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 -
But they failed the scientific tests so they aren’t recognised as women in the boxing associations eyes.se9addick said:
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?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:
Is that not just a generalised term in that sport for going slow?soapboxsam said:killerandflash said:
That was bizarre. I think it's Moe Sbihi.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 -
What are you proposing?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
-
They were testosterone tests.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 -
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.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 -
Of course, but then you do this in boxing and what happens to weight-lifting?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:
-
There was & I remember it.SELR_addicks said:
They were testosterone tests.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
-
This is the third time you’ve brought this up - absolutely no one on this thread that I’ve seen think this guy should be anywhere near the Olympics.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 -
I must have missed this, are these women not also categorised into the appropriate weight class?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 -
I had to turn the sound off which is genuinely a first for me.Swindon_Addick said:
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.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
-
They needed to start to BBC2 coverage at 12:59 so that you could seamlessly switch over. Or just show the news on BBC2!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:
He would have been kicked out if he punched someone.
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?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 -
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.killerandflash said:
They needed to start to BBC2 coverage at 12:59 so that you could seamlessly switch over. Or just show the news on BBC2!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 -
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.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:
-
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.SELR_addicks said:
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.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
-
What does this have to do with trans people in womens sport?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 -
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 subjectFriend Or Defoe said:
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.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 -
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).SELR_addicks said:
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.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:
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 subjectFriend Or Defoe said:
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.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 -
I think it's more the fact that in rowing everyone's going backwards.Stig said:
Is that not just a generalised term in that sport for going slow?soapboxsam said:killerandflash said:
That was bizarre. I think it's Moe Sbihi.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 -
who said that ?se9addick said:
I must have missed this, are these women not also categorised into the appropriate weight class?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
