If there is a tie for the gold medal, give out both silver AND bronze - damnit!!!

[3catwoman3]

This happens so rarely, but it pisses me off every time. Just give out 4 freakin' medals, for crying out loud. Give one more team or individual competitor a chance to be thrilled.

I think this is really stupid.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

1. Why?

The person receiving the bronze medal would have finished fourth. That doesn't seem too hard to understand.

And if the countervailing argument is that it is somehow worthwhile to give "one more team or individual competitor a change to be thrilled," why not then simply pick out one of those towards the bottom of the standings, randomly, and award them a medal? Pretty much amounts to the same thing, no? . . . except that there's no real "thrill" in that, is there?

The person finishing fourth presumably wouldn't see much value in a faux "bronze" medal in such circumstances, it would seem to me.

[3catwoman3]

3. If there is a tie for first place, be it in points or time...

...or distance, then there is still the next best (second) and the next-next best (third). I do not think that is in the least "faux."

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

4. What?

Imaginary 500 meters speed skating.

Competitor A -- 34.51 seconds

Competitor B -- 34.51 seconds

Competitor C -- 34.54 seconds

Competitor D -- 34.56 seconds

How is Competitor D not in fourth place?

Now, if it were:

Competitor A -- 34.51 seconds

Competitor B -- 34.51 seconds

Competitor C -- 34.54 seconds

Competitor D -- 34.54 seconds

Sure, award two bronze medals for the tie for third. In fact, I think that's what they would do. You wouldn't award two silver medals to C and D, though, would you?

[NCTraveler]

2. Has a fourth place finisher ever received a medal in the Olympics?

I understand a number of times in history the person who crosses the line fourth has walked away with a bronze, but not four place finishers.