Miscellaneous Olympic Chatter

[mazzy]

It has everything to do with it. You just can't deny the opposite sex participation in an Olympic sport. That is fundamentally wrong.

Frankly, I don't see anything "fundamentally wrong" with it. It is a simple fact that sports differ in participation rates for men and women -whatever the reasons. If hardly any men care to take up rhythmic then it is not IOC's job to give out medals just for the sake of it. I have also stated that I would take out men's football out of Olympics. It is a sport where OG are a third rate competition for the best athletes and most fans would be hard pressed to tell you the champions from four or eight years ago while they could probably tell every WC/Euros winner of the last 50 years or so.

[overedge]

Frankly, I don't see anything "fundamentally wrong" with it. It is a simple fact that sports differ in participation rates for men and women -whatever the reasons.

"Whatever the reasons" writes off a whole bunch of very important reasons that are fundamental to addressing gender equality in sport. There are women in Islamic countries who don't participate in any sports because they're not allowed to. That's considerably different than women in other countries who have a choice of sports to participate in and choose certain ones for certain reasons (e.g. skating for the pretty dresses). You can't characterize both of those as the same type of non-participation.

And if you read up on the case involving the IOC and the female ski jumpers who wanted to participate in the 2010 winter Olympics, you will see that the IOC cares a lot more about other things (like $$$$) than promoting gender equality in sport participation. I found their blathering during the opening ceremony about the Olympics finally having women on all the country's teams to be rather hypocritical, given some of the other ways they've banned women's participation.

[berthesghost]

Ok, I'm too stupid to see the other side of this. Help. So... Inclusion of Women's Hockey brings attention to the sport and the likelihood of more participants, backers, etc... And exclusion of it brings.... what? Do we each get a $230 rebate in the mail if them kick them out? Does Cruella d'Ville release the 101 puppies if it's dumped? Or is it just that "more important sports" like men's basketball get more $$ if they don't have to share with girls pretending they can play hockey?

[mazzy]

overedge, I have not claimed that the reasons for participation differences are always fair but questioned the statement that it is "fundamentally wrong" to not have both sexes compete at every sport. The OG are first and foremost an elite sports competition. If some sports/events cannot provide a minimal level of competitiveness, there is no basis to include them in Olympics. For instance, how many women in Islamic countries would overcome their culturally based discrimination and start ski jumping if it were included?

[overedge]

overedge, I have not claimed that the reasons for participation differences are always fair but questioned the statement that it is "fundamentally wrong" to not have both sexes compete at every sport. The OG are first and foremost an elite sports competition. If some sports/events cannot provide a minimal level of competitiveness, there is no basis to include them in Olympics. For instance, how many women in Islamic countries would overcome their culturally based discrimination and start ski jumping if it were included?

You're talking about an issue of qualification, not of gender. By those standards, the male rower who finished last in the qualifying for solo sculls by about a minute and a half should have been excluded too because he didn't meet a "minimum level of competitiveness".

Olympic sports don't just get to be in the Olympics because someone asks them to be in there. There has to be an administrative body and a certain number of participants. The problem is that the IOC is excluding all-female sports that meet or exceed those qualifications, like women's ski jumping.

[Skittl1321]

You're talking about an issue of qualification, not of gender. By those standards, the male rower who finished last in the qualifying for solo sculls by about a minute and a half should have been excluded too because he didn't meet a "minimum level of competitiveness".

If he came from a different country, he would have been excluded for not meeting the minimum level of competitiveness. He was a wild-card spot. Those spots exist solely to encourage countries to develop federations. He did not qualify for the Olympics at all, he was asked to come (he also did not take anyone's spot, as he was added to the roster after it was set, so no better rower lost out to him.) If that was the best rower the USA could have sent, the USA would not have been allowed to compete (just as they weren't allowed to send their women's handball team.)

It's like the many athletes who don't have the A score needed for track and field, even if they are the best from their country. (Or what will soon happen with figure skating at World's with the super high minimum score.)

[mazzy]

overedge,
You're reading more into my arguments that they contain, I'm afraid. I'm disputing the Ziggy's statement that it would be "fundamentally wrong" to have sports at the Olympics that only one sex participates in. Nothing else. In the summer Olympics there are two such sports: rhythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming. Personally I could live without either but there seem to be enough women in enough countries training these sports to warrant their presence. Correct me if I'm wrong but this does not seem to be the case with the male sides. I do not believe it would be fair to exclude these sports from the Olys just because male participation is too low or that it would be fair to other sports that are not included in Olympics due to lack of participation/international interest to include the male counterparts of rg and synchro and give out olympic medals. If women's ski jumping meets IOC's criteria on international participation and established competitions, it should be included. Not because it would be fundamentally wrong to have a male sport without its female counterpart, but because women's ski jumping has proven to be an accepted and viable event.

[overedge]

overedge,
You're reading more into my arguments that they contain, I'm afraid. I'm disputing the Ziggy's statement that it would be "fundamentally wrong" to have sports at the Olympics that only one sex participates in. Nothing else. In the summer Olympics there are two such sports: rhythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming. Personally I could live without either but there seem to be enough women in enough countries training these sports to warrant their presence. Correct me if I'm wrong but this does not seem to be the case with the male sides.

And that is because IIRC, in synchro at least, in several countries and at certain levels of world competition, male participation is banned. Just like in some countries women are barred from participating in sport at all.

I do not believe it would be fair to exclude these sports from the Olys just because male participation is too low or that it would be fair to other sports that are not included in Olympics due to lack of participation/international interest to include the male counterparts of rg and synchro and give out olympic medals.

But again, you're missing the difference between lack of participation because of lack of interest, support, whatever, and lack of participation because it's forbidden. That is something that the IOC hasn't gotten its head around yet.

If women's ski jumping meets IOC's criteria on international participation and established competitions, it should be included. Not because it would be fundamentally wrong to have a male sport without its female counterpart, but because women's ski jumping has proven to be an accepted and viable event.

It is fundamentally wrong to have an event excluded when male and female participation in the same event is governed by the same federation and has the same qualifying structure, but the IOC decides that there is not enough time to schedule the women's event and/or that the women don't have enough "elite competitors". Which is exactly what happened with women's ski jumping.

[mazzy]

And that is because IIRC, in synchro at least, in several countries and at certain levels of world competition, male participation is banned. Just like in some countries women are barred from participating in sport at all. But again, you're missing the difference between lack of participation because of lack of interest, support, whatever, and lack of participation because it's forbidden. That is something that the IOC hasn't gotten its head around yet.

If there are laws preventing male synchro swimmer from practicing their sport, accuse the countries in question. If its the national federations that refuse to stage male synchro competitions, sue them or start your own (its really not that hard, there are feds around for the most obscure of sports). Ones the sport has proven viable, we can talk about inclusion into the OG. What do you want the IOC to do in this case? Introduce an olympic competition for a sport practiced by 100 people in the world? The IOC organises a sports event, it cannot force countries to change their laws, nor are they legitimized to, really.

It is fundamentally wrong to have an event excluded when male and female participation in the same event is governed by the same federation and has the same qualifying structure, but the IOC decides that there is not enough time to schedule the women's event and/or that the women don't have enough "elite competitors". Which is exactly what happened with women's ski jumping.

I have not disputed that. If the criteria are met, there should be no excuses.

[Garden Kitty]

An American Idol gets a boost in downloads thanks to US gymnastics team

[IceAlisa]

Happy for Gabby Douglas winning AA. She is so cute, she is going to be fighting off sponsors with a stick

[my little pony]

Really? Badminton is quite widely played here too. Just because something isn't popular in the US doesn't mean it isn't popular elsewhere and vice versa.

it isnt that i didnt think it was popular, i didnt realize it existed at this level

[Spareoom]

An American Idol gets a boost in downloads thanks to US gymnastics team

LOL! I actually just about to go download the song myself. Not necessarily for the song's sake on it's own, but I associate a lot of really good memories with it now, so...yeah.

I really do appreciate NBC going with something upbeat and positive for their broadcast openers...it seems like most of the time it's dramatic music that just builds tension and pits gymnasts against each other. I was fully expecting them to come to London and for the TF opener to basically be, "USA MUST BEAT THE COMMIES".

So for them to go with something upbeat and positive really puts a whole different spin on the feeling of the night, and for that I am really thankful.

[jeffisjeff]

An American Idol gets a boost in downloads thanks to US gymnastics team

What did someone on this board label that song? The aging hipster ballad?

Regarding the much aligned US podium outfits, did anyone else notice that Gabby's jacket was glowing when she first entered the stadium for the WAG AA medal ceremony? They showed a shot of the medalists from above and her jacket seemed to glow in the dark. It was pretty cool. A few days ago someone linked to an article about the jackets in which the manufacturer indicated that the jackets had a special fabric that would shimmer (or some such thing) under bright lights. Unfortunately, I don't think it has been very noticeable, but today I did get a glimpse of that shimmer and it was pretty cool.

[escaflowne9282]

Ok, I'm too stupid to see the other side of this. Help. So... Inclusion of Women's Hockey brings attention to the sport and the likelihood of more participants, backers, etc... And exclusion of it brings.... what? Do we each get a $230 rebate in the mail if them kick them out? Does Cruella d'Ville release the 101 puppies if it's dumped? Or is it just that "more important sports" like men's basketball get more $$ if they don't have to share with girls pretending they can play hockey?

In my case, it's not that I'm so dead set on seeing Women's hockey leave the Olympics. It's more that, sports like baseball and softball were eliminated despite them actually having a comparatively larger geographic spread of competitive participants, swimming in the Olympics actually has fewer events than it does at the Swimming World Championships and a decent spread of winners among the non-Olympic events, and the IOC didn't agree to women's ski jumping for years until Sochi due to a lack of elite competitors.
Lack of interest/ not enough geographic diversity/ and downsizing has been used as a justification for these situations by the IOC
Meanwhile , women's hockey which has only ever been competitive between two countries, isn't followed very much outside of those two countries, and creates an entire new team event requiring the need for more ice time, facilities and medals, has gotten nary a glance by the IOC despite many grumblings in the press . It just seems to be such a double standard.
Ideally, it would be nice to see it become more competitive.

[luna_skater]

In my case, it's not that I'm so dead set on seeing Women's hockey leave the Olympics. It's more that, sports like baseball and softball were eliminated despite them actually having a comparatively larger geographic spread of competitive participants, swimming in the Olympics actually has fewer events than it does at the Swimming World Championships and a decent spread of winners among the non-Olympic events, and the IOC didn't agree to women's ski jumping for years until Sochi due to a lack of elite competitors.
Lack of interest/ not enough geographic diversity/ and downsizing has been used as a justification for these situations by the IOC
Meanwhile , women's hockey which has only ever been competitive between two countries, isn't followed very much outside of those two countries, and creates an entire new team event requiring the need for more ice time, facilities and medals, has gotten nary a glance by the IOC despite many grumblings in the press . It just seems to be such a double standard.
Ideally, it would be nice to see it become more competitive.

Excluding hockey would make physical space for other athletes, for one thing. Synchro skating has been trying to get into the Olympics forever, and one of the reasons it hasn't been added yet is due to the sheer amount of bodies that would be added to the games. Each team has 20 skaters, plus coaches, trainers, medical, etc. Taking out one sport (like hockey) can make room for others.

The other reasons synchro hasn't been added yet include some of the issues discussed in this thread: only a few countries dominate is one problem, and the fact men and women compete against each other is another. However, over the last 10 years, the gap among the top teams has closed, so it's much more competitive, increasing the likelihood it could get into the Olympics if that trend continues. It's difficult for those of us involved in the sport to accept that as an excuse, when we see the dominance of only two countries in women's hockey. In synchro, it used to be that Finland, Canada, and one team from Sweden dominated, but in recent years, the USA and Russia have become medal threats (USA has taken bronze several times), and the level of skating in the entire top 10 has increased. I also don't think it's unreasonable to think that if synchro became an Olympic sport, more high level skaters who may not make it to the O's in singles/pairs/dance might give the team sport a try and further increase the quality of the competition.

[Garden Kitty]

Cute column about Lochte and Phelps celebrating Nathan Adrian's win

[B.Cooper]

Not gonna read all 11 pages, lol...but, any skaters tweeting/following the London games excessively? Any skaters in London besides the Russians for the Sochi exhibit, the entire Hughes clan for IceNetwork, etc.... and Chris Dean/Jane Torvill?

[Garden Kitty]

Not gonna read all 11 pages, lol...but, any skaters tweeting/following the London games excessively? Any skaters in London besides the Russians for the Sochi exhibit, the entire Hughes clan for IceNetwork, etc.... and Chris Dean/Jane Torvill?

The Kerrs have been attending a lot of events and tweeting. Nastia Liukin posted a pic of herself with Michelle Kwan. Tiffany Scott and her baby were in one of the photos Sarah posted.

Edited: because I can't keep my Tiffanies straight.

[my little pony]

tiffany vise has a baby?