OT: Olympic Gymnastics - Why is this unjust?

[tuxbailey]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/coach-wiebers-exclusion-injustice-154551225--oly.html

Why complain now when the rules have been in place forever. Just because you are the World Champion doesn't mean you get a free ride. If your teammates are better than you on that day, than that is just unfortunate...

[MattTuck]

Because the word injustice is tossed around like candy and has lost it's meaning. Maybe the coach should familiarize himself with actual injustices. What he's describing is a minor inconvenience for an individual at the top 0.001% of the world population at a certain skill.

http://www.spd.org/images/blog/002.jpg

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/remembering-the-holocaust/holocaust-tattoo.jpg

[monkeybanana86]

True but still a bummer.

[esldude]

Any sport determined by judges is well....BS.... not a sport. Judged sports in the past Olympics like when communist judges routinely conspired to give western athletes lower scores illustrates the points. If it requires a judge it is at best an exhibition. Not a sport.

[ultraman6970]

Well they screw up (somehow), people from other teams that did worse are qualified and is because only 3 can pass or something like that... Dunno, bad for her but she did bad and at the same time they should have foreseen the problem. If you notice in all the teams always they have 3 strong and the other 2 are just newbies that have to pay their dues to get the good ones the chance too. Dunno... that's life, they care competing.

The chick has more chances in the individual, IMO dunno what's the problem nobody has everything 100% sure.

The japanese screwed to the serbian team in the final team male competition. That's even worse, they got the bronze medal and the japanese complained, they protest was accepted and now japan is 3rd. The US team sucked today.

[Ken Robb]

I think some see it as unjust because the Olympic organizers, in order to encourage more countries to participate, limit each country to no more than two (or is it three) gymnasts for the all around title even though the the third or fourth place competitor from a country with great depth might be better than the first or second best from another country.

My pal who won several sailing gold medals at The World Championships pointed out to me that they were harder to win than the Olympics because all the best sailors can compete in the Worlds but the Olympics limited the number of entrants from each country. Therefore many elite sailors from countries with strong programs were left out in favor of much weaker sailors from countries with almost no sailing programs at all.

Well these rules have been in place for a long time and without them we would have missed the Olympic performances of the Jamaican Bobsled Team and Eddie the Eagle of British ski jumping fame.

[Louis]

I heard today on the radio that originally, before the rule existed, and teams like the Japanese men's gymnastics team dominated, you'd have five Japanese guys and maybe a sprinkling of a few other countries. So back then it was to help countries like the US. You have to try and get a balance between having the best compete and having a good mix of international representation. Either extreme is bad.

[deanster]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/coach-wiebers-exclusion-injustice-154551225--oly.html

Why complain now when the rules have been in place forever. Just because you are the World Champion doesn't mean you get a free ride. If your teammates are better than you on that day, than that is just unfortunate...

The rule was put in place a long time ago when the sport was dominated by Russia, Romania, and other east European countries...and supported by the US. So why do we cry over spilt milk. The Russian girl who scored high also missed out. The whole US womens team was very strong which allowed for something like this to happen. The breaks...! I'd say that the 17 year old is handling it with utmost class which makes me proud.

[Fixed]

No
It is the rules
Cheers IMHO

[rugbysecondrow]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/coach-wiebers-exclusion-injustice-154551225--oly.html

Why complain now when the rules have been in place forever. Just because you are the World Champion doesn't mean you get a free ride. If your teammates are better than you on that day, than that is just unfortunate...


Nope, not unjust at all. Does it make for the best competition? No. Does it pit the top 24 women in the world against one another? Nope. This might hose the USA this time around, but will we complain next time around when it is China getting the short end of the stick and we are put in due to a quota?

The IOC can't risk having a finals without the big ratings nations like the USA. This guarantees gymnastics TV and face time.

[tch]

[Why complain now when the rules have been in place forever.

"Forever"? Hardly. The rule was changed after 2000 Olympics. It used to be 3 competitors from a team; now it's 2.

As for the "inclusion" argument, the medal for best All-Around gymnast is not really subject to quite the same argument. It is, by its nature, a "best-of-the-best" competition. So, as Bela Karolyi says, why not have the very best 24 gymnasts in the world in it? Let everyone compete in the team competition, but take highest scores for the All-Around, regardless of nationality.

Would we really have wanted a "best-of-the-best" cycling competition w/o Eddie Merckx because he somehow failed to qualify in some regional qualifier?

[Chance]

I heard today on the radio that originally, before the rule existed, and teams like the Japanese men's gymnastics team dominated, you'd have five Japanese guys and maybe a sprinkling of a few other countries. So back then it was to help countries like the US. You have to try and get a balance between having the best compete and having a good mix of international representation. Either extreme is bad.

Disagree. The best should compete regardless of what country they represent. It's a competition after all. The rules are indeed the rules but they need to be changed.

If we follow this kind of logic to make competition more diverse what will be next? That all sprinters in the 100 meters can't be black? That at least half should be white to make it more interesting for TV viewers? Making exceptions like this sets a bad example for the Olympics. The rule should be changed so the very best compete regarless of anything else.

[FlashUNC]

"Forever"? Hardly. The rule was changed after 2000 Olympics. It used to be 3 competitors from a team; now it's 2.

As for the "inclusion" argument, the medal for best All-Around gymnast is not really subject to quite the same argument. It is, by its nature, a "best-of-the-best" competition. So, as Bela Karolyi says, why not have the very best 24 gymnasts in the world in it? Let everyone compete in the team competition, but take highest scores for the All-Around, regardless of nationality.

Would we really have wanted a "best-of-the-best" cycling competition w/o Eddie Merckx because he somehow failed to qualify in some regional qualifier?

Never mind that in previous games, if a country's best gymnast failed to qualify, one of her teammates would magically get an injury, allowing her to sub in.

I don't see how gymnastics and figure skating can be taken seriously in the Olympics.

[tuxbailey]

Disagree. The best should compete regardless of what country they represent. It's a competition after all. The rules are indeed the rules but they need to be changed.

If we follow this kind of logic to make competition more diverse what will be next? That all sprinters in the 100 meters can't be black? That at least half should be white to make it more interesting for TV viewers? Making exceptions like this sets a bad example for the Olympics. The rule should be changed so the very best compete regarless of anything else.

The Olympic is a chance for the different countries to showcase their best talent and give them the chance to compete against the world's best.

If you let the highest qualifiers go without quota limit then you could have an all Chinese ping-pong competition or full of US basketball players if you field 10 teams with the top NBA/NCAA players.

I like it the way it is, whether it is top 2, top 3 in the team can compete in individual events. If you have a bad day can't beat your own teammate to qualify then it is just tough luck.

The 17 yr old is handling it great and I hope she will win medals in individual events. I just think the coach is "spoiled" in this case.

[edward12]

Because the word injustice is tossed around like candy and has lost it's meaning. Maybe the coach should familiarize himself with actual injustices. What he's describing is a minor inconvenience for an individual at the top 0.001% of the world population at a certain skill.

http://www.spd.org/images/blog/002.jpg

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/remembering-the-holocaust/holocaust-tattoo.jpg

Excellent point. One of the more intelligent comments ever posted on this forum.

[bart998]

Rules like this are basically affirmative action for less skilled athletes. I say purity in sports. Either you qualify or you don't. No rule tricks to balance out things. It always has a cost to an innocent third party. These athletes focus years of their lives on this one event.

[Chance]

The Olympic is a chance for the different countries to showcase their best talent and give them the chance to compete against the world's best.

If you let the highest qualifiers go without quota limit then you could have an all Chinese ping-pong competition or full of US basketball players if you field 10 teams with the top NBA/NCAA players.

I like it the way it is, whether it is top 2, top 3 in the team can compete in individual events. If you have a bad day can't beat your own teammate to qualify then it is just tough luck.

The 17 yr old is handling it great and I hope she will win medals in individual events. I just think the coach is "spoiled" in this case.

There is a "HUGE" difference between setting limits on how many athletes each country can suit up in the first place versus setting limits on which ones can advance. The first seems just enough to me (and to your point), the second not so much (to my point).

Once competing for scores on equal basis the best of the best should go forward. My understanding is that is not the case here. Other athletes with lower skills are allowed to advance in lieu of more talented athletes just to meet a quota. Doesn't seem right to me.

[tuxbailey]

There is a "HUGE" difference between setting limits on how many athletes each country can suit up in the first place versus setting limits on which ones can advance. The first seems just enough to me (and to your point), the second not so much (to my point).

Once competing for scores on equal basis the best of the best should go forward. My understanding is that is not the case here. Other athletes with lower skills are allowed to advance in lieu of more talented athletes just to meet a quota. Doesn't seem right to me.

In a way, it is like competing in your own subgroup before advancing to the final. Your subgroup (in this case the US team) has 5 talented athlete, but only two will advance so the best two go forward.

Kind of like the world cup where one of European country could be better than a team from a different continent, but you can't really have a Europe cup in a World Cup...

[Earl Gray]

Unjust (adjective)
1. not just; lacking in justice or fairness:

contrary to what is right, just, or fair, or lacking fairness or justice


This guy has taking some heat in the media for his use of words.

However, just because it follows the rules does not make it "just".

In a level playing field competition, there is an expectation that the most qualified participant move forward. If she scored in the top 3 and more than 2 people take part in the finals, it is reasoanble to call it "unjust".

ITWAE

[Louis]

Once competing for scores on equal basis the best of the best should go forward. My understanding is that is not the case here. Other athletes with lower skills are allowed to advance in lieu of more talented athletes just to meet a quota. Doesn't seem right to me.

Perhaps, but I would think that part of the reason we now have more and more Americans at the top levels is that the rules were changed years ago so the current crop could be inspired by the original American trail-blazers who benefited from the policy. Let's face it, there is less interest in the US in sports where very few Americans are in competition for medals.

It was in part because of OUR complaints that the rules were changed. Now that we have benefited, are we to change them back, to the detriment of others?

[Chance]

Perhaps, but I would think that part of the reason we now have more and more Americans at the top levels is that the rules were changed years ago so the current crop could be inspired by the original American trail-blazers who benefited from the policy. Let's face it, there is less interest in the US in sports where very few Americans are in competition for medals.

It was in part because of OUR complaints that the rules were changed. Now that we have benefited, are we to change them back, to the detriment of others?

Excellent point Louis. If it were up to me the rules would have never been changed in the first place. For the US or anyone else. Not a supporter of quotas or tilting the playing field in order to correct some previous inequality. Wrong is wrong although it’s easy to see that from their perspective it would seem like two wrongs don’t make a “new” right.

Personally would hate to see any kind of quota set up that affects advancement. For example, the 100 meter dash has been dominated in recent times by Jamaica and the USA plus a few other countries. If they pursue diversity by controlling representation, they could just as easily justify that as they move up in heats that fewer athletes from each country can qualify for the same event. By the finals we could end up with only one from each country, which would mean one American and one Jamaican. It may turn out that way anyway based on performance, but if limited by representation we could easily leave 3 or 4 of the fastest competitors with a real chance to win gold sitting on the bench.

And the same for swimming. No more Gold and Silver for any country in the same event, and even less all three medals. This happens all the time so why the issue with gymnastics?:confused:

Personally don’t see how leaving a sprinter like Bolt on the bench would add to TV entertainment because he happens to be the second fastest Jamaican at the time. Same with gymnast.

[pjm]

I think this young lady will be feeling much happier tonight.