They are illegal according to the Olympic Ideal.

During the Ancient Games, wars had to stop for the Games to take place. 

The Olympic Ideals as envisaged by the Ancient Greeks have kind of been lost in this modern world as the Modern Olympics are more of a brand name than an ideal. And given all the problems and expense of hosting these games, it's probably time to look at the option of just setting up permanent venues in Athens, and host them there every 4 years as the spiritual home of the games. 

That avoids all the white elephants around the world as well, which saves a lot of money. 

You can blame nazi germany (and Riefenstahl's film Olympia) for the romanticising of nationalism at the olympics. before that the Olympics were a resurrected greek sporting carnival

^ Although no-one really wants to know that

there are a few good things about the olympics:
There is no betting
There arent any promos for sports betting
There are no sponsors logos everywhere!

Yeah tbf there was talk about the possibility of Johnson's WR being broken before the race.

Thanks for that info.  As you can probably tell I'm not that up on athletics so this is what happens when the uneducated (me) sees WR's being beaten with ease, they just assume drug use.

on the flipside, the americans have won 70 medals at the olympics

So what?

They did well in Kazan but that was a year ago. A lot can change in a year.

Not going to argue about expectations on the Campbell sisters but a perfect example of our media over inflating expectations is an article in the daily telegraph claiming Ella Nelson is one of our medal hopes. Her goal from the start was to make semifinals and the final if she's lucky. She came into the Olympics unsure if she would even be fit to run. Now after one run someone is claiming she's a medal hope despite the fact that many of the semifinal qualifiers easily finished in times quicker than her Pb.

Tbf it's hard for anyone not to have high expectations when you consider for eg one of those Campbell sisters is the current champion (and record holder?). And there are clear favourites in all competitions from all countries, so I don't feel like expectations are inflated higher from Australia media than any other country tbh. 

I wouldn't call any of these countries "laughing stocks".

They, like Australia, fund elite Olympic Sports very well, but not as much as the USA, Russia, UK, Germany and China. 

All of them have proud Olympic pedigree, and Australia should always aim to be among them.

quickflick is correct. Any redistribution will favor the AFL, and I'm not in favor of such wastage when that pointless sport generates a lot of money. Soccer will be overlooked as always. 

European countries will have less obesity than Australians because they have better diets. Australia is becoming the king of fast food. 

What is with our Olympians and fueling the media frenzy by being whiney about why they lost/didn't perform at their best. The hockeyroos captain was on the news this morning going on about how pathetic their performance was. The Campbell sisters have had to defend their lack of medals. Give them a break ffs. It's like being the 5th best swimmer in the world for a particular event makes you mediocre. This country has severely overinflated expectations.

now the hockeyroos continue to underperform and are knocked out

underpeformance at this olympics is the norm not the exception

it used to be the other way round

Regarding the citizen of the world thing... I'm talking about things more important than sport, I'm talking about things like valuing a person on the basis of their character, as opposed to background. And making it accessible for anybody to have a reasonable chance of achieving whatever they wish to achieve (regardless of background).

Is any of that unreasonable? I'd be surprised if you're opposed to any of that (please say if so). Yet you really want to the see the Socceroos do well against other nations, as do I. That's exactly the same principle as wanting to see one's country do well at the Olympics (I just happen to like a number of Olympic sports). Assuming you agree with those the things I referred to in the paragraph above this one, it would seem every bit as confounding for you to wish to see the NT do well (at least using your logic).

The reality is one can be a "citizen of the world" and want to see one's country succeed in sport. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I regard sport as the last area where patriotism is acceptable. I.e. it's acceptable to prefer one's own country to win in sport, but it's not really acceptable to apply similar standards of favouritism elsewhere (where we should think in terms of the human race). Moreover, one of the things I like about Australia is the theory (not always the case in practice or attitude) that we're an extremely multicultural society. People from all backgrounds (citizens of the world) can succeed in our society. Sporting success is such an example.

The other thing is that expenditure on sport is not some kind of "let them eat cake" idea. More on that later.

Without doing a country-by-country analysis of each and every one of those countries you mention, by and large, they don't have the same background in Olympic sports that Aus has.

When Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands do poorly in football, the sport they have traditions in, they are not happy. Similarly we should feel that way about sports we have good histories in (plus football and these days basketball).

So many of us grow up competing in regattas and swimming meets. Water polo tournaments, hockey tournaments, etc. As with most countries, there might not be the year round attendance figures for these sports. But they have really solid levels of competition in Australia and participation rates.

So we're a laughing stock when we flunk out in such sports spectacularly given our culture of playing such sports. That's the nuance that is not being understood.

"I wonder if you can explain to the uneducated what actual benefit does the Australian get from an athlete winning a gold medal because it sure as eggs doesn't translate to higher participation rates.  Aikhme didn't want to have a swing at it maybe you do."

No need to be patronising. One hears different things about levels of success and participation rates, so I'm going to rely mostly on my own experience. It answer my questions, anyway. Still this much isn't anecdotal... Britain's Amateur Swimming Association has reported a sharp uptake in use of public swimming pools since their success in the pool recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/13/swimming-rio-2016-leisure-cuts

Speaking from my own experience, a handful of my school friends were very, very good swimmers/water polo players. They were part of a culture of Australian (and local) success in the pool and they found this to be a huge source of motivation in terms of their training and so on. They wanted to be the best because they saw their fellow swimmers and compatriots make a mark at various levels (school, district, club, state, national and international). You see somebody succeed and you want to emulate them.

But it's a huge help if there is that example to follow.

The same for football (which was more my background). I was playing football as a kid despite all the agony of the failed qualification for Australia (but we still had Harry Kewell and Mark Viduka to aspire to, plus non-Aussie ones like Michael Owen and Thierry Henry, for me). And then Aus qualified for the World Cup and did a decent job. We felt inspired and kids who didn't play the game started to take it up.

I'm not proposing that grassroots levels be neglected. I fully support grassroots infrastructure. It's vital. I'm just calling for a holistic approach. You can't neglect the top end, just as you can't neglect the bottom end. Any of that unreasonable?

And I've provided a funding model (in rather vague terms, admittedly).

Each Briton pays about £2 per year for their sporting success. And most of this is from the National Lottery (which means that they a good deal don't even pay that, only those who buy lottery tickets). It's hardly a huge sacrifice. Money well spent.

I really cant take the olympics, particularly track and field, seriously anymore. It angers me when people like that Hungarian man bitch Hosszu who is 27 years old suddenly learns how to swim and starts smashing their PBs and breaking world records, and gets away with it scot free. The cheats are ahead of the testing procedures and most of the time will get away with it, yet will return to their homelands as heros and be set for life. Cheating definitely pays.

To be fair van Niekerk is the current world champion it's not likes he's come from nowhere. 

Anyway you'd have to be mad to run the 400m hurdles. 

And the bloke that won from lane 8 today in the 400m from South africa.  Never has anyone won a final from that lane before and not only that he smashed the WR.

And hello what's this?  The South African lab had its accreditation suspended?  You don't say.  

http://summergames.ap.org/article/wada-suspends-accreditation-africas-only-doping-lab

Fuck me dead.

Watching the athletics tonight I'm getting more and more pissed off at that 10k runner (Almaz Ayana) that broke the WR by 14 seconds. 

Absolute bullshit.  Beat a WR held for 22 years by a self confessed drug cheat.  The WR before that was 22 seconds slower.  So she actually beat the last 'clean' (maybe) WR by 36 seconds and looked like she could have run another 5k.

Cheating cunce.  It must be so depressing to be an athlete who is clean.  If there is such a thing.

http://fittish.deadspin.com/wada-discovers-world-record-factory-ethiopia-does-almos-1769983123

Our women's hockey team kicked out convincingly by the Kiwis in the quarter final. There can be no greater ignominy.

First time since Los Angeles 1984 that both the Australian men and women have failed to medal.

Klisina appeal successful, she's back in.

Here is a incomplete list of countries that are doing worse than us at the moment on the medal tally board;

South Korea
Netherlands
Spain
New Zealand
Canada
Switzerland
Belgium
Sweden
Denmark

So explain to me who's laughing their arses off at these collection of 'laughing stocks".

I wouldn't mind betting, without any research at all, that most of those countries have less obese populations and better health outcomes than we do and are probably happier too. 

I wonder if you can explain to the uneducated what actual benefit does the Australian get from an athlete winning a gold medal because it sure as eggs doesn't translate to higher participation rates.  Aikhme didn't want to have a swing at it maybe you do.

For someone who professes to be a citizen of the world with a dislike of nationalism/patriotism I find this obsession you have with Australia's performances at the Olympics confounding.

As an aside does Anna Meares surely has the biggest arse at the Olympic games.  (Not including hammer throwers.) 

I've said it before. We should now look to emulate some aspects of Britain's funding model.

In the UK, they pour truckloads of money into elite sport (not sure what impact the Brexit will have, but probably not much as I predict only a nominal Brexit).

The way they do this is they use the revenue from the National Lottery and channel a good deal of it towards UK Sport. So, as I understand it, the National Lottery is basically owned by the British Government but run privately (and is, thus, more efficient). A good deal of the revenue goes towards elite sport (and cultural pursuits, film, etc.). This means that taxpayers cannot whinge about their taxes being used on sport and still fucktons of money go towards elite sport.

Unfortunately, I do not think the Federal Government would have much success if it attempted to create its own national lottery. Those idiots from Tattersalls or whatever it's called would kick up a fuss. And, unfortunately for such an idea, Australians don't tend to get around the lottery in quite the same way that Brits do.

You have to look at what kind of gambling Aussies spend money on. Pokies and sports betting. Pokies especially destroy lives.

The government should tax those things even more so that from the ill-gotten gains, the money should be channeled into elite and grassroots sport. If it was successful, they could use less ordinary tax revenue for such things and just make sport funded off gambling tax revenue.

Depends where we redistribute it. As I say, if it goes towards things like Aussie Rules and netball then vom. We mustn't reduce funding towards sports where we do well (or at least have the potential to do well); swimming, cycling, rowing, etc. Also, it seems sensible to encourage growth in tennis, cricket, football and basketball. We have the potential to do well there, too.

In answer to your point earlier about cutting funding from sports which are struggling. I also feel bad about it and sorry for the athletes. Much like I feel sorry for people whose majors are cut by the universities (and I oppose the loss of the VCA's independence). If they're doing that, it seems they're following the British model. Which basically is like a clever business model- promote the areas where there are strengths; the sports I've already mentioned. And they mustn't suffer funding cuts. It would be disastrous if that happens. But I think they need to find ways to keep other sports afloat.

I agree with Aikhme on this that we need to promote success in sport. Other developed countries do. So it would be rather pathetic if we just give up altogether.

Plus, broader correlation or not between level of fatness and Olympic success, speaking anecdotally I found a link. I've grown up with a lot of people who did rather well at swimming and that was directly tied to there being a really healthy competition a lot of success at the top end. That's what motivated them.

Same with cricket, tennis and (to a lesser extent) football. Because of the success of the national teams/athletes in those respects, all the kids I used to hang out with would be be in the nets after school, playing football on the street or on the tennis court. Seeing success stories motivated us.

If the Crawford Report is fully adopted that'll be a disaster. Aspects of it are reasonable, but sapping various sports of funding would lead to results which make us an absolute laughing stock compared to other developed nations.

Yes, cricket shouldn't get less funding than archery. But fuck diverting funding for sports where we do well in the Olympics towards Aussie Rules and netball. I'll actively support Portugal in sport over Australia if we do that.

It's also misleading to put down funding water polo rather than golf, tennis or lawn bowls on the grounds that the latter is not a lifetime sport. It seems to assume that this leads to better health. Swimming is the sport which brings the most health benefits of any sport. Water polo, one of the most physically demanding sport I can think of, gets people involved in swimming. And swimming is something people can do for most of their lives. Plus, if somebody plays water polo for their youth (and providing they eat relatively healthily), they'll reap the heath rewards for decades longer in ways they would not simply by playing golf or lawn bowls continuously.

:crying:

Sad times. It's made all the sadder by the fact that we're now shithouse at cricket, will battle with rugby in the future and not particularly decent at football. It would probably be easier to stomach poor returns at the Olympics if Australia won the Ashes in England and started to replicate the football form of the Golden Generation.In saying that, it would always be nice to do well at some Olympic sports, particularly the most basic of all sports- athletics. But it has been a while since Aus has done well there and, for the most part, is genetically disadvantaged.

You're right about other nations having caught up with Australia, to some extent. The question is whether or not Australia achieves top five or top ten finishes is tied to that. But it's not so cut-and-dried.

The problem is this... Australia went into these games with a stronger squad, on paper, than it had for London 2012. Especially for swimming, but elsewhere too.

But too many of the Australian competitors couldn't handle the pressure. It was mental. The funding part (although other nations have caught up) wasn't the heart of the issue this time (it was in London and it may be again). These games (even more so than London, which is staggering) have been related to a lack of mental strength and preparation. Funding doesn't have too much to do with that.

There needs to be some soulsearching about the mental side.

There are other sports where Australia can realistically improve; equestrian, rowing and cycling. Australia has pedigree there and it's swings and roundabouts. If you get those things right, come into the Olympics with the form the swimmers had and actually manage to produce PBs in the those areas then it's possible to achieve a top five finish.

But that's not the salient statistic. Australian expenditure needs to be looked at in relation to expenditure from other countries. Relative to specific other countries, Australia is not spending more money on elite sport.

Enjoying the Olympics, although it is difficult to watch everything one wants with so many events on.

No I can't agree with any redistribution. Other sports like Soccer also get substantial funding. One club alone (West Adelaide) got $9 million to build its own stadium so we really can't complain about that. 

I am very supportive of the current sporting support infrastructure to remain.

The fact that Soccer did not get a private charter is irrelevant to me. The Australian Cricket Team doesn't get their private charter either, and that is actually mainstream. The olympics only come around once every 4 years, so the charter is fine by me. 

It's also only slightly more expensive than flying commercial because the Australian Olympic team could have filled 2 B777 aircraft with all the coaching staff, administrators and Athletes. The Australian Cricket team or Socceroos wouldn't fill such an aircraft. It also means the Athletes are better able to arrive and beat jet lag for peak performance. 

Either you can't read or you are the A grade troll everyone says you are.  No one said to cut funding.  I suggested, as others have, we redistribute it.

BTW the socceroos needed a charter (not paid for by the taxpayer) because of a short turnaround for the Uruguay match.  The swimmers arrived a fortnight before from the same timezone.  They didn't need one.  

I don't mind if they get a charter I'm just annoyed that my tax dollars help pay for it.

Anyway I'm out because you refuse to engage the points put forward regards no increased participation rates and what actual good a gold medal does for the wellbeing of an ordinary Australian besides going to work feeling warm and fuzzy.    

You evidently have a different opinion (maybe) and I won't be sucked in like the other clowns here.

Let me put it to you this way. Australia is famed for its sporting heritage. I have traveled wide and far, and usually many people overseas are in awe of Australia's performances in international sport, because Australia does punch well above its weight in terms of its size and population base.

This, for many countries that do perform well like USA, Russia, Germany, UK and a few others, requires funding and this funding is very important in building facilities at Rowing Clubs, Athletic Tracks, Equestrian Courses, Freestyle Skiing complexes and so on and so on. Our children are well in their rights to take advantage of this funding by participating in the various programs that exist and which are funded. Saying that some are lazy is no excuse for not providing young people with the right opportunities.

All of the above is very good in my opinion. It is also money that is spent and which creates some activity in the economy as well as provide Australian's with the right facilities and development.

And of course there is the Nationalistic point of view too, which is not only exclusive to Australia. It is a proud moment for any country to see their country rise to the top on the international stage, and this can only increase participation.

I pay tax too, and I have no issue when that tax is spent on proper initiatives such as Education, Health, Universities, Infrastructure, Defence and Sport etc. What i get upset about is all the unnecessary wasteful spending of our tax, and believe me there is literally several billions in wastage. In fact, the waste far exceeds the deficit, but it is almost political suicide to cut them because of the public outburst.

Sports funding is not going against the grain either. I believe most of the population has no issue with it as opposed to slashing it which I believe would upset a massive chunk of the population. There are big benefits to sport, and I see no difference to this or education.  

I am fully supportive of the private charters to RIO for the Athletes. The Athletes have to be in peak condition, and they have a right to benefit from the tax payer as much as anyone else. Their life is one of sacrifice. It takes years of training and dedication at their own expense before they get even close to qualifying for the Olympics. 

In the end, we have to ask what kind of society or country do we want. Is it ok to turn our backs on these Athletes or give them a bit of a break? 

thats what I suggest

Dont expect success, be pleasantly surprised by it.
Countries like Argentina, Spain, Portugal are big countries but they arent assuming winning 69 medals is success or a chance to be recognised on the world stage. Theyre doing just fine and they are successful countries

The idea that of how the mens 4 x 100m relay swimming team is the be-all of australian sporting/ identity sickens me

On the flipside- kids playing soccer and winning on the weekend is good enough. Or me playing my local sporting pitch is good enough. 

I love the olympics too, but so what if "we" dont win? I agree with the argument on the winter olympics

Yep, it's not about reducing funding , its about getting more value.  There is very little evidence Olympic success translates to increased participation/ better health outcomes.

Crawford review..

• More government funds are provided for archery than cricket despite the fact that cricket has more than 100 times the number of participants.
• Water polo receives as much high performance and AIS funding as golf, tennis and lawn bowls combined—even though these sports can rightly claim to be ‘whole of lifetime’ sports and significant contributors to a preventive health agenda.

Toughlove:

Explain, without referring to Greece

:):)