Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 7
Christine Brennan of the USA Today says Paul Hamm should give up his gold medal out of good sportsmanship.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2004-08-22-brennan-hamm_x.htm

I have to say I disagree with this call. There is very little perfection in sports. All athletes know this going into their sport. Officials make mistakes. We see that here all the time in our sports. Calls get blown. Officials do not see errors. It happens. The NFL tries to correct this with instant replay, but in a limited fashion. If the Super Bowl was won by a team, and a penalty was not called, the NFL would never overturn the win.

In the All-Around competition the other night, officials made an error. South Korea knows the rules. They had a limited amount of time to register a complaint, but complained after the fact. Now they want their medal.

Paul Hamm competed fairly, and has done nothing wrong. While I understand the point Ms. Brennan is making in her article, he should not give up his medal. He won it as fairly as he knew how. A good gesture would be to award a second gold medal, but I am even wondering about that.

I'm very sorry for the South Korean gymnast. I am sure he is very hurt about what happened. I hope the situation will be resolved shortly. I just don't believe Paul Hamm needs to give up his medal.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I just think it's too bad that Paul Hamm's medal win has to be overshadowed by this.... I'm sure he's not feeling wonderful about his win now that people are questioning the outcome!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't believe Hamm should have to give up his medal. In his own words, he'll abide by the decision of the governing bodies on this one.

However, I would be massively impressed with him if he said "I can't accept this knowing that my opponent deserved it" and gave it up willingly. He shouldn't HAVE to, but if he did, I'd be really, really impressed.

--WP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, I would be massively impressed with him if he said "I can't accept this knowing that my opponent deserved it" and gave it up willingly. He shouldn't HAVE to, but if he did, I'd be really, really impressed.



I agree, but I would rather it come from him, and not on any pressure on him.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I am almost ready to write to this columnist for such bs? The Olympics like other sports will always have a margin of error..we are human including the officials.

Here is something to chew on. Would this be a big deal if the scandal in 2002 did not occur?

I am shocked by some sports writers who think he should give up the medal. In that case being a Sabres fan, someone call Dallas Stars and tell them to give back the 1999 Stanley Cup for Hull's skate in the crease.

Hamm's performance is one of the most memorable comebacks, it was drama, nailing biting and ranks up their with New England's superbowl win.

It is ashame for the first two years after these Olympics the controversy will be there but hopefully for Hamm's case it will die down...

Jeff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think that's a bit ridiculous. We don't know what might have happened if the Korean's routine had been scored out of a tenth higher start value. We don't know how he would have scored, we don't know if Paul Hamm's routine would have scored even better than it did if the Korean's routine had been scored higher. If Paul Hamm were to give up his medal, would the 2nd place finisher be expected to give up his medal to Hamm? I have to agree with Tim Daggett when he said "at some point, the game has to be over."

I have not really seen scoring controversy like this before (admittedly I only get to watch major meets on TV and college meets, so for all I know it happens all the time elsewhere). It seemed to only happen in the men's this time too - but don't they submit their routines in advance and shouldn't they know what their start values are in advance? Two members of the US men's team were told 2 days before that their routines were going to be scored lower, then Brett McClure's final routine (rings, I think) had a lower start value than normal. I guess I don't understand how this happens. When I watch diving, everyone knows what the degree of difficulty of the dive is, and there's no "at this meet it's scored out of a 3, but at this meet they scored it out of a 3.4." Though I know these sports will always be subjective, it seems they would want to standardize them as much as possible. Any gymnastics experts want to weigh in on this? Steph?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We don't know what might have happened if the Korean's routine had been scored out of a tenth higher start value.



News reports over the weekend showed had his score been based on the higher value, the South Korean would have won the gold. If you want I can try to find the article.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We don't know what might have happened if the Korean's routine had been scored out of a tenth higher start value.

---

News reports over the weekend showed had his score been based on the higher value, the South Korean would have won the gold. If you want I can try to find the article.


That may be true mathematically, but we don't know how it may have changed things psychologically. Who knows, Hamm might have been a little more perfect on his last apparatus, or he might have thought that any medal was out of his reach and failed to perform as well as he did.

Plaidy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We don't know what might have happened if the Korean's routine had been scored out of a tenth higher start value.



News reports over the weekend showed had his score been based on the higher value, the South Korean would have won the gold. If you want I can try to find the article.


Yes, if you added a tenth to his score directly, he would have won the gold (as would the silver medalist, and possibly several others, I don't know). But we don't know that just because his routine was judged from a tenth higher start value that he would have actually gotten that tenth. I'm not talking about numerical possibilites, I'm talking about what might actually have happened. It is also possible that had he gotten a tenth higher, Paul Hamm would also have gotten a tenth higher, because gymnastics judging is subjective, traditionally gymnasts performing later receive higher scores from the judges (which is why it is a handicap to go first). Paul Hamm might have known he needed an even higher score and might even have done just a little bit better and gotten a higher score. We just do not know what would have happened, because we can't rewrite the past.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since these are subjective decisions, if the South Korean's score had been accurately recorded, might the judges have scored Hamm's higher, thinking that his great comeback deserved the gold?

mary
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Since these are subjective decisions, if the South Korean's score had been accurately recorded, might the judges have scored Hamm's higher, thinking that his great comeback deserved the gold?

That's one of the points I'm trying to make..I don't think that short of going back and redoing the competition there is a fair way to handle this. It is a shame.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
News reports over the weekend showed had his score been based on the higher value, the South Korean would have won the gold. If you want I can try to find the article.

Charlie


I think the point is that nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything that happens after the scoring error is unique. You just can't go in arbitrarily at any one point and change something and then say the end result is valid.
How would Hamm have responded if the Korean had gotten the correct scoring? Would he have done even better on his last two rotations or would he have folded and choked? No one knows. Good, bad or indifferent the competition is over and thats it.

A side note to my fellow hockey fans. The crease rule was stupid when pen first hit paper. I always hated it and I play goal...Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So are they all supposed to get together and have a big trade? Give me a break! Paul giving up his Gold medal would get him nothing. I doubt he would feel the way the columnist would like him to feel, he earned a medal, but giving his Gold up would leave him with none. She never mentions what the South Koreans should do, are they expected to give one of their medals to Paul?

Yes, something went wrong here, FIA should step up and either change the results or award another Gold (personally I doubt they would award a duplicate Gold since they didn't want any ties, just look at the can of worms they would open up after last night's apparatus finals.)

I just can't understand though how the rules could be so unclear. If South Korea complained at the time knowing that was the thing to do and were told to wait until after and they thought it was wrong, they should have thrown a BIG stink, instead they just said okay.

Final thought is, this was a judging error by a group, we shouldn't be asking one man to make up for their mistake.

=) Megan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
News reports over the weekend showed had his score been based on the higher value, the South Korean would have won the gold. If you want I can try to find the article.


Only if that higher score didn't affect any of the following events.

If Paul had known the bar was .1 higher maybe he would have performed even better and still won.

That is why all of that is supposed to be taken care of earlier. Not after the fact.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know why there is even a discussion about whether Hamm should give up his gold. There is no do-over in judging in most sports. I remember Maradona knocking in a goal with his hand in a World Cup match many years ago. Argentina won that match and moved on to win the World Cup. Nobody said Argentina should give up the cup or even that match in question. There are many similar no calls or blown calls in other sports. It is tough luck although I think instant replay could have prevented a lot of these snafu. But some people complain it will disrupt the "flow" of the game.

If they go back and look at the scoring for all the events, they would find out they were a tenth too high or a tenth too low here and there. There would be no end to it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hello hugebabyboy,

"There is no do-over in judging in most sports. I remember Maradona knocking in a goal with his hand in a World Cup match many years ago."

Funny that you mention a soccer (football) game. I wanted to comment for the situation with gymnastics, the audience imo here has a soccer culture and reacts in "soccer-ways". Gymnastics is supposed to be totally different with quiet crowds, no disruptions etc.
From what I read in the local papers the troubles with gymnastics started from day 1 I think with the disqualification of the Greek athlet Maras who was a big hope for a medal. He was competing in the qualifying round first in the morning, the judges gave him a "tough" score of 9.725 if I recall and then at the afternoon they were very "loose" with their scores offering high scores to everyone. According to what the gymnastics people here claim, Maras was "hammered" by this. Then there is Khorkina complaining then the mistake with the Korean and Hamm; comes out the judge who made the mistake or "mistake" with the Korean is the same one who gave the "wrong" score to Maras, the Columbian guy with some Ohio relations.
At the rings the Greek Tampacos wins, however the Bulgarian complains that his performance was better, if it was really better I would not be surprised that it was a kind of golden pill to soothe the alleged injustice towards Maras.
With all that the audience (which is not only a Greek one mind you) is already irritated; you would expect the judges to be a little more careful. Instead happens the incident with Nemov, he is kind of legendary athlet & the judges should show some respect. They make a mistake, which in the audience's eyes incidentally helps an American for third time (Khorkina-Hamm-Hamm) and at this point they feel cheated and laughed at & react the way they reacted. Still the papers here claim that the crowd was booing the judges not Hamm.
Another factor not discussed at all in most of the articles about Gymnastics has to do with the anger of the people here over couple of not gymnastics related events. Couple doping cases at one of which the majority believes the guy was unfairly accused, at another they accepted (as public opinion) to punish two "idols", a judging error case at Sailing (mistral windsurfing) where due to a mistake of judges they cancelled a race where the Greek athlet who lit the cauldron (i.e. a famous athlet) had finished 1st; he goes for gold and every single point matters, although he won fair and square and the fault was not his plus it had no influence on the final result for that race, they cancelled his win and made them repeat the race.
I say all the above not to justify behaviour X or Y, since I have no personal opinion on the technical part of gymnastics, but to show you that sometimes the way a crowd thinks is not so easy and obvious to explain without examining originally "unrelated" events.

regards
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
but don't they submit their routines in advance and shouldn't they know what their start values are in advance?

Well, no. They do not submit their routines in advance. Which isn't to say that most of the judges, having seen these routines several times, don't know what to expect. But except for vault (thye flash a 4 digit number that identifies which vault they will be doing), a gymnast does not have to declare any particular routine.

That is why you get things like the one Chinese woman who messed up and completely rearranged her bar routine causing the commentators to marvel at how well she was thinking on her feet. She got all of the moves in but in a different order. Or in individual event finals when one of the men did a front tuck at the end of his tumbling pass instead of a pike. No deduction for that (unless he had needed the higher difficulty for his start value, but he didn't).

So the gymnast and his/her coach will carefully create a routine with the highest possible start value. You can tell what the start value should be because they FIG (international giverning body for gymnastics) published what they call a code of points. That document (book really) has almost every imaginable skill listed and it's difficulty rating (A, B, C, D or E). It also has rules about how routines have to be constructed (# of skills of each difficulty level, other requirements like the 2-second hold on rings) and rules about how to judge (how much to deduct for certain mistakes, etc.). So in theory the gymnast and the coach know what the start value *should* be. Now it gets tricky.

The start value that you expect depends on you doing the skills that you planned. Let's say one of those skills on floor is a triple twisting layout. Furthermore, let's say that you were a little off and really landed after 2 and 3/4 twists but you managed to cover it really well so the casual observer thinks it looked like a great triple twist. Some of this is objective, of course, but the judges, if they want to be totally strict, can say "that wasn't a triple twist, so your start value will not reflect a triple twist in the routine" - now you have a lower start value than you thought you did even though it looks like the same exact routine. (That wasn't a perfect example, but one that I thought would be understandable.)

The deal with the American men's routines 2 days before the Olympics was more a decision on one set of skills than on their routines' start values in particular. For over a year that set of skills was given a certain value in international competitions. When the American men constructed their routines they were depending on those skills having that value. Then the decision came down that those skills would be given a lower value (which I do think is totally unfair 2 days before the competition starts!). So some of the men changed their routines to try to get a higher start value again. But it isn't like they arbitrarily said "Brett *your* routine will have a lower start value." They said "these skills will not be given the difficulty rating that you expect them to." [The cynic in me wonders if the skills were devalued specifically to target the Americans since 3 of them used that set of skills, but I don't know how many other gymnasts from other countries did too.]

I do want to hear why Brett McClure had such a low start value. I bet the American coaches protested that right away! I haven't heard if the judges saw a mistake that lowered his start value or if that was a mistake too.

Anyway, as for whether the final standings would have been different had the judges given the correct start value to Kim Dae-eun, we can't say for sure. Since it is all subjective it is possible that (possibly subconsciously) the judges saw a tiny mistake, one where they have some leeway in deducting, and decided to deduct the minimum possible "since he already is fighting a low start value and we want to reward what he is doing" instead of the maximum. Or maybe his score would have been exactly .1 higher. You can't know. I highly doubt that it was done on purpose to give Paul Hamm an edge. First of all, no one would have thought he had a chance after the fall on vault. Secondly, it isn't like the American men are beloved by all in the world of gymnastics. They haven't had the reputation of being powerhouses to aid them in getting high scores. (Reputation *does* help. It can't overcome obvious mistakes, but there are some places where judges use their own discretion.)

Whew, okay. Sorry for going on. Once you get me started...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So the gymnast and his/her coach will carefully create a routine with the highest possible start value. You can tell what the start value should be because they FIG (international giverning body for gymnastics) published what they call a code of points. That document (book really) has almost every imaginable skill listed and it's difficulty rating (A, B, C, D or E). It also has rules about how routines have to be constructed (# of skills of each difficulty level, other requirements like the 2-second hold on rings) and rules about how to judge (how much to deduct for certain mistakes, etc.). So in theory the gymnast and the coach know what the start value *should* be. Now it gets tricky.

Do you think it is getting *too* tricky? I don't remember all this confusion in the past. And I knew all this in the back of my head I suppose. I just couldn't understand why they would decide 2 days before the competition that the men's start values would be so different. I've been watching gymnastics for a long time but it seems to change much faster than I can keep up. I don't expect to be able to watch a routine and figure out what it should be scored out of (I know there are A, B, C, D and E moves, for example, but I don't know which move has which rating), but I think at least the commentators should be able to figure it out. And what is up with the tiebreaker? It appeared to be so complicated they didn't even attempt to explain it. What is wrong with ties, anyway?



I do want to hear why Brett McClure had such a low start value. I bet the American coaches protested that right away! I haven't heard if the judges saw a mistake that lowered his start value or if that was a mistake too.

Yes, I was wondering that too.

On a different note, I am so happy for Terin Humphrey and hope she actually goes on to compete for Bama!:)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The start value that you expect depends on you doing the skills that you planned. Let's say one of those skills on floor is a triple twisting layout. Furthermore, let's say that you were a little off and really landed after 2 and 3/4 twists but you managed to cover it really well so the casual observer thinks it looked like a great triple twist.

Here's a question for you. Suppose in this example, the gymnist knew that the triple wasn't feeling right, and changed the routine to a double twist. Obviously, this would lower the value of the routine, but would nailing a perfect double be worth less than not quite getting the triple? Or does it just depend on the judges?

IOW, is it better to perfectly hit the simple stuff, or better to go for the things that you might not make?

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do you think it is getting *too* tricky?

I don't think it is fundamentally different than the way it has been for as long as I remember. They change the code of points to require more harder skills (making the 10's very unlikely), but they haven't changed the basic way that routines are put together. Even when I was competing as a lowly class III-O I had to put my routine together with a certain number of B's, a smaller number of C moves, an acrobatic series, a dance series, a gym-acro series (combo of a dance skill and an acrobatic skill), etc.

I just couldn't understand why they would decide 2 days before the competition that the men's start values would be so different.

My guess, and it is ONLY a guess, is that the skill series was never officially given a D value. It had been unofficially been given that value by international judges because in general if you add an element that makes a skill harder (example - taking your eyes off the balance beam) it goes up one letter in difficulty. My cynicism says that one of the other teams out there said "Hey, this skill series keeps getting a D-value. It isn't really that hard. It shouldn't go up a letter value. I mean look at all of the other real D-value skills. This skill is much easier." So when someone raised that issue, a determination had to be made. The official determination just didn't match up with what had been unofficially practiced by international judges for more than a year. But you are right - it was an unusual circumstance. And one that I don't think was entirely fair because there have always been skills that people felt weren't as hard as the value given to them. Those tend to be the really popular skills until someone changes the code of points (in a regular annual review, not 2 days before the Olympics) to reflect the "true" difficulty of the skill. Then everyone changes to use the new "easy-D" or whatever.

And what is up with the tiebreaker? It appeared to be so complicated they didn't even attempt to explain it. What is wrong with ties, anyway?

From comments I heard it seemed like it wasn't that the gymnasts didn't want ties, but that the *Olympics* didn't want ties. So they made up or invoked already existing but seldom used tiebreaker rules for all of the sports. The commentators didn't try very hard at all to describe how it worked. It might not be all that hard in practice, but it probably requires more knowledge about how many judges are there and what they judge on and stuff like that. To insiders it might make perfect sense, but be less accessible to someone who hasn't ever heard the term "breve judge." I really don't know.

I am so happy for Terin Humphrey and hope she actually goes on to compete for Bama!:)

This is going to sound absolutely horrible. But this is the *only* reason that I'm okay with Tabitha Yim being injured and not making the US team. I'd guess that most, if not all, of the team will join the TJ Maxx Tour of Champions. For which they will be paid. Which will make them ineligible for NCAA. So at least I can watch Tabitha for 4 years at Stanford! (And if she bails like certain other gymnasts who said they would come to Stanford and then didn't - Dominique Dawes - I will be very upset.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IOW, is it better to perfectly hit the simple stuff, or better to go for the things that you might not make?

Well, first of all, changing your skill mid-routine isn't all that easy. I mean, you practice it one way forever and then decide at the last moment to do something different - it isn't going to go well. You'll get flustered or lost. There is something to be said for repetition and muscle memory.

Some people do, perhaps, practice their routines two ways. Maybe with 2 different dismounts - one "safe" for team competition and one "not so safe but more spectacular" for individual. Maybe. But my guess is that they start the routine knowing which one they'll do. They don't generally decide midway through.

But as for what is better for your score - it depends on the exact skills you are talking about. Substituting a double for a triple would really affect the final score. Possibly not as much as a fall (depending on the whole tumbling pass), but more than a step on the landing. So how badly do you think you'd screw up if you did the triple? If you were talking about 2 other skills it might come out differently. Those decisions are hard to make mid-routine.

However, there is always that self-preservation instinct that says "I'm not going to make it over in a layout, I'm going to tuck." That has less to do with how the change will affect your final score and more to do with not wanting to fall or hurt yourself.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think it is fundamentally different than the way it has been for as long as I remember. They change the code of points to require more harder skills (making the 10's very unlikely), but they haven't changed the basic way that routines are put together. Even when I was competing as a lowly class III-O I had to put my routine together with a certain number of B's, a smaller number of C moves, an acrobatic series, a dance series, a gym-acro series (combo of a dance skill and an acrobatic skill), etc.

I guess I meant the controversy over what the starting score of routines are.




From comments I heard it seemed like it wasn't that the gymnasts didn't want ties, but that the *Olympics* didn't want ties. So they made up or invoked already existing but seldom used tiebreaker rules for all of the sports. The commentators didn't try very hard at all to describe how it worked. It might not be all that hard in practice, but it probably requires more knowledge about how many judges are there and what they judge on and stuff like that. To insiders it might make perfect sense, but be less accessible to someone who hasn't ever heard the term "breve judge." I really don't know.

The Olympics as in the IOC? Are there tiebreakers in swimming? I would have sworn I saw a tie.

This is going to sound absolutely horrible. But this is the *only* reason that I'm okay with Tabitha Yim being injured and not making the US team. I'd guess that most, if not all, of the team will join the TJ Maxx Tour of Champions. For which they will be paid. Which will make them ineligible for NCAA. So at least I can watch Tabitha for 4 years at Stanford! (And if she bails like certain other gymnasts who said they would come to Stanford and then didn't - Dominique Dawes - I will be very upset.)

OK, I am really confused. I know the tour is a relatively recent thing - didn't it start with the 96 team? I know Hope Spivey competed for Georgia and she was an Olympian, but that would have been 1988 I think. Kim Kelly competed for Bama and she was selected for the 92 games but didn't compete..I can't remember that controversy though. Anyway this article http://www.al.com/alabamagymnastics/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1090314958247210.xml definitely makes it sound as though she can both compete for Bama AND tour.

The situation becomes more difficult considering that the members of the national team each signed an agreement to participate in a 39-stop tour following the Olympics. The tour concludes on Nov. 10.

"We put her in classes on Tuesday and Thursday and just one on Monday, Wednesday and Friday," Patterson said. "My choice would be to have her here and fly her out to meet the tour, so she can start to get some sort of normal existence."


Can you help me figure this one out?:)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From comments I heard it seemed like it wasn't that the gymnasts didn't want ties, but that the *Olympics* didn't want ties.

The Olympics as in the IOC? Are there tiebreakers in swimming? I would have sworn I saw a tie.


The IOC has no problem with ties, in fact in every class in Judo 2 Bronze medals were awarded due to how their competition is set up.

The IOC has nothing to do with how individual sports make rulings. Which would include the breaking of ties. For example with the whole Men's All Around, the IOC is just staying out of it because they have nothing to do with the rulings of who wins and who doesn't.

=) Megan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You're right, it does sound like she can do the tour but not "turn pro" and thus still compete collegiately. I don't know if that means she won't be paid for the tour other than expenses to get there and hotels and food or what. I do know that doing the tour is what made it impossible for the "Magnificent Seven" to compete in college - but maybe they were all paid extra to do it. Amy Chow did attend Stanford but couldn't compete for the team. (So did Kerri Strug eventually - she went to UCLA and then tranferred. But I didn't like her as much because she did her own tour instead of joining the team. She annoyed me before that too.) But members of the 2000 team are almost all competing for colleges now. I don't remember if there just was no tour or if they all did one but didn't get paid or what. But they definitely are having great success at college. Jamie Dantzscher in particular.

As for this - "We put her in classes on Tuesday and Thursday and just one on Monday, Wednesday and Friday," Patterson said. "My choice would be to have her here and fly her out to meet the tour, so she can start to get some sort of normal existence." The coach is saying that her classes are arranged such that she has the bulk of her academic classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That way she can skip her M-W-F class sometimes and just fly to wherever the tour is to perform over the weekend. As to whether that is a "normal existence" - well, not really. But at least she will get to be a full time college student. Amy Chow actually did this when she was at Stanford. She said it was tiring but do-able. Of course Amy Chow was pre-med (IIRC), did the tour on weekends, and maintained her piano playing at a very high level all at the same time, so she may not be the best judge of "do-able."

And if the tour is done by the time college competition starts (January-ish), she could compete in college too. Assuming she isn't considered a pro by then. At least that is how I read it.

Oh, and if you get to talk to her or anything - tell Terin to change her eye make-up. Please! She's a very hard worker and all, but the eye liner is distracting. (BTW, one of her coaches used to be one of my coaches and Armine used to wear similarly heavy eye make-up so I'm wondering if that is where it comes from.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But members of the 2000 team are almost all competing for colleges now. I don't remember if there just was no tour or if they all did one but didn't get paid or what. But they definitely are having great success at college. Jamie Dantzscher in particular.

I wonder if it is because the 2000 team didn't do as well? Though honestly I can hardly blame them for turning pro and not competing in college. If I could make that much money at such a young age I would probably make the same decision.


Oh, and if you get to talk to her or anything - tell Terin to change her eye make-up. Please! She's a very hard worker and all, but the eye liner is distracting. (BTW, one of her coaches used to be one of my coaches and Armine used to wear similarly heavy eye make-up so I'm wondering if that is where it comes from.)

Well if she in fact does go on to compete for Alabama the chances are quite good I'll meet her as I am a booster, and they have meet and greets and things with the team for us, even though it is a heck of a drive from Austin to Tuscaloosa and they have changed the meets to Fridays:(. But I can't really see saying Terin, it's so nice to meet you, great job in the Olympics, but your eye makeup is horrible and you should really change it. Maybe I can say QASteph says your eye makeup is horrible?:P
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
even though it is a heck of a drive from Austin to Tuscaloosa and they have changed the meets to Fridays:(. But I can't really see saying Terin, it's so nice to meet you, great job in the Olympics, but your eye makeup is horrible and you should really change it. Maybe I can say QASteph says your eye makeup is horrible?:P

Our college meets have almost always been on Fridays. I'm glad I live close! But I am not above driving to Berkeley or San Jose State or (for last year's NCAA championships) UCLA to see a good college meet, so I can see where that type of dedication comes in.

And I suppose you can forego the eye make-up thing...
Print the post Back To Top