Man of Honour
Last edited:
Caster Semenya could be forced to undertake hormone therapy for future Olympics
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Check the racist here that believes 4 black women look animalistic just because its an unflattering picture
It's irrelevant, you just made some assertion re: Caster and 2%, I'm already happy to assume that it's true regardless, that she's *only* 2% faster...
It doesn't matter though as the argument itself was flawed as already pointed out, do you understand that now given you're not attempting any sort of rebuttal but instead replied to a point that I was already happy to accept?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
Who cares what *you're* happy to accept?
The points raised were supported by a ruling in the source you supplied. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
So why are you replying twice in a row to comment on something for which there was nothing that needed to be said instead of addressing the actual point directed to you re: the obvious flaw in the argument you made?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Not overly no.
That's the Jamaican U20 track team, recently competed and won in world record time, but couldn't be verified due to track and weather conditions.
No one was watching women's sport anyway
We do all these subsidies to try and keep it a float, the reality is people want to watch the most athletic and fun version of a sport, not the geriatric version. Just have one version of a sport and sex doesn't matter, everyone competes
Don
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
Addressing the actual point? That's honestly what you're twisting your panties over, now?
Pot, kettle.
Yeah... your argument rests on a clear flaw, you point out that males have a general 10% performance advantage in sports and Semenya is *only* 2% faster than the very fastest women in the world. Putting aside that's comparing some general performance advantage to the results of a specific event you're also comparing the fastest person from some small subset of males to the fastest people out of 4 billion females. The flaw is already highlighted here:
So given that the basis for your argument is flawed what justification do you have for holding your position now?
So given that the basis for your argument is flawed what justification do you have for holding your position now?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
It's no surprise that the two most common things I have to say to you, Dowie, once again apply here:
1. That's NOT what I said.
2. You're misrepresenting the argument instead of addressing the actual point raised.
Go read your own link and then come back with a proper analysis of the argument.
I can directly quote you if you'd prefer:
The above comparisons are flawed for the reasons I've already highlighted... four times now you've just deflected from that rather than address it.
Do you still not get it? You're comparing a small subset of males with the very best of all females, that's what I addressed and that's what you're avoiding. Say the fastest man from [random county USA] is *only* faster than the world's best women by 2%... does that imply that men born in [random county USA] don't have a male advantage? Nope, obviously it doesn't.
The above comparisons are flawed for the reasons I've already highlighted... four times now you've just deflected from that rather than address it.
Do you still not get it? You're comparing a small subset of males with the very best of all females, that's what I addressed and that's what you're avoiding. Say the fastest man from [random county USA] is *only* faster than the world's best women by 2%... does that imply that men born in [random county USA] don't have a male advantage? Nope, obviously it doesn't.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
Actually it implies that, if that's their best, then all the men in "Random County, USA" are at a serious disadvantage to even the most average of their competitive male athlete peers, and their performance is far closer to that of a woman.
But more importantly the IAAF themselves state the performance advantage, and the very justification for their regulations, is 10-12%.
The Court of Arbitration have also stated that, "the I.A.A.F. might want to reconsider barring women with hyperandrogenism from the female category if the degree of advantage were well below 12 percent”.
You're a maths genius - Is 2 'well below' 12? Or even 10?
So in both cases, those in charge have defined the "mae advantage" bar at 10-12% and the likes of Semenya are significantly below that bar.
"Dr. Eric Vilain, a medical geneticist, helped create the International Olympic Committee’s hyperandrogenism policy, which requires a competitor with the condition to undergo treatment that lowers her testosterone levels. But he admitted that the policy was not perfect, and that it couldn’t be perfect.
Determining whether a single athlete has an advantage over others is “basically impossible,” Vilain said, because looking at performance through the lens of only one variable, like high levels of testosterone, ignores too many others — training regimen, height, limb length, nutrition — that can contribute to success.
This issue could be made simpler, according to Dr. Myron Genel, a Yale professor emeritus and longtime consultant to the I.O.C.’s medical commission, if the governing bodies would finally listen to the advice that he and others had given them more than two decades ago.
In the 1990s, those experts suggested that athletes born with what is known as a disorder of sex development — a biological anomaly that might result in atypically high testosterone production — should compete as females if they were raised as females. It is the same advice that Genel and some of his colleagues give today".
What Qualifies a Woman to Compete as a Woman? An Ugly Fight Resumes (Published 2017)
The governing body of track and field has until the end of September to furnish evidence on whether high levels of testosterone give athletes like Dutee Chand an unfair advantage.
No, it doesn't... you're just repeating the same basic error that's already been highlighted to you (comparing the best from a small sample (intersex males) with the best from all women globally). This is an issue with numeracy skills on your part.
Do you understand that if you were to sample from all males at your local pub and find the fastest 800m runner then that male would be unlikely to be anywhere near competitive vs the very best women in the whole world?
Why would you expect a county-level sample to give you a male 10% faster than the fastest women? That's what you'd expect from the very best men in the world no?
So how could you possibly expect every county in every country to have the world's best male 800m runners? You can't because you're making a big schoolboy error here!
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Have you two considered getting a room? One of you can identify as the woman if you want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
Thats a lot of assumptions and a few presumptions just for a hypothetical argument, there...
Any male will have a "male advantage". The measure of that advantage is what makes the difference, according to the official regulations, and in severely undervirilized genetic males it does not meet (or even come close to) the specified measure to breach the separation between male and female event categories.
I tried that... He started off by stating that it 'seemed' I 'appeared' to be conflating 'room' with 'suite', and finished up with some witter about how the room service did not include collection and return of his dry cleaning, so logically the place did not properly satisfy the definition of "an hotel" (sic) and thus proclaimed I had engaged in the argument ingenuously with a strawman assertion of it being a room....
More deflection again I see... previously you made an objection that you hadn't said something so I quoted you directly... now you're having difficulties following a straight forward hypothetical.
We can look at a real-world example if you still don't get it:
The women's WR for 800m is 1:53.28 (though may be from doping), Semenya's record is 1:54.25
The men's WR is 1:40.91
And that fastest men's time ever is indeed around the 10-12% faster that you're looking for. That's a comparison between the very fastest-ever man (and there are 4 billion men) vs the very fastest-ever women (and there are 4 billion women).
But what happens if we look at the county level: https://www.kentac.org.uk/athletics/club-best-performances/
Well the fastest of all time for Kent was 1:49.17, that does beat the women's WR but not by 10-12%, and the fastest runner this year in Kent only gets 1:57.92, Semenya could beat him!
According to your logic this must mean that the men of the county of Kent are "are at a serious disadvantage to even the most average of their competitive male athlete peers, and their performance is far closer to that of a woman."
In reality, though you're just making a basic error that I've tried to point out to you a few times now. The population of Kent is just over 1.8 million, is it reasonable to expect that it would contain the very fastest few men out of 4 billion men in the world? Probably not... I mean they do live somewhere but they don't necessarily exist in most small subgroups of size 2 million-ish drawn from that sample of 4 billion. At one point their fastest-ever runner did beat the best women in the world, current their fastest runner doesn't, and that's quite normal variance.
Do you understand the flaw in your argument now?
Men are faster than women in general but if you're comparing a small sample of males (whether it's males from a given county or males who have some intersex condition) you can't expect that the fastest from that smaller group is going to be as fast as the fastest from among 4 billion men, that Semenya is only a little bit faster than the women isn't a good argument and the expectation that she should be 10-12% faster.. i.e. among the very fastest men in the world else there is no advantage is totally flawed.
If you still can't understand that at this point then you're completely lost on this topic and you're just left with sperging out and carrying on with your scattergun approach of throwing in whatever cherry-picked quotes you can find.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
Utterly irrelevant.
The governing bodies have laid down what does and does not constitute a performance advantage. Under their regulations, no intersex athlete has breached that gap.
Carry on with your browbeating all you like, it's not even my argument that you're ranting against!
You're just digging your own Dowie Hole and getting ever deeper.
You literally asked me to explain a few posts back, you replied three times to comment on some point that wasn't in dispute, then you made some claim that I wasn't addressing what you said so I quoted you directly, then you tried to dismiss it by brushing off a hypothetical so I've made reference to real-world data instead.
The error you made was quite clear and it's been pointed out, it's not trying to brow beat you if you directly ask me for an explanation and then when one is provided you are unable to address the point made.
The error you made was quite clear and it's been pointed out, it's not trying to brow beat you if you directly ask me for an explanation and then when one is provided you are unable to address the point made.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,442
And again, you're getting hung up on thinking this is all about me and some argument I have made, trying to make out that I "appear" to be some clueless retard who "seems" so confused and conflated... when all I've done is state what the regulators have already decided.
I didn't ask you to explain anything, I just said you can go off on one if you felt like it... and you clearly did.
