The British

As a British ex-pat who's visiting for the games, it's a pretty special experience so far. Folks were grumpy beforehand, complaining about the cost, the organization, the likely disappointments, etc., but everybody is wowed by how well it's going. Even without the medals, which are a bonus, the organization and the overall vibe are blowing people's socks off. People are not accustomed to this. In Atlanta '96 the team got 1 gold across all sports; in Montreal '76 the t&f team got a solitary bronze -- that's more what we're used to. London was supposed to host the World t&f championships in '05, but had to give up due to shambolic organization, so people didn't think they could pull this one off.

But it should be pointed out that the medals success is the product of a quite aggressive public funding strategy that dates back to the Atlanta debacle. Teams in Olympic sports are funded via the National Lottery, and the rewards and penalties for team success are rather strict. The teams are highly regimented, and athletes are tightly controlled. The now dominant track cycling team is the model that other sports are following, and the approach has as much in common with China and the former eastern bloc countries as the melting pot approach of the US. The relentless focus on Olympic success has some sinister aspects.

What do you mean?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that there's state-sponsored doping or anything like that. Just that the approach is relentlessly focused on the notion that position on the Olympic medal table is a measure of national worth. While this is unquestionably fun when things are going well and the public gets to enjoy the spectacle for a couple of weeks every 4 years, the broader value is less clear.

Investment of public funds in a sport is directly related to the number of medals available and the likelihood of winning lots of them. The Chinese and East German governments have taken similar approaches. Not on the broader public good. Sailing and rowing have lots of medals available, and get substantial public investment, but it's not obvious that there's any chance of broad public participation or contribution to societal good from this. Triathlon has few medals available, so there's a limit to the investment that it can attract, despite the health benefits of inspiring people to do tris. It's no accident that the Brits are doing especially well at sports that are accessible to rather few nations, due to the need for facilities etc.

Cycling is the model case that works well. Investment in track cycling took advantage of the OCD of Chris Boardman and those around him, and yielded lots of medals in a niche sport. That later led to more funding (public and private) for road cycling, which was nowhere in the UK a few years ago, and now is rapidly growing. And more importantly, this has contributed to significant public health benefits, as SO many more people are biking for fitness these days than in the past. Cycling is an all-around success story. But this seems to be a bit of an outlier. 

The other similarity to the Chinese and E. Germans is the way in which the athletes are controlled by the national federations, and increasingly the way in which young talent is being scouted and developed, solely with the aim of adding to the Olympic medal table count. Athletes have to relocate or lose funding. There are controls on what they're allowed to say, and controls on what competitions they're required to participation (linked to corporate sponsors). 

That's an interesting perspective.  I wouldn't call it sinister but I agree with the substance.

As for doping, I just assume everybody is and I reckon that's a pretty safe bet - but I don't want to derail the thread in my country's hour of glory!