Letter: Why countries are good and bad at Olympic games

Ken Bull
Saturday 15 August 1992 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

IN YOUR Olympic report ('McColgan beaten to a retreat', 9 August) Mike Rowbottom states it was a miserable games for the Scots but there was much in the way of comfort for Britain. Why did he not add 'because the English competitors did so well'? Does he have a problem with the word 'English?'

Then move to Hugh Jones's results analysis on the same page. Treating Scotland separately would relegate them to the unplaced group at the bottom of the table whereas Great Britain excluding Scotland would move up 12 places to above the USA.

Ken Bull

North Stifford, Essex

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in