Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Olympics 2024

1252628303176

Comments

  • there is having a natural competitive advantage, but there is also a duty of care.

    otherwise, why have weight divisions ?
    Just have the bigger stronger fighters beat the shit out of the small ones.
  • Oh & I know why it won’t change anytime soon btw.

    Because it’s just women’s sport.
  • Stig said:
    The Male commentator was well confused at the finished of the Women's Double sculls.
    He said the Romanian were crumbling when they were clear of GB and close to the winning NZ.

    I don't mean Matthew Pinsent.

    That was bizarre. I think it's Moe Sbihi.

    Moe came up with a classic Coleman ball.
    After our slow start in the men's four, Moe Sbihi stated:

    " The British crew are going backwards"

    WTF 🤷🏻‍♂️
    Is that not just a generalised term in that sport for going slow?

    Sounds a bit like when people did a double take (back in the 70s) when they first heard the term 'hitting the wall', before everyone realised that it was just a metaphorical wall rather than a description of an actual incident. 

    TBF to the 6ft 8in ex GB medalist in Olympics and World championships, it's live commentary and you could be correct. It came after the race he mixed up the Romanian and Spanish crews but I wouldn't argue with Moe who I can recall carrying the flag at opening ceremony in Tokyo and he was a giant.
  • MrOneLung said:
    there is having a natural competitive advantage, but there is also a duty of care.

    otherwise, why have weight divisions ?
    Just have the bigger stronger fighters beat the shit out of the small ones.
    What are you proposing? 
  • edited August 1
    This athlete failed two biochemical tests set out by the boxing association.
    Two.
    They deemed this athlete was not suitable to fight in women’s boxing.
    Yet the Olympics Association has chosen to ignore this.

    The Paralympic’s manages to set clear definition in categories for all athletes to compete fairly, why can’t the same be applied if this really is more of an issue than just being a man or a woman?
    If there really are countless humans out there that don’t easily fall into either category then a complete overhaul should be considered.
    And as such, until then, all we can do is follow the science as has been suggested. And as such, this athlete should not have been allowed in the ring today.

    They were testosterone tests. 

    These women aren't doping, they have naturally occuring testosterone due to medical/natural advantages given to them at birth. 

    They are factually women. Where you set the rules doesn't change that they are women competing in a women's event. If you decide that testosterone levels should be set as a rule, then you are choosing to exclude women from a women's event and shouldn't be done lightly. 

    As a sidenote: Khelif (the women in question) competed in Tokyo 4 years ago but there was no outcry. Why? Because she was beaten in the quarter finals. 
  • Gribbo said:
    People seem more outraged by this than the convicted child rapist competing? Really hope his victim ain't a sports enthusiast and following the Olympics, having his name and face pop up on a relatively regular basis
    No, everyone is more outraged by that. This debate has a shade a of grey because the boxers aren't trans therefore there are more posts.
  • edited August 1
    MrOneLung said:
    there is having a natural competitive advantage, but there is also a duty of care.

    otherwise, why have weight divisions ?
    Just have the bigger stronger fighters beat the shit out of the small ones.
    Of course, but then you do this in boxing and what happens to weight-lifting? 

    There's no 'duty of care' there so surely it will be fine for women with naturally high levels of testosterone to exist and compete right? 
  • Sponsored links:


  • This athlete failed two biochemical tests set out by the boxing association.
    Two.
    They deemed this athlete was not suitable to fight in women’s boxing.
    Yet the Olympics Association has chosen to ignore this.

    The Paralympic’s manages to set clear definition in categories for all athletes to compete fairly, why can’t the same be applied if this really is more of an issue than just being a man or a woman?
    If there really are countless humans out there that don’t easily fall into either category then a complete overhaul should be considered.
    And as such, until then, all we can do is follow the science as has been suggested. And as such, this athlete should not have been allowed in the ring today.

    They were testosterone tests. 

    These women aren't doping, they have naturally occuring testosterone due to medical/natural advantages given to them at birth. 

    They are factually women. Where you set the rules doesn't change that they are women competing in a women's event. If you decide that testosterone levels should be set as a rule, then you are choosing to exclude women from a women's event and shouldn't be done lightly. 

    As a sidenote: Khelif (the women in question) competed in Tokyo 4 years ago but there was no outcry. Why? Because she was beaten in the quarter finals. 
    There was & I remember it.
    Maybe not as much but I'd say that's more down to less attention.
  • Why is the BBC so crap? Watching the Hockey with GB getting a penalty corner then they move to BBC2, but when you turn over you get their adverts for other programmes, then the theme music then the presenters, then you see GB have a penalty shot which you just about catch!!! How we got to that point was missed. Why can't they just say BB2 is the Olympics channel and show everything on that for starters? 
  • MrOneLung said:
    there is having a natural competitive advantage, but there is also a duty of care.

    otherwise, why have weight divisions ?
    Just have the bigger stronger fighters beat the shit out of the small ones.
    I must have missed this, are these women not also categorised into the appropriate weight class?
  • Creditable bronze in the double skulls. A lot of word salad from the commentators though.
    That BBC coverage was possibly the worst sports commentary I've ever heard. No useful information about the race, just irrelevant chatter. And some of what they did try to say about the race was clearly wrong, just from looking at the pictures on-screen.

    Great performance to get the bronze, though. Made it worth sitting through the commentary.
    I had to turn the sound off which is genuinely a first for me.
  • I am all for trans rights in almost every area, even to use women's toilets but I think, if you used to be a male, you shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. If you are a woman who has always been a woman, and has too high testorone levels, you shouldn't be allowed to compete either. I think it harms the rights of trans people ultimately and fuels the transphobics.
  • Why is the BBC so crap? Watching the Hockey with GB getting a penalty corner then they move to BBC2, but when you turn over you get their adverts for other programmes, then the theme music then the presenters, then you see GB have a penalty shot which you just about catch!!! How we got to that point was missed. Why can't they just say BB2 is the Olympics channel and show everything on that for starters? 
    They needed to start to BBC2 coverage at 12:59 so that you could seamlessly switch over. Or just show the news on BBC2!
  • .se9addick said:
    So you believe the women competitors are lying?
    What does that achieve exactly?
    They want a fair fight.
    These two particular athletes have been found to have an unfair advantage by an association who has a duty of care to the women athletes.

    The women you are trying to have kicked out are, also, women. They have a genetic advantage, but so did Michael Phelps - should he have been kicked out of swimming to make it easier for his competitors that weren’t similarly blessed?
    He would have been kicked out if he punched someone. 
  • Why is the BBC so crap? Watching the Hockey with GB getting a penalty corner then they move to BBC2, but when you turn over you get their adverts for other programmes, then the theme music then the presenters, then you see GB have a penalty shot which you just about catch!!! How we got to that point was missed. Why can't they just say BB2 is the Olympics channel and show everything on that for starters? 
    They needed to start to BBC2 coverage at 12:59 so that you could seamlessly switch over. Or just show the news on BBC2!
    Exactly. I presume the people running things get good salaries so why are the so thick not to drop all the crap and go straight to the hockey in this circumstance. Ultimately, we missed a key moment of the match.
  • edited August 1
    I am all for trans rights in almost every area, even to use women's toilets but I think, if you used to be a male, you shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. If you are a woman who has always been a woman, and has too high testorone levels, you shouldn't be allowed to compete either. I think it harms the rights of trans people ultimately and fuels the transphobics.
    I would suggest that a large minority of women competing in the Olympics for the past 124 years would have had this biological condition and competed. This isn't a new phenomenon. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • I am all for trans rights in almost every area, even to use women's toilets but I think, if you used to be a male, you shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. If you are a woman who has always been a woman, and has too high testorone levels, you shouldn't be allowed to compete either. I think it harms the rights of trans people ultimately and fuels the transphobics.
    I would suggest that a large minority of women competing in the Olympics for the past 100 years would have had this biological condition and competed. This isn't a new phenomenon. 
    The reason I added this was to make the point that rather than get into a debate about what is and isn't a woman which can be emotive IMO, It should be recognised that the top level of women's sport has an artificial line as there are athletes, many athletes, competing above it. Most of them men. So it is important to keep the integrity of that line.
  • Were the boxers involved born with women's genitalia? If so, and they haven't been doping, then I cannot see why they wouldn't be allowed to compete
  • I am all for trans rights in almost every area, even to use women's toilets but I think, if you used to be a male, you shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. If you are a woman who has always been a woman, and has too high testorone levels, you shouldn't be allowed to compete either. I think it harms the rights of trans people ultimately and fuels the transphobics.
    What does this have to do with trans people in womens sport?
  • Gribbo said:
    People seem more outraged by this than the convicted child rapist competing? Really hope his victim ain't a sports enthusiast and following the Olympics, having his name and face pop up on a relatively regular basis
    No, everyone is more outraged by that. This debate has a shade a of grey because the boxers aren't trans therefore there are more posts.
    Only using his thread as a gauge tbh, but I've not seen much evidence of it on here. However it's been completely side tracked by the boxers with bollox subject
  • I am all for trans rights in almost every area, even to use women's toilets but I think, if you used to be a male, you shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. If you are a woman who has always been a woman, and has too high testorone levels, you shouldn't be allowed to compete either. I think it harms the rights of trans people ultimately and fuels the transphobics.
    I would suggest that a large minority of women competing in the Olympics for the past 124 years would have had this biological condition and competed. This isn't a new phenomenon. 
    Tamara Press won three gold medals and one silver medal at the 1960 and 1964 Olympics and three European titles in 1958–1962. Between 1959 and 1965, she set 11 world records: five in the shot put and six in the discus. Domestically, she held 16 national titles, nine in the shot put (1958–66) and seven in the discus (1960–66).

    Tamara and her sister Irina were accused of being either secretly male or intersex. They retired in 1966, just before sex verification became mandatory on location.  Mind you the Eastern bloc athletes were taking so many steroids at the time they never knew the time of day, never mind what gender they were -  Heidi / Andreas Krieger a point of reference.
  • Gribbo said:
    Gribbo said:
    People seem more outraged by this than the convicted child rapist competing? Really hope his victim ain't a sports enthusiast and following the Olympics, having his name and face pop up on a relatively regular basis
    No, everyone is more outraged by that. This debate has a shade a of grey because the boxers aren't trans therefore there are more posts.
    Only using his thread as a gauge tbh, but I've not seen much evidence of it on here. However it's been completely side tracked by the boxers with bollox subject

    What's there to talk about? No one wishes he was competing in the games. 
  • Stig said:
    The Male commentator was well confused at the finished of the Women's Double sculls.
    He said the Romanian were crumbling when they were clear of GB and close to the winning NZ.

    I don't mean Matthew Pinsent.

    That was bizarre. I think it's Moe Sbihi.

    Moe came up with a classic Coleman ball.
    After our slow start in the men's four, Moe Sbihi stated:

    " The British crew are going backwards"

    WTF 🤷🏻‍♂️
    Is that not just a generalised term in that sport for going slow?

    Sounds a bit like when people did a double take (back in the 70s) when they first heard the term 'hitting the wall', before everyone realised that it was just a metaphorical wall rather than a description of an actual incident. 
    I think it's more the fact that in rowing everyone's going backwards.
  • I feel this boxing debate was a little derailed by the use of the word Trans, as this is not the issue here.
    The issue is these women having a naturally occurring extremely high level , that exceeds the safety guidelines that the IBA use.

    The IBA has a duty of care to the other boxers.

    Just like they introduced weight categories, as a 6ft 6, 18 stone boxer has a naturally occurring advantage over a 5ft 2, 8 stone boxer.
    Nothing illegal or unnatural about being that big, so why not let them fight the small boxer ?
  • se9addick said:
    MrOneLung said:
    there is having a natural competitive advantage, but there is also a duty of care.

    otherwise, why have weight divisions ?
    Just have the bigger stronger fighters beat the shit out of the small ones.
    I must have missed this, are these women not also categorised into the appropriate weight class?
    who said that ?

  • edited August 1
    Well I would take it away from using that term but more focussing on the advantage gained.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!