He makes two interesting observations, probably suspected by the casual onlooker, but in its sincerity most fascinating: first of all, an estimated 99% of all athletes are having the time of their life, at least sexually, during the Olympic Games. Secondly, gold medals help the males, don’t necessarily help the female athletes.

The second observation is explained by a reference to the disambigious way society deals with succesful women:

Sport, in this respect, is a reflection of wider society, where male success is a universal desirable whereas female success is sexually ambiguous.

The first observation, however, is explained through a number of theories:

• Is it related to the level of self-discipline which athletes must exhibit before the race, which finds a channel afterwards? No, as Syed observes:
  

  “Most of the athletes I know are as up for it before and during competition as they are in the immediate aftermath.”

• Is it related to the level of testosterone, which increases aggression, competition and virility. Syed says:
  

  “At a population level, higher naturally occurring levels of testosterone in both genders would provide a powerful explanation for the combination of sporting prowess and sexual potency.”

• He also mentions a moral, or rather immoral, argument:
  

  “For most athletes, the village is thousands of miles from home.”

• Or is it simply evoluationary, which helps promiscuity, as Syed says:
  

  “A man’s sperm count doubles when he spends a lot of time on the road.”

Syed concludes that a mixture of causes might be respoinsbile for the outbreak in sexual filibustering (I know, the term does not really apply here, but I like the sound of it). One cause he has overlooked: put together 10.000 athletes who have their mind set on medals – and only about 900 of them receive one. There must be some sort of compensation for the remaining bunch.