2. Victor Bogado [22/08/2008@16:58] [reply]

Richard, the US has a very, very big participation also.

4. Alex [22/08/2008@17:06] [reply]

I assume it uses simple sums. But if it would be EU then you have to compute it differently, taking into account that there would be only one team competing in every discipline, i.e. you cant take more then one medal in team-sport-like discipline (waterpolo, relays). And a max count per discipline would be 1 gold + 1 silver + 1 bronze, if you understand what I am talking about ;)

6. Vadim [22/08/2008@17:52] [reply]

Go Russia! ;)

10. Ante Karamatic [22/08/2008@19:08] [reply]

Guys are right. For example, in table tennis, each country could send 3 athletes. This means 3 from USA, but 3x27 (81) from EU. Those kind of rules exist in each competition.

12. Julian [22/08/2008@19:56] [reply]

fyi there is something called European citizenship.

"Citizenship of the European Union was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992. It exists alongside national citizenship and provides additional rights to nationals of European Union Member States."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eur...

14. claudio [23/08/2008@00:43] [reply]

As I know Vincent, I know he is not seriou at all.

Otherwise I'd object in the same way almost everyone upthere already did.

Stop with that icecream, dude :-)

16. DMAB [23/08/2008@12:22] [reply]

For those of you interested in comparing medal count per continent, there is one available on www.eumedalcount.eu -- and Europe is first... :-)

18. James Henstridge [25/08/2008@04:29] [reply]

If you assume that potential gold medal winners are uniformly distributed among the world's population, then large population countries (China, Russia, USA, etc) will be more likely to have more gold medal winners.

This has an even larger effect when it comes to team sports. It isn't enough to have a single brilliant athlete: you need a whole team of them. In this case, Europe as separate countries is at a disadvantage compared to Europe as a single country since their best athletes may be spread over many mediocre teams instead of a single team with only the best.

20. Vincent2 [02/09/2008@16:44] [reply]

Each person want the best profit for themselves, their family, their country. In the end, we are all just selfish bastards who try to make the best out of anything profitable no matter how ridiculous the results will look like.

That's why it exists a medium for each competitive events or tournaments. And for the Olympics, it's called the IOC.

The resulting medal count given by the IOC is the only official result; and this year, it showed that China has clearly dominated the games, other countries can complain, but you cannot deny the true winner. Countries that has a chance for the first spot (Russia, US, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc.) should just work harder for the next olympics.

This years winner is China, complaining after the results won't change anything ;).

22. Euroskeptic [15/02/2009@21:18] [reply]

Ahh, the classic EU stupidity. Here is the rub. Part of the reason the EU does well because as separate countries it allows for much greater participation then the Olympics allows to a single country. For example, the US is only allowed typically 3 or 4 athletes to qualify at the national level. However, the UK has 3, France has tree, Germany has three, etc. If you were to actually compete as the EU, you would have to live by those restriction which would drop the medal count considerably.

This is the same reason why the EU should not have a seperate seat at the UN, unless it is at the cost of the UK and France's seats.