Interesting debate, the value or necessity of past experience to validate current actions. I think this can be an appealing argument, and in many cases true, but sets us up to judge things that can't be quantified. Say we have little "Janie Doe" who might be pushed by parents, has all the best equipment and expensive coaches, is gifted, so things come easier to her, and has never had personal setbacks. Still, no one can say why she didn't do what her sister did: watch TV, spend time at the mall, play x-box, etc. while she was working at the gym. Personally, I am a very non-competitive person, so it's hard to put myself into the motivational process, but it seems to me that a case could be made to say that these gold metals for 16 year olds might be even MORE valuable because they got there without the benefit of negative experiences and inspiration. I heard one 18 year old boy swimmer say he was told by coaches that he wouldn't ever be any good, so he worked to prove them wrong. That's the classic thing people like to admire, but how about the person who gets it ALL internally? Couldn't that be valuable in and of itself?