How does a goldsmith "prove" gold and assay it?

Does the Gold medal 1st ranking system create long term problems for athletes and sports in the Olympics?

• Even though the IOC isn't supposed to officially rank countries by medals starting in 1992 they have unofficially started posting the gold only system first. In other words country A wins 6 gold medals and country B wins 5 Gold and 25 Silver it doesn't matter as they are moved behind and all those silvers are worthless. Chinese saying seems to apply 1 Gold is equal to a thousand sliver. Since many countries take this view they will not allow athletes to compete in the Olympics that don't have a shot at the gold even if the they meet the International sports criteria for Olympic qualification. http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html?mod=psp_free_today So why not take a F1 (any other motor sports) approach to the medal rankings by a point system that rewards both excellence of finishing 1st with a gold, but also sees the merit in rewarding those nations that have a level of consistency by putting their teams or athletes in the top 2 and 3. After all they share the podium and have their flags raised as well. One system that goes like this Gold=3 points Silver 2 and Bronze 1. You may feel his doesn't reward the gold enough so it's 4 points for Gold 2 for silver and 1 Bronze. Either way China wins by points 274 to 256 or 223 TO 220. For those that maintain gold only I say team sports gold should count more then individual gold. Otherwise all a country has to do is focus on a bunch of individual sports. How does that prove sporting dominance?

• Answer:

  I use the gold=3 etc. system. Here are my results for the 2008 Olympics CHN: 223 pts. USA: 220 pts. RUS: 139 pts.