Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Caster Semenya loses appeal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by camerajuan View Post

    Ummm, Phelps' gender is not in question. It's his genetics I'm talking about & it absolutely is a valid argument. He produced half the amount of lactic acid as his competitors, reducing the recovery time, decreasing his chance of injury etc. I could go on, but it was absolutely a genetic advantage. He was never asked to medicate to increase his lactic acid & his competitors would not be permitted to take medication to reduce theirs, in order to be on the same level. Phelps was called lucky.

    If you look at it purely based on fact, Semenya is exactly the same, she has a natural genetic advantage. I don't care for personal slurs or opinions as they're completely irrelevant to the argument & a clear indicator that someone has nothing else to say on the matter.
    lets see the study where he produced half the lactic acid of his competitors then, im pretty sure its made up nonsense for the papers, as far as i can guess someones got mixed up about top level swimmers in general having half the lactic acid of the average human due to the training they do and confused it with phelps having half the lecitc acid of other top level swimmers

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by camerajuan View Post

      Ummm, Phelps' gender is not in question. It's his genetics I'm talking about & it absolutely is a valid argument. He produced half the amount of lactic acid as his competitors, reducing the recovery time, decreasing his chance of injury etc. I could go on, but it was absolutely a genetic advantage. He was never asked to medicate to increase his lactic acid & his competitors would not be permitted to take medication to reduce theirs, in order to be on the same level. Phelps was called lucky.

      If you look at it purely based on fact, Semenya is exactly the same, she has a natural genetic advantage. I don't care for personal slurs or opinions as they're completely irrelevant to the argument & a clear indicator that someone has nothing else to say on the matter.
      she isnt exactly the same as its possible for men to produce the lactic acid levels of phelps but not possible for women to have the same levels of testosterone as semenya

      Comment


      • #18
        Semenya has done nothing wrong, and never has done. She can see her income drying up, she would be a fool not to appeal.
        It's the system and definition of the male and females categories that's wrong. The IAAF is trying to put it right, but are doing it too quickly, before their is sufficient evidence. I can buy that fast and slow twitch muscles benefit to differing degrees, but having only middle distance events restricted doesn't make any logical sense to me. So yes, I would be doing the same as the Swiss court did, until the IAAF can make a better case.

        But I don't want intersex people running as women - I want to make that quite clear.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by drobbie View Post

          she has done something wrong, she knows she has an advantage and continues to try and exploit it

          as for the phelps comparison he had a natural genetic advantge, which isnt different to any of the other swimmers at the top level, semenyas advantage is unatural as its impossible for xx women to have it

          the medication is the pill and is harmless

          nope as the men all fit within the normal male spectrum, semenya isnt in the normal female spectrum, normal female levels are 0.1 to 1.8 nmol/l casters is over three times as high as the highest natural amount over 5 nmol/l an unatural level for xx women to have, you basic theorstic example is nonsense if andre de grasses natural level is 9 and the maximum male level is 10 then a male version of caster would have 30

          their ruling of between 400 and the mile are the only ones they have enough data for the cas to accept at the moment, they were sent away to get that data the first time around and will be working on data for the other events

          she is a cheat and a horrible human being, sick of her and her attitude, her wins are absolutely worthless
          i trust you are aware that the testosterone issue is only one issue. That cheat protected by sport politicos from SA is XY chromosome and there is a SRY gene attached to that chromosone that initiates male embryonic development in the XY sex determination system.
          The liberal fools have deliberately seen to it that the general public are not properly informed and thereby ignorant of the real issue which is f*ck all to do with 'uman rights.Why the hell the Swiss Federal courts have the audacity to tell the CAS and the IAAF that they possess the authority for this shit decision is one of lifes sad facts of the modern world.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by philipo View Post

            i trust you are aware that the testosterone issue is only one issue. That cheat protected by sport politicos from SA is XY chromosome and there is a SRY gene attached to that chromosone that initiates male embryonic development in the XY sex determination system.
            The liberal fools have deliberately seen to it that the general public are not properly informed and thereby ignorant of the real issue which is f*ck all to do with 'uman rights.Why the hell the Swiss Federal courts have the audacity to tell the CAS and the IAAF that they possess the authority for this shit decision is one of lifes sad facts of the modern world.
            yep, semenya, wambui and nyonsaba all confirmed as xy, lyndsey sharp robbed of an olympic bronze in 2016, based on her current form possibly her only chance, muir robbed of a world bronze in 2017

            Comment


            • #21
              IAAF response to Swiss court -

              https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/48520775

              Exactly. At long last the IAAF are not beating around the bush.
              The IAAF says it will seek a "swift reversal" of the decision that allows Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya to temporarily compete without taking medication.
              Last edited by Laps; 05-06-19, 09:20.

              Comment


              • #22
                I don't agree that this is a liberal conspiracy to keep the true facts from the public. That's been achieved by lazy journalism. Every article should refer to XY chromosones and internal testes and make it clear this applies to a small number of competitors. Everyone, including AW, continue to write about the IAAF restricting testosterone levels in female athletes. No such rule exists. The rule relates to "androgen sensitive female athletes with 46 XY DSD"

                I don't agree Caster is a cheat. I have huge sympathy for her and what she has gone through. However, I also don't believe her behaviour matches up against the highest standards of sportsmanship. That involves a belief in the importance in a level playing filed and she must know she has not been competing on a level playing field. (To be fair, the proportion of people who would have acted any differently to her is probably very small!).

                The other thing that makes me less sympathetic is when she talks about how she wants to compete as a woman. I know two people in SA - one who trained a the same track and one who knows her socially. They both like and admire her but say she lives as a man. Now that's a very subjective term but certainly she dresses as a man, including at her own wedding.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'm amazed at the hyperbole and personal attacks on her, to be honest. There is an issue here, undoubtedly, but as SV says above I doubt there are many people who would act differently in her situation. She has been identified (by others) and raised as a woman, so it is only natural that she competes (in her view) as a woman.

                  She is part of a subset of humans, who are "androgen sensitive female athletes with 46 XY DSD" who don't fit neatly into male or female sporting categorisations. It shouldn't come as any great surprise that someone who is part of a group that makes up such a small proportion of the general population finds that they present challenges for the rules. But it's not up to her to fix it. She is not a cheat. And how she chooses to live her life is entirely up to her!

                  I am 100% pleased that the IAAF has set out clear rules, and intends to robustly defend them. I might not agree with them 100% (because I am a woolly liberal snowflake, or whatever you might want to call me), but I can see that there is an issue there which many people want resolving. I don't like the fact that she has to medicate, even if that is "just" taking the pill - my wife won't take the pill because she objects to what it used to do to her body, so dismissing it as trivial is a very male centric view of the medication issue. But I do like clear rules, and that is what the IAAF have set out. It's their sport after all.

                  Fundamentally, it really means that she is barred from female competition - because until an "androgen sensitive female athlete with 46 XY DSD" comes along who, despite medicating in line with the regs is STILL faster than non-medicated women, it seems that athletes like Semenya will be unable to match their non-medicated performances and so will slip back into a performance level which is broadly mediocre and therefore her livelihood as an international athlete will be over. And it does seem that she will refuse to medicate anyway.

                  What happens when a woman like her medicates and still beats non-mediated women, we'll have to wait and see. No doubt they'll be decried for having maliciously been born that way ;-)

                  Comment


                  • camerajuan
                    camerajuan commented
                    Editing a comment
                    There's some utterly vile people on here unfortunately. Can't deal with facts so they attack instead.

                  • drobbie
                    drobbie commented
                    Editing a comment
                    you havent provided any facts, just wrong opinions, the facts refute every point you have made

                  • camerajuan
                    camerajuan commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I haven't provided any "wrong opinions" which isn't possible anyway as an opinion is not objective.
                    -Caster Semenya is a woman
                    -She has not done anything wrong
                    -The ruling covers events which she is likely to compete in, rather than a blanket ruling (like testosterone wouldn't help 100-200m female runners!)
                    -Her genetic advantage is the exact same as Phelps as it gives her an edge over other competitors who do not have it, yet she has been vilified while he was called lucky

                    Please explain to me which of these statements is my opinion rather than fact? Or, explain your relentless crusade against her. Are you mates with Lynsey Sharp or something? I've actually known her & her family for about 17 years now & we were members of the same club for 10 years but personal feelings can't come into an argument between right & wrong.

                • #24
                  It's highly likely that a medicated 46 XY DSD person will win races in the future - the level of testosterone they will have will still be much, much higher than 99% of women and they already carry all the advantages of the surge in testosterone during their teenage years. But at least they will have raced at something closer to a level playing field.

                  I realise my comments about Semenya 'living as a man ' could be seen as irrelevant. I only bring it up because I read so much about how she identifies as a woman, as if that should be a factor in all this. I suspect it is more complicated than that. From the way she talks of herself I suspect she 'identifies' herself as a very unique individual and chooses to adopt very many male characteristics.

                  Were she my daughter I'd like to see her racing competitively against people who can give her a good race. That way she would get the very best out of herself and benefit from losing occasionally - as we all do! I see my daughter growing as a person through competing. She learns more about life and herself from her losses than her wins.

                  I also feel that while the majority of people show a great deal of sympathy for Semenya (all my non-athletics following friends and family members think she has been hard done by), I don't think enough sympathy has been invested in the W800 runners who have lost medals and commercial opportunities because they were competing against someone who, their governing body has clearly thought should not have been running against them. To make matters worse they have had to live in a world where they could not freely express their views on the topic without being subject to all manner of abuse. It's affected their freedom of trade and freedom of speech / expression.

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    And it's not just about the individuals currently affected. If XX women know that they have no hope of being competitive at world/Olympic level EVER because they are in the same category as women with specific conditions, in the long run that destroys women's participation in top level sport full stop.

                    I actually think there's a strong argument in favour of a special category of race for the affected athletes, just as the para events have various different categories.

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      Originally posted by Occasional Hope View Post
                      And it's not just about the individuals currently affected. If XX women know that they have no hope of being competitive at world/Olympic level EVER because they are in the same category as women with specific conditions, in the long run that destroys women's participation in top level sport full stop.

                      I actually think there's a strong argument in favour of a special category of race for the affected athletes, just as the para events have various different categories.
                      well said as far as your first para is concerned but i expected a healthy level of bleeding hearts on this Forum and so no surprise there.
                      i think i read that in the States in the recent Regionals, a male who identifies as a female was permitted to compet in a womens field event and won. What a surprise.!!

                      Comment


                      • #27
                        Can we not debate different moral codes without one side being bleeding heart liberals and the others being neo-fascists please? It doesn't help the debate. By all means, recognise that we have different fundamental perspectives from perhaps a more liberal or less liberal perspective, but name calling helps no-one!

                        I've been a supporter of the perspective that athletes like Semenya should not have to medicate, that there shouldn't be opened a new "class" of athletes for athletes like her, and that if medically and officially she is considered female then she should be allowed to compete as a woman. However, I recognise that those running the sport, having taken all factors into account, believe there is a robust reason for coming to a different conclusion and their new rules reflect that. I am happy (not that they care!) that so long as the rules stand up to scrutiny, that they are "legal" in every sense, then those are the rules of the game / sport that I love. So, presuming Semenya loses her current appeal and the rules aren't sent into court again, I'm (perhaps reluctantly) happy to move on - for athletes like her.

                        The problem with the debate here though is that it conflates her position with the concept of those people who simply want to "identify" as a woman. That for me presents a very different situation, as there is no doubting that for these individuals they have been medically and officially regarded as men, up to a point in time. Thereafter there are a range of different situations:-
                        - they simply ask to be recognised as a woman, with no medical interventions
                        - they seek hormonal therapies which attempt to manipulate their bodies into a more female mould, so that that fits with their psychological gender
                        - they seek physical operations and hormonal therapies which intend to "artifically" correct parts of their bodies to be female, so that that fits with their psychological gender

                        I am broadly sympathetic to people such as this in terms of believing that there is a genuine psychological need for their gender to be addressed or questioned. I don't for a minute believe that teenage boys, even those with confused gender identifies, look at female sportspeople and say "Hey, if there was some way I could bend the rules I could beat them all and be wealthy".

                        But I do agree that this category of athlete presents a big challenge to sporting results if there is a simple acceptance that from a point in time they are no longer male, but instead they are female.

                        There are already rules in place for much of this, but clearly the lower down the hierarchy of competition you go, the more likely it is that a transitioned man will outperform female competitors, and equally at lower levels of competition there isn't the facility to police detailed medical reports, testing of hormone levels etc.

                        With that in mind, if a transitioned man turned up at a local 10k race that I was doing and entered as a woman, taking the minor prize that might be on offer, I actually don't think anything should be done about that. If that was at the Olympics, I do care. Somewhere in between those two levels I think is the cut off where they should face signfican restriction from being allowed to compete against women for women's prizes. Whether that is County level, regional level, national level I'm not sure (national seems right to me).

                        So in respect of the US athlete winning a regional comp, I say "who cares?" If they won at the US trials, though, maybe I'd think differently.

                        But fundamentally that is a different issue to athletes like Semenya, who's physical make up at birth is a mish-mash of normally female and normally male aspects. We need to be careful not to treat them as the same.

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          I'm not sure which case Philipo was referring to but this was recently on letsrun:
                          https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05...-womens-title/

                          Comment


                          • larkim
                            larkim commented
                            Editing a comment
                            Yes, I suspect that is the most recent example which has got people up in arms. Dig a little deeper and you find she (I'm happy to use that term, if that's how she would prefer it, just basic dignity!) needs to have complied with NCAA rules about testosterone suppression, and at least in my eyes has therefore been sufficiently concerned about her gender to medicate consistently to address it. She's not done that just to lift an NCAA title. I'm not saying that the NCAA rules are therefore 100% perfect or correct, but it's not as if she was a male athlete on 1st April, 2nd April woke up and decided to "become" female and NCAA "had" to let her compete. It's a bit more complex than that. Whether it is fair or not is the real question - I can see it both ways to be honest, but it certainly does look like she's achieved more male levels of performance based on her recent history of training and performing as a male, and this is giving her a very substantial athletic advantage now that she is seeking instead to be a female competitor.

                        • #29
                          larkim

                          You seem to bestride the earth with one eye closed.

                          There is absolutely no evidence that Telfer complied with NCAA rules about testosterone suppression, or that their rule is currently capable of being complied with, or that NCAA have any ability or will to enforce such a rule. Indeed their current attitude to testosterone doping is said to be that they give athletes the benefit of the doubt.

                          On the evidence this individual has just done exactly what you say they haven't done. According to her coach this remarkable turn of events is due to Telfer suddenly applying herself like never before. In which case it is surprising that Telfer's times as a woman are almost exactly the same as her times as a man, when the coach said Telfer was a unreliable uncommitted athlete. The whole thing is beyond parody.

                          You say 'whether it is fair or not is the real question - I can see it both ways'. Well if you opened the other eye, the one which is supposed to look at the consequences of events and the impact on other women athletes, you would be able to say NO without any hesitation. Thankfully the IAAF are prepared to take all the flack and fight for women's sport before it is too late while others stay below the parapet with the other woolly liberal snowflakes (your description).

                          As you say this is a debate about different moral codes. Personal responsibility to society and the greater good v individual rights and freedoms. The extent to which we can allow individuals to exercise rights when by doing so they cause considerable harm to others.

                          Comment


                          • larkim
                            larkim commented
                            Editing a comment
                            I'm not sure that last comment is a fair response. I've already stated that I don't think that allowing men to transition to be female and then allow them unrestricted access to competing against women is fair.

                            I've also quoted from the NCAA rule book about how they (and they alone, for it is their competition) handle this issue. If those are their rules, and they draw that line in that way then that is their approach to implement it. I'm making no comment as to whether I think their rules are right or wrong.

                            You're right to point out that if the numbers of trans athletes swells immensely, it becomes more of an issue. And each sport will address this differently (NCAA rules apply for all sports, I believe, not just athletics for example). If trans athletes become more common, there comes a growing case to actually create a separate class of competition at all levels. I still think it matters not one jot if a 35yo trans woman wins a local 10k race when the context is really just participation in a hobby, though.

                          • Laps
                            Laps commented
                            Editing a comment
                            Well from what we know the NCAA rules are as effective as a chocolate teapot. With no maximum testosterone level and no system of monitoring the rules can be ignored with impunity. Regarding your last comment, you think it doesn't matter a jot, but you aren't a women athlete so who are you to say? Perhaps others care about the credibility of their sport and resent unfair competition at any level.

                          • larkim
                            larkim commented
                            Editing a comment
                            The NCAA rules are their rules. Presumably they are crafted in the context of recognising that at the age of college students it is more helpful overall to have a policy which perhaps emphasises the inclusivity aspect more than the pure sporting aspect. If you read through the docs, that's certainly the impression I get - that they are as interested in college student welfare as they are in sporting outcomes and strict fairness. That's for them to determine. As I say, if the regional NCAA guys are happy to make the award to Telfer in the light of their own rules, that is for them to apply. Trying to equate them to the level of rigour that you'd expect from IAAF (WA) I think is unhelpful in that context.

                            Even the IAAF itself has not regulated participation at lower than a very exclusive subset of events, so in practice that leaves NGBs and regional bodies free to set their own criteria - if Semenya was British, as far as I can tell she'd still be eligible to be women's UK champ (though I might have misread the extent of the IAAF rules).

                            Which to a degree no doubt will make you (Laps) ask "why should the cut off be Restricted Events in International Competitions". That's entirely logical, and maybe it's the sheer fact of requiring medical compliance and testing at a level which isn't widely available is the reason why not. Actually, that inconsistency between the international stage and national / regional stage is one that I'm not 100% happy with anyway - I don't like differing rules for elites vs club activities (even accepting that sometimes practicalities get in the way of this).

                            I don't know what (if anything) UKA propose to do in the way of harmonising their rules with the IAAF / WA. Have any NGBs made any moves towards this?

                            As to the point that I'm not a female athlete and therefore should have less of a voice / opinion. Maybe; but as an athletic participant I make my comments honestly and with all of the patriarchal prejudice and baggage that a male athlete can. It's just my opinion, and I offer it to be discussed / challenged. For what it's worth, having discussed with my better half, she agrees with my take on it - who cares who wins a local 10k race with a £20 prize and a naff trophy in the context of bigger issues in society such as DSD / TransGender matters. In fact, my wife races against a trans gender woman regularly, and is beaten by her, so she has direct experience of this (though in fairness, my wife wouldn't be looking to claim any trophies either!)

                        • #30
                          Just to address the cheating point raised above. Agree with it, or not, CAS were clear about this:-
                          The Panel also stresses that while much of the argument in this proceeding has centred around the “fairness” of permitting Ms. Semenya to compete against other female athletes, there can be no suggestion that Ms. Semenya (or any other female athletes in the same position as Ms. Semenya) has done anything wrong. This is not a case about cheating or wrongdoing of any sort. Ms. Semenya is not accused of breaching any rule. Her participation and success in elite female athletics is entirely beyond reproach and she has done nothing whatsoever to warrant any personal criticism.
                          It's worth reading the CAS executive summary, it puts many of the points in good, useful language, and I for one found it very persuasive and reinforced my view that with clear rules in place the IAAF has given the issue a solid foundation on which we can move forward on.

                          Comment


                          • Laps
                            Laps commented
                            Editing a comment
                            I am not sure that I have read anything from credible sources that says Semenya has broken rules. That isn't the issue and never was the issue.

                            The issue is a moral one. To compete from 2008 Semenya relied on threats by the South African Federation and SA politicians, use by them of the race card, and public support that was based on ignorance and misleading comments about her condition. If the facts we know now, XY chromosomes, testes and male levels of testosterone, had been known by the public in 2009 Semenya would have been barred from womens athletics with little public support imo. The IAAF, through a misguided wish to appear sympathetic took an age to deal with the issue and then lost control of it.

                            Knowing you should not be running in women's athletics, would you brazen your way through 10 years, living as a man, manipulating the press, using the courts against your sport, ignoring the impact on your competitors who are effectively gagged? Well if you didn't have a conscience I suppose you could.

                          • larkim
                            larkim commented
                            Editing a comment
                            On the rules, just commenting because quite a few on here allege she has "cheated" etc.

                            I disagree that she "knows" she shouldn't be running in women's athletics - I've not seen anything that suggests she has any doubt that the female category is the right one for her, and indeed the IAAF rules will continue to keep her competing in the women's category in all events other than the restricted events..

                            And as I've said before, the way she chooses to live her life ("as a man" as you put it) is irrelevant. If Lynsey Sharp was gay, dressed stereotypically as a "butch" gay woman and lived with a female partner, having worn a suit to her wedding and having adopted a child, that wouldn't make any difference to her right to compete as a woman.

                            When she looks back at this period of her life in 40 years time, maybe she'll reflect that some of her decisions have impacted others, but maybe equally she is (like many other active athletes) self obsessed and focussed on her own goals - I don't have an issue with that.

                            Questions of policy and fairness are for the lawmakers to resolve, not the participants (in the main - though I can't argue that sometimes "in play" good sportsmanship is something we applaud in participants even if the rules don't necessarily require it)
                        Working...
                        X