Does the Olympics strike the right balance?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:22 am

Now that the Olympics are over - what? Still??? - Well anyway, it seems to me that this Olympics seemed to press PC fairness a bit harder than in the past. Nations were not allowed to compete unless they entered at least one woman, and if that woman wasn't able to qualify, then minimum standards were waived to allow her in. A double-amputee was allowed to use mechanical devices that surely none of the other runners would have been allowed to use if they wanted to. The women's gymnastics only allowed 2 girls from each participating country to compete in the all-around competition, even when the criteria used showed a third American with higher scores than several of the others, yet wasn't allowed to compete.

This in the quest to find the best athletes in the world. Or is it? The Olympics was resurrected, if memory serves, to promote international relations as well as provide a stage to display the best athletes the world has to offer.

Have they struck the right balance? Have they tipped a bit too far with the waivers & such, or is it more important to the purpose of the Olympics to push acceptance of women and the disabled?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:15 am

I am filled with ennui at the mere thought of the Olympics. I haven't watched a second of it. However that's a good question and I commend you for posting it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:48 am

Beach Volleyball?

ummm, what?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:14 am

LarsMac;1400001 wrote: Beach Volleyball?

ummm, what?

I had a real good answer until Lars jumped in with his boobs and butts volleyball comment.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:16 am

I'm having trouble applying the label 'disabled' to the kid I saw running.

IMO he was no less qualified to run then all the athletes wearing physio tape were.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:20 am

flopstock;1400005 wrote: I'm having trouble applying the label 'disabled' to the kid I saw running.

IMO he was no less qualified to run then all the athletes wearing physio tape were.

I can't wait til they start sending messages with all that tape. You know they will as soon a they think of it.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:29 am

Didn't know it was over yet...not until Sunday.

The amputee, why should he not run, he was great. He should not be restricted to participate only in the Paraolympics.

The rules on how many to allow for each country-it varies with events. In Athletics more than one can compete, but not in Gymnastics. The same for weight categories in TKD or other events-each specific sport has rules.

To encourage participation by women-well, for the first time many nations sent women athletes. That was a good thing. The Olympics is about the love of sports and watching nations compete. The balance is pretty good, always can be better. But then, it also depends on what coverage you are viewing. The NBC coverage has been better for the first time, never will match ABC in the 70s and 80s which was the most impartial. I have enjoyed the BBC coverage while watching live, good job they are doing. I prefer it to the American feed which is delayed and doesn't cover all sports.

Don't you always love to root for certain athletes or countries, get to see them once every few years, and enjoy the Olympics for what it is? I do, and if you can ever go see it once for real it is worth it, it is alot of fun. You cheer for everyone and jump up and down for joy for every attempt and the hard work they put into years of training.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:57 am

I appreciate all that, Chonsi, I do.

But Beach Volleyball as an Olympic sport?

Sorry.

We have usually watched some of the competition, but this year was way too busy. The best I have done is check up on the tally each morning.

I would have enjoyed watching the Williams sisters winning the doubles. We used to be neighbors, so I have followed them for years.

But does it really balance? The money that some nations pump into their athletic programs makes it almost absurd the think of some of the athletes from the smaller countries can actually compete.

Those are the ones I root for. I have a soft spot for the underdogs.

Remember the 1980 US Hockey team?

The Jamaican Bobsledders?

This year, Kirani James is among my favorites.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:22 am

I agree about Beach Volleyball, even the BMX style biking.

The underdogs, we all love them. I can remember the field hockey match I attended in 84', it was the gold medal match. But everyone got their choice of flags and we took the little African nation who was the underdog and rooted for everyone. You enjoy them, and Jamaican bobsledders and Eddie the Eagle and more.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:28 am

I loved the dressage.... a real art In It'self.

Britain wins first dressage gold | Reuters

Team GB took Gold.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:39 am

Accountable;1399995 wrote: Now that the Olympics are over - what? Still??? - Well anyway, it seems to me that this Olympics seemed to press PC fairness a bit harder than in the past. Nations were not allowed to compete unless they entered at least one woman, and if that woman wasn't able to qualify, then minimum standards were waived to allow her in. A double-amputee was allowed to use mechanical devices that surely none of the other runners would have been allowed to use if they wanted to. The women's gymnastics only allowed 2 girls from each participating country to compete in the all-around competition, even when the criteria used showed a third American with higher scores than several of the others, yet wasn't allowed to compete.

This in the quest to find the best athletes in the world. Or is it? The Olympics was resurrected, if memory serves, to promote international relations as well as provide a stage to display the best athletes the world has to offer.

Have they struck the right balance? Have they tipped a bit too far with the waivers & such, or is it more important to the purpose of the Olympics to push acceptance of women and the disabled?

I didn't agree with the double amputee, didn't know about the lowered qualifications.

I think the inclusion of women was a way of getting Muslim women involved, which can't be a bad thing.

The Olympics is big business for the corporations, but for the majority of the individual competitors it is the pinnacle of their sporting life.

I like the idea of the Olympic ideal, and for the minor sports it still applies.

The BBC's coverage and organisation has been superlative, I have enjoyed every minute of it.