Brownlee The Elder does the business again. The Younger improves on last time to Silver.

Well done to the pair.

That's the least I would have expected. They train all year for these events.

Right Sal Paradise?

Absolutely - if the did't have the money to train full time then they would have no chance of winning medals - how many of that field train full time and did the ones that train full time finish ahead of those that don't?

The budget for GB cycling is £32m that is approx £3m a medal - it dwarfs every other country in terms of investment - so should we be surprised when they win more medals than everyone else?

Were you surprised when Wigan dominated RL when they were the only team spending enough money to train full time?

It is no surprise that since the lottery funding has kicked in our success at the Olympics has increased significantly - if you can't see the correlation then you are just arguing to be an .

Again though, where has anybody expressed surprise? People know about the funding but in British sports spending cash and being successful hasn't always gone hand in hand.

No one will be surprised we did so well in the cycling given our last few Olympics but our medal count isn't just made up from cycling. And for GB and cycling you can point to other countries and the sports they're strong in. China won 7 medals in weightlifting, GB only sent 2 competitors. GB men's doubles won a bronze in badminton against s Chinese team even though they started the games as big outsiders not expected to medal and badminton is one of China's strong sports.

We've won golds in 13 different sports so far (which Nicola Adams and the hockey women potentially bumping that number up), in contrast USA in 9, China in only 8. Poor form to then sh*t over the achievement.

And that for me is a problem for British sport, we try to be good at everything, with different sports having influence in different areas. Would RL gain from having elite athletes who excel in other fields. On the converse side of course there could be a counter argument that other sports where we are more competitive internationally may benefit from having the top RL athletes competing in their sports rather than in RL.

That isn't really a problem.

Not a problem, but it makes it harder to achieve the elite standard due to reducing the talent pool in each sport.

[list=[/listThe Athletes still have to achieve a relative level of success to justify future funding and Sports/athletes like Basketball have lost funding for not performing. If anyone wants to 'dismiss' GBs success due to disparity in funding then I assume that when comparing the relative strengths of Super League and the NRL/England and Australia that they will be equally dismissive of Australias success and no longer bemoan our own shortcomings.

From personal experience I have seen the impact of the School Sport Partnerships since their inception in the early 2000s on increasing diversity of opportunities, developing competitive sport, hight quality PE and School sport as well as developing school to club links. There was a time that if school students weren't into Football, Netball, rugby, Hockey, athletics and Cricket then sport wasn't considered for them and this has had a big shift with the diversity of opportunities that are now able to be supported initially in schools. Elite athletes have often pointed to the SSPs as a major influence on their early career.

Well done to Jade Jones. Olympic Gold Medallist, and fifth hardest woman in Flint.

Nothing wrong with purchasing Olympic medals thekingmaker.me/team-gb-funding-vs-medals/ Anyone else enjoying the bread and circuses and the feel-good factor inherent in winning Olympic medals? East Germany used to be exactly the same in the 70's and 80's. [iTeam East Germany Olympic Medal Tally..... 1972: 20, 23, 23 = 66 1976: 40, 25, 25 = 90 1980: 47, 37, 42 = 126 1984: Did Not Compete 1988: 37, 35, 30 = 102[/i https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ?CMP=fb_gu

Nothing wrong with purchasing Olympic medals thekingmaker.me/team-gb-funding-vs-medals/ Anyone else enjoying the bread and circuses and the feel-good factor inherent in winning Olympic medals? East Germany used to be exactly the same in the 70's and 80's. [iTeam East Germany Olympic Medal Tally..... 1972: 20, 23, 23 = 66 1976: 40, 25, 25 = 90 1980: 47, 37, 42 = 126 1984: Did Not Compete 1988: 37, 35, 30 = 102[/i https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ?CMP=fb_gu

The millions of people (children especially) who are inspired by the games has a profoundly positive impact on many areas of society.

"Who needs to cheat with drugs when medals go to money? Perhaps the best answer is for countries that have no money to be allowed drugs, to level the playing field. They are cheaper."

What a load of nonsense, that's how sport works, those that can and do invest reap the rewards. Britain cant win in that case, if we don't invest people complain about abject failure if we do invest its tantamount to cheating?!

Team GB's success in the Rio Games is a vindication of state investment in elite sport.

For all the savage cuts in public spending, elite-level sport has remained austerity-proof as UK Sport received a 29% increase in funding last year, adding to the £350 million invested in Olympic sport during the current four year cycle.

The sadness is that Team GB's performances in elite sport contrasts with a crisis at grass roots level. As many as 10,000 school playing fields have been sold off since 1979, and over a quarter of the population engage in less than 30 minutes physical activity per week, and that includes walking!

For all the grandiose talk of folk being [i'inspired'[/i by an Olympic legacy since the 2012 games in London, participation in sport in England has declined, contributing to an obesity epidemic and mental health issues. This decline is more marked among the most economically deprived groups who have suffered the most from punitive cuts in local authority funding.

Each medal at Rio has cost an average of over £9 million of public money. This same public money being used to provide the very best training environments and facilities for an elite of super athletes, many of whom, particularly in rowing and sailing, are drawn from privately educated social elite classes.

Meanwhile, as a result of squeezed council budgets, hundreds of parks, playing fields, swimming pools and leisure centres have either been closed or cut back in what they can offer. Sport and leisure budgets in the UK are down by at least 25% since 2009-10.

As the supremely fit elite Olympic athletes harvest their medals for Team GB, the rest of the population grows visibly less fit and obese.

Three cheers for Team GB?

Not from me.

There are some figures that show there's still a lot of work to do, though is this endemic of society being entrenched in a fascination with technology, social media and other less strenuous activities.

The sale of playing fields has declined to an almost standstill since 1997. Primary school sport funding is at the highest it has ever been with schools due to receive upwards of £16000 a year to develop PE and School sport through the primary Sports Premium funding.

I see daily the impact that the Olympic legacy and the investment in school sport has on the young people in the 65 schools I work in. While there's work still needed there's so many success stories and so much positive work going on.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... ng-fields/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... ng-fields/

So yes, though still a concern, a much slower rate than the 10000 up to 1997. School sport has taken a direction of CPD for teachers so that the impact of high quality PE is more sustainable. Our partnership does employ 30 coaches/qualified PE teachers who work alongside the school teachers to support their development. There are 450 government funded School Games Organisers nationally who have driven up participation, competition, disability sport, health and well being programmes and Sports leadership to develop employability skills. School sport is better supported than at anytime during my career and I don't need the national press to advise me on that.

Sensationalist media and opposition party skew the argument in their favour without applying context, surely not. As I said... "However a Department for Education spokesman said: “These school playing field figures represent a tiny proportion of the total playing field land across the country and consent has only been granted where schools have demonstrated there is no impact on their sports curriculum.

“We are investing £160 million a year to PE and school sport and this will be doubled next year to £320 million through the primary PE and sport premium.

“One of the most common uses for the PE and sport premium is to up-skill and train existing staff so that there isn’t a reliance on external sports coaches.”

The sale of school playing fields not at an [i'almost standstill'[/i then.

I'm pleased we've established that fact.

From the link I provided above...

[iOther official figures show a big fall off in the number of sports coaches teaching a variety of sports from archery, wrestling, hockey to football in schools.

They show that between 2011 and 2015 that number of Level One coaches – who are qualified to run a safe and enjoyable games session in schools - fell by 65 per cent to 1,125.

More advanced Level Two coaches – who can work unsupervised - in schools in England and Wales was down 23 per cent to 2,249.

The number of more technical Level Three coaches was down by 9 per cent and Level Four coaches or “master coaches” who a “deep understanding of learning techniques” were down by 11 per cent.[/i

And it's an ageing and sick population (rather than immigrants) which is causing the biggest squeeze on the NHS.

Well depends what your interpretation of a figure around 550+ a year up to 1997, dropping to one of around 30 a year is.

Your other bit about school sports coaches, yes I'm fully aware as this shows a trend to a more sustainable model of upskilling existing teachers.

This of course is how forums work though, why engage in asking someone whos worked in the industry for 15 years when you can be your own Internet expert relying on media soundbites.

Is this the same William who told us all about how much he was looking forward to the 2014 FIFA World Cup (that clean cut FIFA organisation) now criticising the Olympics.

Don't like it then don't buy a lottery ticket and pick o e of the other 120 channels on TV.
Reckon it costs me around 8 quid a year in tax. I paid more than that for a bottle of wine last night.

LOL

Watching the bmx, looks a bit like something from it's a knockout

Well it's politically motivated withholding of proper structure and funding that's causing the biggest squeeze on the NHS.

What's the proper funding for the NHS? You could put the whole GDP of the UK into it and it still would not be enough.

What is the role of the NHS basic/essential care or is to offer fertility treatment, Aids help, breast augmentation, transgender realignment etc?

The NHS funding needs to, at the very least, keep up with the growth of the population. Otherwise it's funding is effectively being reduced. Of course if the NHS were structured properly and other structures were in place then the cost burden on the NHS could be reduced.

I'm not quite sure what your point is though. Are you agreeing or disagreeing that the NHS is currently squeezed for funds?


I think the NHS should provide all medical care, free, public and paid for through taxation.


You think the NHS shouldn't treat people who have AIDS?