gymn Digest                 Wed, 10 Aug 94       Volume 2 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
                             AAU results
                         Aussie Elite Results
                             Drew Durbin
                        Drew Durbin?? (3 msgs)
        Goodwill Beam EF ... Fab vs Shannon; the Code (2 msgs)
                         gymn Digest V1 #162
                        Lilia P.'s floor music
                   Reporter for Commonwealth Games
                Smith Out Of Commonwealth for Aussies
                        Soviet System (7 msgs)
                    USA Championships Tickets Info
                            US Classic PR

This is a digest of the mailing list. 

Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 10:47:12 EDT
From: ***
Subject: AAU results

Does anyone have results from the Jr. Olympics?  I am looking for the other
girls' age groups that were not posted. 



Date: Tue, 09 Aug 94 17:25:12 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Aussie Elite Results

>From that font of gym info the Australian AP ...

WOMENS ELITE TRIALS at Homebush: Stage 1: C Pontecello (Five  Dock) 36.70 K
Fiez (Campbelltown) 36.57 B Hinkley-Holly (Five Dock)  36.275. Stage 2: K
Hockey (Campbelltown) 37.45 T Flegg  (Campbelltown) 36.575 A Hicks 36.10.
Stage 3: L Valletta  (Westfields) 36.675 T Kundeus (Westfields) 36.15 J Fong
(Sydney  YMCA) 35.875. Stage 4: N Seary (Sydney YMCA) 33.525 B Leung
 (Westfields) 22.35.



Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 17:39:32 PDT
From: <***>
Subject: Drew Durbin

Hi all... (yes, I'm still here) :)

I looked over my tape of the trouble Drew Durbin had... it looks like he
was on his way down on the G2 when he caught the bar, but apparently not
firmly enough, and rotated himself right at the floor.  It looked to me
like he hit the mat on his back and left (I think) shoulder, and he was
rotating at the time too.  He completed that routine, but when he went
to parallel bars he was ten or fifteen seconds in when I noticed that
a swing below the bars looked like it was supposed to go to a handstand,
but he didn't go all the way up and his arms bent. Right after that he
went to swing from his shoulders, and they just folded up and he dropped.
He decided not to try to complete the routine.  From what I've heard
about the trouble with his leg he was already having, he doesn't seem to
be one to give up easily, so it must have been pretty bad.



Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 13:32:35 +1000
From: <***>
Subject: Drew Durbin??

I was just talking to one of the old OSU guys, and they asked if I had
heard about Drew -  something about his falling during highbar on his G2
and not going up on PB. 

I missed Sun. night because of being at a concert.  Did anyone see, hear,
or know of what really happened?  They aren't due back for a couple of
days.  I would appreciate any information.



Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 12:28:54 EST
From: ***
Subject: Drew Durbin??

To elaborate a tad:

A commentator mentioned that Drew had been suffering from sciatica,
creating some numbness in one leg (forget which).  This added to what
seems to be a shoulder injury could not have made continuing any easier.
BTW Sciatica seems a very prevalent injury in the sport.  From the sound
of its effects...lord knows I'd be sitting still and not even try to train.

I noticed his coach standing next to the highbar spotting Drew (before his
Question: Is it safer for a gymnast to fall on the mat or be somehow
"caught" by a coach spotting?  I've rarely, if ever, seen a coach put
his/her body on the line to save a gymnast from a truly ugly fall....



Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 13:16:54 -0400 (edt)
From: <***>
Subject: Drew Durbin??

Yes, spotting can definitely make HB safer in certain instances.  
Nowadays you will not generally see coaches "catch" gymnasts, or even
break their falls on certain skills.  This is mainly because of the high
risk of injury to the coach (torn biceps, etc.) with little gain for the
gymnast. Instead, however, gymnasts are taught how to safely fall,
hitting the landing mat in a way so as to absorb the impact over their
body surface, and not come down in a position which puts the pressure and
stress on the head, neck, or spine.  This is particularly true for the
flight elements.

On the lower levels, however, and in those situations where a coach on
any level would have reason to suspect an unintended release, it is not
prudent and necessary for a spotter to be present.  While in most cases
of such an occurrence, the coach would not actually "catch" the gymnast,
the coach would slow the descent, and preferably change the trajectory so
that the gymnast is not landing on his head, neck, or spine.

Hats off to Peter for spotting at a high level event, something you don't
ordinarily see.  It's real good for young gymnasts to see that even our
top gymnasts need to be spotted at times, and that the top coaches also
spot their gymnasts when necessary.

And while it happens mainly on the lower levels, perhaps because it is at
that level that falls are more prevalent, I have seen some spectacular
saves by some quite agile coaches!


Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 14:43:03 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Goodwill Beam EF ... Fab vs Shannon; the Code

First off let me say that I found all this fascinating and I'm *not* being
facescious.  I'm passing it one to "Gymn" so hope you don't mind.

About Fab's full turn. Granted it sucked bigtime but I truly doubt the judges
held back on credit for it. I mean how many bad full turns to we see every
day from the Romanians? How many bad and incomplete elements do we see all
the time (triple twists, jump doubles, straddle sides, Popa's etc.) for that
matter that must be getting credit or the gymnasts would start with 2.5?

>Difficulty, yes, stuck landing, yes, but execution?  How so?<

I thnk that Fab is crisper and take her form within say a layout for example.
Her knees are straight and her head a lot higher off the beam (amplitude
amplitue amplitude). She makes them look, as Kathy Johnson said, "floaty".
The way she presents her head and back to me looks a lot more precise and
confident. She's up one her toes a *lot* more then Shannon. These are the
little things that I would call superior execution. Shannon's is good ...
Fab's is better  - but still not great.

Yes, I agree that Oksana tends to bend at the waist on landings but she
doesn't break at the shoulders and her landings are  soild 99% of the time
whereas the same can't be said for most. What I'm driving at is  - that's a
habit  - and I agree it's playing it a little safe (when Bogie did it we
called it "landing with a safe on her back") but it is not a detraction like
flat feet, bent knees, or waving arms.

I would call Oksana's connections better too; smoother ... neater. And since
I have shots at the top of her leaps/jumps she's plenty high and split on
those. Shannon's cheating and not really getting her back leg up there
(there's another something that Bogie could be guilty of on a nerve set).
 She lacks the height of Fab (I'm talking here from the prospective of
someone who's watched both routines through a camera lens which gives you a
pretty good sense of how good they leap if nothing else ... with poor leapers
you find yourself  going "Damn ... missed it" all the time - at least I do -
but with people like Li Li I can literally get 3 or even 4 shots of her at
her peak without even trying) too but that's probably more a body type thing
then anything else.

Okay another Shannon cripe for me. Her head. She never takes her eyes off the
beam. Fabrichnova pulls her head up after each move... really finishes it off
cleanly and gives her an air of confidence like "Hey look at that."

Now I'm not saying Oksana is perfect. She's still not on revele enough for
me, her arms aren't quite as fluid as I like (though she has very ncie
hands), and her pauses to reassure her self on landings are a split second or
two too long and can mar the togetherness of the set depending how "on" she
is (the more trouble she's in the longer the pauses get which is the same for
most gymnasts). Overall though I'd give her credit for a more "complete"
routine then Shannon's.

I know you were matching up difficulty via the code but I'd give a lot more
credit to an extra layout in the series then a Miller (or whatever it is)
done on it's own. That's just one point but this is lengthy enough so I'll
sum it up now with this ...

>>I can think of dozens of gymnasts who are far more elegant then Shannon on
this piece.<<
>Certainly, but is Fab one of them?<

To my mind yes. I can then think of dozens (well not dozens competeing now
but ... ) of gymnasts who are more elegant then she.  In this final of this
meet though she was *it*.



Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 14:43:47 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Goodwill Beam EF ... Fab vs Shannon; the Code

[This is from Adriana and I found it interesting enough to pass on ... Susan]

Ok, here we go.  I didn't want to respond before I had a chance to look over
the routines again and confirm (or not) my initial impressions.
Content (I'm starting with the Code as it is, not necessarily how it should

Miller:  front tuck to jump (D,B); switch leap-Omelianchik, quarter turn-back
extension (C+D,B); ff-layout-layout (B+C+C); "Miller" (D); split leap-sissone
(A+A); ro-full-in (B+E)

Value Parts: complete (4 B's, 3 C's, 3 D's, 1 E)
Special Requirements: complete
Extra D/E: 1 extra D (+0.1), 1 extra E (+0.2) = +0.3
Special Connections: C+D mixed (+0.2), B+C+C acro (+0.1) = +0.3
Start Value = 10.0

So Shannon just makes a 10.0.  I didn't give her credit for the mixed series
on her mount b/c she had a balance break and as a result it wasn't connected
enough.  If it had been, that's +0.2, assuming the jump were counted as a B,
which it would be by most people, but she was just borderline in my book b/c
her leg didn't reach 90 degrees.  You're supposed to give the gymnast the
benefit of the doubt, so I did, but having devalued it to an A would've made
no difference anyway, b/c I didn't give her credit for the connection as it
was and she had enough other B's (she needed 2).  The Miller (long
explanation):  I'm a little uncertain about something.  In '93, Miller
submitted to the Women's Technical Committee a new trick described as  an
Omelianchik *hop* 1/2 which was rated an E, and Milosovici submitted an
Omelianchik to regular 1/2 pirouette, which was rated D, same as a plain
Omelianchik.  Milo didn't do it at all and what Miller did was nowhere near a
hop, so neither trick made it into the Code.  I don't know what's happened
since, whether Miller backed down to a regular 1/2 and got that in the Code
or whether she's gotten credit for a hop, which would be ridiculous, since to
my knowledge she's never done anything even approaching it.  The thing is, I
don't know whether an Omelianchik to a regular 1/2 pirouette exists as its
own move as a whole, b/c after all, it's just an Omelianchik followed by a
1/2 pirouette in handstand, both of which exist independently.  The point of
this is that what she did at Goodwills was the D element, and I don't think
not having hit the handstand after the pirouette would affect the value, b/c
she *did* successfully complete the Omelianchik, which in itself is a D.
 (Btw, if this were an E devalued to a D, she'd still be ok b/c although
devalued tricks don't get bonus, they do count as value parts, and since you
have to calculate to the benefit of the gymnast, what you do is count the
devalued element as one of her 2 required D's and the third D gets the 0.1
bonus.  Only a D devalued to a C would've brought her start value down to a
9.9.)  So I'm not sure what's up with that.  Does Jackie Fie have email? :)

Moving along...
Fabrichnova:  front tuck-sissone (D+A); ff-layout-layout-layout (B+C+C+C);
front tuck (D); sissone-ff (A+B); cradle (B); switch leap-jump (what's that
tuck/pike thing called, anyway?) (C+B); ro-full-in (B+E)

Value Parts: complete (5 B's, 4 C's, 2 D's, 1 E)
Special Requirements: missing full turn (-0.1)
Extra D/E: 1 extra E (+0.2) = +0.2
Special Connections: D+A mixed (+0.1), B+C+C+C acro (+0.2), C+B gym (+0.1) =
+0.4 but the max you can get is +0.3
Start Value = 9.8

Obviously that's not what they said was her start value, and the difference
was the full turn.  I wouldn't give her credit b/c her free leg should have
landed in back of her for it to count (if this had been a judges' course,
they wouldn't have counted it).  Fabrichnova actually had as much bonus as
Miller in absolute terms, but she had too much in connections and not enough
in extra D's and E's.

In absolute terms, assuming both hit everything (but not including the hop
1/2.  I'm not sure she's even trying to do it as a hop), Miller would have
0.3 in extra D/E's and 0.5 in connections; Fabrichnova would have the same as
she did in the meet (0.2 and 0.4).

Now the question is, does that accurately reflect the real difficulty of the

Dismount:  the dismount is the same, so that's easy to compare.

Mount:  both had the same mount, except Miller's jump was a B and Fab's an A;
that's reflected in 0.2 bonus versus 0.1 bonus, but it's questionable whether
the difference in difficulty warrants a full tenth  difference in bonus.

Gym series:  here Fab has 0.1 one bonus to Miller's none.  One might wonder
whether a full tenth difference is warranted here too, but on the other hand,
both of her leaps were more difficult, unlike in the mount series, where both
had the same first element and only on the second one did Miller do more

Acro series:  Fab had 3 layouts to Miller's 2, which is reflected in 0.2
bonus to 0.1.

Mixed series:  Miller has 0.2 bonus to Fab's none.  Even if the Omelianchik
were a C (and probably it should be no less, especially if one grants a B for
Fab's ff), it's still a C+C = 0.2 bonus.  If a switch leap were a B, she'd
still have B+C and 0.1 bonus (and if a switch were a B, Fab would get no
bonus for her gym series).  It's arguable that 0.2 is too much of a
difference, but it's at least 0.1.

Individual trick (this isn't any sort of official title; it was just a
convenient category for comparing the routines):  Fab's front tuck and
Miller's Miller (or whatever it is).  If she hopped, the tricks would be at
least comparable, and one might even say the Miller is harder.  But she
doesn't, so Fab has more difficulty.  An Omelianchik should probably be a C,
but the quick 1/2 pirouette (as opposed to a slower one like the 1/4 she does
after the first Omelianchik) does make the trick a little harder, so the
difference in difficulty between Fab and Miller is just slightly less than if
Miller did just a plain Omelianchik.

Miscellany:  they're about the same here.  A cradle and a back extension are
both B's; a Valdez an A.

So where does that leave us?  Fab has more difficulty in the gym series, acro
series and individual trick; Miller more in the mount and mixed series.  So
Fab has more difficulty, but it's not by a huge amount.  And then there's the
AWOL full turn.

Deductions (these are the ones I would take, not the ones taken):
Miller: .05 balance break on the mount, .10 for problems on the Miller, .10
for the hop on the dismount = 0.25

Fabrichnova: .05 insufficient split on the first sissone, .05 balance break
on the layout series, front tuck, and right after the front tuck, .10
insufficient split on the second sissone = 0.30

I would've liked a better angle on their gym series; I couldn't be sure what
they looked like.

In the "je ne sais quois" category, I like Fab's rhythm, but I don't like how
she sticks her butt out so much.  Miller looks a lot more secure, which is
nice.  The way Fab lands her tricks makes her look less secure.

Now to respond specifically to a couple of things:

>Sure Fab's full turns suck, but Shannon has the most timid leaps (silly
really since she *can* leap) this side of Deva.

True she was hesitant on the leaps she connected to tumbling, but my major
complaint about Fab is precisely her leaps (on beam and floor).  Especially
the ones connected to tumbling.  She didn't hit a split on either sissone,
and the second one in particular was just awful.  She seems to do better on
her switch leaps, but they're low (I'm thinking in general now; like I said,
I didn't have a good enough angle on the one she did in beam finals to be
sure).  Not that Shannon soars, b/c she doesn't, but she's consistently
adequate in height and consistently hits 180 (which kind of goes together,
since normally it takes a certain amount of height to have time to split
completely.  Rhythmic gymnasts tend to defy this, but they're weird).  I do
think Shannon does better on her leaps, and the full turns don't even begin
to compare.

>All in all Fabrichnova's routine was superior in both difficulty, execution,
and the only thing the judges seem to notice; that stuck landing.<

Difficulty, yes, stuck landing, yes, but execution?  How so?

>I can think of dozens of gymnasts who are far more elegant then Shannon on
this piece.<

Certainly, but is Fab one of them?

So I guess that's my $0.02


Date: Tue, 09 Aug 1994 02:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***
Subject: gymn Digest V1 #162

I did not mean to imply that Kerri having the National Staff as her coaches
was a bad thing gymnasticly for Kerri, far from it! And I agree that having
Muriel especially as a coach will be very good for her! I was simply trying
to point out that the potential for bias is a bit too obvious. I had this
discussion with a few of the Sr. International coaches and drew mixed
responses. It is at the moment a rather 'touchy' subject with the National
Staff. As was pointed out to me, the members of the National Staff can not
be denied the right to make a living at coaching. The pay for a National
Staff member is NOT enough to survive on, coaching Kerri or WHOEVER brings
in additional monies to let them continue to keep coaching. I sympathize!
However, there will be a normal human response to favor those students, this
si why we have rules for judges being affiliated, etc.
    My response was, that if USGA can have a president making 6 figures and
support their collection of office people, why can't we pay our National
Staff full time salaries so they can make a living? Where are their
priorities? Might we not have the cart before the horse here? I thought the
USGA, as the USOC's designated governing body for our sport, had an
obligation to the needs of our National Teams, Elite and JO, that superseded
their obligations to Marketing, certifying everything that moves, etc.,
that's what comes with being the designated governing body as opposed to the
YMCA or AAU, etc. And we can't even support a National Coaching Staff? Seems
an odd situation. I know that a lot of these other functions are good for
the sport as a whole, I don't deny this, but I am not asking for a lot here,
just reasonable compensation for our core group of coaches who are
responsible for choosing and training our National Teams so these issues do
not arise.
    Now if they are doing this just because they want to, no matter what the
benefit to Kerri or any single gymnast, I must protest that this is wrong,
unfair, and should be stopped. Let them train with the staff at camps like
everyone else orlet the coaches leave the National Staff and coach the
gymnast full time.
    Comments welcome people...BJ


Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 11:05:02 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Lilia P.'s floor music

> Does anyone know the name of Lilia's floor music?Thanks!  
> Melanie

The name of the music is Hava Negilah. 



Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 23:26:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***>
Subject: Reporter for Commonwealth Games

Hey Gymn,

In the past we've had some confusion as to whether people were merely
writing up reports on a meet on their own accord, or rather if they
were Gymn's official representative at the meet.  So, in the future, I
will announce it when we have an official reporter/representative for
the meet. 

Anyways, the reporter for the Commonwealth Games' artistic gymnastics
competition (Aug 19-22 in Victoria, CAN) is Karen Kuder



Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 05:30:56 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Smith Out Of Commonwealth for Aussies

>From the Oz AP article by Terry O'Conner ... Direct quotes are noted other
stuff is well "gleaned" (read: rephrased so Rachele doesn't yell at me <g>)

Jenny Smith (14 and China Cup AA Champion) from West Australia injured her
left knee while training floor last weekend and has been pulled off the
Commonwealth team 3 days before they're due to leave for Canada. They have
all been training together [what a concept eh?] at the Australian Institute
of Sport (AIS). The offcial announcement was delayed to allow her time to
return home.

[Peggy Browne Aussie Gym Fed. Exec] "She was our best medal hope. We were
pretty confident of her prospects, she could have taken  the gold medal on
the floor. Smith's withdrawal may also affect Australia's  chances of a team
gold medal, but stressed the team was still  capable of finishing in the top
Her place will be taken by Clare Cribbes (15 and the '93 Jr. National
Champion) from the Cheltenham Youth Club in Victoria. She was the girl left
off in favor of Joanna in the third and final trial.
"Her accident was reminiscent of national champion Joanna Hughes'  experience
during warm-up for the world championships in Brisbane  in April. Hughes
broke ligaments in her left ankle and spent seveal  weeks in plaster."

"Browne said Australia would bring five women to the Games and  delay naming
the actual four-strong competition team until the day  before competition
begins on August 19 (August 20 in Australia)."
The new women's team is: Cribbes, Hughes, Ruth Moniz (16, NSW),  Salli Wills
(14, WA), Rebecca Stoyel (15, SA).



Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 14:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: ***
Subject: Soviet System

Susans post kinda chilled me to the bone.

While Im a pro-choice guy
(The entire matter should be decided by the women,
and since we guys dont get preggers
{I LOVE that word !}
we guys oughtta stay the heck out of it.
[Please dont let this become a thread !] )

I mean if you get in a bind and you really NEED it done, then OK.
But doing it over and over just to build endurance ?

Anyway, the procedure is not without its risks (Hemhoraging etc)
Considering the Russian medical situation
(short on supplies & lax on sanitation)
I am concerned about placing women in such risks.

Methinks the Russians are going to lose their edge if they keep doing stuff like
this.  I mean something like this has the potential for killing off or crippling
athletes (blood clots etc).

Re the subject of the aftermath of Chernobyl:

(I KNOW you are getting bored with it but please bear with me !)

A couple of the byproducts of almost all nuclear leaks/accidents/detonations,
are radiactive Cesium & Strontium.  I think its Strontium 90 and Cesium 70,
but Im fuzzy on the numbers.

Anyway, children are growing and use a lot of Calcium in the process of bone
& muscle growth.  Seems that if its present Cesium & Strontium will be absorbed
by the body which mistakes them for Calcium.
(Look at the column in the periodic chart of the elements to see why )

There are now reports of widespread Strontium & Cesium contamination throughout
the former USSR.

What this means is that if you start the clock ticking at the time of the
plant explosion, and go out a generation, I suspect that the birth defects
food chain contamination and all the rest of the toxic waste will yield
a generation of Russian athletes inferior to the USSR athletes we have
watched over the past years.  Since we have lowered the median age for female
gymnasts so far down that they are kids rather than women, thye will suffer
the most, therefore I suspect that
I have seen the peak of Russian female gymnastics.

10-15 years from now, they will have a very difficult time getting girls
to the pinacle of excellence we have seen.  Contaminate the milk, you kill
the kid.

Very very sad.

Heaven forbid something should happen here, but if it does, carefully watch
the calcium branch of the food tree.


Date: Tue, 09 Aug 94 14:12:19 EDT
From: <**@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Soviet System

As someone who's fairly recently been pregnant (omigosh I can't believe
my baby's already 11 months old!) my comment on this issue is: "WHAT?!?!?"

I was completely exhausted during both my first and third trimesters,
and this is quite typical.  I really don't think it did anything for my
long- term stamina either, though the noisy sleepless little creature I
took home is certainly confounding the issue.  Sure, your body absorbs
more nutrients, but they go straight to the baby, you don't get to keep
any for yourself until after you've met the baby's needs.  And this
stops very shortly after birth unless you're breastfeeding (in which
case the nutrients still go toward milk production, not your own
body).  And a gymnast in this program certainly couldn't train much
past the first couple of months as her, uh, center of gravity would
shift somewhat (at least one of the prior postings on this topic
mentioned terminating late in the pregnancy), and like I said before
the exhaustion and often extreme sickness of the first trimester would
also rule out any serious training, even in sports like running and
swimming which would be ok to continue during pregnancy, though I find
it hard to believe being pregnant would lend itself to very good training.

So, I don't believe it.  I just can't see what benefit they'd really get
out of it.  Or maybe I just don't want to believe it.  I'm pro-choice too,
but the idea of conceiving a life you fully intend to terminate (especially
past the first trimester) just for the side-effects is truly unbearable.


p.s. as long as we're sort of on the subject of pregnancy/babies, I'll
throw in a brief Ryan update:  2 teeth, walking like a pro, says "da da",
the occaisional "ma ma" and often "ta ta" while waving goodbye.


Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 17:02:53 EDT
From: <***>
Subject: Soviet system

     I am also very skeptical about the story that the Soviets deliberately
impregnated their athletes before major competitions. It didn't make much sense
to me when I saw it on the "More Than a Game" show. As Susan said, the people
making the accusations seemed to be implying that this was done to gymnasts,
but I don't see how this can really be true since (a) puberty is delayed in
most gymnasts, and I doubt it would be possible to impregnate them even if you
wanted to!; (b) morning sickness and hard gymnastics training just don't seem
to go together; and (c) the Soviet medical system is lousy and I don't think
anyone would be up for a major competition after having had an abortion
USSR-style (the death rate from abortions is high over there). But the MTAG
show is really very confusing. The woman who makes the accusation is a Russian
journalist, not a Westerner. I don't know why she would make something like
that up about her own country. If a Westerner had said it, I'd brush it off as
someone still suffering from the "evil empire" syndrome. I have this show on
tape (as does Susan), and I can copy it for anyone who's interested. I'd like
to get the opinions of other people who have seen the show and heard the
Russian journalist. I also have "Are You Going to the Ball?", a 1987 Soviet
documentary on the gymnastics systems, and it paints a rather negative picture,
but doesn't say anything about getting the girls pregnant. (The "star" is the
then-unknown Tatiana Groshkova!).



Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 16:13:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: <***>
Subject: Soviet System

Hi everyone,

My concern is what about the gymnasts' families. Are they aware of this
(assuming this technique is true)? I'm assuming that they are
impregnating these girls while they are 14 or 15 year olds or even
younger. It makes me shiver just thinking about it! I find it hard to
swallow the idea of Boguinskaya, Gutsu (my favorite), Kochetkova...etc. ever
being pregnant. Say it isn't so somebody!




Date: Tue, 09 Aug 94 18:52:37 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Soviet System

Okay let's start again with everyone following along closely. The impregating
and then aborting concept by Soviet athletes was presented in a docushock
flick (called "More Then Just A Game" and shown on A&E here in the US) put
together by the BBC to showcase the "cruel" Sov system of sport. The program
focused on *all* Olympic women athletes but used a lot of Krugloye footage in
the episode that mentioned this concept... hence the confusion. It was
alleged that some female Soviet athletes - **** DISTANCE RUNNERS MOSTLY ****
-  were impregneted to "make their body absorb nutrients better" and then the
pregnancy was aborted before a competition. It was ***NEVER ALLEGED THAT
GYMNASTS DID THIS*** though confusion may have arisen since they used
close-ups of Bogie to accentuate the drama of this point in the film.  I have
no idea if it's true or not. To me the benefits sound far *far* outweighed by
the illness and fatigue associcated with pregnancy. It seems a bit far

Most female gymnasts are training hard enough that they don't even have their
period so pregnancy is not likely.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. I know of a rhythmic girl (and
if anyone lacks the body fat to produce eggs it's the RSG babes) who got
pregnant by accident back in '88 possibly keeping her from the Olympics.
 Well I assume it was an accident as she was a gold medalist in the Worlds
('87 clubs I think) and I'm sure hoping to make the Soeul team. FYI, I'm
talking about Anna Kotchneva who's married to Valeri Liukin and the baby was
their daughter (now 6) Anastasia (I think they also have a son but I'm not
sure). They currently live in Texas where Valeri and Evgeny Marchenko (many
times SA world champ) own a gym.  Wonder if Liukin's really retired yet? Just
to throw in my favorite Liukin quote Is she [his wife, Anna] taller then you?
"Of course everyone is taller then me" Also for any of you that were
wondering yes RSG girls do develop bumps and curves after being out of the
sport. She looks like a real live human being now.

Anyway back to the point ...

There is little or no reliable birth control in the Soviet Union and little
money for raising multiple childern. I know that the statistic I heard a few
years back (when there was still a USSR)  is that the average Soviet woman
would have 2 childern and 13 abortions in her lifetime. Abortions are free
and birth control - if you can even find it that is - is very expensive.

Now are we all on the same wave length here?



Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 00:09:00 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Soviet system

>As Susan said, the people  making the accusations seemed to be implying that
this was done to gymnasts<

LAST TIME! What Susan said was that they SAID distance runners NOT



Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 10:18:18 BST
From: ***
Subject: Soviet System

Susan attempted to clear the confusion.
>confusion may have arisen since they used close-ups of
>Bogie to accentuate the drama of this point in the
film.  I have
>no idea if it's true or not.

I was going to say I was getting very confused by all
these posts about
this Soviet System and this BBC program which as far as I can
remember only ever showed stuff about Soviet block
female athletes and
how they took steroids which increased their body size so
they were stronger than the average female competitor.

Susan is correct they never showed anything that said that
gymnastics was involved in any of it, I mean in any
case the steroid stuff
would be instanlty recognisable, it would female gymnasts
who  looked like some kind of body builder would be
noticed and the
pregnancy thing sounds too improbable to apply to any sport let
alone gymnastics, I mean again it would show up
something ridiculous.

Anyway Im glad that confusion was cleared up, I was beginning to
think I had missed an interesting bit of the program.



Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 13:40:13 -0400
From: ***
Subject: spotters

Connie wrote:

>>Question: Is it safer for a gymnast to fall on the mat or be somehow
>>"caught" by a coach spotting?

This is a real good question.  I guess it would depend upon what the gymnast was
doing at the time of the fall, but 9 times out of 10, I'd rather be caught by
a spotter than land on any mat, no matter how big the mat was.

>>I've rarely, if ever, seen a coach put
>>his/her body on the line to save a gymnast from a truly ugly fall....

A coach should ALWAYS do what WHATEVER it takes to catch a falling gymnast.
If not, he/she should get out of the business.  I've seen miraculous catches by
spotters that have definitely saved the lives of gymnasts.  One in particular
was Tim Daggett's high school coach catching him while he was performing on
highbar.  Any time that you place yourself under a gymnast falling fast from
12 feet in the air, you are definitely putting your own health at risk.  What a
great coach he was (also a great catch!).

In the case of the Goodwill Games with the falls of Drew Durbin and Chainey's
highbar dismount, there was really nothing that the spotters could do.  Drew let
go at the bottom of his swing and he was going too fast for the spotter to get
under him.  I'm impressed that Drew was able to turn onto his side/back in time
to prevent himself from falling on his head/neck/chest.  For Chainey, there was
also no way that his spotter could catch him.  Again I'm impressed that Chainey
actually landed on his feet (great body awareness).

In the reverse of this, I remember attending a Boston State meet back in the
late 70s with my high school coach.  On high bar, just about every gymnast fell,
with the spotter never even getting a hand "near" the gymnast.  My coach and I
were joking that the spotter was catching the guys "on the bounce".



Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 05:08:57 EDT
From: ***
Subject: USA Championships Tickets Info

This has been posted before but since someone wasn't paying attention (Duh
Billy what a dork ... like you couldn't find this stuff out at the gym or by
calling but whatever <g>) and there may other lurkers or newbies out there of
like mind so it here it is one last time:

DATE:                   EVENT:                    TIME:     TICKETS:
Wednesday, August 24    Jr. Womens Compulsories   10:00 am  $5.00 all
                        Jr./Sr. Mens Comp.         2:00 pm  $5.00 all
                        Sr. Womens Compulsories    7:00 pm  $15/$8/$5

Thursday, August 25     Jr. Womens Optionals       2:00 pm  $5 all
                        Jr. & Sr. Mens Optionals   7:00 pm  $15/$8/$5

Friday, August 26       Sr. Womens Optionals       7:00 pm  $20/$15/$10

Saturday, August 27     Sr. Mens Individual Events 1:00 pm  $20/$15/$10
                        Sr. Womens Indiv. Events   6:00 pm  $20/$15/$10

Tickets are on sale at all Ticket Pro locations including Municipal
Auditorium Box Office, Hickory Hollow Mall Customer Service Center and
Sheplers Western Wear in Rivergate.  Reserved tickets (with or without credit
card) call (615) 291-5000 or (outside Nashville) 1-800-834-5678. For group
discounts, call (615) 832-0250.

This is from the USAG BBS on Delphi Com. for more info call the USAG at (317)

- posted by Susan


Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 17:06:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***>
Subject: US Classic PR

Here's a Press Release from USA Gymnastics about the US Classic:

Date: August 8, 1994
Luan Peszek, Director of Public Relations
Ramonna Robinson, Manager of Public Relations

Amanda Borden Wins U.S. Classic

1994 World Championships team member Amanda Borden (Cincinnati, Ohio)
won the U.S. Classic held August 5-6 at the Palm Springs Convention
Center in Palm Springs, Calif.  The U.S. Classic was a qualifying
event for the 1994 Coca-Cola National Gymnastics Championships,
scheduled August 24-27 in Nashville, Tenn.

In the Junior Division, Katie Teft (Lansing, Mich.) won the all-around
with a score of 73.000.

1992 Olympian Dominique Dawes (Silver Spring, Md.) was leading the
compulsory competition, however, did not compete in the optional

1992 Olympian Kerri Strug fell off bars during the compulsory
competition and was taken to the hospital for observations. Strug was
released from the hospital the following day, Sunday, August 7.

Another 1992 Olympian, Wendy Bruce (Altamonte Springs, Fla.), finished
10th all-around after compulsories but did not compete in the optional
competition.  Below is a list of the final rankings.

1.Amanda Borden/Cincinnati, Ohio/Cincinnati Gym./75.390
2.Amy Chow/San Jose, Calif./West Valley/75.100
3.Jaycie Phelps/Cincinnati, Ohio/Cincinnati Gym./74.250
4.Summer Reid/Sparks, Nev./Flips/73.470
5.Kara Fry/Allentown, Pa./Parkettes/72.930
6.Samantha Muhleman/Cincinnati, Ohio/Cincinnati Gym./72.650
7.Ashley Kever/Austin, Texas/Capital/72.540
8.Jenni Beathard/Altamonte Springs, Fla./Brown's/72.520
9.Jessica Washburn/Pompano Beach, Fla./American Twisters/72.100
10.Eileen Diaz/Houston, Texas/Cypress/72.030

1.Katie Teft/Lansing, Mich./Great Lakes/73.000
2.Theresa Kulikowski/Colorado Springs, Colo./Colorado Aerials/72.890
3.Mary Beth Arnold/Sparks, Nev./Flips/72.480
4.Kristen Maloney/Allentown, Pa./Parkettes/71.530
5.Andrea Pickens/Houston, Texas/Cypress/70.650
6.Tara Tagliarino/Pompano Beach, Fla./American Twisters/70.260
7.Kristin Stucky/Milwaukee, Wis./Salto/69.840
8.Cassidy Vreeke/Murray, Utah/Rocky Mountain/69.610
9.Deidra Graham/Sandy, Utah/Olympus/69.430
10.Taryn Apgood/Sandy, Utah/Olympus/69.420



End of gymn Digest