The Semenya Rule
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter I did read the article. It’s s fairly one sided piece which I’m sure will influence many. I’m not strong enough in this subject to say it’s 100 pct wrong or right.
I just take the view that every single athlete has their own advantages and disadvantages. And Semenyas advantage isn’t strong enough thst when it’s combined with 35 years of sports science research, it can overcome a doping programme.
It’s a good discussion to have tho, and I’m not going to criticize others for holding the opposite view.
So because she can't beat insane records set by drugged athletes nearly 40 years ago, her advantage isn't that great? Have you seen pictures of the women who set those records? They're freaks of scientific manipulation.
35 years of sport science. I think the 2018 all blacks would beat the 1983 by a ton
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter I did read the article. It’s s fairly one sided piece which I’m sure will influence many. I’m not strong enough in this subject to say it’s 100 pct wrong or right.
I just take the view that every single athlete has their own advantages and disadvantages. And Semenyas advantage isn’t strong enough thst when it’s combined with 35 years of sports science research, it can overcome a doping programme.
It’s a good discussion to have tho, and I’m not going to criticize others for holding the opposite view.
So because she can't beat insane records set by drugged athletes nearly 40 years ago, her advantage isn't that great? Have you seen pictures of the women who set those records? They're freaks of scientific manipulation.
35 years of sport science. I think the 2018 all blacks would beat the 1983 by a ton
I'm sorry, but that is the most absurd comparison.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter I did read the article. It’s s fairly one sided piece which I’m sure will influence many. I’m not strong enough in this subject to say it’s 100 pct wrong or right.
I just take the view that every single athlete has their own advantages and disadvantages. And Semenyas advantage isn’t strong enough thst when it’s combined with 35 years of sports science research, it can overcome a doping programme.
It’s a good discussion to have tho, and I’m not going to criticize others for holding the opposite view.
So because she can't beat insane records set by drugged athletes nearly 40 years ago, her advantage isn't that great? Have you seen pictures of the women who set those records? They're freaks of scientific manipulation.
35 years of sport science. I think the 2018 all blacks would beat the 1983 by a ton
The records at issue are by "females". It's a lot easier to get a female a lot stronger/faster by doping. Men already start with testosterone etc, so the cheating gains are far less impressive.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@jegga said in The Semenya Rule:
If there are other women with very similar biology competing does anyone have any theories as to why Semenya is the only one that’s getting all the attention?
If she’s the only one winning doesn’t that show that it’s not really important ... ?
Who is coming 2ns and 3rd ... ?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter I did read the article. It’s s fairly one sided piece which I’m sure will influence many. I’m not strong enough in this subject to say it’s 100 pct wrong or right.
I just take the view that every single athlete has their own advantages and disadvantages. And Semenyas advantage isn’t strong enough thst when it’s combined with 35 years of sports science research, it can overcome a doping programme.
It’s a good discussion to have tho, and I’m not going to criticize others for holding the opposite view.
So because she can't beat insane records set by drugged athletes nearly 40 years ago, her advantage isn't that great? Have you seen pictures of the women who set those records? They're freaks of scientific manipulation.
35 years of sport science. I think the 2018 all blacks would beat the 1983 by a ton
I'm sorry, but that is the most absurd comparison.
Why apologies? Because it doesn’t conform to the Semenya is a man train of thought?
I am comparing 35 years of sports science to performance enhancement from drugs.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter I did read the article. It’s s fairly one sided piece which I’m sure will influence many. I’m not strong enough in this subject to say it’s 100 pct wrong or right.
I just take the view that every single athlete has their own advantages and disadvantages. And Semenyas advantage isn’t strong enough thst when it’s combined with 35 years of sports science research, it can overcome a doping programme.
It’s a good discussion to have tho, and I’m not going to criticize others for holding the opposite view.
So because she can't beat insane records set by drugged athletes nearly 40 years ago, her advantage isn't that great? Have you seen pictures of the women who set those records? They're freaks of scientific manipulation.
35 years of sport science. I think the 2018 all blacks would beat the 1983 by a ton
I'm sorry, but that is the most absurd comparison.
Why apologies? Because it doesn’t conform to the Semenya is a man train of thought?
I am comparing 35 years of sports science to performance enhancement from drugs.
Have a read of articles like this
Even a doped up Jones wasn’t able to beat FloJos doped up times, because making it undetectable made it less potent.
Better training and nutrition is not going to turn women into men, which is effectively what happened under the old doping regime. To the extent some even developed male pattern baldness.
-
@Kirwan said in The Semenya Rule:
Better training and nutrition is not going to turn women into men, which is effectively what happened under the old doping regime. To the extent some even developed male pattern baldness.
Yeah it’s insane what happened back then - no disagreement.
However if people are Adamant her natural masculinity is THAT much of an advantage (and to be clear, I don’t dispute that it is one), then in my view it’s reasonable to expect records from the doping era to be beaten. As not only does she enjoy the advantage they had, she also enjoys 35 years of science.
The thing I find most absurd is the expectation that she should run in an open division. But she wouldn’t even be close to competitive. Because she’s a woman!
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter I did read the article. It’s s fairly one sided piece which I’m sure will influence many. I’m not strong enough in this subject to say it’s 100 pct wrong or right.
I just take the view that every single athlete has their own advantages and disadvantages. And Semenyas advantage isn’t strong enough thst when it’s combined with 35 years of sports science research, it can overcome a doping programme.
It’s a good discussion to have tho, and I’m not going to criticize others for holding the opposite view.
So because she can't beat insane records set by drugged athletes nearly 40 years ago, her advantage isn't that great? Have you seen pictures of the women who set those records? They're freaks of scientific manipulation.
35 years of sport science. I think the 2018 all blacks would beat the 1983 by a ton
I'm sorry, but that is the most absurd comparison.
Why apologies? Because it doesn’t conform to the Semenya is a man train of thought?
I am comparing 35 years of sports science to performance enhancement from drugs.
Because it makes no sense. Those records have stood for nearly 40 years and are evidence that despite the massive advances in sports science, the Eastern Bloc doping programs gave their athletes monumental advantages over their competitors. The fact that Semenya hasn't broken them (I believe she got within 1 second) doesn't mean she doesn't have an unfair advantage.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@jegga said in The Semenya Rule:
If there are other women with very similar biology competing does anyone have any theories as to why Semenya is the only one that’s getting all the attention?
If she’s the only one winning doesn’t that show that it’s not really important ... ?
1, 2, 3 at the Olympics being DSD suggests there is an an issue.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Kirwan said in The Semenya Rule:
Better training and nutrition is not going to turn women into men, which is effectively what happened under the old doping regime. To the extent some even developed male pattern baldness.
Yeah it’s insane what happened back then - no disagreement.
However if people are Adamant her natural masculinity is THAT much of an advantage (and to be clear, I don’t dispute that it is one), then in my view it’s reasonable to expect records from the doping era to be beaten. As not only does she enjoy the advantage they had, she also enjoys 35 years of science.
The thing I find most absurd is the expectation that she should run in an open division. But she wouldn’t even be close to competitive. Because she’s a woman!
Unfortunately she isn't.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
The thing I find most absurd is the expectation that she should run in an open division. But she wouldn’t even be close to competitive. Because she’s a woman!
99.99% of men aren't close to competitive at that level either, so I'm not sure that proves anything.
-
@booboo said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@jegga said in The Semenya Rule:
If there are other women with very similar biology competing does anyone have any theories as to why Semenya is the only one that’s getting all the attention?
If she’s the only one winning doesn’t that show that it’s not really important ... ?
1, 2, 3 at the Olympics being DSD suggests there is an an issue.
Across all events? If so, I’ll concede I’m completely wrong
-
Natural athletes have also beaten athletes on the juice. Does that then mean that PEDs don't provide much of an unfair advantage and should therefore be legal?
-
@photo-fox said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
The thing I find most absurd is the expectation that she should run in an open division. But she wouldn’t even be close to competitive. Because she’s a woman!
99.99% of men aren't close to competitive at that level either, so I'm not sure that proves anything.
They aren’t close to competitive woman’s times either. So there is no point there. Elite athletes are all something different
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Kirwan said in The Semenya Rule:
Better training and nutrition is not going to turn women into men, which is effectively what happened under the old doping regime. To the extent some even developed male pattern baldness.
Yeah it’s insane what happened back then - no disagreement.
However if people are Adamant her natural masculinity is THAT much of an advantage (and to be clear, I don’t dispute that it is one), then in my view it’s reasonable to expect records from the doping era to be beaten. As not only does she enjoy the advantage they had, she also enjoys 35 years of science.
She doesn't enjoy the advantage they had. She has a natural advantage over other women. Eastern-bloc female athletes were fed a diet of anabolic steroids that utterly dwarfs Semenya's natural generation.
-
@Chester-Draws said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
Fair enough, can see how you form your view.
Me, however, as a staunch critic of gender politics, I have to be consistent. In my view You are either physically a bloke or a woman. She’s a woman so I think it’s fine to let her race.
She's a woman with the chromosones of a man. For a lot of us, that makes her a man biologically. Indeed that would be how I start a definition of male.
Whether we and she considers herself to be male socially is a very different question.
Not having a penis is a pretty reasonable argument for being a woman (assuming binary options).
Having gynecomastia doesn't make you a female.
-
@rotated said in The Semenya Rule:
Not having a penis is a pretty reasonable argument for being a woman (assuming binary options).
Having testes (albeit internal and what is stated above is true) is a pretty reasonable argument for being a man (assuming binary options).
-
@rotated said in The Semenya Rule:
Not having a penis is a pretty reasonable argument for being a woman (assuming binary options).
You may be assuming binary options, but that's a poor assumption other than socially, and even that in the past. But we're arguing biology here and binary just doesn't come in to it.
(In any case, XY chromosone is a far better way, assuming you have to determine binary, than presence of a penis.)
I think what most people want is open and specifically women's events. Not a male/female split. That is because a male/female split advantages greatly a very small amount of people, whereas only XX female allows a much greater number to compete.
