2012 Olympics
Posted: 2012.08.05 (01:14)
2008 thread.
There really ought to be a thread about this, despite these forums being barely active lately, As a Londoner, this first post is my territory.
I'm going to get the obligatory patriotism bit out of the way by saying what an incredible day this was for Britain, 6 gold medals and a clean sweep in the athletics. Ennis won the heptathlon by an impressive margin, Rutherford and Farah won impressive golds, I didn't watch the other three, and we lost the football on yet another penalty shoot-out AGAIN. SURPRISE, SURPRISE. NOT. And we missed a first-half penalty too.
No doubt it's picked up its own fair share of controversy, like the eight badminton players disqualified for trying to lose in order to pick up an easier draw in the next round. Personally I can't see what they did wrong. It's everyone's nature, and the whole fundamental assumption of Olympic participation, to try to win a medal, be it gold or whatever. Losing the game was totally compatible with this nature in a way that deliberately losing a match for money is not. Their prospects of reaching the final and picking up gold or silver, rather than playing for the third-place game, would be determined by the result of the match, for which it would be an advantage to lose. Although frustrating for the spectators, this comes second priority to the players whose main intent is to win the best medal they can. The fault lies within the tournament structure itself, in that it gives an opportunity to increase your chances of achieving a higher place by losing on purpose, not with the players themselves. It is the organisers who should be disqualified for coming up with such a dumb system, not the players.
And what's up with Australia? 1 gold, 12 silvers... that speaks for itself.
There really ought to be a thread about this, despite these forums being barely active lately, As a Londoner, this first post is my territory.
I'm going to get the obligatory patriotism bit out of the way by saying what an incredible day this was for Britain, 6 gold medals and a clean sweep in the athletics. Ennis won the heptathlon by an impressive margin, Rutherford and Farah won impressive golds, I didn't watch the other three, and we lost the football on yet another penalty shoot-out AGAIN. SURPRISE, SURPRISE. NOT. And we missed a first-half penalty too.
No doubt it's picked up its own fair share of controversy, like the eight badminton players disqualified for trying to lose in order to pick up an easier draw in the next round. Personally I can't see what they did wrong. It's everyone's nature, and the whole fundamental assumption of Olympic participation, to try to win a medal, be it gold or whatever. Losing the game was totally compatible with this nature in a way that deliberately losing a match for money is not. Their prospects of reaching the final and picking up gold or silver, rather than playing for the third-place game, would be determined by the result of the match, for which it would be an advantage to lose. Although frustrating for the spectators, this comes second priority to the players whose main intent is to win the best medal they can. The fault lies within the tournament structure itself, in that it gives an opportunity to increase your chances of achieving a higher place by losing on purpose, not with the players themselves. It is the organisers who should be disqualified for coming up with such a dumb system, not the players.
And what's up with Australia? 1 gold, 12 silvers... that speaks for itself.