If I hadn't been a middling-quality distance runner as a teenager, I probably wouldn't enjoy watching these events as much as I do. I certainly understand that not everyone shares my enthusiasm.

BUT: track/athletics must certainly be considered one of the core events of the Olympics, if not the number-one one. Certainly the focus of more worldwide attention than, say, team handball or men's field hockey. Or trampoline, table tennis, badminton, etc. (I know that there are some who would put beach volletball in this "non-sports" category, but I like it; I even enjoy watching the men!)

Kevin McGrath mentioned something much earlier (way up the thread there) with which I've always agreed: there's a significant difference between sports where competitors vie for a clearly-established goal, like a finish line, as opposed to those rated by subjective judging.

The gymnastics controversies of the last few days show just how ridiculous it is to decide a championship in such activities. I'm not denigrating the gymnasts themselves, who are amazing to watch and so obviously athletic -- I just think it's impossible to certify one as "better" than another, and sadly laughable to try.

Oh -- one more thing. I stand corrected insofar as the "real" track-and-field events had begun a day earlier at Olympia, with the women's, and then the men's, shotput competition. Interesting point some might not know: the original idea was the stage the (much more "classical") discus competition there in Olympia, at the original site of the ancient games. However, modern athletes throw the discus so far that their heaves would not be contained within the valley!

Too bad the first gold medal winner to be stripped of her title for doping was the Russian woman who won that first event at Olympus...