Are the Chinese Cheating in the Olympics?

[Jacco]

Let me take a moment to say that I have absolutely no qualifications to make judements based on performance of sports like these so my examples are based off of common knowledge.
That being said, I was watching the womens team gymnastics the other night, tuesday i think, and the US and the Chinese were battling it out for the gold. The Chinese won, but some of the things they were doing, the routines and such, didnt look like they were as complicated or precise as the ones the Americans were doing.
Obviously there were porblems with the Amies, but they seemed to keep getting hammered for their mistakes while the Chinese were making smaller but more prevalent ones and not getting deducted as much. I thought that seemed kind of suspicious.
As well, the next day, many of the news stations were speculating on whether the Chinese team was underage, which they did look it.
Then it came out that they had used a lip syncing girl to do the opening ceramonies because the real talented one was "not cute enough". while this is admittedly not cheating, it makes you ask questions about their honesty in judging the sports.
So, what is your take on this? Could the Chinese be stacking the deck to make themselves look good? Is it just a coincidence that they have never been terribly good in the Olympics but the time it is held in their country they do the best?

[Shangri-la]

The real issue is that the Chinese gymnasts ages are in question. The scoring has always been subjective.

[iwpoe]

Then it came out that they had used a lip syncing girl to do the opening ceramonies because the real talented one was "not cute enough". while this is admittedly not cheating, it makes you ask questions about their honesty in judging the sports.You seem to think of the Chinese as a single organic being- as if the judgment to use a lip syncing girl somehow reflects the logic of a single mind that will transfer over to that mind's judgments about gymnastics.

Now, if I recall properly, gymnastics is judged by an international panel. Is that not the case?

[brightside.]

The Chinese women nailed everything perfectly in the gymnastics events. Each American athlete stepped out of bounds in the floor exercises appratus. I don't remember exactly, but I think the commentator said that meant 1 point deduction each time.

[jaegerjaquez]

Is it just a coincidence that they have never been terribly good in the Olympics but the time it is held in their country they do the best?

Define terribly good. They have been in the top 5 of the medal tally since 1992.
Do you have proof of 'cheating'?

[Oxy]

The host country always does very well.

The ages of the gymnasts are absolutely in question, but I honestly don't see how underage competitors give them a real advantage. Its more a case of exploitation from my point of view.

The judging itself is just fine.

[Shangri-la]

Smaller gymnasts can stay on a balance beam better, they dont go out of bounds as they dont flip as far, etc etc

[valkyrie.]

There are a few girls on the Chinese team that are underage and it's public knowledge now. I'm curious if their medals will be stripped...and even if they aren't, they're tarnished in my mind. Follow the damn rules.

But as for the scoring, I used to be a gymnast and the moves some of the Chinese girls were doing were worth far more than what the American girls were doing. They didn't always execute perfectly, but because their skills were worth so much, the slips and mistakes didn't make the score drop to such a low number. I don't quite fully understand the new scoring system, but I do know that the Chinese were doing some very intense moves that represent high point values.

[who gnu?]

Well, gymnastics isn't about being rewarded for doing well. It's about trying to lose the fewest points by making the fewest mistakes - NBC has made this point repeatedly. Some of the girls look underage, but it certainly is not a fact, nor "common knowledge". If they are proven to be then there should be punishment, but until that point, wild speculation doesn't really serve anyone.

Also, the cameras often zoom in on the international panel of judges; it would be insane if a single country were the sole judge of an event in which its own athletes were in competition.

[iwpoe]

But as for the scoring, I used to be a gymnast and the moves some of the Chinese girls were doing were worth far more than what the American girls were doing. They didn't always execute perfectly, but because their skills were worth so much, the slips and mistakes didn't make the score drop to such a low number. I don't quite fully understand the new scoring system, but I do know that the Chinese were doing some very intense moves that represent high point values.Well, that pretty much clears up the primary question.

[Serious-Citrus]

Speaking of Chinese gymnasts, Jiang Yuyuan of China fell flat on her ass just now when she tried to do the same exact vault as U.S.A.'s Shawn Johnson.

I laughed but it made me feel bad.

But the cheating wont matter after friday. Track and field is where we truly excell and China falls short. We won over 24 gold medals in Athen's in Track/field. China....not so well.

[rebellious_teen]

China has always been one of the top performing countries in the olympic. They came second in the Athen olympic, and top three in the Sydney olympic, so I wouldn't be surprised that they are taking the lead in the Beijing Olympic.

I can't help but feel that there is a degree of discrimination here. As Iwpoe said, the judges are not just Chinese, it's an international panel with judges from so many countries, so your "suspicion" is out of the question. In addition, the gymnastic artist from China is not much younger than the US team. The youngest member in gymnastic artist in the Women's team in China is born in 1992, which is the same age as the youngest member in the US (info from official olympic website).
And the title of this thread is somewhat disturbing. You are making accusation to not a single team or player but refer to it as "Chinese" as a whole. Jessica Hardy, an American athelete admitted in taking illegal drugs to win her gold medal, but it'd be unfair to claim that the Americans as a whole are cheating in the olympic. Although the number of drug using atheletes in US outnumbered drug users in any other olympic participating countries....but that's another story.

[roan]

Asians are smaller and more agile.

The American gymnastics team sucks this year.



I'm still stoked about the American team winning the 4x100m, beating the French. Especially how they trash talked the US team saying they came here to smash the Americans.

Ohhh yeah right.. your ass just got beat, go home with your Silver, Baguette eater. :D

[valkyrie.]

There is reasonable proof that some of these gymnasts are underage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-flumenbaum/scandal-of-the-ages-docum_b_118842.html

[who gnu?]

I mean, seriously, the Huffingtonpost?

You need only look at the articles above and below that link and it's hard to take it seriously. When the Washington Post, or similar news outlet, reprints the article, then I'd consider it reasonable proof.

[rebellious_teen]

There is reasonable proof that some of these gymnasts are underage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-flumenbaum/scandal-of-the-ages-docum_b_118842.html
And this reasonable proof is called "numerous online records", which is more reliable than a passport and the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique.

[who gnu?]

Though to be honest, they do look quite young. And passports don't really mean anything - they can be falsified without much difficulty. But again, proof, not speculation.

[madgeisgod]

I'm on your side Courtney, though there hasn't been any completely solid "proof" yet. There is no way that they are all 16+

[Angel Down]

Ohhh yeah right.. your ass just got beat, go home with your Silver, Baguette eater. :D

Agreed :D



As for the Chinese, I don't care what kind of "proof" the government has for their girls' ages. A Communist government can come up with whatever documents it needs to "prove" they aren't under the legal age.

Here's the spiel on one of the girls being 13.



According to some official records, gymnast He Kexin was listed as 13 in November, but now is listed as 16. At a news conference, a reporter asked her how she had celebrated her 15th birthday.
She paused for a long time before replying it had been "an ordinary day" with her teammates, the Tribune reported.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403584,00.html

[valkyrie.]

How can they link to the proper online records if they were "mysteriously deleted"?

I don't know. I know that source isn't the most reliable, but what is considered reliable these days? We have a competition that involves so many countries across the globe and expect everything to be what it's viewed to be, but we all know about the Chinese girl in the opening ceremony and blah blah...so it's not like the world coming together is going to make people tell the truth.

[Shangri-la]

I mean, seriously, the Huffingtonpost?

You need only look at the articles above and below that link and it's hard to take it seriously. When the Washington Post, or similar news outlet, reprints the article, then I'd consider it reasonable proof.
The AP was running the story as was YahooNews.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_gym_underage_chinese;_ylt=AmUnwYTu4o6BTaroU05. 9PcLMxIF

[Jacco]

Now, if I recall properly, gymnastics is judged by an international panel. Is that not the case?
Correct you are. I meant that the host country undoubtedly has influence on the judges, whether by intention or not.

[Jacco]

I can't help but feel that there is a degree of discrimination here. As Iwpoe said, the judges are not just Chinese, it's an international panel with judges from so many countries, so your "suspicion" is out of the question.
My suspicion is completely IN question. As i just clarified, the judges are indeed and international panel, but the host country, no matter what it may be, has some influence on the judges.

In addition, the gymnastic artist from China is not much younger than the US team. The youngest member in gymnastic artist in the Women's team in China is born in 1992, which is the same age as the youngest member in the US (info from official olympic website). did you not read what i posted? yes thats what it says but China is a totalitarian state (whether they would like us to believe it or not) and they can falsify any official documents to say whatever tehy want. I personally dont believe that the gymnasics team is all over sixteen.


And the title of this thread is somewhat disturbing. You are making accusation to not a single team or player but refer to it as "Chinese" as a whole.
I specifically stated in the post that i was referring to the gymnasics team.


Jessica Hardy, an American athelete admitted in taking illegal drugs to win her gold medal, but it'd be unfair to claim that the Americans as a whole are cheating in the olympic. Although the number of drug using atheletes in US outnumbered drug users in any other olympic participating countries....but that's another story.
what on earth are you talking about?

[brightside.]

There is reasonable proof that some of these gymnasts are underage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-flumenbaum/scandal-of-the-ages-docum_b_118842.html

That is pretty serious evidence right there. I also read on Yahoo! news that last year Chinese media were saying that girl was 13 years old in 2007.

[rebellious_teen]

My suspicion is completely IN question. As i just clarified, the judges are indeed and international panel, but the host country, no matter what it may be, has some influence on the judges.
But that suspicion is bias and unfair. Every olympic is hosted by one country or another. If you are suspicious against China that it had some influence over the judges', then I assume you are also suspicious of the US's influence when they hosted the 1984 olympic and every other country when they hosted the olympics.
So what is so special about China that you are specifically pointing it out?


did you not read what i posted? yes thats what it says but China is a totalitarian state (whether they would like us to believe it or not) and they can falsify any official documents to say whatever tehy want. I personally dont believe that the gymnasics team is all over sixteen.
That's not true, falsifying document is hardly limited to a totalitarian country (China is not a totalitarian state, but I won't debate this here). There are notably more fraud and ID theft in the US then anywhere else in the world.
As you are the one making such a claim, then I'd expect some proof or at least reasons for your doubt.


I specifically stated in the post that i was referring to the gymnasics team.
And I specially stated that I find your thread title disturbing.


what on earth are you talking about?
I am pointing out that it is unfair to refer to a country as a whole in regards to bad sportsmanship. At least use the athelete's name...not just "Chinese".

[t.A.T.u.]

The American gymnastics team sucks this year.

That's probably why Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson took the gold and silver, on top of a silver for all around. Not to mention, being a member short and still averaging higher than other teams. Seriously, some people should think before they speak.

[sstr]

The Chinese gymnasts were simply brilliant, I don't think there was any cheating. Also, gymnastics is judged by an international panel.

[Sparticus]

The Chinese women nailed everything perfectly in the gymnastics events. Each American athlete stepped out of bounds in the floor exercises appratus. I don't remember exactly, but I think the commentator said that meant 1 point deduction each time. I think the Chinese fucked with the lines.


The host country always does very well.

The ages of the gymnasts are absolutely in question, but I honestly don't see how underage competitors give them a real advantage. Its more a case of exploitation from my point of view.

The judging itself is just fine. Not always. Not every host country does well.


Smaller gymnasts can stay on a balance beam better, they dont go out of bounds as they dont flip as far, etc etc So? That really can't be brought into question.


There are a few girls on the Chinese team that are underage and it's public knowledge now. I'm curious if their medals will be stripped...and even if they aren't, they're tarnished in my mind. Follow the damn rules.

But as for the scoring, I used to be a gymnast and the moves some of the Chinese girls were doing were worth far more than what the American girls were doing. They didn't always execute perfectly, but because their skills were worth so much, the slips and mistakes didn't make the score drop to such a low number. I don't quite fully understand the new scoring system, but I do know that the Chinese were doing some very intense moves that represent high point values.Aye, they should be stripped just as if they were discovered to be doping. The new scoring system is also fucked.

[Arrexu]

How old do you have to be to enter the Olympics?

Cos the UK has a 14 year old diver :?? Tom Daley

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/036R4Rndzb1d2/610x.jpg

[Richard]

How old do you have to be to enter the Olympics?

Cos the UK has a 14 year old diver :?? Tom Daley

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/036R4Rndzb1d2/610x.jpg
ive asked this many times aswell and havn't gotten a real answer

[Shangri-la]

In other sports including swimming and diving there is no age limit (as far as I can tell). The US has a female swimmer who is 15 and Phelps competed in Sydney when he was 15. However there is a rule set by the International Gymnasitcs Federation that no gymnast can compete at the international level unless they are 16 or over.

That is why there is a flap. Its a gymnastics rule, not an olympic rule, however breaking it would still null the medal and it would still be a serious breach.

15 year old elizabeth beisel:
http://www.projo.com/photos/20080226/sp0226_beisel_02-26-08_V69553P.jpg

[iwpoe]

Correct you are. I meant that the host country undoubtedly has influence on the judges, whether by intention or not.Yes, but we're concerned with the sort of influence that would be considered cheating (like a bribe). If the judges have been influenced in that way then the whole thing is illegitimate, but that's an accusation for which we need some evidence. Otherwise, it's mere jealousy.

[roan]

How old do you have to be to enter the Olympics?

Cos the UK has a 14 year old diver :?? Tom Daley

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/036R4Rndzb1d2/610x.jpg


He has a boner.

[iwpoe]

He has a boner.Huge picture with all sorts of things going on, and where do you look first?

[Herr Undead]

Then it came out that they had used a lip syncing girl to do the opening ceramonies because the real talented one was "not cute enough". while this is admittedly not cheating, it makes you ask questions about their honesty in judging the sports.
So, what is your take on this? Could the Chinese be stacking the deck to make themselves look good? Is it just a coincidence that they have never been terribly good in the Olympics but the time it is held in their country they do the best?
I haven't watched much of the Olympics myself, but argueably, I would bet that any country would try to make themselves look good in their home territory. It's similar to the home court advantage of many Basketball teams or Football teams. They stack the odds up for themselves to make it look like their the best. Any country that has pride in itself would want to do the same.
Knowing what I have seen from the Olympics though, I doubt the Chinese are doing anything much to make themselves look better than the rest. A sizable number of medals have gone to the US in swimming already. Plus, as another poster mentioned, the panel of judges in several of the events is international. I doubt the Chinese are doing that much.

[roan]

Huge picture with all sorts of things going on, and where do you look first?
No well first I looked at the water, usually the water is calm before people splash in. But that just means people were diving in prior.


Then I looked at the left guy, it looks like hes positioned awkwardly away from the right guy.

Then I noticed the arms of the two are different, ones straight, the other is failing about.

Next I noticed how the right guy has wristbands, what for? I wonder.

Finally I noticed the right dude has a boner.

[iwpoe]

Maybe it's just a tuck up thing.

[Patronus]

However there is a rule set by the International Gymnasitcs Federation that no gymnast can compete at the international level unless they are 16 or overTechnically they could compete in the Olympics if they were 15, as long as they were turning 16 in the calendar year of the Olympics.

I hardly think it's fair to see the U.S. team sucked this year. I think mostly they had problems with nerves.

As far as an international panel of judges go, that doesn't necessarily keep cheating from occurring. Remember the 2002 Winter Olympics pairs figure skating controversy? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E2D6133FF935A25751C0A9649C8B 63

But certainly the Chinese won on their own merit in the team competition. Overall they had higher start values (more difficult routines) than the Americans, and when they successfully complete elements this really helps them achieve higher scores. From there you deduct for steps out of bounds, bent arms, balance checks, etc (I think style must play some role, too). Unfortunately Alicia had a couple of major mistakes, which definitely helped the Chinese and probably rattled her teammates to some degree. Interestingly, the Chinese won by a margin that was very close to the overall start value point advantage they had.

I did think some of the judging was a bit unfair in the all-around, but I don't think it was necessarily intentional by any party...these things just happen in subjective sports. As Bela Karolyi was saying, things like what angle the judge is seeing the routine from can make a difference.

There are probably athletes from a variety of countries who are using human growth hormones, though (probably not a problem in women's gymnastics but rather in swimming events, weightlifting, etc)....you can't detect it with tests, so the only way anyone finds out about is when there's a bust or something.

[Joker]

No well first I looked at the water, usually the water is calm before people splash in. But that just means people were diving in prior.


Then I looked at the left guy, it looks like hes positioned awkwardly away from the right guy.

Then I noticed the arms of the two are different, ones straight, the other is failing about.

Next I noticed how the right guy has wristbands, what for? I wonder.

Finally I noticed the right dude has a boner.

Hes 14, hes restricted by doctors orders to how many dives he can make a deal, i could imagine those wristbands are to protect his wrists because there not fully developed.

I don't see a boner... im just amazed hes got the balls to have so many pictures of him in speedos, excuse the pun.


As for the chinese cheating im not going to belive any speculation and would only really trust a BBC report, spose any British source. The USA seems kinda biased/ jealous...

[Nere Maitea]

No well first I looked at the water, usually the water is calm before people splash in. But that just means people were diving in prior.


Then I looked at the left guy, it looks like hes positioned awkwardly away from the right guy.

Then I noticed the arms of the two are different, ones straight, the other is failing about.

Next I noticed how the right guy has wristbands, what for? I wonder.

Finally I noticed the right dude has a boner.

may i correct your bolded part. its not clam as there are small water jets that hit the water which helps divers determine the best place to land. i am a diver, and thats simply there for purposes so we know the ideal place to land in, also, because the water is broken there, it is less likely to cause friction on your wrists

the underlined section, is due to weak wrists divers get because they hiot the water at high speeds. you find most divers (me included) wear them so i writs don't practically snap. in other words from the constant hitting of water at high speeds with all your body weight (+ more from you falling) behind you, it does hurt. so they keep us safe

and the last part. i lol. sorry its just funny :P

So to below, Joker, you are correct


Hes 14, hes restricted by doctors orders to how many dives he can make a deal, i could imagine those wristbands are to protect his wrists because there not fully developed.

I don't see a boner... im just amazed hes got the balls to have so many pictures of him in speedos, excuse the pun.


As for the chinese cheating im not going to belive any speculation and would only really trust a BBC report, spose any British source. The USA seems kinda biased/ jealous...

and that, i fully agree. but then again, i myself heard about that shotting thing and thought there was cheating, and i guess they seem to be able to battle them down as they are the host country. mmm.

[Sparticus]

In other sports including swimming and diving there is no age limit (as far as I can tell). The US has a female swimmer who is 15 and Phelps competed in Sydney when he was 15. However there is a rule set by the International Gymnasitcs Federation that no gymnast can compete at the international level unless they are 16 or over.

That is why there is a flap. Its a gymnastics rule, not an olympic rule, however breaking it would still null the medal and it would still be a serious breach.

15 year old elizabeth beisel:
http://www.projo.com/photos/20080226/sp0226_beisel_02-26-08_V69553P.jpg The current standing rule I believe is that you must at least turn 16 during the Olympic year in order to compete.

[iwpoe]

As far as an international panel of judges go, that doesn't necessarily keep cheating from occurring. Remember the 2002 Winter Olympics pairs figure skating controversy?Neat, but I only mentioned the international panel to counter Adam's implicit organicist logic (China put up a lip-syncing girl -> China will cheat again -> China is cheating when judging the gymnastics competition and that allows China to win). Even if you hold to this sort of insane logic (where a judge is somehow part of "China" which has a single motive like a single subject), pointing out an international panel short circuits that argument because now you have to explain why "France", "The United States", etcetera (or whoever it is) share that cheating motive with "China".

After that, my demand is for substantial evidence of cheating other than "China won in China."

[Patronus]

Neat, but I only mentioned the international panel to counter Adam's implicit organicist logic (China put up a lip-syncing girl -> China will cheat again -> China is cheating when judging the gymnastics competition and that allows China to win). Even if you hold to this sort of insane logic (where a judge is somehow part of "China" which has a single motive like a single subject), pointing out an international panel short circuits that argument because now you have to explain why "France", "The United States", etcetera (or whoever it is) share that cheating motive with "China".

After that, my demand is for substantial evidence of cheating other than "China won in China."
Oh, I'm not arguing that the judging was rigged; there is no evidence of that. I just meant that cheating of sorts can still occur at the Olympic level even when a panel is diverse, because it can come from a judge whose country's athletes may not benefit from the cheating. I'm guessing they've probably taken steps since 2002 to try to keep that from happening again, but they can only do so much. I am not insinuating that the judges are corrupt in this case, but am rather suggesting that it's not unreasonable to keep an eye out for such circumstances. Of course, there's a fine line between being a sore loser and making sure a competition is fair.

[iwpoe]

Oh, I'm not arguing that the judging was rigged; there is no evidence of that. I just meant that cheating of sorts can still occur at the Olympic level even when a panel is diverse, because it can come from a judge whose country's athletes may not benefit from the cheating. I'm guessing they've probably taken steps since 2002 to try to keep that from happening again, but they can only do so much. I am not insinuating that the judges are corrupt in this case, but am rather suggesting that it's not unreasonable to keep an eye out for such circumstances. Of course, there's a fine line between being a sore loser and making sure a competition is fair.Then we seem to agree. My point was only that if there is any cheating it cannot be based on any single "Chinese motive" that lies behind the judging, as Adam seemed to think. First, there is no such thing as a single Chinese motive (China is no single subject that can have a unified motive- hell even single people usually fail to have single motives), and second, even if there was a single "Chinese motive" it is mitigated by a diverse panel of judges who would presumably have "French motives" or "American motives" etcetera.

[Jacco]

What if instead of the Chinese cheating, its anti-American sentiment? Now that the games are almost over, I have had more time to watch other sports and Americans have been getting shafted in some others as well, though not as obviously as the gymnastics, mind you.

[Vai]

thats the common explanation for ditching baseball as an olympic sport (softball is out because the americans slaughter every other team) but it probably has more to do with the fact that the real best ballplayers are still in season in the MLB

[Jacco]

Neat, but I only mentioned the international panel to counter Adam's implicit organicist logic (China put up a lip-syncing girl -> China will cheat again -> China is cheating when judging the gymnastics competition and that allows China to win). Even if you hold to this sort of insane logic (where a judge is somehow part of "China" which has a single motive like a single subject), pointing out an international panel short circuits that argument because now you have to explain why "France", "The United States", etcetera (or whoever it is) share that cheating motive with "China".

After that, my demand is for substantial evidence of cheating other than "China won in China."
I didnt say they would cheat again. I said that it makes you wonder if they will. Plus, as the games have progressed form last week when i posted this, I no longer believe that they deliberately cheated (except by the possible underage of their gymnasts). im beginning to think it is anti-american sentiment as if posted just a moment ago.
Also, dont take that to meant he Chinese werent good, they definately were, but I thought the American girls' routines were more complex and better executed most of the time.

[Jacco]

thats the common explanation for ditching baseball as an olympic sport (softball is out because the americans slaughter every other team) but it probably has more to do with the fact that the real best ballplayers are still in season in the MLB
what?

[standardstate]

And I specially stated that I find your thread title disturbing.Asking the question is disturbing? You are obviously easily disturbed.

I have no idea whether or not the claims that some of the chinese gymnists are underage are true. There is enough to them to raise the question.


I am pointing out that it is unfair to refer to a country as a whole in regards to bad sportsmanship. At least use the athelete's name...not just "Chinese".Using "the chinese" implies a deliberate attempt on the part of the team, as opposed to a particular individual trying to conceal her true age. Since it is possible that the deception involves people other than the athletes themselves the term is justified.

[tg2105]

Also, dont take that to meant he Chinese werent good, they definately were, but I thought the American girls' routines were more complex and better executed most of the time.

Except two pages ago you had an actual gymnast state that the Chinese team were in fact doing more complex routines, and consistently performing better, so umm you're completely wrong.

[tg2105]

thats the common explanation for ditching baseball as an olympic sport (softball is out because the americans slaughter every other team) but it probably has more to do with the fact that the real best ballplayers are still in season in the MLB

That and only America and Cuba actuall play the sport, so having it i the games would be kinda dumb.

For the same reason, rugby and cricket, and US football etc etc should never be included.

Incidentely, I would much prefer games like hockey, football, basketball, and tennis to not be at the olympics too, what's next, golf?

[tg2105]

Maybe it's just a tuck up thing.

It's just the way he's positioned it guys, honestly :p

[tg2105]

What if instead of the Chinese cheating, its anti-American sentiment? Now that the games are almost over, I have had more time to watch other sports and Americans have been getting shafted in some others as well, though not as obviously as the gymnastics, mind you.

Dude, you see anti-American sentiment the minute the US don't get the gold medal.

The US is second in the gold medal tally, and has the most overall medals... obviously the judges have been really unfair!

Regarding the gymnastics, though, I agree. There is good reason to believe that the Chinese gymnasts at this and at previous olympics have been underaged, and the medals should be re-distributed to reflect that. It is after all cheating.

[Kevin...]

I don't think that china cheats, and even if it does USA does more. The amount of doping in that country is unbelievable.

[Herr Undead]

The US is second in the gold medal tally, and has the most overall medals... obviously the judges have been really unfair!
I read our medal tally the other day somewhere and I was surprised to find that China did have a good number of gold medals compared to the other countries. Is it likely that China may have stacked up the odds in order to win all of those gold medals? Yes, it's a good possibility for any country. Are they letting it get out of hand? No. It's clear that the US has had some great moments as well.

[standardstate]

I don't think that china cheats, and even if it does USA does more. The amount of doping in that country is unbelievable.
There is cheating on an individual level and there is institutional cheating, such as with the east german women's swim teams several decades ago. The qurstions concerning china are, I think, more about the possibility of institutional cheating.

Having said that, I would agree with Kevin that American athletes have certainly cheated in the past, and it would not surprise me if cheating still occurs. How it compares to cheating by athletes in other countries is difficult to say.

[standardstate]

I read our medal tally the other day somewhere and I was surprised to find that China did have a good number of gold medals compared to the other countries. Is it likely that China may have stacked up the odds in order to win all of those gold medals? Yes, it's a good possibility for any country. Are they letting it get out of hand? No. It's clear that the US has had some great moments as well.I don't see how china could "stack the odds". Were new sports that the chinese are good at introduced in this year's olympics? No.

The home country usually does a bit better than their historical record. After all, a substantial fraction of the fans are cheering their athletes, which obviously inspires them to perform better. It might well have a more subtle influence in the judging for events like diving and gymnastics. But this is something that always occurs.

In addition, china has been working to make sure they would have a strong olympic team this year. Again, one can hardly fault them for doing so.

[Jacco]

Except two pages ago you had an actual gymnast state that the Chinese team were in fact doing more complex routines, and consistently performing better, so umm you're completely wrong.
and five pages ago i openly admitted that i, like 98% of the people who watch the olympics, are not at all qualified to judge such things.
but even so, the announcers, several of which were olympic gymnasts, were saying that the American girls were doing mroe complex routines.

[Jacco]

Dude, you see anti-American sentiment the minute the US don't get the gold medal.

The US is second in the gold medal tally, and has the most overall medals... obviously the judges have been really unfair!

Regarding the gymnastics, though, I agree. There is good reason to believe that the Chinese gymnasts at this and at previous olympics have been underaged, and the medals should be re-distributed to reflect that. It is after all cheating.
no, not at all. there were some points where the chinese or any other country definately deserved to win, especially in the chinese male gymnastics. but there were also times when Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liuken got screwed and medaled lower than a chinese girl when she was doing little balance checks and making small but numerous mistakes.

the US is second in the overal gold medal count, but they are pretty far below china. its like by 12 or somehthing.

[standardstate]

no, not at all. there were some points where the chinese or any other country definately deserved to win, especially in the chinese male gymnastics. but there were also times when Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liuken got screwed and medaled lower than a chinese girl when she was doing little balance checks and making small but numerous mistakes. Unless one has strong evidence of bias I'm inclined to go with the judges.

I watched a lot of the last olympics, and have watched some of this year's olympics, and the commentators from nbc (and whatever network had coverage last time - maybe nbc again) are hardly unbiased. Either the entire world and all the olympic judges are prejudiced against american athletes or the coverage is slanted - and from what I've seen slanted coverage seems the more likely choice.

[Herr Undead]

I don't see how china could "stack the odds". Were new sports that the chinese are good at introduced in this year's olympics? No.

The home country usually does a bit better than their historical record. After all, a substantial fraction of the fans are cheering their athletes, which obviously inspires them to perform better. It might well have a more subtle influence in the judging for events like diving and gymnastics. But this is something that always occurs.

In addition, china has been working to make sure they would have a strong olympic team this year. Again, one can hardly fault them for doing so.
I can agree with that. Since any country is looking to do well in the Olympics and it's obviously home territory for the Chinese, there's nothing that really points to anything the Chinese did wrong.

[standardstate]

I can agree with that. Since any country is looking to do well in the Olympics and it's obviously home territory for the Chinese, there's nothing that really points to anything the Chinese did wrong.
Foor what it's worth, here are the medal counts for the last three summer olympics for the host countries

..................1996 (Atlanta)............2000 (Sydney)...........2004(Athens)

US..................101........................... ..92.........................102

Australia............41........................... ..58...........................49

Greece...............8............................ .13...........................16

So there appears to be a modest bump up for the host nation. Note that thenumber of medals has awarded has increased a bit from olympics to olympics as new events are added, so that skews the results a bit.

[Jacco]

Unless one has strong evidence of bias I'm inclined to go with the judges.

I watched a lot of the last olympics, and have watched some of this year's olympics, and the commentators from nbc (and whatever network had coverage last time - maybe nbc again) are hardly unbiased. Either the entire world and all the olympic judges are prejudiced against american athletes or the coverage is slanted - and from what I've seen slanted coverage seems the more likely choice.
I thought the announcers were the ones who narrated the games for everyone, at least the people that speak english. are they only for the US?
And also, if the judges are inexperienced, they might make bad decisions of ones that tend to benefit the host nation, like i was saying before.

[Joker]

No the TV feeds are generally standard from what I have picked up from the commentators, but we have British commentators for the BBC and i don't America would stand for all British commentators.

[standardstate]

I thought the announcers were the ones who narrated the games for everyone, at least the people that speak english. are they only for the US?The nbc announcers are narrating for us audiences. It is possible that other countries use nbc for their coverage - if there are any canadians here it would be interesting to see if that is true there. Since australia is close the the same time zone as china I'm guessing they get mainly live coverage.


And also, if the judges are inexperienced, they might make bad decisions of ones that tend to benefit the host nation, like i was saying before.I agree. Also, I'm sure the cheering of the crowds has an influence as well.

[standardstate]

No the TV feeds are generally standard from what I have picked up from the commentators, but we have British commentators for the BBC and i don't America would stand for all British commentators.Thanks. I'd always assumed that but hadn't given it much thought.

I figured that just as the coverage in the us tends to focus on american athletes and sports popular in the us, that coverage in other countries would do the same.

[tg2105]

but even so, the announcers, several of which were olympic gymnasts, were saying that the American girls were doing mroe complex routines.

Someone already made the reply to this, that is that the US commentaters are obviously going to have a bias towards the American athletes. Unless the commentators are themselves high-performing gymnasts, I would be inclined to go with the judges' decisions.

[tg2105]

I thought the announcers were the ones who narrated the games for everyone, at least the people that speak english. are they only for the US?
And also, if the judges are inexperienced, they might make bad decisions of ones that tend to benefit the host nation, like i was saying before.

Lol no, most countries will send their own media to the games.

It's interesting though listening to how some sports have American officals at the games. Beach volleyball for example you can hear an American person giving a running commentry on the games, BMX racing I think I heard another one.

[rebellious_teen]

Asking the question is disturbing? You are obviously easily disturbed.
If you didn't crack my post in half unnecessarily, then you didn't even have to say that.
I am not disturbed because he is "asking the question", but because of reasons I have mentioned, are you so desperate in filling this thread with useless stuff?


Using "the chinese" implies a deliberate attempt on the part of the team, as opposed to a particular individual trying to conceal her true age. Since it is possible that the deception involves people other than the athletes themselves the term is justified.
So you believe referring to 1.3 billion people is more accurate then referring to a single participating individual. Fine.

[Jacco]

So you believe referring to 1.3 billion people is more accurate then referring to a single participating individual. Fine.
If I say "I really hate the chinese" does that make me a racist? No. Because I am referring to the Chinese government which routinely opresses its citizens, uses excessive force when dealing with protestors, and taps into the privacy of hotels owned by international chains.
Now if i were to say "i hate the chinese people" then that would be considered racist.
You are an idiot if you think everyone who criticizes the Chinese are referring to the actual race or nationality of the people.

[Jacco]

Lol no, most countries will send their own media to the games.

It's interesting though listening to how some sports have American officals at the games. Beach volleyball for example you can hear an American person giving a running commentry on the games, BMX racing I think I heard another one.
Oh. I did not know that. I thought they were announcers for the group of people that speak that language.
I guess now the I think about it, it doesnt make much sense. :P

[Quin]

There is no doubt in my mind that some of the Chinese women in gymnastics were underage. There are many past newspaper articles stating that one of these girls was 12 and 13 in 2006 and 2007 respectively. In addition, the Chinese girls looking much younger than all of the others. I understand that the Chinese tend to be more petite than Americans and Europeans, but He Kexin claims to be 16 at 4'8" and 72lbs. I suppose it is possible but it seems quite implausible. He Kexin's inability to readily answer the question "what did you do for your 15th birthday?" also suggests that she in fact has not yet had a 15th birthday.

Regarding judges. It is an unfortunate reality that judges from the countries that have athletes in their event cannot judge because this would lead to bias. This is necessary to prevent cheating but it does significantly lower the caliber of judging. In countries where womens gymnastics is popular(primarily USA, China, and Russia) will naturally host more experienced judges since there is significantly more opportunity to judge on a professional level. However, the USA, China and Russia will always have participants in womens gymnastics preventing the most experienced and knowledgeable judges from being able to adjudicate the performances. I'm not saying change the judge rule, I'm just providing a reason for why the judging seems inconsistent at times.

[Solidus Snake]

Foor what it's worth, here are the medal counts for the last three summer olympics for the host countries

..................1996 (Atlanta)............2000 (Sydney)...........2004(Athens)

US..................101........................... ..92.........................102

Australia............41........................... ..58...........................49

Greece...............8............................ .13...........................16

So there appears to be a modest bump up for the host nation. Note that thenumber of medals has awarded has increased a bit from olympics to olympics as new events are added, so that skews the results a bit.

You'd expect them to put more money into training the athletes when your hostingthough so it seems fair.

[soarer]

If I say "I really hate the chinese" does that make me a racist? No. Because I am referring to the Chinese government which routinely opresses its citizens, uses excessive force when dealing with protestors, and taps into the privacy of hotels owned by international chains.
Now if i were to say "i hate the chinese people" then that would be considered racist.
You are an idiot if you think everyone who criticizes the Chinese are referring to the actual race or nationality of the people.

If you hate the Chinese government, you should say 'I really hate the Chinese government'. By saying 'I really hate the Chinese' i would instantly recognise that you are referring to the people as a whole.

But its nice to see that you feel the need to add 'which routinely opresses its citizens, uses excessive force when dealing with protestors, and taps into the privacy of hotels owned by international chains.' to try to justify your mentality.

[rebellious_teen]

If I say "I really hate the chinese" does that make me a racist? No. Because I am referring to the Chinese government which routinely opresses its citizens, uses excessive force when dealing with protestors, and taps into the privacy of hotels owned by international chains.
Now if i were to say "i hate the chinese people" then that would be considered racist.
You are an idiot if you think everyone who criticizes the Chinese are referring to the actual race or nationality of the people.
When Jack Cafferty said that the Chinese (without specific reference to government or race) are a "bunch of goons and thugs" on CNN, it sparked a wave of protest amongst the Chinese people, estimated over a thousand Chinese Americans demonstrated outside CNN headquater in Atlanta on 24 April 2008 as well as smaller protest in other CNN headquaters in other US cities. His comment also resulted in the Chinese Foreign Ministry's decision to file a lawsuit against Cafferty and CNN.
According to you, these thousands of Chinese protestor are idiots because they think the word Chinese refers to the Chinese race.

I can see from your explaination that your title has no racist intentions, but you are wrong to say that people are idiot if they think Chinese is a reference to the Chinese race.
To prove my point, the Taiwanese national title is called "Republic of China", they are Chinese, but they are a separate government to the "People's Republic of China".

Note: I disagree with your views of the Chinese government, but I won't debate it here.

[standardstate]

If you didn't crack my post in half unnecessarily, then you didn't even have to say that.I hardly need your permission to post my thoughts.

And the title of this thread is somewhat disturbing. You are making accusation to not a single team or player but refer to it as "Chinese" as a whole.

My comment was well justified.


I am not disturbed because he is "asking the question", but because of reasons I have mentioned, are you so desperate in filling this thread with useless stuff?See above.


So you believe referring to 1.3 billion people is more accurate then referring to a single participating individual. Fine.I will have to assume your unfamiliarity with the english language is causing you problems.

When someone says "The us invaded iraq" there is no implication that uncle zeke in pig knuckle, arkansas, is on his was to the middle east.

But if you want to mangle the english language to extract meanings that are not there, fine.

[standardstate]

When Jack Cafferty said that the Chinese (without specific reference to government or race) are a "bunch of goons and thugs" on CNN, it sparked a wave of protest amongst the Chinese people, estimated over a thousand Chinese Americans demonstrated outside CNN headquater in Atlanta on 24 April 2008 as well as smaller protest in other CNN headquaters in other US cities. His comment also resulted in the Chinese Foreign Ministry's decision to file a lawsuit against Cafferty and CNN.Good luck with that lawsuit.

If Mr. Cafferty is guilty of anything it is sloppy speaking. But clearly he was referring to the government in his comments - and he should have no problem defending himself in court.


According to you, these thousands of Chinese protestor are idiots because they think the word Chinese refers to the Chinese race."Idiots" is a strong word. Let's just say they are overreacting, and wrong. Let's also be thankful they live in the us, where a peaceful protest won't get you sent to prison.


I can see from your explaination that your title has no racist intentions, but you are wrong to say that people are idiot if they think Chinese is a reference to the Chinese race. In the context of the statement the word "chinese" was clearly not referring to the 1.3 billion people, but to the government.

Again, I will have to assume it is your unfamiliarity with english that has led you astray. As a native speaker of the language for my entire life, I think I know a bit more how english works.

[rebellious_teen]

I hardly need your permission to post my thoughts.

And the title of this thread is somewhat disturbing. You are making accusation to not a single team or player but refer to it as "Chinese" as a whole.

My comment was well justified.

See above.
You said "Asking the question is disturbing? You are obviously easily disturbed."
The structure of my sentence is first the what, followed by the why. For some strange reason you decided to chop the what and why apart and answered them one by one hence effectively twisted the meaning.
Frankly this isn't the first time I see you do these sort of thing, and you seem to overdo it at occasions. I am unsure if this is just your debating style or for other purpose but anyway....


I will have to assume your unfamiliarity with the english language is causing you problems.
Not at all, I've doing Advanced English since year 9. I am aware that context can change the meaning or direction of a sentence or abstract, though I am unware that context can alter the coined meaning of a word.


When someone says "The us invaded iraq" there is no implication that uncle zeke in pig knuckle, arkansas, is on his was to the middle east.
Indeed, it is unconventional and inappropriate to say "Americans invaded Iraq", but since United States is a reference to an authority, it is acceptable.


But if you want to mangle the english language to extract meanings that are not there, fine.
I have already mentioned that I find specifically the title disturbing, and I am aware that Jacco has no racist intentions. I don't really see the basis of your disagreement, so...

Chi·nese [chī nz, chī nss]
plural noun
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">peoples people of China: people born or living in China, or whose family came from China </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Microsoft&#174; Encarta&#174; Reference Library 2005. &#169; 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.<!--EndFragment-->
I don't see in any dictionary that Chinese can be defined as the ruling government of China, whatever the context. Besides, government don't cheat in the olympic, the participating athletes do.

[standardstate]

You said "Asking the question is disturbing? You are obviously easily disturbed."
The structure of my sentence is first the what, followed by the why. For some strange reason you decided to chop the what and why apart and answered them one by one hence effectively twisted the meaning.
Frankly this isn't the first time I see you do these sort of thing, and you seem to overdo it at occasions. I am unsure if this is just your debating style or for other purpose but anyway....There is a vent forum if you'd like to whine...


Not at all, I've doing Advanced English since year 9. I am aware that context can change the meaning or direction of a sentence or abstract, though I am unware that context can alter the coined meaning of a word.I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that someone who has been speaking english as a first language for all of their life is likely going to better understand the nuances of their language better than someone, even a good student, who is learning english as a second or third language. I'm sure there are exceptions that prove the rule, but I am inclined to think this is not one of them.


Indeed, it is unconventional and inappropriate to say "Americans invaded Iraq", but since United States is a reference to an authority, it is acceptable.As was the reference re china.


Chi·nese [chī nz, chī nss]
plural noun
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">peoples people of China: people born or living in China, or whose family came from China </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.<!--EndFragment-->
I don't see in any dictionary that Chinese can be defined as the ruling government of China, whatever the context.This will undoubtedly be useful if you have a conversation with a dictionary. However, what appears in a dictionary and how a language is actually used are two different things.


Besides, government don't cheat in the olympic, the participating athletes do.That will come as a shock to many of the people familiar with the east german swin teams of the 1980s...

[iwpoe]

I didnt say...Do you see the word "implicit" in my post? Look it up. Now reread.

[Jacco]

Do you see the word "implicit" in my post? Look it up. Now reread.
what?

[iwpoe]

what?Exactly.

[Jacco]

Exactly.
i dont even know what you are talking about

[iwpoe]

i dont even know what you are talking aboutYou don't say?

[Jacco]

Christ, you dont have to be an asshole. What post were you quoting?

[iwpoe]

Christ, you dont have to be an asshole. What post were you quoting?Here, let me show you a magic trick:
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh29/iwpoe/tada.jpg
TADA!

[Jacco]

Here, let me show you a magic trick:
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh29/iwpoe/tada.jpg
TADA!

well excuse me for not fucking knowing i could do that.
i was confirming that you and others understood that i was not saying they would cheat again. thats all.

[iwpoe]

well excuse me for not fucking knowing i could do that.You're excused.
i was confirming that you and others understood that i was not saying they would cheat again. thats all.I'm criticizing an "implicit logic" behind a statement you made, not what you said.

[Jacco]

You're excused.I'm criticizing an "implicit logic" behind a statement you made, not what you said.
to humor you, what is wrong with the logic?
if someone cheats at a game, then you are less likely to play with them again because you believe they will cheat again.
they may, they may not, you dont know. but why take the chance when there are other people to play with?

[iwpoe]

if someone cheats at a game, then you are less likely to play with them again because you believe they will cheat again.
they may, they may not, you dont know. but why take the chance when there are other people to play with?'China' is not a "someone". You're using the word as if referred to a single entity which could possess motives.

[Black_Rose666]

If i typed everything i wanted to about the whole china cheating at the olympics the i would fill up two pages so i define it in one word...




YES!!

[jaegerjaquez]

If i typed everything i wanted to about the whole china cheating at the olympics the i would fill up two pages so i define it in one word...




YES!!

That's as helpful as me saying No. Come up with arguments please.

[rebellious_teen]

There is a vent forum if you'd like to whine...
Here is a timeline of what happened:
1. I made a comment, structured with opinion first, reason second.
2. You split my comment in half, separating the opinion and the reason
3. You made a strange reply to my opinion, and made it seem credible by neglecting the reason.
4. I pointed out your reply was irrelevant because of the unnecessary split
5. You denied it
6. I pointed out how and why your deniel is unjustified.
7. Now you are calling me whiner because I pointed that something you posted as irrelevant and misleading.

Seeing you don't really care about the relevance and accuracy of your own post, why should I?


I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that someone who has been speaking english as a first language for all of their life is likely going to better understand the nuances of their language better than someone, even a good student, who is learning english as a second or third language. I'm sure there are exceptions that prove the rule, but I am inclined to think this is not one of them.
I read an article from the Sydney Morning Hearald which found that students who has English as their second language outperformed those who has English as their first (I don't know the exact statistic, but it was a notable difference) based on the English Language and Literacy Assessment (ELLA) done by all student in year 7 and 8. Personally, I wouldn't call a test that is completed by more than ten thousand candidate as an "exception". And this example clearly demonstrate English ability is not influenced by whether or not it is your first language.

Besides, why are you telling me this? Are you saying that since English is your first language, you must be right in this issue?? Then I guess me and xuantianzong are right in the Beijing olympic thread since we've been living there much longer than you.


As was the reference re china.
China and Chinese are two different things. If you say "China is polluted", I will admit there is truth in it. If you say "Chinese are polluted", then I will call you racist.


This will undoubtedly be useful if you have a conversation with a dictionary. However, what appears in a dictionary and how a language is actually used are two different things.
Indeed, if for some magical reason you are going to insist that the word "shit" means "gold", then I can't stop you from using language in such a way, but not everyone live in your magical world.
Chinese is defined as people from China, not the country's ruling authority, whatever the context. Once again, I am well aware that Jacco has no racist intention and meant "Chinese" as the athlete, and I simply wanted to advise him the disturbance I find in his usuage, I don't really know what the basis of your complaint is....

[standardstate]

Here is a timeline of what happened:
1. I made a comment, structured with opinion first, reason second.
2. You split my comment in half, separating the opinion and the reason
3. You made a strange reply to my opinion, and made it seem credible by neglecting the reason.
4. I pointed out your reply was irrelevant because of the unnecessary split
5. You denied it
6. I pointed out how and why your deniel is unjustified.
7. Now you are calling me whiner because I pointed that something you posted as irrelevant and misleading.I'm sorry, but history is generally written by the winners, not the losers. But your "history" does amuse...


Seeing you don't really care about the relevance and accuracy of your own post, why should I?Beats me. Your extended and imaginative fantasy history above suggests that you do.


I read an article from the Sydney Morning Hearald which found that students who has English as their second language outperformed those who has English as their first (I don't know the exact statistic, but it was a notable difference) based on the English Language and Literacy Assessment (ELLA) done by all student in year 7 and 8.An english professor snuck into my house last night and told me that people whose first language is chinese are seldom able to master the subtlties of the english language.


Personally, I wouldn't call a test that is completed by more than ten thousand candidate as an "exception".Personally I wouldn't call a vague reference to a half-remembered article in an Australian newspaper compelling evidence.


And this example clearly demonstrate English ability is not influenced by whether or not it is your first language.I've been trying to be nice, but I can surely highlight all of the spelling and grammar errors in your posts if you'd like to match your command of English against mine.

However, your command of english seems a bit...um...off topic for a thread dealing with possible cheating in the olympics by chinese athletes.


Besides, why are you telling me this? Are you saying that since English is your first language, you must be right in this issue??I proposed it as a way of explaining the mistakes you've made in interpreting some of the posts in this thread - mine and others.


Then I guess me and xuantianzong are right in the Beijing olympic thread since we've been living there much longer than you.Last I heard you were living in australia - which is hardly a suburb of beijing.

I've deleted your next two paragraphs as they don't seem to have anything to do with...well...much of anything.


Chinese is defined as people from China, not the country's ruling authority, whatever the context.As in, say, "the chinese repression of human rights in Tibet" - which, per your claim, must therefore refer to repression by the chinese people rather than by their government.


Once again, I am well aware that Jacco has no racist intention and meant "Chinese" as the athlete,Then one has to wonder at your obsession here. He and you both apparently understand what he was saying - so it seems a thin gruel to debate over.


and I simply wanted to advise him the disturbance I find in his usuage, I don't really know what the basis of your complaint is....Your constant whining...wait, I mentioned that already.

By the way...at the risk of diverting this discussion from the degree you care about other posts, here is something you might find of interest...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2607669/Chinese-Olympic-gymnast-underage-probe-has-bearing-on-Britains-Beth-Tweddle---Beijing-Olympics.html

I picked an english paper so I wouldn't be accused of american bias.

Gymnasts must be over 16 to compete, or turn 16 by the end of the Olympic Games’ year, but allegations continue to circulate that He could be 14.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has already instructed the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) to look into the matter.

If evidence of cheating is found, He could not only be stripped of her gold in the uneven bars, but the gold China won in the all-around event.

He is not the only Chinese gymnast under suspicion. Claims that Yang Yilin and Jiang Yuyuan are also underage could have a further bearing on Tweedle.

[rebellious_teen]

I'm sorry, but history is generally written by the winners, not the losers. But your "history" does amuse...
You don't seem to be denying the fact that you are making irrelevant and inaccurate statements, so I will assume you agree and just trying to stretch this debate to preserve your own dignity, which is okay:).


An english professor snuck into my house last night and told me that people whose first language is chinese are seldom able to master the subtlties of the english language.

Personally I wouldn't call a vague reference to a half-remembered article in an Australian newspaper compelling evidence.
I couldn't find an online archive of the article, thankfully it was published in more than one newspaper. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=2024&art_id=iol105430761846W253&set_id=1

Children who speak a language other than English at home performed above the average in the ELLA test

My guess now is that you will say something along the line of "I didn't deny your claim, so i will ignore this evidence."


I've been trying to be nice, but I can surely highlight all of the spelling and grammar errors in your posts if you'd like to match your command of English against mine.
Quit whinning, this isn't an English class, there is the vent zone if you want to whine.


However, your command of english seems a bit...um...off topic for a thread dealing with possible cheating in the olympics by chinese athletes.
Read my very first post in this thread. I only spent a few lines talking about the title, your the one nitpicking out of desperation.


Last I heard you were living in australia - which is hardly a suburb of beijing.
I am an immigrant, and don't forget xuantianzong.
Anyway, you're evading my point. Can you claim your interpretation is right simply because English is your first language and not mine?


As in, say, "the chinese repression of human rights in Tibet" - which, per your claim, must therefore refer to repression by the chinese people rather than by their government.
There is more than one meaning of "Chinese" just like any other English words. In your example I would presume it's used as an adjective, which is fine. But as far as I know, in no stretch of the English language can the word "Chinese" be defined as "the government of China". You are wrong and you are refusing to accept it.

Chi&#183;nese [chī nz, chī nss]
plural noun
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">peoples people of China: people born or living in China, or whose family came from China </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

noun (plural Chi&#183;nese)
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD class=DEFINITION width=17>1. </TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">group of languages spoken in China: a group of related languages spoken across most of China, and by large communities in many other countries. They constitute a branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Also called Sinitic</TD></TR><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD class=DEFINITION width=17>2. </TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">official language of China: the standard language of China and an official language of Singapore. It belongs to the Chinese group of Sino-Tibetan languages. Chinese has about 800 million native speakers, which is more than any other language.
Also called Mandarin
Also called Mandarin Chinese
Also called Putonghua


</TD></TR><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD class=DEFINITION width=17>3. </TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">food, meal, or restaurant: a restaurant or takeout run by Chinese people and cooking food in styles from China, or food or a meal from one (informal) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

adjective
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD class=DEFINITION width=17>1. </TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">of China: relating to China, its people, or culture </TD></TR><TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7.5pt" vAlign=top><TD class=DEFINITION width=17>2. </TD><TD class=DEFINITION style="PADDING-LEFT: 1pt">of the Chinese language: relating to the language or language group Chinese </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Microsoft&#174; Encarta&#174; Reference Library 2005. &#169; 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.<!--EndFragment-->

By the way...at the risk of diverting this discussion from the degree you care about other posts, here is something you might find of interest...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2607669/Chinese-Olympic-gymnast-underage-probe-has-bearing-on-Britains-Beth-Tweddle---Beijing-Olympics.html
I've seen a similar article in the smh, apparently these evidence comes from a random hacker.

Anyway, I don't condone cheating and I never said I did. However, I do not feel mere jealousy is an adequate reason for accusing someone of cheating. Further, I do not feel it is fair to point the responsibility to the people of China because some athletes has cheated.

[standardstate]

You don't seem to be denying the fact that you are making irrelevant and inaccurate statements, so I will assume you agree and just trying to stretch this debate to preserve your own dignity, which is okay:). Is that what your problem is? Let me help you then...

Whatever off topic comments I have been made have been responses - mostly to your off topic remarks. As for "inaccurate statements"...um...nope. Clear enough?


I couldn't find an online archive of the article, thankfully it was published in more than one newspaper. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=2024&art_id=iol105430761846W253&set_id=1

Children who speak a language other than English at home performed above the average in the ELLA test

My guess now is that you will say something along the line of "I didn't deny your claim, so i will ignore this evidence."No, why do that when I can point out that there is such a lack of detail in the article that it is difficult to judge its relevance.

Nothing about the age at which these children learned english. For that matter, nothing indicating that english is even a second language. I have friends who speak spanish at home, but who speak english as their first language.


Quit whinning,I hope you do so.


this isn't an English class, there is the vent zone if you want to whine.How original. Did you think that up yourself?


Read my very first post in this thread. I only spent a few lines talking about the title, your the one nitpicking out of desperation.You appear to be the one fixated on this. I've only been responding to you.


I am an immigrant, and don't forget xuantianzong.Good for you. Now you have uncensored access to the internet.


Anyway, you're evading my point. Can you claim your interpretation is right simply because English is your first language and not mine?No - no more than you can claim that your interpretation is right simply because you are from china and like to whine.


There is more than one meaning of "Chinese" just like any other English words.Very good. You are making progress towards an understanding why your previous comments were off base.


In your example I would presume it's used as an adjective, which is fine. But as far as I know, in no stretch of the English language can the word "Chinese" be defined as "the government of China". You are wrong and you are refusing to accept it.Sorry, but I will have to go with my understanding of the english language here (reinforced by the way this has been used by other native english speakers in this thread) and not yours.

But nice use of Encarta. Is that censored in china?


I've seen a similar article in the smh, apparently these evidence comes from a random hacker.Well, I suppose when the claims are investigated we will find out more...


Anyway, I don't condone cheating and I never said I did.A bold stand.


However, I do not feel mere jealousy is an adequate reason for accusing someone of cheating.Nor do I. But since I've not seen any accusations based on "mere jealousy" this doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion.


Further, I do not feel it is fair to point the responsibility to the people of China because some athletes has cheated.Save this, so you can use it if you ever find someone who has accused "the chinese people" of cheating.

That the IOC is looking into the charges doesn't make them true - it does, however, suggest there is a basis for suspicion, even if it should turn out unfounded. Which is all I've said (as far as on topic comments - which have been swamped by my responses to your off topic comments, and which, therefore, you may have missed).

[ROFLCopter]

So anyone heard about the hacker that was able to track down government documents relating to the gymnasts age that is in question and finding out that she is under age?

[standardstate]

So anyone heard about the hacker that was able to track down government documents relating to the gymnasts age that is in question and finding out that she is under age?Yes...apparently since the hacker is "random" we can ignore it.

You can bet that if it was a random chinese hacker he would have ten or twenty years to reflect on what he had done in a labor camp

[rebellious_teen]

Is that what your problem is? Let me help you then...

Whatever off topic comments I have been made have been responses - mostly to your off topic remarks. As for "inaccurate statements"...um...nope. Clear enough?
Wow, you're doing it again. I said it again and again, I made a relevant statement, you chopped it in half and responded to them irrelevantly, and now you're changing the topic once again out of denial.


No, why do that when I can point out that there is such a lack of detail in the article that it is difficult to judge its relevance.
Well, my guess wasn't that far off....


You appear to be the one fixated on this. I've only been responding to you.
Read my other posts in this thread, it's only when you decided to nitpick did I started to respond to you.


No - no more than you can claim that your interpretation is right simply because you are from china
No, so you are wrong to say you are right because English is your native anguage.


Sorry, but I will have to go with my understanding of the english language here (reinforced by the way this has been used by other native english speakers in this thread) and not yours.
Again, being a native English speaker has nothing to do with being better in English, as shown by my article which you deny because it is not "detailed enough".
Anyway, my understanding of Enghish comes from the dictionary, whilst your understanding of English comes from...yourself.
Chinese does not mean "Ruler of China" or "Chinese government". I've proven it, and you're denying on the ground that English is your first language, this is a classical "I am right because I am right" argument.


Nor do I. But since I've not seen any accusations based on "mere jealousy" this doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion.
Well, if you have been reading the OP's thread.... Age is only one of the reason why the OP thinks China cheated, he also suggest that the judges are bias.

[standardstate]

Wow, you're doing it again. I said it again and again, I made a relevant statement, you chopped it in half and responded to them irrelevantly, and now you're changing the topic once again out of denial.I'll make things easy for you.

Rather than respond to your off topic comments, I'll just wait for something relevant - at which point I will contribute.


Well, my guess wasn't that far off....Off topic.


Read my other posts in this thread, it's only when you decided to nitpick did I started to respond to you.Off topic.


No, so you are wrong to say you are right because English is your native anguage.Off topic.


Again, being a native English speaker has nothing to do with being better in English, as shown by my article which you deny because it is not "detailed enough".
Anyway, my understanding of Enghish comes from the dictionary, whilst your understanding of English comes from...yourself.Off topic.


Chinese does not mean "Ruler of China" or "Chinese government". I've proven it, and you're denying on the ground that English is your first language, this is a classical "I am right because I am right" argument.Off topic.


Well, if you have been reading the OP's thread.... Age is only one of the reason why the OP thinks China cheated, he also suggest that the judges are bias.Barely on topic. Whatever the OP has brought up, my comment, and the IOC investigation, is focused on the possibility of some of the chinese gymnists being underage.

You managed an entire response without a significant on topic comment. Interesting...

[rebellious_teen]

Off topic.
Wow, this is your last resort to not admit you're wrong:o
Fine, let's go back on topic, but just before that I will point out this:
Standardstate believe the word "Chinese" means "ruler of China", he is wrong.
Standardstate believe people who have English as their native language is always better in understanding English. He is wrong.


Barely on topic. Whatever the OP has brought up, my comment, and the IOC investigation, is focused on the possibility of some of the chinese gymnists being underage.
Far from it, originally the OP claimed the Chinese are cheating because "but they [US gymnast] seemed to keep getting hammered for their mistakes while the Chinese were making smaller but more prevalent ones and not getting deducted as much." and "things they [Chinese gymnast] were doing, the routines and such, didnt look like they were as complicated or precise as the ones the Americans were doing. "

If you are going to claim the OP's original post is "barely on topic", then I have nothing more to say.


You managed an entire response without a significant on topic comment. Interesting...
I guess your definition of "on topic" is whatever Standardstate believe is on topic. Interesting....

[Jacco]

somthing i think you should know by now is that you dont win a debate against standardstate. for better or worse, he's right 99.9999&#37; of the time and can defend it extremely well.

[standardstate]

Wow, this is your last resort to not admit you're wrong:o Off topic.

Fine, let's go back on topic,Okay...


but just before that I will point out this:
Standardstate believe the word "Chinese" means "ruler of China", he is wrong.
Standardstate believe people who have English as their native language is always better in understanding English. He is wrong.I thought we were going back on topic. But...off topic.


Far from it, originally the OP claimed the Chinese are cheating because "but they [US gymnast] seemed to keep getting hammered for their mistakes while the Chinese were making smaller but more prevalent ones and not getting deducted as much." and "things they [Chinese gymnast] were doing, the routines and such, didnt look like they were as complicated or precise as the ones the Americans were doing. "I was talking about the IOC investigation.


If you are going to claim the OP's original post is "barely on topic", then I have nothing more to say.Not what I said, but again, my guess is that this lack of understanding relates to english not being your native language...see...you're trying to get me to go off topic again.


I guess your definition of "on topic" is whatever Standardstate believe is on topic. Interesting....Another post that was pretty much entirely off topic. Well done.

[standardstate]

somthing i think you should know by now is that you dont win a debate against standardstate. for better or worse, he's right 99.9999% of the time and can defend it extremely well.I don't know if that's true.

However, we hardly seem to be discussing the topic of this thread. It has devolved into a discussion of rebellious' difficulties with english, abilities in using on-line dictionaries, speculations as to what I am thinking. I've tried twice now to drag him back on topic - without success.

[rebellious_teen]

I was talking about the IOC investigation.
Right, you barely said anything about the IOC investigation since the beginning.

What you said was a suspicion will exist no matter if the IOC could find anything
"...there is a basis for suspicion, even if it should turn out unfounded"
It is human nature to be suspicious, right, but we want to know whether or not this suspicion is justified, you asserted that we must be suspicious against the "Chinese" regardless of what happens, how can I debate that?

My stance is simple: cheating is bad, if anyone cheated in the olympic, their medal(s) should be stripped off, if nothing is found by the IOC, any remainding "suspicion" is unjustified. You stance is: we must be suspicious whether or not there is proof.


Not what I said, but again, my guess is that this lack of understanding relates to english not being your native language...see...you're trying to get me to go off topic again.
I just enjoy proving you wrong, and watch you trying to defend yourself helplessly. Now that I did, I suppose there is no more reason to continue.

[rebellious_teen]

somthing i think you should know by now is that you dont win a debate against standardstate. for better or worse, he's right 99.9999% of the time and can defend it extremely well.
Indeed, when he runs out of arguments and has been proven wrong completely, he can resort to a colourful range of defence ranging from "off topic" to "I am more right than the dictionary".
But that's fine, it's fun to watch.

[Jacco]

of course! everyone here thinks you are right even though you have repeatedly contradicted your self and your arguments. way to go!

[FlyingKiwi]

I just enjoy proving [standardstate] wrong, and watch you trying to defend yourself helplessly. Now that I did, I suppose there is no more reason to continue.

Surely you jest.

[rebellious_teen]

of course! everyone here thinks you are right even though you have repeatedly contradicted your self and your arguments. way to go!
What?

[standardstate]

Right, you barely said anything about the IOC investigation since the beginning.Only to the extent that I was replying to your off topic responses.


What you said was a suspicion will exist no matter if the IOC could find anything
"...there is a basis for suspicion, even if it should turn out unfounded" No, you've twisted my words. What I said was that there was sufficient basis for suspicion to justify an investigation, as the IOC is now carrying out.

The point of the investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to take action, such as stripping particular athletes of their medals. This is the same thing that is done, for example, in criminal investigations. Someone suspected of a crime is not automatically guilty - you investigate, and see if the initial suspicions are well founded or not.


It is human nature to be suspicious, right, but we want to know whether or not this suspicion is justified, you asserted that we must be suspicious against the "Chinese" regardless of what happens, how can I debate that?That the IOC has decided to investigate is clear indication that there is justification for being suspicious, as opposed to your "human nature" suspicion. The investigation, if carried out correctly, should answer the questions that have been raised.


My stance is simple: cheating is bad, if anyone cheated in the olympic, their medal(s) should be stripped off, if nothing is found by the IOC, any remainding "suspicion" is unjustified. You stance is: we must be suspicious whether or not there is proof.The two are not mutually exclusive.

And the present investigation is based on evidence that has been put forth. Is the evidence credible? Does it prove cheating occurred? That's kind of the point of the investigation - to decide these things.


I just enjoy proving you wrong, and watch you trying to defend yourself helplessly.You lead a rich fantasy life. Have you also cured cancer and brought peace to the world?


Now that I did, I suppose there is no more reason to continue.Based on the quality of your response here, I would have to agree with you. Given that you seem sarcasm impaired, I will point out that the last remark was...sarcastic.

[standardstate]

Indeed, when he runs out of arguments and has been proven wrong completely, he can resort to a colourful range of defence ranging from "off topic" to "I am more right than the dictionary".
But that's fine, it's fun to watch.And I've yet to use the "so's your momma" defense.

[Patronus]

and five pages ago i openly admitted that i, like 98% of the people who watch the olympics, are not at all qualified to judge such things.
but even so, the announcers, several of which were olympic gymnasts, were saying that the American girls were doing mroe complex routines.
I think you must have misheard the announcers, because I actually remember them mentioning that the Chinese girls generally had higher start values, which means they had more difficult routines. Practically, this means that the Chinese could afford a few more minor errors than the Americans could.


Regarding judges. It is an unfortunate reality that judges from the countries that have athletes in their event cannot judge because this would lead to bias. This is necessary to prevent cheating but it does significantly lower the caliber of judging. In countries where womens gymnastics is popular(primarily USA, China, and Russia) will naturally host more experienced judges since there is significantly more opportunity to judge on a professional level. However, the USA, China and Russia will always have participants in womens gymnastics preventing the most experienced and knowledgeable judges from being able to adjudicate the performances. I'm not saying change the judge rule, I'm just providing a reason for why the judging seems inconsistent at times.
I think this hits the judging issue right on the head. When a judge comes from a country that does not have a strong gymnastic tradition, they tend to be less experienced and can sometimes miss errors.

[HOLLYWOOD*]

From what I saw, America dominated the beam, the chinese fell off the beam and barely stayed on balance. Shawn Johnson took the gold, and Nastia Liukin the silver.
In my eyes the chinese are horrible in gymnastics with their crooked feet and all, but that is just my say.
But I noticed in the diving, that there were significally better dives then the ones the chinese preformed(the chinese did an excellent job at diving and almost most of the time dominated) but there would be times that someone would preform a better dive and the chinese still got a higher mark.

And for the underage matter-
http://i34.tinypic.com/10gk8kk.jpg
I feel really bad for them if they are 16.

[Savage]

Is it just a coincidence that they have never been terribly good in the Olympics but the time it is held in their country they do the best?
Considering they were holding it and the money the put towards just the opening ceremony I wouldn't be surprised if they just worked extra hard. You saw the work ethic and determination they have to succeed in their culture at the opening ceremony. They're not a country that's going to explode our brains at the opening ceremony and then do really crap, they wouldn't allow that. They've known they were to host the olympics for long enough to start picking the best.

The only issue I'd raise is the age of some of the competitors and it's more of a human rights issue than anything about cheating. I don't consider it cheating to be younger than you should be, it's just bad sportsmanship on the countries behalf.

[rebellious_teen]

No, you've twisted my words.
Those are your exact words, I didn't twist anything.


What I said was that there was sufficient basis for suspicion to justify an investigation, as the IOC is now carrying out.
Don't suggest otherwise then.


That the IOC has decided to investigate is clear indication that there is justification for being suspicious, as opposed to your "human nature" suspicion. The investigation, if carried out correctly, should answer the questions that have been raised.
It is agreed then, we should wait fpr the outcome of the investigation, if no evidence is found, then any remainding suspicion against the Chinese athletes of being underage is unjustified.


The two are not mutually exclusive.
What is not mutually exclusive? That I dislike cheating and baseless suspicion at the same time?


And the present investigation is based on evidence that has been put forth. Is the evidence credible? Does it prove cheating occurred? That's kind of the point of the investigation - to decide these things.
The IOC should be independent in their investigration rather than relying on this "basis" you are talking about. Since IOC is not a robotic organisation, if the basis of this investigation is to satisfy the rising public concerns, then fair enough, let the investigation happen. The IOC however, should start their investigation from scratch, rather than basing it on evidence found by a random criminial (hacking is a crime, right?).

[standardstate]

Those are your exact words, I didn't twist anything.Certainly your interpretation of those words doesn't match up with what I said - which is where the twisting comes in. But let's go back and look...

YOU:What you said was a suspicion will exist no matter if the IOC could find anything
ME: "...there is a basis for suspicion, even if it should turn out unfounded"

So let's see - what my words say is that there is reason to investigate, but that an investigation may conclude that there is no credible evidence that cheating occurred. Your interpretation of that is that there will be a suspicion even if the IOC doesn't find anything. That is a misinterpretation. If the IOC finds no credible evidence then a reasonable person would conclude there is no longer a basis for suspicion.

Let's try an analogy. if a woman is murdered her husband is almost automatically considered as a possible suspect. if the police call the husband in for questioning, and he can show that he was out of town at the time of the murder, then (absent other factors) there is no longer a basis for his being suspected.


Don't suggest otherwise then.This is bizarre, even for you. What this is a response to is my statement...

What I said was that there was sufficient basis for suspicion to justify an investigation, as the IOC is now carrying out.

Leaving aside the fact that this is what I have said all along, it seems like you are getting upset at the idea that there might be no basis for suspicion.

I have to assume your desire to be contrary has blinded you.


It is agreed then, we should wait fpr the outcome of the investigation, if no evidence is found, then any remainding suspicion against the Chinese athletes of being underage is unjustified.Absent new evidence after the investigation is concluded, and assuming a fair investigation, indeed that is true.


What is not mutually exclusive? That I dislike cheating and baseless suspicion at the same time?[quote]Yes.

[quote]The IOC should be independent in their investigration rather than relying on this "basis" you are talking about. Since IOC is not a robotic organisation, if the basis of this investigation is to satisfy the rising public concerns, then fair enough, let the investigation happen. The IOC however, should start their investigation from scratch, rather than basing it on evidence found by a random criminial (hacking is a crime, right?).I'm puzzled by this. The IOC investigation is independent. Having said that, they can certainly consider evidence from any source they wish.

I don't know enough about how the evidence was obtained to say it was done so illegally - but it seems a thin defense to committing a crime if your argument is that the evidence exposing the crime was obtained illegally.

But we will have to see what the IOC concludes.

[Richard]

Considering they were holding it and the money the put towards just the opening ceremony I wouldn't be surprised if they just worked extra hard. You saw the work ethic and determination they have to succeed in their culture at the opening ceremony. They're not a country that's going to explode our brains at the opening ceremony and then do really crap, they wouldn't allow that. They've known they were to host the olympics for long enough to start picking the best.

The only issue I'd raise is the age of some of the competitors and it's more of a human rights issue than anything about cheating. I don't consider it cheating to be younger than you should be, it's just bad sportsmanship on the countries behalf.
hahah all i know is, if i got beaten by someone younger then me i wouldn't want to know -how- young they were, the fact i would have been beaten by a youngster is bad enough :P