But now we should also rig the Olympics in their favour as well so that their feelings wont be hurt when they come in second.
Anglo Saxon countries are typically top picks for Olympic hosts by the International Olympic Commitee because they are consistently the most stable countries and have low rates of crime. They are also more able to host the Olympics than say, Nigeria or Mongolia.
On top of that, the host country typically sees a 50% increase in medal counts. Anglo-Saxon status has little to do with it. I mean, look at how well China has done.
I think a better question would be why China took home the most gold medals when the games were in Beijing and why there seems to be an Asian bias among judges at the games.
China finished 37 medals (overall) behind the US and won two fewer gold in 2004 -- when the games were in Athens -- and trail the US by 16 overall medals and seven gold this year.
But in 2008 the home team won a whopping 15 more gold medals than any other nation, though they still finished 10 behind the US in overall medals. It appears that the IOC wanted the Chinese to do well on their home turf but it can't rig the results in other countries.
This is being wrongly stereotypical... Especially as decisions in things have to be validated by multiple people, in any form of event. This does not just mean British or people from that background you're talking about...
Whatabout the UK's good performance in Beijing then? We ought to be good at games, we invented nearly all of them and the very concept of leisuretime sport in fact
you must be a brown turd.
Any time a sporting event is held in an Anglo-Saxon country, Anglo-Saxcons (oops, Anglo-Saxons) -and theirs- "win" .Witness the flawed decisions against boxers Manny Pacquiao and Amir Khan, witness the "staged" Olympics and the unusual showing by the British. It is like taking the class dunce and "giving" him straight As. Anglos and Celtics are known to do that, as long as the dunce is one of "theirs", which he usually is.
