UCI have gone and changed the rules so that each country can only have one rider per event http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/8664830.stm this smells highly to me. What's everyone else's thoughts

Team sprint will look a bit thin then.

strikes a bit like they dont want us too dominate but I guess you always have the dilemma of do you want the best athletes to compete or all the countires.

Knowing UCI does look a bit like when they went after Obree as well bunch of stiffs in suits IMHO.

It's a bit crap but

Team GB won seven out of 10 events at the 2008 Olympics, with four additional medals coming in the same events.

it'd only have meant us losing four non-gold medals at Beijing so not the end of the world though crap for the athletes who'll be left out.

Thats rubbish, surely if your the second best in the world at something you deserve to be recognised as such? Not excluded because someone who comes from the same country is better than you?

On the other hand, could be good for cycling in general if we win more events as they're forced to spread out through other ones?

What a bunch of gits. With the talent in team GB we'll still get most of the medals.

I’d have hope British Cycling would appeal against any such UCI proposal on the basis that it doesn’t conform with the Olympic Charter. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

After 10 mins of surfing/ reading, it seems that in the Olympic Charter, the 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism is: “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” Chapter 6 (Section 1) Goes on to say:” The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries. They bring together the athletes selected by their respective National Olympic Committees, whose entries have been accepted by the IOC. They compete under the technical direction of the Independent Federations concerned.”

I’d guess the UCI (the cycling Independent Federation) would argue that the proposed rule is applicable for all countries, and as it doesn’t discriminate against one particular country, and is therefore fair. Fair unless a county has a disproportionately high number of talented atheletes in one discipline. i.e. Team GB, or Australia, or France

To use an analogy: can you seriously imagine the International Ski Federation imposing the same rule? Would limiting each country to one skier in the downhill or any skiing event be accepted by the Swiss, French, German, Austrian, Scandanavian National Olympic Committees? How dull would the Vancouver winter olympics have been if that'd been the case?

Unfortunately I doubt if British Cycling’s lone voice would be strong enough to sway the UCI/IOC. Perhaps they’d need to link up with other strong track nations such as Australia to stand any chance? Imagine if the strongest track cycling nations threatened to boycott the games unless all their strongest riders, whom were likely to medal, were allowed to ride? Now that would be one way to stand up to the UCI!

Don't forget Le Tour has poked the UCI in the eye for many years now – maybe that explains the UCI control-freekery in all it's other events?

I don't agree with this. I can understand the reaction, British funding for track is probably well above other countries. However, it goes against sporting ethics. If there are 2 athletes from the same countly at the top at a similar level, its unfair to one of them. You might be 2nd best in the world but not allowed to compete. And the idea would never be applied to the 'mainstream' sports.

100 metres for people whose middle name starts with the letter D.

Utter nonsesnse that is, if it's not the "which country is has the single best" competition anyone should be able to compete, even if it's entirely one country.

I thought the UCI's remit was just to change the rules at random to disadvantage thouse they don't like. Seems to be my impression of them anyway.

How dull would the Vancouver winter olympics have been if that'd been the case?

erm….wasn't it dull enough?

To use an analogy: can you seriously imagine the International Ski Federation imposing the same rule? Would limiting each country to one skier in the downhill or any skiing event be accepted by the Swiss, French, German, Austrian, Scandanavian National Olympic Committees? How dull would the Vancouver winter olympics have been if that'd been the case?

Actually countries are limited in the number of competitors they can send to ski events (albeit to 4 entrants per event). Otherwise there would be no place for the Eddie the Eagles of this world who are clearly worse than the 200th best Norwegian ski jumpers.

Doesnt matter in skiing, if a small country, say Scotland win a medal and upset the order some way will be found to strip them of it.

It seems bullsh1t to me. It's complete discrimination and if you don't have similar rules for every event, what purpose does it serve.

These athletes have one shot at being recognised as some of the best in the world after years of training?

Who the f@ck do the UCI think they are, if this is all they can contribute? they shouldn't even be in a job.

Who exactly are they. where are they based and what kind of people are they. I would very much like to know.

If the best in the world don't compete because of some trumped up pompous numpties is it really a proper event?

Lets face it, at the last event the UCI commisaires denied Vicki Pendleton a gold even though the person who came in ahead of her obviously didn't hold the racing line on the last corner – because the medal places had been decided and the winners lined up in order.

I think that the UCI are generally showing bias against british cycling due to the success of recent years. Sadly will probably mean that the ASO will take a similar stance in the grand tours.

Hang on, hang on.. to those high horses..

In cross-country mountain biking, there will be a maximum of three male riders and two female riders per nation.

you clearly never read to the bottom because if you did maybe you would have seen that on the mtb ( which is of course the purpose of the forums existence) we have been given more saddle space than we currently have podium capable bums of sitting on. If cutting back the number of tack saddles causes BC to work now to get better representation across the board in other disciplines inc MTB, which for mountain biking means dropping the science lab stuff and getting some old fashion coaching schemes going and nurturing new talent to stay on mtb's rather than sucking them into the velodrome then for mountain biking then this is a great move by the UCI.

The UCI would appear to be the vassels of the IOC on formulating the cycling discipline so I doubt anything they are doing falls outside of forthcoming edicts from the IOC. I for one will conceed the UCI are likely more often than me or most riders I know to be in a better position to place the sport to gain greater exposure and increase opportunity for cyclists to excel and be giants in the world of sport.

The chat section for threads is about what ever the person who innitiates the chat decides, so not good for your argument mAx_hEadSet .

We are discussing having only one rider per event per country.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-appoints-new-members-to-protour-council

This is outrageous!!!

If these fools on the UCI council do not understand or cannot graps that their actions are a direct contradiction and are in opposition to the rules and spirit of the common wealth games, they have no right to fill the positions they do!

Fire exit, ass, kick!!!