Gang: The problem in gymnastics, as reported by Reuters and other outlets, is that official state sources had repeatedly listed the three of the gymnasts on the gold-medal winning women’s team as being under the age of sixteen, and hence ineligible to compete. China produced passports improbably showing that they were, despite all other records to the contrary, just barely old enough. The Chinese team weighed, on average, thirty pounds less than the silver medalists, and also averaged several inches shorter. Teams are barred from using little girls in the event because of the lasting damage inflicted on their bodies, something the Chinese seem to have disregarded. It’s a disgrace, and it’s doubly regrettable because China has honestly triumphed in so many other sports, and because of the terrific gymnastic talent in China, which might well have been sufficient for them to win the gold medal honestly.

And i was alluding to China’s official “Project 119,” its four-year effort named after the number of gold medals available in the five most medal-laden sports. It’s not, of course, “Project 357,” because China decided not to focus on silvers and bronzes. They’ve been entirely explicit and straightforward both about the origins of this initiative - looking at the medal tables after 2004, and noticing the smaller gap in golds than in overall count - and their intentions.

Five Times: Although it’s true that “the Americans weren’t complaining then,” it’s also true that media coverage in the US of the 1964 Olympics was careful to specify that the American triumph came in the “gold medal count,” as distinct from the phrase “medals table” that Reuters chose to employ. The New York Times, for example, leavened its report on the gold-medal triumph by observing that “the Russians overcame the American lead in total medals and won that category.” In fact, over time, the overall medal tally has been the most consistent metric of Olympic success.

In the 1964 Olympics when USA was overall winner, the Soviet Union had 96 medals versus USA’s 90 medals. But USA had 36 gold medals vs Soviet Union’s 30 golds.

So IF China manages to pip USA for overall title through gold medals, it will certainly not be unprecedented and perfectly normal.

I’m sure the Americans weren’t complaining then…

And—”and China’s decision to cheat in gymnastics.)”

???

I don’t begrudge the authorities or the athletes their remarkable success. The rapid rise of Chinese Olympics is, on the whole, an inspirational story, and ought to provide hope for so many rising nations that have not previously enjoyed such success (and that holds true despite occasional abuses, and China’s decision to cheat in gymnastics.)

But the notion that gold medals alone define success is without historical precedent. It’s never been used as the measure of Olympic success. And although it may make the Chinese feel triumphant (and that’s a good thing - they’ve earned it) I don’t see any reason why the rest of the world should now adopt that standard, and trample on the accomplishments of the hundreds of other medalists in these games. Winning silver or bronze remains a notable accomplishment - many nations and innumerable athletes would burst with pride at winning just one medal, of any variety.

So Phelps, on his own, has five medals. Or actually, just three, because he relied on his team of compatriots for two of those. And that, in turn, means that Phelps would be tied for 14th or 22nd.

Just because the Chinese say something repeatedly does not make it so.