joggerjayne Joined: 16/04/2008 Posts: 7092 Favourite Category: ChatterBank

No. The idea isn't to give everyone a "fair share" of the medals ... the idea is to find the supreme athlete in each discipline.

Question Author: johnny37 Joined: 08/12/2006 Posts: 522 Favourite Category: Law

Jayne, I dont know what the Olympic statement says but Im pretty sure its not about winning. What next? The record for the number of golds at different sports? Phelps will come back in 2012 and put his record beyond reach for the next 1000 years. In addition to restricting the number of events Im all in favour of having some sort of handicapping system based on ability. as an example, high jump should be related to hight, in a similar way to boxing and weightlifting which is based on bodyweight. That wayh everyone would stand a chance.

Sorry for all the typos in the question!

Lakitu Joined: 08/05/2008 Posts: 4134 Favourite Category: ChatterBank

How could something like that possibly be enforced? There are so many categories in the swimming events and Michael has qualified fairly and squarely for each one of them. Is the Olympic Committee expected to say "Well Michael, you qualified for the 100m fly, so you're not getting to qualify for any of the events that we create just in case you win the 100m fly" That's just daft and NOBODY can predict who will win what race, even if it is assumed that a particular athlete will. That point being proved when it was widely assumed that Hoff would win the 400 freestyle and Adlington came and blew ALL of those theories out of the water (no pun intended)

As Jayne says, the Olympics are about finding the supreme athlete and fair play to Michael for being that supreme athlete on this occassion.