On 27/08/2008, at 12:27 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > Because if you assign 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 point > for bronze, then the crybaby yanks lost to china, and that is > unacceptable to the American chauvinist, patriotic, jingoist, > dogmatic, nationalistic media. Americans can not accept that they > are on their way down, and no longer first in everything. They > whine because they can't prove the Chinese gymnists lied about their > age. Who cares what age they are; that is an arbitrary rule that > should be eliminated.
No, absolutely not. First - whether or not it's arbitrary, it's a rule. If they were underage, they were underage. One might say that it's arbitrary that 2 200m runners were disqualified for running out of the lane in the final. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's a rule. All the competitions have their rules set in advance. Arbitrary or otherwise, entering the competition binds one by the rules, and breaking them leads to disqualification. Second, there's good evidence to show that the sort of intensive training in gymnastics that'll make a lass competitive will cause serious joint problems later on in life at 13-14 and is significantly less likely to at 16 when the long bones have done their growing and are hardening. That's the reason for the rule, and it's a good one. There are age limits in many sports to compete at the highest level, and there's nothing wrong with that. > I bow down to the Chinese volleyball girls, and all the other > champions that dominated this Olympics. If it wasn't for Phelps > (aided by American society's peculiar syndrome of ADHD) America > would have done even more poorly. Yep. A very good Olympics. Not as tarnished by drugs as I thought so pleased. However, much more tarnished by the win-at-all-costs attitude of many nations (probably more the media than anything, but it was still there.). Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
