The London Olympics

[Gurn Blanston]

It looks like he hath engaged in experimental sexual frolics.  But on the brighter side, I too wish him a speedy and full recovery, poor fellow.

To be more clinical if I may for a moment, John; it looks more to me as though experimental sexual frolics will be naught but a fond memory for him. Poor bastard! 

[knight66]

Thank you for letting us know that Mike.  I went nuts and write a long diatrible about it, then discovered this in the English press:
"China made the ruling to stop protesters waving the flag of Tibet. "
"Flags of nations that are not competing will be confiscated..."
It applies to the English national flag also.  So whilst still disgruntled, I eventually deleted my rant.  :-(

With more sports and events to come, I am glad to see the Olympics opening up and being discussed by proper Olympians and sports people on the BBC, not newsreaders gloating over how great London is for all this.

PS:  As you may remember Mike, there are no 'free speech' laws in the UK whatsoever, just like we have no bill of rights and stuff.

John, I remember reading somewhere that in English law, whatever is not forbidden is permitted. So by inference we have free speech except to the extent it is constrained, but as time moves on we experience an increase of restriction. I don't know what the differences are in Scots law in this subject. They have different roots.

Mike

[mc ukrneal]

Here's a really minor issue. What I don't understand is why some countries order the medal count by golds only. It's like the others (silver and bronze) don't mean anything.

[Karl Henning]

Because winning is all that matters!  Everybody knows that!

[TheGSMoeller]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6dlyCTswYH0&feature=g-logo-xit


Ladies and gentlemen, US Olympic gold medalist, Ryan Lochte.

[mc ukrneal]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6dlyCTswYH0&feature=g-logo-xit


Ladies and gentlemen, US Olympic gold medalist, Ryan Lochte.

As Mel Brooks would say, Oy vey.

[Opus106]

Here's a really minor issue. What I don't understand is why some countries order the medal count by golds only. It's like the others (silver and bronze) don't mean anything.

What do you mean by "some countries"? I thought it was always done that way, everywhere.

For the past few years, Bernie Ecclestone has been floating the idea of awarding the F1 championship each year to the driver with the most number of wins in that season, but it hasn't garnered enough support to become the rule, though.

[springrite]

Here's a really minor issue. What I don't understand is why some countries order the medal count by golds only. It's like the others (silver and bronze) don't mean anything.

It is done that way by just about every nation except the US.

[mc ukrneal]

What do you mean by "some countries"? I thought it was always done that way, everywhere.

In the US, they count by total medals, not by gold medals. You can go to yahoo US and see what I mean. I have no idea what it is like elsewhere (too many countries to know what they do), which is why I wrote, 'some countries.'

It is done that way by just about every nation except the US.

But does this make sense to you (not just you, but anyone interested in answering)? It doesn't to me. Is it perhaps cultural?

[springrite]

I always thought the US does it because in this way the US is almost ALWAYS #1 on the table in the end. That includes the cold war years between US and USSR, and presently with US and China.

Apparently most of the world think it makes sense. You may think the way you do, but most others seem to think "5 bronze beat 4 gold" makes no sense either. There is no right or wrong so there is no sense arguing. It's just everyone doing what they think makes sense to them.

[springrite]

Actually, the US view of other sports are just like the rest of the world. If you think about it, no one considers gettging into the Super Bowl a high number of times (Buffalo Bills) as a greater achievement than winning it N-1 number of times. The same goes in baseball where the Boston Redsox, until there more recent World Series titles, were considered a less than succcessful team than the teams who have won the series but gotten into the World Series less often. In the US, it is Winning the Title is All that Counts EXCEPT in the Olympics.


Afterall, Gold means you WON that competition.

[mc ukrneal]

I always thought the US does it because in this way the US is almost ALWAYS #1 on the table in the end. That includes the cold war years between US and USSR, and presently with US and China.

Apparently most of the world think it makes sense. You may think the way you do, but most others seem to think "5 bronze beat 4 gold" makes no sense either. There is no right or wrong so there is no sense arguing. It's just everyone doing what they think makes sense to them.

The Soviet Union regularly beat the US (no matter how you counted), and many times, so did East Germany. The US does ok at the winter olympics, but has never really been a leading contender there.  As to medals, it only makes no sense to me if someone thinks bronze medals are worthless. I rather like that the Olympics recognize more than just the winner.

Actually, the US view of other sports are just like the rest of the world. If you think about it, no one considers gettging into the Super Bowl a high number of times (Buffalo Bills) as a greater achievement than winning it N-1 number of times. The same goes in baseball where the Boston Redsox, until there more recent World Series titles, were considered a less than succcessful team than the teams who have won the series but gotten into the World Series less often. In the US, it is Winning the Title is All that Counts EXCEPT in the Olympics.

But that analogy doesn't really work for the Olympics (where the goal is to get a medal more likely than not, though of course everyone wants to win), nor is it the true spirit of the games (what it is supposed to be anyway). When they talk about Phelps being the most decorated, they don't stop with the 15 or so gold medals, but include all the medals. I am currently watching from abroad, and the country I am in (non-English speaking and not Western Europe) introduced its medal winners including all the medals they won (silver and bronze included). When I watch races, I am always as equally interested in 2nd and 3rd place (and often lower) as I am who won. So perhaps there is a culural element as well. In most countries, I don't know about China, you get a monetary reward for any medal, not just gold.

[springrite]

As I said, there is no sense trying to have others agree. It is just that people feel differently. No one ever said that a bronze is worthless. I certainly did not. None of the nations which are in the majority of listing by gold thinks that a bronze is worthless. There is no point in making the others WRONG. I never said you are wrong. I merely explained why most other nations are listing it that way. That is ALL.

If you think others are wrong, fine. I never stated that anyone is right or wrong.

[mc ukrneal]

How about a fourth place medal...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/british-man-sending-4th-place-medals-athletes-miss-085932854--oly.html

"Tom Daley and Pete Waterfield miss medal after fourth-dive failure." .......David Mitchell doesn't think the failure label is fair either. Which is why he's created his own medals to bestow upon the Team GB divers, and other athletes who finish one place short of the bronze.

[springrite]

How about a fourth place medal...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/british-man-sending-4th-place-medals-athletes-miss-085932854--oly.html

Stainless Steel, Cast Iron, Aluminum... That may work... 

[Florestan]

In the US, they count by total medals, not by gold medals. You can go to yahoo US and see what I mean. I have no idea what it is like elsewhere (too many countries to know what they do), which is why I wrote, 'some countries.'But does this make sense to you (not just you, but anyone interested in answering)? It doesn't to me. Is it perhaps cultural?

Of course it makes no sense. In this logic let's do away with the silver and bronze medals and have just the gold. As far as my own country is concerned (most of you know that it's Romania) we count each and every medal. We would of course like to have only gold but silver and bronze are just as valuable to us. 

[Gurn Blanston]

There is an advert airing for a new NBC show during the Olympics, a 'sitcom'. The character is introducing Shawn Johnson (former Olympic sweetheart) to his group and says she was a winner and a loser and was here to talk about it. She says "lose? I won a gold and 2 silvers", and the guy replies "see? Win, lose, lose...". My personal opinion is that one wins a medal of any sort, and hard-earned it is too. I also deplore the rampant nationalism involved, which I suppose makes me the loser...

[Karl Henning]

. . . I also deplore the rampant nationalism involved . . . .

You telling me you weren't waving the Texas flag at the LA games? ; )

[mc ukrneal]

You telling me you weren't waving the Texas flag at the LA games? ; )

If he was, you can bet is was a big'un!

[North Star]

Stainless Steel, Cast Iron, Aluminum... That may work... 

Or we could base the medal system on the galvanic series:
1. Gold
2. Silver
3. Mercury
4. Copper
5. Lead
6. Steel
7. Potassium
8. Lithium

You might want to be careful that the potassium and lithium medals don't get in contact with water