Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 7,940
- Location
- Glasgow
Mannnnnnn 
Man or WOman
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
But its already cheapened, how many huge champions of past olympics turned out to be drug cheats who were caught through unconventional means. How many more have cheated to win that simply weren't caught. Hiding drug usage is as big an industry as the actual drugs used to cheat themselves. Likewise we have no idea what athletes are on.
Its already cheapened, Marion Jones was the biggest winner during her time, she was the news story throughout and was the highlight of the Olympics, yet she cheated her ass off and is now in jail.
THe problem is, you can't EVER know someone didn't cheat, not being caught isn't the same as not cheating. Thats what cheapens it for me, if people are allowed to cheat, and those willing to risk their health and take other things go ahead and do so, well, cheating is irradicated, those competing in the clean competitions, aren't cheating, and how do we know?
Because with a non natural version available, people will be taking drugs, they won't be hiding their drug usage, which will also promote better health because people aren't taking riskier new things and hiding it, problems come up quicker and people know whats causing them.
But because theres now no need at all to create drugs that can be hidden, those competing in the clean competition will have far fewer options. Most new drugs will be tried out in the non-natural competition, thereby allowing drugs testers to know of their existance and quickly create tests to check the natural competitors.
Its a winning situation all around, as for ruining the non natural competition, for all we know 80% of the champions around now are all doing drugs anyway, if so the races would have new names and nothing would change.
If theres a real split between those who want to take drugs and those that don't, hell, we might see such minor non useful time improvements that people simply give up cheating because they realise its not worth it.
We don't know for a fact that Marion Jones wouldn't have simply run the same times and still won, while not cheating.
As I've said before, other sports, football for instance, frankly the best players aren't those in the best shape. Gerrard, Lampard, Fabregas, Ronaldo, Kaka, of those really only Ronaldo is in what might be "peak" shape, the others really aren't, aren't that fast and its all about their skill not their genetics.
Athletics is 98% how strong, fast you are, its all about the condition you can get your body into, when you have no idea whose cheating, its a joke.
its down to this, Football is a level playing field, everyone can compete no matter what condition they are in(to a degree) its about ability and skill. Athletics isn't close to an even playing field, some ARE cheating, its simply not level and can't ever be till cheats are taken out of the game, the easiest and only effective way, is to make what they are doing to cheat, legal. You've have two separate groups of competitors, but each group would have a level field in which to compete.
Last edited:
If they had legal drug taking then the athletes could end up looking like the melty man from robocop. They would be so loaded up with a variety of drugs, they could end up with permanent debilitating illnesses with only a practical competitive usefullness of a couple of years for example.
If there is no morality for drug usage then you can bet several countries would go overboard with it.
It would encourage athletes to be used as things, load anyone up with drugs and they become a superman, anyone who doesnt play along with us and our rules doesnt get the drugs and does not compete.
If there is no morality for drug usage then you can bet several countries would go overboard with it.
It would encourage athletes to be used as things, load anyone up with drugs and they become a superman, anyone who doesnt play along with us and our rules doesnt get the drugs and does not compete.
Last edited:
Surely though that is upto the athlete in question to decide. Who are you to decide that some athlete from a very poor background in Eastern Europe or Africa will never have the opportunity to compete at the highest (drugs assisted) level?
Some people have such a bad life, that they would much rather dedicate themselves for a few years to a compete in a drugs assisted Olympiad, knowing that for that time, they will be famous and for their (perhaps) short lives, they will be revered and have money to put food on their plate.
I draw the line at pumping under 18s full of drugs, but once past the age of 18, a human must be allowed to decide for themselves - whether they pump themselves full of drugs and compete at the highest level for 4 years, after which they will die of illness OR goto pubs, drink every night, smoke everything under the Sun and simply wither away...which is something that a lot of people are doing in Britain, at this very moment.
Oh, and it doesnt quite work like that. Pump even a good athlete full of drugs and they probably still wont be good enough to beat Jessica Ennis or Usain Bolt. The athlete, before going through a potent drugs programme, would need to be of a very high standard, even before the drugs take effect.
They wouldnt get a choice because if one pushes at the cutting edge then all must follow just to keep up. We recently had all the furore over those swimming suits which offer a distinct advantage, everyone had to have them. Any one who wouldnt comply with the program wouldnt get grants, wouldnt get training, sponsorship.
Also coachs and other higher up persons would push the athletes to do those drugs and worse(some probably do already). I can imagine certain countries that if there was a treatment where the athletes get irradiated and that improves their performance by ten percent for five hours and after that time they would feel the effects of that radiation those countries would probably do it(they probably wouldnt, Geneva conventions, and hazards to other players would stop it, but they might get close).
I agree effort/work and natural talent will always supersede drug usage(as longs as we dont start using bionic implants).
If I were in one of those poor, deprived villages in Africa, where I can barely scrape together one meal a day and had the opportunity to dominate at sport, albeit with premature death - I would absolutely take that opportunity. Nobody has the right to deprive me of a decision that could lead to me having a much better (albeit shorter) life.
There are crazy things that happen in 3rd World countries, such as the need to prostitute one's self, in order to feed the kids...but it happens. Taking performance enhancing drugs and getting involved in MASSIVE sponsorship deals doesnt seem so bad.
On another note, as an aspiring athlete, if you are given the opportunity to take drugs, without getting caught and are told that it will improve your performance by 5%, most athletes would take it. The will to win at the highest level is what drives athletes to the top in the first place and this is why you see so many big name cyclists testing positive for banned substances.
Exactly; if it's naturally occurring, there's nothing more wrong with it than with any other natural advantage. I read one article which pointed out that, when Lance Armstrong lost a testicle, it may in fact have given him more testosterone. Should he be banned for this? Of course not!
That really has not done her(???) any favours.
As open minded as I try to be........
First look...... man.
Second look ....... man in wig.
Third look .......... man in wig wearing a dress.
If she is a girl then she has a very masculine look obviously not helped by her build due to her dedication to her sport. Good luck to her but I wouldn't want to get in a position with her where it was time to check out if she was supporting a rather impressive hood ornament (hood as in car bonnet not ....... anything else
). Need to see the full mag photoshoot to get a better idea but from the cover shot....... nah still a man.
RB
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
But the very reason for male/female split in events ISN'T their dangly bits, or lack there of, its the distinction that they have separate genetic makeups and its unfair to have men competing with women as they are at a disadvantage and could never beat their male counterparts making the competition worthless. Had we actually put that into words 100 years ago as the split between men/women competing, if we'd literally said its not a male female split, but a X amount of testosterone split(which is whats meant) then she would be classed in the high testosterone group(most likely) meaning she would have to compete with mostly men.
So every 15 years we end up with a genetic freak, female bits and male genetics who wipes the floor with everyone. What if she decides, screw running she can win that easily, decides to go into weight lifting, then swimming, then the javelin and wins it all purely based on her genetic inheritance, it makes a mockery of the competition.
Its all a hard call, because you take for instance, I dunno Bulgarian women, or Hungarian women in the past and they are generally very heavily built and prone to being very strong to have dominated things like weight lifting events. Regional variations change the basic genetic make up of men and women. Where do you draw the line, I have no clue.
Hell, this might all be completely irrelevant, "she" could just actually be a man with an elaborate conspiracy to compete and make some money, or might have been born a male with female genitalia and is using that as a dodgey way to compete in the womens events.
Take it further though, lets say she competes in 15 events, breaks all the world records with ease and puts them at a level thats simply unobtainable for a "normal" female, with all the competitions seemingly in a stalemate with no one getting close to a record broken for 20 years, the interest in the sport dies down, female competitors are fighting to be the best in a sport where they can't compete. It just makes a completely joke of the whole female side of the sport if every so often due to some freak circumstances someone can qualify in a group they really shouldn't be in. It just couldn't be more obvious she has a mans body, and clearly the genetics of a man, she has male facial features, a mans abs, chest, arms and legs.
A hermaphrodite who was mostly male but with female parts, male genetics and high testosterone wouldn't be eligible to compete in the womens division and there wouldn't be any question about it. Should it happen no one would go, "oh its so rude saying that about him" or questioning if he was really a man or a women. Nor would a man with feminine features but also had meat and two veg be eligible to compete in the womens events, this is no different except people want to make excuses and not appear rude which is all a bit stupid IMHO.
Last edited:
One thing to note is that at this stage of her career, her times aren't particularly impressive. Kelly Holmes in her prime and Maria Mutola were running faster when they were winning finals of top competitions. Had those 2 been competing in this year's World Championships, Semenya would've got a bronze medal.
The problem right now is that the level of womens 800m running is very poor, so its been very easy for someone like Semenya to come along and in a very short space of time, rise to the top. This in turn has brought the spotlight onto her, because of her Gold medal, earnt in a short space of time, with comparitively little training.
I think its a little too early to speak about Semenya breaking any World Records, let alone times that will be out of reach of other women, for decades.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 1,714
- Location
- Cornwall
Defiantly a man and proven so by the dailymail 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article6829813.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article6829813.ece
So, say she is a hermaphrodite and has XXY or even XXXY and so on sex chromosones? She is still clearly "female", should she be punished for her genetic abnormalities?
Personally, she should be regarded as a female and allowed to continue. On the plus side, this issue on such as massive scale wlll only raise awareness about something most people don't understand.
Personally, she should be regarded as a female and allowed to continue. On the plus side, this issue on such as massive scale wlll only raise awareness about something most people don't understand.