An Olympic-Scented Potpourri

In case you haven’t heard, the U.S. kicked some serious international butt in the swimming pool this week. One of the butt-kickers was none other than the adorable Nathan Adrian, who won gold in the 100-meter freestyle. And, the best news of all (for him) is that he didn’t even have a wardrobe malfunction, something he’s had problems with in the past (check out the guy in the middle with the white cap). Of course, my love for his face was tempered quite a bit when I realized that he reminded me of my brother. That just ain’t right.

Nathan Adrian, my brother from another mother

Oh well. It never would’ve worked anyway. He’s barely out of utero.

______________________________________

In case you haven’t heard, the Olympics are in London this year, which means a fair amount of royal-family coverage (although, let’s be honest, the press doesn’t really need a reason to plaster pictures of Waity—or (not-so) Weighty—Katie all over the universe). I don’t particularly care about a large percentage of the royals, but we can never get enough Sweet Ginger Prince pics here at ATG. How can you not love this guy?

Thumbs up, buttercup!

Prince Fabulous, in the flesh

If loving him is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.

____________________________________

In case you haven’t heard, the international gymnastic powers-that-be are doing everything they can to ruin the sport. First, they did away with the rule that the top 25 gymnasts go to the all-around competition—regardless of country—and instead, wanting to spread the wealth, now send the top two from each country—regardless of skill level. Sure, makes (absolutely no) sense. But their truly moronic tie-breaking rule tops even that.

Let me set the stage: American Gabby Douglas won gold in the women’s all-around (Go, Gabby!), which I have no beef with. 

Don't let the sweet smile fool you; Gabby Douglas is hardcore.

But, the other American competing in the all-around, Aly Raisman, tied Russian diva, Aliya Mustafina, for the bronze. Unlike swimming, however, both athletes are not awarded a medal in the event of a tie. No, that would make too much sense.

You see, in women’s gymnastics, the athletes compete in four different events or rotations: vault, balance beam, uneven bars, and floor exercise. And the new rule says that, in the event of a tie, the judges should add the scores from the athlete’s top three events--which is essentially the same as dropping her lowest score from the fourth event--and whoever has the best score after that, wins. It sounds fair enough until you break it down. The ladies both had a total all-around score of 59.566 for their four events, with both their lowest scores coming on balance beam: 14.200 for Raisman and 13.66 for Mustafina (which reflected a fall off the beam).  

America's Raisman (L) and Russia's Mustafina (R)

So far so good?

Here’s the problem (and stick with me because it could get messy): Subtracting a smaller number (a worse score) from the total all-around score gives you a larger remainder (i.e. a higher final score). This means that because Raisman scored higher on beam, a 14.200, subtracting her score gives her a lower overall score than Mustafina, who only scored a 13.66. (Bet you weren’t bargaining for all this ATG math.)

It looks like this:

Raisman: 59.566 (overall score) – 14.200 (beam score) = 45.366 (new overall score)

Mustafina: 59.566 (overall score) – 13.66 (beam score) = 45.906 (new overall score)

Therefore, because Mustafina’s worst event scored lower than Raisman’s, she ended up with a higher overall score and, consequently, the bronze medal. If I’m missing something here, please let me know, because at this point I can’t see any logic in the tie-breaker system. I mean, in what universe does it make sense to reward the person with the lower score by giving her a medal?

Apparently, in the gymnastics universe, and that just ain’t right.