Revisiting Past Age Falsifications

[Aizheng]

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.

I disagree that we should lower the age level. Instead, I believe there should be hard limits imposed on how much kids are able to train any sports under 18. There are many formative experiences and learning experiences that are really, really difficult to catch up on, and we should be ensuring that even athletic kids don’t miss out on these. I’m somewhat fine with junior championships, as long as there are limits imposed there as well, but for any kid who’s made it to the Olympics at 14/15/16, there are probably at least 100 whose childhood was stolen in hopes of making it.

I say that as someone who moved out on my own at 15 and finished high school and started university at the same age. This was the best (of all bad) possibilities for me, but I missed out on significant parts of a childhood. now, given my family, I never had the chance of having a good childhood, but I would have much preferred being able to have a decent childhood and starting Uni at 18.

 

[Aizheng]

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

I am in favor of strengthening children’s rights, but I don’t believe that children are able to make decisions of that consequence, and quite honestly, they should not have to. Deciding to pull out of an Olympic final because of an injury (or deciding to compete, leading to life-long health consequences) is a decision I believe only adults should have to make (and even then, I think they should be supported much more in doing so).

look at how child actors turn out, and regardless of the gymnastics part, I just cannot endorse treating kids like adults in such high-consequence environments.

 

[MaryClare]

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

Why is it unsurprising?

You said in your post that you believe your situation at the time could have improved if you’d had the opportunity to compete at the Olympics…

 

[Aeris]

For any kid who’s made it to the Olympics at 14/15/16, there are probably at least 100 whose childhood was stolen in hopes of making it.

But how does raising the age limit to 18 change that? They are going to be spending all that time in training regardless, except now they have to spend even more time to possibly reach the Olympics.

And exactly why was their childhood stolen? Generally because their parents forced them into a lifestyle they didn't want. Unfortunately that's not something we have the ability to stop. There are all kinds of unwanted roles that certain parents are going to force their kids into, one way or another. So if they are dispassionately being put into sport, I at least hope for them that the time being spent has the potential to be as worthwhile as possible, and give them as many options as possible.

Deciding to pull out of an Olympic final because of an injury is a decision I believe only adults should have to make

It's the same decision regardless of where it happens though. People get very serious about winning the most minor of competitions. We can't just prevent everyone under 18 from participating in sport. Even aside from sport, there are multitudes of other risky situations and peer pressures that people are faced with. I do not believe that being a professional athlete represents the pinnacle of maturity required of a person.

Anyway, there are plenty of 14 year olds who are far more capable of making healthy decisions than 18 year olds. Age is simply a number. It's impossible to make determinations like this about individuals and the communal support systems they have. To me it's important not to restrict the possibility of people reaching for the stars at a young age, and to not restrict the knowledge they are given. There is no such thing as turning 18 and suddenly having life figured out, and I wish my own years before then had been spent more efficiently.

Why is it unsurprising?

Because you generally ignore the points being made when you're challenged and then attempt to oversimplify, which you again just did.

This a complex discussion on several topics and one of many examples I wrote was a personal anecdote on why young people should be given opportunities. You somehow seem to think I am not able to ascertain what would have been better for my life or not, while trying to minimize the countless life experiences and interactions that form my opinion.

 

[MaryClare]

You somehow seem to think I am not able to ascertain what would have been better for my life or not, while trying to minimize the countless life experiences and interactions that form my opinion.

Whether it would have been better for you is completely irrelevant and not a credible argument for why children should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

I was simply affirming what you said, that your specific childhood experiences frame your view on this matter. You aren’t special, we are all shaped by our life experiences. You’re just the only one who brought it into the discussion and seemingly expect that this shouldn’t be challenged because “this is my lived experience”.

 

[MaryClare]

Age is simply a number.

Yes. Quite a common defence I believe

 

[Aizheng]

Anyway, there are plenty of 14 year olds who are far more capable of making healthy decisions than 18 year olds. Age is simply a number. It's impossible to make determinations like this about individuals and the communal support systems they have. To me it's important not to restrict the possibility of people reaching for the stars at a young age, and to not restrict the knowledge they are given. There is no such thing as turning 18 and suddenly having life figured out, and I wish my own years before then had been spent more efficiently.

So should we get rid of child labor laws? This same argument can be used to get rid of pretty much any age restriction in the world. Should we allow kids to watch hardcore porn and torture videos? Should we allow kids to start driving whenever they want? Should they still need to pass a driving test?

Any rule that applies to all people will by its nature be bad for some individuals, but we as a society make a determination that is supposed to protect the majority. There will be some 18- and 20- year olds who are not mature enough for most adult things, and there will be some 16-year olds who are, but on average, given how brains develop, at 18, most kids are more able to make decisions than they are at 14 or 16.

 

[flappergirl]

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.


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.


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

The worst kinds of abuse may be accepted by children. A 14 or 15 year old child can hold on, allowing the abusive coach to reap rewards they desire. But extreme abuse breaks down the child and it would be harder to fool teenagers into continuing, even if the child/teenager is exceptionally tough and doesn’t break down. I feel like an 18 year old age limitation is better than a 16 year old limitation. I also think it will encourage building a good foundation and nurturing injuries.

 

[Aeris]

Whether it would have been better for you is completely irrelevant and not a credible argument for why children should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's an example of why allowing young people to compete can be beneficial, one of many. You are attempting to argue "people competing in the Olympics at a young age is bad" and I am giving the rebuttal. That's how a debate works.

Any rule that applies to all people will by its nature be bad for some individuals, but we as a society make a determination that is supposed to protect the majority.

Yes, rules generally are supposed to be about what creates the most good. But we aren't able to determine exactly how many young people might be protected by excluding them from senior sports, vs how many are being held back in their lives as a result of that exclusion.

I do not think young people are being protected by excluding them, because they are doing the same things as juniors anyway. Nobody has addressed this point yet. Pushing them out of the senior ranks just covers up the problem. It doesn't solve it. Treat the cause, not the symptom. The real problem here is that young people don't have equal rights, and because they don't have equal rights, adults are allowed to hold power over them.

 

[KristyJ]

I do think we've seen a bit less difficulty pushed at the junior levels over time, as the age minimum has been raised. I'm of two minds on the rule but it does seem that coaching has shifted to a slightly longer-term view of the sport.

Regardless, whether or not something should be a rule doesn't mean that countries should go and do what they want. Breaking the rule while another country follows it is unfair no matter how good or bad that rule is. As such, it should still be punished.

 

[Bob]

I'm not against age rules but I think they should be applied across the board in all sports at international competition. It's annoying that trampolining and tumbling have world age groups from a really young age (11?) and can claim to be world champions as do many other sports (diving and swimming also allowed to compete at world level really young) but gymnastics is 16. I don't get it. It should all be the same.

 

[rlayt]

Ski jumping

 

[Puffin]

Ski jumping

Sorry - ski-jumping???