Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Olympics 2024
Comments
-
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.9 -
se9addick said:KBslittlesis 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.6 -
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.3 -
Oh & I know why it won’t change anytime soon btw.
Because it’s just women’s sport.2 -
Stig said:soapboxsam said:killerandflash said:soapboxsam 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.
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 🤷🏻♂️
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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 basis6
-
KBslittlesis said: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.
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.3 -
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 basis2
-
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.
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?0 - Sponsored links:
-
SELR_addicks said:KBslittlesis said: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.
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.
Maybe not as much but I'd say that's more down to less attention.0 -
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?3
-
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 basis5
-
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.0 -
Swindon_Addick said:killerandflash said:Creditable bronze in the double skulls. A lot of word salad from the commentators though.
Great performance to get the bronze, though. Made it worth sitting through the commentary.0 -
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.1
-
MuttleyCAFC said: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?2
-
.se9addick said:KBslittlesis 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.4 -
killerandflash said:MuttleyCAFC said: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?1
-
MuttleyCAFC said: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.2
- Sponsored links:
-
SELR_addicks said:MuttleyCAFC said: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.0
-
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 compete1
-
MuttleyCAFC said: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.0
-
Friend Or Defoe 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 basis1
-
SELR_addicks said:MuttleyCAFC said: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.
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.
1 -
Gribbo said:Friend Or Defoe 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
What's there to talk about? No one wishes he was competing in the games.3 -
Stig said:soapboxsam said:killerandflash said:soapboxsam 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.
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 🤷🏻♂️
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.
1 -
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 ?2 -
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.
0 -
Well I would take it away from using that term but more focussing on the advantage gained.0