Whats the opinion of members on Cycling Ireland

#1 · 09-12-2008 10:43pm #1

Whats the opinion of cycling ireland members on the national body for cycling in ireland at the moment. Personally i see it as a total mismanagement.
Would like to see constructive comments or fair criticisms if people are going to pass a remark on this.

Value for membership?

Insurance cover?

Managment of overall body?

Calendar of racing events?

High Performance Commission?

These are just some headings that might get people thinking.

Gavin · 09-12-2008 10:58pm

Why do you see it as total mismanagement?

quietobserver · 09-12-2008 11:13pm

Well firstly i see it that there is a lack of direction within the organisation, its a case of see what works in GB training and medals tables and lets copy cat that, nothing wrong with that in theory except for the fact that the basic steps of development get identified then overlooked. Development has to begin with the underage of the sport yet this is clearly made up of an approximate figure of 500. A mere 10% of all members of the organisation, the junior ratio is even worse, yet all this stems from plans that were implemented in the last four year development plan. Changes in who develops these plans and what i would suggest might be personal opinions leads to change in these plans and then the wheels come off the wagon.

The attraction of being a member cannot really be identified if it is outside the grounds of racing or reducing your costs for entry into leisure events run under cycling ireland, so how will this attract new youth into the scene. In the past there was an emphasis on the insurance cover that you have, yet how clear is this and when someone tries to sell you something on fear its often bought to have a quiet life.

When interviewed about the reasons for change in relation to the High performance comission GL response was as follows

What was the reason for the change?

GL: Well, I am not going to go into the specifics but we thought it would be sensible to, in line with most of the other governing bodies after the Olympics, to review the high performance team in terms of freshening things up and getting some new blood in.

We thought there was an opportunity to do that at this stage, so we thought it was sensible to do it.

This leaves me believing that they dont or didnt believe in the programme or the people in charge of it and found the most convient time to a change on the back of an event where we werent going to feature strongly as it was part of an "overall" development.

I guess i feel in full that cycling ireland is becoming a place for people to play politics on a smaller stage without the interest of the sport at heart and more related to the opportunites available to them within it.

rob1891 · 10-12-2008 12:51pm

I am coming from a mountain biking perspective, two years a full CI member, on and off racing for the craic. My opinion of CI is abysmal.

Value for membership?

nil

Insurance cover?

I've seen it put to good use in repairing a friends teeth, but it was very difficult to squeeze it out of them, and he was only covered thanks to being taken down by another CI member. I believe it is completely untested in MTB accidents and probably worthless.

Managment of overall body?

What management?

Calendar of racing events?

CI's contribution to this is absent, it is all down to the Clubs. Their insurance cover is the only role they have. Pathetic.

High Performance Commission?

Controversial, zero funding for world class mountain bikers in DH minimal funding available XC, where there are some very successful juniors and espoirs. Concentrating instead on on certain Track events where performance is 'measurable', where there is no art, no race craft, no chance. All in the pursuit of Olympic glory al la British Cycling. WTF? Where is the track exactly? And who cares about track? Sorry, but total rubbish. If the athlete is successful in his domain let him peruse it. F... track.

If they want to mimic BI, build a Manchester 10 years ago, have a Graham Obree and a Chris Boardman capture our attention for on and off for the last 20 years. Create a generation of cyclist who want to win on track, not tell the body of athletes with potential, X is where the money is, now go do it. Can't wait to see this fail at London 2012.

pffft!

penexpers · 10-12-2008 1:50pm

quietobserver wrote: »

i feel in full that cycling ireland is becoming a place for people to play politics on a smaller stage without the interest of the sport at heart and more related to the opportunites available to them within it.

Is this not what all amateur sporting organisations are like in Ireland?

tunney · 10-12-2008 2:09pm

rob1891 wrote: »

Insurance cover?

I've seen it put to good use in repairing a friends teeth, but it was very difficult to squeeze it out of them, and he was only covered thanks to being taken down by another CI member. I believe it is completely untested in MTB accidents and probably worthless.

Is the general insurance not intended for third party liabilty?

rob1891 wrote: »

Calendar of racing events?

CI's contribution to this is absent, it is all down to the Clubs. Their insurance cover is the only role they have. Pathetic.

Is this not the norm for NGBs? NGBs generally don't organise races.

High Performance Commission?

rob1891 wrote: »

Controversial, zero funding for world class mountain bikers in DH minimal funding available XC, where there are some very successful juniors and espoirs. Concentrating instead on on certain Track events where performance is 'measurable', where there is no art, no race craft, no chance. All in the pursuit of Olympic glory al la British Cycling. WTF? Where is the track exactly? And who cares about track? Sorry, but total rubbish. If the athlete is successful in his domain let him peruse it. F... track.

As passionately that you feel that DH and XC MTBing are fantastic events and, as you say, F... track. Others, including myself, feel the exact same way about MTBing - as in F... MTBing, is it *actually* a sport, particularly DH? So before you start slagging off other disciplines of cycling and saying that they should be excluded from High Performance programmes remember that not all cyclists share your opinions. I personally think DH MTBing has no place in any HP programme but I understand that others do not think the same and as such I could understand and accept if DH was in a HP programme.

ROK ON · 10-12-2008 2:15pm

penexpers wrote: »

Is this not what all amateur sporting organisations are like in Ireland?

No - what about the GAA and Boxing Ireland.

Morgan · 10-12-2008 2:49pm

tunney wrote: »

So before you start slagging off other disciplines of cycling and saying that they should be excluded from High Performance programmes

He didn't say any cycling disciplines should be excluded. His point was that all efforts are being targeted at the track and talented road and mtb riders are being pushed into it.

Raam · 10-12-2008 2:51pm

Why do they want to push people into track? We don't even have a proper track. However, we've lots of roads.

rob1891 · 10-12-2008 2:53pm

tunney wrote: »

Is the general insurance not intended for third party liabilty?

Yes it is, so if I run over a walker by accident, on technically illegal trails, while taking due care, I'd like to think I wouldn't get sued into bankruptcy. But with so little stated about the policy, it is impossible to know. I believe they are to make the wording available in the near future, thanks, how many years have they had it hidden under a pile of paper?

Is this not the norm for NGBs? NGBs generally don't organise races.

The level of assistance to clubs provided by CI is useless. Training of commissars is all I can think of. If no one bothers to take the task on completely by themselves, there will be no races, and what will CI govern? Thankfully people do, yet everyone has to give CI 100 euro a year to enjoy the fruits of the independent labour of some dedicated volunteers.

High Performance Commission?

As passionately that you feel that DH and XC MTBing are fantastic events and, as you say, F... track. Others, including myself, feel the exact same way about MTBing - as in F... MTBing, is it *actually* a sport, particularly DH? So before you start slagging off other disciplines of cycling and saying that they should be excluded from High Performance programmes remember that not all cyclists share your opinions. I personally think DH MTBing has no place in any HP programme but I understand that others do not think the same and as such I could understand and accept if DH was in a HP programme.

Track is a discipline that is attracting a far greater share of the available funds than it has representation in members and in success at an international level. This is because it is viewed as the easiest medal winning opportunity for "Cycling" in Ireland. Take any high performing cyclist and lure them into it with $$$ so we can win medals. Who cares about the folks who pour their lives into other kinds of cycling governed by CI, who cares that they are already achieving on an international scale with little or no support. A band of mercenaries can master a track event or two in a couple of years, qualify and maybe win us medals, because an individual's development to international excellence is not important at all. Don't fool yourself though, neither is track important. Medals matter, or an athlete in the final of /any/ event, that will keep the Sports Council happy.

So you are lucky that the track endurance events are so simple, artless and quantifiable. That CI is indentured to its paymasters, and that all anyone is interested in is an easy win.

Chips Lovell · 10-12-2008 3:00pm

I think there's a lot that can be learned from the GB model. Anyone interested in it should read Richard Moore's Heroes, Villains and Velodromes which recounts how British cycling turned itself around from a moribund association riven by infighting into an Olympic medal machine. Of course we're much further behind than the British were in terms of infrastructure. We don't even have an indoor track yet.

rob1891 wrote: »

...there is no art, no race craft, no chance.

You obviously don't know that much about track racing.

rob1891 · 10-12-2008 3:02pm

el tonto wrote: »

I think there's a lot that can be learned from the GB model. Anyone interested in it should read Richard Moore's Heroes, Villains and Velodromes which recounts how British cycling turned itself around from a moribund association riven by infighting into an Olympic medal machine. Of course we're much further behind than the British were in terms of infrastructure. We don't even have an indoor track yet.

You obviously don't know that much about track racing.

Obviously you don't know what events the money is going into. It ain't sprinting, that's for sure.

blorg · 10-12-2008 3:14pm

I think it's more just simply the number of medals available- out of 18 cycling medals, 10 go to track events (7 men/3 women.)

Road gets 4 medals (2/2), XC MTB 2 medals (1/1) and BMX 2 medals (1/1.)

Morgan · 10-12-2008 3:15pm

But should Olympic medals be the primary focus of a national cycling body?

Raam · 10-12-2008 3:17pm

Morgan wrote: »

But should Olympic medals be the primary focus of a national cycling body?

I value non Olympic racing (i.e. the classics and so on) higher than anything in the Olympics, but Joe Public couldn't give a fiddlers about Paris-Roubaix, or a Tour stage win as Cavendish has found out. Maybe that's behind the thinking?

tunney · 10-12-2008 3:18pm

Morgan wrote: »

But should Olympic medals be the primary focus of a national cycling body?

Is it not the case that NGBs only exist for olympic sports? (GAA not being an NGB)

As such is it not a reasonable expectation that olympic medals be the focus?

Chips Lovell · 10-12-2008 3:23pm

rob1891 wrote: »

Obviously you don't know what events the money is going into. It ain't sprinting, that's for sure.

Sprinting ain't the only form of racing. And there's an art to all of them.

Morgan wrote: »

But should Olympic medals be the primary focus of a national cycling body?

Good question. If its the most efficient way to get a.) more public recognition b.) more funding and c.) more young people involved, then why not?

British cycling went after Olympic success for these reasons, but also because at the time, road racing was riddled with EPO (which it still is to a certain extent). You're not going to get Lottery money and parents sending their kids into a sport that has someone getting busted for EPO once a fortnight. Instead they opted to develop clean, homegrown heroes.

I think we're a little different in that we have more of a history of road racing success from the Kelly/Roche years. They're still household names and it wouldn't take a whole lot to reactivate that. Dan Martin winning a stage in the Tour in the next few years would be as a big a boost as an Olympic medal (and possibly more likely to happen).

RobFowl · 10-12-2008 3:33pm

Morgan wrote: »

But should Olympic medals be the primary focus of a national cycling body?

It shouldn't but most of the sports council funding is based on Olympic performances and medals. So the NGB has to make them a major focus point otherwise it won't get funded.
Don't forget the board of CI are all unpaid volunteers, as are 99% of those you see at races and events week in week out.

Whats the opinion of members on Cycling Ireland

Comments