Just how good will the Olympics be?

[TightEnd]

I agree with the Camel's athletics viewpoint

5 medals, hopefully Farah for 6 and an outside chance of Dobriskey for 7

Lots of athletes underperformed, injured during competition, crumbled under the pressure below the successful headlines of last Saturday

Some bright spots, Osagie, Lawrence Clarke etc but the depth of performance has been disappointing

[Tal]

Tyler Hamilton stripped of his 2004 gold medal because of doping. Not a massive surprise but now means team sky - and Aussie - rider Michael Rogers gets a bronze.

Doubt this will affect the Armstrong case but interesting news

[Tonji]

As much as I love the GB swimming team the results were more than disappointing. Although more finals were made than Beijing, swimmers did not race to potential, with a few exceptions.

A cut in funding may not be such a bad thing. A smaller team for Rio, with a more focused approach to the selected elite.

[Tonji]

Tyler Hamilton stripped of his 2004 gold medal because of doping. Not a massive surprise but now means team sky - and Aussie - rider Michael Rogers gets a bronze.

Doubt this will affect the Armstrong case but interesting news

Another of Armstrong's inner circle admits doping! No surprise

[Doobs]

I think one journalist got it right - Mohammad could win the whole thing - but it still wouldn't prove it was a good choice, it would probably just show that Cook would have won it more easily. (I'd add - but he probably won't )

This is such a huge logic fail.  

[Jon MW]

I think one journalist got it right - Mohammad could win the whole thing - but it still wouldn't prove it was a good choice, it would probably just show that Cook would have won it more easily. (I'd add - but he probably won't )

This is such a huge logic fail.  

lol - no it isn't. If he wins the governing body will probably successfully spin it as proving they were right. But it just means that if they were both in he'd have come second to Cook (obviously it wouldn't turn out that way but I don't think it's too hard of an abstract concept to comprehend)

Out of interest I had a look at some martial arts forums and the responses on there are completely 1 sided towards Cook. The consensus in 'there' world seems to be that Mohammad is fine in himself - but they'd quite like him to go out early because they don't want the WTF (or is it TKD? whoever made the decision) to get off the hook.

[The Camel]

Tyler Hamilton stripped of his 2004 gold medal because of doping. Not a massive surprise but now means team sky - and Aussie - rider Michael Rogers gets a bronze.

Doubt this will affect the Armstrong case but interesting news

Have I missed them or have zero competitors been caught for drug offences in this Olympics?

A couple were removed from competitions before the start, but I can't recall anything since then.

[The Camel]

I think one journalist got it right - Mohammad could win the whole thing - but it still wouldn't prove it was a good choice, it would probably just show that Cook would have won it more easily. (I'd add - but he probably won't )

This is such a huge logic fail.  

lol - no it isn't. If he wins the governing body will probably successfully spin it as proving they were right. But it just means that if they were both in he'd have come second to Cook (obviously it wouldn't turn out that way but I don't think it's too hard of an abstract concept to comprehend)

Out of interest I had a look at some martial arts forums and the responses on there are completely 1 sided towards Cook. The consensus in 'there' world seems to be that Mohammad is fine in himself - but they'd quite like him to go out early because they don't want the WTF to get off the hook.

What was the reason given for not picking Cook?

[Graham C]

Idowo said he wasnt funded by grants and has paid his own way for the last three years, not that it makes that much difference overall

[Jon MW]

I think one journalist got it right - Mohammad could win the whole thing - but it still wouldn't prove it was a good choice, it would probably just show that Cook would have won it more easily. (I'd add - but he probably won't )

This is such a huge logic fail.  

lol - no it isn't. If he wins the governing body will probably successfully spin it as proving they were right. But it just means that if they were both in he'd have come second to Cook (obviously it wouldn't turn out that way but I don't think it's too hard of an abstract concept to comprehend)

Out of interest I had a look at some martial arts forums and the responses on there are completely 1 sided towards Cook. The consensus in 'there' world seems to be that Mohammad is fine in himself - but they'd quite like him to go out early because they don't want the WTF to get off the hook.

What was the reason given for not picking Cook?

Primarily that olympics point scoring will favour Mohammad - more points for head shots and he's taller - unless other people can find something else - that's all I've seen

[Tal]

Tyler Hamilton stripped of his 2004 gold medal because of doping. Not a massive surprise but now means team sky - and Aussie - rider Michael Rogers gets a bronze.

Doubt this will affect the Armstrong case but interesting news

"

Have I missed them or have zero competitors been caught for drug offences in this Olympics?

A couple were removed from competitions before the start, but I can't recall anything since then.

No cyclists.

Think there were a handful of others in the early days, although they might have been the results of tests from a couple of weeks before the games.

That is unless you count the Steve Cram test of "that chap is running more quickly than I've seen before"

[TightEnd]

Tyler Hamilton stripped of his 2004 gold medal because of doping. Not a massive surprise but now means team sky - and Aussie - rider Michael Rogers gets a bronze.

Doubt this will affect the Armstrong case but interesting news

Have I missed them or have zero competitors been caught for drug offences in this Olympics?

A couple were removed from competitions before the start, but I can't recall anything since then.

Conte, the Balco villian, has said that 60% of athletics competitors are "at it" and the testers are not even close to detecting what they are taking these days

Obviously he is a discredited person in the sport though, and has an axe to grind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2185691/London-2012-Olympics-60-cent-athletes-using-drugs-claims-disgraced-supplier.html


Olympic samples are kept for 8 years post event and tested annually after the event the aim being that any wrongdoing is caught afterwards as newer doping agents are discovered by the testers

[Doobs]

I think one journalist got it right - Mohammad could win the whole thing - but it still wouldn't prove it was a good choice, it would probably just show that Cook would have won it more easily. (I'd add - but he probably won't )

This is such a huge logic fail.  

lol - no it isn't. If he wins the governing body will probably successfully spin it as proving they were right. But it just means that if they were both in he'd have come second to Cook (obviously it wouldn't turn out that way but I don't think it's too hard of an abstract concept to comprehend)

You do realise that your bit in bold is exactly my point.  If Muhammed wins gold it really doesn't mean Cook would have won gold, never mind won it more easily.  It isn't that I don't understand what you and the journalist are saying, I just know that it is logically flawed.

Barcelona are better than Manchester United, Manchester United are better than Chelsea, therefore if Barcelona played Chelsea they would walk it, plus numerous other examples througout sporting history. 

I am done with this

Cliffs
Cook is probably better than Muhammed.
There effectively isn't 50 odd ranking positions between them, as Muhammed fought at a higher weight at the European championships and won, resulting in an improvement to his ranking position to 7 in that weight.
Did the selectors pick the wrong man? Probably, but it isn't as clear cut as originally appeared.
Do the new rules favour Muhammed?  Maybe, but that doesn't mean that would make him a better pick than Cook (Nor does it mean he is a worse pick either FWIW)
If Muhammed wins, does this mean Cook would have won gold?  No
If Muhammed loses his next fight, does this mean Cook would have won gold? No

 

[Doobs]

The Olympic rule is if you pick someone of B standard (time ) you can't pick anyone of A standard

They chose Sharp at B who won the trials and left 3 A standards at home as a result, the A standards like Meadows hadn't performed well in 2012 or had been injured

Very controversial, but clearly a very tough decision to have to make

There were 4 women who had made the A standard. 

I think the correct decision would be to realise that a situation has arisen that has shown that you do not have a good rule.  You should then hold an EGM* to change the rule.   Then pick Sharp and two others. 

* or whatever the equivalent is

[TightEnd]

The Olympic rule is if you pick someone of B standard (time ) you can't pick anyone of A standard

They chose Sharp at B who won the trials and left 3 A standards at home as a result, the A standards like Meadows hadn't performed well in 2012 or had been injured

Very controversial, but clearly a very tough decision to have to make

There were 4 women who had made the A standard. 

I think the correct decision would be to realise that a situation has arisen that has shown that you do not have a good rule.  You should then hold an EGM* to change the rule.   Then pick Sharp and two others. 

* or whatever the equivalent is

It's an Olympic/IOC rule not a UK Athletics rule though? Or am I wrong?