I really have to wonder if Salon is so hard up for writers that they can't seem to find anyone to write an article about gymnastics who knows even a little bit about the sport. I guess for those whose only exposure is every four years during the summer games, the lack of understanding about gymnastics is easily explained. But I find it hard to believe that Sey can take the Chinese rule-breaking and use it to smear the entire sport.

Unquestionably, most female gymnasts reach their peak competitive years in their teens (with male gymnasts peaking in their later teens due to later physical strength development). Girls who are smaller and lighter can perform difficult tricks more easily than taller, heavier girls. As their bodies mature, their centers of gravity shifts and they don't bounce back from injures quite as quickly as younger athletes can. Smaller bodies can rotate on the uneven bars faster, and a lighter body needs less strength to vault and flip. It's basic physics at work - the longer the body, the slower the arc. Is it any surprise that the best athletes are going to be smaller and lighter (and typically younger) girls?

Is this a problem only for gymnastics? Of course not. Some of the top new US women's figure skaters on the senior circuit were not permitted to skate at the Worlds because they did not meet the minimum age requirement. The regulating authorities have tried to set some standards in place to keep underaged girls out of the sport, and undoubtedly there have been many attempts to sneak in kids who clearly are not old enough to compete. Karolyi has stated previously that authoritarian governments who place enormous empathsis on winning gold medals have no problem about forging documents regarding their athletes actual ages if they think it will gain them any advantage. Rumors about the Chinese team have been floating around for months, but few are willing to talk about it out of fear of offending the Games' host nation and possible retribution from Chinese judges against the other competitors.

60 Minutes ran a story about the Chinese athletic programs and how it churns out competitors without concern for their long term health and well being. Is it any real surprise that they would not worry about the well-being of a fourteen year old girl who places too much stress on her body? There's always another one in the Chinese athletics factory and any individual athlete's value is summed up by their last win. Once they are no longer competitive, they are tossed aside for a new one waiting for their turn in the wings.

The focus of the article should have been on the Chinese team's alleged rule breaking, not that the sport is bad because most of the competitors are young. One interesting thing about sports is that different sports have different physical demands that there are very few where athletes are competitive after the age of twenty. A forty-one year old swimmer is an oddity, but most of the equestrian athletes (the riders) are well into their thirties and forties. One Japanese rider is in his seventies.

I agree that gymnastics is a very rough sport physically. The athletes do put enormous strain on their bodies and when you read about young teens with stress fractures and chronic injuries (or getting teeth knocked out), it's easy to get worked up. All young athletes run the risk of injury - young pitchers tear their rotator cuffs. Runners get stress fractures, shin splints and heel spurs. As an equestrian I've been thrown, bitten, kicked and stepped on more often than I can count. You play hard, you're going to get hurt.

If you watch gymnastics and just see a bunch of little girls in skimpy costumes and not see the incredible strength and dedication and training that they display, then it's easy to see one example of abuse as a glaring indictment of the sport as a whole. When I see an athlete like Nastia Liukin performing on the balance beam, doing absolutely insane tricks with astonishing grace and control, I don't see a young girl who is abused by her sport. You don't get that good if you don't want it yourself at some level.

Michelle Obama made a credible political spouse speech that obviously hit all the checkmarks that a speech like this needs. Good family man - check. Loves his kids - check. Make sure that cute kids are trotted out on cue. American values - check. She's an intelligent, well-spoken woman (though I did find her overly scripted - I rather liked her earlier outspokeness that seems to have been curtailed for the duration), so the fact that her speech didn't bomb should hardly be a surprise.

I mean, what else would she have done? Gone on national television and said, "Vote for my husband because he's a real asshole. He can't balance his checkbook and he hogs the remote." This speech was as fluffy as you can get and really won't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's hardly going to change minds.