Gymnasts That Participate In The Olympics Must Be Older Than 16.

1) Gymnasts under 16 are immature.

I have to assume you mean intellectually/socially immature. That's the most common thing someone means when they say, "You are being immature."

This is flat out ageist. When I was in high school many years ago. I knew some very mature people. People on the debate team, people who participated in Academic Decathlon. I've also met plenty of 20-somethings who are poor losers, cry-babies, or assholes. Totally immature people. Age is simply *not* an indication of maturity.

Besides all that, who cares how mature someone is? It doesn't even matter that someone is immature. The games measure their ability as an athlete, not their maturity. Maturity is irrelevant.

2) They don't have much knowledge about the banned drugs in sport.

So being 17 automatically imparts knowledge of banned drugs. Whew. that's good. I'm glad knowledge grows like a gland in the minds of people in their late teens. This is ridiculous. Knowledge is gained through eduction. You can educate a 13 year old as well as you can educate a 17 year old. I've seen both reject knowledge given to them, and that's just life. You can't force someone to recognize the truth of your words when you caution them against drugs. Being 17 -- or 30 -- does not magically cause a person to recognize the dangers and fraud of banned drugs.

3) They are physically not very strong, compared to older aged competitors (over 16 years of age).

This is the worst premise you stated. It's just silly. The Olympic games are a measurement of ability. Strength is one of the measured abilities. If they weren't strong enough, they wouldn't qualify.

4) 16 years of age is not the ideal age to handle such enormous pressure, such as that of the Olympics.

I've seen adults break down and cry at the Olympics from the pressure. Being 17 -- or 30 -- does not automatically shield you from the pressure. I would argue that nothing can prepare you for the pressure of such a venue other than competing in such a venue. Trial by fire, as they say. Who says you need to be at some imaginary "ideal age" to handle pressure? Again, I've met 10 year olds that handle pressure better than some 30-somethings. It's a personal thing, it's practically unmeasurable, and we shouldn't ban people from playing in the games because you fear they might experience pressure. Life is all about dealing with various pressures.

You should not ban individuals from competing based on stereotypes about their age class. If you don't want immature, ignorant, weak-muscled or weak-spirited participants then you should qualify them based on their maturity, knowledge, strength and will. NOT their age!

However, strength and skill are all that matter in a competition about strength and skill.

fjm

15 Aug 2008 06:05

Comment

1) Gymnasts under 16 are immature.

I have to assume you mean intellectually/socially immature. That's the most common thing someone means when they say, "You are being immature."

This is flat out ageist. When I was in high school many years ago. I knew some very mature people. People on the debate team, people who participated in Academic Decathlon. I've also met plenty of 20-somethings who are poor losers, cry-babies, or assholes. Totally immature people. Age is simply *not* an indication of maturity.

Besides all that, who cares how mature someone is? It doesn't even matter that someone is immature. The games measure their ability as an athlete, not their maturity. Maturity is irrelevant.

2) They don't have much knowledge about the banned drugs in sport.

So being 17 automatically imparts knowledge of banned drugs. Whew. that's good. I'm glad knowledge grows like a gland in the minds of people in their late teens. This is ridiculous. Knowledge is gained through eduction. You can educate a 13 year old as well as you can educate a 17 year old. I've seen both reject knowledge given to them, and that's just life. You can't force someone to recognize the truth of your words when you caution them against drugs. Being 17 -- or 30 -- does not magically cause a person to recognize the dangers and fraud of banned drugs.

3) They are physically not very strong, compared to older aged competitors (over 16 years of age).

This is the worst premise you stated. It's just silly. The Olympic games are a <i>measurement of ability</i>. Strength is one of the measured abilities. If they weren't strong enough, they wouldn't qualify.

4) 16 years of age is not the ideal age to handle such enormous pressure, such as that of the Olympics.

I've seen adults break down and cry at the Olympics from the pressure. Being 17 -- or 30 -- does not automatically shield you from the pressure. I would argue that nothing can prepare you for the pressure of such a venue other than competing in such a venue. Trial by fire, as they say. Who says you need to be at some imaginary "ideal age" to handle pressure? Again, I've met 10 year olds that handle pressure better than some 30-somethings. It's a personal thing, it's practically unmeasurable, and we shouldn't ban people from playing in the games because you fear they might experience pressure. Life is all about dealing with various pressures.

You should not ban individuals from competing based on stereotypes about their age class. If you don't want immature, ignorant, weak-muscled or weak-spirited participants then you should qualify them based on their maturity, knowledge, strength and will. NOT their age!

However, strength and skill are all that matter in a competition about strength and skill.