Olympics 2020
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
Re: Olympics 2020
Another thing which I find a bit weird about the Olympic format is how they have to shoehorn the Gold/Silver/Bronze format into knockout tournaments (e.g. for al the combat sports, racket sports, team sports etc). Surely the person who gets gold is the best, but then silver doesn't necessarily have a claim to be better than bronze if they were in opposite halves of the draw. In that case, then they both won and lost the same amount of games, and both lost to the gold medallist. Silly.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Tbf this is the first time since 1912 so it's hardly a precedent.JackHurst wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:26 pmI agree it's completely bizarre that they are allowed to get a gold medal each. Particularly when you compare to the golf this morning where they made 7 people go into a play off for BRONZE!Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:29 pmI actually thought it was a bit bizarre that they got the choice. You'd think there would be a set procedure.Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:08 pm I dunk on the Olympics a lot and I still think there's lots to be critical about it but that moment at the high jump when they shared the gold was fantastic.
"You can share golds, but you can't share bronzes"
I suppose there will always be edge cases resulting in a situation where you can't distinguish competitors, but it definitely feels very dumb that the long jump works in a way where they can choose to share the medal.
I think there have been a few dead heats in the past in athletics but minor medals I think
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I've always thought that losing finalist isn't the same as second place as well.JackHurst wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:30 pm Another thing which I find a bit weird about the Olympic format is how they have to shoehorn the Gold/Silver/Bronze format into knockout tournaments (e.g. for al the combat sports, racket sports, team sports etc). Surely the person who gets gold is the best, but then silver doesn't necessarily have a claim to be better than bronze if they were in opposite halves of the draw. In that case, then they both won and lost the same amount of games, and both lost to the gold medallist. Silly.
Also a player/team underperforming in a later round kind of screws over all the opponents they beat, as a lesser player/team could end up winning the whole thing, arguably like France did in the 1998 World Cup. But that's a separate thing.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Laurel Hubbard is likely to make history as the first trans gold medal winner in the weightlifting.
But if I was a woman competing against her I would be a bit pissed off as she has gone through male puberty surely giving her an unfair advantage.
But if I was a woman competing against her I would be a bit pissed off as she has gone through male puberty surely giving her an unfair advantage.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Olympics 2020
Elaine Thompson runs 21.66 in the 200m semi-final. 21.60 or better in the final, which now looks within reach, would give her the "non-FloJo" record in both 100 and 200m.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Been watching the BBC this afternoon. I was expecting to see the women's 5000m and men's steeplechase final but they both got bumped for stuff no-one cares about - e.g. horses jumping over obstacles. I'm surprised team GB don't take all the golds in the horse stuff. Where do the other countries get their Tory-voting Brexiteers from?
They've just shown the final third or so of the 5000m final as an afterthought and now they've just shown the final 100m straight of the steeplechase.
Dickheads.
They've just shown the final third or so of the 5000m final as an afterthought and now they've just shown the final 100m straight of the steeplechase.
Dickheads.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Olympics 2020
Not sure what odds you were looking at!Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:39 am Laurel Hubbard is likely to make history as the first trans gold medal winner in the weightlifting.
But if I was a woman competing against her I would be a bit pissed off as she has gone through male puberty surely giving her an unfair advantage.
This tweet links to an interesting perspective on the discussions around Hubbard. https://twitter.com/AnxietySugar_/statu ... 7890099229
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Just a rant against everyone and no-one.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:18 pmNot sure what odds you were looking at!Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:39 am Laurel Hubbard is likely to make history as the first trans gold medal winner in the weightlifting.
But if I was a woman competing against her I would be a bit pissed off as she has gone through male puberty surely giving her an unfair advantage.
This tweet links to an interesting perspective on the discussions around Hubbard. https://twitter.com/AnxietySugar_/statu ... 7890099229
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
It's an interesting perspective, but totally irrelevant. Even if she's right it's not like the clash between fairness and inclusivity is not an absolutely huge issue in women's sport (and only going to become more of one...)Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:18 pmNot sure what odds you were looking at!Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:39 am Laurel Hubbard is likely to make history as the first trans gold medal winner in the weightlifting.
But if I was a woman competing against her I would be a bit pissed off as she has gone through male puberty surely giving her an unfair advantage.
This tweet links to an interesting perspective on the discussions around Hubbard. https://twitter.com/AnxietySugar_/statu ... 7890099229
My opinion is that the fairness of the competition cannot be sacrificed for inclusivity. In a way it would've been good if Hubbard had won gold because it would've crystallised the need for this issue to be addressed in a fairer way sooner rather than later. Kicking the can down the road (a bit like the IOC and other relevant authorities have done with DSD advantage in the sprinting, where DSD athletes are banned in 400m but allowed in 100 and 200m...) feels very unsatisfactory.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I had to look up DSD. Difference in Sex Development in seems (Edit - maybe Disorders actually). I did a quick Google and found this. I didn't realise that the ban was specifically for 400m through to the mile. I know at the Rio Olympics in 2016, people commented on the 1-2-3 in the 800m race. It might just be coincidence, but that distance seems to be the "sweet spot" so maybe they just decided it didn't matter for distances too far away from that.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pmIt's an interesting perspective, but totally irrelevant. Even if she's right it's not like the clash between fairness and inclusivity is not an absolutely huge issue in women's sport (and only going to become more of one...)Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:18 pmNot sure what odds you were looking at!Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:39 am Laurel Hubbard is likely to make history as the first trans gold medal winner in the weightlifting.
But if I was a woman competing against her I would be a bit pissed off as she has gone through male puberty surely giving her an unfair advantage.
This tweet links to an interesting perspective on the discussions around Hubbard. https://twitter.com/AnxietySugar_/statu ... 7890099229
My opinion is that the fairness of the competition cannot be sacrificed for inclusivity. In a way it would've been good if Hubbard had won gold because it would've crystallised the need for this issue to be addressed in a fairer way sooner rather than later. Kicking the can down the road (a bit like the IOC and other relevant authorities have done with DSD advantage in the sprinting, where DSD athletes are banned in 400m but allowed in 100 and 200m...) feels very unsatisfactory.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I saw some of the weightlifting today, and this isn't just me being rude, but does it help being morbidly obese? I was wondering if the extra weight comes with free extra muscle, the converse how when you're weightless in space you automatically lose muscle despite your best efforts. Also maybe the agility you lose is less important in weightlifting than it might be in other sports requiring high amounts of strength.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
It's all moot as she had 3 failures.
Im guessing the oestragen she has to take has probably cost her
Im guessing the oestragen she has to take has probably cost her
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
In a wider sense, you could argue that fairness of competition is meaningless. You can have all these rules to make sure people don't have elevated testosterone levels etc., but success in athletics is largely determined by your genetics anyway, certainly at the top end where you can't expect to gain an advantage by just training harder (someone with average genetics can easily finish first at parkruns though). So what counts as a fair advantage and what counts as an unfair advantage when it's all just what you're born with?
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Olympics 2020
If the weightlifting you saw was the women's heavyweight (the one with Hubbard in it and where GB won silver) then that was a category for women weighing over 87kg. At that weight, women shorter than 5"8 (so most women) are considered obese. So if nothing else (I'm not sure if having more body fat helps with weightlifting. I think it probably does to an extent but I can't qualify that with any scientific data; it's just a hunch), being obese certainly helps you be registered as a heavyweight.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:55 pm I saw some of the weightlifting today, and this isn't just me being rude, but does it help being morbidly obese?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Re: Olympics 2020
You could extrapolate that to argue for having a single open category and no dedicated women's division in every sport.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:23 pm In a wider sense, you could argue that fairness of competition is meaningless. You can have all these rules to make sure people don't have elevated testosterone levels etc., but success in athletics is largely determined by your genetics anyway, certainly at the top end where you can't expect to gain an advantage by just training harder (someone with average genetics can easily finish first at parkruns though). So what counts as a fair advantage and what counts as an unfair advantage when it's all just what you're born with?
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
My view, and it has been for many years, is a third category for "trans and non-binary", since more trans/n-b people will compete in due course. You could even go further and have more categories - post-op FTM & MTF, pre-op / non-binary AMAB & AFAB, etc.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I think maybe have their own OlympicsRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:09 pm My view, and it has been for many years, is a third category for "trans and non-binary", since more trans/n-b people will compete in due course. You could even go further and have more categories - post-op FTM & MTF, pre-op / non-binary AMAB & AFAB, etc.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Or go the other way and have everyone in their own individual category and golds all round.Tim Down wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:42 pmYou could extrapolate that to argue for having a single open category and no dedicated women's division in every sport.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:23 pm In a wider sense, you could argue that fairness of competition is meaningless. You can have all these rules to make sure people don't have elevated testosterone levels etc., but success in athletics is largely determined by your genetics anyway, certainly at the top end where you can't expect to gain an advantage by just training harder (someone with average genetics can easily finish first at parkruns though). So what counts as a fair advantage and what counts as an unfair advantage when it's all just what you're born with?
Edit - But ultimately it's about the perception of fairness (for us plebs watching) rather than actual fairness, because you'd end up tying yourself up in logical and philosophical knots if you took it too far.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Just got the diving on. There's a British guy called Jack Laugher - but it's pronounced "Law"! I think someone's having a giggle.
I suppose it's like when people are called Death but they put a sneaky apostrophe in to make it De'ath.
Edit - or Bucket. "Law residence. Lady of the house speaking."
I suppose it's like when people are called Death but they put a sneaky apostrophe in to make it De'ath.
Edit - or Bucket. "Law residence. Lady of the house speaking."
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
Have you ever seen World's Strongest Man?Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:55 pm I saw some of the weightlifting today, and this isn't just me being rude, but does it help being morbidly obese? I was wondering if the extra weight comes with free extra muscle, the converse how when you're weightless in space you automatically lose muscle despite your best efforts. Also maybe the agility you lose is less important in weightlifting than it might be in other sports requiring high amounts of strength.
Of course there is an agility aspect in Olympic weightlifting but it's massively outweighed by the strength aspect.
Basically the answer is yes, it's an advantage. Or, to flip it, it's a disadvantage to attempt to build the requisite muscle to compete at the top level without getting fat.
I disagree that fairness is meaningless. I think what you are getting at is that the characteristics we value in any given sport are arbitrary, which I will give you. But rigorously ensuring that the sport is a competition where we find the people who have achieved those characteristics is a very worthwhile endeavour.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:23 pm In a wider sense, you could argue that fairness of competition is meaningless. You can have all these rules to make sure people don't have elevated testosterone levels etc., but success in athletics is largely determined by your genetics anyway, certainly at the top end where you can't expect to gain an advantage by just training harder (someone with average genetics can easily finish first at parkruns though). So what counts as a fair advantage and what counts as an unfair advantage when it's all just what you're born with?
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
World records are tumbling. In the 400m hurdles, the previous world record (which was broken last month after 29 years) was broken again - by 0.75 seconds! The silver medallist broke the old WR by 0.5 seconds. The bronze medallist broke the WR that had stood until last month as well.
This example of a WR getting trashed stands out but the running events feel like the swimming events of the mid-2000s when the buoyant suits came about and changed the game. Is it:
a) just statistical variance?
b) natural progression of athletes?
c) the shoes?
d) that a year off of competing has allowed more efficient training?
e) a year off of competition testing has allowed more efficient drug taking?
I'm going for 75% (c) and 25% (e).
This example of a WR getting trashed stands out but the running events feel like the swimming events of the mid-2000s when the buoyant suits came about and changed the game. Is it:
a) just statistical variance?
b) natural progression of athletes?
c) the shoes?
d) that a year off of competing has allowed more efficient training?
e) a year off of competition testing has allowed more efficient drug taking?
I'm going for 75% (c) and 25% (e).
Re: Olympics 2020
Maybe the track as well - the shoes must make some difference, but it's not as if records have been getting broken every week this season.
Is this year really such an outlier though? We had two world records in Rio; the seventh-placed athlete behind Rudisha when he set his 800m world record in 2012 would have won gold in 2008 with his time; and Bolt is an obvious recent example of another outstanding athlete raising the standard for everyone else in his event.
If recent history is anything to go by, perhaps one of the stand-out performers from this year will eventually be found to have been doping, but not the majority.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Olympics 2020
I completely agree. The current rules on M -> F transgender athletes are ludicrously unfit for purpose; aside from all the retained advantages of going through a male puberty, all a trans athlete needs to do to be eligible to compete is ensure that their serum testosterone is below 10 nanomoles/litre. The normal range of testosterone levels in women - even elite athletes, who might be expected to have higher levels - is 0.12-1.78 nmol/litre, so a trans athlete is allowed to have five times (!) the upper boundary, with all the strength and speed advantages that higher testosterone brings. How this figure was decided upon is beyond me, it seems to have just been plucked out of the air without looking at the physiological ranges at all.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pmMy opinion is that the fairness of the competition cannot be sacrificed for inclusivity. In a way it would've been good if Hubbard had won gold because it would've crystallised the need for this issue to be addressed in a fairer way sooner rather than later. Kicking the can down the road (a bit like the IOC and other relevant authorities have done with DSD advantage in the sprinting, where DSD athletes are banned in 400m but allowed in 100 and 200m...) feels very unsatisfactory.
Yes, it would be nice if everything could be inclusive and lovely, but the way it's being done at the moment is making it unfair for the vast majority (for want of a better term, cis women) to accommodate a tiny minority (M -> F trans women).
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
Yeah, the track should definitely be on my list above. I will revise my % weightings at some point.
With that Rudisha race, 2nd place was still 0.6 behind the old WR, so yes the field jumped ahead a lot (or the track got easier) but in the grand scheme of things it wasn't quite the quantum leap that has happened in the 400m hurdles.
With that Rudisha race, 2nd place was still 0.6 behind the old WR, so yes the field jumped ahead a lot (or the track got easier) but in the grand scheme of things it wasn't quite the quantum leap that has happened in the 400m hurdles.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I'm a bit busy for the next few hours, but I'm looking forward to joining in the discussion.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I would say the 800m is the shortest of the "tactical" races though, so speed comparisons aren't quite as relevant - sometimes the big finals do have quite slow times as a result.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
800 is always my favourite race.Fred Mumford wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:41 amI would say the 800m is the shortest of the "tactical" races though, so speed comparisons aren't quite as relevant - sometimes the big finals do have quite slow times as a result.
Kelly Holmes in Athens was probably my favourite Olympic 800m of all time although Alberto Juanterino comes close.
Still the only man to win the 400m and 800m in the same games
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Olympics 2020
Certainly in interesting idea that lockdowns may have enabled a short period of impunity with regard to taking a short course of something like HGH which may enable quick physical benefits while being undetectable quickly enough. Pure speculation of course.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:18 am World records are tumbling. In the 400m hurdles, the previous world record (which was broken last month after 29 years) was broken again - by 0.75 seconds! The silver medallist broke the old WR by 0.5 seconds. The bronze medallist broke the WR that had stood until last month as well.
This example of a WR getting trashed stands out but the running events feel like the swimming events of the mid-2000s when the buoyant suits came about and changed the game. Is it:
a) just statistical variance?
b) natural progression of athletes?
c) the shoes?
d) that a year off of competing has allowed more efficient training?
e) a year off of competition testing has allowed more efficient drug taking?
I'm going for 75% (c) and 25% (e).
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: Olympics 2020
Interestingly enough, every athlete in this year's 800m women's final ran a better time than the same-placed athlete in 2016, when the DSD rules weren't in operation. So perhaps a point against the need for such rules, but also a point towards doping suspicions?
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Olympics 2020
Too late to get in on this now, but Slovenia have walked to the semis thus far. It's about to get tougher, as they'll have to beat France and the USA, the only two teams better than them, so you might want to check your cash-out price. Or, stay in and LIVE LA VIDA LOCAMark Deeks wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:39 pm You guys might want to throw a few quid on Slovenia winning the men's basketball.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Fans of competition climbing have known for a long time that the scoring system in the Olympic format is stupid, but the men's qualification today really hammered the point home.
Bassa Mawem of France is a competitive speed climber. He won the speed climbing portion by a clear margin with a time that would have been a world record a few months ago. He then finished 18/20 in the bouldering (failing to reach the top on a single boulder) and 20/20 in the lead climb (reaching only the 7th hold; the 19th placed climber reached the 25th).
The scoring method is to _multiply_ your three ranks to produce an overall score. This means he qualifies in 7th place, and in fact would have done so even if he finished dead last in both bouldering and lead. What's more, if the 8 finalists achieve exactly the same relative positions to each other in Thursday's final as in qualification today, he will climb to 5th.
I don't think any scoring method which allows you to finish 5th overall while only being able to reach a competitive standard in one of the three disciplines is really fit for purpose.
Bassa Mawem of France is a competitive speed climber. He won the speed climbing portion by a clear margin with a time that would have been a world record a few months ago. He then finished 18/20 in the bouldering (failing to reach the top on a single boulder) and 20/20 in the lead climb (reaching only the 7th hold; the 19th placed climber reached the 25th).
The scoring method is to _multiply_ your three ranks to produce an overall score. This means he qualifies in 7th place, and in fact would have done so even if he finished dead last in both bouldering and lead. What's more, if the 8 finalists achieve exactly the same relative positions to each other in Thursday's final as in qualification today, he will climb to 5th.
I don't think any scoring method which allows you to finish 5th overall while only being able to reach a competitive standard in one of the three disciplines is really fit for purpose.
Re: Olympics 2020
Oh wow that's so stupid.Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:48 pm Fans of competition climbing have known for a long time that the scoring system in the Olympic format is stupid, but the men's qualification today really hammered the point home.
Bassa Mawem of France is a competitive speed climber. He won the speed climbing portion by a clear margin with a time that would have been a world record a few months ago. He then finished 18/20 in the bouldering (failing to reach the top on a single boulder) and 20/20 in the lead climb (reaching only the 7th hold; the 19th placed climber reached the 25th).
The scoring method is to _multiply_ your three ranks to produce an overall score. This means he qualifies in 7th place, and in fact would have done so even if he finished dead last in both bouldering and lead. What's more, if the 8 finalists achieve exactly the same relative positions to each other in Thursday's final as in qualification today, he will climb to 5th.
I don't think any scoring method which allows you to finish 5th overall while only being able to reach a competitive standard in one of the three disciplines is really fit for purpose.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Awful. In skiing they changed the World Cup rules in the late 1970s to stop Ingemar Stenmark becoming the overall champion on the grounds that he didn't compete in downhill - but at least he was utterly dominant in the other 2 disciplines. This takes the biscuit though.
-
- Series 72 Champion
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Just looked through to see what would happen if the scores were added instead. Mavem would be 4th last, only beating those who had no top half results at all. Interestingly, the other current qualifiers would all still qualify in a very similar order, with the guy in 12th moving up to 8th. The top 3 also would be the same, with 3rd going up to 1st, and the top 2 both moving down a place.
So as a solution for how to combine 3 different disciplines in 1 (from what I gather this was a horrific hodgepodge anyway, forced by only being allowed 1 set of medals per gender), it's not that bad. To get the top placings you need some degree of competitiveness across the 3. The main issue is that the difference between 1st and 2nd is massive compared to any other gap between consecutive placings. It's then arguable where you want the balance to be - being gold medal standard in one of the disciplines feels like it should have some reward over what a simple average of placings gives, but not that much.
So as a solution for how to combine 3 different disciplines in 1 (from what I gather this was a horrific hodgepodge anyway, forced by only being allowed 1 set of medals per gender), it's not that bad. To get the top placings you need some degree of competitiveness across the 3. The main issue is that the difference between 1st and 2nd is massive compared to any other gap between consecutive placings. It's then arguable where you want the balance to be - being gold medal standard in one of the disciplines feels like it should have some reward over what a simple average of placings gives, but not that much.
Re: Olympics 2020
100% The main issue here is that climbing only gets one set of medals per gender. Going from not being in the olympics at all to having one medal is an improvements, but it's still a piss take when you think about it in the context of all the other sports that get 5+ gold medals to dish out per gender.Thomas Cappleman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:28 pm ...
So as a solution for how to combine 3 different disciplines in 1 (from what I gather this was a horrific hodgepodge anyway, forced by only being allowed 1 set of medals per gender), it's not that bad. ..
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Olympics 2020
I watched a bit of the climbing. The music was really annoying. If I was a climber i think it would distract me. Are they allowed to request it be shut off?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Music is a standard at all the IFSC contests where they usually have a live DJ. And most climbing centres have music playing too. I think they're used to it.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
There'd be no point in putting on weight just to go in a higher weight division though would there?Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:25 pmIf the weightlifting you saw was the women's heavyweight (the one with Hubbard in it and where GB won silver) then that was a category for women weighing over 87kg. At that weight, women shorter than 5"8 (so most women) are considered obese. So if nothing else (I'm not sure if having more body fat helps with weightlifting. I think it probably does to an extent but I can't qualify that with any scientific data; it's just a hunch), being obese certainly helps you be registered as a heavyweight.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:55 pm I saw some of the weightlifting today, and this isn't just me being rude, but does it help being morbidly obese?
I used to watch it, and while they were a bit on the fat side, these weightlifters looked fatter. But anyway, I did some Googling as well, and found e.g. this:Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:12 amHave you ever seen World's Strongest Man?Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:55 pm I saw some of the weightlifting today, and this isn't just me being rude, but does it help being morbidly obese? I was wondering if the extra weight comes with free extra muscle, the converse how when you're weightless in space you automatically lose muscle despite your best efforts. Also maybe the agility you lose is less important in weightlifting than it might be in other sports requiring high amounts of strength.
Of course there is an agility aspect in Olympic weightlifting but it's massively outweighed by the strength aspect.
Basically the answer is yes, it's an advantage. Or, to flip it, it's a disadvantage to attempt to build the requisite muscle to compete at the top level without getting fat.
Moving on:The way you get stronger and build muscle is by putting on mass. This means you have to eat at a caloric surplus everyday in order to fuel the growth, development, and healing of your muscles.
If you do not eat enough, you cannot increase muscularity, and eventually cannot even maintain it. This is because muscles are insanely dense and require more 'food' to sustain. If you don't, and your body starts 'burning' calories, it will burn some readily available fat first, but then eventually begin breaking down excess muscle tissue because it 1) gives more fuel for your body, and 2) is harder to maintain, so it'll burn it off to get you back to an equilibrium based off of what you're eating.
Since these competitors are trying to be as strong as possible, they do not balance their surpluses with diets, because dieting will cost them strength and physical muscle in the process. They eat big, lift big, get big. They don't want to lose any muscle. Ever.
I can personally say that you will lose noticeable amount of your peak strength if you go on a diet in order to lower body fat and get "ripped". For me, I lost roughly 10-15% of my peak lifting after dieting and losing about 30lbs (from 182lbs at 24% BF to 153lbs at 13% BF). 10-15% for me is not much. But if those competitors did that, they would basically lose their ability to compete in Strongman comps. They would probably sacrifice up to a quarter of their lift numbers unless they used steroids in order to counteract the potential loss of muscle.
Well, I suppose my point is this:I disagree that fairness is meaningless. I think what you are getting at is that the characteristics we value in any given sport are arbitrary, which I will give you. But rigorously ensuring that the sport is a competition where we find the people who have achieved those characteristics is a very worthwhile endeavour.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:23 pm In a wider sense, you could argue that fairness of competition is meaningless. You can have all these rules to make sure people don't have elevated testosterone levels etc., but success in athletics is largely determined by your genetics anyway, certainly at the top end where you can't expect to gain an advantage by just training harder (someone with average genetics can easily finish first at parkruns though). So what counts as a fair advantage and what counts as an unfair advantage when it's all just what you're born with?
Would it be fair if there weren't separate male and female competitions and everyone was lumped together? The obvious answer is "no", because the females wouldn't be able to compete. But:
Is it fair that if I wanted to race marathons I would have to be in the same category as Eliud Kipchoge? I (along with almost everyone else) would also not be able to compete with Kipchoge. So arguably it's unfair for the same reasons. It's just not so obviously unfair on the surface. It's not so visible that there are physical genetic differences that mean that most people could not compete at a high level. But the differences are there, as they are with men v women.
As an intermediate situation, would it be fair if there were no weight categories in weightlifting? All men would compete together and all women would compete together. What counts as a "fair" advantage or an "unfair" one? There are no height categories in high jump, but unless you are tall enough to reach the top of the Eiffel Tower, you're not going to be successful. I see this as comparable to weightlifting and boxing with their weight categories, and yet those two cater for size differences and high jump doesn't.
I'm not saying anything needs to change, but just that if you go too deep into it, I think it can become meaningless. The main thing is that we have something we can watch and consider to be fair as long as we don't think too hard about it.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
It's very long! And while I might have another look at another time, do you have a brief summary of the goings on?Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:26 am Interested on people's take on this video:
https://youtu.be/6VtjgZF9RE8
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Fred Mumford wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:41 amI would say the 800m is the shortest of the "tactical" races though, so speed comparisons aren't quite as relevant - sometimes the big finals do have quite slow times as a result.
But as Fred says...Phil H wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:04 pm Interestingly enough, every athlete in this year's 800m women's final ran a better time than the same-placed athlete in 2016, when the DSD rules weren't in operation. So perhaps a point against the need for such rules, but also a point towards doping suspicions?
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:20 pmThe way you get stronger and build muscle is by putting on mass. This means you have to eat at a caloric surplus everyday in order to fuel the growth, development, and healing of your muscles.
If you do not eat enough, you cannot increase muscularity, and eventually cannot even maintain it. This is because muscles are insanely dense and require more 'food' to sustain. If you don't, and your body starts 'burning' calories, it will burn some readily available fat first, but then eventually begin breaking down excess muscle tissue because it 1) gives more fuel for your body, and 2) is harder to maintain, so it'll burn it off to get you back to an equilibrium based off of what you're eating.
Since these competitors are trying to be as strong as possible, they do not balance their surpluses with diets, because dieting will cost them strength and physical muscle in the process. They eat big, lift big, get big. They don't want to lose any muscle. Ever.
I can personally say that you will lose noticeable amount of your peak strength if you go on a diet in order to lower body fat and get "ripped". For me, I lost roughly 10-15% of my peak lifting after dieting and losing about 30lbs (from 182lbs at 24% BF to 153lbs at 13% BF). 10-15% for me is not much. But if those competitors did that, they would basically lose their ability to compete in Strongman comps. They would probably sacrifice up to a quarter of their lift numbers unless they used steroids in order to counteract the potential loss of muscle.
That's what I said - but in a lot fewer words.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:12 amOr, to flip it, it's a disadvantage to attempt to build the requisite muscle to compete at the top level without getting fat.
This is just a semantic issue. Once the sport is defined and you have your protected categories (e.g. the women category in pretty much all sports, Flyweights in Boxing, 45kg in Weightlifting etc.) then fairness has to be rigorously maintained.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:20 pm Well, I suppose my point is this:
Would it be fair if there weren't separate male and female competitions and everyone was lumped together? The obvious answer is "no", because the females wouldn't be able to compete. But:
Is it fair that if I wanted to race marathons I would have to be in the same category as Eliud Kipchoge? I (along with almost everyone else) would also not be able to compete with Kipchoge. So arguably it's unfair for the same reasons. It's just not so obviously unfair on the surface. It's not so visible that there are physical genetic differences that mean that most people could not compete at a high level. But the differences are there, as they are with men v women.
As an intermediate situation, would it be fair if there were no weight categories in weightlifting? All men would compete together and all women would compete together. What counts as a "fair" advantage or an "unfair" one? There are no height categories in high jump, but unless you are tall enough to reach the top of the Eiffel Tower, you're not going to be successful. I see this as comparable to weightlifting and boxing with their weight categories, and yet those two cater for size differences and high jump doesn't.
I'm not saying anything needs to change, but just that if you go too deep into it, I think it can become meaningless. The main thing is that we have something we can watch and consider to be fair as long as we don't think too hard about it.
The determination of those categories is arbitrary, and you are considering that to be unfair. That's a different issue of fairness, although not necessarily invalid. You might think it's unfair that there's no category in the marathon for pedantic 5' 4" jumper-wearing North Essexians with a penchant for alternative bread selections in a curry house. I personally would watch that category but I'm not sure that the gold medal would mean quite as much as the open category. Although I would still value it higher than dressage.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Obviously we discussed this a bit off forum but yes, the 400m hurdle race was a real eye-opener.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:18 am World records are tumbling. In the 400m hurdles, the previous world record (which was broken last month after 29 years) was broken again - by 0.75 seconds! The silver medallist broke the old WR by 0.5 seconds. The bronze medallist broke the WR that had stood until last month as well.
This example of a WR getting trashed stands out but the running events feel like the swimming events of the mid-2000s when the buoyant suits came about and changed the game. Is it:
a) just statistical variance?
b) natural progression of athletes?
c) the shoes?
d) that a year off of competing has allowed more efficient training?
e) a year off of competition testing has allowed more efficient drug taking?
I'm going for 75% (c) and 25% (e).
I think it is partly (a). Sometimes by chance you get an event that gets a load of good competitors all at once. Statistically, it has to happen. There are loads of events and there's always going to be some pecking order of which events happen to have have better athletes relative to what you'd expect. And one event always has to come out top. Maybe it's the men's 400m hurdles right now.
I was watching some of the BBC coverage and they were talking about it being possibly a fast track at Tokyo, as well as there being shoe development.
With the drugs, yes, always be suspicious of everyone, but it shouldn't have a bigger effect on the 400m hurdles than anything else. Having said that, there have been world records and other fast times generally this year and last. The men's 5000m and 10,000m records went last year to Joshua Cheptegei. Interestingly he only won silver in the 10,000 though. The women's 5000m record went last year, and the 10,000m record went this year. Twice. And although 100m and 200m records don't happen for women these days, two runners have beaten all the previous non Flo-Jo times at 100m this year, including Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, who probably has most of her success behind her at the age of 34. It's happened for two runners over 200m as well.
But the 400m hurdles is still an outlier in terms of improvement. And thinking about it, I don't actually think shoes should have a bigger effect there. A bit of extra rebound energy probably won't add that much to you hiking your leg over a hurdle. But I do think that it's probably a "soft" event, in that its competitors are probably largely athletes that haven't quite made the mark at flat running meaning more room for improvement. If Michael Johnson or Wayde van Niekerk had devoted their careers to it, maybe the record would be much lower even than this. Also, it's technically harder than just running, so there is likely to be greater variance in the times. Fully nailing a race is likely to mean a bigger difference than over 400m flat.
Karsten Warholm's record over 400m is 44.87s, which isn't exactly world class. His new record for 400m hurdles is 45.94 seconds. This year, he's nearly halved the gap between his hurdle time and his flat time. Obviously I don't think 44.87 is representative as he doesn't compete over 400m. But whatever he can do on the flat (and it's not going to be under 43) he's taken a big proportion off the gap. It's too much for special hurdling shoes to have made the difference I think is where I was going with that.
But anyway, my conclusion is that the improvements of Karsten Warholm and Rai Benjamin are outliers not explained by shoes or drugs when compared to other events. A bit of a statistical fluke along with it being a soft event with more room for improvement and the technical aspect bringing greater performance variation seem to be the best explanations. Sure, drugs and shoes too if you want (and the track), but that's for all events, not for the difference between this event and others.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Yeah, I wasn't particularly disagreeing.
Well, I wasn't saying I considered the arbitrariness to be unfair, just that fairness can become a logical black hole. But the protected category of women can be subject to different definitions of woman and as long as it's rigorously defined then you could argue that any definition is fair.This is just a semantic issue. Once the sport is defined and you have your protected categories (e.g. the women category in pretty much all sports, Flyweights in Boxing, 45kg in Weightlifting etc.) then fairness has to be rigorously maintained.
The determination of those categories is arbitrary, and you are considering that to be unfair. That's a different issue of fairness, although not necessarily invalid. You might think it's unfair that there's no category in the marathon for pedantic 5' 4" jumper-wearing North Essexians with a penchant for alternative bread selections in a curry house. I personally would watch that category but I'm not sure that the gold medal would mean quite as much as the open category. Although I would still value it higher than dressage.
Edited to shorten post.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
On the DSD thing, Christine Mboma won silver at the 200m after having to move from the 400m because of elevated testosterone. Probably a good thing in the long run as it draws attention to it.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pm
My opinion is that the fairness of the competition cannot be sacrificed for inclusivity. In a way it would've been good if Hubbard had won gold because it would've crystallised the need for this issue to be addressed in a fairer way sooner rather than later. Kicking the can down the road (a bit like the IOC and other relevant authorities have done with DSD advantage in the sprinting, where DSD athletes are banned in 400m but allowed in 100 and 200m...) feels very unsatisfactory.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I don't suppose the track surface is the same as used in the Tokyo world championships of 1991? There was controversy about it at the time, to the extent of a newspaper sports headline saying "Tokyo records tarnished forever". I don't think Beamon got his record back though.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I don't think it is the same. Beamon's record was at altitude of course. I've often wondered why, if that's legal, they don't go to altitude all the time to set sprinting and jumping records.Fred Mumford wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:58 pm I don't suppose the track surface is the same as used in the Tokyo world championships of 1991? There was controversy about it at the time, to the extent of a newspaper sports headline saying "Tokyo records tarnished forever". I don't think Beamon got his record back though.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Damn right - in that famous head-on photo, he looks about six feet off the ground. Definitely helped.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
Ok, true. I'll try to expand.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:53 pm Well, I wasn't saying I considered the arbitrariness to be unfair, just that fairness can become a logical black hole. But the protected category of women can be subject to different definitions of woman and as long as it's rigorously defined then you could argue that any definition is fair.
So I guess we have to go back a step and define why "women" have a protected category at all. Let's take 100m sprint as an example of an event. The ideal characteristics for that sport might be, roughly in order:
- high ratio fast:slow twitch muscle fibres
- muscle mass
- strength:weight ratio
- reaction speed
- running technique
- mental strength
The reason we have a protected category for women is that male hormones are hugely overpowered in the top 3 of those characteristics. 50% of the population of the world would be instantly ruled out of competing at the top level of despite being at an elite level across the ideal characteristics, with the sole exception of not being male. Being male is not one of the characteristics in my list. Therefore, our rigorous definition must exclude the advantage of being male, to be fair to the 50% of the population who would otherwise be effectively ruled out of competing.
Obviously male/female is not binary and exists on a spectrum, and there's also DSDs which are somewhat of a grey area, so there is a decision to be made about where to draw a line, and inclusivity should be considered here. But going through male puberty seems pretty unambiguously to give an athlete a substantial part of the advantage of being male. Hormone treatment does not remove this advantage. Of course, this needs a citation, but I don't think it's really controversial to say that.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Olympics 2020
I gave it a go. The initial preamble isn't promising, in that the maker of the video pretty much states his position that anybody having concerns about trans athletes competing in the female category of sports is wrong and worse still, a far-right bigot who hates all LBGTQ people. So it doesn't appear that he's going to be approaching this in a very open-minded way. But still, let's see what his evidence and arguments are.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:26 am Interested on people's take on this video:
https://youtu.be/6VtjgZF9RE8
To cut a long story short, he doesn't seem to dispute the role of testosterone in conferring an advantage in sports. However, he then uses this to argue that because testosterone is suppressed as a necessary requirement of gender transition from male to female, then any prior advantages that trans women would have are entirely lost. He says that the only differences are due to the higher average height and weight of males over females, and that men of the same height and weight as women would be no stronger or faster. This completely ignores the other advantages conferred by a male puberty, such as thicker bones, greater proportional muscle mass, muscle fibres with a better androgenic response, greater O2 content, and so on.
He cites numerous academic papers and articles to support his arguments, but I'm not sure he's even read them, as most of them completely contradict what he is saying, and that even after gender transition and hormone suppression, trans women still outperform cis women by on average 9% (to take one example from Harper et al, 2021). 9% may not sound much but it's an absolute gulf in athletics, e.g in 800m, it's the difference between 1 minute 55 seconds and 2 minutes 5 seconds; one would win almost any Olympic women's final and the other wouldn't even get beyond the initial heats).
The guy who made this video had determined before the outset to "debunk" claims that trans women retain their born advantages in athletic performance following transition, but on investigation has presented evidence that they actually do retain such advantages. I don't know if he doesn't realise this due to his ideological blindness or he's being plainly disingenuous, but it's a bit of a fail all round really.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Olympics 2020
It's completely bizarre. The period in which the Eastern bloc female athletes dominated track and field showed that artificially elevated andogen levels conferred a greater advantage in sprinting than in any other distances. It seems as though the IOC just came up with a ruling to rule out the African athletes dominating the 800m at the time and because there were no DSD athletes dominating in any other distances then the ruling didn't need to be applied across the board. Which it plainly does.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pmKicking the can down the road (a bit like the IOC and other relevant authorities have done with DSD advantage in the sprinting, where DSD athletes are banned in 400m but allowed in 100 and 200m...) feels very unsatisfactory.
Re: Olympics 2020
Before this year, the under-18 record for men's 200m was Usain Bolt's 20.11 - although, confusingly, his 19.93 at age 17 isn't counted as an under-18 time because he turned 18 later that year.
However, Erriyon Knighton has now run faster than 20.11 seven times, including two times quicker than 19.93 and one equal to it, while still under-18 both in athletics and generally.
However, Erriyon Knighton has now run faster than 20.11 seven times, including two times quicker than 19.93 and one equal to it, while still under-18 both in athletics and generally.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Sure, but this does seem to be mostly about it being convenient to categorise into male and female. Women can't compete against the top men in 100m and they're also a convenient ready-made class, so we can separate them off. Lots of other people also can't compete against the top men, but they're not so easily defined into categories. And that's fine, but I don't think it's really fairness, just something that looks like it.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:24 pmOk, true. I'll try to expand.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:53 pm Well, I wasn't saying I considered the arbitrariness to be unfair, just that fairness can become a logical black hole. But the protected category of women can be subject to different definitions of woman and as long as it's rigorously defined then you could argue that any definition is fair.
So I guess we have to go back a step and define why "women" have a protected category at all. Let's take 100m sprint as an example of an event. The ideal characteristics for that sport might be, roughly in order:
- high ratio fast:slow twitch muscle fibres
- muscle mass
- strength:weight ratio
- reaction speed
- running technique
- mental strength
The reason we have a protected category for women is that male hormones are hugely overpowered in the top 3 of those characteristics. 50% of the population of the world would be instantly ruled out of competing at the top level of despite being at an elite level across the ideal characteristics, with the sole exception of not being male. Being male is not one of the characteristics in my list. Therefore, our rigorous definition must exclude the advantage of being male, to be fair to the 50% of the population who would otherwise be effectively ruled out of competing.
Obviously male/female is not binary and exists on a spectrum, and there's also DSDs which are somewhat of a grey area, so there is a decision to be made about where to draw a line, and inclusivity should be considered here. But going through male puberty seems pretty unambiguously to give an athlete a substantial part of the advantage of being male. Hormone treatment does not remove this advantage. Of course, this needs a citation, but I don't think it's really controversial to say that.
Edit - Imagine if hypothetically there was this supercomputer that could quickly analyse everyone's genome and say whether they were in the top half or bottom half of the population genetically. We could categorise by that. But then all the finalists in the women's 100m would almost certainly find themselves in the top half and not be able to become professional sprinters. Dave Smith from down your road, on the other hand, might find himself right at the top of the second half and could become an Olympic champion. I think this categorisation would be incredibly weird and no-one would be on board with it, but I don't think it's a matter of fairness.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Olympics 2020
Thanks Jim. I had a feeling the intro wouldn't go down too well alright. For what it's worth I read the Harper paper myself although I don't have the best head for academic charts and graphs, so whether I can say I understood it would be another thing (I get the conclusion that trans retain strength but don't know to calculate the 9% for example). I would be pretty sure the video maker has read it and maybe he's in the same boat as me in terms of understanding it. From other stuff I've seen him do though I reckon he has a better understanding of that kind of academic language than I do but no doubt he has his biases (don't we all). I think he has done some debates on the subject on his channel which I will try and listen to to see if he addresses any of the criticisms.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:25 amI gave it a go. The initial preamble isn't promising, in that the maker of the video pretty much states his position that anybody having concerns about trans athletes competing in the female category of sports is wrong and worse still, a far-right bigot who hates all LBGTQ people. So it doesn't appear that he's going to be approaching this in a very open-minded way. But still, let's see what his evidence and arguments are.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:26 am Interested on people's take on this video:
https://youtu.be/6VtjgZF9RE8
To cut a long story short, he doesn't seem to dispute the role of testosterone in conferring an advantage in sports. However, he then uses this to argue that because testosterone is suppressed as a necessary requirement of gender transition from male to female, then any prior advantages that trans women would have are entirely lost. He says that the only differences are due to the higher average height and weight of males over females, and that men of the same height and weight as women would be no stronger or faster. This completely ignores the other advantages conferred by a male puberty, such as thicker bones, greater proportional muscle mass, muscle fibres with a better androgenic response, greater O2 content, and so on.
He cites numerous academic papers and articles to support his arguments, but I'm not sure he's even read them, as most of them completely contradict what he is saying, and that even after gender transition and hormone suppression, trans women still outperform cis women by on average 9% (to take one example from Harper et al, 2021). 9% may not sound much but it's an absolute gulf in athletics, e.g in 800m, it's the difference between 1 minute 55 seconds and 2 minutes 5 seconds; one would win almost any Olympic women's final and the other wouldn't even get beyond the initial heats).
The guy who made this video had determined before the outset to "debunk" claims that trans women retain their born advantages in athletic performance following transition, but on investigation has presented evidence that they actually do retain such advantages. I don't know if he doesn't realise this due to his ideological blindness or he's being plainly disingenuous, but it's a bit of a fail all round really.
I did read some layman's pieces by and listened to a pod cast interview with Harper to better understand and she still comes down on the side of allowing trans athletes (maybe that's why video does too). She is definitely more nuanced and not always in certain elements of the trans community's good books. The podcast is worth a listen (probably too long for Gav though) https://www.outsports.com/platform/amp/ ... e-research
I would certainly be closer to Harper's position. I think we'll see rules changes go back and forth as more data comes in. I definitely think though that some of the bans you see particularly in the states and particularly in the case of kids are ludicrous and we should be more if not totally inclusive at the recreational and kid level. Once we get into elite sports competitions that's when tougher questions need to be asked.
I'd also like to see much more mixed stuff. I reckon you could have mixed football. Maybe not competition level but as exhibition matches to start with. See what it's like.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Anyone else watch the skateboarding overnight? Thought it was all a bit noughties for me.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Noughties? Try early 80'sRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:02 am Anyone else watch the skateboarding overnight? Thought it was all a bit noughties for me.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
By the way, the women's 400m hurdles went similarly to the men's (two under the world record and third place under what was the world record a few weeks ago) so maybe that event has benefited more from certain things - whether, shoes, track or whatever else.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I might have a go at that video and podcast, but a while ago I did also watch this programme with Martina Navratilova looking into the advantages of trans athletes.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Olympics 2020
Can't watch iplayer in my region unfortunately. In the podcast Harper mentions having long conversations with Navratilova. The podcast host isn't impressed with Martina and the group she is aligned with but Harper seems to be a bit more forgiving despite their disagreements.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:03 am I might have a go at that video and podcast, but a while ago I did also watch this programme with Martina Navratilova looking into the advantages of trans athletes.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
It's not available anyway at the moment - the link was really just to show what the programme was. But from what I remember it's wasn't really just a Martina Navratilova opinion piece programme. It was a more balanced BBC documentary which had her presenting it because she'd been in the news about some of the comments she'd made.Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:12 pmCan't watch iplayer in my region unfortunately. In the podcast Harper mentions having long conversations with Navratilova. The podcast host isn't impressed with Martina and the group she is aligned with but Harper seems to be a bit more forgiving despite their disagreements.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:03 am I might have a go at that video and podcast, but a while ago I did also watch this programme with Martina Navratilova looking into the advantages of trans athletes.
But anyway, I'll probably try and find the time to look at the video and podcast, but my general view has been that you'll never find a proper satisfactory balance so that trans women can compete in the female category. You can only really base what measures need to be taken (e.g. hormone-reducing drugs etc.) on statistical evidence. It's far too complex an issue to prove from first principles. And I don't think you'll ever really get enough statistical evidence. Even if you can show that average performance for trans women and cis women basically match, the shapes of the distributions are still likely to be different, and it's only the outliers that are really relevant because it's the outliers that win medals. And by their very nature, outliers give you limited statistical data.
A lot of people say it's a fuss about nothing because if there was such an advantage then trans athletes would be dominating, and they're not. But it only takes one person in one event. Let's say a trans woman in her early 20s starts to dominate the 100m sprint and is untouchable for 15 years or so. I think a lot of people would consider female track and field athletics to be severely damaged. Of course, they might then tweak the rules (about hormone levels or something), but really they'd be making it up as they go along based on a sample size of one, because proper statistics don't cover it.
And ultimately, I don't think it's the right thing to do to try and force this equivalence. You wouldn't race cheetahs against bears but put the cheetahs on some slowing drugs to make it a race. You'd have separate races. Socially it might be nice to accept trans women as women and not question their choices, but athletics is more about biology and I don't think it should be bound by the same social niceties. We have separate women's categories because of the biological differences that make them unable to compete with men at physical sports, not because of what they consider their identity to be. In the field of sports, I don't think we should be conflating these two things.
But I can change my mind in the face of compelling argument/evidence. (That's what Elliott always says isn't it?)