“Do the Olympic Games matter?

Given that scientists can now determine, to some extent, which parts of our DNA are responsible for physical performance, and that this knowledge will increase, why do we still persist in watching the arcane activity of a sporting contest? Why not just test the DNA of the 'athletes' and then award a Gold medal accordingly?

After all, isn't sport meant to be a competition to find out who is more skilful or stronger that someone sense? We could save a lot of time and trouble (and doubt) over who is the best by having it tested scientifically.

And for those of you who like the idea of luck playing a part in a result, you could (at random) throw away some of the samples.

I suspect ritual, has a lot to do with why millions of people will either attend London 2012 or watch it on television. I suspect also, that there's an element of hope over adversity, in that maybe, just maybe, the weaker athlete will triumph. In reality then, it's not about us wanting the best to win, because the winner is simply the one (or team) that manages to scramble over the line first on that day. Run the same race again the next day, and chances are another athlete will win.

We're also socially engineered to 'want' a particular athlete to win (or lose). It could be that they are representing our country, or that they've recently overcome some difficulty that touches our sympathy.

Whatever our reasons for watching (or not), the Olympics are pure escapism, but don't let anyone try to convince me that they matter.”