The Road to London....... Build up to World Championships mod notes #342 and #653

The Golden Miller

RuMan wrote: »

The overemphasis on times has been to the detriment of the sport, particularly in the marathon. Athletics is about competition and performing on the biggest occasion which Mo has done consistently. Records will always be broken, an Olympic medal lasts forever

That isn't a like for like analogy though. He'll be a past Olympic champion, just as someone will be a previous record holder. Of course Mo will always be an Olympic champion, in the same context that someone will always be a record holder even if it's broke, as they held the record at some point.

I don't even see why you brought up the analogy to begin with. It may have held some water had the record holders not been past Olympic champions themselves, who did it consistently on the biggest occasions i.e Bekele.

Just because Mo won gold, doesn't mean it can't be pointed out that it's been a p!ss poor era

Testosterscone

runnerholic wrote: »

In the 15 European football championships so far 10 different countries have won it.

8 countries have won world cup in 20 competitions
9 Countries have won mens Europeans Championship 10,000m in 23 competitions
10 countries have won mens Olympic 10,000m in 24 competitions

Fairly comparable

EagererBeaver

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, she shouldn't be allowed race. Whatever you want to say about her gender, biologically she's got a giant advantage over natural women. Should other women be allowed to take testosterone to put them on an equal footing?

She does have an unfair advantage, but that's not her fault. The competition classification as it stands is based on gender. She is female and therefore competes against other females. End of story. If you then want to start regulating biology, fire away, but good luck doing it in a way that's fair to everyone.

Sticking with the testosterone point, say the IAAF defines a T-point threshold of X. You're allowed a maximum of X. The athlete with a natural level of X has a clear advantage over the athlete with 0.7X. Do you suppress her hormones now too?

Testosterscone

Mens Sprints
USA|5
UK|2
Jamaica|2
South Africa|2
Trinidad and Tobago|2
Turkey| 2
Bahamas|1
Qatar|1
Norway|1
Japan|1


Womens Sprints
USA|8
Ivory Coast|2
Netherlands|2
Jamaica|2
UK|2
Poland|1
Bahamas|1
Bahrain|1
Australia|1
Germany|1

Testosterscone

Mens Distance
Kenya| 6
Ethiopia|2
UK|2
US|2
Japan|2
France|2
Colombia|1
Brazil|1
Poland|1
Norway|1
Uganda|1
Tanzania|1
Morocco|1

Womens Distance
Kenya|5
USA|5
Ethiopia|3
China|3
South Africa|2
Burundi|1
Mexico|1
Italy|1
Portugal|1
Netherlands|1
Bahrain|1

Murph_D

Re the testosterone/gender argument...

At the risk of engaging in some frivolous whataboutery, what about the high jump? Do taller athletes have an 'unfair' advantage over shorter athletes? What should we do about that? :eek:

Discus and other throwing events seem to be dominated by athletes of a certain build. Not all athletes have the same natural ability to to put on muscle or other advantageous types of tissue (one possible reason being lower testosterone levels, strangely enough, which affects ability to develop muscle mass). How should we level the field.

The female testosterone argument is pointless, and boring.

snowflaker

Hero the Hedgehog was the best thing about these games for me

Testosterscone

Mens Field
USA|6
Poland|3
Czech|2
South Africa|2
France|1
South Africa|2
Lithuania|1
Germany|1
New Zealand|1
Sweden|1
Croatia|1
Portugal|1
Syria|1

velo.2010

Well, another Worlds comes to an end. Always seems to mark the end of summer! Bummer!

Lots of good, competitive racing with lots of new names and faces. I'm sure the IAAF will be hoping, for the love of god, that this marks the start of a new era of athletics. But sure, we've heard that every few years. They badly need it now.

I'd be in favour of the IAAF holding the Worlds in London or another knowledgeable and enthusiastic city every two years. You have to give it to the Brits - they came out in their droves and supported the Championships, and made up for the lack of atmosphere at the last few major champs. There will be fcuk all turning up in Qatar to watch the events if the reception the Cycling Worlds received in 2016 is repeated - and they were free to watch!

I'm pretty sure that's the last hurrah for the BBC and their major coverage of the Worlds and Olympics. They've lost exclusive Olympic coverage and the Tories wouldn't be fans, generally, of the BBC's spending habits and use of resources. Can't see them sending a huge team of staff in future.

Finally, good bye Bolt. It's been fun to watch!

El Caballo

Murph_D wrote: »

Re the testosterone/gender argument...

At the risk of engaging in some frivolous whataboutery, what about the high jump? Do taller athletes have an 'unfair' advantage over shorter athletes? What should we do about that? :eek:

Discus and throwing events seem to be dominated by athletes of a certain build. Not all athletes have the same natural ability to to put on muscle or other advantageous types of tissue (one possible reason being lower testosterone levels, strangely enough, which affects ability to develop muscle mass).

The female testosterone argument is pointless, and boring.

No, it's not. The high jump is not a protected sport like women's sport. I don't like talking about this subject as athletes who have hyperandrogenism are people but the unfairness on biological females is also so huge that I can't stand watching the 800m. Women's sport is protected by definition and this isn't as simple as a lot of people think which is why the testosterone is used as a marker.

Women with hyperandrogenism are not biologically female and have internal testes, they are intersex so hold a huge advantage over women who cannot produce and absorb testostersone at the same levels, this is not an advantage like height within gender but an advantage of gender as athletics is a gender divided sport and for good reason if women are to be competitive as otherwise, you might as well have women compete against men, hyperandrogenism falls into the category between men and women. The issue for the IAAF is that there is so many different types of intersex, some are androgen insensitive so they will let athletes compete as they are unable to absorb the extra testostersone etc. The issue is so complicated that they have tried to narrow it down to a level that no biological female can produce so even when these athletes were restricted with testosterone inhibitors, their natural levels were far in excess of the levels any female could produce and a level that even women who were doping on huge doses of testosterone could not produce.

These athletes are in violation of the very first rule of women's sport, be a biological female.This is not their fault of course but should they be allowed to compete? No in my opinion.

EagererBeaver

The sport is classified on the basis of gender. You're talking about sex, of which you clearly don't understand the difference.

The IAAF is massively hypocritical on this front in seeking to exclude the likes of Semenya whilst still upholding the records of Koch and Kratochvilova.

El Caballo

EagererBeaver wrote: »

The sport is classified on the basis of gender. You're talking about sex, of which you clearly don't understand the difference.

The IAAF is massively hypocritical on this front in seeking to exclude the likes of Semenya whilst still holding the records of Koch and Kratochvilova.

yes, my apologies for that mistake and I do know the difference but was just getting ahead of myself.

If you don't believe me, here are some earlier posts on the topic and you are wrong, the sport is based on sex and not gender.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=102578295

walshb

EagererBeaver wrote: »

The sport is classified on the basis of gender. You're talking about sex, of which you clearly don't understand the difference.

The IAAF is massively hypocritical on this front in seeking to exclude the likes of Semenya whilst still upholding the records of Koch and Kratochvilova.

Is there some evidence (and not "they look/looked like men with abnormal female testosterone levels")to say that Koch and Kratochvilova are in the same boat as Caster?

Those two were from 30 + years ago...

What do you expect the IAAF to do? Get a Delorean and travel back in time to carry out testing?

El Caballo

walshb wrote: »

Is there some evidence (and not "they look/looked like men with abnormal female testosterone levels")to say that Koch and Kratochvilova are in the same boat as Caster?

They both have kids

Chivito550

velo.2010 wrote: »

Well, another Worlds comes to an end. Always seems to mark the end of summer! Bummer!

Lots of good, competitive racing with lots of new names and faces. I'm sure the IAAF will be hoping, for the love of god, that this marks the start of a new era of athletics. But sure, we've heard that every few years. They badly need it now.

I'd be in favour of the IAAF holding the Worlds in London or another knowledgeable and enthusiastic city every two years. You have to give it to the Brits - they came out in their droves and supported the Championships, and made up for the lack of atmosphere at the last few major champs. There will be fcuk all turning up in Qatar to watch the events if the reception the Cycling Worlds received in 2016 is repeated - and they were free to watch!

I'm pretty sure that's the last hurrah for the BBC and their major coverage of the Worlds and Olympics. They've lost exclusive Olympic coverage and the Tories wouldn't be fans, generally, of the BBC's spending habits and use of resources. Can't see them sending a huge team of staff in future.

Finally, good bye Bolt. It's been fun to watch!

What lack of atmosphere at recent championships? Beijing was brilliant, as was Moscow, likewise Daegu. I was at each of them and they all got big crowds. Rio is clouding peoples' memories badly.

walshb

El Caballo wrote: »

They both have kids

Not following...

Does the IAAF not simply have "acceptable" testosterone levels as their ruling?

Having biological children or being capable of having them, is that relevant or pertinent to the IAAFs criteria here?

EagererBeaver

El Caballo wrote: »

They both have kids

They've also both set world records that nobody, female, intersex, doped, clean or anything in between has approached in 30 years. Why not just come out and acknowledge all the circumstantial evidence around things? Semenya and co have far more right to be upheld as sporting icons then those two lab rats.

El Caballo

EagererBeaver wrote: »

They've also both set world records that nobody, female, intersex, doped, clean or anything in between has approached in 30 years. Why not just come out and acknowledge all the circumstantial evidence around things? Semenya and co have far more right to be upheld as sporting icons then those two lab rats.

They were doped to the gills and Semenya would crush that record if she tried. 59-56 negative split tonight without kicking until the final 100m, that is just insane and means she is probably capable of 1:51

Eyes Down Field

This Championship will be primary remembered for the downfall of Usain Bolt and overall one of the worse showings from Team Jamaica for a long time.

walshb

El Caballo wrote: »

They were doped to the gills

Were they?

Could it be possible that A: they were not, and were just superb, or B, they had increased testosterone levels like Semenya due to biology?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Were they?

Could it be possible that A: they were not, and were just superb, or B, they had increased testosterone levels like Semenya due to biology?

There's a letter from Koch complaining she wasn't getting enough drugs. It was found after the fall of the wall. Google it.

Clean my foot.

EagererBeaver

El Caballo wrote: »

They were doped to the gills and Semenya would crush that record if she tried. 59-56 negative split tonight without kicking until the final 100m, that is just insane and means she is probably capable of 1:51

Of course they were, but by continuing to recognise the record, the IAAF directly acknowledges that that sort of time is achievable by a clean athlete with no unfair advantage. Yet they seek to ban athletes who, to date, haven't approached those times?

El Caballo

Chivito550 wrote: »

There's a letter from Koch complaining she wasn't getting enough drugs. It was found after the fall of the wall. Google it.

Clean my foot.

along with files showing her dosages and timetable for anabolic steroids, same for Jarmila.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

There's a letter from Koch complaining she wasn't getting enough drugs. It was found after the fall of the wall. Google it.

Clean my foot.

I know about this..

The discussion was more concerning Koch and Krat maybe having similar natural biological makeups to Semenya.

I was asking what possibly could the IAAF do retrospectively to check this? Nothing I'd imagine..

walshb

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Of course they were, but by continuing to recognise the record, the IAAF directly acknowledges that that sort of time is achievable by a clean athlete with no unfair advantage. Yet they seek to ban athletes who, to date, haven't approached those times?

Very good point..

Murph_D

El Caballo wrote: »

... Women with hyperandrogenism are not biologically female and have internal testes, they are intersex so hold a huge advantage over women who cannot produce and absorb testostersone at the same levels...

I think you are confusing hyperandrogenism, a relatively common condition, with gender ambiguity or what is sometimes called androgyny.

EagererBeaver

walshb wrote: »

The discussion was more concerning Koch and Krat maybe having similar natural biological makeups to Semenya.

No, it wasn't. I brought them up to highlight the hypocrisy of the IAAF in the matter.

I don't dispute for a second that intersex athletes have a biological advantage. Whether it's "unfair" is a matter of opinion, and a highly subjective one at that. Pamela Jelimo for example is biologically female, supposedly clean and ran faster than all of Semenya, Wambui and Niyonsaba.

I'm just not sure that the right answer is to exclude them from competition, or else mandate surgery or chemical hormone treatment.

RuMan

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That isn't a like for like analogy though. He'll be a past Olympic champion, just as someone will be a previous record holder. Of course Mo will always be an Olympic champion, in the same context that someone will always be a record holder even if it's broke, as they held the record at some point.

I don't even see why you brought up the analogy to begin with. It may have held some water had the record holders not been past Olympic champions themselves, who did it consistently on the biggest occasions i.e Bekele.

Just because Mo won gold, doesn't mean it can't be pointed out that it's been a p!ss poor era

It can be pointed out but it comes across as petty and churlish ( not to mention anti British which seems to be a theme in this thread).

An Olympic gold medal is the pinnacle of our sport, nothing else comes close. (World records are nowhere close).

Mo has 4 Olympic gold medals, personally I will miss both him and Bolt on the track and wish them both all the best.

Both great champions who almost always delivered on the big occasions. I've enjoyed watching Mo.

walshb

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, it wasn't. I brought them up to highlight the hypocrisy of the IAAF in the matter.

Okey doke. I wasn't entirely sure...

velo.2010

Chivito550 wrote: »

What lack of atmosphere at recent championships? Beijing was brilliant, as was Moscow, likewise Daegu. I was at each of them and they all got big crowds. Rio is clouding peoples' memories badly.

Watching from home, there was an apparent lack of atmosphere in the stadiums - granted, it may have been different in the actual stadium. IIRC, the morning sessions at those champs didn't have the attendances that London had.

If your in Doha in two years, it'll be you and your colleagues/team staff filling the stands.