 medals is an excellent return and every bit as impressive in my opinion as GB's haul.

But on that scale all you need is one very very good athelete to make a huge difference. Having a swimmer helps too because of the number of medals that one athelete has possibilities of winning. As has been pointed out her success was because of her abilities and very little to do with funding from Lithuania.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:GE you know you can sod off home if you hate it so much here.

Who would stimulate these interesting discussions if I left Cyril?

I think we'd find a way of managing. Be nice to get a chance to try

You can keep Dara too, and Graham Norton.... Terry Wogan is still ours though, and Bob Geldof. Thanks.

rodders wrote:You can keep Dara too, and Graham Norton.... Terry Wogan is still ours though, and Bob Geldof. Thanks.

Not Bob Geldof!!!  

Jokes aside, I'd be happy if you chucked in his pointless kids too. They're yours.... have them.

Whatever happened to The Corrs?

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
Oh and as for GB buying success at the last Olympics. Well, yes we did- but what does that actually mean? Mostly that means atheletes actually being able to train full time instead of part time, and having better access to good coaches and decent training facilities. Its not actually some sinister process or even rocket science...

Quite. British funding of sport is something to be proud of, not criticise.

I didnt suggest otherwise. Its great to be able to invest in sport. I think it should be as much a consideration as per capita tables. All Olympic athletes have talent the medalists are usually the ones who have had access to the best and most resources. As such a for country like Lithuania with very little funding and approx 3m people 5 medals is an excellent return and every bit as impressive in my opinion as GB's haul.

But on that scale all you need is one very very good athelete to make a huge difference. Having a swimmer helps too because of the number of medals that one athelete has possibilities of winning. As has been pointed out her success was because of her abilities and very little to do with funding from Lithuania.

She only won one medal!?! In my opinion Laura Asadauskaitė's gold for the penthalon was just as impressive. In recent Oylmpics Lithuania have won 5 medals three times. Sydney, London and Beijing. Each time a different person won each medal.

Lithuania has always struggled to fund athletes which makes their achievements all the more impressive. For example the Greatful Dead sponsored the Lithuania basketball teams participation in the Barcelona games.