Quote from: Somniloquism on August 09, 2021, 12:29:33 PMQuote from: Brazilian Villain on August 08, 2021, 07:51:09 PMAnd didn't have to count Mo's "medals" this time. Seems you had to be involved in WWII to get in the top ten though. Mo's "Medals"? Any reason we shouldn't include them?It's because of his links to Salazar. I think a lot of the reaction is over the top but i can understand some people having a question mark next to him.
Quote from: Brazilian Villain on August 08, 2021, 07:51:09 PMAnd didn't have to count Mo's "medals" this time. Seems you had to be involved in WWII to get in the top ten though. Mo's "Medals"? Any reason we shouldn't include them?
And didn't have to count Mo's "medals" this time. Seems you had to be involved in WWII to get in the top ten though.
I thought this was quite interesting, a comparison to between medals won and funding received for the various UK sports at the Olympics. Was a bit suprosed to see that rowing had the highest amount of investment, which is now going to be cut because they performed so poorly. Swimming gets a lot less by comparison and they do much, much better.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/58112331
Quote from: Risso on August 09, 2021, 01:53:00 PMI thought this was quite interesting, a comparison to between medals won and funding received for the various UK sports at the Olympics. Was a bit suprosed to see that rowing had the highest amount of investment, which is now going to be cut because they performed so poorly. Swimming gets a lot less by comparison and they do much, much better.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/58112331Interesting figures there. Cycling is a broad church. There was a lot more investment to the track cycling in comparison to Women's BMX for example. Beth Shriever had little to no income yet managed to bring home the gold. I'm amazed at some of the amounts and wonder where all the cash is used.