MR

...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????


If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.

They all look like they are about 10 years old.

X factor wrote:...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????


If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.

is that an X Men/ Wolverine reference in your avvie? excellent.

I'll bet they really are. there is a doctor here who looks like a high school kid and he is 42.

Indyjoe wrote:Among few others, Neal Schon fans just might - since he is a special guest on it.

Gary Schutt is great.

I corrected your statement for you. No problem, don't worry about it.

If He (the gymnast, not God) is 16, then I am Mary Queen of Scots. If the U.S. tried to pull this crap, the entire team would be barred from the Olympics until a Democrat repeals Social Security.

X factor wrote:...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????


If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.

Well I haven't seen a blink of any of the olympics so I couldn't tell you how old I thought they were by looking at them. But what I can say is, the majority of Asian women have always looked much younger then they actually are. Some scientists believe it's the high level of fish oil that's in their diets. A number of years ago when I was still in my 20's, I was dating a 45 year old Chinese chick, her oldest son was less then ten years younger then me. This chick could pass for 25 no fucking lie! She didn't smoke, drink or take drugs so I have an idea that this also contributed to why she looked so young. Her skin was so friggin soft, she was petite, and smelled so good.....hell I still wake up sometimes in the middle of the night remembering how good she was.

How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?

They're cheating.

7 Wishes wrote:How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?

They're cheating.

Yeah, how many 4'5" and a whopping 68 pound 16 year olds? China's embarrassing themselves.

RedWingFan wrote:

7 Wishes wrote:How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?

They're cheating.

Yeah, how many 4'5" and a whopping 68 pound 16 year olds? China's embarrassing themselves.

China had one 8 years ago that still had her milk teeth, I think she got a perfect score on one of the apparatus.

7 Wishes wrote:How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?

They're cheating.

What they are allegedly doing is like the Celtics playing against Iona, then crying when the college team beats them. Face it. The Chinese are better at flinging your body around.....

I sure wouldn't cry if a 'child' that was bred to throw her body around - beat my arse in the olympics. It was said that these girls are hand-picked at THREE years old to become gymnists.....You gotta love communism.

I wish Bush was hand-picked when he was 3....then there would have been an excuse.....

The only thing about Bush that was ever hand-picked was his nose.

Rhiannon wrote:The only thing about Bush that was ever hand-picked was his nose.

Wow...looks like I'll have to Rhi-evaluate my assertion.....

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Now, what do you suppose happened at Thanksgiving dinner in Maine after the invasion? Do you suppose Bush Sr. was even talking to his son (behind closed doors)? I can picture the dinner table, the whole family gathered round, and Bush Sr. basically ignoring Junior in his ire.

"Barbara, will you tell George Jr. to pass me the damned potatoes!"

7 Wishes wrote:While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Seems like he was wrong on some of those predictions, huh? Especially if the violence there continues to decrease as it has since the troop surge began.

conversationpc wrote:

7 Wishes wrote:While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Seems like he was wrong on some of those predictions, huh? Especially if the violence there continues to decrease as it has since the troop surge began.

What? Violence is decreasing there? I haven't seen that on the news. They don't even mention Iraq anymore.

You have to admit, it could have happened.

Speaking of Iraq, where's ole Carlitto disappeared to?
Hope he's okay following the misfortune that occured to his Penguins!

The Sushi Hunter wrote:

X factor wrote:...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????


If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.

Well I haven't seen a blink of any of the olympics so I couldn't tell you how old I thought they were by looking at them. But what I can say is, the majority of Asian women have always looked much younger then they actually are. Some scientists believe it's the high level of fish oil that's in their diets. A number of years ago when I was still in my 20's, I was dating a 45 year old Chinese chick, her oldest son was less then ten years younger then me. This chick could pass for 25 no fucking lie! She didn't smoke, drink or take drugs so I have an idea that this also contributed to why she looked so young. Her skin was so friggin soft, she was petite, and smelled so good.....hell I still wake up sometimes in the middle of the night remembering how good she was.

I'll be 53 next month. Many people have said I could pass for 38.

I'm 38, and people way I don't look a day over 42.

I'm not sure I would disagree that there are some shinanigans going on, but... I sure wish the US Teams wouldn't whine about it. It makes us look like spoiled brats and poor losers.

I don't think I'd bring up the fact they are younger. I'd rather not admit I just got my butt whooped by a pre-teen.

Also, speaking of shinanigans, did you see the biceps on that one US gymnist dude (sorry don't know his name). That can't be natural.

The whole gymnist/swimming thing could be an entirely different story altogether. Those poor kids know nothing but the gym and pool...from practically birth. I wonder how many are there because they love the sport versus because their parents made them. I guess at least in the US it is likely the parents making them versus the government in the commie nations.

Nope, I call bs on saying this is "whining"- The fact of the matter is it's OBVIOUS that the Chinese have cheated, and there's nothing wrong with Martha Karolyi calling it what it is!
There was a state published story about one of the gymnasts being 13 that come out a few months ago, and was mytsteriously buried....nope- it's cheating pure and simple, and it's class-less!

I guess on one hand I feel like saying "The rules are the rules and those damn communists." I mean really, they are straight lying to our faces and they aren't telling good lies at that. It's insulting to our intelligence and it only gets worse when they sit there and deny it.

But on the other hand, what a STUPID rule. Can someone explain to me the basis for the rule? Is it because they are smaller, they are at an advantage? Ok, well why don't we ban anybody who hits their growth spurt from basketball. Where do you draw the line? Is it because they fear obsessive/abusive parents/coaches ruining a kid's life? Well, guess what, most parents are still in pretty good control of their young teenagers too. I was a national level junior tennis player not too long ago and I've seen dads beating up on their kids 12 and 17 alike (thankfully, only once did I see things get physical, but plenty of verbal abuse to go 'round..)

If you are physically capable of competing at that level, NOTHING should stop you. I'm 5'8 and play at the #1 singles and doubles slots on my collegiate tennis team. Tennis isn't even a sport renown for big guys, but I'm usually smaller than the guy I'm playing at #1. Never once have I been taller. Sure, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I have no problems doing well. What if some dickhead governing body decided to make the minimum height 5'10? This rule is blatantly discriminatory in one way or another, whether it be based on reverse ageism or physical discrimination. Discrimination has no place in sports. Let the best athlete(s) on the day win, everything else be damned.

Ehwmatt wrote:But on the other hand, what a STUPID rule. Can someone explain to me the basis for the rule? Is it because they are smaller, they are at an advantage? Ok, well why don't we ban anybody who hits their growth spurt from basketball. Where do you draw the line? Is it because they fear obsessive/abusive parents/coaches ruining a kid's life? Well, guess what, most parents are still in pretty good control of their young teenagers too. I was a national level junior tennis player not too long ago and I've seen dads beating up on their kids 12 and 17 alike (thankfully, only once did I see things get physical, but plenty of verbal abuse to go 'round..)

If you are physically capable of competing at that level, NOTHING should stop you. I'm 5'8 and play at the #1 singles and doubles slots on my collegiate tennis team. Tennis isn't even a sport renown for big guys, but I'm usually smaller than the guy I'm playing at #1. Never once have I been taller. Sure, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I have no problems doing well. What if some dickhead governing body decided to make the minimum height 5'10? This rule is blatantly discriminatory in one way or another, whether it be based on reverse ageism or physical discrimination. Discrimination has no place in sports. Let the best athlete(s) on the day win, everything else be damned.

I believe the law was enacted to keep unscrupulous trainers from turning kids into full-time athletes and exploiting them. I agree with the rule. 12 year-olds should not be forced or even encouraged to practice for hours upon hours a day like that. They should be allowed to be kids. Some of them may tell you that it's what they want to do but I guarantee you most of them end up regretting spending so much time on stuff like this as a child and missing out on just being a child.

Ehwmatt wrote:I guess on one hand I feel like saying "The rules are the rules and those damn communists." I mean really, they are straight lying to our faces and they aren't telling good lies at that. It's insulting to our intelligence and it only gets worse when they sit there and deny it.

But on the other hand, what a STUPID rule. Can someone explain to me the basis for the rule? Is it because they are smaller, they are at an advantage? Ok, well why don't we ban anybody who hits their growth spurt from basketball. Where do you draw the line? Is it because they fear obsessive/abusive parents/coaches ruining a kid's life? Well, guess what, most parents are still in pretty good control of their young teenagers too. I was a national level junior tennis player not too long ago and I've seen dads beating up on their kids 12 and 17 alike (thankfully, only once did I see things get physical, but plenty of verbal abuse to go 'round..)

If you are physically capable of competing at that level, NOTHING should stop you. I'm 5'8 and play at the #1 singles and doubles slots on my collegiate tennis team. Tennis isn't even a sport renown for big guys, but I'm usually smaller than the guy I'm playing at #1. Never once have I been taller. Sure, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I have no problems doing well. What if some dickhead governing body decided to make the minimum height 5'10? This rule is blatantly discriminatory in one way or another, whether it be based on reverse ageism or physical discrimination. Discrimination has no place in sports. Let the best athlete(s) on the day win, everything else be damned.

This does a pretty good job of explaining it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/o ... ml?eref=T1

SI.com: Why is there an age limit in gymnastics?

Swift: It was instituted primarily for the mental health of the athletes. Being 14 and having those Olympic or world championship expectations put on you is unreasonable and very difficult. There's also the question of the physical health of the athletes because their bones are still growing and they are trying -- and often completing -- these very difficult and complicated tricks. The question is whether they would do them anyway if they were not Olympic-eligible and maybe the answer is yes. But these are very dangerous tricks, and the older you can make the athletes and the more their bodies have developed, the safer they are.

SI.com: What effect has age restriction had on international competition?

Swift: It has had an impact. Nadia Comaneci was 14 when she won in Montreal in 1976. Four years later, she did well. She won a couple of medals but did not win the all-around medal and she was not the dominant gymnast she was as a 14 year old. So there is a physical advantage to being smaller, more flexible and quicker. We see this in figure skating, which has the same rule. The hips, when they have not developed, spin quicker. That enables the competitors to do more complicated routines. In gymnastics, it's flips. If you are smaller, you can flip more. Some people also think the younger athlete does not feel as much pressure, so it has an advantage in that respect, too.

conversationpc wrote:
I believe the law was enacted to keep unscrupulous trainers from turning kids into full-time athletes and exploiting them. I agree with the rule. 12 year-olds should not be forced or even encouraged to practice for hours upon hours a day like that. They should be allowed to be kids. Some of them may tell you that it's what they want to do but I guarantee you most of them end up regretting spending so much time on stuff like this as a child and missing out on just being a child.

That's fair enough, but this pretty much happens in almost every sport nowadays, especially ones focused on the individual. This kind of "burn out" happens all the time in my sport and others, but really, I don't think it's up to the powers that be to try to curb these things. Guess what's going to happen? That 12 year old will just be training that hard for 4 more years until the next Olympics rolls in. If a parent(s) and/or coaches believe enough in the pupil and they are crazy in their methods and hours, that kid's going to be practicing by hook or crook.

It's a little easier to govern in a sport like tennis, they have (or at least had) tournament limitations for competitors under a certain age. But that doesn't stop kids of all ages from spending every waking moment out there training in one capacity or another.

This is a perfect example of a pointless rule in my eyes. It's not going to help the people it's supposed to.

RedWingFan wrote:This does a pretty good job of explaining it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/o ... ml?eref=T1

SI.com: Why is there an age limit in gymnastics?

Swift: It was instituted primarily for the mental health of the athletes. Being 14 and having those Olympic or world championship expectations put on you is unreasonable and very difficult. There's also the question of the physical health of the athletes because their bones are still growing and they are trying -- and often completing -- these very difficult and complicated tricks. The question is whether they would do them anyway if they were not Olympic-eligible and maybe the answer is yes. But these are very dangerous tricks, and the older you can make the athletes and the more their bodies have developed, the safer they are.

SI.com: What effect has age restriction had on international competition?

Swift: It has had an impact. Nadia Comaneci was 14 when she won in Montreal in 1976. Four years later, she did well. She won a couple of medals but did not win the all-around medal and she was not the dominant gymnast she was as a 14 year old. So there is a physical advantage to being smaller, more flexible and quicker. We see this in figure skating, which has the same rule. The hips, when they have not developed, spin quicker. That enables the competitors to do more complicated routines. In gymnastics, it's flips. If you are smaller, you can flip more. Some people also think the younger athlete does not feel as much pressure, so it has an advantage in that respect, too.

Ugh, that second answer is just disgusting. Most sports reward more size. Give smaller people a break. The first answer is reasonable in addressing the actual pressures they face once on the world stage.

But, I doubt this rule is doing anything to save minors from overtraining and what not in the long run, and that's arguably the most important rationale behind it.

Ehwmatt wrote:

conversationpc wrote:
I believe the law was enacted to keep unscrupulous trainers from turning kids into full-time athletes and exploiting them. I agree with the rule. 12 year-olds should not be forced or even encouraged to practice for hours upon hours a day like that. They should be allowed to be kids. Some of them may tell you that it's what they want to do but I guarantee you most of them end up regretting spending so much time on stuff like this as a child and missing out on just being a child.

That's fair enough, but this pretty much happens in almost every sport nowadays, especially ones focused on the individual. This kind of "burn out" happens all the time in my sport and others, but really, I don't think it's up to the powers that be to try to curb these things. Guess what's going to happen? That 12 year old will just be training that hard for 4 more years until the next Olympics rolls in. If a parent(s) and/or coaches believe enough in the pupil and they are crazy in their methods and hours, that kid's going to be practicing by hook or crook.

It's a little easier to govern in a sport like tennis, they have (or at least had) tournament limitations for competitors under a certain age. But that doesn't stop kids of all ages from spending every waking moment out there training in one capacity or another.

This is a perfect example of a pointless rule in my eyes. It's not going to help the people it's supposed to.

Perhaps, but the point is THEY are breaking the rule and winning by doing it. Regardless of whether we see the validity of the rule or not (and I tend to ere on PC's side of the argument) the fact remains that the rule is the rule. I could argue that not allowing sprinters to use performance enhancing drugs is stupid, so it's fine if a runner dopes to get the Gold. But that argument doesn't hold water to me.

A disgusting theory? No. Just a truthful one. I am starting to see eye to eye with RWF on so many issues, I might be forced to have my PETA and ACLU memberships revoked.

Just to clear things up, China is cheating (which shouldn't come as a surprise). No semantics there. But I do think this rule should be evaluated next time around.

X factor wrote:Nope, I call bs on saying this is "whining"- The fact of the matter is it's OBVIOUS that the Chinese have cheated, and there's nothing wrong with Martha Karolyi calling it what it is!
There was a state published story about one of the gymnasts being 13 that come out a few months ago, and was mytsteriously buried....nope- it's cheating pure and simple, and it's class-less!

How is it cheating? If a child of 10 can out-perform an 'adult' of 18 in a sport that requires physical strength, stamina and discipline, how is it cheating? I would think putting a child into those circumstances is a disadvantage, not an advantage.

While I don't agree with the ethics of using children this way, it's not so different from a lot of other sports. Swimmers, tennis players, gymnasts; they all need to start daily training by the time they are 10 if they are going to get anywhere in their chosen sport. I know Australia has put up 13, 14 and 15 year old swimmers in the past who have won gold at the Olympics. I personally think it borders on child abuse to put someone in that position at an age when they can't really make an informed decision about their life choices, but I don't think you can call it cheating.