</noinclude>
Age eligibility rules in sport are rules which restrict persons below a certain age from participating in senior competitions. There is more or less universal agreement that there should be age restrictions of some kind in all professional/senior sporting competitions. However, there has been criticism in relation to some sports that the age restrictions are set too high and are too restrictive, and are to the detriment of the particular sport. This article examines this debate in relation to women's figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics as these are three areas in which the restrictions have been amongst the most controversial and the subject of considerable recent debate and criticism.. Critics, such as Bela Karolyi point to this anomaly as proof that junior competitors are training just as hard as the seniors and that the age eligibility rules are therefore failing in their objectives. The solution they say is not to restrict young athletes from entering senior competitions, but instead for national governing bodies to rigorously monitor the training provided to young athletes to ensure that the training regimes they are on are not overly physically demanding, and that the athletes receive the necessary counselling and mentoring to cope with the psychological demands of their sport. She was a three-time Olympic Champion (1928, 1932, 1936), and a ten-time World Champion (1927-1936). Had the age eligibility rules existed during her period, she would probably have lost out on a third of her titles due to a combination of ineligibility and lack of senior level experience.
The practical effect of the age eligibility rules has, critics such as Christine Brennan point out, created a farcical situation full of anomalies. Going into the 2006 Olympics, for example, Mao Asada was widely regarded as the best female figure skater in the world.
The age eligibility rules had less of an impact on the 2010 Olympics. The two best skaters in the world at that time were clearly Kim Yu-Na and Mao Asada, and indeed they finished first and second respectively. However, critics such as Sherry Wight point out that they still had an impact all the same. The American skaters Rachael Flatt and Mirai Nagasu, for example, had both been deprived of valuable experience at a senior level in terms of missing out on experience at world championships due to ineligibility especially from Nagasu had Nagasu had more senior experience. Moreover, the careers of Adelina Sotnikova and Elizaveta Tuktamysheva have moved on significantly in the short period that has elapsed since the 2010 olympics. They now rank first and second respectively in the world in terms of 2010/11 scores as of November 2010 (178.97 and 172.78 respectively - and that despite the fact that there is one less scoring element in junior free skates. Had there been an extra scoring element, their scores would have been even higher), yet they will not be eligible to compete on the senior circuit for another 2 years. Critics maintain that this makes a mockery of the rules as a situation in which juniors competitors are performing to a higher standard than seniors devalues senior competitions, as it makes them less attractive to the paying public, televisions audiences, and to sponsors (i.e. because they ask the question, what is the point of watching them or sponsoring them if the best skaters are barred from competing?), with Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune even going as far as to say of the 2010/11 season that: "I have covered figure skating for 30 years, and after watching Skate America last weekend, I can't remember a season that looks as dreary as this one has been so far." Critics point out therefore that had Sotnikova and Tuktamysheva been competing in the grand prix, there emergence as top new skaters would have generating considerable new interest in the sport. This would, critics suggest, have created greater public interest, higher television audiences, and greater interest from potential sponsors. Furthermore, this highlights a further problem with the age eligibility rules - the holding back of new talent over the last 15 years has led to a decline in the popularity of the sport in terms of public interest, in terms of television companies wishing to televise competitions, and in terms of sponsors wishing to invest and coverage of the European Figure Skating Championships and of the world championships has declined markedly, with many complaining about the lack of coverage. However, television executives simply retort that there is no longer enough public interest to warrant greater coverage. Coverage is also well down in the United States where interest in the sport, as in Europe, peaked in the 1990s - before the age eligibility rules as they presently stand took effect.
Artistic gymnastics
During the 1970s, gymnasts had to turn 14 by the start of the Olympic Games to be eligible to compete in them. The age limit was then raised from 14 to 15 with effect from 1981 (with gymnasts required to turn at least 15 years of age in the calendar year to compete in senior-level events). This age limit remained in place until 1997, when it was raised from 15 to 16. As in figure skating, critics point out that this has likewise created a farcical situation with many anomalies, with gymnasts losing many of their best years, and declining public interest and sponsorship in the sport. Moreover, under the present rules, Tatiana Gutsu would have never become Olympic All-Around Champion at the 1992 Olympics because she would have also been ineligible to compete.
As a result of the age restrictions, critics, such as Lee Ann Gschwind, further point out that a farcical situation now exists where junior competitions are now of a higher quality than senior competitions. Again, as with figure skating, critics such Gschwind, point out that such a farcical state of affairs in which juniors are competing to a higher standard than seniors devalues senior competitions as it makes them less attractive to the paying public, televisions audiences, and to sponsors (i.e. because they ask the question, what is the point of watching them or sponsoring them if the best gymnasts are barred from competing?). Indeed, Gschwind, states that "The age restrictions also make 2010 something of a no-man's land on the gymnastics calendar. Many of the likely stars of the London Games aren't yet old enough to compete at the World Championships. At least Komova and Wieber will be eligible to compete at 2011 Worlds; gymnasts born in 1996 won't even get that chance. A loophole that allowed 15-year-olds to compete at Worlds in a pre-Olympic year - without which Shawn Johnson would not have won the 2007 world title - has been eliminated this quadrennium". In terms of this 'lost generation' argument, critics such as Max Eisenbud and Patrick Mouratoglou .
Age eligibility rules in sport are rules which restrict persons below a certain age from participating in senior competitions. There is more or less universal agreement that there should be age restrictions of some kind in all professional/senior sporting competitions. However, there has been criticism in relation to some sports that the age restrictions are set too high and are too restrictive, and are to the detriment of the particular sport. This article examines this debate in relation to women's figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics as these are three areas in which the restrictions have been amongst the most controversial and the subject of considerable recent debate and criticism.. Critics, such as Bela Karolyi point to this anomaly as proof that junior competitors are training just as hard as the seniors and that the age eligibility rules are therefore failing in their objectives. The solution they say is not to restrict young athletes from entering senior competitions, but instead for national governing bodies to rigorously monitor the training provided to young athletes to ensure that the training regimes they are on are not overly physically demanding, and that the athletes receive the necessary counselling and mentoring to cope with the psychological demands of their sport. She was a three-time Olympic Champion (1928, 1932, 1936), and a ten-time World Champion (1927-1936). Had the age eligibility rules existed during her period, she would probably have lost out on a third of her titles due to a combination of ineligibility and lack of senior level experience.
The practical effect of the age eligibility rules has, critics such as Christine Brennan point out, created a farcical situation full of anomalies. Going into the 2006 Olympics, for example, Mao Asada was widely regarded as the best female figure skater in the world.
The age eligibility rules had less of an impact on the 2010 Olympics. The two best skaters in the world at that time were clearly Kim Yu-Na and Mao Asada, and indeed they finished first and second respectively. However, critics such as Sherry Wight point out that they still had an impact all the same. The American skaters Rachael Flatt and Mirai Nagasu, for example, had both been deprived of valuable experience at a senior level in terms of missing out on experience at world championships due to ineligibility especially from Nagasu had Nagasu had more senior experience. Moreover, the careers of Adelina Sotnikova and Elizaveta Tuktamysheva have moved on significantly in the short period that has elapsed since the 2010 olympics. They now rank first and second respectively in the world in terms of 2010/11 scores as of November 2010 (178.97 and 172.78 respectively - and that despite the fact that there is one less scoring element in junior free skates. Had there been an extra scoring element, their scores would have been even higher), yet they will not be eligible to compete on the senior circuit for another 2 years. Critics maintain that this makes a mockery of the rules as a situation in which juniors competitors are performing to a higher standard than seniors devalues senior competitions, as it makes them less attractive to the paying public, televisions audiences, and to sponsors (i.e. because they ask the question, what is the point of watching them or sponsoring them if the best skaters are barred from competing?), with Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune even going as far as to say of the 2010/11 season that: "I have covered figure skating for 30 years, and after watching Skate America last weekend, I can't remember a season that looks as dreary as this one has been so far." Critics point out therefore that had Sotnikova and Tuktamysheva been competing in the grand prix, there emergence as top new skaters would have generating considerable new interest in the sport. This would, critics suggest, have created greater public interest, higher television audiences, and greater interest from potential sponsors. Furthermore, this highlights a further problem with the age eligibility rules - the holding back of new talent over the last 15 years has led to a decline in the popularity of the sport in terms of public interest, in terms of television companies wishing to televise competitions, and in terms of sponsors wishing to invest and coverage of the European Figure Skating Championships and of the world championships has declined markedly, with many complaining about the lack of coverage. However, television executives simply retort that there is no longer enough public interest to warrant greater coverage. Coverage is also well down in the United States where interest in the sport, as in Europe, peaked in the 1990s - before the age eligibility rules as they presently stand took effect.
Artistic gymnastics
During the 1970s, gymnasts had to turn 14 by the start of the Olympic Games to be eligible to compete in them. The age limit was then raised from 14 to 15 with effect from 1981 (with gymnasts required to turn at least 15 years of age in the calendar year to compete in senior-level events). This age limit remained in place until 1997, when it was raised from 15 to 16. As in figure skating, critics point out that this has likewise created a farcical situation with many anomalies, with gymnasts losing many of their best years, and declining public interest and sponsorship in the sport. Moreover, under the present rules, Tatiana Gutsu would have never become Olympic All-Around Champion at the 1992 Olympics because she would have also been ineligible to compete.
As a result of the age restrictions, critics, such as Lee Ann Gschwind, further point out that a farcical situation now exists where junior competitions are now of a higher quality than senior competitions. Again, as with figure skating, critics such Gschwind, point out that such a farcical state of affairs in which juniors are competing to a higher standard than seniors devalues senior competitions as it makes them less attractive to the paying public, televisions audiences, and to sponsors (i.e. because they ask the question, what is the point of watching them or sponsoring them if the best gymnasts are barred from competing?). Indeed, Gschwind, states that "The age restrictions also make 2010 something of a no-man's land on the gymnastics calendar. Many of the likely stars of the London Games aren't yet old enough to compete at the World Championships. At least Komova and Wieber will be eligible to compete at 2011 Worlds; gymnasts born in 1996 won't even get that chance. A loophole that allowed 15-year-olds to compete at Worlds in a pre-Olympic year - without which Shawn Johnson would not have won the 2007 world title - has been eliminated this quadrennium". In terms of this 'lost generation' argument, critics such as Max Eisenbud and Patrick Mouratoglou .
"Mr. Monk and The Billionaire Mugger" is the seventh episode of the first season of Monk. The episode first aired on the USA Network on August 12th 2002.
Summary
A computer industry magnate masks his identity & tries to mug a couple. Things go wrong when he is shot dead by the man trying to protect his girlfriend. When police find the real identity of the cop, pressure on Stottlemeyer increases. Things turn even more awkward for him when the girlfriend tells that a police cop, who was just a few blocks away from the crime scene during the shooting, fled the scene.
Meanwhile, Sharona threatens Monk that she will quit if she does not get her pay. Seems that only Monk can make the heads & tails of the situation.
Plot
Sidney Teal (J.C. MacKenzie), a computer company magnate who has friends from Bill Clinton to Bill Gates, tells his wife Myra(Jessica Steen) that he is going out to give a lecture. He drives by himself instead of his driver. Sidney drives to a shady area in San Fransisco, puts up a fake moustache, dresses a perp & goes to threaten a couple coming out of theater at knife's edge. The man happens to be a lieutenant Archie Modine, who guns Teal down.
Sharona is suffering from financial problems & fights with Monk to ask for a raise. She is completely angry, because a client whose Picasso painting Monk had recovered has not given them a single cent. Soon, the duo are ushered to the crime scene, where Sharona pesters Stottlemeyer for a raise, while Monk is busy figuring what exactly happened. Modine's girlfriend goes on to tell that she saw another cop on the scene as well, but he ran away from the crime scene. Stottlemeyer is left completely at sea.
Meanwhile, Monk digs around for information. Sidney's autobiography, which was to be released soon, also mentions a lot about his life before becoming famous. When Monk finds that Sidney was in a fraternity named "Phi Beta Tau", he realizes that Modine too was in the same fraternity & that he would have known Sidney. Modine confesses to Stottlemeyer that he was trying to protect Myra. He did not remember Sidney, but he had met Myra in a fundraiser.
Sharona is exasperated at Monk's inability to ask for what is rightfully his & leaves him. She takes a job in a lamp store. Monk immerses himself again in investigation of Trudy's murder. He finds a lead, but is embarassed to know that he has been coming to that address since last 3 years in search of information of Trudy. While going back to home, an unknown person tries to shoot Monk, but Monk gets saved by a whisker.
Meanwhile, Sharona has been doing some digging on her own & ends up interviewing a woman who Sidney claimed to have dated in his autobiography. The woman tells that she did date him & that he was her junior. Sharona looks up some facts from both the autobiography & the woman, only to realize that she should meet Monk fast.
Here's what happened
Sharona finds that the girl whom Sidney dated also faced a similar mugging attempt, only this time, Sidney was the hero. When Sharona finds that even the dialogues were same, she tells it to Monk. Monk figures out that Modine played the mugger 20 years ago, the same mugger played by Sidney Teal. He calls everybody at Teal's home & starts explaining the case alongwith Sharona.
When Modine & Myra met, they started having an extramarital affair. They decided to kill Sidney. Modine met Sidney & while reminding Sidney of that night 20 years ago, told him that he was seeing someone & asked Sidney if he could play the mugger. Sidney did exactly as told, not knowing the truth. Modine figured that he could say that he fired in self-defense & no charges would be pressed against him. Modine was also the person who tried to kill Monk.
Monk surprises everybody by saying that Sidney had made extra effort that night: He paid an actor to play a "cop" who would congradulate Modine for foiling a "mugging". This cop, says Monk, was the Fraidy Cop. Stottlemeyer is left speechless when Monk introduces him to Joseph Moratta(Jonathan Rannells), a young "cop" next to him, as the Fraidy Cop. Monk explains that Joseph sensed that something had gone wrong, hence he fled.
In a ditch attempt, Myra tries to pin the murder solely on Modine, but he gets angered & tries to shoot her. Disher disarms Modine & the police get enough reason to arrest the duo. After Modine has fired a bullet, a frightened Joseph runs out & the media runs behind the Fraidy Cop.
Monk manages to get money from his wealthy client after he & Sharona bring in a "cop". The client gives them some money, but when he realizes that the "cop" is the Fraidy Cop, the trio start running. Sharona bursts into laughter & Monk is unable to control his own laughter seeing Joseph run.
Summary
A computer industry magnate masks his identity & tries to mug a couple. Things go wrong when he is shot dead by the man trying to protect his girlfriend. When police find the real identity of the cop, pressure on Stottlemeyer increases. Things turn even more awkward for him when the girlfriend tells that a police cop, who was just a few blocks away from the crime scene during the shooting, fled the scene.
Meanwhile, Sharona threatens Monk that she will quit if she does not get her pay. Seems that only Monk can make the heads & tails of the situation.
Plot
Sidney Teal (J.C. MacKenzie), a computer company magnate who has friends from Bill Clinton to Bill Gates, tells his wife Myra(Jessica Steen) that he is going out to give a lecture. He drives by himself instead of his driver. Sidney drives to a shady area in San Fransisco, puts up a fake moustache, dresses a perp & goes to threaten a couple coming out of theater at knife's edge. The man happens to be a lieutenant Archie Modine, who guns Teal down.
Sharona is suffering from financial problems & fights with Monk to ask for a raise. She is completely angry, because a client whose Picasso painting Monk had recovered has not given them a single cent. Soon, the duo are ushered to the crime scene, where Sharona pesters Stottlemeyer for a raise, while Monk is busy figuring what exactly happened. Modine's girlfriend goes on to tell that she saw another cop on the scene as well, but he ran away from the crime scene. Stottlemeyer is left completely at sea.
Meanwhile, Monk digs around for information. Sidney's autobiography, which was to be released soon, also mentions a lot about his life before becoming famous. When Monk finds that Sidney was in a fraternity named "Phi Beta Tau", he realizes that Modine too was in the same fraternity & that he would have known Sidney. Modine confesses to Stottlemeyer that he was trying to protect Myra. He did not remember Sidney, but he had met Myra in a fundraiser.
Sharona is exasperated at Monk's inability to ask for what is rightfully his & leaves him. She takes a job in a lamp store. Monk immerses himself again in investigation of Trudy's murder. He finds a lead, but is embarassed to know that he has been coming to that address since last 3 years in search of information of Trudy. While going back to home, an unknown person tries to shoot Monk, but Monk gets saved by a whisker.
Meanwhile, Sharona has been doing some digging on her own & ends up interviewing a woman who Sidney claimed to have dated in his autobiography. The woman tells that she did date him & that he was her junior. Sharona looks up some facts from both the autobiography & the woman, only to realize that she should meet Monk fast.
Here's what happened
Sharona finds that the girl whom Sidney dated also faced a similar mugging attempt, only this time, Sidney was the hero. When Sharona finds that even the dialogues were same, she tells it to Monk. Monk figures out that Modine played the mugger 20 years ago, the same mugger played by Sidney Teal. He calls everybody at Teal's home & starts explaining the case alongwith Sharona.
When Modine & Myra met, they started having an extramarital affair. They decided to kill Sidney. Modine met Sidney & while reminding Sidney of that night 20 years ago, told him that he was seeing someone & asked Sidney if he could play the mugger. Sidney did exactly as told, not knowing the truth. Modine figured that he could say that he fired in self-defense & no charges would be pressed against him. Modine was also the person who tried to kill Monk.
Monk surprises everybody by saying that Sidney had made extra effort that night: He paid an actor to play a "cop" who would congradulate Modine for foiling a "mugging". This cop, says Monk, was the Fraidy Cop. Stottlemeyer is left speechless when Monk introduces him to Joseph Moratta(Jonathan Rannells), a young "cop" next to him, as the Fraidy Cop. Monk explains that Joseph sensed that something had gone wrong, hence he fled.
In a ditch attempt, Myra tries to pin the murder solely on Modine, but he gets angered & tries to shoot her. Disher disarms Modine & the police get enough reason to arrest the duo. After Modine has fired a bullet, a frightened Joseph runs out & the media runs behind the Fraidy Cop.
Monk manages to get money from his wealthy client after he & Sharona bring in a "cop". The client gives them some money, but when he realizes that the "cop" is the Fraidy Cop, the trio start running. Sharona bursts into laughter & Monk is unable to control his own laughter seeing Joseph run.
The defining moment for the contemporary London art scene was ', the 1988 warehouse exhibition organised by Damien Hirst. Up to that point, the traditional career path for an artist in London would involve several years in relative obscurity with limited sales, possibly subsidised by teaching work. The patronage of Charles Saatchi as a collector of Young British Artists , made it possible for artists in their early twenties to have viable careers. After Freeze, there was an explosion of similar exhibitions in non-traditional gallery space — often temporarily vacant commercial space in the near East End centered around Clerkenwell to Old Street. The Freeze show was heavily influenced by the London underground scene in the mid eighties. A number of enterprising artists, in particular, Joe Rush of the Mutoid Waste Company, seeing the great numbers of vacant buildings, organised large events or raves mixing art with music in empty warehouses around London.
Socially the London art scene is organised around private views, exhibition openings and the 'after party', the latter usually held at a club, local pub or studio space. In the nineties and under the patronage of Damien Hirst, the Groucho Club in Soho became an important hangout for those wanting to associate with the London art scene. Blacks and Soho House were also favoured while many East End pubs, including Charlie Wright's in Hoxton, was once favourite for many artists, due to late opening.
There are, of course, many divisions within the art scene of the city. The West End is thriving, where the largest dealers (Hauser & Wirth, Gagosian) can open up new large spaces in prime locations. Also, there is a large number of loosely associated scenes, such as a sound art scene, film makers, collaborative artist groups, studio collectives around Hackney and Hackney Wick, the live art scene etc. who all put on their own events, exhibitions, concerts, screenings and shows. The concentration of such groups is higher in the East End than anywhere else in London as traditionally area of lowest rent with many vacant warehouse spaces. As rents increased around the East, artists moved further out, to areas such as Bow and New Cross, artists move freely and might live in any one part of the city.
The traditional geographical focus of many of London's artists in the mid-1980s was the East End. Increasing gentrification and the development of Docklands as an extension of the finance sector led many artists to seek alternative accommodation. Using proceeds from the sales of paintings in the early 1990s artist Gary Hume purchased a number of properties in Hoxton Square. The area quickly became a focus for the YBAs. Curtain Road Arts, an artists run gallery and studio complex opened in 1993 was opened and Joshua Compston opened "Factual Nonsense" in nearby Charlotte Road. The area developed further and Jay Jopling opened the White Cube gallery there in 2000. As property prices around Hoxton, Shoreditch and Hackney rose many artists who did not tap into the boom and young artists looked for studio space and cheap accommodation further East (i.e. Hackney Wick, Stepney, Bow and Mile End) or South of the River (i.e. Peckham, Deptford, New Cross or Camberwell).
Socially the London art scene is organised around private views, exhibition openings and the 'after party', the latter usually held at a club, local pub or studio space. In the nineties and under the patronage of Damien Hirst, the Groucho Club in Soho became an important hangout for those wanting to associate with the London art scene. Blacks and Soho House were also favoured while many East End pubs, including Charlie Wright's in Hoxton, was once favourite for many artists, due to late opening.
There are, of course, many divisions within the art scene of the city. The West End is thriving, where the largest dealers (Hauser & Wirth, Gagosian) can open up new large spaces in prime locations. Also, there is a large number of loosely associated scenes, such as a sound art scene, film makers, collaborative artist groups, studio collectives around Hackney and Hackney Wick, the live art scene etc. who all put on their own events, exhibitions, concerts, screenings and shows. The concentration of such groups is higher in the East End than anywhere else in London as traditionally area of lowest rent with many vacant warehouse spaces. As rents increased around the East, artists moved further out, to areas such as Bow and New Cross, artists move freely and might live in any one part of the city.
The traditional geographical focus of many of London's artists in the mid-1980s was the East End. Increasing gentrification and the development of Docklands as an extension of the finance sector led many artists to seek alternative accommodation. Using proceeds from the sales of paintings in the early 1990s artist Gary Hume purchased a number of properties in Hoxton Square. The area quickly became a focus for the YBAs. Curtain Road Arts, an artists run gallery and studio complex opened in 1993 was opened and Joshua Compston opened "Factual Nonsense" in nearby Charlotte Road. The area developed further and Jay Jopling opened the White Cube gallery there in 2000. As property prices around Hoxton, Shoreditch and Hackney rose many artists who did not tap into the boom and young artists looked for studio space and cheap accommodation further East (i.e. Hackney Wick, Stepney, Bow and Mile End) or South of the River (i.e. Peckham, Deptford, New Cross or Camberwell).
The Phoenix Group is a US investment group dedicated to funding a new era of progressive think tanks with an eye towards revitalizing the image of the Democratic Party in the eyes of the American public. It was founded by those attending a political strategy meeting attended by independent financiers George Soros and Peter Lewis[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:a0BnF4NZwesJ:www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/07/30/john_kerry/%3Fsid%3D1249503+Phoenix+Group+Soros&hl=en] in Scottsdale, Arizona. Those attending included invited successful businesspeople, with sufficient resources to donate large amounts of money to liberal causes.
Rob Stein, a Democratic Party supporting investment banker and former Clinton Chief of staff, invited seventy millionaires and billionaires to the weekend seminar in April 2005, drawn mainly from the technology industry. His spokesperson explained that the meeting was "a very preliminary meeting of committed donors interested in building a community to support progressive infrastructure."
He planned the weekend to discuss the financing of think tanks, media and leadership training to compete against what they see as conservative organizations with superior financing such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Leadership Institute. It has been speculated by some that beneficiaries of this funding will be John Podesta’s Center for American Progress and David Brock’s Media Matters for America.
Rob Stein, a Democratic Party supporting investment banker and former Clinton Chief of staff, invited seventy millionaires and billionaires to the weekend seminar in April 2005, drawn mainly from the technology industry. His spokesperson explained that the meeting was "a very preliminary meeting of committed donors interested in building a community to support progressive infrastructure."
He planned the weekend to discuss the financing of think tanks, media and leadership training to compete against what they see as conservative organizations with superior financing such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Leadership Institute. It has been speculated by some that beneficiaries of this funding will be John Podesta’s Center for American Progress and David Brock’s Media Matters for America.