Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 58 of 64 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 633
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by polevaultpower View Post
    Again, we know that not everyone with internal testes has any sort of competitive advantage.

    _Semenya_ may well have an unfair advantage.

    But the science clearly shows that those metrics alone do not fairly determine the category.
    So she may have spoiled the 800 meter careers of many women, "But" too bad and tough luck for them.

    Some with internal testes DO have an advantage so until you can teach us how to distinguish among those who will ruin the sport for others and those that won't, nobody with internal testes gets to compete in the female category.

    Let's tell a million women to train for nothing while we keep pondering how to figure out which of the 40 people with internal testes who are in the sport may as well have them hanging low and running with the men.

    Welcome to the latest version of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
    Last edited by trackCanuck; 06-23-2019 at 11:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    The basic principle should be "do no harm". If, as some have argued, science cannot yet pinpoint which athletes with internal testes are gaining an unfair advantage, then nobody with internal testes should compete in the female category. The IAAF has a (no pun) mandate to protect categories, not a mandate to promote inclusion of a tiny number of people so as not to offend their sensibilities.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    If somebody is 2 weeks too old for the cutoff of an age-restricted category (or two weeks too young, such as in masters), there's no big debate or legal battle over who possesses a material advantage from the additional two weeks of age. They just can't compete in that category, period.

    If the governing body of the sport had to use performance data to prove the advantage, it probably would be impossible to find statistically significant performance differences for that sort of difference in age.

    But if the male and female divisions are going to continue be separate and viable, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and there's more than one place where the line may be reasonably drawn. As long as the line is drawn in some zone within the universe of reasonableness, the sport's governing body shouldn't have to prove that those just over the edge of the line have advantages over athletes on the other side of the line.

    XY+male-range T should be enough to disqualify from the women's division without further ado. Attempting individualized analysis to determine which of the XY+high-T athletes have or don't have a material advantage would be like trying to determine if somebody 2 weeks over the age cutoff has an advantage. Wherever the line is drawn, proof of an advantage just isn't feasible for edge cases. Moving the line will always result in somebody just over the edge who doesn't agree with being placed on that side of the line, unless you move the line so far that everybody is on the same side of it, which effectively means the line wouldn't exist.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by moreover View Post
    From the new article on the front page: "Marie Demetriou, a lawyer specialising in equality law and human rights, told the court the DSD regulations give rise to direct sex discrimination under UK and EU law because they apply only to women and not men."
    After her 1997 drug suspension, Mary Slaney, rather than filing a CAS appeal, attempted to use U.S. courts (including a RICO claim) to overturn her suspension. After a variety of hearings up to 2001, the domestic courts found that they did not have jurisdiction:
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...44/580/636568/
    Something similar happened in the Butch Reynolds case, where, as I recall, Reynolds prevailed in a U.S. court, but IAAF ignored the decision.
    IAAF does not have to answer to UK, and the EU jurisdiction should be settled by further appeals in this case.
    Imagine if every drug suspension, or every gymnastics scoring decision, or basketball timing issues could be litigated in some 200 national courts.

    The worst result that might come out of this case could be the destruction of the well-defined and limited appeals process to decisions made by sports governing bodies.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Goldsmith
    Posts
    132
    The edge cases will always be controversial if the line is tight, seeing how they are controversial with what appears to be a very very loose line. The controversy should be limited to where to draw the line and which side of the line the athlete is on. The line should be universally applied in sports that require the male/female strength/power/speed/size divide for females to be competitive. There shouldn't be an option for handicapping to bring someone over the line back in.
    Last edited by moreover; 06-23-2019 at 03:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by moreover View Post
    The line should be universally applied in sports that require the male/female strength/power/speed/size divide for females to be competitive. There shouldn't be an option for handicapping to bring someone over the line back in.
    Why not? It's just an option.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by tandfman View Post
    Why not? It's just an option.
    It comes across as coercion. Better to avoid giving the option at all.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Goldsmith
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by tandfman View Post
    Why not? It's just an option.
    At least in championship competitions, there shouldn't be handicapping. I guess that's a your mileage may vary, but you end up in more controversy about how much the handicap is and whether its correctly applied. Remember when Pistorius got beat in the Paralympics he complained that the victor had blades too long. In the present controversy, Semenya won -that is got the IAAF to change - the wording of the testosterone limits because the testosterone level fluctuates even when on birth control pills. Handicapping is further down the rabbit hole of how much performance advantage there is for the condition.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    10,921
    Quote Originally Posted by moreover View Post

    This from AthletesCAN (paragraph 115), what are Canadian national female athletes thinking, "self-identification"??:
    • The DSD Regulations are premised on "very rigid binary ideas about sex and gender", while the rest of the world has gradually shifted to "more nuanced recognition of gender: self-identification".
    I was really stunned when I first read that...like WTF...
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Abilene, TX
    Posts
    2,016
    "Tell me, friend, when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?"


    "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."


    It's to the point where I can't believe some of the things I hear/read these days. At times I feel like the oil gimp in Waterworld - https://youtu.be/om5rbtudzrg
    Last edited by scottmitchell74; 06-23-2019 at 05:45 PM.
    You there, on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons!
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •