Beth Tweddle

It’s time for the 343rd edition of You Asked, The Gymternet Answered!

We apologize if we haven’t gotten to your question yet, but we try to answer in the order in which they were received (unless they are super relevant and need to be answered in a timely manner).

Something you want to know? Ask us anonymously by going through the contact form at the bottom of the page.

Thinking about how Laurie Hernandez was (incorrectly) being touted as a bars and floor specialist ahead of Rio, has there ever been an elite gymnast, particularly in the three-up three-count era, who could accurately be described as such? It seems like such an odd combination of specialties. 

Whenever I saw NBC calling her the bars/floor specialist I would die a little inside…it was SO OBVIOUS that beam was her thing?! I have NO idea where they got that and found it especially funny when she didn’t do bars in Rio AND won a beam medal. I think I yelled about this a lot on Twitter and in my live blog, like, don’t listen to them! It’s not true!

To answer your question, I think Beth Tweddle is probably most notable as a bars and floor specialist, especially under the open-ended code…and I’m also going to say Brenna Dowell and Elizabeth Price fit really well into this description. It’s definitely not a typical combination for a specialist, but I think all three are similar in that they were all more “powerful” bar workers with big releases and lots of amplitude in their swing, and that power also translated on floor (and vault for Dowell and Price).

What is happening with Charlotte Booth? She placed 4th on bars at the English Championships but doesn’t have an FIG license?

Booth decided that since she is eligible to have UK citizenship, she wanted to train in the country for a bit and see how things go in terms of potentially changing her nationality with the FIG. It sounded like she was just playing around with the idea at first and hadn’t fully committed to the nation change process, so she still had an active FIG license for the United States, but I think once the British team had so many injuries and it became clear that she could potentially be an option for the Olympic team, she filed for a nation change, which the U.S. approved effective immediately, and she is now eligible to compete internationally as a member of the British squad. She ultimately ended up earning one of the reserve spots for the British team in Paris this summer, which was pretty unexpected based on how things looked when she first started her journey, but it was amazing to watch her go so far!

How does the reserve system work for the Olympics? 

It depends on how the athlete who is being replaced qualifies, but generally there are ‘alternates’ from each qualification process sitting in wait for someone to withdraw. For example, if someone who qualified via the all-around at world championships had to withdraw, the athlete who is next-in-line based on the all-around rankings would get that spot. But if someone who qualified through vault at the apparatus world cup series withdrew, the next-highest-ranked athlete would earn the spot, and if someone who qualified through a continental championship competition withdrew, the reserve athlete would be selected from that specific continental meet…and so on!

Is there something about gymnastics that inherently stunts or postpones growth in athletes, or is it just that coaches believe those who are naturally smaller tend to be the best in the sport and cut athletes who don’t meet their (ridiculous) physical standards once they become teenagers? 

I feel like in the past it was almost entirely the latter, but now that we’re seeing more and more gymnasts competing into their 20s and 30s in more developed “grown” bodies as well as more body types becoming the norm within the sport compared to the old-school “pixie” type, we’re not seeing the puberty delay as much or as often as we did in earlier decades, where developed athletes were forced to retire or kept out of the elite levels entirely. There are still athletes who enter the senior levels pre-puberty, so it could be that there are just a lot of coaches who believe that the tiny kids who stay undeveloped will make the best elite gymnasts, or it could be that the late bloomers tend to last longer in the sport than those who go through puberty earlier and find it difficult to transition their skills and routines in more developed bodies. But I do think athletes who are more developed in terms of their musculature are better suited to the difficulty requirements in the sport right now, so at least those who do develop later are seeing that puberty doesn’t have to mean retirement or that they can’t do the same levels of difficulty they were doing in smaller bodies.

Why did Jordyn Wieber get to compete at the American Cup in 2009 when she was only 13?

The American Cup didn’t become a FIG-sponsored world cup until 2011. As a FIG world cup, the organizers had to invite gymnasts based on their ranking at the previous year’s world championships, but without that designation, the organizers were essentially free to do whatever they wanted, and though they generally stuck with the same format and invited only senior elites, occasionally we saw some shake-ups, like an apparatus format instead of an all-around format in 2005, and then of course an invite being extended to the very junior Wieber in 2009.

How much is flexibility something that can be trained and learned versus something your body can or can’t do? I’ve always wondered this for gymnasts who have trouble hitting 180. Is flexibility not prioritized, or is it possible some gymnast’s bodies can’t physically hit a full split?

Flexibility is definitely something you can work on, but every body has its limits. There are people who are just naturally more flexible than others, so someone could be the best gymnast in the world but not have natural flexibility and will really have to work on hitting 180 harder than they have to work on doing super difficult tumbling or bar releases! It’s also true that the more muscular a person is, the harder flexibility becomes…I sometimes see really flexible juniors gain more muscles as they grow up and they lose some of that flexibility that once came much easier.

There’s also a difference between static and dynamic flexibility. I can do a 180 split on the ground but can barely get to 120 in the air…unless I’m on a trampoline and then I can get quite a bit more but still not to 180. I think there are definitely a lot of gymnasts who have better static flexibility, so doing a split on the floor is easy but hitting 180 in the air is not. But then on the other side are the gymnasts who are super powerful, and they might not have full splits on the floor, but they can use their strength to kind of force that 180 (or close to it) in the air, meaning they have better dynamic flexibility. I think Alicia Sacramone and Aly Raisman are good examples of gymnasts with good dynamic flexibility…I think at one point one of them showed a picture of them trying to do a split and they weren’t close to a full split on the ground. I was like HOW hahaha…but then they can jump into one in the air.

So basically all gymnasts are putting a lot of time and effort into training 180 splits in the air, but it definitely doesn’t come as naturally for some…and I’d say these gymnasts are probably working even harder at that 180 line than those who have flexibility come more easily to them!

Do you think the U.S. women will start wearing unitards at competitions?

I doubt it. Most of the U.S. gymnasts were actually asked on the press conferences at nationals a couple of years ago if they would prefer unitards and they pretty much all said that while they respect the German women for taking this step, they felt it wouldn’t be comfortable making the change themselves. The overwhelming opinion was that they were simply used to what most people consider the “competition” leo, so they preferred to stick with what they knew. I don’t think it’s even a comfort thing, as the sleeveless leos are generally more physically comfortable than the long sleeves, but rather a tradition or habit that they’d been competing in since childhood. Maybe if the majority of the U.S. athletes were like “we demand this change” the USAG women’s program would have to cave, but since all of the athletes individually seemed pretty against it, I don’t see it happening, at least on the national team. But maybe we’ll see a few who are into it show up at national-level meets wearing unitards in the future?

Why are there different ratings for circle elements depending on whether they’re in reverse grip or L grip (like an Endo being a C but Endo in L grip being a D), but not for release moves? Wouldn’t it be harder to generate height and rotation if you swing into a Jaeger from L grip rather than reverse grip?

The grip is unrelated to the release and is actually part of the swinging element. Most gymnasts do a backward giant with a half turn to either reverse grip (usually called a blind change) or to L grip (a Higgins roll) as the skill before the Jaeger. Both of these are worth a B…even though the Higgins roll is definitely a bit more difficult than your usual blind change, with pirouettes capped, it doesn’t make sense to bump this up to a C when there are more difficult L grip elements to account for. Whether a gymnast does a blind change or a Higgins roll into a Jaeger, the value is the same.

However, if the gymnast did a Higgins roll and then performed a front giant in L grip and then did a Jaeger, that front giant in L grip would be worth a C, so that’s where the extra difficulty would come in. Most don’t do this, though, because connecting a C element to a Jaeger isn’t worth anything in CV, and most top bar workers won’t be counting C elements in their routines, so it’s just kind of pointless to do either this Higgins roll to front giant in L grip to Jaeger or just a straight up Higgins roll to Jaeger. We really only see the Higgins roll for gymnasts going into front L grip pirouette sequences (so like, the Chinese).

Why are some coaches relatively unscathed in the public eye without any repercussions following complaints against them? In recent years, Mary Lee Tracy and Kim Zmeskal have had many former athletes from various time periods stand against them and file complaints…but nothing came of it. Former Utah gymnast Hailee Hoffman came forward and said she reported Mary Wright, but wasn’t sure if SafeSport would “accept” her complaint. Does this mean the coaches were not formally investigated or found guilty?

I think the first thing here is that SafeSport doesn’t seem to prioritize emotional or even sometimes physical abuse, unless it is serious or easy to prove (by ‘serious’ I mean hitting or pushing an athlete as opposed to making them train on an injury, which is still very serious and should be considered physical abuse but is unfortunately still considered ‘acceptable’ in soooo many cases). From my own experience listening to athletes and parents talk about these kinds of ‘gray area’ cases, they tend to get pushed back for a year or more, and by then, most of those who have made complaints no longer have the time or energy to attend hearings (especially when the hearings are rescheduled over and over, largely because SafeSport is severely understaffed and usually prioritizes sexual abuse or those ‘serious’ physical abuse that can be easily proven).

A gymnast coming forward and saying “my coach yelled at me and made me train on a broken foot” is obviously very serious and claims like these should always be investigated thoroughly, but if there’s no evidence aside from the gymnast’s word, unfortunately there isn’t very much that can be done and these kinds of complaints tend to be pushed back. SafeSport would have absolutely accepted Hoffman’s complaint but I can see how the investigation wouldn’t turn anything up, especially since her complaint came years after her abuse happened. In the case of Maggie Haney, on the other hand, there was pretty strong evidence against her (I believe both video and text messages in addition to the large number of gymnasts and parents who came forward), so despite being on the lower end of the priority spectrum, it was easy for investigators to come to a conclusion…and even that case took years to put in motion, and then another year or so to investigate and go to a hearing.

From what I’d heard, there was an ongoing investigation into Tracy’s behavior, but it’s been in the works for at least a year based on the information I have, so I can see this as one that’s just been pushed back due to SafeSport’s priorities. I also know that most of the gymnasts who came forward about Zmeskal did NOT file SafeSport complaints…there may have been someone who did but I talked to two athletes at the time who said they felt no need to have her formally investigated and were just sharing their experiences to help others who have been in that situation. I think there are definitely many instances like this, where a gymnast will talk about abuse they’ve suffered but not want to move forward with something more official, which I understand.

I understand triaging abuse cases to prioritize the most serious offenders, especially when SafeSport doesn’t have the resources to handle every complaint, but I also think the seemingly less serious cases are sometimes just as – if not more – dangerous, as coaches are able to get away with emotional and physical abuse that is so harmful for years without anyone paying attention, and I wish there was a way to treat all cases as top priority. Until that happens, I think we can all believe those who come forward and share their stories in the hope that public naming and shaming will keep parents from sending their kids to abusive coaches, gyms, college programs, and so on.

In the past, you wrote extensively about Kim Zmeskal and Maggie Haney showing them in a positive light, giving them significant positive press before their abuse was uncovered. Do you feel you shouldn’t have spoken/written with such authority, knowing what you now know? Are you going to be more cautious about writing about the culture of a gym in the future, when you do not know the truth of the situation?

I one million percent don’t think I should have written about these or any coaches with any authority, and I truly don’t understand how I thought my personal opinions of them as people could color my entire view of who they were as coaches. The most important thing I’ve learned related to discussing gymnastics – or sports in general – over the past eight years is that I may think I know a coach but I have never been in the gym with them as an athlete and I therefore have absolutely zero authority to share my opinion of a coach or to discuss the culture of a gymnastics program.

It’s been a strange journey, because I’ve always tended to take people at face value and I assume that if someone is really nice or friendly or welcoming or funny or charming, I have no reason to be suspicious of them. That was probably really naive on my part, and I’ve since had other experiences in my personal life that have changed my worldview entirely, but how someone presents in public does not mean that is who they are, and so many people are sadly monsters when no one is looking. I’d so often see coaches at competitions or in videos at the gym where they’d be smiling and telling jokes, their gymnasts would be laughing, the whole vibe would look really relaxed and fun – so if someone asked me if I thought someone like this was a good coach, I’d say yes without hesitation. They’re great and their athletes clearly love them, why would I even question it? Writing this just now is kind of mind-blowing because I don’t even know how I wouldn’t question it at this stage, but prior to 2016 – and even a little after 2016 – I just didn’t expect someone could be so wildly different behind closed doors and so I never even really considered it until athletes started coming forward.

I also think there were so many coaches who were awful in public, so seeing someone like Zmeskal or Haney was refreshing and I trusted that they were ‘good.’ But it truly is so easy to be fooled, and I think some of the most dangerous coaches are the ones everyone loves and who have really good public reputations, because if someone comes forward with a story of abuse at the hands of these people, they are far less likely to be believed. I personally have experienced this at the hands of one of these types of coaches, someone I was once friendly with but who turned on me and got quite scary in one interaction, but when I expressed my concerns to a couple other journalists who were also my friends, they both told me I was “overreacting” and that this coach was pretty fantastic, actually. I once also had that opinion, so naturally I questioned myself and my feelings about her and the situation, and reasoned that they were probably right and that I was the problem. This was in 2015, before any stories of abuse within USAG and around the globe were widely public, but I later realized that this same exact thing happened with the number of people who defended Larry Nassar when we first saw reports of his abuse – including some of his victims at first! – because he was so ‘good’ and publicly beloved as a rare positive light within a tough sport. He couldn’t possibly have done anything remotely close to what athletes were alleging!

It’s so easy to make these judgment calls when you assume your personal perspective is the ‘correct’ perspective. I don’t think I ever even consciously thought that my perspective about anyone was ‘correct’ but just rather didn’t even question my perspective about a coach until someone else said something to change it. My negative experience with a coach who was once so friendly to me was shocking, and yet this didn’t change how I felt about people in general, and I was continuously shocked every time I found out something terrible about another coach I once considered to be ‘good.’ When I first read allegations about Zmeskal’s abusive coaching, I was shocked. And I experienced that again and again with every other coach I once thought was ‘good’ but was later outed as not so much. I believed the allegations each and every time, and will never question an athlete who comes forward, but until those allegations came out about each and every coach, I continued to believe in the ‘good’ I experienced and if someone were to ask me if I thought so-and-so was a ‘good’ coach, I’d continue to say yes until proven otherwise, and didn’t really see the harm in sharing my opinion about a person based on my experiences with them.

Now, I’m hesitant to share personal experiences with any adult who has authority within the sport because I don’t even want to subtly suggest that someone is ‘good’ if there is even the tiniest chance that an athlete is suffering under their control. It’s sad in a way, as I used to value many of the relationships I had with people I admired in this sport, but it’s also necessary to separate myself and my experiences with coaches from how someone behaves as a coach. I don’t want to believe everyone is inherently not good, and I actually still don’t believe that, but I think I’m much more careful about how I advertise them and I try to stick to sharing only what athletes say about their experiences rather than publicizing my opinions.

Even then, it’s such a fine line! I once spent a full day in the gym and at dinner with multiple athletes, their families, and other coaches who were all so enamored with their head coach, someone I also found so funny and endearing. By this time, about two years post-Nassar, I was more leery of coaches or other authority figures and their public personas, but I thought it was ‘safe’ to discuss this coach from the perspective of everyone else around her, and so I happily published information about this visit and what I saw and heard. Of course, only a couple of years later every single one of the people I spent time with came forward with horror stories, things that were happening during the time I spent with them but that were so normalized, no one really recognized what a toxic environment it was at the time (and if they did, they kept silent about it). I had publicly discussed what a fun and healthy situation this was, based zero percent on my own experiences and one hundred percent on the experiences of those who lived it every single day. I really felt like I was so cautious in this situation, and yet here we were once again, and I felt so guilty for not being more careful with how I discussed the coach, the gym, and the culture.

I feel like the most responsible thing to do at this point is to not discuss coaches, programs, or cultures at ALL. Yes, I’d love to share a quote from someone like Simone Biles talking about how incredible her coaches have been in helping her overcome her experiences in 2021, adding exactly zero of my own context or insight, but can I do this when other athletes have discussed their own negative experiences with these same coaches? What if other athletes are suffering in silence right now? Does every quote or story about a coach need to be asterisked with a note that this is only one athlete’s experience? I feel like that’s overkill, and most people now know that one person’s experience is not everyone’s experience, but I’d still feel responsible for promoting a coach as ‘good’ when they potentially haven’t been ‘good’ for everyone, and so I tend to not talk about coaches at all outside of facts and figures.

Again, this is possibly an extreme way to think about everything, but I never again want to be responsible for spreading positive depictions of situations that could privately be anything but, and I want to take ownership if I do overtly praise a coach or another person in power and make sure that it’s very clear when something I share is based solely on my experiences. I went from not even considering this when talking about gymnastics to being so hyperaware of how my opinions could affect other people, and maybe now I overthink things too much, but ultimately it was a necessary lesson and I would rather be overly cautious than allow my personal experiences to define people or situations of which I have only a minuscule understanding.

Have a question? Ask below! Remember that the form directly below this line is for questions; to comment, keep scrolling to the bottom of the page. We do not answer questions about team predictions nor questions that ask “what do you think of [insert gymnast here]?”

Article by Lauren Hopkins