RIO 16 - Best bits

[Veltigar]

8 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

^Bolt's stride did nothing for him in Athens. He lost in the heats, didn't even qualify for the semis. Similar for the woman from Burundi. She came 7th in London. Then she went home, put in the work and got a medal 4 years later.

That was what I was saying, but okay  

[Kyoshi]

^I'm agreeing with you. On one hand, I'm starting to think I have communication problems.

[polishgenius]

Bolt was in his first year as a professional and running injured in Athens, so if he had won or even made the semis/final that would have been something remarkable.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I just don't seem to get this whole Semenya thing really. So her body produces more testosterone than the average woman athlete? Well, big fucking deal that. All the top athletes in Rio are genetic freaks one way or another, so why should this peculiarity of hers be any different from all the other special quirks on display in Rio? We should be thankful that she isn't doping up the rafters at the very least. If she did that, then her competition has the right to complain.  Add to that that without many hours of hard work and dedication she would still get nowhere with her gift (just like Bolt's massive stride would count for nothing if he didn't put in the work).

There is something fishy about the whole witch hunt against her. I'm not usually the one to cry racism, but when you see the comments of that Polish athlete, I don't see how you can doubt that racism played a role on her part. It's very blatant. In general, I wonder if so much muck would have been thrown her way if she was white and had this same abberation. 

You're right that she should be allowed to compete despite her male level testosterone. But she should compete against the males, then. To me, the Caster Semenya situation presents no threat to male athletics, but a massive one to female athletics. At what point do the lines between male and female athletes become so blurred that they are forced to just throw them all into one open class?

Which would mean the end of female sport, then.

The whole transgender issue, in my view, presents a massive headache to the traditional notions of male vs female categories in sport. It is likely going to become an even bigger issue in future.

[Kyoshi]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You're right that she should be allowed to compete despite her male level testosterone. But she should compete against the males, then. To me, the Caster Semenya situation presents no threat to male athletics, but a massive one to female athletics. At what point do the lines between male and female athletes become so blurred that they are forced to just throw them all into one open class?

Which would mean the end of female sport, then.

The whole transgender issue, in my view, presents a massive headache to the traditional notions of male vs female categories in sport. It is likely going to become an even bigger issue in future.

I think it might be time for me to leave the thread because I can't even tell if this is a serious post.

But I'll give it one last shot. There has been no proven link between heightened testosterone levels and improved performance in female athletes. In fact, certain individuals have tested highly but gone on to perform not so great.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this is another example of people policing women's bodies and what women can and should be allowed to achieve. IAAF has a history of this. Early on, they actually required women to present medical certificates verifying their sex. There were even gynecological exams from what I've heard. This was all done to ensure that female sports remained "womanly" enough i.e. no one ran too fast, or threw the javelin too far as to raise the suspicion: "There's no way a woman is that good. She has to be a man."

Honestly, that's the impression I get from your post.

It's several layers of sexism that works against female sports because it ensures that while Shelley Ann Fraser Pryce is good, she must never be allowed to get to the level of Bolt, while Hosszu and Ledecky are brilliant, look at what Phelps did, while Biles is clearly magical, let's all hail King Uchimura. It's all bullcrap that works to ensure that female athletes essentially remain slow because to do anything else would make people uncomfortable with that woman's womanliness (and to a degree, her desirability), it keeps female sports at the pageantry level, where we only watch to say: "At least they're trying," or something I've heard recently from a panel of analysts: "Why does the female American gymnastics team look like a group of little boys? Why aren't they as pretty as the others? They're too powerful. They're ruining the beauty and desirability of the sport."

People policing female athletes pose a far bigger threat to the sport than excellent female athletes do. That's the whole point of competing, to excel. From her season performance, it's clear that Semenya was very capable of breaking the world record. From pre-Rio interviews, it's clear that it was something she desired not only for herself but for her dad (who has always encouraged her talent) and her country (sports heroes in South Africa are a really big deal). But it's also strongly suggested that she was advised to hold back from breaking the record because it would invite more questions; that is, only a man could be that excellent. So she ran within the feminine scope of the race. This crap holds back female athletics, it does nothing to help it.

To use an equally ridiculous argument, at what point do they start testing males for their testosterone levels and disqualifying those who naturally produce too little since they are so "clearly at a disadvantage and shouldn't even try because they'll obviously lose?" Is anyone even testing male athletes to ensure that there are no testosterone-advantaged people on that side of things, at what point do we disqualify those who naturally produce more than others? Are we going to set a higher and lover level limit, are we operating at a standard average value? What other "abnormalities" are we to tests?

Finally, Caster was tested for dubious reasons, one of which was that her physical appearance was not deemed feminine enough for her to actually be a woman. They questioned her humanity and womanhood when they never had any right to do so in the first place.

This article makes a far more eloquent argument. I highly recommend it: http://theconversation.com/so-what-if-some-female-olympians-have-high-testosterone-62935

But on a whole, I don't even understand how you managed to drag the trans community into this.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just to add to this excellent post above, the IOC settled the issue of transgender athletes more than a decade ago.  Allowing transgender athletes to compete has presented no 'headache'.  Last year, the IOC finally improved it's policies and stopped policing genitals as a requisite for transgender athletes to compete.  One major issue with the policy that continues is that they must have legal recognition of their gender.  This is less a problem with the IOC and more a problem with bigotry and ignorance in the laws of sending countries.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

I think it might be time for me to leave the thread because I can't even tell if this is a serious post.

But I'll give it one last shot. There has been no proven link between heightened testosterone levels and improved performance in female athletes. In fact, certain individuals have tested highly but gone on to perform not so great.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this is another example of people policing women's bodies and what women can and should be allowed to achieve. IAAF has a history of this. Early on, they actually required women to present medical certificates verifying their sex. There were even gynecological exams from what I've heard. This was all done to ensure that female sports remained "womanly" enough i.e. no one ran too fast, or threw the javelin too far as to raise the suspicion: "There's no way a woman is that good. She has to be a man."

Honestly, that's the impression I get from your post.

It's several layers of sexism that works against female sports because it ensures that while Shelley Ann Fraser Pryce is good, she must never be allowed to get to the level of Bolt, while Hosszu and Ledecky are brilliant, look at what Phelps did, while Biles is clearly magical, let's all hail King Uchimura. It's all bullcrap that works to ensure that female athletes essentially remain slow because to do anything else would make people uncomfortable with that woman's womanliness (and to a degree, her desirability), it keeps female sports at the pageantry level, where we only watch to say: "At least they're trying," or something I've heard recently from a panel of analysts: "Why does the female American gymnastics team look like a group of little boys? Why aren't they as pretty as the others? They're ruining the beauty and desirability of the sport."

People policing female athletes pose a far bigger threat to the sport than excellent female athletes do. That's the whole point of competing, to excel. From her season performance, it's clear that Semenya was very capable of breaking the world record. From pre-Rio interviews, it's clear that it was something she desired not only for herself but for her dad (who has always encouraged her talent) and her country (sports heroes in South Africa are a really big deal). But it's also strongly suggested that she was advised to hold back from breaking the record because it would invite more questions; that is, only a man could be that excellent. So she ran within the feminine scope of the race. This crap holds back female athletics, it does nothing to help it.

To use an equally ridiculous argument, at what point do they start testing males for their testosterone levels and disqualifying those who naturally produce too little since they are so "clearly at a disadvantage and shouldn't even try because they'll obviously lose?" Is anyone even testing male athletes to ensure that there are no testosterone-advantaged people on that side of things, at what point do we disqualify those who naturally produce more than others? Are we going to set a higher and lover level limit, are we operating at a standard average value? What other "abnormalities" are we to tests?

Finally, Caster was tested for dubious reasons, one of which was that her physical appearance was not deemed feminine enough for her to actually be a woman. They questioned her humanity and womanhood when they never had any right to do so in the first place.

This article makes a far more eloquent argument. I highly recommend it: http://theconversation.com/so-what-if-some-female-olympians-have-high-testosterone-62935

But on a whole, I don't even understand how you managed to drag the trans community into this.

If you take emotion out of it, then the fact remains that there has to be some arbitrary dividing line between what constitues a male and a female athlete. The whole transsexual phenomenon has increasingly blurred that line in most other spheres of life, to the extent that people are moving towards accepting people for the gender they "self-identify" with.

This obviously presents a conundrum for the sporting world. Clearly, men perform at higher levels than females in Olympic sports. So some aspect of the male anatomy makes that possible. That's why a separate female category was created, to give female stars the ability to set their own records and achievements. Now, transsexual conditions clearly start blurring this line.

Personally, I don't know exactly where this line is drawn, and it seems the sporting authorities themselves don't have a clear idea either. But whether it is a line or a continuum, at some point someone closer to the male side of this continuum is going to have physical advantages over people on the female side. If a clear line cannot be drawn, based on criteria like testosterone levels or other anatomical characteristics, what stops a low performing male athlete from self identifying as a female instead, in order to reach achievements in the female categories that he/she is not able to reach in the male category?

As for males, they already compete in an "open" competition, against all other males. So higher natural testosterone will not allow an athlete to set records in an artificially limited category, where other humans with naturally high testosterone levels are barred from competing.

 

[Winterfell is Burning]

I can't believe I forgot to mention the funniest bit of the Olympics by far:

A boxing match between fighters between GB and Kazakhstan wouldn't attract that much attention...except the referee was a Brazilian, named Jones Kennedy Rosário, and the supporters went wild, beginning so sing stuff like "OOOH, Rosário is better than Neymar!", "1,2,3,4,5, Mil, Who Rules This Shit is Rosário of Brazil" and similar stuff.

Here's a link, though I couldn't find one with subtitles.  Fantastic stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kyoshi]

On 26/08/2016 at 0:16 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

If you take emotion out of it, then the fact remains that there has to be some arbitrary dividing line between what constitues a male and a female athlete. The whole transsexual phenomenon has increasingly blurred that line in most other spheres of life, to the extent that people are moving towards accepting people for the gender they "self-identify" with.

This obviously presents a conundrum for the sporting world. Clearly, men perform at higher levels than females in Olympic sports. So some aspect of the male anatomy makes that possible. That's why a separate female category was created, to give female stars the ability to set their own records and achievements. Now, transsexual conditions clearly start blurring this line.

Personally, I don't know exactly where this line is drawn, and it seems the sporting authorities themselves don't have a clear idea either. But whether it is a line or a continuum, at some point someone closer to the male side of this continuum is going to have physical advantages over people on the female side. If a clear line cannot be drawn, based on criteria like testosterone levels or other anatomical characteristics, what stops a low performing male athlete from self identifying as a female instead, in order to reach achievements in the female categories that he/she is not able to reach in the male category?

As for males, they already compete in an "open" competition, against all other males. So higher natural testosterone will not allow an athlete to set records in an artificially limited category, where other humans with naturally high testosterone levels are barred from competing.

 

Very nice. Let's defect the issue because of my "emotions." Would it help to know I wrote the entire post in deadpan mode? Because I did.

[DireWolfSpirit]

On August 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Kyoshi said:

I think it might be time for me to leave the thread because I can't even tell if this is a serious post.

But I'll give it one last shot. There has been no proven link between heightened testosterone levels and improved performance in female athletes. In fact, certain individuals have tested highly but gone on to perform not so great.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this is another example of people policing women's bodies and what women can and should be allowed to achieve. IAAF has a history of this. Early on, they actually required women to present medical certificates verifying their sex. There were even gynecological exams from what I've heard. This was all done to ensure that female sports remained "womanly" enough i.e. no one ran too fast, or threw the javelin too far as to raise the suspicion: "There's no way a woman is that good. She has to be a man."

Honestly, that's the impression I get from your post.

It's several layers of sexism that works against female sports because it ensures that while Shelley Ann Fraser Pryce is good, she must never be allowed to get to the level of Bolt, while Hosszu and Ledecky are brilliant, look at what Phelps did, while Biles is clearly magical, let's all hail King Uchimura. It's all bullcrap that works to ensure that female athletes essentially remain slow because to do anything else would make people uncomfortable with that woman's womanliness (and to a degree, her desirability), it keeps female sports at the pageantry level, where we only watch to say: "At least they're trying," or something I've heard recently from a panel of analysts: "Why does the female American gymnastics team look like a group of little boys? Why aren't they as pretty as the others? They're too powerful. They're ruining the beauty and desirability of the sport."

People policing female athletes pose a far bigger threat to the sport than excellent female athletes do. That's the whole point of competing, to excel. From her season performance, it's clear that Semenya was very capable of breaking the world record. From pre-Rio interviews, it's clear that it was something she desired not only for herself but for her dad (who has always encouraged her talent) and her country (sports heroes in South Africa are a really big deal). But it's also strongly suggested that she was advised to hold back from breaking the record because it would invite more questions; that is, only a man could be that excellent. So she ran within the feminine scope of the race. This crap holds back female athletics, it does nothing to help it.

To use an equally ridiculous argument, at what point do they start testing males for their testosterone levels and disqualifying those who naturally produce too little since they are so "clearly at a disadvantage and shouldn't even try because they'll obviously lose?" Is anyone even testing male athletes to ensure that there are no testosterone-advantaged people on that side of things, at what point do we disqualify those who naturally produce more than others? Are we going to set a higher and lover level limit, are we operating at a standard average value? What other "abnormalities" are we to tests?

Finally, Caster was tested for dubious reasons, one of which was that her physical appearance was not deemed feminine enough for her to actually be a woman. They questioned her humanity and womanhood when they never had any right to do so in the first place.

This article makes a far more eloquent argument. I highly recommend it: http://theconversation.com/so-what-if-some-female-olympians-have-high-testosterone-62935

But on a whole, I don't even understand how you managed to drag the trans community into this.

^^^ Could you elaborate on this specific part I bolded (up a few paragraphs). Is this something you read or heard broadcasted? 

[Dr. Pepper]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

^^^ Could you elaborate on this specific part I bolded (up a few paragraphs). Is this something you read or heard broadcasted? 

Every other news piece on Semenya in the months leading up to the Olympics included commentary on the drawbacks of Caster going for the world record.  The first few articles pulled up during a general google search brings up this:

“What if she smashes the world record by two or three seconds?” asked Dr. Silvia Camporesi, director of London’s King’s College bioethics and society program. “They’re going to say OK, a woman cannot run that fast.”

Dame Kelly Holmes hopes Caster Semenya does NOT break the 800 metres world record tonight as it would thrust her into the eye of a storm.

Botton also stresses the likelihood of a world record. “Caster used to hold off and try not to break records. But now she doesn’t seem to care how much trouble it might cause. She wants Olympic gold and she wants to prove how good she is. If I had to put money on it I’d say she is going to break that world record and it will cause all kinds of problems. Can you imagine how fast she can run if she really lets rip?”

In addition, every broadcast I saw in which Caster Semenya was racing, the commentators included the question of whether or not she would attempt to break the record and invite further controversy.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^ Well I would have to agree that sounds like a very odd line of speculation. It supports my earlier opinion over how some of this Rio press coverage has been an ongoing "race to the bottom" over every other story line. It's almost as if a few entities had an agenda or vested interest in making these Games a negative event? The bias and tone was over the top and a great distraction to the many sucesses of the overall picture. I think thats an unfortunate trend thats been ongoing at several Olympics.

[Denvek]

And they all say this as if the 90s records aren't mired in controversy anyway. No one cast aspersions when the dodgy 10,000m record was smashed at Rio, and Semenya didn't get close to the 800m one.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Denvek said:

 No one cast aspersions when the dodgy 10,000m record was smashed at Rio,

 

Yes they did.

It wasn't as nasty, concerted and public as the runners' up attitude to Semenya and the other two but there were definite notes of doubt. We had a discussion of it here somewhere.

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, Denvek said:

And they all say this as if the 90s records aren't mired in controversy anyway. No one cast aspersions when the dodgy 10,000m record was smashed at Rio, and Semenya didn't get close to the 800m one.

the record for the 800m is actually from 1983, and is the most dodgy WR i can think of.  the person who set it looks far more masculine than Semanya.  she was absolutely ridiculous. 

 

[polishgenius]

15 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

the record for the 800m is actually from 1983, and is the most dodgy WR i can think of.  the person who set it looks far more masculine than Semanya.  she was absolutely ridiculous.

Per Wikipedia:

Kratochvílová was a late developer, not breaking 53 seconds for the 400 metres until she was 27, and she was 32 when she set her world records.

Nothing suspicious there.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well absolutely. I wasn't even intending to go there, but the current 800m record holder is every bit as questionable as Semenya. By focusing on Semenya the intention is not to absolve all previous cases from suspicion.