Olympics Rules and Sour Grapes

I see a lot of resentment in the air about the medals and who is winning them. Not unexpected. I am also confused why Yahoo! Sports shows USA being in first place when China actually has more golds. I know that the number of golds is more important than the total number of medals when ranking the nations. But I suppose Yahoo! chose to change the rules. That would be an interesting debate to have with someone, since Yahoo! is an American company co-founded by a Chinese American (now the CEO of Yahoo!) who was born in Taiwan and moved to America with his parents when he was ten. However, it would be ridiculous to think that the CEO gets involved in decisions like medal counts and nation ranking!

But that's a boring thing to discuss. The age of the Chinese gymnasts is a juicier topic. Do they look very young? To my untrained eye, yes they do. But am I certified to judge age by appearance. No, I am not. However, I do think that puberty does a few things to the human body, especially noticeable in the female human body. It fills it out and gives it curves. Those curves are most definitely conspicuous by their absence on the figures of the female Chinese gymnasts. I don't know what the rules are of determining age of participating athletes but to be a fair sport, you have to follow rules. Without rules it ceases to be a sport. All is fair only in love and war. All is not fair in sports. The Olympic Committee should and must do something to determine the ages of the gymnasts. And I also think Mr Karolyi should stop complaining on national television. Yes, you made your point and we got it. Now, stop being so damn petty.

Judging is another juicy topic. How do you break a tie in gymnastics? From what I understand it is the athlete with a lower average of deductions who wins. It's an Olympic rule. And I think when we go into a competition we should understand all the rules and accept them. So did the American gymnastics team not know that this was a possibility? Why complain now? The team should have read the rules and understood them. I personally think Nastia Liukin is the finest gymnast of them all and I think two golds or two silvers should be the way to go, but I am not on the Olympic Committee. Rules are rules and once you agree to compete under those rules you shouldn't complain about them after you've lost.

Alicia Sacramone's vault is also perhaps a juicy topic. I read blogs everywhere how she was robbed by the judges. The Chinese gymnast fell on her knees and yet got a bronze, but Sacramone landed on her feet and finished fourth. Well, is anyone thinking about the fact that the vault may have separate segments, approach, form, tumbles, landing &etc. and that each segment may have difficulty levels and point values? I understand that if landing is the make or break segment of the entire routine then botching the landing should nullify all the accomplishments in the other segments. But if it is not the deciding segment then it is entirely possible for someone to fall during their landing and yet get more points by outperforming their opponents in the rest of the routine. Once again, the Olympic gymnastics team should have read the rules.

Talking of rules and judging, I don't hear any complaints about Michael Phelps winning the 100 metre butterfly. Certainly it was a close race, but everyone seems to rely on the judges' decision on this event. We all saw the photo-finish the next day and I am certainly not convinced that Čavić had not touched the wall as well. In that last frame they both seem to have touched the wall. Oh, but surely the judges know best. And if they say Phelps was first, then Phelps certainly was first. However, it was good to see that Čavić, the Serbian swimmer, gladly accepted silver without complaining after he was told the judges' final decision.