1. Figure skating judges get a 10 for duplicity

It seems counterintuitive that judges in the Olympics would alternate scores based not on skill but on the country the athletes are from. The article Figure skating judges get a 10 for duplicity by Bruce Bower talks about the 2002 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. In the article, economist Eric Zitzewitz of Dartmouth University says that judges “jack up scores for performers from their own countries.” Five of the judges in Sochi were allegedly accused of giving higher scores to a Russian figure-skating pair.

2. Was That Jump A 6? Subjectivity In Olympic Judging

It seems counterintuitive that judges have so much power that it has caused them to have to change the judging system. Was That Jump A 6? Subjectivity In Olympic Judging has a discussion between Sports correspondent Mike Pesca and NPR’s Rachel Martin about the issue of transparency and subjectivity in Olympics judging. Pesca describes the biggest change as anonymous judging. Pesca says “if it was anonymous what judges gave what marks, then no one could be sure if anyone followed through on vote trading schemes.”

3. Elephant Cruelty | The Cruelest Show on Earth

It seems counterintuitive to hurt animals that are used in the public eye. Deborah Nelson’s The Cruelest Show on Earth is an article following the elephant violence in the Ringling Brothers-Barnum and Bailey Circus. Kenny, a three-year-old Asian elephant, was clearly sick at the Jacksonville Coliseum show. According to federal regulations, “sick elephants must get prompt medical care and a veterinarian’s okay before performing.” In Kenny’s case, neither happened.