If you read my post properly you will find that I was basically saying that the US was getting more Gold Medals than the UK, or Kenya was getting more than the UK etc.
As USA provides more funding to its Olympic hopefuls than does the UK government.
You said:
In the US its completely different, and shows as the number of Gold Medals Britain won or any medals were a lot less than in the 80s versus the US or any other country like Kenya.
So that says:
1) GB wins less gold medals now than in the 80s
2) Kenya wins more gold medals than GB
3) The US wins more gold medals than GB because of poor investments
(BTW it doesn't matter if you look at gold medals or all medals)
Ad 1) So you did compare the Great Britain gold medal tally to that of the eighties. Saying it was lower now, because of their poor investment in sports. This is incorrect. It's higher now than it has been for decades.
Oddly enough, the US gold medal tally is going down. Hitting the lowest points since the eighties in the last Olympics. Even though the number of available medals has increased substantially. So you're double incorrect on this one.
Ad 2) I forgot to add the gold medals for Kenya. They got 1 or 2 gold medals for most Olympic games and 5 gold medals for the 1988 games. So they sure didn't get more gold medals than GB. Not even close. Kenya has a population half that of the UK so that doesn't explain it either. Again incorrect.
Ad 3) You say the US gets more gold medals than the UK. This is true. Yet you connect to this statement that it means GB is doing something wrong. The US is a country 5 times the population than the UK. It's a bit silly to say that the US has more gold medals so the GB is doing something wrong. They would be doing something wrong if they got less than a fifth of the US gold medals. The US recently averages around 40 gold medals per Olympics and Great Britain around 10. That indicates the US is actually performing worse than Great Britain (either the US should win 50 or GB should get no more than 8 ). So your statement is incorrect. Even if the US spends more money on their Olympic hopefuls they are obviously wasting it.
What the US seem to be doing cleverly is invest heavily in track and field and swimming, which historically other countries didn't seem to show much interest in (and/or have better drug testing). Although with Australian and Dutch swimmers talking away swimming medals and the Chinese showing strong swimming performances recently, the US would be wise to diversify a bit.
2004 Olympics Weighted medal score per million population 1,2 and 3 go to Bahamas, Australia and Cuba. The UK is 31st, US 38th and Kenya 52nd. So indeed the UK aren't doing that great (they are slightly above average), but the US and Kenya do even worse and are hardly an example for Great Britain to follow.