View the full flickr set (27 files)

But it was not just all talk and no play. We had fun having catered lunches and morning breaks and tea breaks and... basically the whole of SYOGOC never saw everyone so often in a week.

It was a time of bonding because we realized how many people we don't know or recognize. People talked more too and the lift was never more busy.

The head of the Youth Olympic Games from the IOC is Essar Gabriel, a tall man who is easily recognizable in a crowd. You can see him in the middle picture of the top row in the photo collage.

He shares with us his thoughts about the planning process in a podcast (3 min 11 sec, 2.92mb). And guess what? He loves Singapore, so hear what he has to say about how he has been adjusting to the hot climate here.

[audio=http://media.switchpod.com/users/yog2010/essar.mp3]

August 22, 2008. OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

In a joint statement issued by the presidents of the World Anti-Doping Agency, International

Olympic Committee (IOC), and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the

following foods have been placed on the list of banned substances issued by WADA: yam, green

bananas, cocoa, dasheen, breadfruit, ackee and saltfish, mackeral run down, turned

cornmeal, Jerked pork and chicken, escovietched fish Malta, Supligen, Milo (said to be the

food drink of Champions), Horlicks and coconut oil. Jamaicans seem to become extremely

athletic on diets with these foods. Coming out of WADA labs, one of the major banned

substances from Jamaica is the Cassava root, a high fibre, high starch tuber root eaten in

Jamaica. It has properties which are said to enhance endurance and cause muscle fibres to twitch

faster. This comes after extensive study of the diets of the Jamaican athletes which took part in

the Beijing 2008 Olympic games. Though natural foods it is felt by WADA that these foods

because of their unique properties give Jamaican athletes an unfair advantage. High

concentrations of carbohydrates and other naturally occurring substances are said to be

mimicking the effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). Some foods have been noted to

in particular cause an unusual increase in the male hormone testosterone. As such WADA has

seen it fit to add these foods to the list of banned substances. Given the sensitivity of this issue,

Jamaican athletes participating in the current Olympic games underway in Beijing have not been

banned but must submit to these new restrictions within the next two years. Two substances

which have been discovered in testing of the Jamaican foods are “yamstenine”, a yam derivative

and “cocosterone”, a derivative of the coco plant. These substances have been found to mimic

nandrolone and the blood booster EPO, hence the preliminary banning of the substances

themselves and the banning of the foods they derive from.

This ruling will also affect other Caribbean and some African countries which share similar diets

as Jamaicans.

The government began taking 30 percent of its cars in the capital off the roads Wednesday in an attempt to make permanent some of the traffic restrictions imposed during the Olympic Games, officials and media reports said.

Beginning Oct. 11, Chinese motorists will also stop driving one workday a week, based on the final number on their license plates. The new rules should take 800,000 vehicles off the roads each day, according to reports quoting Wang Zhaorong of Beijing's Municipal Traffic Committee. There are 3.5 million cars in Beijing, and more than 1,000 vehicles are added each day, according to government statistics.

The attempt to manage traffic is one of the first concrete signs of possible lasting change as a result of the Olympics. The new restrictions come as the capital's traffic has once again surged and as smoggy skies have returned following the lifting of rules imposed from July 20 to Sept. 20 for the Olympics and the Paralympic Games. In an all-out effort to try to clear the air for millions of athletes and visitors, Beijing ordered more than a million cars off the roads, shut down polluting factories and halted heavy truck traffic.

Many in China seemed to approve, taking to the Internet to mostly praise the measures, which in the end produced bluer skies and generally smoother traffic flows. A survey of 5,058 people by the New Beijing News last month showed 68.9 percent supported the traffic controls based on odd- and even-numbered license plates, 19 percent objected to them and 12.1 percent had no opinion. Asked what they would do if the restrictions were to continue, 18 percent of interviewees said they would buy another car.

"Recently, it takes me nearly twice as long to commute than it did during the Olympics," said Zhang Fengyan, 30, an appliance salesman. "The difference is too big. I'd love it if they can make this rule permanent."

There were some problems during the Olympics: A special Olympic lane meant that cars had to crowd into two remaining lanes, and the slower traffic produced greater emissions, experts and officials said. The city's air pollution index initially climbed despite the restrictions.

The Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau declined to release details about pollution components, which would have allowed outside experts to monitor progress.

To read the article in its entirety, please click here.

So here is my problem with the whole age limit thing - the goal of the age limit and the implementation of it is both brain dead and asinine. The original intention of the age limit is "to protect young, still-developing athletes from serious injuries". Really??? By delaying competition age? Let's see, talented little Betty started training at the age of 6, became a world class gymast at age of 14. But instead of competing for Olympics medals at age of 14 or 15 and could consider retirement right afterward, she would have to wait 4 more years to become eligible. And that 4 more years of training somehow protects her from serious injuries? Please!

Here is the real reason why age limit is introduced. There are perceived performance edge by fielding girls before they hit puberty. Powerhouses like Russia, Romania and China all had great success utilizing under-puberty girls. "Pixies", as the Karolyis would have said distainfully, only because they don't get to do that anymore by living in the US. By setting an arbitary limit at 16, FIG officials figured that should separate women from girls. Well, things didn't quite turn out the way they planned now, did they?

Then there is the matter on the age limit implementation. As the AP news said, the North Korean were caught red handed once, by registering one of their gynmasts as 15 years for THREE STRAIGHT years. And they were only caught when she won the gold medal. Nobody would say a thing had she never won anything. Seriously, how are you going to verify the age anyway? The cheater has to be either extremely stupid, like the North Koreans; or being careless, like the Chinese 2000 Olympics team, by going public about their ages 8 years later; or the cheaters admit themselves, like the Romanians. Do it right, there is no way IOC or FIG can catch people cheating the way they do it right now. The license system FIG plans implement only helps to resolve any age controversies quicker. It doesn't address the fundamental problems of age cheating. Governments produce fake birth certificates all the time. Now they just have to be more consistent.

So what to do? FIG can move the age limit to 24. It will be really hard for anyone to justify how the gynmasts on the floor look like they are still in their early teens. Although the competition would then just devolve into the full-bodied vs. the flat-chested. It's back to square one.

There is another way, I think it's very fair and would greatly increase the viewership. All competing women gymnasts should be required to meet certain minimum physical measurement, say 36-24-34. That would eliminate the puberty issue once and for all. I highly doubt this proposal would be popular with the general public though, being PC and all. Many good ideas are not. That's too bad.

In all seriousness, if you do care about the wellbeings of the gymnasts, then I suggest you should file pettions for removing the age limit. The earlier these girls can start competing for glories and winning prizes, the sooner they have chances to get out of this hellhole. It's that simple. Really.

But the weirdest part of this whole saga is that the 2000 gymnasts Dong Fangxiao and Yang Yun are still under investigation. Of course, Americans are less likely to care about this because it would not change the results for the U.S. team. Nevertheless, the fact that the 2000 gymnasts are still under investigation while the 2008 gymnasts are not says something that is questionable at best about what is considered proper evidence in these investigations.

The pieces of evidence that led the FIG to investigate Dong and Yang came from the gymnasts' own mouths: Dong on her blog, and Yang in a 2007 interview. The FIG then later found that the documentation for Dong provided in 2008 seemed to suggest she was 14 in 2000 (not exactly sure what that says about the bureaucrats at the FIG -- did they read the date of birth?!).

What is less clear is why Romania is not being similarly investigated for Gina Gogean and Alexandra Marinescu, despite the fact that the country itself admitted that the two were underage when they competed. Of course, this opens a huge can of worms, because there are undoubtedly other gymnasts, especially from centralized systems with secretive governments, who should then be subject to a once-over.

In this post I said there were a number of things to consider in this investigation, so let me address them now.

First, should the FIG have been further investigating the matter once the Chinese government had provided passports, birth certificates, and national ID cards, all "proving" the girls' ages? On the one hand, there is plenty of evidence that many countries have falsified documents or simply lied about ages in order to get their best athletes on their teams. Given the fact that there were independently obtained documents -- from the Chinese government itself (the Administration of Sport) -- and from a national newspaper (less convincing) that seemed to suggest He was fourteen, there was certainly sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, in my opinion. This is not to say that it is the job of the FIG or of the IOC to question the policies of a sovereign nation, but on the other hand we have sports governing bodies precisely because the stakes are so high -- or at the very least, because people think the stakes are so high. The fact that China is an oppressive, secretive, and massively corrupt regime, however, should not play a role. Unfortunately, the FIG and IOC should deal with each country similarly, regardless of regime type. I don't think that this "fairness" should extend to international politics, of course (!), but in the case of international sports' governing bodies, I think there is a limit. This is apparently the view of the FIG. Once China provided documentation, that was sufficient. The exception came when the gymnasts themselves began suggesting that they were underage. I think that that justifiably reopens the investigation. To be clear, especially given what I know of the Chinese government, I sincerely doubt He was of-age for Beijing. And the matter of consistency on behalf of the FIG will be addressed when, perhaps, someday, she admits this. To go back to the original point, I think the FIG has reached the appropriate conclusion here: trust national governments unless this becomes an obvious political liability.

Second, if a nation is found to have falsified ages, what should happen to the athletes' medals? Like many others, I have the initial knee-jerk reaction to say that once the medals have been -- at least in terms of the competition -- justly obtained, that it is too late. Perhaps some penalties for future competition, but no revoking of medals. However, upon further reflection, this is simply not sustainable practice. If an athlete is found to have been "cheating" in any way, the medals should be revoked -- one of the main purposes of punishment is deterrence. It would naturally leave a bad taste in my mouth to collect a medal that I did not feel rightfully belong to me (as the Americans might have had they suddenly been given team gold). But that is not the important point -- the important point is that medals must be won with adherence to the rules, and if they were found to have been acquired by less-than-legitimate means, they should be taken away. This, incidentally, brings up the question of Andreea Raducan. What if the FIG were to change (again) its age policy, back up to sixteen? Should Dong and Yang, imagining that their medals have been taken away, be given back their medals? Of course not! Then it would be in any country's interest to break rules that are not pleasing to them, and then lobby for their revocation in the aftermath. It is for this reason, as much as it breaks my heart, that Raducan should not get her medal back, despite the fact that the drug has since been removed from the restricted list. The penalty for age falsification, like for any other breach of the rules -- particularly given the supposed ideology of peace and international understanding that governs the Olympic Games -- should be immediate forfeiture of victories.

Finally, what does all of this mean for the question of age limits? There is obvious evidence that younger girls are more flexible, have less fear, and have less wear-and-tear on their bodies. That is to say, the difference between fourteen and sixteen can make a significant difference. This suggests that using a fourteen-year-old when all the others are competing with older gymnasts could have a significant impact on the outcome. At a minimum, the Chinese picked their talent from the best they had, regardless of age (at least, that's what I believe) and the Americans, for instance, did not -- what of Rebecca Bross, for instance? So age could have made a difference.

But the real question is, should the age limit remain? The intent of the age limit was to limit overtraining of young girls and to avoid major injury to children. As it happens, I have just pointed out that younger gymnasts tend to be less broken, not more. So that argument is questionable at best. Moreover, it is hardly clear that the age change has led to less overtraining, particularly in systems like the Chinese system. (Especially if certain countries are bringing underage athletes anyway! But let's assume for a second that they're not.) There are some major international competitions junior international elites can attend, including Europeans and Pacific Rim/Alliance, plus other small meets. This is less than for seniors, but the juniors are training the same number of hours as the seniors. The smaller number of meets means the juniors aren't repeatedly trying to peak -- at least, not nearly as often -- but they are undoubtedly training just as hard. Which means the suggestion that this lowering of the age limit has made any difference to training regimens, hours spent in the gym, or early starts to gymnastics careers, is lackluster. Probably at best we have kids peaking and then sitting around in a holding pattern -- anyone worried, for instance, that Jordyn Wieber could break in, say, the four years she has before she turns sixteen? Does anyone think that she is not training as hard as a senior on a day-to-day basis? Ultimately, this artificial limit has been attempted, has failed, and has caused more trouble than it's worth. Hopefully this denouement has proven this to the FIG.

gravis777 sends us to BoingBoing for news that the International Olympic Committee has trademarked a line from the Canadian National Anthem and is threatening to sue anyone who uses it. The line in question is "with glowing hearts." "The committee is so serious about protecting the Olympic brand it managed to get a landmark piece of legislation passed in the House of Commons last year that made using certain phrases related to the Games a violation of law. The list includes the number 2010 and the word 'winter,' phrases that normally couldn't be trademarked because they are so general."

So I guess if I write the following I've got it all covered:

In the winter of 2010, the citizens of Canada, with glowing hearts (or is that hearths), get royally screwed by the IOC.

So sue me...

The International Olympic Committee has trademarked a line from the Canadian national anthem, "with glowing hearts," and is threatening to sue anyone who uses the line in Canada, as part of the Vancouver Games.

This is par for the course. The IOC is a corrupt, bullying, greedy, hypocritical organization that uses trademark laws to limit the free speech and commerce of people who have the misfortune to attend or live near the games -- for example, in Athens, they forced people to take off or cover up t-shirts that had logos for companies that hadn't paid to sponsor the Olympics; and in Washington, they attacked decades-old businesses named after nearby Mount Olympia.

The Olympics cloak themselves in the rhetoric of international cooperation and development, but everything they touch turns to garbage: totalitarian surveillance camps where corporate greed rules all. The Canadian IOC ought to be disbanded over this -- it's an affront to the entire nation.

I think that after the London games in 2012, the Olympics should return permanently to Olympia in Greece. It should be run by the Greeks or some international committee (maybe the EU could get involved with it) but no-one from the IOC should be allowed to have any say at all in it. If the IOC want to run their own alternative Olympic games they should be allowed to do so, but should not be allowed to use the word "Olympics" or any other word derived from a European place name. All European countries should send their athletes to the games at Olympia, and athletes from the rest of the world would also be invited. This would:

1. remove the power of the corrupt IOC

2. end the often politically contentious decision about where to hold the Olympics

3. allow the same sporting facilities to be reused every games, saving money

4. return a European cultural institution to Europe

The situation I've been getting myself into is that I have Business Logic actions that do a very discrete bit of logic, these will have dependencies on data access repositories as well as other business logic actions (potentially). I was happily using interfaces for the data access dependencies and then continued to use them for business logic dependencies, this lead to a bit of a mass of interfaces, and I also ended up with tests that mocked all these dependencies, resulting in missing lots of problems that occur in the interaction between business logic actions.

What I really want is that all data access dependencies can be replaced by mocks, but the 'real' instances of all the business logic actions are used. This seemed hard to achieve as we are not using an IOC container for our dependency injection (What a pain!) so use a default constructor for each class that just provides real implementations. So if we use a real instance of the business logic dependency we either have to know about it's dependencies (resulting in massive constructors for all possible dependencies in the object graph).

The solution I hit upon today seems kind of obvious now (and of course is completely irrelevant if you have an IOC Container). Specify all data access dependcies by interface so they can be mocked out. Specify all business logic dependencies as concrete dependencies (still in the constructor). Use default constructors to use default instances of all the dependencies. In tests create all business logic objects for the required object graph using dependency injection, use mocks for data access dependencies and real instances for business logic actions.

public class Class1
{
  private IDataAccess1 dataAccess1Dependency;
  private Class2 class2Dependency;

  public Class1()
    : this(new DataAccess1(), new Class2())
  { }

  public Class1(IDataAccess1 dataAccess1, Class2 class2)
  {
    this.dataAccess1Dependency = dataAccess1;
    this.class2Dependency = class2;
  }

  public int MethodToTest()
  {
    return class2Dependency.Method() + dataAccess1Dependency.GetInt();
  }
}

public class Class2
{
  private IDataAccess2 dataAccess2Dependency;

  public Class2()
    : this(new DataAccess2())
  { }

  public Class2(IDataAccess2 dataAccess2)
  {
    this.dataAccess2Dependency = dataAccess2;
  }

  public int Method()
  {
    return dataAccess2Dependency.GetInt();
  }
}

/// <summary>
///A test for MethodToTest
///</summary>
[TestMethod()]
public void MethodToTestTest()
{
  MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
  IDataAccess1 mockDA1 = mocks.DynamicMock<IDataAccess1>();
  IDataAccess2 mockDA2 = mocks.DynamicMock<IDataAccess2>();
  Class2 class2Instance = new Class2(mockDA2);

  Class1 target = new Class1(mockDA1, class2Instance);
  using (mocks.Record())
  {
    Expect.Call(mockDA1.GetInt()).Return(5);
    Expect.Call(mockDA2.GetInt()).Return(6);
  }
  using (mocks.Playback())
  {
    int expected = 11;//5+6
    int actual = target.MethodToTest();
    Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
  }
}

J2EE applications usually carries excessive amounts of protocol code: Try/catch blocks for JDBC, or transfer objects requires a lot of bulk code that is totally unnecessary compare to business logic but mandatory for J2EE structure.
J2EE applications often use distributed object model: Distributed object model(a remote object whose methods can be invoked from another JVM, potentially on a different host) creates extra codes where most of those are simply duplication. Distributed application is much complicated than the co-located(same place) one.
Unit test in J2EE applications are tough The basic design of J2EE didn't consider unit testing. As a result EJB and most of J2EE APIs are hard to test out side of server.
Over use of EJB: EJB was specifically designed for internally distributed and transactional applications. But it was used in many place where it was not appropriate.

It is proven by experience a framework is much flexible than traditional tool-enabled code generation. Configuring the behavior of simple piece of code much easier by using a framework. Many developers attempt to write a framework for these reasons. Spring comes up with solutions of many flexible facilities. Spring framework contains many features that help to commit a web application in a easier way. Here are some core features of Spring:

Inversion of Control (IoC): Most probably the best feature of this framework. Advertise the example of Hollywood principle of "Don't call me, I will call you". In traditional way of class library, Application code is responsible for total work flow. As a result calling out the class library is necessary. But by Inversion of Control framework code invokes application code, coordinate overall work flow.

Dependency Injection: A kind of IoC that maintains push configuration. At the runtime, the dependencies are pushed into application object. Thats why Dependency Injection objects never need to load custom properties or search a database to load configuration. The framework does the whole thing.

Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP): AOP separates crosscutting concerns into single units or aspects.

By: Md. Shahjalal

References:
1. http://www.wrox.com
2. Expert Spring MVC and Web Flow
3. Java Loby

India, while much more stable than Pakistan, is still a developing country and has experienced a string of terrorist attacks over the past few months in test venue cities. It is hardly a place someone would feel safe visiting, whether it is as an athlete or just a tourist.

A few decades ago, I doubt Australia would be going to India in a month. The professional money was absent then and it was not worth risking lives to go play an amateur game.

India was also not a desirable place to travel. One of the biggest reasons Australia's test series victory over India in 2004 was its first win in India in 35 years was because they hardly toured there. Australia toured India for a test match series four times in between those two series wins: September-November 1979 for six tests, September-October 1986 for three tests, March 1998 for three tests, and February-March 2001 for three tests. There was also a one-off test in October of 1996.

Compare this to the Ashes vs. England. In the same 35 year time span between Australian victories in India, December 1969 to November 2004, Australia made nine tours to England to play test series as well as a tenth trip in 1980 to play a one off test as part of the centenary celebrations at Lords. It's not hard to figure out that Australia was going to England twice as often as they ventured to India.

There are reasons, such as the famed "Delhi belly" and cries of substandard and biased umpiring favoring the home team, as to why teams avoided India. After Australia beat India in 1969, they went ten years without touring there. The tour set to commence in October will be Australia's third test tour there in seven years. There is one reason above all others to explain this: money.

The fact is that India controls all the money in cricket. There is no system of checks and balances in place to prevent India from holding all the strings. The ICC should have this role, but history shows that they are not respected enough to stamp their authority on matters. Instead they are run by the whims of its members, generally whoever is financially strongest at the given time. Right now that is the BCCI. However, the failure of checks and balances is twofold. The ICC is more or less formed and governed by its members, not independently in the manner that the IOC rules over countries participating in the Olympics. The boards of all other nations have failed miserably to check India as it has assumed its share of wealth. As a result, every board is at the mercy of the BCCI.

This was never more evident than how the ICL has been smashed by the iron fist of Lalit Modi, the man in charge of the IPL and a key figure in the BCCI family tree. Regardless of the fact that more competitive cricket for individual players from teams like the West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh would help produce more parity in cricket and bring them closer to the level of teams like Australia, the BCCI immediately declared that any ICL players should be banned by their respective country's board. If the BCCI was interested in promoting cricket, they would not object to the ICL. In America, their methods would be in violation of competition and anti-trust laws, but in India the BCCI is allowed to dictate as they please.

It is the fault of other boards though for not standing up to the BCCI when the time called for it. Someone like Shane Bond should not be on the sidelines. If the BCCI declared that Indian players were no longer eligible to play for India because of their participation in the ICL, that is fine because those players are under their authority. But they have no place ruling by proxy that New Zealand must ban Shane Bond, that Bangladesh must ban their recent "rebels" or that England must ban any county players like Paul Nixon from participation at international level. They are able to get away with it because no one checked them when they had the chance, and now India has all the money and power because of it.

The biggest and most crucial chance for someone to stand up to India was this past January in Australia when India threatened to leave after the Sydney test and subsequently after the Adelaide test before the one day series began. They reportedly had planes on standby to take the team out if Harbhajan Singh's suspension due to his racially abusing Andrew Symonds was not overturned. Australia should have called their bluff. Enough was enough. The BCCI was ready to run roughshod over Cricket Australia, with threats of lawsuits looming. The time was right to find out if the BCCI was just a paper tiger, or if they were ready to deal with the consequences should everything fly right back in their face. The backlash would have been tremendous had a team abandoned a tour on the basis of "pride." This was not apartheid. This was a team complaining about a tattle-tail, he said-he said string of events. But Cricket Australia blinked first, shaking in their boots thinking about all the money that could have disappeared. Instead the only thing that disappeared was the spine of Australia's board.

Now the situation is occurring where Pakistan is crying of double standards. Australia will tour India but not Pakistan, despite repeated terrorist attacks in both countries. The argument was thin trying to compare Pakistan to the Ashes tour of 2005 when a terrorist attack took place in London. That was a one off. These incidents are commonplace in Pakistan and to a lesser extent India. Australia though, is compelled to tour India because of the money at stake. It's hard to blame Cricket Australia, as well as the players, for their current stance. Just about every other board has a problem saying no to India.

However, instead of having people like COO Shafqat Naghmi continue to rail against Australia, Pakistan's board needs to take a stand against India. The countries are bosom buddies at the ICC voting table, but other than that India doesn't do much for Pakistan. The relationship is a one-way street. Rumors were running around last year that Australian players were keen to see the Pakistan tour axed so they could go play IPL matches and get paid more. Pakistan had their fixtures slated for March and April on the Future Tours Program, well before the IPL took shape, yet the BCCI scheduled the IPL season at a time when it would be in direct competition with Pakistan's international fixtures. Pakistan blamed Australian players, accusing them of chasing money, but no fingers were pointed at Lalit Modi, Sharad Pawar, or others in the BCCI for putting an option against playing Pakistan out there.

Originally the BCCI pledged international fixtures to take precedence over IPL fixtures, but the case arose in April where Chris Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Dwayne Bravo had to be cajoled into returning in the nick of time to square off in a test series for the West Indies against Australia. Currently, Sri Lanka's leading players, including captain Mahela Jayawardene and vice-captain Kumar Sangakkara, are at loggerheads with their board because a series in England has been agreed to for next April, one which clashes with the IPL and the players' individual earning potential. Instead of coming out immediately and declaring to the players that they must honor their country's matches before any domestic tournaments, both the ICC and the BCCI have sat idly and let the Sri Lanka board and its players squabble. This is because the ICC and the BCCI are now essentially one in the same. The BCCI controls everything that the ICC does and everyone else is powerless to do anything about it.

One can only hope that there are no terrorist attacks in India during the upcoming test series against Australia, especially in cities where matches will be taking place. There will also be a collective sigh of relief if the series goes off without any mudslinging and accusations about racial taunts or other unsavory events. However, this is not just because these things will take away from the cricket. It's because it will only present one more opportunity for the BCCI to flex its growing muscles, showing its status in the game and for Cricket Australia to wilt and submit to the BCCI when a moment of truth, a chance to establish integrity, arises.

According to theTehran Times:

The International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF) and the International Paralympics Committee announced that Iran has pulled out of competition "due to their dissatisfaction with the draw proposed for the cross-over round and subsequent schedule".

The draw placed Iran and Israel on the same side of the bracket, so that if they both won their quarterfinal matches (against the USA and Canada, respectively) they would play each other in the semifinals.

We wrote about two similar incidents during the Olympic Games in August, when Iranian and Syrian swimmers pulled out of races that included Israeli participants. The Iranian swimmer, Mohammad Alirezaei, had been complaining of stomach problems, but Syria gave no explanation for their athlete's absence.

The explanation that Iran gave for their wheelchair basketball team's decision is dubious at best, pitiful at worst. Says Ha'aretz:

"The main reason is...some change suddenly in the time of the match," said the official, a member of Iran's delegation in Beijing who refused to give his name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

"This sudden change has made a lot of problem for us," the Iran official said. "[Because of] the problems this causes for the delegation, this team decided not to participate in the game."

In other words, even though these athletes trained a lifetime to compete in the biggest tournament in the world for disabled athletes, the team quit because of the "problems" a mere schedule change caused to the Iranian "delegation."

Here's what the USA's representative said:

"The U.S. team received notice of the time change about 24 hours before the match," said Jeannine Hansen, a spokeswoman for the American delegation. "Teams were told before the Paralympics that competition times could change for television broadcasts or other reasons," she said.

The truth is, times change for sporting events all the time. Just this past weekend, the Chicago Cubs and Houston Astros had to move their series to an entirely different city because of Hurricane Ike.

So Iran's explanation for quitting the tournament doesn't quite satisfy. And as much as it is against the Olympic creed (and explicit IOC and IPC rules) to pull out of competition for political reasons, we should direct our sympathy towards the athletes, who not only couldn't complete the tournament, but were told, according to Iran's Paralympics supervisor, to "come back to Iran as soon as possible.”

—Benjamin Schuman-Stoler

India's Petronet LNG plans to shut its 5 million tonnes a year LNG plant for a week from Oct. 14-19 to link new units which will double its capacity. "There will be only one term cargo loading from Kandla and Dahej, and we are not going to export anything beyond that," an IOC official, who did not wish to be identified, told Reuters.

IOC normally sells three 30,000-tonne naphtha cargoes from the Dahej terminal, and three cargoes a month from Kandla port, both in western India.

It buys natural gas from the Dahej LNG terminal for its industrial clients in western India.

"We will supply naphtha to meet the demand of fertiliser and small industries. So we will not be having any surplus naphtha for exports," the official said.

Source Reuters

So we are into our 3rd day of the Paralympic games in Beijing. Have you been watching on T.V?

Oh that's right you can't. Those dimwits at the networks and the IOC apparently don't feel that the achievements of the paralympians in your country deserve the air time.

Can anyone tell me that paralympic athletes don't train as hard? Can someone tell me that paralympic athletes don't put their heart and soul into their sport like able bodied Olympians do? I though not.

In the infinite wisdom old Jacques Rogge and the IOC, these Olympic games are for some reason not even held at the same time. Don't give me that shit that you can't get it all in in time. Extend the damn dates out. Who cares if it goes 2 1/2 weeks instead of two. Their accomplishments as athletes are no less rewarding than those of say Micheal Phelps. In fact I bet if you put duct tape around Micheal's legs and tossed him into the pool you'd be fishing him out with a net.(no offense he's still a good swimmer) Or those two American ladies who win all the beach volleyball. Tape their legs up behind them and they would bite on more sand than they would metals.

There is no logical reason to exclude these athletes from the Olympic games. Even big bad China doesn't care. They turned all the cars back on. Oh who gives a shit about the guy with two prosthetic legs. He doesn't need to breathe as he runs around the track. Give me a break.

Think about this for a second will you please. You are at work and doing the same job as the 10 guys next to you, except you only have one arm. It's lunch time, and ten guys go to lunch together. Oh but wait you have to go to lunch when they get back because you only have one arm.

So how does that feel? ... Total bullshit I say!

I don't even like the goddamn Olympics. They bore me to death. I don't even know anyone with a physical challenge. But every two years I go through the same emotional blowup about the exclusion of these athletes. Who knows maybe this will start the revolution. At least I feel better about letting that out.

If you think this is also total crap please have others read this article. Perhaps together we can make watching our Paralympic athletes commonplace at future Olympic games.

As for Jaques Rogge, the IOC and the major T.V networks ... ASSHOLES

Bekannte Betrugsmodelle direkt beim Dopingtest waren Fremdurin entweder durch Katheder, durch Vaginalkondom oder auch einfach weil die Sichtkontrolle gar nicht stattfindet. Einen filmischen Beweis für diese Schludrigkeit liefert der Film "Sommermärchen" zur Fussball-WM 2006: Oliver Neuville kann nicht pinkeln, wenn ihm jemand dabei zusieht. Also darf er allein auf die Toilette.

Dem guten alten Donike wurden in der Krabbe, Breuer Zeit drei verschiedene Urinproben vorgebracht, die von je einer Athletin stammen sollten. Tatsächlich war es das Urin ein und derselben Person, höchstwahrscheinlich keiner Athletin.

Werner Franke auf die Frage:

Angenommen, ich nehme als Sportler Wachstumshormon oder IGF-1 oder Epo, und die Welt-Anti-Doping-Agentur Wada lässt nun plötzlich doch einen Test zu, den ich und mein Dopingberater noch nicht kennen. Gibt es so etwas wie die Pille danach, die hundertprozentige Sicherheitsmethode?

Franke:

So etwas existiert. Dopingarzt Fuentes sah dafür das "polvo rojo" oder das "polvo blanco" vor, das rote oder das weiße Pulver. Die Sportler, die er betreute, hatten ein solches bei sich, etwa in einem winzigen Faltpapierstückchen in der Trikottasche, in einem Pflaster oder sonst irgendwo am Körper versteckt. Kurz vor Abgabe der Urinprobe lässt der Getestete etwas von diesem Pulver an seinem Finger haften und lenkt dann den Harnstrahl kurz über diesen in den Becher. Das Gemisch der darin enthaltenen Eiweiß abbauenden Enzyme, sogenannte Proteasen, zerstört dann so gut wie alle Peptidmoleküle im Urin. Dopinganalytiker können anschließend nichts mehr feststellen, sogar die körpereigenen Proteine nicht mehr. Enzympräparate, die rasch Dopingmittel abbauen können, gibt es auch in Form von kleinen Körnern, die man sich vor der Urinprobe in die Harnröhre steckt und sie dann mit dem Strahl abgibt.

(entnommen Franke, Ludwig: Der verratene Sport - Die Machenschaften der Doping-Mafia. Täter, Opfer und was wir ändern müssen. ZS Verlag Zabert Sandmann, 2007)

Hier folgende Unterpunkte:

• Dopingtest, wie läuft das ab?

Eine etwas merkwürdig illustrierte Vorgehensweise ist bei www.dopinginfo.ch beschrieben.

• Blut- oder Urintest? Wann was?

Urintests sind der Standard, Bluttests sind erst lt. http://www.dshs-koeln.de/biochemie/ (ist identisch mit www.dopinginfo.de) seit dem Jahr 2000 ausgeführt worden, da im Urin bspw. EPO nicht nachweisbar war/ist. So weit ich momentan im Wissensstand bin, ist der einzige verlässliche Nachweis von den wirklich argen Dopingmethoden der, Blutbilder der einzelnen Athleten festzustellen und dann bei neuerlichen Kontrollen die Ergebnisse mit dem schon vorhandenen Bild abzugleichen. Natürlich kann man schön weiter Urin sammeln, durch die Welt zu geheimen Orten und vertrauenswürdigen Laboren fliegen, allein bringen wird es nicht so viel.

• Die Labore, wo sind sie? Kann man ihnen trauen?

Die für den Spitzensport relevante Anti-Doping-Institution ist die 1999 vom IOC ins Leben gerufene WADA. Davon gibt es nationale Töchter-Agenturen. Zumindest ist die WADA verantwortlich für die Akkreditierung von Doping-Test-Laboren und sie listet diese hier auf. Von den einzelnen Laboren wird hier noch gesprochen werden. Interessant dazu der Artikel von Jens Weinreich. Das Minsker Nationalbüro ist noch nicht gelistet. Dafür aber das polnische. Dazu hat Werner Franke wieder eine Anekdote über Julia Nesterenko, der Olympiasiegerin von 2004.

Since I have already covered the ugly kid scandal, I will move on to another notable item.

Hungarian weightlifter Janos Baranyai dislocated his elbow while attempting to lift 148kg or 325.6lb. It was rather horrific to watch. Some how he didn't break any bones. But none the less, it has become a viral video. This has elevated him to a permanent level of shame. No matter what he accomplishes in his weightlifting career, it will forever be overshadowed by a short clip on YouTube. Weightlifting Fail.

Usain Bolt was bashed for showboating. As far as I'm concerned he can do whatever the hell he wants, he's the fastest man in the world. Go ahead and try and take his medals back. You can't catch his ass. Deal with it. So he was excited. Of course he was excited. You ever win an Olympic Gold Medal? No. I'm sure if you did you'd be excited too. I'm also going to point out the fact that he probably isn't doing any performance enhancing drugs. He's from Jamaica. If you don't get my point by now I'm willing to sell you a small bag of Oregano for twenty bucks. At least that's what I'll put in the bag because you won't know the difference.

Ara Abrahamian. You are an ass. This wing nut was pissed about what he considered a bad call during his medal match in Greco-Roman Wrestling. For a Wrestler, he's a big baby. The IOC was upset with his "damn the man type of action," when he left the podium and tossed his bronze medal on the mat. What a snub a bronze medal must be. He's the third best Greco-Roman Wrestler in the world. To bad that wasn't good enough for him. The IOC responded with a big old fuck you by stripping him of his unwanted medal. Seriously? They took away something he didn't want in the first place. Big punishment there. Way to stick it to him. I've got a fist full of fail to hand out on this one. First of all, a big old Quadruple Fail goes out to Ara Abrahamian. Here they are:
Gold Medal Fail.
Silver Medal Fail.
Bronze Medal Fail by default.
Temper tantrum Fail. You're not twelve stop acting like a pre pubescent douche.
Now for the IOC:
Punishment Fail. They should have made him keep the damn medal and banned him for the 2012 games so he gets stuck holding onto that bronze for eight years instead of four.

And now back to those wacky Chinese. How old are your gymnasts? Oh...you lost the paperwork. Right we believe that. That little girl didn't have three birthdays in one year. We know you can control your people, their actions and even their thoughts. Damn you for thinking you can also control time. We know you're lying. China is like the drunk guy that you can't reason with once he's drank to much. You know the kind of person I'm talking about. Everybody has at least one friend that drinks to much and argues for the sake of arguing, even after he is proved wrong.

Last up on the chopping block is Cuban Angel Matos. During the bronze medal taekwondo match he was disqualified for exceeding the time limit of an injury time out. He proceeded to push and then kick a referee in the face. After that, he spit on the floor. What a dick. His coach Leudis Gonzalez is also a dick. He said the ref was to strict, and that Kazakhstan fixed the match by paying off the ref. Come on. Like the Kazakhstan Government has extra money laying around to pay off a Swedish ref in the Olympics. Ludicrous. Consequently both Matos and Gonzalez have been banned for life from all matches sanctioned by the World Taekwondo Federation. Anger Management Fail.

Well that's it. Another epic world unifying event marred by stupidity and controversy. See you in London in 2012.
Strow

In fact, I also don't see why they turn down so many sports that want inclusion (other than logistics and stuff). I don't mean the fringe sports, I mean something like cricket or rugby or karate and the like. I don't get why tae kwon do would have to be eliminated to include karate. I just don't really get it.

Basically, there are a bunch of sports in the Olympics (equestrian, shooting, archery, fencing, modern pentathlon) that reflect the pastimes of the uppity upper class Europeans of the 19th century. But since the Olympics aren't really about reenacting the Russo-Swedish wars, those sorts of sports aren't exactly indicative of the sporting community of the 21st century.

That said, the only sports I think the Olympics should get rid of are dressage (how is riding a horse in a circle a fucking sport? I mean, I get show jumping, sort of, but horse-nastics is no more a sport than canine long jump), modern pentathlon (running, swimming, shooting, fencing, and show jumping? Who the hell does this?) and shooting (archery I get as there's some sort of physicality to it what with the pulling of the bow string and stuff, but this is basically just Duck Hunt—actually, I'd be cool with it if it were Duck Hunt).

In fact, I think they should be adding more, which they generally are doing, sort of, as they tend to add more sports than they ditch, and even when they keep the number of sports even, they always add new events (longer distances or different equipment like the marathon swim and BMX this year, for example). I don't think they should remove a sport until it is no longer part of the global sporting consciousness (and I think the above mentioned fit). Anyways, here's what I think should be added.

Baseball/Softball

Yeah, I know that these were just pulled from the Games, but I truly do think that's an error. I don't see how the fact that only three or four teams can contend for the gold (in baseball; two in softball) is any different than say gymnastics, and even if you can somehow argue that it is, the issue is a product of the way the tournament is set up. By guaranteeing the host nation and Europe each one spot, that winds up with a full quarter of the tournament being lame ducks. Those two slots go to Central American or Caribbean teams (or a third Asian team) and all of a sudden there's a little more balance in power. Of course, I also think pros should be involved, but that's besides the point.

The only stupid thing about baseball/softball is the fact that softball is even played at all. Girls should play baseball (just like they should play ringette) not sports designed to be effeminate versions of sports boys play. But, more importantly, it means building a second stadium for a sport that often won't ever be played again by the host country.  So yeah, this is all softball's fault, but it still should be an Olympic sport.

Horse Racing

I'm not sure I fully agree with this one, and I think it's obvious that it's never even been considered because of the gambling implications, but if jumping and dressage are fucking Olympic sports, then this should at least be considered, both for its popularity and entertainment value (which dwarfs the other horse sports) and so that oil-rich Arabs can win themselves some Olympic medals. In fact, I think it would be even more fun than the usual horse races because, instead of a huge purse, all they'd be racing for would be pride and a medal, and I wonder how many owners would take the reins themselves instead of letting their jockeys ride their way into an Olympic medal. Actually, maybe that's why this has never come up as an Olympic sport: the guys who control the horse (the trainer and the owner) wouldn't be the guys winning the medals.

Cricket

Okay, I seriously believe in this one. Cricket is probably the second most popular sport in the world after soccer (and I say probably only because there really isn't a good way to measure this sort of thing). That's right, the second most poular sport in the world, and it's not in the fucking Olympics. I think this boils down to the fact that the main countries that play this are of Colonial British descent, and the IOC is run by a bunch of old dudes from countries that don't really like the Brits. Second-most popular!!!!!!!!!

Rugby

This one basically has the same rationale for not being included as Cricket does, with the added bonus of sort of extreme violence. Rugby just doesn't seem like a sport that fits with the whole Olympic vibe, what with the penchant for dudes getting hurt and stuff. But rugby is an insanely popular sport around the world, and it wouldn't be costly to build for or anything.

Golf

With the emergence of guys like KJ Choi, Vijay Singh, Jose Maria Olazabal, Angel Cabrera, and a ton of Aussies and South Africans, golf is a much more international game than it used to be, when there were only the Americans and the Europeans. Ten different nationalities have won on the PGA Tour this year, and while the vast majority of them are still American, that can be tempered by limiting the amount of entrants per country. The only real obstacle I see on this one is that there is a chance that the host country may not have a course that's good enough to compete on, and building that kind of course is pretty expensive for what would ultimately be a minor Olympic sport.

Karate

Really only for the potential for a Bloodsport-esque moment.

Geared toward young girls and their growing desire to play sports, Jane established the Pretty Tough (PT) brand to demonstrate that a woman's femininity and desire to play hard can be strong and can co-exit. Not only does PT do an excellent job of conveying this message to an audience who needs to hear it the most, but the site also has some of the best comprehensive, up-to-date coverage of women's sports available.

I am a strong supporter of this site and this company, and I wish Jane the best of luck in her future endeavors. (You might see me guest blogging for PT in the future).

Check out the below interview. I hope you enjoy her words as much as I have. Thank you, Jane, for your inspiration and taking the time to speak with me.

(MH) Tell me a little bit about yourself, your background and your role at Pretty Tough.

(JS) After a successful career as content developer and entertainment/brand marketing executive, I wanted to focus my attention on something I really cared about. I have two teenage daughters – both athletes – who are my role models.  I wanted to create a brand that spoke to them – and other girls of their generation – demonstrating that a woman’s femininity and desire to play hard and be strong can co-exist.

I teamed up with friends and colleagues that I’d worked with at Disney, Fox and other studios to develop and market the brand. I serve as the Chief Trailblazer but I have help from a talented group of writers, designers, consumer product gurus, licensing professionals, athletes and coaches.

(MH) Have you ever played sports? If so, which sports and how have they had an impact upon your current career and involvement with Pretty Tough?

(JS) As a kid I mostly played sports on a recreational level. I played tennis and swam competitively for a couple years but wasn’t a super serious athlete. The impact on my adult life comes primarily from lessons learned about goal-setting, perseverance and mental toughness.

Today I still play tennis and swim – I also love to hike and bike – and I play basketball on a Moms League at our local park.

I’m also an avid spectator – one of my daughters is an elite level soccer player, the other is a fencer – and I love going to youth sports competitions as well as college and professional sports events.

(MH) Tell me a little bit about the background of Pretty Tough (the book) and how the Web site and sports blog evolved from there. Does Liz Tigelaar have any continued impact on the site?

(JS) One of our early goals when we established Pretty Tough was to publish a series of books that featured young female athletes. We wanted stories about pushing limits and busting stereotypes – e.g. the popular jock can just as easily be a girl as a guy.

Razorbill, a division of Penguin Young Readers, shared our vision and bought the series. Pretty Tough was the first book. Playing with the Boys was the second in the series and we’re working on the third and fourth books now.

Pretty Tough novels illustrate the life of female athletes in a way that's never been done before. We wanted to show the grittiness and sweat that athletes must endure to be the best they can be. The books also delve into the lives of the athletes—their friendships and romances—stuff that appeals to girl readers.

We created the Pretty Tough book series because we love to read, and as teens, we could never find good books with a female athletic main character. We hope readers can identify with our characters and see how they deal with a lot of the same issues teens face today.

Author/screenwriter Liz Tigelaar was brought on board because she supports girls in their quest to be both strong and tough athletes without losing their sense of girlie-ness and femininity.  She loved the idea of writing books about teenagers for teenagers that sends a positive message and she’s done a terrific job capturing the voice of our characters.

(MH) I noticed there is a PT Team. I'm curious, how did this group of people come together? How did you find so many voices to represent so many different sports?

(JS) We developed a sponsorship/ambassador program last year to recognize girls in diverse sports. We have an application process and girls on our team benefit on a variety of levels.  PT Team members get exposure on our site and via our marketing campaigns; they receive a free cap and shirt, stickers, and other promotional material. They also earn discounts on products purchased through our online store and commissions on sales generated by their efforts.

(MH) In my opinion, Pretty Tough covers sports better than many other resources out there. Who is in charge of updating and keeping track of all the latest female sports news? How do they do it?

(JS) Given our limited staff, the task of keeping the site up-to-date is my responsibility. We work with a talented group of girls and women who contribute material specific to their sport and occasionally assign articles we think will be of general interest.

We’re always looking for new writers and experts and want to provide a forum for all female athletes so hit us up if you think you have something to contribute.

(MH) I noticed there is a "Life & Style" section to the site. What is the purpose of this section, and do you think that section is important in order to attain viewers?

(JS) At our heart, we are a lifestyle brand and I think it’s important for girls to understand how sports and leading active lives are core to a healthy lifestyle. By profiling certain personalities and depicting popular culture, we are essentially connecting the dots and demonstrating how sports and sports themes impact our lives positively on a daily basis.

(MH) How does Pretty Tough profit from the site?

(JS) The site was originally established to develop brand awareness for Pretty Tough and serve as an online shopping destination for Pretty Tough products. It has since evolved into a marketing/advertising vehicle for complementary companies as well.

(MH) I was once told by a female sports blogger that a main reason women's sports publications such as Sports Illustrated for Women have fizzled out over the years is because they can't compete with the fashion and consumer magazines and publications, and there is limited interest in the sports news alone. What do you think about this?

(JS) I think that print publications in general are finding it difficult to compete with the internet and other content delivery options. Women’s sports magazines just happened to be at the forefront of pubs experiencing financial difficulties. The current trend is in niche content and given the targeted demographic, I think marketers will find women’s sports sites a more cost-effective way to reach their audience.

(MH) I've written about this a few times on my blog, but something that really is annoying to me is that male sports bloggers often only cover female sports when the participant is "hot" or attractive. Have you seen this or come across this? What are your thoughts on male sports bloggers?

(JS) Objectifying female athletes is a favorite pastime of many male bloggers. It’s obvious that “hot” or attractive personalities are going to garner more media attention (whether it’s David Beckham or Amanda Beard) but bloggers only interested in T&A are abhorrent. I love to see female athletes in the spotlight but it’s important to recognize their athletic talents and achievements as well as their physical attributes.

(MH) If you look back to the WNBA fight that happened a few months ago, why do you think that was so successful in grabbing so much attention?

(JS) Although it might not have been the kind of attention the WNBA wanted, the mini-brawl did shine the spotlight on the players momentarily. Female athletes are just as competitive as men and when pushed to the edge they are obviously capable of exhibiting the same lack of control.  The bigger question should be: Now that the women have shown they can fight like the NBA players - can they get paid the same as the guys too?:-)

(MH) Since I started covering the Olympics this year, my site traffic jumped. There seems to be a strong interest during the Olympics which fizzles out over the year. Have you seen this as well? What are your thoughts about the Olympics and its ability to generate an interest in female sports?

(JS) With all of the media hype and money spent on the Olympics, it’s no surprise that interest in all sports was heightened during the event. Athletes such as Nastia Liukin, Shawn Johnson, Allyson Felix, Sanya Richardson, Dara Torres, Kerri Walsh and Misty Misty May-Treanor received well deserved attention. Equally important was a focus on athletes like fencer Mariel Zagunis, pole vaulter Jenn Stuczynski and martial artist Diana Lopez. Hopefully interest in them and other female athletes will continue.

(MH) What do you think about women's softball being eliminated for the London games? Do you think there's a chance to bring it back?

(JS) Softball’s elimination from the 2012 Games sucks and since the basis of the IOC’s decision was nebulous at best, I think there’s a good chance they’ll reconsider for the 2016 Games.

(MH) It seems there is a large disconnect between the millions of girls and women (through college) who compete in sports on a daily basis and the few of us who cover and follow women's sports as adults (after college). What do you think about this? Do you think there is a market out there for adult females who want to learn about and follow women's sports?

(JS) I’m sure there is a market for adult females who want to follow women’s sports – albeit a small one compared to the male market. At PrettyTough.com we try to focus not only on the sports but also on the lifestyle aspects. Our audience is one that lives a “sports-inspired life” and is also interested in the health, beauty, and entertainment aspects of athletics.

(MH) What do you think is essential in capturing this market? What is holding it back from taking off right now? Why aren't advertisers interested and investing (i.e., Sports Illustrated for Women got dropped a few years back)?

(JS) As mentioned before, niche content and a targeted demographic provide marketers with great opportunities. The cost of producing and distributing a magazine is significant but there are a number of alternative methods for delivering content that provide marketers and advertisers with cost-effective solutions. Companies seriously looking at the bottom line recognize that women involved in sports and living a healthy lifestyle are a valuable demographic with enormous spending power and they should be finding efficient ways to reach them.

(MH) What do you think the future of women's sports will be? Do you think we'll generate more attention, or do you think it has leveled off?

(JS) I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. Just as college sports has exploded in the past 20 years, women’s sports will be the next huge growth area. College basketball games used to be played in empty arenas  - the first nationally televised game wasn’t until 1968 (UCLA vs. Univ. of Houston). Today there are entire cable networks devoted to college sports and they’re big business for all involved. Women’s sports will follow a similar trajectory.

--- I'd like to thank Jane Schonberger again for taking the time to speak to me. Her words and mission at Pretty Tough are critical in our ongoing fight to bring a voice to women's sports online.

I'm starting to wonder if something similar might be happening here. Not to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist or anything, but if this site – or I! – disappear with no explanation then you'll know I'm onto something.

Ok, so "untold abuses" might be a bit strong when talking about the situation in the UK (though really, who knows), but I'm noticing a somewhat perturbing spilt between the public face of the Olympics and the private; the stuff that they (the ODA, and various Olympic stakeholders) want you to see compared to the stuff that's really going on. As with the Tour and The Torch, it's weirdly disconcerting to see something that you know and have experienced get spun out and transformed into something else in public. And this spin always aggrandises the aforementioned ODA, its stakeholders and advertisers at the expense of, well, the little people they depend on, that is: you and I.

This happened at the handover ceremony in central London on Sunday 26 August. 

By chance I came across the place where you could apply for tickets, and I got some. I was interested in watching a live crowd's reaction to the live feed from Beijing. It was hard to find any clear information about what the event really entailed, possibly because none of the organisers knew, or they didn't think it was worth telling the thousands of expected attendees what they were in for. All I knew was that it was going to be a fantastic street party!

What it was really like: 

The party was a series of metal barriers, first to keep the tourists out, then to keep the area around the stage carefully crowd-managed. I saw one of the barriers breached by panicked people trying to get over it so that they could see the stage. People were running and pushing in the crowd, it was scary. A security guy berated a woman who was trying to help her family over the barrier, they had become separated. Beefy security men confiscated people's bottled water.

Dreadful entertainment. Really nasty low-rent stuff. Is McFly really the best that the ODA can do? Horrible Heather Small singing that pukey song about being proud. The cast of We Will Rock You. A terrifying, nationalistic, brain-washy, over-loud version of We Are The Champions. A competition to win t-shirts. Inane presenters. Is this what the Cultural Olympiad is going to be about?

Long queues to buy merchandise and burgers, £18 t-shirts (manufactured where? in China?) and expensive "collector pins".

Blank screens with complaining people sitting around them, waiting for something to happen.

The BBC reported that 40,000 party-goers had enjoyed watching the live handover from Beijing, but this isn't true because the screens were blank, the feed wasn't working, and only a fraction of the people at the event could get to see the main stage, far fewer than the reported 40,000, since it was positioned in an awkward spot. Neither could anyone else in the Mall see because there was no broadcast feed from the stage, all we could hear was the sound.

Here's the obligatory dodgy phonecam footage of the "fun" (.mov, 1.30mins, 2.2mb).

I know these are small untruths in the wider scheme of things, but it grates. A steady stream of tiny little harmless lies are beginning to add up to a picture of how great the Olympics is, how everyone (apart from a miniscule minority of party poopers, bad eggs and terrorists) is completely behind the games, how there was nothing worthwhile in East London until the Olympics came along, and yes, how winning medals is everything, about how great Great Britain is, how excellent the Union Jack is, how this country is a happy place where everyone just gets along, blah blah, etc etc.

Unless you go to any of these events and look at things with your own eyes, how would any of us know what really happened? Who do you trust to tell you? The PR of the horrendous 2012 blog, that seamless, robotic, smiley propaganda machine?

What I want is a truthful, adult, critically-engaged representation of the Olympics. I want independent reporting by people who were there rather than a regurgitation of ODA press releases. I want the beautiful, thinking people of the UK to be able to make up their own minds about things, to be encouraged to do so. My feeling is that the ODA and the IOC are going to fuck with my neighbourhood anyway, but that they can't expect to do that without scrutiny.

No doubt I'm going to end up at more of these ODA-sponsored events. I've been to three of them now, and at each one I've ended up feeling cheated and used. I'd like to say that I've had my fill, but, like Homer Simpson I'll probably keep coming back with a D'oh! each time. Hopefully I'll learn to leave well alone in time, but right now I feel compelled to witness stuff so that I can better recognise the spin and the half-truths being slung my way.

Charlotte

Während der Kontrollperiode bei den olympischen Sommerspielen in Peking, die vom 27. Juli bis 24. August andauerte, wurden insgesamt 4770 Dopingtests durchgeführt. Verglichen mit den in Athen 2004 durchgeführten Dopingkontrollen entspricht dies einer Erhöhung um 32,5 %. Die Tests wurden in 41 Doping-Kontrollstellen durchgeführt, 34 davon befanden sich in Peking und 7 in den Co-Gastgeber Städten.

Von den 4770 durchgeführten Kontrollen waren 3801 Urintestest und 969 Bluttest. 817 Urintests wurden auf Erythropoetin (EPO) und 471 Bluttests auf Wachstumshormone analysiert.

Bislang sind 10 positive Dopingergebnisse bekannt.

Maria Isabel Moreno, Jong Su Kim, Thi Ngan Thuong Do, Fani Chalkia, Liudmyla Blonska, Igor Razoronov

Zwei der Athleten verloren ihre Medaillen.

Wie die FEI in einer Mitteilung vom 27. August 2008 bekanntgab, ergaben die Analysen der B-Proben der getesteten Pferden von Christian Ahlmann (Cöster), Bernardo Alves (Chupa Chup), Denis Lynch (Latinus) und Tony Andre Hansen (Camiro) ebenfalls ein positives Ergebnis.

Quelle: IOC (olympic.org)