It's a bit like writing an argument about a film, only to receive a very long and rather boring response about how cinema projectors work, complete with a diagram. My favourite part is the repeated insinuation that there's something sexist about using the men's side of the sport to illustrate one aspect of an argument, even while admitting in passing that similar examples from the women's side of the sport could be used to make the same argument. Of course absolutely nothing in the post actually engages at all with the central arguments it's supposedly countering - (1) that track cycling has the shallowest talent pool of any many-medal sport at the Olympics at professional level. (2) It has the smallest grassroots participant base of any such sport at grassroots level by an order of magnitude. (3) Only one and a half countries have a remotely serious track programme. I wonder why that is.