The Semenya Rule
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@antipodean said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@antipodean said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@antipodean said in The Semenya Rule:
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.
How do you know this?
Know Eastern-bloc athletes were rampant drug cheats or her levels are lower than that of women taking anabolic steroids? Either way I'm not sure that means anything of benefit.
You stated that the steroids utterly dwarfs Semenya's natural generation. I'm asking how you know this. It's beneficial as I've stated that I don't believe here advantage is as great as made out as 35 years sports science + her advantage is < 1983 drug cheating.
Her advantage is obvious when you look at her results. But even then she still can't beat the time of known systemic dopers. I recall reading somewhere what her purported mmol result was (probably L'Equipe but I can't find it right now) as compared to that of busted steroid users.
Which is my point. Neither of us are experts. You can come to either conclusion depending on what your view is.
I'm the first to admit, that I don't know that it's wrong. However, logic shows me
- The mens world record is currently 1:40.91 ... in 1983 it was 1:41.73
- Research shows that the men enjoy a roughly 10-12% advantage (this is quoted in almost every article). Lets use the conservative 12% for this arguments sake.
- Hence in 1983, the womans world record should have been around 12.2 seconds higher = or 1:53.9 ... it was 1:53.3
- Or to use actual numbers, 11.6 seconds.
Kratochvílová's 1983 record is one of a clear drug cheat. On this there can be no argument.
Never denied it's from drug cheating.
It's kinda important since it's the fastest time.
Still can't see your point here. Never denied it, or the importance of it.
So lets compare since 2005, which is the point that most pundits agree that drug testing got to the level that we can safely assume all runners are clean. Let compare fastest times year by year and I'll make note of what times are CS:
What pundits are these? I'm guessing they haven't been watching Jamaica over the last 15 years... Or had a good look at Pamela Jelimo's suspect as fuck 2008 season.
European athletics proposed 2005 as a cut off a couple of years ago. It was a huge news story as athletes from before this time (rightly) argued that this unfairly penalised clean records.
Do you have a link to this as I suspect it has as much to do with politics as it does with science.
It's quoted here as an example. Countless others too:
Furious backlash forces athletics chiefs to abandon plans to scrap pre-2005 world records
Paula Radcliffe applauded athletics chiefs’ climbdown over plans to scrap world records set before 2005 after she led a backlash against the move.
So what we can we read into this ... well, I hate to say it, but it does seem like you can only read what you want to read. I.e - CS domination from 16-19 is at a considerably faster pace than 13-16. However it's only on par 2005 - 2008.
I'd suggest to you that you're better off comparing women's records against the female world record so you can rank the fastest women by year. Excluding Jelimo, Semenya has the next five fastest 800m since 2005 and is clearly quicker than the other year bests. 1.5 - 2 seconds in a 800m race is a massive margin.
There's quite a few different points of view I don't agree with on this thread. What I am looking to show is that her times are roughly in line of where we should expect them to be in evolution. My conclusion is as noted above.
What evolution?
Data taken from IAAF
1983 vs 2019. You can't get 1983 obviously as all results we can assume are drug related.
My aim was to show that CS pace is not naturally faster than other females ... which I think I have if I conveniently ignore 2013-2016. However, I will accept that many others will not accept this.
Probably because you're cherry picking data.
I'm cherry picking data? I chose an arbitrary cut off point after looking into it and excluded no years. My conclusion was clear, and I introduced no caveats. So I fail to see this.
You may want to read what you wrote previously, i.e. your aim and 'which I think I have if I conveniently ignore 2013-2016'.
Ok. My conclusion was much wider than what you have quoted.
Remember, my original hypothesis is not that CS has no advantage, it's that her advantage is not stronger than other elite athletes. 2005-2008 data shows that it's not, where as 2010-2015 suggest that it is.
Surely her advantage is not measured by the records she breaks but by how fast she would be able to have run without this advantage. Would she have gotten anywhere near the Olympics as a natural female?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Absolutely. But I can't see how to measure that.
-
If other women had the testosterone the Semeya had, they would be a lot faster. That's never been in dispute.
What is disputed is not whether she has an advantage, but whether it is an unfair advantage.
If you're happy for other female athletes to have her testosterone level though puberty, then all is good. Currently they are banned for life if they do that.
-
You've passed over my post about puberty + testosterone. People often talk about testosterone being the advantage but it's the elevated levels of testosterone during puberty that really sets men and women apart.
If you are saying that elevated levels of testosterone during puberty is not a significant advantage then you are essentially advocating for abolishing the protected women's category.
Semenya's times compared to world records are beside the point. The point is if you allow XY athletes with high levels of testosterone to compete in women's sport then you will inevitably end up with biological women being unable to compete with intersex people that have Semenya's condition, as well as the increasing number of Trans women coming through.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
1983 vs 2019. You can't get 1983 obviously as all results we can assume are drug related.
2019 season isn't halfway through. Either way, when you graph the world record and seasonal bests for the last 19 years, there's some obvious outliers.
My aim was to show that CS pace is not naturally faster than other females ... which I think I have if I conveniently ignore 2013-2016. However, I will accept that many others will not accept this.
Probably because you're cherry picking data.
I'm cherry picking data? I chose an arbitrary cut off point after looking into it and excluded no years. My conclusion was clear, and I introduced no caveats. So I fail to see this.
You may want to read what you wrote previously, i.e. your aim and 'which I think I have if I conveniently ignore 2013-2016'.
Ok. My conclusion was much wider than what you have quoted.
Remember, my original hypothesis is not that CS has no advantage, it's that her advantage is not stronger than other elite athletes. 2005-2008 data shows that it's not, where as 2010-2015 suggest that it is.This is IAAF's data of her seasonal progression (blue) at 800m compared to the seasonal best (orange) from 2001. The green line is the median result excluding hers from 2018 and Jelimo's 2008 result. The reason I've done that is to show what other women (let's presume they're natural women) tend to run, even with the benefit of nutrition and scientifically based training, i.e. anything above 1:55
What it shows IMO is Semenya is an obvious outlier, but not quite to the extent of Kratochvílová et al. So we need to determine the reason for this and IMO it's the benefit of testosterone.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Absolutely. But I can't see how to measure that.
But you've said yourself she has an advantage, so is your argument that it only makes a difference if she's running absolutely ridiculous times?
-
Interesting , Semenya wore a boys uniform to school and headmaster didn't know she was a girl till grade 11 [age 15] . Shes on the left of the photo
Also the nasty venomous bullying troon Rachael/Rhys McKinnon is supporting Semenya . McKinnon is an utterly awful person, Semenya would be better off distancing herself from the fat fluffybunny.
Semenya with her pregnant wife.
-
@No-Quarter no, but if puberty was such a big thing wouldn’t her times be stronger 2011-2015? As per antip graphs, they aren’t.
-
@antipodean thanks - good graph.
You mentioned earlier about 2008 being highly suspect. This where our views differ. You see that as suspect as it backs your thoughts on CS. Whereas I don’t as I think this is prob where natural progression for times should be.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel yes and no.
I think all elite level athletes have an advantage. Whereby it be physical or mental. Kate Moss was never going to win a tennis grand slam, Serena Williams was never going to be a stick thin model.
The question is where is the line drawn.
Or alternatively, when. I haven’t raised this yet but there is massive difference between asking CS to reduce testosterone at 28 years old, vs 18 years old.
-
Are you disputing the effects of testosterone, particularly during puberty? Because that's not my opinion, it's a scientific observation and is the biggest factor that differentiates men and women.
Also, I don't dispute that top athletes have biological advantages over the average person. That's self-evident. But we draw a line between men and women for the sake of equal opportunity between the sexes. Otherwise there would be no professional women athletes anywhere. We've made huge progress promoting women's sports recently and we need to protect it to ensure it continues to grow.
-
@No-Quarter in general no.
In CS, I am debating it.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@Rancid-Schnitzel yes and no.
I think all elite level athletes have an advantage. Whereby it be physical or mental. Kate Moss was never going to win a tennis grand slam, Serena Williams was never going to be a stick thin model.
The question is where is the line drawn.
Or alternatively, when. I haven’t raised this yet but there is massive difference between asking CS to reduce testosterone at 28 years old, vs 18 years old.
I would definitely agree with that last part that this should have been addressed when she entered major races. It's quite ridiculous to do something now after 3 Olympics and dozens of other races. Why exactly wasn't this addressed back in the day and why is it being made an issue now?
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter in general no.
In CS, I am debating it.
With respect, that doesn't really make sense. There is either an advantage or there isn't. That Semenya can't run as fast as doped up women or the men doesn't mean she doesn't have any biological advantages over women.
But I'm really talking about the wider implications of allowing athletes with XY chromosomes and elevated levels of testosterone to compete in the protected women's category. These rulings go way beyond just Semenya.
-
@No-Quarter said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter in general no.
In CS, I am debating it.
With respect, that doesn't really make sense. There is either an advantage or there isn't. That Semenya can't run as fast as doped up women or the men doesn't mean she doesn't have any biological advantages over women.
It doesn't make sense if every single male reacted exactly the same way through puberty due to the testosterone. Do the majority - I'd probably answer yes. But certainly not all - hell in my school alone I could name 20+boys who clearly didn't seem to get the effects you talk about when turning from boys to men. Did CS get these? It's not inconceivble to think that as she's a woman, that she didn't get the full benefit.
But I'm really talking about the wider implications of allowing athletes with XY chromosomes and elevated levels of testosterone to compete in the protected women's category. These rulings go way beyond just Semenya.
Yes, I understand that. On the whole, its an extremely difficult subject to deal with. When do natural advantages cross over into cheating.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter in general no.
In CS, I am debating it.
With respect, that doesn't really make sense. There is either an advantage or there isn't. That Semenya can't run as fast as doped up women or the men doesn't mean she doesn't have any biological advantages over women.
It doesn't make sense if every single male reacted exactly the same way through puberty due to the testosterone. Do the majority - I'd probably answer yes. But certainly not all - hell in my school alone I could name 20+boys who clearly didn't seem to get the effects you talk about when turning from boys to men. Did CS get these? It's not inconceivble to think that as she's a woman, that she didn't get the full benefit.
But I'm really talking about the wider implications of allowing athletes with XY chromosomes and elevated levels of testosterone to compete in the protected women's category. These rulings go way beyond just Semenya.
Yes, I understand that. On the whole, its an extremely difficult subject to deal with. When do natural advantages cross over into cheating.
Males have varying levels of testosterone so you get varying results. But all males have around 10 to 30 times that of women. It's not even close.
The subject only becomes difficult when you make concessions to allow people that are not biological women compete in the women's category. Which is essentially what they are doing with this ruling.
Mens categories are open already, there is nothing stopping the rest of us competing in that. And if we're not good enough to be the best in the open category, tough shit, that's life.
This is a good discussion, but I'm unlikely to soften my stance here. I strongly believe the women's category needs protection or we bring women's sport into disrepute, which would be a great shame given how far it's come.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@antipodean thanks - good graph.
You mentioned earlier about 2008 being highly suspect. This where our views differ. You see that as suspect as it backs your thoughts on CS. Whereas I don’t as I think this is prob where natural progression for times should be.
Not so much CS - Jelimo's 2008 season is completely at odds with the rest of her career. Nothing says drug cheat like that sort of improvement. That's why I rule it out.
-
@No-Quarter said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter said in The Semenya Rule:
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@No-Quarter in general no.
In CS, I am debating it.
With respect, that doesn't really make sense. There is either an advantage or there isn't. That Semenya can't run as fast as doped up women or the men doesn't mean she doesn't have any biological advantages over women.
It doesn't make sense if every single male reacted exactly the same way through puberty due to the testosterone. Do the majority - I'd probably answer yes. But certainly not all - hell in my school alone I could name 20+boys who clearly didn't seem to get the effects you talk about when turning from boys to men. Did CS get these? It's not inconceivble to think that as she's a woman, that she didn't get the full benefit.
But I'm really talking about the wider implications of allowing athletes with XY chromosomes and elevated levels of testosterone to compete in the protected women's category. These rulings go way beyond just Semenya.
Yes, I understand that. On the whole, its an extremely difficult subject to deal with. When do natural advantages cross over into cheating.
Males have varying levels of testosterone so you get varying results. But all males have around 10 to 30 times that of women. It's not even close.
The subject only becomes difficult when you make concessions to allow people that are not biological women compete in the women's category. Which is essentially what they are doing with this ruling.
Mens categories are open already, there is nothing stopping the rest of us competing in that. And if we're not good enough to be the best in the open category, tough shit, that's life.
Indeed, although every morning when CS gets out of the shower she sees a woman in the mirror. She also knows that despite training just as hard as every other person on the planet, she is not even close to competitive to males, but is dominant in females. What to do? Here dominance is only one event - she's not even close to the likes of Bolt, Phelps, Michael Johnson when it comes to sporting. She's hardly an outlier.
This is a good discussion, but I'm unlikely to soften my stance here. I strongly believe the women's category needs protection or we bring women's sport into disrepute, which would be a great shame given how far it's come.
Softening of stance - thats fine, neither am I. But debate against all others has been respectful, which is all anybody can ever ask.
I do disagree with the woman's sports comment though. Perhaps across some - rugby, football etc, but athletics / tennis are just as strong as they have always been. It has got through far bigger issues than CS (Renee Richards, Eastern Euro / Chinese doping), and it will get through this as well. I don't buy into that argument at all.
-
@Frank said in The Semenya Rule:
Art imitating life, a Troon was stripped of four world weightlifting records
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47094/female-trans-powerlifter-stripped-womens-emily-zanotti
'She's all woman': Mother of athletics golden girl Caster Semenya rejects claims her daughter's a man
