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)
spotters
USA Championships Tickets Info
US Classic PR
This is a digest of the gymn@athena.mit.edu
mailing list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 08 Aug 94 10:47:12 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: AAU results
Does
anyone have results from the Jr. Olympics?
I am looking for the other
girls' age
groups that were not posted.
Thanks
Debbie
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 09 Aug 94 17:25:12 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
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.
Susan
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 9 Aug 94 17:39:32 PDT
From: <***@holonet.net>
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.
--Tim
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 9 Aug 1994 13:32:35 +1000
From: <***@pharm.med.upenn.edu>
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.
Thanks
Mayland
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 94 12:28:54 EST
From: ***@email.cfr.org
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.
Also:
I noticed his coach
standing next to the highbar spotting Drew (before
his
fall).
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....
Connie
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 1994 13:16:54 -0400 (edt)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
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: ***@aol.com
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*.
Susan
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 08 Aug 94 14:43:47 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
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
be):
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
routines?
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
difficulty.
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
:)
Adriana
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 09 Aug 1994 02:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
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: ***@aol.com
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.
Debbie
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 9 Aug 1994 23:26:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***@owlnet.rice.edu>
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
(kuder@cs.ubc.ca).
Rachele
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 08 Aug 94 05:30:56 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
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
three."
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).
Susan
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 8 Aug 1994 14:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: ***@netcom.com
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.
--Robyn
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: <***@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
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!).
Beth
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 9 Aug 1994 16:13:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: <***@husc.harvard.edu>
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!
-Alex
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 09 Aug 94 18:52:37 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
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
fetched.
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?
Susan
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 94 00:09:00 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
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
GYMNASTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
Susan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 10:18:18
BST
From: ***@axion.bt.co.uk
Subject: Soviet System
Susan
attempted to clear the confusion.
>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.
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.
Clive
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 94 13:40:13 -0400
From: ***@riscee.bxb.dec.com
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".
Steve
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 08 Aug 94 05:08:57 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
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)
237-5050
- posted by Susan
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 9 Aug 1994 17:06:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***@owlnet.rice.edu>
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
competition.
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.
SENIORS
#/Name/Residence/Club/Score
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
JUNIORS
#/Name/Residence/Club/Score
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-
------------------------------
End of
gymn Digest
******************************