The United States Didn’t Win Gold, and That’s Okay


Junior world championships bronze medalists Skye Blakely, Konnor McClain, Sydney Barros, and Kayla DiCello

The last time the senior women from the U.S. program missed out on a team gold medal at a major competition – like world championships or the Olympic Games – was in 2010. The Russians were hot that year and gold was a long shot for the U.S. Even with multiple falls and mistakes, the Russians, led by the legendary Aliya Mustafina in her senior worlds debut, proved to be unstoppable.

When I was previewing this year’s junior world championships, I felt the same way about these young Russians as I felt about the senior worlds team nine years ago. With this immense level of talent, I thought it would be almost impossible for them to lose, and I considered the gold theirs barring any major meltdowns or catastrophes.

In the end, the Russians performed brilliantly, even better than I had expected. Viktoriia Listunova, Vladislava Urazova, and Elena Gerasimova made for an absolute total package team, with a combination of solid difficulty across both acro and dance skills, textbook execution, and gorgeous artistry and style that no other country had a prayer of matching.

On paper, this team was supposed to win, and in reality, they did everything they needed to completely blow away the rest of the competition, with each gymnast taking an event title – Urazova on bars, Gerasimova on beam, and Listunova on floor – in addition to Listunova and Urazova going one-two on the all-around podium, coming away from the first-ever junior world championships as the most decorated women’s program in the world.

Personally, as a fan of the sport beyond reporting on it, I found the U.S. a bit lacking in terms of dance skills as well as artistry and style, whereas the Russians were stronger than many seniors in this sphere. With everyone at a similar difficulty level, it was nice to see that little “something extra” rewarded, which is not something we can always see happen at the senior level, where difficulty – often built up from huge vaults and power tumbling – almost always wins out.

But instead of seeing these clear reasons why the Russians had the edge here, many fans who have been watching women’s gymnastics over the past decade – lots of whom started watching during the U.S. glory days and know no other reality – were flabbergasted to see the U.S. juniors miss out on gold in Györ. Despite the Russians coming in as practically unbeatable, and despite the U.S. team not being quite up to par, a common reaction to the results was disappointment in the U.S. not living up to their hype.

It’s not about “what went wrong” for the U.S., however. In reality, not much went wrong for the team in Györ, and despite a missed beam routine from Skye Blakely, the team counted no falls or major mistakes in its final team score. A young and incredibly inexperienced group, the U.S. performed cleanly and confidently, and a bronze for this team was an excellent result up against the stellar Russians as well as a beautiful Chinese team, which had huge scores from the breathtaking all-around medalist Ou Yushan to help boost her country a tenth ahead of the United States.

If the U.S. had a chance at all to take the gold here, the advantage would have come from the girls’ ability to handle their difficult skills with a level of consistency and tidiness that initially brought them to prominence back in 2011. That’s what they’re known for, while the Russians have historically been exciting but inconsistent, holding them back from the big scores we might expect from them and causing them to miss out on many medal opportunities over the years. But then in Györ, the Russians had the big routines and the consistency to get through them, leaving the U.S. unable to capitalize on Russia’s mistakes, which practically didn’t exist.

Coming into junior worlds, the U.S. also didn’t really focus on any sort of strategy the way the national team coordinator would normally do when looking to choose a major international team, and while there was some backlash for this method of team selection and meant a lower team score than the U.S. could have been capable of posting, I think it was the right decision for this level of competitors.

At the trial event at camp, the rule was that the top three all-arounders would be the three to compete in Györ. End of story.  While the meet or selection camp closest to the main event usually counts the most when choosing a senior team, the selection committee always looks at competitive history over time and uses more of a strategy beyond “top X all-arounders” because the only way to come up with a team with the highest possible scoring potential is to treat selection like a puzzle. A seventh-place all-arounder with the country’s top scores on bars and beam might make more sense than a fourth-place all-arounder with no standout events, for example, and it’s this careful strategy on most senior teams that helps them regularly reach record-breaking scores in team finals.

“Place top three on this one day of competition” isn’t a strategy, but rather a gamble. Chances are, you’re still going to get three really strong gymnasts in the top three, but if a top gymnast makes a mistake or has a rough day, as Konnor McClain had at the selection camp, or if a bars and beam standout can’t outscore top all-arounders without a Yurchenko double on vault, as is the case with Ciena Alipio, it means there’s no real thought going into who best fits the puzzle, creating a team that’s still pretty solid, but which isn’t taking full advantage of all potential top scores.

While I love thinking about team strategies, especially for programs with depth like that in the U.S., and while I can come up with several strategies that could’ve led to higher scores than what the U.S. team ultimately scored in Györ, I kind of like that Tom Forster made the selection process for this junior competition super transparent and incredibly fair.

In the grand scheme of things, this is a junior meet that doesn’t really mean anything or have any bearing on the future of either the U.S. program or any of the athletes who competed. Don’t get me wrong, it’s awesome to finally see juniors get to compete on the world stage, and it’s a huge deal in the sense of giving young gymnasts major international experience that can help them in the long run. Earning a spot on this team was a fantastic honor, but ultimately this was a junior meet with no lasting implications, so why go crazy putting kids under the immense pressure that comes with testing them at multiple meets over an extended period of time? Especially at a time in our sport where we’ve spent the last several years learning exactly how the physical, mental, and emotional health of gymnasts was ignored as long as the team was coming out on top. To see something valued here beyond “winning gold” is a major step for the program, and while I don’t think it’s a process they’ll repeat for more significant senior competitions down the line, it’s the perfect way to select teams for junior and lower-level senior meets.

That said, even if the selection committee went by the numbers and looked at overall competitive history to choose the absolute strongest team, I still think the Russians would’ve had the advantage in a three-up, two-count format. The three who competed for Russia are the most talented group of juniors in the world right now, and they’re more well-rounded than any other group. With someone like McClain or Alipio on the team, the U.S. may have had a better shot of earning more individual medals, and they also likely would’ve come in ahead of China with hit routines, but the gold truly was Russia’s to lose when all is said and done.

It’s not a bad thing for the U.S. to face some healthy competition. If anything, strong competition only serves to make the weaker teams even stronger, and with the kind of depth the U.S. has in its junior program, they’re still looking to add a tremendous amount of talent into the senior pool in the coming years. I can think of about eight juniors who could’ve competed at this year’s junior worlds and come away with roughly the same results, whereas for Russia, the three superstars who competed in Györ are pretty much it for the program, and if the team had to replace even one of its members, it would’ve been a challenge to maintain the top team spot.

You should never let the results of one meet, especially a junior meet, act as a predictor for the future health of the entire program. Yes, the Russians here were fantastic, but the U.S. will maintain dominance over Russia at the senior level for the foreseeable future because of this incredible level of depth that goes beyond what any other program in the world could even dream of right now.

While Russia has three juniors who can easily score a 55+ in international competition, making them unbeatable at the junior level at this very moment in time, beyond that they have only a few other juniors who can score above a 50 internationally. The U.S., meanwhile, has one or two who could get a 55 right now, and then they have another five or so not so far below that benchmark on top of another 10 or so girls who can get a realistic 52 or better on a good day, and this is how it’s always been for the U.S. juniors in the last decade. Compare that to the Russian program, where last year, the junior team lost to Italy at European Championships, and next year, with Urazova and Gerasimova moving into the senior ranks, the juniors could once again be in a bind. The U.S., however, will pretty much always consistently have a dozen girls at a decent enough level to contend for a major podium internationally, and in the long run, that depth will win out over a program with a few gymnasts who happen to be standouts at the moment.

It’s funny, because last quad, everyone freaked out about how terrible it was that girls like Lexie Priessman, Katelyn Ohashi, and Bailie Key had insane junior skills by age 12 and then each made it only months into their senior careers. Now girls who are 13 or 14 are keeping their difficulty slow and steady with the hopes of transitioning into healthy senior elites, and people are freaking out about them being unable to keep up with Russia, leading to the end of U.S. domination in the sport.

Almost every single top U.S. gymnast in the past decade has peaked at 16 or older, and now, thanks to the Hopes program becoming more of a thing, more kids are waiting until they’re 13 or 14 to try elite for the first time instead of trying to qualify at 11 or 12, and I think many U.S. coaches are finally recognizing that the key to success is longevity and not forcing 12-year-olds to compete double doubles and Amanars and 7.0-difficulty beam routines for four years.

When you see gymnasts like Priessman, Ohashi, and Key burning out so early while multi-quad senior elites like Simone Biles, Aly Raisman, and Gabby Douglas were practically adults by the time they began to reach their peak, it’s pretty clear that pushing too much difficulty too young is wrong, and while most of the current top U.S. juniors lack exciting skills and don’t come up to par against the terrific Russian program, I’m thrilled that they’re training now more for longevity and healthy senior careers rather than giving it their all at 14 just to retire a year or two later.

As tough competitors, I know the U.S. team was probably a bit bummed to walk away from Györ with “only” the team bronze and just one individual medal. However, I also know they seemed to fully enjoy themselves at this competition, and they should be proud of themselves for giving it their all and maintaining their composure and sportsmanship even when facing disappointment.

The U.S. ladies came into this competition with almost no experience (aside from Kayla DiCello getting a few assignments last year, Skye Blakely‘s only international meet was Gymnix this year, while this was Sydney Barros‘ international debut for Team USA), and they competed very well in a tough field, and they should be incredibly proud of what they accomplished. It’s been a very long time since the U.S. has had competitors at their level, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. declining, but rather countries like Russia and China stepping it up, which is a good thing.

This wasn’t a U.S. blowout meet like so many senior competitions have been since 2011, and yet there’s absolutely nothing to take away from junior world championships signifying that the U.S. is anything less than dominant.

Hopefully the Russian and Chinese talent that bested the U.S. team here will translate to greater depth in these programs so we can see these countries continue to challenge the U.S., making for some truly thrilling future competitions, but for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to reign at the senior level, and that’s thanks to the consistent and clean skills, smart pacing, and unending pool of talent that made them dominant in the first place.

Article by Lauren Hopkins

41 thoughts on “The United States Didn’t Win Gold, and That’s Okay

  1. Thank you for explaining this so eloquently. I think we really do take the U.S. seniors’ success for granted. It’s easy to forget that Simone accounted for half of the deficit between team USA and everyone else last year by herself on top of other teams usually counting falls and major mistakes where the USA usually does not. I also definitely recognized that the juniors seem to be taking things a lot more slowly, especially the girls whose first shot at an Olympic team won’t come until 2024. I think US fans are just used to winning and so taking an “L” hurts even when the reasons why make sense. Interestingly enough, I think that could inspire the younger girls…keep them on their toes and motivated to keep working hard rather than getting too comfortable at the top of the podium. Builds character. And Russian getting this win helps prove that the scoring isn’t AS broken as people make it out to be. Their artistry and execution gave them an insurmountable edge when paired with good difficulty AND consistency, which are often lacking at the senior level for a lot of athletes. That’s the kind of balance everyone should aspire to.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Great article. The only thing I take a little side eye is the ‘The Russians were hot that year and gold was a long shot for the U.S. Even with multiple falls and mistakes, the Russians, led by the legendary Aliya Mustafina in her senior worlds debut, proved to be unstoppable.’

    Aliyas debut was spectacular. No doubt. But the Russians didn’t win by a huge margin, Say if Mattie Larson would have received her qualifying score which wasn’t even that good compared to Raisman and Sacramone, of 13.233 USA would have been in 1st place. This isn’t Unstoppable, they ranked 7th on Bars with 2 falls. So even with multiple falls and mistakes in traditional Russian fashion they were ‘unstoppable’ and almost were STOPPED but alas it didnt work that way. It wasn’t a long shot, it was completely possible because of the mistakes the Russians made, that team final was a mess.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry I meant Bross and Raismans, not Sacramones floor score in finals, compared to Larsons qualifying score being much lower would have still done the job to have them win in finals. Caquattos, and Sloans qualifying floor score would have gotten them the gold as well I believe.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Don’t forget, Larson was legit US fx champ that year, and both her worlds quals and finals scores included falls. That said, even with a US Nats fx from her, you can’t forget that Russia still counted 2 ub falls and still won the gold.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yup, Mattie was expected to bring in the top floor score for the team, but even then, had she hit in the final, if Russia had ALSO hit in the final, Russia would’ve won. This was legit a great meet for the U.S. team and a terrible one for Russia, and it was a testament to the Russian talent that they still pulled off gold.

          Liked by 1 person

    • I was talking more how I felt about that team going into worlds as being the major “one to beat” whereas the US was kind of like well, they have Alicia and Bross I guess? Aly wasn’t Aly yet, I still remember the look on her and Martha’s face when they realized she made the floor final, which they weren’t expecting at all, and everyone else was pretty solid but not like, specialist/individual medalist-solid. Like Russia came in with a superstar new senior and huge routines from multiple gymnasts, whereas the US was good but not really an “omg amazing” team. Talent-wise, going into worlds I felt like Russia was gonna blow the US away, and it was a testament to that talent that they got the win even looking like a total and utter mess in the team final (compared to the US with an overall great meet aside from one fall). It’s possible for any team to fall apart in a team final so no win is really a guarantee and no team is really unbeatable, but if the Russians completely killed it in that final, and if everyone else hit as well, they would’ve been the clear champions by a good margin.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Also this is just a note that this is how I remember thinking and feeling ten years ago, having watched a mediocre US nationals and then some insane Russian meets where everyone was rumored to have Amanars and Nabieva was getting 16s on bars and they had multiple individual Euros medalists…my memory has Russia as this ridiculously out-of-this-world team and the US as being exciting for Alicia’s comeback and Bross hopefully challenging for the all-around. But overall watching both teams at various meets going into worlds, the overwhelming feeling for many fans was that Russia was going to be super difficult for anyone to beat even though the scores ended up being much closer in reality.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yeah, Ok I totally understand the context now. The potential to demolish was there, and they still won with 2 falls is a testament to that. I took it more as a they were unbeatable – unstoppable in the actual comp when it was so so close in the end. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

    • actually Russia had 3 falls on bars. Dementyeva fell on a release (Tkatchev?) and Nabieva fell on her Nabieva and a low bar pirouetting skill.


  3. Yes!
    Fans: All USAG cared about were money and medals.
    Fans: These 13 Yr olds only got bronze, they’re shiiiiiiiit!
    The concept of competition seems lost on some gym fans.

    Liked by 2 people

    • There’s a LOT of hypocrisy among US fans. What you said, then there’s “juniors do too much difficulty and retire!!!” “WHY AREN’T THE JUNIORS DOING MORE DIFFICULTY?!” and “we need transparency and no politics for picking teams!!!” *Tom makes literally the most transparent team requirement ever* “THE US IS SO STUPID FOR LEAVING BEHIND TOP GYMNASTS!!!!” It’s like…you can’t have it both ways?!

      Liked by 2 people

      • We want transparency and a team selection that makes sense, and that absolutely can co-exist. I would have been perfectly content with Tom picking the highest-scoring team of three instead of three all-arounders, as long as he then explained that “Gymnast X scored better in the all-around at trials, but Gymnast Y’s score on bars is very valuable and so we decided to go that way.” Transparent, yet makes sense for the team. I think a middle ground is a totally okay thing to want, and I think it is what people actually do want. The argument that the US left behind top gymnasts that could have helped the team score has nothing to do with lack of transparency in the team selection, because they did leave gymnasts behind, and Tom could have selected a team transparently while also maximizing the team score.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Thank you so much for this! This is what I’ve been saying every time I see someone whine about: “Junior Worlds proves it: it’s over for the US after 2020.” It was one junior meet in which not all juniors were even eligible to participate. The outcome of this one meet doesn’t mean anything at all about the future senior program of any country. There’s a whole lot more athletes than just those who were at Junior Worlds, and so much can change in a few years.

    This is a side note, but I’ve seen a lot of people using Junior Worlds to try to illustrate that the only reason the US is dominant is because of Simone. This just plain isn’t true. It is as you said: their insane depth is what makes them dominant. Just look at 2018 Worlds. The US won by nearly 9 points. Every place besides first and second were separated by a point or less. Simone is amazing, but she’s not giving them a 9 point advantage (or anywhere close to it) on her own. The US would have still won by a lot even if Simone weren’t there, and the same is true for the 2016 Olympics. It’s easy to make Simone out to be there entire reason the US is good when she is so incredibly talented, but doing that ignores the talent of the rest of the US gymnasts.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Yup, and if worlds had a team competition in 2017, they would’ve won by quite a bit then as well. Simone adds a couple points more than one of the 56 AA gymnasts adds, but she’s not even close to solely responsible for the nine-point leads.

        Liked by 1 person

    • With Ragan’s scores from 2018 nationals instead of Simone’s, in the 2018 team final the US would have won by almost 4 points. Simone is certainly helping, but the other girls on that team were damned amazing on their own.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. I absolutely love this article!! I have to be that person though, and say that they left with two individual medals; DiCello’s vault gold and beam bronze.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The Russian program needs this boost more than US . I hope all these juniors stay healthy because the Russians really offers something special to the sport. The US should focus on less acrobatics and more dance at this young age. Save their bodies!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Russians were fantastic and though the rest of their junior program isn’t as strong as these three (save for two or three others who are really promising), I hope this inspires them to keep the program on the rise! It’s going to be so exciting in the coming years to see some really tough competition between Russia, the U.S., and China.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lauren do you think that the “Big 4” could be back in 2023 assuming that Romania can somehow keep Puflea and Maneca healthy?


  7. I’m so glad you wrote this. I got into it a little bit on USAG’s facebook page with some a-holes who were complaining. I made the same general points you did, but probably not as eloquently.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yeah, I couldn’t believe the hate I saw for three young women who traveled to Györ and did their best. Sometimes your best still won’t beat the other team and it has literally nothing to do with how you performed! These girls were fantastic, especially given that it was really the first big/competitive international competition for Skye and Sydney.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. If Junior Worlds had used the more common 3-up, 3 count format, these would have been the results:

    1. Russia – 164.786
    2. USA – 162.046
    3. China – 159.946
    4. Belgium – 153.729
    5. GBR – 152.813
    6. Roumania – 151.995
    7. Italy – 151.795
    8. Germany – 149.830
    9. Brazil – 149.395
    10. Japan – 148.459

    The big 3 are still at the top, but there was a lot of shuffling of the rest of the top 10.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, this is all a depth issue…many countries have two solid enough all-arounders to put up a great team score with only two gymnasts competing, but when you start increasing the numbers of athletes per team, countries with depth will come in and blow the rest of the programs out of the water. This is also why the U.S. is generally so successful at worlds and the Olympics with five gymnasts on a team, and if the teams here had five members, the U.S. would’ve been much more competitive against Russia, as Russia wouldn’t really have been able to put anyone else on the team who could’ve outscored the three there, but if the U.S. added Konnor and Ciena to the three who competed, they’d have potential to be the top team.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I enjoyed reading the article, but I have to quote this: “In the grand scheme of things, this is a junior meet that doesn’t really mean anything or have any bearing on the future of either the U.S. program or any of the athletes who competed.”

    I believe your intention was probably not to be plain rude, and maybe you didn’t realize how bitter this sounds when it’s read out loud, but what’s written is written and this is not beautiful. It’s like you’re saying: “The US didn’t win, but that’s okay because this competition means nothing.” This is borderline disrespectful to the gymnasts, coaches and to the sport in general.

    I understand that a big number of junior gymnasts do not challenge for major medals in their senior years, if they even reach the senior level, that is, but there IS a number of gymnasts who need these junior competitions to build up consistency, strength and confidence. And being the world champion, or a medalist at the world championships, is a huge boost of confidence, be it on the junior level or senior level.

    This may have been the first edition of the junior worlds, but the competition was taken seriously by the whole planet, including the US (who never took the Youth Olympics seriously) and the US lost the gold medal. As you’ve written, that’s okay. This is how things work in sports: one day you win, the next day you might lose.

    The most graceful thing one could say about Russia’s junior program is how superior they are. This is where you should have stopped, in my opinion. Just my two cents.


    • I didn’t mean (or even say, lol) that the competition “means nothing.” All I talked about was how amazing the Russians were, in this article, during live blogs, on Twitter…literally everywhere, because they’re a much better team than even the most incredible team the U.S. could’ve put together, and it’s a huge deal for them to be the first major international team to beat the U.S. in almost a decade. I’m saying from the standpoint of what this meet means in terms of the results and moving on from here into the future, there’s nothing that comes out of it that’s consequential for these programs, e.g. the Russian program isn’t magically going to start dominating and the U.S. program isn’t going to crumble into dust because of one junior meet.

      That doesn’t mean it’s “meaningless”…there’s a stark difference between “this meet doesn’t mean anything for these athletes/programs in terms of what’s next” and “this meet is meaningless/has no point or value.” I literally talked in this article about the value that a competition like this adds for juniors getting experience on the major international stage, which almost never happens for most programs. It’s not “meaningless” and I didn’t say it was. But juniors in a three-up two-count glorified all-around team competition isn’t quite the same thing as a legit senior team competition, and so people taking these results as a shift in the global power dynamic are getting carried away, and that’s the point I was making.

      Please don’t put words in my mouth or change the meaning of what I said to start an argument about how I don’t like Russia when I’ve been nothing but complimentary of these juniors all year long (personally, from this U.S. team, I’m really only a fan of Skye’s bars and beam, and was actively rooting for Russia and China to win…you should see my group chat from when I found out the U.S. got booted from the AA podium). Since Jesolo I’ve called Russia the best junior team in the world, hands down, and I literally wrote a preview saying that the Russians were going to win by a lot because they’re a more talented/artistic/technically proficient group of athletes. Me saying “this meet has no bearing on the future of the sport” doesn’t take away from their win and it’s not sour grapes because the U.S. didn’t win. It’s simply the truth, and another way to bring home the argument against people who think the U.S. domination is “over” because the juniors got bronze at one meet that IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS does not affect the future of the U.S. (or any) program.

      It’s like when Russia won Universiade in 2013 by something like 20 points ahead of Japan, and fans started screeching about how the U.S. “only won by 5 points in London,” taking this result to mean that Russia was going to crush the U.S. in team competition in the coming quad. This is a way more ridiculous and extreme case of fan reaction, and I don’t think I have to explain why this logic is absolutely insane, lol. But my point in bringing the comparison is that the results from Universiade pretty much never reflect the overall health of the actual programs that compete, and so while Universiade isn’t “meaningless” and has tremendous value within the sport, it doesn’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Just like junior worlds.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for the explanation. I agree with you on all points. I was very impressed by many young gymnasts during this competition. Just a question : do you think that the Nassar scandal could affect the depth of US gym ? I mean that parents could be distrustful towards gym clubs and reluctant to intrust their children …

        Liked by 1 person

        • I thought there might be some backlash but it seems many parents weren’t really concerned that the sport itself was ruined because of one man, which is great. It’s like when something similar happens in schools and churches, people don’t give up on education and religion, so it’s nice to see that one terrible monster isn’t making people turn away from the sport. If anything, I think having people like Simone and Aly in such a great spotlight over the last few years has done more to help the sport than Nassar did to ruin it!


      • I never put words in your mouth. You might not be happy with my comment, but like I mentioned earlier, what is written is written and I quoted what is written. I never said you did not compliment the Russians; on the contrary, I mentioned that after complimenting the Russians you should have stopped instead of adding the sentence I quoted. Besides, complimenting the Russians and still thinking this competition is not relevant are not contradictory ideas, so there’s enough room here for interpretation. Anyway, thanks for showing your point. I might not completely agree with you, but it’s okay. It’s nice to see things differently sometimes.


        • Well, I read my comment again and, yes, I mentioned that it was like you said this competition means nothing. This is what I could understand at first, and I apologize after you’ve explained this is not what you meant. Still, it’s important that you made things clear, especially after the sentence I quoted.


    • This comment is a great illustration of how someone can take offense at nearly anything if the person is willing to take it out of context enough. The single sentence you quoted has a very clear meaning within the larger context of the entire 24 paragraph long post. That meaning is not anything close to the meaning you implied in your comment. Clearly, you were looking to be offended by this post. If you look hard enough for offense, you will find it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I was not looking to be offended. I’m not this kind of person. I’m trying to be empathetic. If you don’t like my comment, okay, there’s nothing I can do. But don’t act all holier-than-thou, don’t patronize me. Your comment adds nothing to this discussion.


  10. Pingback: Around the Gymternet: Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday | The Gymternet

  11. Pingback: You Asked, The Gymternet Answered | The Gymternet

  12. Pingback: You Asked, The Gymternet Answered – allgym18

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s