Laurel Hubbard
-
Agreed. You can't blame people following the rules.
The gutless idiots making the rules, not so much.
-
-
I actually 100% agree. You can’t honestly look at yourself and say that’s a fair cop for other competitors - despite the fact that you’ve been living in the wrong body your life. Coach, help, whatever, but your not fair competition, sadly.
-
Cant remember if it was discussed on the fern ,
But was big news here in melbourne ,
Trans gender woman was rejected from playing in the womens AFL league ,
I think for the average person on the street , alarm bells went off with her size , 190 cm 100 kilos
Throwing that into the mix with the girls could be a recipe for disaster in contact sport ,
saw footage of her playing ,might not be PC, but looks like a dude , runs like a dude ,
AFL blocks transgender footballer from AFLW
League makes call on Hannah Mouncey ahead of women's draft
-
@rembrandt said in Laurel Hubbard:
Well I also blame Laurel. She knows she has a massive unfair advantage and is cheating other girls out of their hard earned dreams. The gentlemanly (sue me) thing to do would be not compete and maybe go into coaching or something.
I agree to a point, but at the same time rules are rules and if you allow something then don't be surprised when people exploit it. If it's not Laurel then it's the transgender UFC fighter, or the transgender AFL player @kiwiinmelb mentions - not such an issue there because the AFL appears to have some bloody common sense.
-
I think when making these decisions the emotion needs to be taken out of the decision making ,
And the question has to be , does the person have an unfair advantage of the other competitors ?
And the AFL had the courage to say , we think she does .
-
@kiwiinmelb her response on the news last night was that she didnt win...
-
Robles is 10 kg heavier than Hubbard.
This interview gives her reasons for competing, whether you agree it is fair or not.
-
@bovidae said in Laurel Hubbard:
Robles is 10 kg heavier than Hubbard.
This interview gives her reasons for competing, whether you agree it is fair or not.
Roble's also 15 years younger. And has trained longer.
That someone can leap like this from out of nowhere to the top of a sport isn't unusual. It happens all the time with drugs cheats. Which is effectively what we have here, albeit sanctioned.
-
Good on them.
-
@raznomore said in Laurel Hubbard:
Bravo. A pro woman statement that will also be seen as sexism, what a time to be alive...
Probably piss off vegans too
-
How difficult is it to just say "if you were born with the ol' fruit 'n' veg you can't compete in the women's competition"?
-
This isn't on the athlete, this is on the IOC. THey have clear criteria, Hubbard has met the criteria, and after that it's just a bunch of people whinging on the internet.
Whether anyone thinks it's crap or unfair doesn't matter -- the heart of this is that the IOC have set some rules on who can compete, and as far as I know the sporting associations can't threaten it.
I had more of an issue when there were no testosterone limits and Semenya and the indian sprinter (name escapes me) could run with any level in their body. Basically, it's really tough in a protected sport to be fair on who can compete.
edit: for clarity, I'm talking about the class that can compete here rather than specifically Hubbard. M to F transitions challenge what is OK in a protected athletic class.
-
and then this happens
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12002309
note the requirements seem to be the same for testosterone levels being below a level for 12 months.
Causes some 'confusion' amongst the athletes. Again - not the fault of the person, just the rules that are being laid down by a committee somewhere.
-
@nzzp said in Laurel Hubbard:
and then this happens
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12002309
note the requirements seem to be the same for testosterone levels being below a level for 12 months.
Causes some 'confusion' amongst the athletes. Again - not the fault of the person, just the rules that are being laid down by a committee somewhere.
The testosterone rule doesn't even begin to cover the biological advantages men have over women when it comes to phsyical attributes. The fact that this is the only requirement demonstrates either:
- staggering incompetence from the governing body, not even consulting the science, or
- an ideologically driven rule, as testosterone is the only thing you can control via drugs. If they accept all of the advantages then there is absolutely no way they could justify allowing men to compete in womens sports.
The fact that there are absolutely no women competing in mens sports despite taking testosterone suppliments should tell you all you need to know.
-
@no-quarter said in Laurel Hubbard:
- staggering incompetence from the governing body, not even consulting the science, or
- an ideologically driven rule, as testosterone is the only thing you can control via drugs. If they accept all of the advantages then there is absolutely no way they could justify allowing men to compete in womens sports.
I got interested, so googled. That link below appears to be the key document, from November 2015. Interesting to me that they specify 12 months, but then state
2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum
has been below 10nmol /L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case - by - case evaluation, considering whether or not 12
months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in
women’s competition)I wonder if sports organisations are following the first part of this, but ignoring the second part (whether 12 months is sufficient time).
Check out the list of doctors and professors though - and there is even a Vilain amongst them
