• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544

You are viewing page of 2.

Discussion Forum >>

2019 Elementary Super Meet
Reply to topic Go to last post
Avatar
User since:
Jun 9th, 2011
Posts: 236
thumbs_up 10
Report  ORIGINAL

Master2B said 3 weeks ago

Caster Senenya loses appeal

Show Original Post
  • master2b User since:
    Jun 9th, 2011
    Posts: 236
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #26 

    Master2B said 2 weeks ago

    Semenya, Nyonsaba, and Wambui have never described their biology to the media. Reports of Caster’s biology, including internal testes, was leaked during the time the IAAF submitted her for testing. She said during that time she had not even seen the report.

    Niyonsaba confirmed she has the same condition as Semenya.

    Not sure why Wambui is included in this discussion.

    Ajee Wilson has finished ahead of Wambui on a few occasions. Should we say she’s intersex as well? Not sure where petesakes was going with his/her argument.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #27 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    People are talking about Ajee Wilson now having her chance to win the world title... But has anyone looked in-depth at her positive test being overturned for tainted beef? It seems to me that she likely knowingly took steroids to boost her testosterone - yet people are all over women who have naturally high testosterone beyond their control.

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2423
    thumbs_up 10
    Report    REPLY #28 

    Oldster said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Master2B
    "Semenya, Nyonsaba, and Wambui have never described their biology to the media. Reports of Caster’s biology, including internal testes, was leaked during the time the IAAF submitted her for testing. She said during that time she had not even seen the report.

    Niyonsaba confirmed she has the same condition as Semenya.

    Not sure why Wambui is included in this discussion.

    Ajee Wilson has finished ahead of Wambui on a few occasions. Should we say she’s intersex as well? Not sure where petesakes was going with his/her argument."


    Interesting point. I think the logical upshot of this ruling, with its "necessary discrimination" rationale (read: its inability to specify a universal testosterone-level dividing line between men and women for the purposes of sport) is that, if you are really good and "don't look right", you will attract scrutiny, and may have your event, or event range, included in the testosterone-level ban. In other words, the IAAF seems to have been given license to proceed on a case-by-case and event-by-event basis when it comes to establishing a T-based dividing line between the male and female categories. I'm no legal expert, but this seem to be to be operating in a kind of twilight region when it comes to jurisprudencial reasoning. Laws, after all, are supposed to based on universal principles, and thus to apply equally and fairly to all who are subject to them (in this case, every member of the IAAF, not just 400-1500m runners). I'm amazed that a concept like "necessary discrimination" can be seen to have ANY legal basis in any court anywhere. Legal types, is there any precedent for this?

    Note: I am not against the idea of establishing a clear dividing line between the men's and women's categories in sport, nor do I think that testosterone levels is necessarily a bad place to start. What I find deeply troubling is the way the Semenya case has been used (or rather misused) to pursue this objective. You simply don't legislate via "moral panic" and expect real justice.

    Quote comment
  • buddy User since:
    Jun 8th, 2015
    Posts: 1314
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #29 

    Buddy said 2 weeks ago

    She should go run a 1:49.00 and double flip the bird while crossing the finish line :)

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #30 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    ... and you are XY.

    Let's not ignore one of the most important pieces of information here.

    Quoting: Oldster
    "Interesting point. I think the logical upshot of this ruling, with its "necessary discrimination" rationale (read: its inability to specify a universal testosterone-level dividing line between men and women for the purposes of sport) is that, if you are really good and "don't look right", you will attract scrutiny, and may have your event, or event range, included in the testosterone-level ban. In other words, the IAAF seems to have been given license to proceed on a case-by-case and event-by-event basis when it comes to establishing a T-based dividing line between the male and female categories. I'm no legal expert, but this seem to be to be operating in a kind of twilight region when it comes to jurisprudencial reasoning. Laws, after all, are supposed to based on universal principles, and thus to apply equally and fairly to all who are subject to them (in this case, every member of the IAAF, not just 400-1500m runners). I'm amazed that a concept like "necessary discrimination" can be seen to have ANY legal basis in any court anywhere. Legal types, is there any precedent for this?

    Note: I am not against the idea of establishing a clear dividing line between the men's and women's categories in sport, nor do I think that testosterone levels is necessarily a bad place to start. What I find deeply troubling is the way the Semenya case has been used (or rather misused) to pursue this objective. You simply don't legislate via "moral panic" and expect real justice."

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2423
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #31 

    Oldster said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Anonymous .. and you are XY.

    Let's not ignore one of the most important pieces of information here.
    ""


    Robert Johnson over at Letsrun has been attempting to make a big deal out of this revelation, when it has been known since the very beginning of this debate that chromosomal make-up, in and of itself, settles nothing definitely when it comes to biological sex. If it did, the job of the IAAF and CAS would have been dead-simple-- just ban all XY women from the women's category. They obviously are not all that common in the general population (but then, neither are elite athletes), but XY women walk among us unnoticed every day.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 13
    Report    REPLY #32 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    This is great example of a straw man fallacy. Robert Johnson never suggested that chromosomal make-up settles anything definitively, that would be an impossible task for any biological trait. He did, however, suggested that by avoiding the chromosomal information, major news outlets are missing a key piece of information and misleading people on this debate.

    You have done the exact same thing by suggesting that an event will be included in the T-level limit if you run fast and don't look right. You also have to be an XY female! That's not to suggest that the Y chromosome is the definitive factor in biological sex (although it is one of the major factors, and the single factor in genetic sex), but it's an important distinction because XX females are not subject to the same T-level limit.


    Quoting: Oldster
    "Robert Johnson over at Letsrun has been attempting to make a big deal out of this revelation, when it has been known since the very beginning of this debate that chromosomal make-up, in and of itself, settles nothing definitely when it comes to biological sex. If it did, the job of the IAAF and CAS would have been dead-simple-- just ban all XY women from the women's category. They obviously are not all that common in the general population (but then, neither are elite athletes), but XY women walk among us unnoticed every day."

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2423
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #33 

    Oldster said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: AnonymousThis is great example of a straw man fallacy. Robert Johnson never suggested that chromosomal make-up settles anything definitively, that would be an impossible task for any biological trait. He did, however, suggested that by avoiding the chromosomal information, major news outlets are missing a key piece of information and misleading people on this debate.

    You have done the exact same thing by suggesting that an event will be included in the T-level limit if you run fast and don't look right. You also have to be an XY female! That's not to suggest that the Y chromosome is the definitive factor in biological sex (although it is one of the major factors, and the single factor in genetic sex), but it's an important distinction because XX females are not subject to the same T-level limit.
    ""


    He presented it as some kind of bombshell piece of new evidence-- hence "made a big deal out of it". It is NOT a big deal, because the new rule refers only to T-levels, not chromosomes. That Semenya is XY is completely irrelevant to the discussion. There may well be other XY women competing in the women's division.

    And, sorry, no one, least of all the IAAF, has suggested that the XY criteria will be introduced into any new rule affecting other events. Where exactly are you getting this information? If the IAAF continues to follow its "acceptable discrimination" approach, then it will have to proceed exactly as I described-- wait for a "Semenya" in some other event group, then take steps to test and ban her. Remember, as things stands, you can do every other women's event with as much endogenous T as you happen to have circulating. The way you will get yourself and your event regulated by a new rule is by beating everyone by a lot and not "looking right". You're deluded if you think XY/high endogenous T women athletes have not been competing in athletics for decades, up until the present, and will not continue to do so.

    This post was edited by Oldster 2 weeks ago . 
    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #34 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Oldster
    "He presented it as some kind of bombshell piece of new evidence-- hence "made a big deal out of it". It is NOT a big deal, because the new rule refers only to T-levels, not chromosomes. That Semenya is XY is completely irrelevant to the discussion. There may well be other XY women competing in the women's division.

    And, sorry, no one, least of all the IAAF, has suggested that the XY criteria will be introduced into any new rule affecting other events. Where exactly are you getting this information? If the IAAF continues to follow its "acceptable discrimination" approach, then it will have to proceed exactly as I described-- wait for a "Semenya" in some other event group, then take steps to test and ban her. Remember, as things stands, you can do every other women's event with as much endogenous T as you happen to have circulating. The way you will get yourself and your event regulated by a new rule is by beating everyone by a lot and not "looking right". You're deluded if you think XY/high endogenous T women athletes have not been competing in athletics for decades, up until the present, and will not continue to do so."


    The IAAF ruling specifically states that the testosterone limit only applies to 46 XY DSD athletes competing in the female category, not XX athletes with high T competing in the female category. Thus, a XX female athlete with PCOS (a condition that can cause high T) would not be subject to the requirement to reduce her hormone levels.

    https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1123529141918339072

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #35 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Chromosomes are indeed relevant to the discussion - the new rule refers only to T-levels for females with XY chromosomes, not XX chromosomes.

    Quoting: Oldster
    "It is NOT a big deal, because the new rule refers only to T-levels, not chromosomes. That Semenya is XY is completely irrelevant to the discussion. There may well be other XY women competing in the women's division."

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #36 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Oldster
    "He presented it as some kind of bombshell piece of new evidence-- hence "made a big deal out of it". It is NOT a big deal, because the new rule refers only to T-levels, not chromosomes. That Semenya is XY is completely irrelevant to the discussion. There may well be other XY women competing in the women's division.

    And, sorry, no one, least of all the IAAF, has suggested that the XY criteria will be introduced into any new rule affecting other events. Where exactly are you getting this information? If the IAAF continues to follow its "acceptable discrimination" approach, then it will have to proceed exactly as I described-- wait for a "Semenya" in some other event group, then take steps to test and ban her. Remember, as things stands, you can do every other women's event with as much endogenous T as you happen to have circulating. The way you will get yourself and your event regulated by a new rule is by beating everyone by a lot and not "looking right". You're deluded if you think XY/high endogenous T women athletes have not been competing in athletics for decades, up until the present, and will not continue to do so."



    The CAS ruling only applies to 46 XY athletes right?

    Quote comment
  • master2b User since:
    Jun 9th, 2011
    Posts: 236
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #37 

    Master2B said 2 weeks ago

    Bruce Kidd weighs in:


    https://www.enca.com/analysis/demonisation-caster-semenya-continues?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1557057013

    This post was edited by Master2B 2 weeks ago . 
    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #38 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Another guy conveniently avoiding the fact that the IAAF regulations only apply to XY females.


    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2423
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #39 

    Oldster said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "The IAAF ruling specifically states that the testosterone limit only applies to 46 XY DSD athletes competing in the female category, not XX athletes with high T competing in the female category. Thus, a XX female athlete with PCOS (a condition that can cause high T) would not be subject to the requirement to reduce her hormone levels.

    https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1123529141918339072"


    Thanks. I stand corrected re: chromosomes. However, as things stand, the rule doesn't actually apply to ANYONE in any other event but the ones Semenya might run. This is the issue. In fact, the inclusion of the XY criteria only makes the current rule seem even more targeted at Semenya, since it's very likely the IAAF had reason to believe she was XY when crafting it proposed rule. The way Johnson is going on about it is to suggest that Semenya's fate is even more justified, since "it has been revealed" that she is XY. This is completely circular reasoning if it turns out the rule was formulated with prior knowledge that she is indeed XY. The ruling may fit her so well because it was actually designed from the beginning to fit-- in other words to be ("justifiably") discriminatory.

    This post was edited by Oldster 2 weeks ago . 
    Quote comment
  • master2b User since:
    Jun 9th, 2011
    Posts: 236
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #40 

    Master2B said 2 weeks ago

    Can we say Dutee Chand is 46 XY DSD as well? She says in this article the new rules don’t apply to her because she runs the 100/200.

    https://www.thehindu.com/sport/athletics/iaafs-wrong-policy-on-hyperandrogenism-caused-semenyas-loss-says-dutee-chand/article27012847.ece

    She also has elevated testosterone levels but she is not winning big meets, like Caster.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #41 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Master2B
    "Can we say Dutee Chand is 46 XY DSD as well? She says in this article the new rules don’t apply to her because she runs the 100/200.

    https://www.thehindu.com/sport/athletics/iaafs-wrong-policy-on-hyperandrogenism-caused-semenyas-loss-says-dutee-chand/article27012847.ece

    She also has elevated testosterone levels but she is not winning big meets, like Caster."



    How are we defining the sporting category “female”? Is it sex observed at birth or some other criteria? Once you start fiddling around and muddying the waters this is the place you end up (in my opinion). On your logic above, male athletes should be able to compete in the female category because a few women beat some of them on the roads this past weekend. Does that make sense? If we were still operating in a system that recognized birth sex as the dividing line, we wouldn’t have any arguments but now we are trying to readjust the female category without giving full thought to all the downstream implications. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, “identified as female” people will be the ultimate losers given the magnitude of male sex performance advantages if the governing bodies fail to get this right. You know as well as I do what an injustice this would be given the contemporary and historical treatment of female athletes in our sport.

    My understanding is that 46 XY DSD is very rare but also dispersed globally (not just a Global South occurrence). And if I had it and my body could use the high levels of testosterone, no doubt I would be taking steps to minimize the masculinization impact on my body because I understand myself as female. In fact I might do that even if I’m XX with PCOS and suffering from hirsutism. One of the benefits of living in Canada with universal healthcare. Other people might not be inclined to alter their bodies. As is their right. Thus the question, how are we defining the category in a way that we respect sex based performance differences to provide female (sex) athletes with a space in the sport that gives them equal opportunities to compete, make teams, win medals and set records as male (sex) athletes have without trampling over people’s rights?

    Thus far I haven’t seen any of the major sports governing bodies come up with a model that accomplishes this. Mostly because there seems a reluctance to think outside the box. You know maybe we aren’t in a two category world anymore.

    Quote comment
  • petesakes User since:
    Apr 21st, 2014
    Posts: 84
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #42 

    petesakes said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "How are we defining the sporting category “female”? Is it sex observed at birth or some other criteria? Once you start fiddling around and muddying the waters this is the place you end up (in my opinion). On your logic above, male athletes should be able to compete in the female category because a few women beat some of them on the roads this past weekend. Does that make sense? If we were still operating in a system that recognized birth sex as the dividing line, we wouldn’t have any arguments but now we are trying to readjust the female category without giving full thought to all the downstream implications. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, “identified as female” people will be the ultimate losers given the magnitude of male sex performance advantages if the governing bodies fail to get this right. You know as well as I do what an injustice this would be given the contemporary and historical treatment of female athletes in our sport.

    My understanding is that 46 XY DSD is very rare but also dispersed globally (not just a Global South occurrence). And if I had it and my body could use the high levels of testosterone, no doubt I would be taking steps to minimize the masculinization impact on my body because I understand myself as female. In fact I might do that even if I’m XX with PCOS and suffering from hirsutism. One of the benefits of living in Canada with universal healthcare. Other people might not be inclined to alter their bodies. As is their right. Thus the question, how are we defining the category in a way that we respect sex based performance differences to provide female (sex) athletes with a space in the sport that gives them equal opportunities to compete, make teams, win medals and set records as male (sex) athletes have without trampling over people’s rights?

    Thus far I haven’t seen any of the major sports governing bodies come up with a model that accomplishes this. Mostly because there seems a reluctance to think outside the box. You know maybe we aren’t in a two category world anymore."


    I agree! Binary classifications and competitions could/should be a thing of the past. Either that, or we sadly force people to manipulate their bodies to fit our binary world. By simply doing nothing and throwing the "non-binaries" into the female events, it really says a lot about how much we value women's sport.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #43 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    You know, I used to be in the “She can’t run” camp. However, after learning about Michael Phelps genetic advantage, I’ve since changed my mind. She has a genetic advantage. To other traditional female athletes suggesting it’s not fair, so what? Life’s not fair, deal with it. And athletes with conditions like Semenya’s wont overtake the sport as they are too few in number. I believe this is an anomaly that we’re seeing now, but not a new trend.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #44 

    Andrew Hogg said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: Oldster
    "Robert Johnson over at Letsrun has been attempting to make a big deal out of this revelation, when it has been known since the very beginning of this debate that chromosomal make-up, in and of itself, settles nothing definitely when it comes to biological sex. If it did, the job of the IAAF and CAS would have been dead-simple-- just ban all XY women from the women's category. They obviously are not all that common in the general population (but then, neither are elite athletes), but XY women walk among us unnoticed every day."


    If chromosomal make-up doesn't settle anything, than what is the criteria between male/female?

    The underlying problem here is that philosophy and science are intertwined (i.e. read about the beginnings of "PhD"- doctor philosophiae). Seemingly, our versions of what is "good" science are at odds here. I'm not confused about what XY chromosomes represent. Are you? I'm not even confused about what (XXY) chromosomes (Klinefelter Syndrome) represent.

    But, it seems, you feel differently. And that is influencing the science you read and, so, your interpretation of the situation. If we can't rely on chromosomes (our biological, genetic makeup) as something that differentiates us, what do you suggest does? Here lies the conundrum (a cyclical argument) - what came first, the chicken or the egg?

    We don't know all the facts of Semenya's case, since the medical file has been private. Semenya is entitled to privacy. How do we know the IAAF is trying to handle this in a sensitive way? If the rumours are true (Semenya has internal testes), combined about what we know about the ruling (that it only applies to those with XY chromosomes), it would mean this is a person with XY chromosomes and under-developed testes. Some would call that a birth defect that the person is having psychological trouble dealing with. And some, like you, would not. It doesn't seem like this is going to be resolved anytime soon.

    The problem is that both sides seem convinced about the verity of their claims. "Can't you see!" they say to each other. "I can prove it!" And, when the other side doesn't see it their way, vitriolic arguments are exchanged. Come what may, and I mean this in a respectful and non-"judgmental" way, some people are not confused. That comes down to their core beliefs about who and what we are, and why we exist. Both groups are entitled to their opinion I suppose, but there doesn't seem to be "one" solution to make all parties happy. This is going to be one of those eternal debates that have existed since the beginning of time.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #45 

    Andrew Hogg said 2 weeks ago

    I also noticed that some of the people insisting Semenya had condition of hyperandrogenism appear to be awfully quiet. Hyperandrogenism is a medical condition that occurs in females (XX chromosomes). If Semenya suffered from hyperandrogenism, one would assume the new IAAF testosterone-lowering rule would not apply.

    One can simply work backward from the CAS ruling to determine that, if the person is affected by the ruling, they have XY chromosomes. Then, calculate the probability of someone with XY chromosomes having testes (including under-developed). Read between the lines of what the IAAF is saying about high testosterone levels (i.e. how is testosterone produced in the human body?). And then read between some of the lines of what Seb has said (quite explicitly) about how losing the case would have meant the IAAF would not be able to exclude men masquerading as women from women's competitions.

    And then draw your own conclusions (based on your personal beliefs).

    "The DSD covered by the Regulations are limited to athletes with “46 XY DSD” – i.e.
    conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes."
    https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_Semenya_ASA_IAAF_decision.pdf

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #46 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Quoting: petesakes
    "I agree! Binary classifications and competitions could/should be a thing of the past. Either that, or we sadly force people to manipulate their bodies to fit our binary world. By simply doing nothing and throwing the "non-binaries" into the female events, it really says a lot about how much we value women's sport."


    "Women's" sport should incorporate two sporting categories that reflects the known and well established sex based performance differences.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #47 

    Anonymous said 1 week ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "You know, I used to be in the “She can’t run” camp. However, after learning about Michael Phelps genetic advantage, I’ve since changed my mind. She has a genetic advantage. To other traditional female athletes suggesting it’s not fair, so what? Life’s not fair, deal with it. And athletes with conditions like Semenya’s wont overtake the sport as they are too few in number. I believe this is an anomaly that we’re seeing now, but not a new trend."


    Phelps is not a good analogy though. The men's category is essentially the open category. There are no delimiters. Semenya could compete in the men's division and there would be no issue. But when she has a T level that absolutely blows away the limit that encompasses basically every woman on the planet by a mile, there is more to it than just a "genetic advantage." The only logical conclusion to your thought is one competition in all events.

    But I also think you are very naive about them overtaking sports. I could just about guarantee there are countries testing every baby born to see if they are XY females. If countries will have state sponsored doping why would they not do this? Without the actions taken, the only way these aren't guaranteed gold medals is if by chance there is another one. But there are how many events? 25? That's not a lot of women required for it to become a takeover.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 50168
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #48 

    Anonymous said 3 days ago

    Caster will be running in the 3000m at the Prefontaine Classic. The restrictions of the 800m and 1500m will not apply.

    Quote comment
  • new-post-last-visitbuddy User since:
    Jun 8th, 2015
    Posts: 1314
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #49 

    Buddy said 2 days ago

    To be honest, for somebody with that T-level she ain't really all that fast.

    Quote comment
Previous | 1 | 2
Anonymous

says…    

Quote Underline Italics Bold
Submit Preview

By posting on our forum you are agreeing to the following guidelines.

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

 

Benefits of creating an account!

  • No need to reveal your real name.
  • Quicker to post (no need to enter the "two words" above each time).
  • Gives you the ability to edit your own comments and subscribe to topics.
  • It's free & quick to create an account!
Submit & Create Account

 

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1