Laurel Hubbard
-
@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
-
I need to have a look at how they address the male physical elements and the impact of whatever treatment (meds etc) the transition person is taking. I get that changing hormone levels (or hormones at typical male levels) will lead to some loss of muscle mass and the like. But can that ever outweigh the other physical attributes that seemingly get carried over? That's the bit I'm dubious about.
Especially when we are talking about weightlifting and contact sports where there is already a selection process happening around physical talents. Although I reckon there is broader range in weightlifting than pro-AFL or other contact sports. If you transition as a 6 foot something 110kg+ pro or semi-pro athlete surely you have an advantage over the majority of elite females you are competing against? Even if you can create a level playing field on the physical side of things, there is still all that experience of playing against men and (on the whole) a higher degree of impact/pace etc.
My position on PED within male/female sports is that taking it gives you an advantage you never truly lose. Sure it drops off if you stop the drugs, but you've already benefited from the size/strength/speed it's given you. So instead of having a 2-3% advantage it's only a 1% advantage (note - all numbers pulled from my ass). But the point is you can't untake those drugs, much in the same way that you can't un-male yourself to compete in female comps.
I suspect medicine and all sorts of treatments will emerge in this space, but for the moment it's that awkwardness between fairness of competition and whatever level of support or validity you ascribe a gender transition.
