Second place and silver medals

[D'kian]

I think about this every few years: is it fair to dismiss the athlete or team coming in second place as the looser?

Consider, football is a very hard sport phisically speaking, but also tactically and strategically. Keeping a team winning moer games than it looses every year for several years is a very difficult endeavor. It takes a lot of brains from the head coach and general manager, but also from their staffs and from whoever is above them in the organization. It means making a team that isn't dependent on a handful of players, but which has depth enough to keep going in the face of injuries, lockouts and free agency.

Therefore you'd think that a team that reaches the Superbowl four years in a row, once without their starting quarterback, must be one of the great teams of all time. Yet that apellation is not applied to the Bufallo Bills, because they never won the Superbowl.

It gets worse in the Olympics, both summer and winter. Olympic athletes compete much more often than once every four years, of course. There are meets, world championships, exhibitions, regional games, etc going on all the time. But most of the world pays attention to them only once every four years. So an athlete may dominate his field for years and years, yet he has a bad time at the olympics and is branded a looser, even if he comes in second or third place.

There are a few exceptions, like Nancy Kerrigan who was able to parlay a silver medal into massive endorsements and 30 minutes of fame. But that year other, non-atletic, factors came into play.

There are times when, as Vince Lombardi said, winning is the only thing that matters. Say when you submit a propposal to a customer, and he chooses yours over a competitor's. If you come in second you get nothing. But in sports the guy coming in second does get something, and it should count.

[JMeganSnow]

While it's true that there can only be one best, I fail to see how this makes everyone else a "looser". I doubt anyone thinks that, including the people who compete in the olympics. Why should they?

It is not true that the "loosers" in non-sports arenas get nothing. There is great value to be had in simply making an effort to do something. It's how you learn to do it better.

[John McVey]

I think about this every few years: is it fair to dismiss the athlete or team coming in second place as the looser?

No. Sport is supposedly ritualised combat, but even in real combat people do recognise a brave fight put up by losers. This is - or should be - even more pronounced in sport, because it is not just about the race or game of the moment but demonstration of skill and commitment over the long term. These are objective human values, and should be hailed. Consequently, decent people expect sportsmanship as well as wanting to see their particular favourite win, and decent folk do still recognise the merits of the runners-up. For instance, I don't know about US football, but in the Australian Football League the ladder placings for the whole league are remembered by all concerned. People remember if a given team makes the top-eight, then if it makes the quarter-finals, semis and then the Premiership.

So an athlete may dominate his field for years and years, yet he has a bad time at the olympics and is branded a looser, even if he comes in second or third place.

I think that is unfair. I recall an advert (by Nike I think?) that was extremely controversial because it said "You don't win silver, you lose gold." It caused major offence not just among competitors but among the fans of a wide variety of sports as well - clearly a recognition for runners-up is widespread. Quite right, too.

There are a few exceptions, like Nancy Kerrigan who was able to parlay a silver medal into massive endorsements

There are more than just a few exceptions. Sponsorships and endorsement deals can and does cover a lot of expenses for players of a large number of sports, both team-oriented and individual-oriented alike. The key is just to make a sufficient show to make the sponsor think that sponsorship is worthwhile. In most cases that can cover a sizeable proportion of the whole field and not just the top few players or teams.

I also think you're focussing too much on the televising of these sports to enormous general audiences who aren't committed fans, giving too much attention to adulation by people concerned solely for the competition of the moment. I think that for most participants, as long as there are sufficient crowds to justify keeping the grounds open and sponsorships to defray enough of the costs, they will continue to plug hard at it for so long as they love it and are able to improve, with or without wide-spread adulation, content to be known among and applauded by their own particular fan-bases who follow the progress of their chosen teams and players. That is all that justice requires.

But in sports the guy coming in second does get something, and it should count.

He does, and it does.

JJM

[Capitalism Forever]

is it fair to dismiss the athlete or team coming in second place as the looser?

Well, he is not the loser, but he is one of those who didn't win. Remember that in a competition, victory is the goal, and coming in second means you have not achieved that goal.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

There was a shooter (Matt Emmons) at the Olympics who was on his way to an Olympic record--to make it his last shot had to be at least a 9.3 (out of 10.9) and thus far he had been averaging 9.7. He only needed a 7.0 to win the gold. And he absolutely choked on that last shot. He twiched, or something, before the rifle was even remotely on target and almost didn't hit the paper, and got a 4.4. He ended up in fourth place.

Four years ago his last shot hit where he was aiming--but it was someone else's target. Eighth place.

Is this man a superlatively good shooter, even knowing this? Hell yes! He has to be very good when he is "on" to be able to make such colossal mistakes and *still* beat a lot of championship caliber people.

(Interestingly he met his wife four years ago--she is a Czech shooter who came over to commiserate after that failed shot. He counts himself ahead of the game, and properly so.)

http://www.cleveland.com/olympics/index.ss...ns_again_m.html

[gags]

In the Olympic gymnastics competition against the Chinese, I consider silver to actually be gold. The underage Chinese girls broke the rules (with the help of their government) and took home several medals that should have gone to other competitors. There is no shame in losing to a cheater.

[D'kian]

In the Olympic gymnastics competition against the Chinese, I consider silver to actually be gold. The underage Chinese girls broke the rules (with the help of their government) and took home several medals that should have gone to other competitors. There is no shame in losing to a cheater.

Tell me about it!

In the Moscow games of 1980 in platform diving, the Mexican contender, Carlos Giron, was holding his own against the Russian diver (I forget his name). Then on the third round the Russian did an atrocious dive. It was so bad he entered the water almost on his back. All Giron had to do was not screw up and the godl was his. The Russian might have lost any hope of a medal at all. But then the judges let him re-do the dive because he claimed he was distracted by a noise.

In other words the judges and the Russian cheated. Giron won the silver.

[D'kian]

For instance, I don't know about US football, but in the Australian Football League the ladder placings for the whole league are remembered by all concerned. People remember if a given team makes the top-eight, then if it makes the quarter-finals, semis and then the Premiership.

In Football people will remember the Sueprbowl winner and no one else. You've better odds of people remembering who won the Superbowl 17 years ago, than who came in second last year. If a second place is remembered at all, ti will be a team like the Bills because they got to the championship many times and didn't win it.

I think that is unfair. I recall an advert (by Nike I think?) that was extremely controversial because it said "You don't win silver, you lose gold."

That's exactly what I mean. I heard a joke once about an interview with a silver medalist. the question was "So, how much did you loose by?" I dind't find it funny at all.

Which brings me to a different question. Undoubtedly an athelete like Michael Phelps, who wins tons of gold medals, is the best in his field. But Phelps is the kind of phenom that comes along rarely (like Mark Spitz and Erik Hayden), not the norm. So let's consider more normal athletes.

Now, suppose competitor A wins one gold and two silvers, while athlete B wins no golds and five silvers. Whom would you say is the better athelete in that competition? I'd say B is better. But by IOC ranking rules, he'd be palced below A, because the IOC counts only gold medals.

BTW to note just how great an accomplishment Phelps made, he has won more gold medals in 8 years than the entire country of Mexico has won in all its history.

[Moebius]

In the Olympic gymnastics competition against the Chinese, I consider silver to actually be gold. The underage Chinese girls broke the rules (with the help of their government) and took home several medals that should have gone to other competitors. There is no shame in losing to a cheater.

Is that proven or just based on speculations?

[Moebius]

Now, suppose competitor A wins one gold and two silvers, while athlete B wins no golds and five silvers. Whom would you say is the better athelete in that competition? I'd say B is better. But by IOC ranking rules, he'd be palced below A, because the IOC counts only gold medals.

Your statement is kind of confusing. The Olympics isn't about picking who the better overall athlete is (unless you're in the decathlon), but who is the best at a specific event. Athlete A is obviously better at the event that he won the gold medal in, regardless of whether or not he is the better overall athlete. For instance even if Michael Phelps is the best swimmer in the Olympics overall, it doesn't change the fact that Kosuke Kitajima is the best breast-stroke swimmer.

[gags]

Is that proven or just based on speculations?

The evidence seems pretty clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/sports/o...amp;oref=slogin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/14/c...e_n_118954.html

[Moebius]

I think about this every few years: is it fair to dismiss the athlete or team coming in second place as the looser?

I don't understand your question. What is your standard of "fairness"? In sports, either you win, or you lose. Would you consider the second place the winner?

Being the loser doesn't mean you suck. You're just not as good as the first place. People may or may not respect that, but hey, what can you do?

[Moebius]

The evidence seems pretty clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/sports/o...amp;oref=slogin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/14/c...e_n_118954.html

First of all, the "evidence" is based on "official gymnastic site listing" and "official Chinese media reports". I don't see how those are any more credible than their "official passports". The discrepancy is explained as a transcription error by the Chinese government, and you know what? There is no proof that it isn't. In any case the Times report is hardly objective, seeing as how it included random quotes along the lines of people saying "well the girls look so young *rolls their eyes*" as if that is that is factually relevant. Not saying that the Chinese gymnasts aren't underage, and if it is proven that they cheated, their medal should be stripped. But to state that they cheated as a fact is intellectually irresponsible.

Second of all, the explanation for why the 14 year olds have an advantage -because they are younger therefore lighter and more fearless- just seems retarded. Is it a proven fact that being lighter gives you an advantage? Does the statistics show that all else being equal, lighter girls perform better? Because you can just as easily say being lighter means you have less muscle mass, therefore at a disadvantage. The second reason, that they are more fearless (and therefore by implication able to perform harder, riskier routines) because they are younger, is the most laughable of all. Is Times seriously saying that the courage to perform harder routines under pressure situations is determined by AGE? Not because of say, personality, training, and confidence in their skill? And that there is a significant difference in this kind of quality naturally between a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD and a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD?

So, the Chinese may or may not have cheated, it is far from proven. The theory that a 14 year old have an advantage over a 16 year old in gymnastics is entirely unconvincing. Cheating is wrong, and again if it is in fact true their medals should be striped. But whatever their true age is, the only fact that is certain is that the Chinese gymnasts were simply better than the US squad.

[D'kian]

Your statement is kind of confusing. The Olympics isn't about picking who the better overall athlete is (unless you're in the decathlon), but who is the best at a specific event.

It matters in how people perceive an athlete. We agree that a multiple silver winner is a better athlete than a single gold winner (in the same type of sport), but who winds up with endorsements and interviews?

Hype often has more to do with perceptions than facts. Another example is the 100 meter dash. the winner is often called "the fastest man on Earth." Granted the athletes who compete in it are very fast, most people don't reach their top running speed until 150 meters or so. If you compare times, it is clear the athletes running the 200 meters are running faster than those in the 100 meters.

[tito]

Of course not. That would be subjectivism in one form. Nobody rational competes in order to do better than others, they compete because they want to pursue their own values to their best ability, this is the primary motive of a rational competitor.

[K-Mac]

And that there is a significant difference in this kind of quality naturally between a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD and a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD?

When I was 14, I weighed 95 lbs, when I was 16, I weighed 120 and had boobies. Depending on when a female "blossoms" there can be huge differences and when you're talking about the types of stuff gymnasts do, body weight matters. In addition, those are the rules the Olympics established and if you participate in the games, you agree to play by the rules.

[Moebius]

It matters in how people perceive an athlete. We agree that a multiple silver winner is a better athlete than a single gold winner (in the same type of sport), but who winds up with endorsements and interviews?

No, we do not agree on that point. How would you define "a better athlete"? It seems to me that you are lumping various different types of sporting events into one category, when in reality there are huge differences between say, the 100, the 200, and the 400 -- especially if we're talking about milisecond differences in finishes. An athletic competition is a combination of body, mind, and technique. If a man hones his skill and devotes his body to a particular event and became the best in the world at what he does, that makes him THE BEST ATHLETE for the event in question. I have no problems with the glories going to the best.

[Moebius]

When I was 14, I weighed 95 lbs, when I was 16, I weighed 120 and had boobies. Depending on when a female "blossoms" there can be huge differences and when you're talking about the types of stuff gymnasts do, body weight matters. In addition, those are the rules the Olympics established and if you participate in the games, you agree to play by the rules.

I agree about the rules. If you break it, you should be punished.

But honestly I think the age limit itself is a farce. If weight was a absolute factor, then by all means, establish weight classes. The fact that they don't mean it is probably not the most relevant nor significant factor in determining the winner.

And again, the Times suggestion that 14 year olds are more fearless than the 16 year olds because they are younger is just a joke. Throughout the Olympics Chinese gymnasts and divers consistently chose the harder routines throughout the competition - probably because they trained hard and are confident with their skills.

Bottom line is that the Chinese may or may not have cheated. But the US didn't lose because those girls were 14. They lost because those girls were simply better.

[gags]

First of all, the "evidence" is based on "official gymnastic site listing" and "official Chinese media reports". I don't see how those are any more credible than their "official passports". The discrepancy is explained as a transcription error by the Chinese government, and you know what? There is no proof that it isn't.

I disagree. There is plenty of proof. You just seem to be willing to arbitrarily dismiss a lot of very convincing evidence. Not only did multiple official Chinese documents and news reports list the age of two gymnasts as 14, but they have now mysteriously disappeared from the internet. Seems sort of strange, doesn’t it? On top of that, it’s not as if we’re dealing with a bunch of squeaky clean people here. The Chinese Communist government plays fast and loose with the truth whenever and wherever it serves their purposes. It’s a philosophical thing, don’t you know? They also aren’t shy about cheating in gymnastics.

“China has a rich history of age falsification in Olympics competition, especially in gymnastics. At the 2000 Sydney Olympics, three years after the minimum age was raised to 16 in gymnastics, Chinese gymnast Yang Yun competed and won a bronze medal in the uneven bars (coincidentally this event is also He's specialty). Yang's passport said she was born on December 24, 1984 and turning 16 in the year of the Games, making her eligible. She later confessed in a television interview that she was only 14 at the time of the competition and that she and her coaches had lied about her age.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-flumen...m_b_118842.html

A number of hackers have been able to uncover documents that reveal the truth about the age of He Kexin.

“In the Baidu cache, which apparently has not been hit with the scrub brush (yet), two spreadsheets published by the Chinese government on sport.gov.cn both list He Kexin's birthday as 01-01-1994, making her 14 years old. For as long as these links work, you can access the documents directly, either using the directions and screenshots above, or these links: cache1 cache2

How official are these documents? Pretty dang official - they were issued by the General Administration of Sport of China.”

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2008/08/hack-olympics.html

In any case the Times report is hardly objective, seeing as how it included random quotes along the lines of people saying "well the girls look so young *rolls their eyes*" as if that is that is factually relevant. Not saying that the Chinese gymnasts aren't underage, and if it is proven that they cheated, their medal should be stripped. But to state that they cheated as a fact is intellectually irresponsible.

Whether the Times report is 100% objective is hardly the issue here. The evidence is pretty clear that they cheated and the physical appearance of the girls is part of that evidence. It’s intellectually irresponsible to just dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Second of all, the explanation for why the 14 year olds have an advantage -because they are younger therefore lighter and more fearless- just seems retarded. Is it a proven fact that being lighter gives you an advantage? Does the statistics show that all else being equal, lighter girls perform better? Because you can just as easily say being lighter means you have less muscle mass, therefore at a disadvantage. The second reason, that they are more fearless (and therefore by implication able to perform harder, riskier routines) because they are younger, is the most laughable of all. Is Times seriously saying that the courage to perform harder routines under pressure situations is determined by AGE? Not because of say, personality, training, and confidence in their skill? And that there is a significant difference in this kind of quality naturally between a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD and a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD?

So, the Chinese may or may not have cheated, it is far from proven. The theory that a 14 year old have an advantage over a 16 year old in gymnastics is entirely unconvincing. Cheating is wrong, and again if it is in fact true their medals should be striped.

I’m not an expert in gymnastics and I assume that you aren’t either. If coaches and former gymnasts say that being younger, smaller and lighter can be an advantage (I’ve also heard that younger girls have an advantage because they are more flexible), then I’m not going to act as if what they are saying is ridiculous. Furthermore, the proof is in the competitive results. In recent years most of the top female gymnasts have been teenagers and they seem to be getting younger.

[D'kian]

No, we do not agree on that point. How would you define "a better athlete"?

One that achives more or better results objectively than another in similar competitions.

It seems to me that you are lumping various different types of sporting events into one category, when in reality there are huge differences between say, the 100, the 200, and the 400 -- especially if we're talking about milisecond differences in finishes.

Typically many athletes compete in all those events, and the relay versions thereof. Of course there are some who specialize only in the 100 or only in the 200, but that's not as common.

I'm not saying a good short distance runner ought to also be a good long distance runner, and a good long-jumper, and a good pole-vaulter, and a good discus thrower. I'm saying that one who does second place in many short distance races is better than one who does one gold and nothing else in as many races.

I also have a strong objection to the fact that a silver medal is seen not as a great achievement, but as a pitcher of warm spit. Especially when one event, the Olimpics, is but a small part of an athlete's career. Any athlete will compete in hundreds or thousands of other events, but only once or twice in the Olympics.

Edited August 27, 2008 by D'kian

[Moebius]

One that achives more or better results objectively than another in similar competitions.

What are your criteria for "similarity" between competitions? Is the 100 and the 200 similar? Is the 100 and 400 similar? What about freestyle swimming versus breast-stroke?

To me they are all significantly different, especially when those differences are magnified by the small variance in performance among the tip-top athletes. Guys like Michael Phelps is a rarity. In fact very few athletes are actually at a medal worthy level across several events.

I'm not saying a good short distance runner ought to also be a good long distance runner, and a good long-jumper, and a good pole-vaulter, and a good discus thrower. I'm saying that one who does second place in many short distance races is better than one who does one gold and nothing else in as many races.

Like I said above, there really aren't that many events that you can lump together as similar. What's a short distance race? 100 and 200? That's it. Can you definitively say that a guy who got a silver in 100 and 200 is definitely a better athlete than a guy that got a gold in the 100 and did not medal on the 200? I don't think so.

I also have a strong objection to the fact that a silver medal is seen not as a great achievement, but as a pitcher of warm spit. Especially when one event, the Olimpics, is but a small part of an athlete's career. Any athlete will compete in hundreds or thousands of other events, but only once or twice in the Olympics.

How great of an achievement are we supposed to see a silver as? I mean, if some guy on the street told me he got a silver medal in the Olympics, I think to myself "damn that guy must be pretty good". It's not like people don't understand that silver medalists or the Buffalo Bills are good. It's just that they aren't the best. Are you objecting that gold medalists or championship winners get more attention and adulation? Well to me it seems pretty obvious that they should.

[Moebius]

I disagree. There is plenty of proof. You just seem to be willing to arbitrarily dismiss a lot of very convincing evidence. Not only did multiple official Chinese documents and news reports list the age of two gymnasts as 14, but they have now mysteriously disappeared from the internet. Seems sort of strange, doesn’t it? On top of that, it’s not as if we’re dealing with a bunch of squeaky clean people here. The Chinese Communist government plays fast and loose with the truth whenever and wherever it serves their purposes. It’s a philosophical thing, don’t you know? They also aren’t shy about cheating in gymnastics.

First of all, according to the Chinese those online documents you mentioned got their age from the same erroneous application paper from when He switched from one team to another. This is a he say she say situation, although I would say that a passport is a more convincing proof than a gymnastics application. Now if you can find a birth certificate or something along those lines that contradicts the passport, that's another story. As it stands I don't think a gymnastics related documents pulled out of the internet constitute as "clear evidence".

Second of all, the fact that the Chinese has cheated in the past does not make for a automatic condemnation of He's case. Otherwise I can just as easily say given the United State's history of doping in the Olympics, that Michael Phelps was probably on steroids. And goddamn it I am right until I am proven wrong, because the US has shown that they are not beyond chemically enhancing their athletes in the past.

Again, personally I think that this is something that should be pursued and investigated, and if proven true, I would love to see the Chinese gymnasts get their medals stripped. Just don't pretend that this is a proven, open and shut case.

A number of hackers have been able to uncover documents that reveal the truth about the age of He Kexin.

I read this story. A "hacker" looked through a search engine cache and found some documents. I didn't know that looking through a search engine cache qualified you as a hacker, but neither is a hacker the most reliable source for information. It's a philosophical thing, don't you know?

Whether the Times report is 100% objective is hardly the issue here. The evidence is pretty clear that they cheated and the physical appearance of the girls is part of that evidence. It’s intellectually irresponsible to just dismiss the evidence out of hand.

True story. When I was on the tennis team in the eighth grade we had a kid that was 13 years old that was 6'4" and had a full facial hair who had a serve that was faster than most high school varsity players. Maybe I should have taken his appearance as evidence that he was really a 25 year old disguising himself as an 8th grader in order to dominate middle school tennis.

I’m not an expert in gymnastics and I assume that you aren’t either. If coaches and former gymnasts say that being younger, smaller and lighter can be an advantage (I’ve also heard that younger girls have an advantage because they are more flexible), then I’m not going to act as if what they are saying is ridiculous. Furthermore, the proof is in the competitive results. In recent years most of the top female gymnasts have been teenagers and they seem to be getting younger.

Not being an expert in gymnastics should somehow disqualify mean from using my REASON?

Let's get this out of the way first: the reason the age restriction was placed on the Olympics gymnastics in the first place was to prevent kids from injuries, the pressure of elite competition, and burn outs. NOT because being young gives you an advantage.

The Times statement that younger gymnasts have an advantage "because they're lighter and more fearless" comes from Nellie Kim, the five-time Olympic gold medalist for the former Soviet Union. Kim was 23 when she competed in her final Olympics in 1980, where she won two golds.

TWENTY THREE YEARS OLD. Interesting theory from her.

The Chinese gymnast, He, was recruited onto the National Team after having blown away the competition on the uneven bar by breaking two world records in two months in FIG sanctioned competitions. She is simply a phenomenal gymnast. If the Chinese did in fact cheated, it wouldn't be to take advantage of the gymnast's age. It would be to put their absolute best gymnast into the competition. I think there might be some residual hard feelings for the 17 year olds on the US team to get the snot beaten out of them by a tiny 14 year old Chinese girl, hence explaining the biased US media backlash. But maybe it's time that the FIG reconsider their age restrictions again (they've done this a couple of times in the past, both raising and lowering the age limit).

[D'kian]

How great of an achievement are we supposed to see a silver as?

Very great. Try your hand at any sport, at any level, and you'll see how much effort and dedication it takes to play it well. Being second in the world is a very big deal.

I mean, if some guy on the street told me he got a silver medal in the Olympics, I think to myself "damn that guy must be pretty good".

I'm willing to accept you'd say that, and that it is the rational thing to say. But I also know many people who'd say something else, something derogatory.

It's not like people don't understand that silver medalists or the Buffalo Bills are good. It's just that they aren't the best.

When talking about great failures in football, the 90s Bills are usually brought up as an example of failed teams. I think that's unfair.

Are you objecting that gold medalists or championship winners get more attention and adulation?

Not at all. Everyone knows the best football team ever are the Pittsburgh Steelers (wink), because they've won five Superbowls and lost only one (actually that's not so, but the Steelers are among the top five with the 49ers, the Patriots, the Redskins and the, ugh, Cowboys --and I hope you're glad to have wrenched such an ugly admission out of me)

[D'kian]

This is a he say she say situation, although I would say that a passport is a more convincing proof than a gymnastics application.

A passport from a dictatorship bent on gaining prestige through winning at the Olympics, not to mention rooted ina culture where saving face is highly important?

Remember when the USSR dominated the Olympics? That was before professionals of any kind where allowed to compete. Except the Soiets, and their satellites and allies, did send pros at every level. Nominally a swimmer may have been a policeman, or bureaucrat, or garbageman, but in fact he did nothing but train and compete while the state supported him. Now China's doing that. Of course they would cheat in any other way they could get away with.

Now if you can find a birth certificate or something along those lines that contradicts the passport, that's another story.

You won't find one. No one will. it's the same government as outlined above.

Second of all, the fact that the Chinese has cheated in the past does not make for a automatic condemnation of He's case. Otherwise I can just as easily say given the United State's history of doping in the Olympics, that Michael Phelps was probably on steroids.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone else, or nearly everyone else, was on steroids also.

[gags]

First of all, according to the Chinese those online documents you mentioned got their age from the same erroneous application paper from when He switched from one team to another. This is a he say she say situation, although I would say that a passport is a more convincing proof than a gymnastics application. Now if you can find a birth certificate or something along those lines that contradicts the passport, that's another story. As it stands I don't think a gymnastics related documents pulled out of the internet constitute as "clear evidence".

If this were a simple transposition or other clerical error (as claimed by the Chinese), why delete the documents and try to remove the evidence from the internet? Why engage in a coverup when you've done nothing wrong? Also, you seem to forget that the Times article mentioned evidence that two gymnasts (He and Jiang) are underage and both of them had passports that indicate they are 16. So now we’re supposed to believe that there were there two clerical errors. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be a problem for the Chinese government to give these girls passports with altered birthdates?

Second of all, the fact that the Chinese has cheated in the past does not make for a automatic condemnation of He's case. Otherwise I can just as easily say given the United State's history of doping in the Olympics, that Michael Phelps was probably on steroids. And goddamn it I am right until I am proven wrong, because the US has shown that they are not beyond chemically enhancing their athletes in the past.

Actually you can’t just as easily make that claim about Phelps because there isn’t any evidence that he was on steroids. There is substantial evidence that the Chinese gymnasts are underage.

I read this story. A "hacker" looked through a search engine cache and found some documents. I didn't know that looking through a search engine cache qualified you as a hacker, but neither is a hacker the most reliable source for information. It's a philosophical thing, don't you know?

So now you want to argue with my characterization of the guy as a “hacker”. You’re starting to come off as a nitpicker without a good argument. It’s a definitional thing, don’t you know.

True story. When I was on the tennis team in the eighth grade we had a kid that was 13 years old that was 6'4" and had a full facial hair who had a serve that was faster than most high school varsity players. Maybe I should have taken his appearance as evidence that he was really a 25 year old disguising himself as an 8th grader in order to dominate middle school tennis.

And if there were government records that indicated he was 25 years old, would you have simply dismissed them out of hand?

Not being an expert in gymnastics should somehow disqualify mean from using my REASON?

Of course not. Did anyone say that it should?

Let's get this out of the way first: the reason the age restriction was placed on the Olympics gymnastics in the first place was to prevent kids from injuries, the pressure of elite competition, and burn outs. NOT because being young gives you an advantage.

Yes, that’s the reason for the placement of the age restriction. However, when coaches and ex-gymnasts say that attributes associated with being younger give you an advantage, I believe them unless I see evidence that they should not be trusted.

The Times statement that younger gymnasts have an advantage "because they're lighter and more fearless" comes from Nellie Kim, the five-time Olympic gold medalist for the former Soviet Union. Kim was 23 when she competed in her final Olympics in 1980, where she won two golds.

TWENTY THREE YEARS OLD. Interesting theory from her.

Was she competing against any 14 year olds in 1980?