Russia: Remove BILES And We Will Easily Beat Them!

[irichluck21]

This would’ve been yet another thing to do, inevitably involving more work than the default of simply leaving it.

I disagree. It would have been as simple to say “2005 are not eligible” and since the Tokyo Olympics were still branded as 2020, there is no legal basis for someone to sue the FIG.

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.

Again, easy peasy…2005 are not eligible for an Olympic spot…same as any ineligible athlete such as Melnikova, Sanne Seitz, MDJDS, Bui, Wevers, et al

There was no keep them out of Tokyo but everything else stays the same option available.

There absolutely was. Just make them ineligible. Others were ineligible, the 2005 could also have been.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I disagree. It would have been as simple to say “2005 are not eligible” and since the Tokyo Olympics were still branded as 2020, there is no legal basis for someone to sue the FIG.

In the nicest possible way, I don’t think it’s a great idea to be giving views on the legal basis for any case when we don’t know the law involved. That’s not a criticism btw, I don’t myself so I certainly don’t think anyone without legal training should be expected to. But actually my point wasn’t whether there was any legal basis, although I really doubt the branding of the event would’ve had any bearing on anything at all. It was more that they might have been concerned about the possibility of legal action, which would’ve been understandable at a time when they were already having to run an already fairly complicated qualifying procedure in the middle of a pandemic.

Again, easy peasy…2005 are not eligible for an Olympic spot…same as any ineligible athlete such as Melnikova, Sanne Seitz, MDJDS, Bui, Wevers, et al

Again, these examples are not comparable because these athletes were not ineligible to compete at the Olympics. You are talking about creating a specific category of athletes that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

 

[Doug1233]

Didn’t the rules get changed TO allow 2005s to compete? The rules didn’t allow it before they were changed, right?

I thought it expressly said “31 december 2004” and not “age of 16 in year of competition”. unless it said both??

 

[irichluck21]

https://usagym.org/PDFs/Pressbox/Selection%20Procedures/w_20olympics.pdf

1.1.3. Minimum International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) standards for participation
(if any):
• Athlete must be a minimum of sixteen (16) years of age by December 31,
2020 (born on or before 31 December 2004).
• Hold a valid FIG License until the end of the 2020 Olympic Games Artistic
Gymnastics competitions.

 

[irichluck21]

The criteria was updated once the Olympics were postponed:
https://www.gymnastics.sport/public...ympic Qualification System Tokyo 2020 ART.pdf

All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited
to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors) and Rule 43 (World Anti-Doping Code and the Olympic Movement
Code on the Prevention of Manipulation of Competitions). Only those athletes who comply with the Olympic
Charter may participate in the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020.
Age Requirements:
All athletes participating in the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 must be born:

• on or before 31 December 2003 for the Men’s competitions.
• on or before 31 December 2005 for the Women’s competitions

 

[irichluck21]

Again, these examples are not comparable because these athletes were not ineligible to compete at the Olympics. You are talking about creating a specific category of athletes that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

These are absolutely comparable because these athletes were not eligible to obtain a +1 for their country.

No need to create a specific category. There is one category, “not eligible for +1” this included athletes that already obtained olympic qualification or were “age ineligible for the Olympics”.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Not as far as I know, @rue_des_plantes explained upthread.

These are absolutely comparable because these athletes were not eligible to obtain a +1 for their country.

No need to create a specific category. There is one category, “not eligible for +1” this included athletes that already obtained olympic qualification or were “age ineligible for the Olympics”.

They are not comparable, because these are athletes who were eligible to compete in Tokyo and thus wouldn’t face the possibility of being left out of the continental championship in favour of someone who was. In order to be in the same position as the likes of Listunova would’ve been, they would need to not be able to compete in Tokyo.

 

[irichluck21]

They are not comparable, because these are athletes who were eligible to compete in Tokyo and thus wouldn’t face the possibility of being left out of the continental championship in favour of someone who was. In order to be in the same position as the likes of Listunova would’ve been, they would need to not be able to compete in Tokyo.

Disagree.
Going into 2020, the 2005 gymnasts knew they were not eligible for the Olympics. They were never going to be eligible.
It took a World wide pandemic and postponement of the Olympics to make them eligible.

These gymnasts found out they were now eligible in April 2020, literally 3 months before the Olympics were set to begin, but now postponed.
Clearly most 2005 were unprepared as we only saw 3 of them in Tokyo.
Listunova we knew about based on 2019.
But Jutta Verkest and Ava Stewart came out of nowhere. Verkest got last minute major international competition at Euros when Derwael withdrew. Ava Stewart’s strength on uneven bars, where Canada was extremely weak, along with both Onyshko retiring and Padurariu being too injured all but handed her the spot on the team. Her consistency and placing 2nd in the few Canadian meets helped too. But she had 0 international experience and it showed in Tokyo.

 

[Doug1233]

Athlete must be a minimum of sixteen (16) years of age by December 31,
2020 (born on or before 31 December 2004).

So my reading of this is that Listunova could not have sued the FIG. On what grounds? She was never eligible for the meet.

Changing the date of the meet doesn’t automatically change the eligibility requirements.

 

[irichluck21]

Changing the date of the meet doesn’t automatically change the eligibility requirements.

This was and is my viewpoint on the whole scenario…which is essentially pointless as it doesn’t matter anymore.
LMAO!!!

 

[rue_des_plantes]

Changing the date of the meet doesn’t automatically change the eligibility requirements.

It does whenever there’s inconsistency with the TR. That was the point, and why it is pointless to engage on the basis that the qualification procedures and meet specifications can trump the TR. They can’t, and from what I can tell, their contents and the insinuation they can compose the bulk of the argument that allowing 2005-born seniors is methodologically unfair.

“Just change or ignore the TR for Tokyo” sounds like a fast way for FIG to lose in CAS to RUS/Listunova, speaking of suing. FIG lost a suit from Belgium in CAS in 2019 for not following their own rules when selecting 2023’s host city, for instance: https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/news/displaynews.php?idNews=2470

I’m not sure it’s insignificant that 2022’s TR haven’t changed since the pandemic WRT wording, age in the year of competition, and contain no provisions for postponed meets? Might be a separate discussion, but re: intention, it sure looks like they don’t want to restrict anybody in the future even when given proper means. FWIW, here are 2018’s and 2022’s TR:

Wayback Machine

FIG - Homepage

FIG - Homepage

www.gymnastics.sport

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

So what I am saying here about your proposal creating a distinct group is not a matter of opinion.

I’m talking about a 2005 Tokyo ban creating a specific category of athletes who weren’t eligible for the Olympics despite being seniors, as well as possibly not being eligible to qualify country spots at continental competitions that they were always going to be eligible to attend and knew this years in advance.

When you made the comparison to Sanne, Kim Bui et al, you only focused on the second part, ie not being able to qualify spots. They wouldn’t meet the first criteria though, because they were able to compete at the Olympics. This raises the possibility of them being left out of continental and any other competitions by their federations from January to July 2021 in favour of other athletes who were going to be in Tokyo or contending, because of those federations prioritising potential Olympians.

It’s up to you what importance you give this, but it’s a fact that the 2005 borns would’ve been in a specific position and risking disadvantage as a consequence of that in a way that no other gymnasts would’ve been. That it’s impossible to simply fence off Tokyo with no other impact. If you think all this would’ve been worth it in pursuit of an attempt to recreate the year 2020 as closely as possible, by all means make that argument.

 

[irichluck21]

We will just have to agree to disagree at this point.

Federations can and have left out gymnasts from competitions for a variety of reasons.

My point still stands that IF FIG decided to not allow 2005 to compete at the Olympics it can easily been done.

When you made the comparison to Sanne, Kim Bui et al, you only focused on the second part, ie not being able to qualify spots. They wouldn’t meet the first criteria though, because they were able to compete at the Olympics. This raises the possibility of them being left out of continental and any other competitions by their federations from January to July 2021 in favour of other athletes who were going to be in Tokyo or contending, because of those federations prioritising potential Olympians.

 

[MRR]

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

A document rendered useless as it stated the Games would be held in 2020, with spots earned via apparatus/AA/Continentals allocated in June of the same year. The Games couldn’t be held on the specified dates, and qualification for all three pathways toward +1 hadn’t concluded. The FIG had no choice but to draft a new one, and that wasn’t just for the age criteria.

So naturally, the FIG consulted the TR which overarch event specifications, stating an athlete turning 16 in the calendar year is eligible for senior competition. Period. I’m not familiar with every sport’s process, but the FIG fell in line with every single sports governing body at the Olympics, allowing athletes of age to compete. Gymnastics wasn’t an anomaly, nor was it the first sport to decide for new seniors to be eligible (wrestling started off, and there were 2-3 others before gymnastics).

Actually those who disagree with the rule all these months later should blame the IOC. They could’ve tried a blanket rule that 2021 athletes should be banned across all sports. It would be harsh and IMO impractical, but it appears they had the power to do it, and it would at least be consistent in preserving what little “2020” remained of the 2021 Games. They swiftly declined, though, leaving individual federations to their own devices, and one by one they each did the same thing.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I mean, we can agree to disagree on what would’ve been fairest, preferable etc, but the part about 2005 births being in a specific, unprecedented category that nobody else would’ve been in is factual. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think the FIG not wanting to deliberately create and have responsibility for creating that cohort was probably a factor.

Looking back at the whole thing now, the IOC and all the relevant federations just took the path of least resistance. Keeping the Tokyo 2020 name and branding because of all the marketing work that had already been done was the easier option, so too was not trying to pretend it was the year 2020 when the actual Games occurred. That’s the common thread.

 

[irichluck21]

Oh absolutely they went an easy route.

Plus at the time of the decision making everything was so uncertain.

For a while people were predicting that Tokyo was going to get cancelled permenantly.

You can be sure that the Russians weren’t upset that Listunova was on the team (well maybe Germinasova who missed out on team gold).

Belgium made history with Verkest, so I am sure they are happy.

Canada might have regretted taking Stewart since she fell apart and cost them team finals, but realistically she earned her spot by placing second to Black all year AND there were no other realistic options for the team. (Although maybe Rose Woo might have felt differently).

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I think Canada got themselves into one of those Jordan Chiles type positions where even with the lack of experience, it was difficult to take anyone else because of how the domestic season went.

 

[Doug1233]

well maybe Germinasova who missed out on team gold

HA!

 

[Sasha]

Canada might have regretted taking Stewart since she fell apart and cost them team finals, but realistically she earned her spot by placing second to Black all year AND there were no other realistic options for the team. (Although maybe Rose Woo might have felt differently).

Poor kid, her only previous international experience was Gymnix. Can you imagine being in her position? I mean, she’ll always be able to say she was an Olympian but that sounds like a horribly stressful situation to me.

 

[Doug1233]

It does whenever there’s inconsistency with the TR.

I don’t see the inconsistency? The 2018 TRs say:

---

Age Requirements:
All athletes participating in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games must be born on or before 31 December 2004.

---

And

---

Art. 5.2 Age of participants
For the official senior FIG Competitions FIG and for the OG the participants must, in the year of the
competition, have the following minimum age:

Seniors
…
Women’s Artistic Gymnastics 16 years

---

How do these conflict?

A “minimum age” isn’t the same as “all 16 year olds must be able to compete”.