hondrakis

Yes, that's exactly the idea. And if two athletes compete in both an individual and a team event together, the total will equal three quotas. (I just noticed a small error on the French shooting entry list: there are two people qualified in 10-air rifles for a single quota indicated in the table, hence a discrepancy in the total number of shooting quotas (22 in my sheet, 21 in the tracker)).

Yes, that's the problem. For track cycling, each nation earns non-nominal quotas, so it's actually easier to get the right numbers than for a number of athletes. Things are indeed more complicated for some other sports. Here's how I handle the calculations when I do the same thing for France: - For swimming and athletics, I take the number of athletes who have achieved the A score, capped at the maximum number of athletes from a nation per event. The drawback is that we're not sure whether a nation will actually use all the quotas it has earned (for example, France almost always uses additional criteria), but this gives an initial estimate that will be refined when the official selections are announced. I don't usually take B scores (which only grant access to a single athlete) because France doesn't usually take them into account, but managing them for smaller nations could be possible, even if more time-consuming. -For shooting, it's the most complicated, since a shooter can participate in as many events as they want as long as they've qualified. For France in 2024, I considered that a shooter who obtained a quota also earned a quota for all the other events in which they appear in the ranking. But it might be more complicated to manage for so many nations and athletes. -For weightlifting (where the number of places across all events is limited by nation), I would consider the places per event as long as the limit wasn't exceeded, and then I would consider the number of quotas as being "For the entire discipline" instead of per event. These are, I think, the only four discipline for which a quota counter as close as possible to reality would be more complicated. But on the other hand, it's also quite complicated to do these athletes counts before the nations announce the selections, for the same reason that you put forward, since it's impossible to know if an athlete is not going to participate in several different events. I'd never noticed this button, to be honest... Adding the total number of events wouldn't really solve my question because of these cases of events with multiple athletes per nation. Ideally, I think I'd have to add the total number of events and the total quotas to get all three pieces of information, all important in different cases, but it's definitely more work... And honestly, I'd be delighted to participate in one way or another (within my means). I've been doing this for France for 12 years now, in an even more complex version, since I add to my accounts the athletes who would qualify thanks to a ranking if the qualification period ended now (things that are far too complex to manage for all 200 nations; especially rankings for sports with a lot of qualifiers). I also differentiate between quotas validated by the French federation—that is, where the participating athletes have been announced—and those where confirmation is pending. Here's an example of my personal chart for 2024 (in French and for France), with "FRA!!" in yellow when the quota is confirmed, "FRA??" when it should be won but hasn't yet confirm, and in black when the quota was possible but hasn't been won:

The tracker is very complete (and clearly represents a lot of work), but it does not work for the information I am talking about when there are multiple athletes qualified for the same event. For example, for France, there were 388 quotas for 2024 (according to my count); where the tracker indicates 578 athletes and 258 events. Even the per-sport counter on the country summary page only indicates the number of athletes and not the number of quotas (for example, in archery, France had 9 quotas: 3 team, 3 men's individual, and 3 women's individual), and you have to add the numbers in the "LIST OF ATHLETES PER EVENT" table, which isn't practical for getting an overall view of the country. Furthermore, I would find it interesting to be able to compare the country to others, as is done in this thread. But to clarify, I'm not saying that the information on the number of athletes is not interesting (it is different and useful information), and I'm not asking someone else to keep track of it for me, I just thought I'd keep track of it anyway, and share it one way or another (even if I might have a lot of trouble keeping track when there are a lot of events at the same time, in regions other than Europe or for events where there are a lot of qualified people, such as Athletics)

Hello, I hope I'm posting my message in the right article. I would like to suggest that, in addition to the number of qualified athletes per country in this article (or in a separate article), we display the number of "spots" earned per country. For example, a qualified team would only count as one "quota," whether it's a basketball team or a synchronized swimming duet, and an athlete competing in two shooting events would earn two quotas. I've been doing this for France since the Rio Olympics, and I find it gives a better idea of both the country's medal potential and the success of its qualification period. Thus, a country that qualifies a team will not be at an advantage over a team that obtains the maximum quota in an individual sport. This also allows for earlier calculations for sports where athletes will be competing in multiple events (swimming, for example), or those whose quotas are not nominated (shooting, for example). The only two sports where this system does not allow for determining future participation are, a priori, artistic gymnastics (where athletes qualify for apparatus events during the Games, meaning that quotas can only be displayed after the start of the competition) and shooting (where an athlete qualified for one event can, in theory, participate in the others if the nation has not already qualified quotas). I don't know if this has already been proposed and/or rejected, but I plan to do it for myself for all countries anyway, so I might as well share it. Something like this, for example: United States of America - 36 Quotas / 2 Spots (18 Quota-1 Spot Football Men's / 18 Quota-1 Spot Football Women's) Brazil - 18 Quotas / 1 Spot (18 Quota-1 Spot Football Women's) Colombia - 18 Quotas / 1 Spot (18 Quota-1 Spot Football Women's)

On the other hand, I understand (even if I don't agree with) those who believe that sports should not ban people for non-sporting reasons. In large part because I recognize that it is almost impossible to objectively determine when it is justified and when it is not.

I disagree with no-Ban: Totalitarian dictatorships tend to use sport in politics anyway, often with disregard for all human considerations (as evidenced by Russia, which has never hesitated to dope massively and officially). Banning countries that do not respect the basic rules of the Olympics seems necessary to me. As long as Russia prefers results to rules and human life, they have no business being at the Olympics, in my opinion.

If you want to let Europe take care of itself, why do you feel compelled to insult a good half of the planet in every other post, when the rest of us only truly criticize two people? (In this case, your president for his decisions, and you for defending him.) As for the kind of sports fan I am, I'm the one who prefers to enjoy watching my team perform well but lose rather than win at all costs. I prefer open-mindedness, fair play, respect, and humility to the desire to crush the rest of the planet no matter the cost. And so, I prefer to watch teams from my country that share the same values as me and finish fifth in the medal standings rather than, like you, praise my country's sporting achievements while insulting the minorities from which a large portion of the athletes in question come, or the values they openly defend.

Certainly, but over the past eight months, how many decisions and statements made by the American government have made them look ridiculous in the eyes of the rest of the world? (Well, I admit, not as many as those that made them appear a danger to the planet's equilibrium.) From there to believing that it's better to hold the Olympics without Europe, without China, or without Muslim countries and look ridiculous rather than risk not "winning most medals" (since, after all, that's the only thing that matters in a sporting competition...)

Ah, yes, I had forgotten the other essential values of sport: humility and respect for opponents.

And here's my real fear: holding the Olympic Games in a country led by someone who would have no problem claiming to be the best while banning their opponent from coming (and inhabited by a certain number of people who voted for him with the same intent)... A sort of remake of Moscow 1980, but with the USA playing the role of the USSR... I'd like to know how the IOC would react to visa bans targeting certain countries (one could argue that there's no chance of that, but I never thought I'd see the USA threaten to invade two of its neighbors either).

What a great achievement indeed to have transformed all of the United States' greatest allies since the end of World War II into enemies in less than six months... It's the spirit of sport: "As long as I convince myself that I'm the best, it doesn't matter how or what happens to others."