Russia: Remove BILES And We Will Easily Beat Them!

[Doug1233]

right. they changed the rules after the fact. not fair imo

 

[rue_des_plantes]

That’s not what the master document said, though. The document said athletes need to have birthdays on or before December 31, 2004.

The technical regulations compose the master document for these purposes, and they never gave birthdates. The versions even before the pandemic give flat ages for each discipline and say, “participants must, in the year of competition, have the following minimum age.” You may have seen Tokyo 2020 meet criteria specifying dates, but these were a function of being an FIG meet sanctioned + approved for the calendar year 2020. It’s not unique to that meet, and I’m not aware of anything that ever said you had to be born no later than 2004 to participate in FIG meets in 2021 as a senior. If there is ever a question between meet specifications and the TR, the latter is deferred to.

I’m not sure whether it’s net positive or negative, either, but Baku prelims was a far worse decision IMO because rules actually were improvised out of thin air. I don’t find “they changed the rules” re: Tokyo eligibility to be very helpful without a good amount of context, though I appreciate the irritatingly Byzantine nature of the discussion, along with how difficult and risky this was (or beneficial and a lifeline, depending on the case) for athletes overall.

Nonetheless, Listunova was an absolute rock star in TF. Talk about an MVP.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

You’re right to raise the welfare question. It’s an important discussion, speculative I suppose but that’s never stopped us before. However you only cover half of it here.

You’d also need to think about the impact on the 2005 born athletes of being denied the ability to go an Olympics held after they became of age: of being seniors, having always thought they’d be able to do any event they were good enough for from 2021 onwards, and in fact being seniors with caveats instead. In all probability they’d be aware that gymnasts turning senior in the first year of a quad often struggle to last until their Olympics, that they might well be peaking early regardless of whether that’s a good thing or whether anyone wanted them to, but that they’d still be prevented from competing in Tokyo regardless of how good they were.

This wouldn’t necessarily just extend to the Olympics either, because competitive opportunities in the first half of the year are also usually allocated with selection in mind, so it’s conceivable that they’d miss out on more than just the Olympics as a consequence of a decision to keep them out. This too would have a welfare impact.

Verkest did very well for Belgium btw, can’t see them having finished so high without her.

 

[tsarinajen]

I thought part of the motivation for the FIG was they were afraid they’d get sued. All the ‘05 born athletes are eligible for competition all year except for the Olympics. That doesn’t feel fair.
And I don’t think the the FIG was the first governing body to “adjust” their eligibility.

The postponement was always going to hurt some and help others as some who were injured for 2020 were healthy for 2021 and vice versa.

I don’t think there was ever going to be a fair situation with that. We’ll see what happens with the Winter Olympics in a couple weeks — assuming it’s a go. Russia has at least one figure skater who wouldn’t mind a one-year postponement.

 

[irichluck21]

I mean the 2005 were eligible for all senior competitions in 2021, just not the Olympics.
If it was an Olympic qualification event such as Europeans, any 2005 would just not be eligible for a non-nominative spot, just like the athletes that were ineligible due to qualifying a team or themselves to Tokyo.

It was an easy decision to make but I guess it doesn’t really matter now.

 

[irichluck21]

All the ‘05 born athletes are eligible for competition all year except for the Olympics. That doesn’t feel fair.

It was fair because the Olympics were supposed to be held in 2020 and only got postponed to 2021 due to a World wide pandemic.
None of these athletes knew they would be eligible for the Olympics until the year OF the Olympics!

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

The problem is that it’s not that simple to just box off one competition. If you say a group of seniors can’t go to the Olympics you’re also potentially impacting on their selection opportunities for competitions prior to that too. So it’s all very well saying they’re eligible for continentals, worlds cups and the like, but federations had their actual Olympic contenders they needed to get back into competitive shape and of course that would’ve had to take priority.

So take Russia for example. Listunova was one of the best AAers in Europe in spring 2021 and Russia of course sent her to Euros. She was clearly in their top 4, needed the competitive experience ahead of the Olympics and additionally stood a strong chance of qualifying them an individual spot. They needed that, with Melnikova ineligible, Urazova coming back from injury and strong competition from Iordache and Gadirova. Had she been unable to go to Tokyo or to qualify Russia a spot, of course that’s a factor that would’ve been considered in selection. Russia might have decided to give the opportunity to another Tokyo eligible athlete instead, and it would have been justifiable if they had. So it isn’t simply about not going to Tokyo but everything else is available. That isn’t how competition in the run up to the Olympics works.

 

[irichluck21]

So take Russia for example. Listunova was one of the best AAers in Europe in spring 2021 and Russia of course sent her to Euros. She was clearly in their top 4, needed the competitive experience ahead of the Olympics and additionally stood a strong chance of qualifying them an individual spot. They needed that, with Melnikova ineligible, Urazova coming back from injury and strong competition from Iordache and Gadirova. Had she been unable to go to Tokyo or to qualify Russia a spot, of course that’s a factor that would’ve been considered in selection. Russia might have decided to give the opportunity to another Tokyo eligible athlete instead, and it would have been justifiable if they had. So it isn’t simply about not going to Tokyo but everything else is available

But that is exactly who they would have sent in 2020…Urasova or another 2004 girlie.
Listunova was never an option for continental qualification UNTIL the games were postponed.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

You’re missing the point.

Euros in spring 2021 were always going to happen. Listunova would’ve been training with those in mind, and would have expected that if she were good enough she’d be picked. Barring her from the Olympics would’ve introduced another factor that would’ve had to be taken into account when choosing the team. This is what I mean when I say that preventing 2005 born athletes from going toTokyo isn’t something that only affects one competition. It would’ve potentially impacted on every single competition for the first seven months of the year.

 

[irichluck21]

Listunova still could have competed, just not eligible for an Olympic spot.
I mean Russia sent Melnikova…she was not eligible!

Not to mention that 2021 were not going to be Olympic qualifier…the 2020 version in December was…UEG changed it because so many countries dropped out.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

She could have still competed, but the fact is that preventing her from going to the Olympics could have also prevented her from being chosen for Euros for reasons other than merit. That 2021 Euros weren’t going to be the Olympic qualifier until they were is irrelevant to this point. If the policy you still think was a good idea had been implemented, the impact was potentially much greater than preventing 2005 borns from going to Tokyo. There was no way to retain the same access to Tokyo as there would’ve been pre-pandemic without potentially impacting every other competition in the first seven months of 2021.

 

[irichluck21]

I think you are making it more complicated than it really was/needs to be.
It happened so it is over with. But I guess personally we have to agree to disagree.

Either way 2021 will always have an asterisk next to it, similar to 2000, IMO.

 

[Doug1233]

There’s no way Valentina wouldn’t have taken her to Euros just because she wasn’t age eligible for the olympics. No Way.

 

[cats]

I’m with AR on this. I was furious when they said 16 year olds were in, but you really can’t run a season with two sets of eligibility rules. That’s especially true when we optimistic 2020 dwellers thought 2021 would have a normal competition calendar where the AA WCs would be held and were qualifiers and continentals would be attended, etc. A lot of those things didn’t happen so it mattered less (and the 16 year olds made less of an impact because they had fewer opportunities), but I do think it was the only call at the time.

 

[irichluck21]

There’s no way Valentina wouldn’t have taken her to Euros just because she wasn’t age eligible for the olympics. No Way.

Exactly. She still wanted medals.
Melnikova went to Europeans in 2021 and she was not eligible for the non-nominative spot.
Plus, every NOC was allowed 4 athletes and all could do AA, yet only 1 was eligible for the non-nominative spot, so even if Listunova was not eligible, RUS had 3 more slots to fill with eligible athletes. Urasova and Germinasova were two and if ROC wanted extra insurance they could have sent Vorona instead of Melnikova.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

You have absolutely no idea whether that’s true or not, and no basis whatsoever to claim it, given that Valentina never spoke on the subject and we’re talking about a response to a situation that didn’t happen. But let’s say for the sake of argument you’re right and she decided to prioritise sending her three top AAers over giving all her Olympic hopefuls some competitive experience. The possibility still existed, and that would’ve been a bad thing.

I think you are making it more complicated than it really was/needs to be.

You aren’t recognising the complexities that would’ve been caused by your proposal. It’s one thing if you understand and still think it would be worthwhile, but it’s just plain fact that it would’ve been impossible to make the 2005 borns ineligible for Tokyo without at least potentially impacting on most of their debut seasons.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Melnikova is not comparable because as an athlete who was clearly an Olympic contender, she needed competitive experience prior to Tokyo. What we’re talking about here is the fact that Euros was important as an opportunity for rusty athletes to get out in front of international panels as a part of the Russian Olympic preparation.

As for still wanting medals, not only do we not know whether she’d have prioritised that over winning another Olympic spot, Russia had several other individual medal prospects anyway.

 

[irichluck21]

but you really can’t run a season with two sets of eligibility rules.

You absolutely can and quite easily.

FIG currently does it with two per country/one per country limits.

How many times have we seen the US go 1-2-3 in a meet (like Pan Ams or Pac Rims) and the 3rd athlete is ineligible for a medal.

Look at Russian bars in Tokyo. All 4 were in the top qualifiers and only two allowed in to finals.

Years ago USAG did it as well when they allowed the 1982 ladies to compete as junior or senior. The 1982 girls who placed at Senior nationals were not eligible for Worlds. Atler (1st T), Dantzscher (6th), and Wing (5th) all qualified to the World Team by finishing in the top 6 but were replaced by Thompson, Beck, and Moceanu.

So it would have simple to do the same for 2005 athletes for continentals, as that was the ONLY meet in which the 2005 athletes would be effected by Olympic postponement.

 

[irichluck21]

You aren’t recognising the complexities that would’ve been caused by your proposal

What exactly are the complexities?
I can’t think of any.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I’ve set them out, but ok.

The first is that the rules would’ve had to be changed for Tokyo, at a time when the FIG were still having to deal with the possibility that the world cup apparatus series wouldn’t be finished, making the decision to cancel the world AA and deciding what to do about continentals. This would’ve been yet another thing to do, inevitably involving more work than the default of simply leaving it. I don’t know anything about the legal side of that but it’s conceivable, as mentioned upthread, that they might also have been concerned about ramifications there.

The second is that they’d have been facing a decision either to allow 2005 born athletes to win spots for their countries that they couldn’t use themselves, or to potentially affect continentals and actually any other competition they might attend before the Olympics although obviously continentals would’ve been the most significant.

There was no keep them out of Tokyo but everything else stays the same option available. It would’ve been easier if that weren’t true, but it was.