Revisiting Past Age Falsifications

[makam]

Oh for sure it’s bad here. I would add there is a sense of entitlement that also comes along with cheating here in the way you describe. It’s been fun to see the blue exam booklets come back.

I will say that there is such an odd culture around sports cheating in the States, almost as if it is the ultimate faux pas. It’s perceived the worst possible kind of cheating imaginable here. It’s such a weird dichotomy.

Especially if it costs your teammates a medal too. If you want to juice up to win the pole vault medal, the public will hate you for causing the US to lose a tick on the medal count list, but if you cause your water polo teammates to also lose their medals and the tick on the medal count, you better hide.

The other one IratePanda described would be categorized as "Rich people, doing rich people shit." Everyone knows rich people can cheat: buy their way out of DUIs, donate money to get their kid into a fancy college, sit on each other's boards and vote themselves huge raises while using some of the excess supporting politicians who kick their underpaid employees off food stamps, go to Epstein's island and still have a high position in the government... most "regular" (aka, not rich) Americans hate it but also probably wouldn't hesitate to take advantage if those benefits were extended to them (well, most likely not the pedophile island stuff, that is truly fucked up shit.)

 

[JaJa]

Not necessarily. Although many Americans might abhor cheating in sports they will tolerate it in other areas. Academic dishonesty is a serious and growing concern, especially with the rise of AI. Some of my colleagues have shared horror stories about papers (even senior theses) that were obvious products of ChatGPT or Gemini.

Some people even regard cheating as a sign of high intelligence. Why do the hard work if you can find shortcuts or pay some chump to do it for you? Case in point: my sister-in-law's scumbag of a husband. He got into an Ivy League school only because his father agreed to make some huge donations. As a college student, he didn't do any of his own work. He paid someone to write all of his essays and exams. He's 60 now and he still boasts about this. He also looks down on anyone who puts in 14-hour days just to pay the mortgage. Meanwhile, he's a problem gambler who's been banned from numerous casinos for card-counting.

Apologies for the digression. My point is that the US is not a bastion of fair play. I don't even think we have a universally accepted definition of the concept.

I do not think anyone is claiming that corruption and cheating does not happen in the U.S. or in other non authoritarian countries or even that it isn't widespread. It is. But there is still a vast and more importantly fundamental difference in the connection between that corruption/cheating and the government and the underlying and core assumptions of the society. Corruption is not only rampant and tolerated by some, it is assumed in authoritarian cultures. There is no attempt to weed it out when exposed because it is endemic to those countries --. And this culture of cheating and corruption is reflected in sports and in every other endeavor or area of activity.

 

[Aizheng]

I do not think anyone is claiming that corruption and cheating does not happen in the U.S. or in other non authoritarian countries or even that it isn't widespread. It is. But there is still a vast and more importantly fundamental difference in the connection between that corruption/cheating and the government and the underlying and core assumptions of the society. Corruption is not only rampant and tolerated by some, it is assumed in authoritarian cultures. There is no attempt to weed it out when exposed because it is endemic to those countries --. And this culture of cheating and corruption is reflected in sports and in every other endeavor or area of activity.

Someone said it very well up above. In the US, cheating is an individual decision. People do it because they believe they can get away with it.
In many authoritarian states, cheating is a government decision. Individuals cheating might not even be aware (does anyone think all the meldomium-taking figure skaters knew they were taking it or had a choice of saying no?).

This is also why I struggle with the “cultural” label. I’ve not seen any indications that pre-Communist China had a higher propensity for cheating, and Confucianism is actually very opposed to it. But there seems to be something about authoritarianism that leads to governments endorsing cheating and often even perpetrating it (no checks and balances, needing to be seen as “the best”?). I would actually be interested in figuring out if authoritarian regimes that do not feel themselves locked in an ideological opposition/super power conflict have the same propensity, since the most prominent cases I’m aware of are Soviet Russia, Soviet-era Romania, post-Soviet Russia and China. Do other authoritarian governments that are not in systemic competition also do that?

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

This is also why I struggle with the “cultural” label. I’ve not seen any indications that pre-Communist China had a higher propensity for cheating, and Confucianism is actually very opposed to it. But there seems to be something about authoritarianism that leads to governments endorsing cheating and often even perpetrating it (no checks and balances, needing to be seen as “the best”?).

Interesting proposition.

 

[eanda]

Someone said it very well up above. In the US, cheating is an individual decision. People do it because they believe they can get away with it.
In many authoritarian states, cheating is a government decision. Individuals cheating might not even be aware (does anyone think all the meldomium-taking figure skaters knew they were taking it or had a choice of saying no?).

This is also why I struggle with the “cultural” label. I’ve not seen any indications that pre-Communist China had a higher propensity for cheating, and Confucianism is actually very opposed to it. But there seems to be something about authoritarianism that leads to governments endorsing cheating and often even perpetrating it (no checks and balances, needing to be seen as “the best”?). I would actually be interested in figuring out if authoritarian regimes that do not feel themselves locked in an ideological opposition/super power conflict have the same propensity, since the most prominent cases I’m aware of are Soviet Russia, Soviet-era Romania, post-Soviet Russia and China. Do other authoritarian governments that are not in systemic competition also do that?

East Germany is another to include in this list. A deeper look at this idea would be interesting.

 

[JaJa]

This is also why I struggle with the “cultural” label. I’ve not seen any indications that pre-Communist China had a higher propensity for cheating, and Confucianism is actually very opposed to it. But there seems to be something about authoritarianism that leads to governments endorsing cheating and often even perpetrating it (no checks and balances, needing to be seen as “the best”?).

I agree that the use of the word "cultural" may not have been helpful as it may seem that we are referring to the culture of a people as opposed to the social culture that evolves in a particular form of government

 

[CameliasFingerpaint]

East Germany is another to include in this list. A deeper look at this idea would be interesting.

Don’t even get me started on the rampant eastern bloc nation cheating in Track and Field in the 1980s and how most of those women’s WRs still stand today.

 

[Aeris]

Competing "underage" is not the same thing as doping.

Age rules are a form of discrimination, not an accurate determiner of which individuals are mature enough to compete, if that should even be a qualifying factor in the first place.

 

[MaryClare]

Competing "underage" is not the same thing as doping.

Age rules are a form of discrimination, not an accurate determiner of which individuals are mature enough to compete, if that should even be a qualifying factor in the first place.

It’s done for the same reason- competitive advantage. Whether there should be age restrictions, or what the age restriction should be is an unrelated debate. You can’t dress it up as taking a stance against age rules you believe to be unfair

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

It’s done for the same reason- competitive advantage. Whether there should be age restrictions, or what the age restriction should be is an unrelated debate. You can’t dress it up as taking a stance against age rules you believe to be unfair

This. By all means argue for different rules, be that age or drugs. Until then, it's either a level playing field or cheating.

 

[makam]

Competing "underage" is not the same thing as doping.

Age rules are a form of discrimination, not an accurate determiner of which individuals are mature enough to compete, if that should even be a qualifying factor in the first place.

Sorry not sorry, no. I actually want all competitors to be adults so they are accountable for cheating (no "they are a minor and can't be sanctioned because their coach wad doping them up") and there is less pressure to abuse little kids to make them competitive at 13 and crippled by 16.

 

[JaJa]

It’s done for the same reason- competitive advantage. Whether there should be age restrictions, or what the age restriction should be is an unrelated debate. You can’t dress it up as taking a stance against age rules you believe to be unfair

Exactly

 

[Aeris]

It’s done for the same reason - competitive advantage.

As with most things in life, there are varying degrees.

Forcing people to take drugs is a significantly higher degree of malpractice, and unnaturally increases what the individual is capable of. Someone competing "underage" is not an unnatural increase to their talent as a human being.

I actually want all competitors to be adults so they are accountable for cheating

Setting the age requirement to 18 years old would do that, but it would also rob many people from being able to build their lives, and would cheapen competitions that are supposed to be a display of the best (natural) athletics in the world.

As someone who was abused as a kid, I would have welcomed the opportunity to do something like compete at the Olympics at the youngest age possible and thus gain a path to get away from my parents. Note that the Olympics have no age restrictions; those are imposed by individual sports themselves.

Abuse does not stop because of 18 being the age requirement. Children are going to be abused by their parents no matter what, if that's how those people are, whether the kid is doing sports or not doing sports. Anyone who takes part in sport is still competing somewhere anyway, and can be pushed too hard by the parents. The answer to that problem is not age restrictions.

Young people deserve to be treated as equals, and not held back from being able to achieve their dreams, from being able to contribute to society. There are young people out there who are breaking world records or making discoveries in various fields, and it should be even more common. Plenty of young people are extremely intelligent and capable, and at that age you're actually more capable in some ways, since you have less responsibilities and can focus very directly on the thing you're interested in.

Treating them as lessers creates even more of an "ipad generation" of individuals. Life does not start at 18 years old and it should be possible for someone to be a top level competitive athlete as a teenager if they want, and then move on to other things whenever they feel like it. There are so many things to do in life and the time we have is very finite.

 

[KathySantoni]

Does anyone have any updates on the North Koreans? Haven’t seen them show up at a meet in a while. Will they have representation at worlds?

 

[makam]

Setting the age requirement to 18 years old would do that, but it would also rob many people from being able to build their lives, and would cheapen competitions that are supposed to be a display of the best (natural) athletics in the world.

Disagree. They are displays of the best natural talent within the rules of the sport. Abusive coaching, allowing them to take risks with lifelong consequences that they cannot comprehend, emotionally manipulating them to compete through injury, etc, for our entertainment, is gross. 19 year old Kerri Strug vaulting on an injured leg (or 27 year old Simone Biles finishing the competition with an injury) is vastly different than 14 year old Dominique Moceanu doing the same.

I do not agree with the thought that treating children as "lesser" is a part of the age limitations, but instead protects them (though maybe not as much as it should) from making decisions or taking risks that can have lifelong consequences and rewarding the ones who persist. Sure Sky Brown recovered from her skull fractures to win an Olympic medal at 13, but if she hadn't or lifelong disabilities from it, would it still have been seen as "worth it"?

Well, whatever different philosophies. Im happy with age limits in sports that have a long history of abusive coaching, treating child athletes as disposible, and frequent life altering injuries and eating disorders. Maybe if better safety measures are invented, star trek style medical monitoring is invented, and coaches that are able to not tie their own ego to their gymnasts performance come along, we can get rid of the age limits.

 

[makam]

and would cheapen competitions that are supposed to be a display of the best (natural) athletics in the world.

Wanted to add: country quotas already do this. How many world champions or potential medalists get left at home or out of finals because of quotas? Gabby Douglas would like her second AA Olympic medal, please.

But everyone knows the rules and consents to them when they show up at competitions. And if they thought the rules too unfair, they could go about setting up their own governing body with their own rules and competitions. And if enough countries agreed, WG (feels stupid typing that instead of FIG) would either change the rules or collapse when everyone left for the new governing body.

 

[Passion]

Does anyone have any updates on the North Koreans? Haven’t seen them show up at a meet in a while. Will they have representation at worlds?

DPRK competed at the 2025 Cairo World Cup. They didn't go to Asian Championships in 2025, presumably because they were held in South Korea. Not sure why they skipped Worlds.

They didn't participate in the World Cup series this year, so Asian Championships next month would be their last chance to qualify for Worlds. It's in China so maybe they'll be there.

 

[MaryClare]

As with most things in life, there are varying degrees.

Forcing people to take drugs is a significantly higher degree of malpractice, and unnaturally increases what the individual is capable of. Someone competing "underage" is not an unnatural increase to their talent as a human being.


Setting the age requirement to 18 years old would do that, but it would also rob many people from being able to build their lives, and would cheapen competitions that are supposed to be a display of the best (natural) athletics in the world.

As someone who was abused as a kid, I would have welcomed the opportunity to do something like compete at the Olympics at the youngest age possible and thus gain a path to get away from my parents. Note that the Olympics have no age restrictions; those are imposed by individual sports themselves.

Abuse does not stop because of 18 being the age requirement. Children are going to be abused by their parents no matter what, if that's how those people are, whether the kid is doing sports or not doing sports. Anyone who takes part in sport is still competing somewhere anyway, and can be pushed too hard by the parents. The answer to that problem is not age restrictions.

Young people deserve to be treated as equals, and not held back from being able to achieve their dreams, from being able to contribute to society. There are young people out there who are breaking world records or making discoveries in various fields, and it should be even more common. Plenty of young people are extremely intelligent and capable, and at that age you're actually more capable in some ways, since you have less responsibilities and can focus very directly on the thing you're interested in.

Treating them as lessers creates even more of an "ipad generation" of individuals. Life does not start at 18 years old and it should be possible for someone to be a top level competitive athlete as a teenager if they want, and then move on to other things whenever they feel like it. There are so many things to do in life and the time we have is very finite.

Allowing children to compete at senior competition with a considerable amount of status and financial gain on the line has been the single biggest CAUSE of abuse in the sport. Whether that’s encouraging abusive coaching methods or attracting predators. It does the exact opposite of allowing young people to build a life for themselves.

You’re basing your point entirely off a fantasy of how in another world, you could have got out of your particular situation.

 

[IratePanda]

I have a lot of thoughts about pre-Communist vs. Communist-era China, but it's too early to form coherent paragraphs.

As a mom and a lifelong gymnastics fan, I also have some thoughts about age limits, but my brain is still not braining. I think I'm just glad that my 11 year-old is happy to play rec volleyball and fourth cello. If we lived somewhere else, maybe China, she probably would have been plucked from an elementary school gym class for some kind of high-level training (basketball, volleyball, or track and field, I'd guess). She is a naturally gifted athlete, but she's just not that interested, and she really doesn't enjoy high pressure situations. When my husband starts spouting grandiose dreams about NCAA D1 possibllities, I shut him right down.

 

[Aeris]

Abusive coaching, emotionally manipulating them to compete through injury, etc

I don't see age limits stopping abusive/negligent coaching. There's no difference between someone competing through an injury at a junior competition vs a senior competition. Or being told to practice full routines despite injury. The coach who is mismanaging their athlete is doing those things regardless of where they are at.

Widespread abuse exists regardless of how much is at stake. That's simply how those people in power want to treat people they have power over, and people simply want to win, regardless of whatever it is they're doing. The athletes face the same problems either way, and with age restrictions it comes with the downside of receiving less reward for their work, since they are stuck in less prestigious competitions.

Young people being treated as sub-humans is what needs to be addressed. The focus should be on empowering them and providing better education to both coaches and athletes. "World Gymnastics" if they wanted to could also put their foot down harder and block certain coaches from attending their events. Then let's see how the environment would change. I am not a fan of rules that only address the surface level of a problem, especially when it greatly limits opportunities and the sport itself.

if they thought the rules too unfair, they could go about setting up their own governing body with their own rules and competitions. And if enough countries agreed, WG (feels stupid typing that instead of FIG) would either change the rules or collapse when everyone left for the new governing body.

This is very unrealistic with regards to the work it takes, and what really happens most of the time, when people try to dismantle existing structures of entrenched bureaucratic power. It's generally just not possible.

We're also getting away from the initial point about doping. Forcing someone to take drugs alters their actual capabilities and creates health issues like cancer. Fudging their birthdate does not. These things shouldn't be conflated. Doping is the bigger violation and the more dangerous, exclusionary act.

It's like the difference between lying to a school about your child's age because they are very smart/educated and you want them to be placed into a grade that accurately reflects their development, vs. bribing teachers to pass your child who is failing and/or doing your child's homework for them and telling them to cheat on their tests.

You’re basing your point entirely off a fantasy of how in another world, you could have got out of your particular situation.

I'm not, but it's unsurprising this is your response.