That is all.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
Damn Canadians eh
A friend from Toronto kept emailing our group updates today and yesterday during both games. I said where were you when they lost in ice dancing or whatever they call that sport?
Ok, ok, we'll keep Biebs, but he'll be made captain of the Pittsburgh Penguins. Two birds, one stone.
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
Dave
Caretaker/Overlook Hotel
Pffft......Ya, if Doughty's lucky, we'll let him come back to the Staples Center. (friggin' traitor!)
Randy
Why is it that everywhere in the world, and on the official Olympics website, the medal standings look like this at the moment:
Medals
But in the States, you insist on displaying it like this:
The convention used by the IOC is to sort by the number of gold medals the athletes from a country have earned. In the event of a tie in the number of gold medals, the number of silver medals is taken into consideration, and then the number of bronze medals.
The way you seem to calculate it, you imply that 50 bronze medals would be greater than 40 golds. Would that be right?
Oh, and before I'm banned from here: Go 'Murica!
It depends on the media outlet displaying the graphic. I have always remembered the total medals standings being displayed by total gold medals won, not total overall medals won.
I suppose if one looks hard enough though, you could find six of one or a half dozen of the other.
LOL Dave
Because America is the land of equality!
Well the "US method" of 1 gold=1 bronze method doesn't makes sense to me, but neither does the other way, which has 1 gold>5 silvers. I guess it would have 1 gold>100 silvers, if it came to that. Even if the gold was in a nonsensical event, like curling.
It would make more sense to me if it were something like gold=3 pts, silver=2, bronze=1. But that would require someone to do math.
I have never even heard of any of that. I like the old method; most golds = Boss. Most overall medals = 'eh, not so much.
Because America is the land of equality! Well the "US method" of 1 gold=1 bronze method doesn't makes sense to me, but neither does the other way, which has 1 gold>5 silvers. I guess it would have 1 gold>100 silvers, if it came to that. Even if the gold was in a nonsensical event, like curling. It would make more sense to me if it were something like gold=3 pts, silver=2, bronze=1. But that would require someone to do math.
I'm not saying the IOC method makes more sense. But it's the official method for medal placement. If each country decided to follow its own method, it would be anarchy.
Also, if there is one thing that America has taught the world, it's that if you're not first on the podium, you're a loser. So I guess that according to this American principle, yes, one gold is greater than 5 silvers. Not that I like this mentality myself, but isn't it true that it is the American way usually?
No one would consider Galen Rupp a loser for his silver medal, or anyone else who medaled under similar circumstances. But yes, generally speaking we are "going for the gold". Your point has been made though.