Associate
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,459
- Location
- Peterborough
That video is ace , good find!
Man or WOman
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
A "normal" or average women is supposed to have maybe 40times less testosterone than a man, a athlete, would not. A large reason for the difference in testosterone levels is fat levels, which are normally higher for similarly healthy males/females. More fat leads to more estrogen and less testosterone, it will literally turn testosterone into estrogen. An athletic woman will have less bodyfat than your average none athletic man, and would also have significantly higher testosterone. As for the sample testing 3 times as high, I didn't notice anyone mention if it was 3 times as higher as other females athletes, ie the normal range female athletes have in their system, or 3 times the average for a "normal" woman, which would indicate incredibly different things.
But that ignoring things like, pumping up testosterone when training before competing, and using testosterone suppressors once the muscle is built.
Fact is she does look incredibly manly, she has pecks, not boobs, she has very thick ab's, hench shoulders and very big arms for a woman.
Its perfectly possible she can be classified as a woman, but is athletics made a mockery of when a genetic freak way outside the norm can compete in a class that really isn't for them.
Added to the fact you can never tell who is cheating, with many olympic champions, world champions of the past decades later being found out, its all a bit of a joke and why none of it can be taken seriously.
Its why I wonder if we shouldn't allow drugs, have a none natural olympics and a natural, those that can't win legally natural, have a legal and safer route to take to compete and still have a chance of winning. IF there were legal competitions, it makes cheating in the natural one less of an incentive, hugely so, those that don't have the genetics, still have a chance, those that do, aren't competing with those that cheat. Then have people like Semenya classified into natural/non natural based on their hormone levels, genetic freaks will get maybe harshly pushed into the non natural competition, but at least they can still compete and have the career they want.
But that ignoring things like, pumping up testosterone when training before competing, and using testosterone suppressors once the muscle is built.
Fact is she does look incredibly manly, she has pecks, not boobs, she has very thick ab's, hench shoulders and very big arms for a woman.
Its perfectly possible she can be classified as a woman, but is athletics made a mockery of when a genetic freak way outside the norm can compete in a class that really isn't for them.
Added to the fact you can never tell who is cheating, with many olympic champions, world champions of the past decades later being found out, its all a bit of a joke and why none of it can be taken seriously.
Its why I wonder if we shouldn't allow drugs, have a none natural olympics and a natural, those that can't win legally natural, have a legal and safer route to take to compete and still have a chance of winning. IF there were legal competitions, it makes cheating in the natural one less of an incentive, hugely so, those that don't have the genetics, still have a chance, those that do, aren't competing with those that cheat. Then have people like Semenya classified into natural/non natural based on their hormone levels, genetic freaks will get maybe harshly pushed into the non natural competition, but at least they can still compete and have the career they want.
"More fat leads to more estrogen and less testosterone, it will literally turn testosterone into estrogen." -Not sure on that one mate?
But I agree a non tested Olympics would be awesome. In about 5 years time it would be totally different to today with every record broken by some margin. Would be more fun to watch imo.
But I agree a non tested Olympics would be awesome. In about 5 years time it would be totally different to today with every record broken by some margin. Would be more fun to watch imo.
I think I can see this going in favour of the athlete. If this is the case, then the other 800m female runners had better get used to fighting for 2nd, as she really is head and shoulders above the rest. I also couldnt help feel that in the final, she didnt push to her limit, so there may be a lot more to come.
One point of note is that her time wasnt particularly impressive. I think Kelly Holmes in her prime was running similar times to what Semenya did in the final. Its the other female athletes who at this point in time, are lacking and perhaps making Semenya look better than she really is.
Re: Williams sisters: they are both very feminine. Venus is very tall, very thin and may not have the best face, but she doesnt have any manly traits. Serena is shorter, has a rack that most women would be proud of and a nice backside. I honestly can't see a man having these traits.
The big manly trait that Semenya shows is her voice - she is 18yrs old and sounds like an 18 yr old teenage boy. 3x normal testosterone levels really isnt that big a deal and perhaps this is the reason why the IAAF are refusing to ban/strip her of her gold medal.
One point of note is that her time wasnt particularly impressive. I think Kelly Holmes in her prime was running similar times to what Semenya did in the final. Its the other female athletes who at this point in time, are lacking and perhaps making Semenya look better than she really is.
Re: Williams sisters: they are both very feminine. Venus is very tall, very thin and may not have the best face, but she doesnt have any manly traits. Serena is shorter, has a rack that most women would be proud of and a nice backside. I honestly can't see a man having these traits.
The big manly trait that Semenya shows is her voice - she is 18yrs old and sounds like an 18 yr old teenage boy. 3x normal testosterone levels really isnt that big a deal and perhaps this is the reason why the IAAF are refusing to ban/strip her of her gold medal.
This would be a great idea. In fact, I daresay that most of he viewing public would watch the non-natural athletes as their running times would be much faster and their throwing/jumping distances would be greater. Quite bizzare when you think that it is quite possible that the natural Olympics could become a B-type event that is a warmup for the big "drugged" event.
It's a bit harsh suggesting that she is a genetic 'freak'.
If she is proved to be a woman (which I think she will), and (hopefully) not taking any drugs - then fair play to her, she was just better than the rest of them.
You see, I used to think like that
But we've had loads of high profile and very fast sprinters on drugs (Gatlin, Montgomerry etc) yet they got absolutely nowhere near the times Bolt or even Gay are setting. Based on the assumption that Bolt is clean, do steroids actually give someone enough speed to beat him anyway?
You see, I used to think like that
But we've had loads of high profile and very fast sprinters on drugs (Gatlin, Montgomerry etc) yet they got absolutely nowhere near the times Bolt or even Gay are setting. Based on the assumption that Bolt is clean, do steroids actually give someone enough speed to beat him anyway?
Yes. Tyson Gay on steroids would blow Bolt out of the water.
The problem is that the likes of Gatlin/Montgomery, etc, were taking drugs that were not at their full potential strength, as they had to beat drugs tests. Once drugs tests are abolished for "non natural" athletes, athletes will take the most potent drugs available as they wont have to worry about passing drugs tests. Moreover, companies that develop these drugs will be given a whole new set of 'no-holds-barred' parameters to work on, so the potency of drugs available will increase at an accelerated rate, compared to what we have now.
I think having a drug legal olympics would cheapen the event a bit. It would become more about taking the latest and best steroids etc rather than just seeing who is the best. I think things would become too complicated. I in no way, however, am I suggesting that it would give the athletes an easy ride as I think it would serve to level the playing field somewhat. Again making it harder to pick the difinitively best athlete in each event.
I think some people forget that taking steroids wont automatically make you perform better.
Taking artifical chemicals can boost performance, but only by a small percentage. The rest must come from the athlete's genetic superiority, hardwork, dedication, diet, training, lifestyle, etc.
The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones did take drugs and won many races. However, the drugs only improved those performances by a small margin. It could be argued that even without the drugs, these athletes would have won those races anyway.
As an example, T.Gay finished 0.13 secs behind Bolt. Had he been on drugs, he might've finished ahead of Bolt, by a whisker. The other athletes in that race were so far behind, that even with the mother load of all chemicals, they still would've finished behind Bolt.
The drugs make up a very small part and a lot of people think that to be the best in the world, all it takes is a dose of chemicals; this is not the case.
You forget that a "small percentage" at that level of competition is a MASSIVE advantage.
I can see what you are saying but I still don't think it would happen.
Sure technology and drugs have moved on but the way Bolt has blown everyone out the water (assuming he is completely clean) I don't think the drugs would help other existing athlete surpass him. Maybe someone new to the sport would come along and beat Bolts times clean or drug helped but who knows.
Now if they were to genetically modify humans (like they do with cows and I guess other animals to give them double muscles
) then you could see times fly Now if they were to genetically modify humans (like they do with cows and I guess other animals to give them double muscles
HEHEHE. Now we are going way beyond even drug taking.
Genetic modifications would have to take place before the human is even born. What if the human grows up with no interest or intention to compete in sport? Its all gone to waste.
I do wonder about Bolt though - how can an athlete be so (consistently) far ahead of everyone?
I would imagine that being 6ft 5 with very long legs can help.
Well if they were from lets say North Korea or some other communist country then they might not have a choice but to compete
I'm going to guess if someone can run the 100m in under 9 seconds then they would want to show it off
or be pressured in to doing it