Interesting discussion on Five Live last night after the women's 1500m. I haven't listened to them much over the Olympics as I've generally been at home, but it was interesting how much more direct they got. For example we had Kris Akabusi (very top bloke) being rather scathing about the 4x400m relay, and he has every right to an opinion given his amazing performances in that event over the years. He said Dai Green's 45.5 on his leg should have been a second faster and he shouldn't have been in the final team, mind you the guy he replaced "only" did 45.1. Nevertheless, considering we missed a medal by 0.1 sec, having four good runners instead of three would seem to be a very good idea! In fact I remember earlier in the week KA was saying one of Green's problems in the hurdles was that he didn't have the basic flat 400m speed. Perhaps more concerning was that the interviewer speaking to Lisa Dobriskey after the race went through the standard questions, *but then* asked her how she felt about the race being won by a previously banned "athlete". LD (to paraphrase) said she wasn't very comfortable with that and felt that in that event she was not running on a level playing field. Out of context you might take it as sour grapes but then someone in the studio (can't remember who it was, not one of the athlete pundits) said he spoke to an IAAF official recently who said that they had the most concerns about the women's 1500m of any event. Apparently there's been loads of women middle distance runners caught (notably from Russia) in recent years (and I think the last Olympic champion might also be currently banned) and he gave the impression that the race was the most tainted of all. This was interesting because its a subject you unsurprisingly hear so little about during the Olympics because it doesn't give a good impression, but clearly is still a problem. Sure you get a few obscure athletes caught, but a cynic might say they're just for show... perhaps there won't going to get a major star uncovered at the games again? Because they're clean or because they know how to cover up better? I've heard it said the odd thing about the Ben Johnson incident was not that he was a drugs cheat, but that he was caught out at a time when nobody else did (after all, most others in that race were subsequently caught). Anyway, apparently there will be a biological passport in future, which picks up on abnormal blood tests (by checking several samples over time) even where the test hasn't been failed, to catch those who go in for complete transfusions etc. Sadly, as LD said, it's come too late for her for the women's 1500m - albeit she didn't run a good race anyway - but we might ask why the testers didn't prioritise that race given it's recent history.
Ben Johnson got 'caught' because of who he beat. There was a program on about that whole tournament recently and one of the head drugs testers said that loads of the samples from winning athletes mysteriously went missing. He was rather scathing about the whole thing.
Given that Hoy and Pendleton won't be at the next one (and a few more besides), you can knock off a digit for the number of gold medals team GBleurgh will win in Rio...
The French are claiming that the British have worked out secret deals with other athletes so that we win golds. What twaddle,they hate losing to us.
Well the British cyclist did deliberately crash into somebody in order to win at least a silver medal...
Brilliant! NB the video of the commentators going ballistic was quite amusing. They also did during the 100m final, but there was quite a contrast between Lewis and Jackson bouncing up and down and Michael Johnson sitting down making notes!
Except unlike Jackson, he knows what he's talking about!!! To watch his sideways glances is great television in itself. Completely hoarse from shouting Mo to the finish - will need substantial liquid refreshment......
62 medals....brilliant. I'd like is to spare a thought for those Brits who missed out by a 1000th of a second or by a quarter of an inch from getting a bronze medal. They all did us proud just by being good enough to get to the Olympics and well done to all involved in the movement. The organization and spectacle matched the then greatest Olympics of all time....Sydney,and maybe even bettered them who knows? We're supreme on the bicycles and in the row boats. The French sports minister actually praised us for our tactics in concentrating on our strengths. Why do I comment about the French is because I'm on holiday in France and I speak the lingo. Well done us,it's restored my pride in our country.
I would humbly suggest that is a minority opinion! (Not questioning your freedom to hold it of course.) On a different subject, at some stage I'd like to find out how many security staff G4S actually supplied in the end (compared to how many they should have), and how much they finally get paid (compared to the original contract). On a non-sporting basis, this might be one of the other "legacy" of the games, the time when we either get to grips of this type of contract, or we forever say that these firms can write their own contracts and when they fail to deliver (or end up costing double), they still get paid. They have sort of got away with it due to the feelgood factor produced during the games, and I'm sure they're hoping that everyone has forgotten what happened, but we mustn't let them off.
Great comment that I totally agree with, medals are fantastic, but the achievement of qualifying for finals is equally amazing, the games have really been fantastic, and in my opinion all of our competitors (whether they have won medals or not) have done the country proud, my personal favourites though were Mo Farah and Laura Trott.
The part of the story that was kept very quiet is that G4S were expected to pay Olympic security staff £8 an hour. The national average if £10 per hour. It's no wonder they were short-staffed if they were expected to be paid 20% below the national average (and, presumably, a lot more below the average for London), but that part didn't get front page headlines along the lines of LOCOG TRYING TO SAVE MONEY ON YOUR SECURITY.
Ironically, the failure of G4S inadvertently led to one of the greatest successes of L2012 - the participation of military personnel on Security detail. Having attended 3 locations (OP, Greenwich and HGP), I would say that one of the stand out memories was the friendly, common-sense and efficient operation undertaken by our combined services personnel. Made me feel safe and very, very proud!!
