I don't find it all that interesting, because i think the number of gold medals given out in Olympic swimming is ridiculous and the fact that so many different events are so frequently dominated by just a couple people (even if never before quite so dominated) is evidence that they really aren't sufficiently unique to warrant separate competition.

To me the feat of winning gold in two separate gymnastics apparatuses is way more impressive than winning gold in 5 swimming events.

Wow: I could posted pretty much the exact same thing.

Anxious to root for the San Jose Sharks again? :evil:

Only when it benefits the Ducks. So ask me again in April/May ;)

Oh, no. I am forever going to remind you of that post that I always take out of context.

There were things I loved and hated about the Olympics this time around. I really do not like NBC sometimes. Since we're getting so much of it delayed on the west coast, is there any real reason we can't at the very least see the entire rotation for the diving finals? Not just the US divers and/or the top divers (and in some cases not even that, much of the diving finals had a Cuban in 2nd place, never even saw him).

I must have totally mistimed it, I never saw even one single event for the Decathalon. In fact, I missed most of the track and field events, except for the Bolt races in repeats over several days. Those were thrilling, dayum he is one fast runner, lightening bolt, indeed. I don't think I could get my a$$ out of the blocks in 9.67 seconds, forget actually running the 100 meters!

I loved both the opening and closing ceremonies and agree, the Mayor of London really needed a suit that fit (button up dammit, this is the Olympics) and a haircut. All the beautiful scenary really made me want to visit China.

I enjoyed it, had trouble finding events I really wanted to see, kept finding the endless coverage of the gazillion rounds of boxing (feather, welter, heavyweight and everything in between).

Looking forward to London in 2012.

I think I can do the 100 meters in about 9.67 minutes.

If I had a golf cart.

You can remind me all you want. I don't deny saying it and I'll keep directing you back to the context. If it entertains you that much to keep bringing it up then keep on keeping on.

They were all out before the Olympics.

And they were all at or near the top of their field before the Olympics (that's how you get to the Olympics).

But were they all out before they arrived at the top of their sport?

I want to believe that someone doesn't have to worry about whether their sexual orientation will affect them; I just understand the reality of some people in our society :(

In reading today's LA Times (yes, I still read the physical newspaper - I'm a dinosaur), I saw an interesting article talking about how art used to be an Olympic event. I was unaware of that!

They don't have been all out for my suspicion to be correct. But unless there is a serious suggestion on the table that homosexuality produces athletic skill, then either it is a statistical fluke or there is some underlying variable at play.

To me, having the population of gays in the game swing to the high end of achievement suggests that somehow the rest of the curve is being cut out. Either the less successful gay participants are pressured out of the sport more than equally successful straight participants or fearing such pressure the less successful ones just don't come out.

Just a theory. Kind of like how the early black MLB players were disproportionately Hall of Famers, not because being black made you a better player but simply because being black meant you had to be a better player to get on the field. It was quite a bit later that you could be a mediocre black player.

Perhaps they are just happier to spend even more time than their competitors hanging around the gym surrounded by bulge-revealing onesies, thus they get far more training time.

Awesome article love the connection to Mary Blair

I don't remember them mentioning the sexual orientation of all the straight athletes and I don't feel snubed. Why would you expect sexual orientation to be mentioned as part of the Olympics coverage?

Bravo for them not considering it relevant to an athletic event

In that vein, I noted that Tuesday was the 51st anniversary of Dan Bankhead's debut as the first black major league pitcher.

That's not true. Every time the camera shows an athlete's opposite-sex spouse or boy/girlfriend, that is exactly what they are saying.

Because, in this case, it is relevant. Mitcham is the only out gay male at the Olympics this year. He is the only diver to break the Chinese stranglehold on diving gold. His struggle to even get to the Olympics with his partner was big news in his native Australia.

But more importantly, gay men are associated with being physically weak, poor at sports, and the antitheses of athletic. When an open gay male succeeds in an athletic endeavor, it is a big deal. Should it be a big deal? No, of course not. But reality, at least for now, makes that answer a resounding yes.

Even on this board, with its high population of left-wing/liberals (not saying that as a pejorative, just a statement of fact) has had non-conservative posters make comments about how hard it was to believe a gay man could enjoy sport for sport sake and not for the sole purpose of ogling the athletes.

That is why I would expect NBC to mention it.

For further examples, please see the following articles on OutSports:
NBC, media ignore Mitcham’s sexuality
NBC defends not saying Mitcham is gay
What Mitcham’s win means to gays everywhere

I sort of agree with both sides. There are two ways that sexual orientation merit mention at the Olympics: 1) a quick cutaway to the partner in the stands without comment; 2) as part of a human interest story about obstacles overcome if, indeed, there were obstacles. However, I don't think editorial comment along the lines of "And you thought gay guys weren't athletic" would be any more appropriate than praising our black swimmer with "And Al Campanis said blacks lack buoyancy."

Olympic philanthropy? Not exactly friendly to the instant replay, is it?

I'd be a little more interested in that list if I knew it was adjusted by representation at the games. Obviously countries with exponentially-larger populations are not going to be equally represented at the games, due to efforts by the IOC to be inclusive to nations with a population disadvantage. Sort of like Rhode Island being disproportionately represented in congress.

As SzczerbiakManiac said, It's because the sexual orientation of straight celebrities is mention, examined, promoted, and obsessed about continuously. The sexual orientation of gay celebrities – and gay sports celebrities in particular – is ignored and covered up. NBC went to great lengths to mention various straight Olympians’ significant others, but ignored Mitcham’s

1) As long as it's the same level of coverage for both gay and straight athletes. No gushy human interest stories about straight romances if all the gay ones get is a quick cutaway.

2) no one is asking for that. Just visibilty.

OHHHH... didn't realize that (didn't read the article)

Considering he wasn't an American and wasn't expected to do much ahead of his upset, I'm not surprised there wasn't a big production piece on him.

Was there mention of his orientation during Australian coverage?

I really don't remember it that way. In fact the only relative they focused on that I can recall was Mrs. Phelps and that was just because they covered everything about Michael. I don't know if Misty and what's her name are a couple or have boy toys, Bolt? The only thing I saw about him was his excessive celebrating and lay back methods. Etc....

Obsessed about it?

Misty and ol' whats-her-name are both married. There was a whole thing about ol' whats-her-name losing her wedding ring mid-game and the Chinese combing through the sand to return it to her.

Kerri Walsh lost her ring. She talked about it last night on Letterman.

Oh sure, give her a name, why dontcha? ;)

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/beij...014106,00.html has a video at the bottom of the article (just one I remember seeing...)

I did not see that about the ring, but I can see why they covered it. If the ring had been from a wife (is that the correct term? Are there two wife's in a gay marriage?) I still think they would have covered it.

Also I will admit to the Tivo effect as a possibility here. All the coverage I watched as recorded. I skipped past all the bios and other fluff watching just the events. During the events there is not much mention made of significant others.

Still as a foreign athlete in a sport the US sucked in, he was lucky if he shown on US TV for any length of time.

Yes, assuming it's a lesbian marriage.