de Vos said that some of the success of sailing, swimming and cycling came from 'technological doping.' That caused an uproar and he defended the comments by saying:
I actually agree with de Vos that money goes a long way in certain sports way more so than running. I also think there's a reason why only non-third world countries win in certain sports like swimming, cycling, etc - namely it takes a ton of money to be good in these sports.
de Vos said:
"I made the point, and perhaps it was an ill-chosen phrase, that one of the reasons we do well in certain sports is perhaps because we have the financial wherewithal to achieve a level that others can't.
"There are some sports where certain well-applied financial modals can bring you a certain advantage.
"My point was that it doesn't apply in athletics.
"It's very, very hard to achieve that."
But does anyone besides me find his complaints to be incredibly ironic/myopic?
Does he not think Britain's #1 star of the Olympics Mo Farah benefited from every technological advantage in the world (that doesn't mean he didn't win gold)? How can de Vos not see that?
With crytoherapy, alter-gs, altitude tents, etc - Mo has it all at his disposal so much so that Jos Hermens was upset after the Olympic 10,000 and basically said "science, not sport won."
Yet de Vos thinks its a good idea to rip other sports?
Disclaimer: Because the word doping is used in the title, I'm sure some people are going to rip me for accusing Mo of drugs. I'm not doing that. I'm saying given what we know his group does, how can de Vos think it's a good idea to complain about financial advantages as Britain's #1 track star benefits from these same advantages?