LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, davenportram said: Only for a year until the CAS told IOC they had to actually have evidence that meant the ban was justified it was a two year discussion dating from 2015, hence why they can compete in the 2016 Olympics, Arbitrators gave the IAAF two years to produce enough evidence to justify its policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, reveldevil said: Get yourself to Tokyo fella, they need someone to dig the sandpit for the long jump! I discussed this with the missus and we both enjoyed the Olympics so much we are actually going, I will need to find a place to stop en route because I cannot stand long flights, i'll take my shovel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, LesterRam said: it was a two year discussion dating from 2015, hence why they can compete in the 2016 Olympics, Arbitrators gave the IAAF two years to produce enough evidence to justify its policy. I meabt she was only banned for a year, maybe less, from the Commonwealth games until the CAS ruling in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 10 minutes ago, LesterRam said: no my friend you have a very creative imagination. No I don't, I can read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 2 hours ago, LesterRam said: Oh did I offend you sweety, good. You really are an obnoxious piece of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, davenportram said: I meabt she was only banned for a year, maybe less, from the Commonwealth games until the CAS ruling in 2015. It doesn't matter if she was banned for twenty minutes. her characteristics are clearly closer to a male than female? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, LesterRam said: It doesn't matter if she was banned for twenty minutes. her characteristics are clearly closer to a male than female? Incorrect. She wasnt banned because she was 'clser to a male than female' The ban was because the medical condition creates higher testosterone levels, the same as other athletes that have had surgery or take medication to reduce testosterone levels. The discussion about them competing isnt about male and female its about their bodies producing too much testosterone and giving them a significant advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Interesting article in NY times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/sports/caster-semenya-800-meters.html?_r=0 Maybe Paula Radcliffe should put a sock in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 1 hour ago, davenportram said: Incorrect. She wasnt banned because she was 'clser to a male than female' The ban was because the medical condition creates higher testosterone levels, the same as other athletes that have had surgery or take medication to reduce testosterone levels. The discussion about them competing isnt about male and female its about their bodies producing too much testosterone and giving them a significant advantage. sorry the first part of the sentence was relating to Duttee Chand, the latter after the full stop was Semanya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 1 hour ago, eddie said: You really are an obnoxious piece of work. Do you still work for Experian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, LesterRam said: sorry the first part of the sentence was relating to Duttee Chand, the latter after the full stop was Semanya. Dont try to do the 'easier' GCSE English, you reply to a post about one person then claim to be talking about another without even mentioning them, guaranteed fail. My point still stands though, noone is actually claiming she isnt a woman, or she is closer to male than female. Just that her body produces more than 'normal' amount and without any science to back it up say it gives her an advantage. Lets compare dominant athletes Radcliffe - world record holder 10% slower than the fastest male time Semanya - Not world record holder and only 12% slower than the fastest male time. Who is the biggest outlier? Whose perforances are closer to male performances. Maybe just maybe the competition in the 800m isnt as strong as it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, davenportram said: Dont try to do the 'easier' GCSE English, you reply to a post about one person then claim to be talking about another without even mentioning them, guaranteed fail. My point still stands though, noone is actually claiming she isnt a woman, or she is closer to male than female. Just that her body produces more than 'normal' amount and without any science to back it up say it gives her an advantage. Lets compare dominant athletes Radcliffe - world record holder 10% slower than the fastest male time Semanya - Not world record holder and only 12% slower than the fastest male time. Who is the biggest outlier? Whose perforances are closer to male performances. Maybe just maybe the competition in the 800m isnt as strong as it used to be. No I replied to both of your replies in one hence the full stop, yes I admit it wasn't the clearest but that's what actually happened, I do apologise. Regarding your latest reply, I cannot say I'm an expert in athletics but the IAAF are not happy, we have athletes that have male reproductive parts, no ovaries and shaves that is appearing in the Woman's 800m, we need to clarify what determines clearly what is X and what is Y chromosome pretty quickly, this could end up in a court questioning the legalities of this result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, LesterRam said: No I replied to both of your replies in one hence the full stop, yes I admit it wasn't the clearest but that's what actually happened, I do apologise. Fair enough. Quote Regarding your latest reply, I cannot say I'm an expert in athletics but the IAAF are not happy, we have althetes that have male reproductive parts, no ovaries and shaves that is appearing in the Woman's 800m, we need to clarify what determines clearly what is X and what is Y chromosome pretty quickly, this could end up in a court questioning the legalities of this result. There have been athletes that have these conditioms for years, there arent many of them. Cant use chromosons either, theyve tried that before it didnt work The argument that action is necessary becaue he condition of producing higher testosterone creates enhanced performance is flawed in that it has hardly any scientific evidence to back it up. The hullaballoo started when Semanya began dominating the event and an athlete called her a man. Come on in every sport there are times when an athlete dominates - women have run faster than her in the past and they will in the future too. Just because someone dominates they shouldnt be persecuted. As i said earlier statistacally Radcliffevwas more exceptional in her event than Semanya is in hers. One is a brilliant athlete, the other is treared terribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, davenportram said: Fair enough. There have been athletes that have these conditioms for years, there arent many of them. Cant use chromosons either, theyve tried that before it didnt work The argument that action is necessary becaue he condition of producing higher testosterone creates enhanced performance is flawed in that it has hardly any scientific evidence to back it up. The hullaballoo started when Semanya began dominating the event and an athlete called her a man. Come on in every sport there are times when an athlete dominates - women have run faster than her in the past and they will in the future too. Just because someone dominates they shouldnt be persecuted. As i said earlier statistacally Radcliffevwas more exceptional in her event than Semanya is in hers. One is a brilliant athlete, the other is treared terribly. Well the law needs to be rectified, you cannot ban one athlete and let another race, Chand has had her career blighted by indecision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 1 hour ago, LesterRam said: Well the law needs to be rectified, you cannot ban one athlete and let another race, Chand has had her career blighted by indecision. So did semanya when she was withdrawn from competition pending gender tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 11 hours ago, davenportram said: Fair enough. There have been athletes that have these conditioms for years, there arent many of them. Cant use chromosons either, theyve tried that before it didnt work The argument that action is necessary becaue he condition of producing higher testosterone creates enhanced performance is flawed in that it has hardly any scientific evidence to back it up. The hullaballoo started when Semanya began dominating the event and an athlete called her a man. Come on in every sport there are times when an athlete dominates - women have run faster than her in the past and they will in the future too. Just because someone dominates they shouldnt be persecuted. As i said earlier statistacally Radcliffevwas more exceptional in her event than Semanya is in hers. One is a brilliant athlete, the other is treared terribly. So why can't they use chromosomes? Either someone has a Y chromosome and is male, or not. If they have an X chromosome, they're female with a condition. No argument really. Its like if Phelps had webbed feet. Does that give him an advantage? Yes. But you shouldn't stop him competing because of it. Or that kid who plays basketball and he's about 9ft tall. Freakishly tall, but you can't say he's not allowed to play because of that (unless you invoked a rule that players must not be taller than X). But it is a shame that some people, like Paula Radcliffe for example, are just exceptional athletes, and other athletes just have genetic conditions that make them stronger and faster. All things being equal, if Semanya had no condition, but took a supplement to raise her testosterone to the levels they are at, she would be banned. So that does seem rather unfair to the athletes that don't have that natural advantage, and just have to work bloody hard to get anywhere near the same level. Having said that, I'm not a natural athlete, I'm genetically predisposed to be a fat git, and I'm never likely to win a race against mo farrah (not even a sprint), so is it an unfair playing field that he has the genetic make up to make him a fantastic runner, even before any training is taken into account, and I don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 13 hours ago, davenportram said: Interesting article in NY times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/sports/caster-semenya-800-meters.html?_r=0 Maybe Paula Radcliffe should put a sock in it. How about this. If she's got all that extra testosterone, and she still can't beat the world record, and she's still 12% slower than a man. Then maybe she's just not that good an athlete. Like the 9ft kid playing basketball again. He might have absolutely rubbish ball handling skills, and it must be really frustrating for other players working hard on their technique, knowing that he's not actually very good, but can slam it without even jumping, so he's always going to be better, no matter how hard they try. Maybe (and I don't know) Semanya is not actually very good, it's just the extra testosterone that puts her out in front, and that would be incredibly frustrating for everyone behind her who are genuinely good athletes. With the basketball example, it's not so bad, cos one man can't win a game by himself, it still depends on the team and many other factors. In the end, having one extremely tall guy doesn't guarantee you'll win every time. But in athletics, there can be on my one individual who is the fastest. So it must be very frustrating if you know you have zero chance of being that individual because one person in the world has a genetically unfair advantage that essentially makes her unbeatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Some athletes have extra chromosones which i the past led to bans but has deemed unfair to bam them since. Phelps webbed feet, a genetic condition, semenya high testosterone levels is genetic. On the "if she had taken a supplement she would be banned argument" There was a skiier that had gentic condition that meant his haemoglobin was 50% moe than normal, helping him retain more oxygen in is blood amd perform at high levels for longer amd recover quicker he wasnt banned. Yet the practice of blood transfusions following events to aid recovery was banned but gives similar results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 There must be plenty of athletes with genetic advantages and disadvantages. You still have to put the training in and work to make the most of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 15 hours ago, eddie said: You really are an obnoxious piece of work. Do you still work for Experian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.