Fair-play

Judges helped Arthur Zanetti take down Chen Yibing in Rings in London Olympics. Choosing the same set of movement, Chen and Zanetti had visible differences in the quality of execution, which was reflected in a reverse way by their scores. Because athletes and their coaches couldn't appeal on scores of execution, Chen had no choice but to accept the result.

This is not the first time that gymnastic judges gave contentious scores. Eight years ago, Nemov from Russia failed to receive a model in horizontal bar despite his almost-perfect performance. Audiences were so angry at the scores that they stood up, waving flags (mostly Greece) and booing the judges. The competition simply couldn't continue: the next American gymnast stood by the equipment but the noise kept him from even touching it. About five minutes later, the judges changed the score under pressure, but it was obviously not high enough to please the audiences. Catcalls lasted for another five minutes until Nemov waved to audiences to show his gratitude and asked them to sit down. The audiences burst into applause and followed Nemov's request, then the competition was able to continue. Nemov did not get a medal for his last show in Olympics, but his splendid performance and this notorious "black score" are remembered forever.

I always believe there must be a reason for the frequent abnormalities. What could be possible explanations to this? Leaving corruption or bribery aside, judges may be motivated by: 1) encouraging athletes from countries traditionally weak in gymnastics by giving them higher scores ; 2) accidentally missing some errors done by other athletes; or 3) punishing Chinese and Russian teams for the lack of beauty in spite of their high difficult levels. The first candidate is hard to tell: everyone has his own criteria for beauty. The second one is hardly a reason: one judge can make mistakes, but it's hard to have five judges make the same mistakes. In the case of Nemov, even laymen - the audiences could tell who had done a better job, judges could not just defend themselves by making "accidental" mistakes. The reluctance for them to revise the scores also suggested their intentional downgrading for certain athletes.

It probably makes sense to encourage gymnasts from South Asia and Africa by giving them better scores on the same performance, it's not surprising either to thank hosting countries with a little inflation. But in 2004 Athens Olympics, judges favored US gymnasts: there is no point encouraging US to further develop its gymnastics: it's strong enough. In 2008 Beijing Olympics, judges showed controversial preferences for Nastia Liukin from US, whose father is allegedly tycoon in international gymnastics. And this time, people associate judges' inflated score for the Brazilian athlete with their intention of pleasing the next Olympics hosting country.

It will be interesting to look into the components of International Gymnastics Association and how they pick judges for Olympics. When athletes get together for competition, they are looking for a fair play regardless of nationalities, regions, etc. which can tell them the true ranking of their strengths and skills. But there is an invisible hand, ignoring all efforts that sportsmen have made and manipulating the results. It turns out that as long as the result is determined by human beings rather than machine - like in running and swimming, it can be unfair. If we believe checks and balances in politics can work out relatively fair results with representatives from all interest groups having a say in decision-making processes, we probably need more checks and balances on sporting events too by expanding seats in international sporting associations to underrepresented countries and applying crystal clear procedure of decision making and appealing process. That's probably the best way of saving athletes from victims of filthy power games and dirty deals.