Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

13yr old boy kicked off girls field hockey team for being too good Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:32:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,435
Location: Alabama, United States
Banned from field hockey team


A group of officials in New York have taken the drastic step of banning a 13-year-old boy from playing for his high school's all girls field hockey team for a simple if ludicrous reason: He's simply too good.



As reported by New York CBS affiliate 1010 WINS, Fox News and a variety of other outlets, 13-year-old Southampton (N.Y.) High student Keeling Pilaro will not be allowed to compete for the Southampton field hockey team in fall 2012 because he has simply been too dominant a player over the past two seasons. Pilaro began competing for the Southampton varsity field hockey team at just 11 years of age, and at age 13 still stands a tiny 4-foot-8 and 82 pounds.

What Pilaro lacks in dominant physical stature he makes up for in internal experience. The teen was raised in Ireland until his family came to Long Island, and grew up playing field hockey in Europe, where the sport is relatively popular among boys just as it is in the U.S. among girls.

In 2011, Pilaro was the only boy to compete in the sport in Suffolk County, New York, and he emerged as Southampton's leading scorer with 11 goals. To try and stem that influence -- and the possible influx of other male athletes in the sport -- New York's Section 11 (which includes Suffolk County) decided that Pilaro had too significant an advantage when compared to other field hockey players, ostensibly just because he is of a different gender.

"As a sport, it's a girls sport," Section 11 executive director Ed Cinelli told MyFoxNY.com. "When a boy plays, it leads the way for other male players to come in and take over.

"[Pilaro is] having a significant adverse effect on some of his opposing female players. The rules state he would be allowed to play if he wasn't the dominant player."

Clearly, there are no physical justifications for banning Pilaro, as his mother made clear.

"He is not a physical dominating presence on the field by any stretch," Fairley Pilaro told 1010 WINS. "In fact, he's far below the girl's varsity height and weight."



Pilaro's father has already unsuccessfully appealed the decision once, and the family has a second appeal of the decision scheduled to be heard in May.

While Section 11's decision to ban Pilaro may be an attempt to protect competitive equity among its field hockey programs, it is likely to open up an enormous can of worms by doing so. Even Dana Edell, the executive director of the SPARK movement, a activist organization for the equality of girls in sports, raised concerns about what banning Pilaro would do to the enforceability of Title IX regulations and the equality of opportunity between the sexes.



"If he's not allowed to try out for the team, that opens up the door for all kinds of discrimination," Edell told MyFoxNY. "It's the coaches responsibility to make sure the players are safe. And a boy should not be penalized because he's good."

The issues raised when boys compete in traditionally all-girls sports are not new ones, with competitive equity and physicality often raised as concerns. Still, with lack of better outlets for their specific skills, there are often no real solutions to the issues raised by the likes of field hockey and swimming coaches in states such as Massachusetts. In May 2011, Massachusetts field hockey coaches attempted to institute guidelines which would limit the areas and amount of time boys were allowed to be on the field during a game, but the rule changes were eventually rejected by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association's Board of Directors over fears it would violate Title IX.

Now, if Pilaro is successfully kept out of varsity competition in 2012, other states and governing organizations may seriously investigate opportunities to fundamentally limit male players' participation in female sports, regardless of whether that is fair, just as it would be considered unfair to bar a female football player interested in competing for her school's team as a place kicker, lineman or even a running back if she so chose.

"This is an issue of safety, equity, and liability," Reading (Mass.) High field hockey coach Mim Jarema told an MIAA meeting at which the Massachusetts rule changes were discussed. "It's time for us to take up this challenge."

Now those steps are being boldly taken two states to the south, even though it seems laughable to consider the player who has brought it on as a safety risk to the competitors around him.




Title IX: Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, U.S. legislation also identified using the name of its principal author as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. It states that


No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...

—Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1688

===================================================

Go Lush!





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
ulmondil
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:26:58 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/3/2012
Posts: 29
Location: United Kingdom
that headline is incredible...for so many reasons.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:32:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
I've always figured this kind of thing was inevitable once women won the right to compete on males sports teams. It's not equality if it doesn't go both ways. So for true equality under the law, you just have one hockey team, baseball team, swim team, etc, and let the best compete. Saying a guy can't compete on a girls team, should also mean a girl can't compete on a guys'.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:57:17 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
If it was as simple as legally saying no because he's a dude then fine. He's a guy and it's a girl's team, so it's not surprising if that happens (although he's lucky as hell if he shares changing rooms with the girls).

But because he's too good? If there comes up a really talented girl that dominates the sport in the same way he does, will they then ban her from playing? It's ludicrous and if there are girls playing on guy's teams then it's obvious discrimination. I say take it to court and let them hammer down the board. Fuck, take it up all the way to the supreme court if you have to. If this goes through it will make presedence for other cases later on, where the talents will be excluded and it will be a loss to the sport. Can't they see that this only damages the sport? If he is so fucking good then he will make the national team(if it exists) and if they do well it will cause greater interest in general for the sport. They're shooting themselves in the foot and they are damaging the sport. And making themselves look like jealous twats in the process.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:43:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
If having standards is a good thing, then having double-standards should be even better... right?

nicola
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:00:43 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,253
Location: In the Spring Blooms, United Kingdom
It's absolutely ludicrous, on so many levels.

"All girls field hockey team" should mean all girls, no exceptions, end of story.

As soon as you let one boy in, then how is it a level playing field? If 10 more boys wanted to play, and were better than the girls, then you could have an "All girls field hockey team" made up of 11 boys.

laughing9

I'm surprised it even made the news anywhere, it's ridiculous.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:12:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
nicola wrote:
It's absolutely ludicrous, on so many levels.

"All girls field hockey team" should mean all girls, no exceptions, end of story.

As soon as you let one boy in, then how is it a level playing field? If 10 more boys wanted to play, and were better than the girls, then you could have an "All girls field hockey team" made up of 11 boys.

laughing9

I'm surprised it even made the news anywhere, it's ridiculous.


He's a 13-year-old kid, four-foot eight inches tall (1.4m), 82 pounds (37 kilos) playing against 17 and 18-year-old girls. The only reason he was on the team was that there is no "boys'" team he can play on. How is it that this scrawny little fuck is a better athlete than girls bigger, stronger, and more agile than he is?
nicola
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:18:16 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,253
Location: In the Spring Blooms, United Kingdom
It's in his Irish blood...

How good he is, is irrelevant, it's supposed to be girls v girls.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:37:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
There's a long-standing tradition over here where if a girl wants to play a particular sport, like football, but there's no girls' team for her to play on, she can try out for the boys' team. If she's good enough, she makes the team. If she's not, she doesn't make the team. I can't imagine the furor that would erupt if a girl, who was a good player, was kicked off a boys' team for being "too good". Lawsuits would erupt, there would be solar eclipses, and Bibles everywhere would spontaneously burst into flame.

Double-standard is double-standard-ish...
nicola
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:12:58 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,253
Location: In the Spring Blooms, United Kingdom
I've never heard it happening in the UK or Australia for that matter MNP, I find the whole thing preposterous!
Playmale
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:39:13 PM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
If having standards is a good thing, then having double-standards should be even better... right?



thumbright A new entry into my favorite expressions!

Right after this from the January Jones eats her own placenta thread...
LadyX wrote:
If you're not interested and think it's gross, file that away in the drawer marked "things I privately disapprove of" and mind your own business.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 6:19:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
nicola wrote:
I've never heard it happening in the UK or Australia for that matter MNP, I find the whole thing preposterous!


You're not the only one, Nic. The girls wanted equality. They wanted to be able to play football and baseball. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, though, they want nothing to do with "equality"...
Buz
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 7:08:52 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,338
Location: Atlanta, United States
Okay guys. let's all try out for the women's Olympic teams and see how that goes over. If we can't get in there we can try joining the Girl Scouts.

naka



Ruthie
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:17:21 AM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
There is no chance that a woman will be a starter for a major league baseball team, a starting lineman on any NFL team. Baseball and football are guy sports. I can handle that. We have fast pitch softball and field hockey. Give us a break.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:26:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,435
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
There is no chance that a woman will be a starter for a major league baseball team, a starting lineman on any NFL team. Baseball and football are guy sports. I can handle that. We have fast pitch softball and field hockey. Give us a break.


This is a 13yr old kid. Not major league or NFL. Law is law, has to be blind. We can't subjectively enforce laws differently based on gender, race, religion, or anything. Sometimes the knife cuts both ways.

Michelle Wie and other women have competed on the PGA tour. A tournament event can only take so many golfers. Michelle has/had millions of dollars in endorsement deals, yet took a spot in the field of a men that may have needed that payday to pay their bills or stay on tour. But she was a better golfer. Goose and gander.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:41:23 AM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
It's funny how guys are all into equality and gender blindness when it comes to other guys doing things that are traditionally feminine. Girls have not had a lot of sports, traditionally. Is it fair to have all boy football teams and all boy baseball teams? There had to be a law making it possible for girls to have the same amount of money available for them in sports as guys, that's fair. They shouldn't have any more of the public money than the guys get. If we let boys join the girl's basketball team, soon it will be all boys because boys are bigger and stronger. Letting a girl join a football program or a little league team won't have the same effect. Girls aren't going to take over boys football or baseball. If colleges start having men on the women's basketball team, the men will get all the scholarships because teams are interested in winning.

The result in letting boys play on girls teams would just negate the equality or public funding. Boys would get all the positions. Sports are highly competitive.

On the other hand, I see no reason that professional billiards needs a men's and women's division. In sports that allow a distinct advantage to upper body strength though, letting boys play the girls sport puts girls at a terrible disadvantage. Sports, especially on the youth level, should be for fun, for the enjoyment of the kids. Letting boys dominate girls teams takes the joy out of it for the girls.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:54:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,435
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
It's funny how guys are all into equality and gender blindness when it comes to other guys doing things that are traditionally feminine. Girls have not had a lot of sports, traditionally. Is it fair to have all boy football teams and all boy baseball teams? There had to be a law making it possible for girls to have the same amount of money available for them in sports as guys, that's fair. They shouldn't have any more of the public money than the guys get. If we let boys join the girl's basketball team, soon it will be all boys because boys are bigger and stronger. Letting a girl join a football program or a little league team won't have the same effect. Girls aren't going to take over boys football or baseball. If colleges start having men on the women's basketball team, the men will get all the scholarships because teams are interested in winning.

The result in letting boys play on girls teams would just negate the equality or public funding. Boys would get all the positions. Sports are highly competitive.

On the other hand, I see no reason that professional billiards needs a men's and women's division. In sports that allow a distinct advantage to upper body strength though, letting boys play the girls sport puts girls at a terrible disadvantage. Sports, especially on the youth level, should be for fun, for the enjoyment of the kids. Letting boys dominate girls teams takes the joy out of it for the girls.


That's quite a broad generalization. Not all men are masochistic assholes. We don't all have tobacco spit stains on our long hairy beards and t-shirts. As the orignial story states, the boy's mom (female) and the leader of SPARK, Dana Edell (another woman) voiced concerns that this is an unfair ban.

But having said all that, this isn't about whether or not evil men are against this. It's whether or not it's legal. Title IX strictly prohibits gender discrimination. It doesn't prohibit female discrimination alone. The law is blind and it must be applied equally to everyone.

Sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little.









When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:59:31 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,889
lafayettemister wrote:


That's quite a broad generalization. Not all men are masochistic assholes. We don't all have tobacco spit stains on our long hairy beards and t-shirts. As the orignial story states, the boy's mom (female) and the leader of SPARK, Dana Edell (another woman) voiced concerns that this is an unfair ban.

But having said all that, this isn't about whether or not evil men are against this. It's whether or not it's legal. Title IX strictly prohibits gender discrimination. It doesn't prohibit female discrimination alone. The law is blind and it must be applied equally to everyone.

Sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little.





God, LM... I fucking love your hairy beard....

(it's the way it tickles)
Buz
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:59:39 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,338
Location: Atlanta, United States
Could we all at least agree that coed nude hot oil wrestling is a good idea?

Ruthie
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:09:24 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:


That's quite a broad generalization. Not all men are masochistic assholes. We don't all have tobacco spit stains on our long hairy beards and t-shirts.





And nowhere did I say that they were. It also makes no difference what individual women are for or against the ban. I can't speak for them, only for myself. Where do I say all men are masochistic assholes? I don't even mention hairy beards and t-shirts. How does wanting to dominate a girls sport make a guy masochistic anyway?

I am concerned that if boys are allowed on girls teams that it will lead to less opportunity for girls to play sports at that level. You can't prove me wrong about that.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should all rush out to do it. There is fairness, and that has nothing to do with law. The law is an ass. Mr. Bumble is right.
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:10:35 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
Could we all at least agree that coed nude hot oil wrestling is a good idea?


I agree Buz. That's the best idea I've heard today.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:25:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,435
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


And nowhere did I say that they were. It also makes no difference what individual women are for or against the ban. I can't speak for them, only for myself. Where do I say all men are masochistic assholes? I don't even mention hairy beards and t-shirts. How does wanting to dominate a girls sport make a guy masochistic anyway?

I am concerned that if boys are allowed on girls teams that it will lead to less opportunity for girls to play sports at that level. You can't prove me wrong about that.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should all rush out to do it. There is fairness, and that has nothing to do with law. The law is an ass. Mr. Bumble is right.


You said that men only care about equality when it affects them. Like we're all stuck in the 50's.

Let's take it to the extreme. We as a society are told that both men and women should be treated equally. A woman shouldn't be passed over for a job to be given to a man. If she's more qualified she should get the job. Which I totally 100% agree with. By the same token, shouldn't sports teams operate the same way. Give the positions on a team to whomever is better at the game?

You mentioned upper body strength. How many women firefighters out there would hate to hear that as a qualification.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:34:56 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:


A woman shouldn't be passed over for a job to be given to a man. If she's more qualified she should get the job. Which I totally 100% agree with. By the same token, shouldn't sports teams operate the same way. Give the positions on a team to whomever is better at the game?



If all you want are men's sports teams, that is certainly the way to go about achieving that goal.

I don't mean to generalize about men. Please excuse me for that.

Equality of opportunity is important. In business if a man or woman is best suited for the job it should be theirs. However, letting boys play on girls sports team is not equality of opportunity. It is the exact opposite. It would be like saying that all positions in a company will go to the most qualified, and them make one of the qualifications be having a dick.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:35:00 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
lafayettemister wrote:
By the same token, shouldn't sports teams operate the same way. Give the positions on a team to whomever is better at the game?


No, they shouldn't. Jobs and sports teams aren't really comparable here. A male should not get an accounting position over a female with better qualifications. But within the realm of sports, physical traits mean a hell of a lot more, and the male physique is bigger, stronger, and faster than the female physique. Are there exceptions? Yes, let's not waste our time putting too fine a point on that. But as Ruth Ann stated, there's a huge difference in the effect of the overall game, depending on which gender is interloping on the others' sports.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:49:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,435
Location: Alabama, United States
I know I'm being feisty. But here's the thing. I seriously doubt we're going to have a professional Field Hockey league anytime soon. This boy is playing a sport that he loves, and is good at. Let the kid play. If the girl's field hockey team is over run with Irish boys then we can address the larger issue.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:50:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


No, they shouldn't. Jobs and sports teams aren't really comparable here. A male should not get an accounting position over a female with better qualifications. But within the realm of sports, physical traits mean a hell of a lot more, and the male physique is bigger, stronger, and faster than the female physique. Are there exceptions? Yes, let's not waste our time putting too fine a point on that. But as Ruth Ann stated, there's a huge difference in the effect of the overall game, depending on which gender is interloping on the others' sports.


If a 13 year old girl wanted to play on a little-leage baseball team because there were no comparable "girl" teams she could play on, wouldn't the law say she was entitled to try out for a team? And if she was a better player than the boys, should she be kicked off the team for being "too good"?

Fair is fair, right?
LadyX
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:57:18 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
MrNudiePants wrote:


If a 13 year old girl wanted to play on a little-leage baseball team because there were no comparable "girl" teams she could play on, wouldn't the law say she was entitled to try out for a team? And if she was a better player than the boys, should she be kicked off the team for being "too good"?

Fair is fair, right?


The law would probably say that, yes.

But the 'fairness' of such a scenario assumes a level of natural physical equality between genders that doesn't actually exist. We all know damn well that girls en masse are not going to outperform boys on a baseball team, or basketball team...or any physically strenuous sport you might name. But if five area boys with some athletic aptitude took an interest in field hockey, the odds are that they're taking those spots away from girls, and thus, the opportunity and the game are different.

If you just say that any sport that doesn't offer separate boys and girls versions should have a free-for-all tryout, we all know that guys will dominate, taking the opportunity away from girls, almost regardless of the sport.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:08:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,435
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


The law would probably say that, yes.

But the 'fairness' of such a scenario assumes a level of natural physical equality between genders that doesn't actually exist. We all know damn well that girls en masse are not going to outperform boys on a baseball team, or basketball team...or any physically strenuous sport you might name. But if five area boys with some athletic aptitude took an interest in field hockey, the odds are that they're taking those spots away from girls, and thus, the opportunity and the game are different.

If you just say that any sport that doesn't offer separate boys and girls versions should have a free-for-all tryout, we all know that guys will dominate, taking the opportunity away from girls, almost regardless of the sport.


Isn't that what equality is? Regardless of any other preferences, a person who is better for anything should fill the role over someone that isn't as good or qualified? Is taking opportunities away from boys any less unfair? Even if the boy excels in a predominantly girl arena?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:16:32 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
I feel like it is less unfair, yes, given that girls have our own sports for that very reason to begin with: to give us opportunities to compete athletically where otherwise 90% of us wouldn't have a chance in hell of doing so vs. our male counterparts. It takes us in the other direction (and back in time) to say that guys should be able to compete for (and almost certainly take) those positions.

The league was probably compelled by law to let the boy in to begin with (because if they didn't, and the family sued, eventually they would win that right, $75K in attorney's fees and time elapsed later), but that doesn't make it right. They certainly left their nose wide open, from a legal standpoint, booting him because he was "too good". But if this is the way we're going to define equality in youth sports, then get used to it. The occurrence of the "too good" boy playing on girls teams won't be a rarity. And in each case, that's another girl who lost an opportunity that Title IX meant to provide.
joebackagain
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:41:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 773
Surely though this is more of a common sense rather than legal argument, an isolated case (as mentioned above, it could be addressed more seriously if it were a widespread case) and the kid doesnt have physical superiority to these girls. Granted he more than likely will eventually develop to a more physcial force but most 13 year old boys are not physical "forces". He doesnt have the option of playing for a boys team, let him play. If he's too good then suck it up and deal with it, work harder at your game to learn how to contain him. Sports are competitive, you cant just take your ball and go home when someone is too good. When you talk of sports, take football for example, you dont discuss Pele and think "well he was an asshole spoiling it for the rest of the boys in the world who werent good enough"..you think "he is the best football player of all time".
Field hockey is a team sport, dominance can only go so far in a team sport.
I understand that "if you let one in then men will take over" argument but is it really feasible in this instance? It's not like millions of 13 year old boys who are exceptionally talented are just waiting for the chance to steal the girls sports. If there were many more boys who wanted to join the grils team, then there would be a boys team and all the boys would try for that.
Men have no interest in crushing womens sports, or even taking the enjoyment from them. Sports are competitive, you want to play for the best team you can play for and if the only team available is a girls team then just let him play. We've all played sports against people who are better than us, people who have destroyed us at a sport..and if you dont use that as an incentive to improve at the sport, instead of giving up, then I personally don't think sport is for you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.