Changes

::And who is to set themselves up as judge and jury to decide what is "worthwhile" or not? If an athlete enjoys the sport, who are we to decide that the sport is a "joke", or that it is a waste of time for that athlete? Millions of dollars are spent in American football every year- and its point is? When I was little, and my dad watched football on TV, I thought the point was to see how many men could end up stacked in a pile. As an adult, to me it seems like it's just a chance for grown men to inflict violence on each other while chasing a ball around the field without facing legal ramifications. It's no more "worthwhile" in my eyes than the backstroke is in yours, but I'm not out there trying to justify its inclusion in the "joke sport" category. If you don't like the sport, then don't watch. Simple as that. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:42, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::And who is to set themselves up as judge and jury to decide what is "worthwhile" or not? If an athlete enjoys the sport, who are we to decide that the sport is a "joke", or that it is a waste of time for that athlete? Millions of dollars are spent in American football every year- and its point is? When I was little, and my dad watched football on TV, I thought the point was to see how many men could end up stacked in a pile. As an adult, to me it seems like it's just a chance for grown men to inflict violence on each other while chasing a ball around the field without facing legal ramifications. It's no more "worthwhile" in my eyes than the backstroke is in yours, but I'm not out there trying to justify its inclusion in the "joke sport" category. If you don't like the sport, then don't watch. Simple as that. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:42, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::The IOC is the judge and the jury. They already do include some sports and exclude others, and they choose to allow different numbers of events in different sports. What I and others are saying is that we don't agree with some of the IOC's decisions. Maybe the term "joke sports" is unnecessarily inflammatory, but I wasn't the first to use it. That aside, what is so wrong with questioning or disagreeing with the IOC?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:01, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

:::The IOC is the judge and the jury. They already do include some sports and exclude others, and they choose to allow different numbers of events in different sports. What I and others are saying is that we don't agree with some of the IOC's decisions. Maybe the term "joke sports" is unnecessarily inflammatory, but I wasn't the first to use it. That aside, what is so wrong with questioning or disagreeing with the IOC?

:::To give an example. The IOC allows FINA to award 34 gold medals for swimming, but restricts the UCI to only ten for track cycling. Why? The UCI would love to enlarge its program, there are lots of events it could include that seem more distinct than current swimming events, but it isn't allowed to - swimming is deemed 3.4 times more worthwhile a sport. So it's all very well you defending your hard-training, dedicated, deserving backstroke swimmers, but what about 1km cycling time triallists? What about individual pursuit riders? What about pairs who were hoping to compete in the Madison? An unquestioning acceptance of the IOC's diktat doesn't do much for their Olympic dreams.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:01, 15 August 2012 (EDT)