thiago_simoes

Yes, I agree. I dislike these sports but I know the governing bodies have done a great job promoting them.

Sepak Takraw is the most confusing sport I've tried to follow. The governing body for the sport is a joke, then there's the King's Cup which is nearly impossible to find results for... It's a pity because the sport per se is exciting, and a lot better than badminton, in my opinion. I would gladly watch it at the Olympics instead of karate, taekwondo or badminton (three sports I really dislike).

Wait, what? This is probably the "main" sport at the SEA Games (i.e. the best of the best in the world can compete), and the organizers still impose restrictions on which nations can enter teams in which events? Disgusting.

I'm a heavy sleeper and I'm used to mosquito bites, so it would not be impossible for me to not even feel a needle being injected into my skin. A penis, of course, is a very different thing.

Or simply that the person is a doper, that is. There are clean athletes who play fair, so there's absolutely no excuse for allowing dopers the benefit of the doubt once they are convicted.

Wait, what? Years? How hard is it, actually, to take years to design?

Any footage from artistic gymnastics?

How do scores work? I see scores like 211/6 and I always think "what the hell is this supposed to mean?"

Even so, the problem is that scores across all gymnastics disciplines seem to be quite biased lately. I've been following results of all disciplines for decades now; since 2011 some scores are just not right. Especially in women's artistic gymnastics this year, it's baffling that Belgium qualified a full team (they were overscored in every single piece of apparatus) and Melnikova got two individual medals (she deserved none). Trampoline has always been a political tool for FIG. It's very easy to raise scores a few tenths or lower scores a few tenths without things looking very suspicious. We've seen this in other disciplines as well, but in trampoline things are getting out of hand now. Besides, there's the fact that Japan got medals in Olympic events in all three gymnastics disciplines at the World Championships this year. In my opinion, this is not simply a sign of them training hard because they are the hosts of the next edition of the Olympics; there seems to be a heavy political component here that increases the scores of Japanese gymnasts a few tenths. More food for thought: Japan has a historical feud with China, and since the moment a Japanese man was appointed FIG's president, China has been receiving lower scores and struggling to get medals. I'm starting to lose interest in gymnastics. I know controversial decisions have been part of this sport forever, but lately things have been so blatant it's discouraging.

I don't really follow trampoline because, quite frankly, I don't care for it. However, I have to say that before this event, Japan had 5 gold medals at the Trampoline World Championships from 1964 until 2018. Now, in 2019 alone, they won 4 gold medals. How different things can be now that the FIG president is Japanese and Japan hosted this event, huh?

Please, don't ever joke about colonialism. There's absolutely nothing funny about it.

I'm really surprised at the double standards here. People go crazy when a new cheater is banned, but when a nation creates a state-driven doping program, most people are okay to simply turn a blind eye on the whole situation. Clean individuals can always try to compete as independent athletes. Of course players in team sports would suffer, but that's the price you pay for representing a nation which has been proven again and again not to play by the rules. At this point another slap on the wrist is not going to make any difference. The IOC needs to ban Russia with no possibility of amendments to their decision. And, really, how come some people still believe this is not about politics? What world do some of you guys live in? We have athletes representing nations competing against one another, and a huge doping scandal led by a nation, and some people still believe this is only about the individual performances of the athletes? Seriously? Wake up, Sleeping Beauty.

When I turned 5 my mom chose Flamengo as the theme for my birthday party. Since then, I've been wondering why the club was so popular because it did nothing to really be relevant in the last 30 years (besides winning state and national tournaments, which I find extremely boring). Now things will finally be interesting for me.

Not sure about the ones about the Pan Ams and the Olympics, but here is the one about the South American Games. There's one (not from Rodriguez, though) about the CAC Games with results from 1926 to 2010. I think you would like to read it too. You can download it here.

Very interesting read, but my heart broke when I learned that Ernesto Rodrigues III died last year. He compiled a book with the results of the South American Games, as well as the Pan Am Games and the Olympic Games, but the one about the SA Games remain the only credible source of historical results for the competition. He even distributed it for free. I e-mailed him once and he replied with enthusiasm about his book. Oh, man. Life is unfair. He will be missed.

Finally Brazil won a FIFA World Cup event as hosts. U-17, but still... Finally!

Truly a consequence of a post-modern world. The latest scoop or scandal about celebrities is more important than discussing politics for some people, so politics now is about creating scandals for celeb-politicians. It's funny that sociologist Anthony Giddens spent years defending a new form of making politics, and now we have a truly new form but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the opposite of what Giddens wanted.

In Bolivia's case, the white guys were the ones who accused the non-white person to be a dictator (even when the person was elected in a democratic process). It's very clear to me that this is more about racism and far right politicians taking the control by force than it is about "restoring democracy". And I agree that political polarization is in vogue these days. I believe it's the result of: 1) new people (mostly young folks) becoming interested in politics (and they usually adhere to a side as if their lives depended on it); and 2) since most people are not too patient to read and discuss politics, they just go with the flow. I'm a leftist and I have strong opinions about what an ideal form of (democratic) government should be, but I'm also open to read about new (and even opposing) ideas.

Rhythmic gymnastics: Slovenia

My first thought when I saw the title of this thread again several weeks after the competition ended was: Okay, how many dopers have been caught now? Maybe three, five?

I totally agree. Besides ethnic and racial tensions, we also have internal conflicts when it comes to income, gender, religion, sexuality and so on. When I visited Bolivia, before reaching La Paz I went through the city of El Alto, and I was shocked at how poor they were. I was not able to see any white people around El Alto, only Amerindians and native Bolivians. Then I reached La Paz and I needed to eat something, so I asked around the hotel for a nice place to eat and they pointed me to an Italian restaurant. When I reached the place, there were only white customers. No native people there. I was told the place was considered too expensive for most Bolivians, so poor people never went there (but it still cost me around only 50% of what I would pay in Rio for the same type of food, for example). I'm not a supporter of Morales, but it baffles me that any leftist politician with strong opinions about how income should be shared with the poor is immediately seen as a communist threat, or how he/she will turn the country into a bloody and ruthless dictatorship. And it's usually the poor (who need state-funded services the most) who go around throwing these kind of rants. Democracy in Chile, Bolivia and Brazil is very vulnerable right now, but it seems to me that a big number of people, as you said it, would be happy to live in a dictatorship now as long as it is commanded by white, dominant people, or white personnel from the military. I mean, they accuse people like Morales to be a dictator, but they would be okay to live in a dictatorship if the dictator was white. It's almost hopeless.

I'm very disappointed by this (your comment, I mean).

My definition of awesome is decidedly different from this. This makes no sense to me as a sport, really. Even kinball seems more interesting.

The coup happened when Dilma was removed from office. She faced accusations of using money from the federal bank to cover expenses for social security programs. The government was supposed to give money back to the bank soon afterwards, but for one year they could not return all of the money, so the federal bank sued the government and soon she also faced an impeachment process because this. Some people say this process occurred through what is prescribed by law, but literally the following day after she was impeached the law was changed so that the next president could do exactly the same thing she did without facing accusations of crime. Last year, after extensive trials, she was declared innocent of any crime because what she did did not break the law. But it was too late: Temer was already out of office and Bolsonaro, who was elected democratically (in theory) was in office. However, many people see Bolsonaro as the direct result of this coup: the coup weakened the reputation of Dilma's party (PT) to the point no one from the party was seen as honest anymore. Lula, however, enjoys huge prestige, and he could realistically become the next president. Then, the Federal Court of Justice discussed an alteration in the constitutional law to jail Lula for an unfinished process of buying a plot of land for personal reasons (with his own money, and in the end he did not even buy the plot of land). Even though nothing was proved against him, he was jailed anyway so he could not run for president. Then, Bolsonaro was elected, but the irony is that Bolsonaro was not part of the right wing party that promoted the impeachment process. Bolsonaro is part of a far right party which had very few followers before Dilma was impeached.

80% of the time the countries responsible for completely destabilizing the politics in South America are the United States and England (mostly in past centuries). Of course things are a lot more complex than simply stating "they started it", but in one way or another these nations are always meddling with politics here, either because they want money (the British in the past), oil (the US) or simply destabilize SA so that the region gets discredited (and loses economic prestige and investments). I'm aware of the complexity of a military coup d'etat, and I know it takes more than influence of a foreign nation to start it. Democracy in Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay is fragile and democratic ideals are somewhat recent. Venezuela spent 14 years under Chavez's orders, and Bolivia spent 13 years under Morales' control, but theoretically they were elected in democratic elections. It's very suspicious that the (far right) politicians in these nations had to seek for foreign intervention so they could forcefully depose the presidents of the nations. As I said, I fear for the region. I'm convinced a military coup d'etat will take place in Brazil soon (maybe next year) if Lula keeps getting stronger, since Bolsonaro and the military forces would not be happy with Lula's popularity. Chile is in complete chaos right now, but at least the population is fighting back. Argentina chose a left wing president, so they are (in theory) not in danger of a coup d'etat, but as unlikely as it may seem, I'm afraid that the far right there could simply invoke foreign help to cancel the elections and cause turmoil in the nation. South America is a mess right now.