The bikes have been in development since 2000 or so, so to get to the "wiggins" spec machine may well have cost 500K over 8 years, but I'd guess to buy one of the current team GB bikes probably wouldn't cost 10 grand.
I speak from complete ignorance though.
I read somewhere that the British olympic cycling squad has more money spent on it than any other nation.
"I read somewhere that the British olympic cycling squad has more money spent on it than any other nation."
Tis supposedly true, I've read it on various cycling websites and heard it on the BBC commentary. Basically what this means is that the team found a highly prosperous sponsor in the 'sports nutrition'* sector with a substantially higher amount of funds than any other team, which they were able to use to develop the widest range, best quality and highest quantity of new, advanced, cutting edge, state-of-the-art, innovative, revolutionary cycling technology**.
*i.e. pharmaceutical
**i.e. undetectable 'designer' drugs for performance enhancement
thats very cynical and i dont think very fair, i didn't think there was much history of track cyclists being massive drug takers, i thought it was more the road scene. but please educate me if i'm wrong.
I used to think track cyclists were nothing more than weight lifters on bikes... now I realise there's a lot more too it than that.
I would imagine that the UCI doping standards apply to track cycling as well as road, so I assume that all winners and a random number of others are tested after races. I can't say I've heard one instance of there being a track rider convicted of doping, but maybe that's because it's just not as newsworthy as some road cyclists.
And while there may be some drugs that are untraceable, the effects they have on the body aren't so I'm sure red blood counts etc. are closely watched.
There's only one reason why Italy were the top nation for track riding in the mid nineties and now they don't even qualify for the world championships; EPO tests.
EPO improves endurance and most of the track events are about power & speed. I'd have thought that testosterone and roids would be a better bet for a sprinter.
They cant test for EPO can they? I thought they could only measure blood cell count; an abnormally high one is an indicator of EPO use but not proof of it.
dunno i can find out though. however i stand corrected on track cyclists as i found out today, apparently they take bicarbonate in order to make their urine samples alkaline. as a ph test has to be done on scene to make sure what is in the sample is actually urine, this makes it fail that. they are then asked to do i again, but again it fails, however they can only be asked twice for a sample under current regulations. however due to the fact that the drug officer has seen them pee, they havn't done anything wrong. however the Ph test is being gotten rid of soon so.....
Ofcourse they can test for EPO: for fuck's sake lance Armstrong has failed that test. EPO was used by many of the American track and field athletes (100m, 200m) who have been caught. As Fester says it allows you to train longer and harder. If it's useful for that kind of sprinting... It's also the case that no one just uses EPO: testosterone, HGH, insulin etc are all part of the programme; just google to see what Tyler Hamilton got for the $40,000 he spent every year on doping. Personally I'm going to miss doping scandals in cycling; they are a lot more interesting than another interview with someone who has nothing to say or a report on a race where nothing happened. My own view is that the British track team and the British riders in ProTour teams are clean; that is, no blood doping, hormones etc. That they can win so much is a sign that the sport is getting cleaner in general.