BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Browse: Athletics

44 comments

user rating: 3 star

Two Medals Only!!

by Flyingperkins2 (U13805089) 06 August 2009
comment on the article

Two medals for Britain forecast by respected athletic journalist Doug Gillon

www.heraldscotland.com/sport...

Rankings suggest only two GB medals
Doug Gillon

IF World Championship medals were awarded on the basis of this yearís current ranking lists, Britain would win only two: gold from the heptathlete Jessica Ennis and bronze in the menís 4 x 400 metres.

The Herald has analysed the effective world lists Ė rankings of those who will actually be present in Berlin where the event opens a week on Saturday. For example, 26 athletes have run faster than British 100m No.1 Simeon Williamson this year, but of these, only 14 will compete in Germany. A nation can enter three per event, or four if a defending world champion is included, as is the case with Tyson Gay in the 100 and 200m.

The 48 British entries for individual events include only two women and three men who are ranked in the world top 10 this year Ė hinting at the doomsday scenario of just five individual finalists.



Is he being overly optimistic?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by LeePom (U13725922)

posted Aug 8, 2009

"It just seems clear that these are not isolated incidents [of doping offences] and an awful lot more is going on." - I agree.
I just disagree with you when you think that this problem is not applicable to the UK or to the US or that the Russians are the main offenders in this matter. Once again, I ask the question - how many tests did Jones and Chambers pass BEFORE they got caught? Therefore I would suggest that the IAAF experts tell us in the UK/US/elsewhere ... what do we need to do better to catch the Marion Jones and Dwain Chambers of this world before they get onto that podium. In this matter we should see what we can do better, too.
Unlike you I also think that the IAAF spending a lot of time with the testers in Russia is a positive sign that the Russian Authorities DO take this matter seriously otherwise they would just refuse to cooperate.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 9, 2009

Rankings suggest only two GB medals
Doug Gillon

IF World Championship medals were awarded on the basis of this yearís current ranking lists, Britain would win only two: gold from the heptathlete Jessica Ennis and bronze in the menís 4 x 400 metres.

If we do only get two exactly how much will they have cost us, the public?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by alfie (U1730704)

posted Aug 9, 2009

How much will they cost?
Don't know Mr Perkins but it would be exactly twice as much as if my prediction is correct and we end up with 4 smiley

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 9, 2009

if you really work it out IP the money that comes from public taxes that was been awarded to UKA post Beijing for a 4 year cycle would work out at less than 1 pound per year per person in Britain. Wow what a huge investment you have made you must be really annoyed.

Why don't you try and work it out instead of crying on here again and again?

If only you put as much effort into your real life as you do on here maybe you would be in a position to make a difference.

Keep posting though, it's great entertainment

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 9, 2009

Radcliffe? Pavey? 400mrelay ? 100mrelay? Heptathlon? 5000m?

Should get two medals out of that lot I hope............

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 9, 2009

handy,
Pavey is expecting and has not competed this year doh

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 9, 2009

flying fool;
If only you put as much effort into your real life as you do on here maybe you would be in a position to make a difference.


Why would anyone want to try a difference to an unelected self appointed, undemocratic, non transparent , totalitarian oligarchy
you strange little monkey?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2009

It doesn't much matter what anyone here thinks of the cost of what ever little British athletes achieve in Berlin, but we can be sure that those in government will be looking at it with considerable concern because the media will make a meal of it if GB does not deliver in Berlin.

£60m in public money going to a sport ngb, UKA, over four years to deliver medals and finalists is not going to be looked at in quite the banal "only a £1 per person" way that fh fool thinks it is!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2009

"Why would anyone want to try a difference to an unelected self appointed, undemocratic, non transparent , totalitarian oligarchy
you strange little monkey?"

UKA were surely 'appointed' originally by an independent panel consisting of lay members plus employees of UK Sport, who were themselves appointed by the Department for Culture etc etc, who are created by our elected government.

This appointment happened because the elected representatives of the athletics clubs, BAF, mismanaged the finances so badly, the organisation went bust.

So I am not sure that elections are the answer to the problems you mention.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 15, 2009

Your general summary of how UKA's top management was appointed is correct. However, given that UK Sport pays the money (from the public purse) they would have certainly called the shots even if they took advice from "independent lay members of the selection panel"

The notion that BAF was replaced "because they went bust" is incorrect.

New Labour wanted to promote itself through sport and came up with the lottery funding scheme. They introduced their sport quangos, UK Sport and Sport England to ensure best use of public money to produce results. All very laudable, of course.

When they went to look at athletics and talked to Moorcroft they discovered that BAF was facing (likely) bankruptcy due to the Modalh case if she won her claim against the BAF. Hence the decision for the BAF to go into voluntary adminsitration making the way clear for a new national governing body, UKA Ltd to be founded.

They also saw that the AAA's was an entirely seperate clubs' owned governing body for England with a regional set up which did not match their administrative nine hubs EU model for England. Consequently, their now discredited 'Foster Review' on athletics was carried out which paved the way for the removal of the AAA's and the formation of a new unelected and Sport England controlled body, 'England Athletics.'

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5
    0 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3 100.00%
    1 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1
    0 votes

average rating:
3.00 from 1 votes