No Olympics thread yet?

[chavvdarrr]

The guy is NOT eating 12k a day, somebody overhyped it somewhere...

Could be, maybe journalists just took a look and said "let's tweaK a bit, 8k is not much, lets make it 12"

As for gymnasts... I agree, if there is rule for age above 16, ok, still this I don't see like "cheat"
If best gymnast is 15 be it - she is the best!
I still remember when Maxi Gnauk had won a championship many (20+?) years ago - she was definetely under 16, which WAS legal and journalists were making jokes that the only thing "maxi" in her is her talent.
Years later, when she resigned, she was indeed much higher&bigger.
What should we do next? Define that in order to take part in olympics gymnast event, one must be at least 1.70 men, or 1.60 for women? How many of current players will pass?

 

[StefanS]

Sorry, but no one should be forced to be exposed to radiation for something like proof of age, however small you think the health risk may be. Especially when the 'proof' in this case wouldn't even be conclusive.

The only reason, it's not as accurate in this case, is that athletic bodies undergo different growth processes if they are competing at a young age. But it's more than accurate enough to determine a 2 years age difference.

BTW, it's not however small I think the risks are. I am sure you can look up the statistics.

You can't have special rules just because you think they are cheating. Who gets to decide who is suspected of cheating? Are you going to have someone (impartial I'm sure...) eyeball them and decide who is too young? You have to have the same requirements for all athletes. I'd hardly call a newspaper article conclusive.

It's seems like you didn't really follow neither the news coverage nor my post. The Xinhua article is not the damning piece of evidence. The excerpt of the birth dates from an official Chinese government server are (which were removed subsequently). You still can find the copies only, if you do some googling yourself.

Note, I am not debating sensibility of the rules itself, but at least in a competition they should apply to all participants.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The only reason, it's not as accurate in this case, is that athletic bodies undergo different growth processes if they are competing at a young age. But it's more than accurate enough to determine a 2 years age difference.

Not really, no (there's huge variations in development). You seem to be stuck on this 2 years thing. So you should implement a rule for this one kid, but you don't care if someone else cheats, you just want to catch the ones that cheat by more than a year? They could have left the age at 15 like it was in 1996 (or 14 like it was in the 80s) then right?

BTW, it's not however small I think the risks are. I am sure you can look up the statistics.

I don't need to look up anything to know the risk is more than 0. And that's all that is needed for it to be a stupid idea.

It's seems like you didn't really follow neither the news coverage nor my post. The Xinhua article is not the damning piece of evidence. The excerpt of the birth dates from an official Chinese government server are (which were removed subsequently). You still can find the copies only, if you do some googling yourself.

Note, I am not debating sensibility of the rules itself, but at least in a competition they should apply to all participants.

Which is exactly why you have to apply the same rules to all participants. Not just the ones you think might be cheating. FIGA set up their age rules and the requirements to meet them, if you want to blame anyone for making it easy to cheat, there's your target.

(Aside)The age rule is completely stupid, it in no way protects these young athletes because they are all training hard from the time they are 5 anyway. Not letting them compete at the olympics until they are 16 does exactly what for them?

 

[pcchen]

(Aside)The age rule is completely stupid, it in no way protects these young athletes because they are all training hard from the time they are 5 anyway. Not letting them compete at the olympics until they are 16 does exactly what for them?

Not exactly. If there's no age restrictions, they would train even harder at 5, because they have much less time if they can compete at, say, 12.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Not exactly. If there's no age restrictions, they would train even harder at 5, because they have much less time if they can compete at, say, 12.

THEY COMPETE ANYWAY, just not at the olympics. They have junior events. As I said, its stupid.

 

[pcchen]

THEY COMPETE ANYWAY, just not at the olympics. They have junior events. As I said, its stupid.

You just oversimplified too much. It's vastly different between competing in a junior event and the Olympics.

 

[Simon F]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You just oversimplified too much. It's vastly different between competing in a junior event and the Olympics.

Please explain how it's vastly different.

The athletes that are competing at the highest level are all training and preparing for the olympic level events, doing olympic level routines anyway. They practice the same routines for years.

Or do you really think that those 16 year old gymnasts just started practicing (and competing at junior events) the routines they did at the olympics a few months ago, when they became eligible for the olympics?

 

[pcchen]

Please explain how it's vastly different.

The athletes that are competing at the highest level are all training and preparing for the olympic level events, doing olympic level routines anyway. They practice the same routines for years.

Or do you really think that those 16 year old gymnasts just started practicing (and competing at junior events) the routines they did at the olympics a few months ago, when they became eligible for the olympics?

It's simple. Consider a 5 years old, who has been determined to have talent in gymnastics. Now, since she needs to be at least 16 to enter Olympics, there is 11 years for her (and her trainer, family, etc.) to decide whether she should go this route. Maybe when she's 11 she decides that she's not talented enough to enter Olympics, so she should just go pursue other careers.

Now, if Olympics can be entered at any age, there would be no such time and those trainers (and families, or even themselves) would try very hard to push them. That's why it's vastly different.

Anyway, this regulation did not come out of thin air. Actually, before 1981 the age requirement was 14. Then, just before Moscow Olympics, it's changed to 15, because there were too many request for special exemption allowing slightly under age athletes to compete. It was changed to 16 in 1997. If this is such as stupid regulation as you said, many members of FIG would already protest and try to abolish it.

 

[AlphaWolf]

It's simple. Consider a 5 years old, who has been determined to have talent in gymnastics. Now, since she needs to be at least 16 to enter Olympics, there is 11 years for her (and her trainer, family, etc.) to decide whether she should go this route. Maybe when she's 11 she decides that she's not talented enough to enter Olympics, so she should just go pursue other careers.

If you want to be an olympic gymnast, you start when you're 5, and you train until you're 16. They don't think about it for 5 years and decide at 10 or 12 that they are going to be a competitive gymnast.

Now, if Olympics can be entered at any age, there would be no such time and those trainers (and families, or even themselves) would try very hard to push them. That's why it's vastly different.

You're in denial. They are pushed hard anyway. I'll repeat myself. You don't get to the olympics in events like swimming, gymnastics by not taking it seriously till you're of age to compete. By then its too late for most.

Anyway, this regulation did not come out of thin air. Actually, before 1981 the age requirement was 14. Then, just before Moscow Olympics, it's changed to 15, because there were too many request for special exemption allowing slightly under age athletes to compete. It was changed to 16 in 1997. If this is such as stupid regulation as you said, many members of FIG would already protest and try to abolish it.

I know they changed it, I've actually mentioned it 3x in this thread. You think the changes were a unanimous decision I suppose? If they really want to protect children they'd do a better job attacking it at levels below the olympics, or by adding elements that favor strength, giving older competitors an edge.

 

[pcchen]

If you want to be an olympic gymnast, you start when you're 5, and you train until you're 16. They don't think about it for 5 years and decide at 10 or 12 that they are going to be a competitive gymnast.

You're in denial. They are pushed hard anyway. I'll repeat myself. You don't get to the olympics in events like swimming, gymnastics by not taking it seriously till you're of age to compete. By then its too late for most.

My point is... not everyone who start when they're 5 can compete in Olympics! That's why some (actually most) of them have to quit at 10 or 12.

This is similar to those so-called "geniuses" who attends college at very young age such as 12. Surprisingly, most of these "geniuses" don't turn out very well after they graduate.

By the way, I didn't see China openly protest this "stupid rule."

 

[AlphaWolf]

My point is... not everyone who start when they're 5 can compete in Olympics! That's why some (actually most) of them have to quit at 10 or 12.

This is similar to those so-called "geniuses" who attends college at very young age such as 12. Surprisingly, most of these "geniuses" don't turn out very well after they graduate.

and in other irrelevant news humming birds can consume 200% of their weight each day in nectar

By the way, I didn't see China openly protest this "stupid rule."

I'm doubt you saw anyone say anything in regards the rule changing at all until you googled it.

 

[pcchen]

and in other irrelevant news humming birds can consume 200% of their weight each day in nectar


I'm doubt you saw anyone say anything in regards the rule changing at all until you googled it.

Yeah, a rule which existed for more than 20 years, and revised to be even more restrictive, is obviously stupid. Any other opinions are obviously irrevelent or uninformed. Sorry, I shouldn't join this discussion anyway.

 

[Davros]