The Semenya Rule
-
@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.
-
@MajorRage said in The Semenya Rule:
@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
We're talking about the top level athletes though. The top men are significantly better than the top women. If Semenya can't compete with the top men then she isn't a top level athlete.
Another example is our own Laurel Hubbard who despite lowering her testosterone still enjoys significant advantages over women. As a fully fledged male with normal levels of testosterone she was nowhere near the top level, not even the same ballpark. But as a woman with reduced testosterone she is right up there.
Fact is Semenya went through puberty with male levels of testosterone, which means she benefits from a range of advantages including: increased heart size, increased lung size/capacity, increased muscle density, increased bone density etc etc. The list goes on. Testosterone + puberty is what separates males from females in most sports.
-
Clearly the only reasonable option is to do away with female and male only sporting divisions. Gender is just a social construct anyway (well it's an offence anyway to say different on social media or in many work places)
One 'open' division inclusive to all, I'm sure women athletes will start to top the tables on their own once they break loose of the oppression shackles of the patriarchy.You'd also clear the record books of the 80's eastern block drug records so that's a bonus.
-
If I went nuts on the PEDs, I'd still get my arse kicked by the elite athletes. So because it didn't allow me to dominate the sport, does that mean I then wasn't cheating or didn't have an unfair advantage? That seems to be the argument used for Semenya here. She isn't dominating by that much therefore she can't have much of an unfair advantage. Well where would she be without the T and the other benefits natural females don't have?
-
@Chester-Draws said in The Semenya Rule:
@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.
I assume binary because the Olympics has two streams of Olympic events affectionately named mens and womens. While I will waste my keystrokes on potential proposals to reshape nationality law for IRB tournaments I won't on a pie in the sky notion where the Olympics becomes womens vs opens or mens vs others.
Again I don't really have a dog in the fight on this one, but I disagree with both those that say she is clearly a man or a woman for the purposes of sport, however there is no doubting whether Caster has a chromosonal advantage.
-
@Snowy said in The Semenya Rule:
@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).
100% agree. I guess that was my penetrating glimpse into the obvious of why this is a contentious issue.
-
@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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
-
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
@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.
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.
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.
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
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'.
-
@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.
-
@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.
