Why Olympic medals do not tell the whole story about Nations winning them?

In my opinion and many others', the official ranking of medals won by countries IS NOT a FAIR Indication of Which Nation is more athletic. For example, in the ranking of "total" medals in the 2004 Olympics: :

U.S. 103; Russia 92; China 63, Australia 49, Germany 48, Japan 37, France 33; Italy 32, U.K. 30, S. Korea 30, Cuba 27, Ukraine 23, The Netherlands 22, Romania 19, Spain 19, Hungary 17, Greece 16, .... Iran 6 (ranked 34th) ...

It's obvious that countries like China, Russia and the U.S. with large populations and sports development budgets will have a high chance of having super-athletes and winning medals. After all, contests and matches are won by people, and there are probably a lot more athletic genes found in the 1.3 billion people in China, than among the 3 million people in Jamaica! So how do we FAIRLY rank countries' "true" athletic merits and collective attention to competitive sports?

There are many ways to create a FAIR ranking of countries awarded medals. The two I believe make the most sense are "medals per dollar GNP" and "medals per capita." I have done the latter by dividing the number of medals each country received in 2004, by that country's population in millions, and ranked the results as medals per million people living in that country. AND Guess who's on Top of this population-adjusted (normalized) list? Guess what's Iran's rank of medals per capita?

Read Next Part to find out more, OR send me your comment with your email to receive my complete calculations and "adjusted" ranking.