Is anyone else annoyed with the olympic medal count?

[Irulan]

I've kind of wondered about the backgrounds of a lot of athletes, U.S. in particular because that's where I'm from... I was watching a piece on Nastia Liukin, an American gymnast, and there was a clip of her and her dad driving around in a Porsche. Or maybe a Ferrari. I just remember it was something no one in my family could afford.

I'm not trying to knock the talents these people have, and I'm certainly not looking to start a class war or say they're only where they are because of their upbringing... but it's just interesting to think about how much money can affect the level of training an athlete receives. Like... how many people out there might have similar natural gifts, but just haven't had the opportunity to cultivate it because they just didn't have the same resources? It's mind boggling.

Anyway, back to what the OP asked... medal counts are kind of annoying. The media coverage here in general gets on my nerves. Show me less talking and more running/diving/jumping/whatever!

In the US, as I understand it, the athletes don't receive a lot of state/federal funding, it is up to the individual and whatever sponsors they can come up with and still remain non-professional. So ya, no resources = no olympic coaching. Our government would rather spend money on, oh, never mind.

here's an interesting article. The USA is one of three countries that does not support it's olympic atheletes.

The United States is one of only three countries where Olympic athletes receive no government funding. Instead the U.S. Olympic Committee relies exclusively on income from the sale of television broadcast rights and from corporate sponsors.

I'm not saying that warehouseing a kid at a state training facility from the age 3 on is the answer either, but surely there is someplace in the middle? This article was a little to rah-rah private sector for me but it does explain how US funding works.

funding article