Games of the XXX Olympiad (Official Thread)

[Nazis in Space]

1) Baseball wasn't withdrawn from the games just because of limited international participation (though this didn't help), but because, in Jacques Rogge's words (emphasis added): "To be on the Olympic program is an issue where you need universality as much as possible. You need to have a sport with a following, you need to have the best players and you need to be in strict compliance with WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). And these are the qualifications that have to be met."

So baseball's problem isn't just lack of universality (which, after all, would likely eliminate handball), but also MLB's refusal to allow the best baseball players to enter the Olympics, and the rampant abuse of performance-enhancing methods within the sport.

If MLB were to drop its objections to its star players appearing in the Olympics (and even MLB has acknowledged the issue on its web page in 2008), and MLB baseball were to both successfully clean up its act and successfully counter international perceptions - fair or not - that the league is a semi-official haven of international drug cheats, then baseball could likely get back in to the games.

That the same 2008 article linked to above has MLB stating that "MLB players will be part of the proposal [to return baseball in the Olympics] in some capacity, mentioning one scenario whereby Major Leaguers could participate in the medal round and Minor Leaguers in the preliminaries" shows that MLB just doesn't get it.

I find the underlined part somewhat questionable, considering the U23 limitation on football - meaning that the best football players - or the majority of them, anyway - do not make it to the olympics. And even those who'd still qualify do somewhat regularly pass on the olympics because their clubs don't want them to be there.

Yet, football's still around at the olympics.

An argument could certainly be made that football's there despite this on account of it immense popularily, but seeing the distinct lack of interest olympic football is generating, well... And of course, the point remains - sending your best isn't a requirement for something to be olympic.

[The Alchemists Guild]

What do you know, if the medal tally is done by population, then New Zealand is No.1

I feel fuzzy inside

For now... On Sunday there is the 4x400m Baptism relay. And you have to say the Vatican City are pretty much guaranteed at least a bronze in that. And with a population of just 800 that'll blow you guys out of the water.

[Kirrig]

What do you know, if the medal tally is done by population, then New Zealand is No.1

I feel fuzzy inside

For now... On Sunday there is the 4x400m Baptism relay. And you have to say the Vatican City are pretty much guaranteed at least a bronze in that. And with a population of just 800 that'll blow you guys out of the water.

It's still done by Golds. I think.

[The Archregimancy]

Anyway, the full list of nations who could likely field a competitive team at an Olympic cricket tournament, using as a definition teams who have defeated a full test nation in a limited overs cricket world cup (including Twenty20) in the last decade, and the four largest West Indies associations (each of whom have supplied at least 6 players to one of the West Indies international squads over the last year), we in fact get:

England [instead of 'England' in the Olympics]
India
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Australia
South Africa
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Kenya
Netherlands
Jamaica
Barbados
Trinidad & Tobago
Guyana

And that's a fairly decent tournament.

If the ICC want cricket in the Olympics, that is - and I'm not convinced they do.

Expanding on the above... Slightly to my surprise, cricket has only been played once in the Commonwealth Games (the international games for Commonwealth countries), in 1998.

In that tournament, the West Indies couldn't compete as a single unit. Instead, Jamaica, Antigua & Barbuda, and Barbados all sent separate teams.

Jamaica did poorly, finishing behind Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in their group.

Antigua & Barbuda, however, came second in their group above India on run rate. They were in with a possible chance of beating the Indians before rain stopped play with no result.

Barbados also did well, coming second in their group above Bangladesh and Northern Ireland, and playing a highly competitive match against South Africa, posting 254/6 before the Proteas won with ten balls remaining.

All of which tends to support my contention that the better Caribbean nations could field solid Olympic teams independently from the West Indies umbrella.

[The Archregimancy]

1) Baseball wasn't withdrawn from the games just because of limited international participation (though this didn't help), but because, in Jacques Rogge's words (emphasis added): "To be on the Olympic program is an issue where you need universality as much as possible. You need to have a sport with a following, you need to have the best players and you need to be in strict compliance with WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). And these are the qualifications that have to be met."

So baseball's problem isn't just lack of universality (which, after all, would likely eliminate handball), but also MLB's refusal to allow the best baseball players to enter the Olympics, and the rampant abuse of performance-enhancing methods within the sport.

If MLB were to drop its objections to its star players appearing in the Olympics (and even MLB has acknowledged the issue on its web page in 2008), and MLB baseball were to both successfully clean up its act and successfully counter international perceptions - fair or not - that the league is a semi-official haven of international drug cheats, then baseball could likely get back in to the games.

That the same 2008 article linked to above has MLB stating that "MLB players will be part of the proposal [to return baseball in the Olympics] in some capacity, mentioning one scenario whereby Major Leaguers could participate in the medal round and Minor Leaguers in the preliminaries" shows that MLB just doesn't get it.

I find the underlined part somewhat questionable, considering the U23 limitation on football - meaning that the best football players - or the majority of them, anyway - do not make it to the olympics. And even those who'd still qualify do somewhat regularly pass on the olympics because their clubs don't want them to be there.

I actually tend to agree with you here, and it occurred to me as a counter objection.

I suppose the difference is that football (and possibly basketball if the NBA commissioner gets his way and gets an under-23 limit for that sport too) sends the best eligible players within the rules of the Olympic competition. Even where an under-23 player is withdrawn by his club - Tottenham's Gareth Bale in the current tournament, for example - that tends to be an action by an individual club feigning injury of their star player, and not what's effectively a blanket ban by an entire league or national governing body on any of their senior players playing even when they're eligible.

I can see why baseball fans would see that distinction as an unfair one, but it's a real distinction all the same as far as the IOC is concerned. The simple solution would be for baseball to similarly insist on an under-23 rule. If the NBA succeeds on insisting on one for basketball, they'll be able to point to two sports with a precedent.

But even without the controversy over MLB stopping its stars from participating, baseball still has that serious doping problem image to contend with.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I loved watching the footage from yesterday as well...when Mo won his gold...they went nuts...

I quite like Mo as well. He looked really choked during his medal ceremony....so much emotion in these Olympics. Never seen anything like it...

Yes, because there was never any emotion in any of the previous olympics.

Funny. I never said there weren't any emotions in other Olympics. Out of interest - how many have you seen?

Also suggest perhaps you engage your brain before sounding off, which is odd that you need to be told this given your being a 'student of international law'. One last piece of advice...when in a hole its usually best to stop digging.

Just some friendly advice

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I find the underlined part somewhat questionable, considering the U23 limitation on football - meaning that the best football players - or the majority of them, anyway - do not make it to the olympics. And even those who'd still qualify do somewhat regularly pass on the olympics because their clubs don't want them to be there.

I actually tend to agree with you here, and it occurred to me as a counter objection.

I suppose the difference is that football (and possibly basketball if the NBA commissioner gets his way and gets an under-23 limit for that sport too) sends the best eligible players within the rules of the Olympic competition. Even where an under-23 player is withdrawn by his club - Tottenham's Gareth Bale in the current tournament, for example - that tends to be an action by an individual club feigning injury of their star player, and not what's effectively a blanket ban by an entire league or national governing body on any of their senior players playing even when they're eligible.

I can see why baseball fans would see that distinction as an unfair one, but it's a real distinction all the same as far as the IOC is concerned. The simple solution would be for baseball to similarly insist on an under-23 rule. If the NBA succeeds on insisting on one for basketball, they'll be able to point to two sports with a precedent.

But even without the controversy over MLB stopping its stars from participating, baseball still has that serious doping problem image to contend with.

When it comes the mens football most people are more meh about it than supporting the Olympic team like one would the national team. Of course this is an entirely subjective view point but most of the football fans I know are pretty much along the lines of "well that's nice to play in the Olympics but it means nothing on the international stage beside giving a bunch of youngsters a taste of international competition; lets hope to fuck no one get injured before the season starts".

[Nazis in Space]

I find the underlined part somewhat questionable, considering the U23 limitation on football - meaning that the best football players - or the majority of them, anyway - do not make it to the olympics. And even those who'd still qualify do somewhat regularly pass on the olympics because their clubs don't want them to be there.

I actually tend to agree with you here, and it occurred to me as a counter objection.

I suppose the difference is that football (and possibly basketball if the NBA commissioner gets his way and gets an under-23 limit for that sport too) sends the best eligible players within the rules of the Olympic competition. Even where an under-23 player is withdrawn by his club - Tottenham's Gareth Bale in the current tournament, for example - that tends to be an action by an individual club feigning injury of their star player, and not what's effectively a blanket ban by an entire league or national governing body on any of their senior players playing even when they're eligible.

I can see why baseball fans would see that distinction as an unfair one, but it's a real distinction all the same as far as the IOC is concerned. The simple solution would be for baseball to similarly insist on an under-23 rule. If the NBA succeeds on insisting on one for basketball, they'll be able to point to two sports with a precedent.

But even without the controversy over MLB stopping its stars from participating, baseball still has that serious doping problem image to contend with.

All very valid points indeed.

As an aside, never knew Baseball had doping issues. Though I guess that with a 162 game season over six months, even a little-endurance sport like baseball generates an interest in performance enhancers to, err, survive the season.

Edith: Speaking of which, averaging a game a day during the olympic season does rather well in explaining why the MLB isn't particularly interested in the olympics.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I actually tend to agree with you here, and it occurred to me as a counter objection.

I suppose the difference is that football (and possibly basketball if the NBA commissioner gets his way and gets an under-23 limit for that sport too) sends the best eligible players within the rules of the Olympic competition. Even where an under-23 player is withdrawn by his club - Tottenham's Gareth Bale in the current tournament, for example - that tends to be an action by an individual club feigning injury of their star player, and not what's effectively a blanket ban by an entire league or national governing body on any of their senior players playing even when they're eligible.

I can see why baseball fans would see that distinction as an unfair one, but it's a real distinction all the same as far as the IOC is concerned. The simple solution would be for baseball to similarly insist on an under-23 rule. If the NBA succeeds on insisting on one for basketball, they'll be able to point to two sports with a precedent.

But even without the controversy over MLB stopping its stars from participating, baseball still has that serious doping problem image to contend with.

All very valid points indeed.

As an aside, never knew Baseball had doping issues. Though I guess that with a 162 game season over six months, even a little-endurance sport like baseball generates an interest in performance enhancers to, err, survive the season.

Edith: Speaking of which, averaging a game a day during the olympic season does rather well in explaining why the MLB isn't particularly interested in the olympics.

Sadly huge amounts of steroid abuse over the years.

Here's a time line - http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/feature?sec ... id=7619228

Glad they never got to the Little Leagues when I was a sprog

[Britcan]

Bolt! Bolt! Bolt!

A Jamaican 1&2. It's a shame about Gatlin getting a medal, he doesn't even deserve to compete.

Oh fuck off, he's clean now, he won 3rd fair and square. This is the kind of petty BS that is in every way the opposite of what the olympics are about.

My opinion is that if you use performance enhancing drugs then you should get banned for life.

[TaQud]

apparently...

Until Yesterday
British tennis Success = Cleveland Pro Sports franchises
NOW:
British tennis Success > Cleveland Pro Sports franchises

(always have to go there)

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Until Yesterday
British tennis Success = Cleveland Pro Sports franchises
NOW:
British tennis Success > Cleveland Pro Sports franchises

(always have to go there)

It was pretty funny though

[TaQud]

(always have to go there)

It was pretty funny though

not my fault my city has bad owners and general managers...

[Britcan]

It was pretty funny though

not my fault my city has bad owners and general managers...

I don't think anyone said it was...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

It was pretty funny though

not my fault my city has bad owners and general managers...

Don't take everything so personally....just roll with it ....you think you've had a shitty time with sports teams...I give you my lifeblood - Leeds United. Makes the Browns and Braves look like league winners.

[TaQud]

not my fault my city has bad owners and general managers...

Don't take everything so personally....just roll with it ....you think you've had a shitty time with sports teams...I give you my lifeblood - Leeds United. Makes the Browns and Braves look like league winners.

ouch

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Don't take everything so personally....just roll with it ....you think you've had a shitty time with sports teams...I give you my lifeblood - Leeds United. Makes the Browns and Braves look like league winners.

ouch

Indeed. Its a fucking rollercoaster of a ride and I just cannot bring myself to jump ship...its like being a heroin addict. This is a reasonable article of my footballing fanship...

http://www.thescratchingshed.com/2012/0 ... -takeover/

[DesAnges]

Anyway, the full list of nations who could likely field a competitive team at an Olympic cricket tournament, using as a definition teams who have defeated a full test nation in a limited overs cricket world cup (including Twenty20) in the last decade, and the four largest West Indies associations (each of whom have supplied at least 6 players to one of the West Indies international squads over the last year), we in fact get:

England
India
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Australia
South Africa
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Kenya
Netherlands
Jamaica
Barbados
Trinidad & Tobago
Guyana

And that's a fairly decent tournament.

If the ICC want cricket in the Olympics, that is - and I'm not convinced they do.

Expanding on the above... Slightly to my surprise, cricket has only been played once in the Commonwealth Games (the international games for Commonwealth countries), in 1998.

In that tournament, the West Indies couldn't compete as a single unit. Instead, Jamaica, Antigua & Barbuda, and Barbados all sent separate teams.

Jamaica did poorly, finishing behind Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in their group.

Antigua & Barbuda, however, came second in their group above India on run rate. They were in with a possible chance of beating the Indians before rain stopped play with no result.

Barbados also did well, coming second in their group above Bangladesh and Northern Ireland, and playing a highly competitive match against South Africa, posting 254/6 before the Proteas won with ten balls remaining.

All of which tends to support my contention that the better Caribbean nations could field solid Olympic teams independently from the West Indies umbrella.

May I add that you have forgotten Afghanistan, who have managed to earn themselves ODI Associate status until 2015.

[DesAnges]

I don't have to answer that, because you are acting like a spoilt brat.

I would like to know though.

I hope it isn't any "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit though

Simple reason: I've got a few Chinese friends here at my Uni so I thought I'd support them instead of a country I know no-one from.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I would like to know though.

I hope it isn't any "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit though

Simple reason: I've got a few Chinese friends here at my Uni so I thought I'd support them instead of a country I know no-one from.

Crap! I read that as Chelsea fans...I need to get my eyes checked

[The Archregimancy]

Expanding on the above... Slightly to my surprise, cricket has only been played once in the Commonwealth Games (the international games for Commonwealth countries), in 1998.

In that tournament, the West Indies couldn't compete as a single unit. Instead, Jamaica, Antigua & Barbuda, and Barbados all sent separate teams.

Jamaica did poorly, finishing behind Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in their group.

Antigua & Barbuda, however, came second in their group above India on run rate. They were in with a possible chance of beating the Indians before rain stopped play with no result.

Barbados also did well, coming second in their group above Bangladesh and Northern Ireland, and playing a highly competitive match against South Africa, posting 254/6 before the Proteas won with ten balls remaining.

All of which tends to support my contention that the better Caribbean nations could field solid Olympic teams independently from the West Indies umbrella.

May I add that you have forgotten Afghanistan, who have managed to earn themselves ODI Associate status until 2015.

I haven't forgotten them; they simply didn't qualify for my list.

I'm well aware of Afghanistan's extraordinary rise in a very short period of time; it's one of the great heartwarming stories in modern sport.

However, my criteria for formulating that list were very clearly listed as "teams who have defeated a full test nation in a limited overs cricket world cup (including Twenty20) in the last decade, and the four largest West Indies associations".

Afghanistan have qualified for this year's World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka, but in their only previous appearance in top-level limited overs tournament - the 2010 World Twenty20 - they failed to win either of their matches.

Afghanistan have beaten a couple of other teams on that list - Ireland and the Netherlands - in lower-level tournaments, but unlike the Irish or Dutch have never beaten a full ICC member in an limited-overs World Cup.

So I didn't forget them - I deliberately excluded them from my admittedly ad hoc list of 'potentially competitive Olympic cricket teams'.

[DesAnges]

May I add that you have forgotten Afghanistan, who have managed to earn themselves ODI Associate status until 2015.

I haven't forgotten them; they simply didn't qualify for my list.

I'm well aware of Afghanistan's extraordinary rise in a very short period of time; it's one of the great heartwarming stories in modern sport.

However, my criteria for formulating that list were very clearly listed as "teams who have defeated a full test nation in a limited overs cricket world cup (including Twenty20) in the last decade, and the four largest West Indies associations".

Afghanistan have qualified for this year's World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka, but in their only previous appearance in top-level limited overs tournament - the 2010 World Twenty20 - they failed to win either of their matches.

Afghanistan have beaten a couple of other teams on that list - Ireland and the Netherlands - in lower-level tournaments, but unlike the Irish or Dutch have never beaten a full ICC member in an limited-overs World Cup.

So I didn't forget them - I deliberately excluded them from my admittedly ad hoc list of 'potentially competitive Olympic cricket teams'.

My apologies, I failed to read your post incorrectly.

I would postulate that they are likely to reach either one of those targets by 2020, which I believe was a year suggested for cricket to enter the Olympics?

Either way, go Afghanistan!

[The Archregimancy]

I would postulate that they are likely to reach either one of those targets by 2020, which I believe was a year suggested for cricket to enter the Olympics?

Either way, go Afghanistan!

Well, I doubt they'll ever reach my target of being one of "the four largest West Indies associations"

But given Afghanistan's amazing rise in the cricketing world, I wouldn't be surprised if they did beat a full ICC member in some form of the game before 2020.

And if so, yes, they would then be another country we might be able to add to the list of potentially competitive Olympic cricket nations in the future.

[DesAnges]

I would postulate that they are likely to reach either one of those targets by 2020, which I believe was a year suggested for cricket to enter the Olympics?

Either way, go Afghanistan!

Well, I doubt they'll ever reach my target of being one of "the four largest West Indies associations"

But given Afghanistan's amazing rise in the cricketing world, I wouldn't be surprised if they did beat a full ICC member in some form of the game before 2020.

And if so, yes, they would then be another country we might be able to add to the list of potentially competitive Olympic cricket nations in the future.

Given their current trend I wouldn't put it past them to apply for Test status by then.

Are Zimbabwe a Test nation again? I've forgotten.

[Sedgistan]

Oh fuck off, he's clean now, he won 3rd fair and square.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

You're going to want to pay attention to everything that Arch said here, as it's all correct.