下载APP | 繁體版 | 发布广告 |常用工具

叶诗文的事情让我愤闷不平

作者：我是虔谦  于 2012-8-9 12:53 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

作者分类:杂文|通用分类:热点杂谈|已有10评论

关键词：的, 冠军, 百度百科, 亚运会, 游泳队


之所以写这篇文章，因为在一个年轻的中国女选手的面前所显示出来的傲慢、偏见、无知和粗暴，就发生在我的身边。

说老实话，当我在网上泛泛读到叶诗文的游泳速度超过男子时，我心里也狐疑，因为不久前我刚好在网上读到一则关于男女力量上差异的科普。那则科普里很详细地比较了男女身体各部位力量的差别，比如上肢，男人的力气超过女人多少等等。如此这般，女子速度如何能超过男子呢？

后来我了解到，叶诗文超过男子冠军罗切特，并不是全程超过，而是最后五十米分段超过。

再后来我又了解到，叶诗文药检通过。

药检通过后，我再到网上查询叶诗文的资料。原来叶诗文根本不是西方一些人说的，以前默默无闻什么也不是，怎能突然奥运摘金。事实上是：“2010年，14岁的叶诗文首次参加亚运会夺得女子200米和400米个人混合泳两项冠军，成为中国游泳队一颗冉冉升起的新星。2011年7月25日，在上海第14届游泳世锦赛上取得200米混合泳冠军，这是“95后”泳坛新星首度登上世界大赛冠军领奖台，也是自1978年来最年轻的游泳世界冠军。”（百度百科）

我还观看了叶诗文2010年夺得亚运冠军后接受采访的视频。那个视频非常的棒，我这里先把连接提供一下：http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjIzNjkyMjgw.html 这个视频提供给人们关于叶诗文的许多珍贵资料，比如：

1．叶诗文四岁就开始学游泳。

2．她对自己在2010年亚运会上的表现满意度达95%，特别是四百混合，自己觉得有了长足的进步。反倒是对自己擅长的两百混表现不满，具体指出了自己技术上的问题。

3．她事先并没有想到自己会得两块金牌，因为她觉得四百混另一名选手可能实力比她强。

4．她说亚运会上的游泳气氛非常好，她瞬间充满了力量。

5．主持人问她对两年后的伦敦奥运有什么目标？她回答：没有想那么远。主持人问那么下个目标呢？她回答：希望在迪拜游出好成绩。

6．叶诗文跑步也不错，在学校里还取得四百米赛跑的第一名。

7．胜利的喜悦无法形容，不后悔当运动员。

……

电视采访台上的叶诗文，腼腆，内敛，淡定，看不出任何心计……一个非常可爱纯真的女孩。那个视频，让我看到叶诗文奥运夺冠的扎实前奏、自然过程和必然，让我无条件的喜欢她支持她。说无条件也有条件，这个条件就是叶诗文这个女孩本身。

早几天我的美国同事就公然叫嚣：那个女的居然游得比世界上最快的男人快，根本就是欺骗！也就是因为他的叫嚣，我才认真到网上去做调查，因为我说过，我心里也疑惑。

我真希望那些西方人能够放下他们根深蒂固的傲慢和偏见。假如他们真有兴趣的话，去了解了再说话。傲慢和偏见除了就是傲慢和偏见外，这两个东西也来自无知。这个世界本来就有稀奇的事，有奇迹，有人们未知和未能解释的事情，有吉尼斯大全！你不相信因为你的心胸狭窄，知识和想象力跟着狭窄！

我对他们说：当初纳芙拉蒂诺娃雄霸女网，我们中国人多数钦佩夸赞，赐美名“女金刚”，没有谁不服，没有谁怀疑她欺骗！我一个同事居然接着我的话说：现在叶诗文正在接受性别方面的检查，也许她身上有男性基因。还称世界上一共有过五个还是六个这样的案例。我说果真如此也不是叶诗文的错，爹妈带来的。第三个美国同事说：那她就不合格参加女子比赛。我说那是另一回事。我不平的是他们凭无知、偏见、臆测就断定叶诗文欺骗，而且在叶诗文已经通过药检了，他们还如此说。我说就算是杀人的案件，在法院判决之前，你也不能称他是杀人犯！这些所谓的法制国家里的人，竟然可以如此粗暴地下论断。那些记者，居然可以如此粗暴地责问一个女孩：你吃药了没有？合理质疑是可以的，无据论断就是侮辱诽谤。

让我感到愤闷不平的还有另一个原因，为什么整个事件过程我没有听到中国体育官方的声音？他们哪去了？让一个女孩背黑锅受委屈？我们这些海内外观众的意见影响是有限的，真正应该扛起这个舆论责任的是国家奥运官方。人言可畏，说得跟真的似的，中国体育官方的有力回应在哪里？为什么不能站出来保护自己的运动员？让一个十六岁小女孩在十几年艰苦训练后还要面对这种伤害，这些负责人们于心于责何忍？

底下这篇文章说到女性在水中有优势，我之前就想过水的浮力缩小了男女的差别，看文章写得也很有道理。

http://www.hinews.cn/news/system/2012/08/03/014736489.shtml

类似这样的东西，官方为什么不能提出来？不说不驳，真是不知其所以。


想到以前善良国人的口号：友谊第一比赛第二，再看今朝，真要说天冷好个夏了……



高兴
1

感动
同情
搞笑
难过
拍砖
1

支持
6

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (8 人)

收藏 分享邀请 举报

发表评论 评论 (10 个评论)

3 回复 同往锡安 2012-8-9 13:13
中国用实力说话。但是我也希望中国官方能有自己的声音。
4 回复 北胜街 2012-8-9 15:21
西方就是这样找茬。他们还希望中国解散体委，也按欧美一样民间练体育。这样的话，中国人的体质就再也不能跟他们比了。只有奖牌都落入他们的囊中，他们才说公平。
3 回复 iamcaibird 2012-8-10 02:39
虔谦说得好
3 回复 pengl 2012-8-10 05:18
北胜街: 西方就是这样找茬。他们还希望中国解散体委，也按欧美一样民间练体育。这样的话，中国人的体质就再也不能跟他们比了。只有奖牌都落入他们的囊中，他们才说公平。 ...
   那就成印度第二了
4 回复 pengl 2012-8-10 05:28
问好！这是在美一方的一篇转载文章：

It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself,
regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science
magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and
editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context
, which they failed to do blatantly.

First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m
IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.
43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an
"anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal
best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 2010 1. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In
a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and
silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec. （pengl注：美国15岁的游泳女神童 Katie Ledecky 几个月内成绩提高10秒）

Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem
impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian
Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec
between the age of 15 and 16 2. For regular people including the author it
may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she
matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a
conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not
imagine it is real" is hardly sound.

Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of
what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the
last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first
300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for
latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one'
s best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked
to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing,
probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind
after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win
the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact
that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the
illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which
sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a
leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.

Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four
male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec) 3 and Ye (28.93
sec) 4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and
Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the
last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I
were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying
to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we
should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach
the public how science works.

Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and
implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By
that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate
that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree,
and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I
could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to
scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a
real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly
advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4
years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use
it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation.
This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever
a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if
it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question
to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed
to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an
athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let's be
practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her
urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing
as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?

Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to
mention. Per WADA president's press release 5, drug testing for olympians began at
least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore
there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That
maybe the reason that everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in
competition testing? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free
to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at
the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.

Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (
intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair
and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected
doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the
facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of
the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise
, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good
science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an
appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.

1 http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5 http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference
5 回复 青贝壳 2012-8-10 08:24
或许是官方的一种姿态，你们不是说中国在南海咄咄逼人吗？我们现在让你们看看我们是多么谦逊啊！
2 回复 亦云 2012-8-11 10:39
不是针对这次奥运会的运动员：
药检合格，并不等同于没有用药，说不定检验的手段赶不上兴奋剂的研发，怀疑不用怕，历史会证明一切，人们对于运动员超常的发挥持怀疑，不是坏事，大可不必过于紧张，坦然面对才是。
5 回复 我是虔谦 2012-8-11 12:23
青贝壳: 或许是官方的一种姿态，你们不是说中国在南海咄咄逼人吗？我们现在让你们看看我们是多么谦逊啊！
  
4 回复 我是虔谦 2012-8-11 12:25
亦云: 不是针对这次奥运会的运动员：
药检合格，并不等同于没有用药，说不定检验的手段赶不上兴奋剂的研发，怀疑不用怕，历史会证明一切，人们对于运动员超常的发挥持 ...
你笔名亦云，可你不是人云亦云。很大度淡定哦，谢谢评论分享，赞一句！
4 回复 亦云 2012-8-12 07:42
我是虔谦: 你笔名亦云，可你不是人云亦云。很大度淡定哦，谢谢评论分享，赞一句！
叶的成绩太超常发挥了，因此招致怀疑，应该高兴才是，若真的没有服用兴奋剂的话。

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

我是虔谦最受欢迎的博文
  1. 失业毒于蛇 [2011/08]
  2. 对婚姻我现在怎么看的 [2013/12]
  3. 不要轻易暴露自己的中国人身份？ [2012/06]
  4. 殷秀梅：女人，歌，大时代 （上） [2012/06]
  5. 散文第五次获全国性奖项 [2012/05]
  6. 走出植牙诊所，我两泪涟涟 (上) [2011/02]
  7. 怀念我开过的两辆车 [2014/03]
  8. 奥运女剑客申雅岚的眼泪 [2012/08]
  9. 职场内外：袜子这档子事 （图） [2011/11]
  10. 来到咸阳瞻仰茂陵 （图文） [2018/04]
  11. 恋母情结和爱屋及乌 [2012/08]
  12. 绝对猜不到，儿子从德州带给我什么 [2015/06]
  13. 感恩节就医，感恩节祈愿 [2011/11]
  14. 小说获第20届汉新文学佳作奖 [2012/09]
  15. 为什么女人的钱比较好赚 （图） [2014/04]
  16. 即景：生米已成软粥的老夫老妻 [2010/10]
  17. 血热水醒：有感于龙应台女士的北大演讲 [2010/10]
  18. 一无所有 （附北大毕业照） [2013/05]
  19. 虔谦散文将入编中文教材 [2012/05]
  20. 叔叔，你那眼神我一辈子也忘不了！ [2010/11]
  21. 儿子获得全美高中演讲比赛第二名！ [2011/06]
  22. 半碗人参汤折腾了我两礼拜 [2012/05]
  23. 作品荣获一等奖 （图） [2011/07]
  24. 今天同事就中越危机发难 [2011/06]
  25. 生日感言 （附图） [2013/03]
  26. 257字小说：小青 [2011/10]
其它[热点杂谈]博文更多

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2025 海外华人中文门户：倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新：GMT+8, 2025-3-25 05:14

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心，为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部