A look at age cheating through a different lens: Danny Almonte.

Interesting thoughts + thanks for the link to the video.

Different topic: are you continuing with the stand-up thing, and if so, where/when is your next performance?

I plan to go back but have been lazy about it. I have written a lot more material since the first time and workshopped it with some friends, and it seems to be getting better. But it really just boils down to me being too lazy to get back out there. Obviously, I know the only real way to get better is to actually do it.

Bump. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

It raises good questions about the view of rules in the sport in general, and how some rules are viewed differently than others. Plenty of runners may say, "Oh I would never take drugs to enhance my performance, that is WRONG!" but may look at something like Nick Willis putting a put inside the rail in the 1500m finals at World's and have some sympathy for that. I probably fall into that category myself. "Drugs are bad, but it's one foot over the line! Outdoors you get more than one foot!"

But they're both rules, and both are grounds for disqualification. Is age-cheating more in line with drugs, or more in line with a lane violation? What about incidental contact? Gabe Gruenwald probably has a lot to say on that one, but look at the 800m trials just a few weeks ago (I am totally forgetting which runner blatantly shoved the other, my apologies).

This could very easily get into talk about two year doping bans vs four year bans, differences in substances, etc.

But I tend to agree with you, that if you're a 19 year old kid who's good enough to win JRs, but can't quite make a name for yourself as a pro, and your agent or your father or your coach is saying "Hey, you're ONLY a few months too old, its really not fair to keep you out of this race..." Who isn't going to listen to their coach? There are all kinds of justification for that train of thought.

Thanks for the response. I was thinking about age cheating vs. PED cheating and do see some similarities. I think in both instances, athletes are attempting to make themselves more visible, increasing their earning potentials. That, to me, seems more premeditated than something like stepping inside the track during a race. But at the same time, I don't know how much premeditation goes into someone who is age cheating, because I think in many instances they might not even perceive it as wrong. In Danny Almonte's case, I can't really fault a 14 year old who had adults who he respected him whispering in his ear. And of course, I'll never be able to understand the perspective of someone coming from a poor background, and how that influences their motivations.

I followed the Almonte thing somewhat closely because my oldest son was just starting organized ball and I was getting involved with the kids' league. As I recall, Almonte himself was held less responsible for the whole business than the adults around him were which I believe was the correct reaction. It would have been hard for a 14 year old kid to stand up to a father and a coach who are telling him say he's 12. Loads of parents tell their kids to say they're 12 rather than 13 when they take them to the movies so they get cheaper tickets.

But that doesn't totally absolve Almonte. The defendants at Nurmberg all claimed that they did what they did because they had been ordered to and the trials really established the idea that you can't absolve yourself of the responsibility for doing something wrong because someone in authority told you to. Of course I'm not equating a 14 year old kid saying he's 12 so he can play in Little League with a 25 year old gassing hundreds of innocent people but at 14 the kid should have developed a sense of right and wrong.

I also followed Almonte's story as well. Another NYC HS coach once told me "it's not cheating if you don't get caught." I've heard many coaches rationalize cheating because they said they were helping the kid get a scholarship. Most of the time the kids aren't good enough nor do they have the grades to get a scholarship. I don't blame the Almontes as they're brainwashed to believe that either the rules are against them, they are entitled, or that everyone else is cheating also.

The athletes who play by the rules are the ones who are cheated out of scholarships, prize money, medals, etc...

Age cheating is common enough in US football that it even has the catchy name of "red shirting". Many parents will hold their eigth grade sons back a year where it will give them a leg up in HS football and lead to a college scholarship.

Some parents in all cultures are willing to bend the rules for their kids.

That's not cheating though because it's allowed by most school districts unlike Little League where you aren't allowed to play after you're 12 or 13 .

That's a semantic nuance. The spirit of the move is to put your own 15 year old up against another parent's 14 year old in the same way that we accuse African runners. The result is the same: The older kid gets the winnings in what was intended to br a head to head competition.

Any age group extensions that are allowed in HS are ther for kids who were held back due to academic needs, most often initiated by the school. In the pattern I'm talking about the parents hold their older sons back to get an extra year of athletic development.

This is common in California and could be similar in other states.

There is no misrepresentation or lying in the situation you're describing. People know how old the held back kids are and that was not the case with Danny Almonte.

HRE wrote:

The defendants at Nurmberg all claimed that they did what they did because they had been ordered to and the trials really established the idea that you can't absolve yourself of the responsibility for doing something wrong because someone in authority told you to. .

Almonte's father probably didn't tell him that he would KILL him if he didn't do as he said.

That's a pretty big difference.

You are correct if you want to rely on a legal definition of age cheating. My point is that football parents are gaming the system to the advantage of their kids in the same way that Danny Almonte's father and coach did. Everyone had the same motivation.

By the way, all of these red shirt football players are costing you more money as a taxpayer. Endorse that if you like.

Good point. Why am I paying taxes so other parents can take an extra year to educate their children.

Where did I endorse this sort of thing? Yes, I am relying on a legal definition of cheating because cheating, by definition, involves breaking or ignoring rules. There are all sorts of things that are legal that I don't like but and think are immoral but I can't call them cheating because no rules or laws are violated.

John Demjanjuk's gurney wrote:

HRE wrote:

The defendants at Nurmberg all claimed that they did what they did because they had been ordered to and the trials really established the idea that you can't absolve yourself of the responsibility for doing something wrong because someone in authority told you to. .

Almonte's father probably didn't tell him that he would KILL him if he didn't do as he said.

That's a pretty big difference.

Maybe you only read the part of my post that you quote and missed the part where I said I am NOT equating the two situations?

Bump. Any more thoughts?

I agree with everything in your last post, (pre meditation in cheating vs stepping off the track) and athletes trying to get exposure. As far as Dominicans getting exposure here, that's not necessarily true. I taught in a school filled with excellent Dominican ball players and many go back to DR in the summer to get exposure. There are as many scouts in San Pedro as there are in the South Bronx. Coaches who cheat at any level are the problem and unfortunately there are many.

Coach wrote:

I agree with everything in your last post, (pre meditation in cheating vs stepping off the track) and athletes trying to get exposure. As far as Dominicans getting exposure here, that's not necessarily true. I taught in a school filled with excellent Dominican ball players and many go back to DR in the summer to get exposure. There are as many scouts in San Pedro as there are in the South Bronx. Coaches who cheat at any level are the problem and unfortunately there are many.

I think the reason for Almonte coming to America was probably more about him being one of many kids of a similar talent level in the DR, and at his true age. I think his father's idea was that they could age cheat by sending him to America. Although it's also not unheard of for Dominican players to lie about their ages. I believe Miguel Tejada did, as did the pitcher formerly known as Fausto Carmona.