Olympics 2020
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Olympics 2020
The Slovenia hype train is dead
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I have watched this video now, although I have to admit my retention of it probably wasn't that high. But he's basically trying to debunk a specific paper, pointing out flaws in specific claims made by the paper. But even if we go along with all of that and wipe that paper out of existence, the default position isn't that trans women and cis women can compete equally. You need positive evidence rather than a lack of negative evidence.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.
He does talk about bone density though actually and lung capacity etc., so I'm not sure it's quite as bad as you say Jim. But everything I said in my previous post on the subject still stands.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Shame, but are either of these two left in the running?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I listened to most of that podcast but started skipping bits slightly beyond halfway because I think there was very little there for our discussion and I did find it a bit tedious. Early on Harper said that trans women do have certain advantages, but then stressed the disadvantages as well. But this is largely waffle. With e.g. a track race, your performance is on a simple one-dimensional scale - time. So it's all about whether there is a net advantage and she didn't discuss that. It's irrelevant that you can separate the net advantage/disadvantage into lots of little gains and losses. Is there a net advantage? Yes or no? She seemed to imply that there would be when talking about advantages, but then stuck on the bit about disadvantages afterwards just to muddy the waters.Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:23 pm
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.
More mixed sports is a reasonable idea, but you still hit the same problems. If you have to have a certain number of men and women, then the question of advantages for trans women comes up again.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
There's this article on the BBC about faster track and shoes. Interestingly, Karsten Warholm was complaining about Rai Benjamin's shoes despite having special shoes himself:
But after winning gold on Tuesday, Warholm criticised runner-up Benjamin's Nike footwear - and said he was working with Puma and the Mercedes F1 team on his own shoe.
"He had those things in his shoes, which I hate," added Warholm. "I don't see why you should put anything beneath a sprinting shoe. I think it takes credibility away from our sport."
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
The Chinese have taken all the sweets again in the diving… at least Tom was best of the rest and well clear of Bondar.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
GB 4th, above par performance.
Always glad to be above Australia.
Matching our 2012 haul with 3 minor eticmedal hopes pulling out of the Athletics.
Jade Jones shock defeat and the shooting medal hope getting covid.
National Lottery funding still instrumental in our fantastic achievements
Btw Irelands boxing gold this morning moves them up to joint 38th
Always glad to be above Australia.
Matching our 2012 haul with 3 minor eticmedal hopes pulling out of the Athletics.
Jade Jones shock defeat and the shooting medal hope getting covid.
National Lottery funding still instrumental in our fantastic achievements
Btw Irelands boxing gold this morning moves them up to joint 38th
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Olympics 2020
Japan doing really well to come 3rd. It does seem like the host nation tends to do better than they normally would. And this time it can't be down to home support. I'm guessing some events confer some inbuilt home advantage (familiarity with the track/venue, or conditions) but mostly is because they get more qualifiers, and because more athletes know well in advance they are likely to compete they'll put it more focused training.
Re: Olympics 2020
The factors you mention will all contribute for sure, but I had always assumed it was mainly because host nations tended to invest a lot more than usual in funding athletes, coaching, facilities and so on.Conor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:55 am Japan doing really well to come 3rd. It does seem like the host nation tends to do better than they normally would. And this time it can't be down to home support. I'm guessing some events confer some inbuilt home advantage (familiarity with the track/venue, or conditions) but mostly is because they get more qualifiers, and because more athletes know well in advance they are likely to compete they'll put it more focused training.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
I tend to think that too. If I'm a top athlete in my sport then Olympics or no Olympics, I'm doing the training.Phil H wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:24 amThe factors you mention will all contribute for sure, but I had always assumed it was mainly because host nations tended to invest a lot more than usual in funding athletes, coaching, facilities and so on.Conor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:55 am Japan doing really well to come 3rd. It does seem like the host nation tends to do better than they normally would. And this time it can't be down to home support. I'm guessing some events confer some inbuilt home advantage (familiarity with the track/venue, or conditions) but mostly is because they get more qualifiers, and because more athletes know well in advance they are likely to compete they'll put it more focused training.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Olympics 2020
I think this has to be the case. You could test it by looking at the performance of host nations at the subsequent Olympics, where investment in sporting infrastructure will still be having a fairly large effect, whereas the focused training will have largely worn off.Phil H wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:24 amThe factors you mention will all contribute for sure, but I had always assumed it was mainly because host nations tended to invest a lot more than usual in funding athletes, coaching, facilities and so on.Conor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:55 am Japan doing really well to come 3rd. It does seem like the host nation tends to do better than they normally would. And this time it can't be down to home support. I'm guessing some events confer some inbuilt home advantage (familiarity with the track/venue, or conditions) but mostly is because they get more qualifiers, and because more athletes know well in advance they are likely to compete they'll put it more focused training.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
So happens that I read only yesterday that the UK in Rio was the only country that has ever got more medals at the Olympics following the one they hosted.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 2:36 pmI think this has to be the case. You could test it by looking at the performance of host nations at the subsequent Olympics, where investment in sporting infrastructure will still be having a fairly large effect, whereas the focused training will have largely worn off.Phil H wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:24 amThe factors you mention will all contribute for sure, but I had always assumed it was mainly because host nations tended to invest a lot more than usual in funding athletes, coaching, facilities and so on.Conor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:55 am Japan doing really well to come 3rd. It does seem like the host nation tends to do better than they normally would. And this time it can't be down to home support. I'm guessing some events confer some inbuilt home advantage (familiarity with the track/venue, or conditions) but mostly is because they get more qualifiers, and because more athletes know well in advance they are likely to compete they'll put it more focused training.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Difficult to control for all the variables though.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 2:36 pmI think this has to be the case. You could test it by looking at the performance of host nations at the subsequent Olympics, where investment in sporting infrastructure will still be having a fairly large effect, whereas the focused training will have largely worn off.Phil H wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:24 amThe factors you mention will all contribute for sure, but I had always assumed it was mainly because host nations tended to invest a lot more than usual in funding athletes, coaching, facilities and so on.Conor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:55 am Japan doing really well to come 3rd. It does seem like the host nation tends to do better than they normally would. And this time it can't be down to home support. I'm guessing some events confer some inbuilt home advantage (familiarity with the track/venue, or conditions) but mostly is because they get more qualifiers, and because more athletes know well in advance they are likely to compete they'll put it more focused training.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Olympics 2020
Close, mind. Shortened from 50/1 pre-tournament to 4/1 by the time of the semis. I'll take it!
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Olympics 2020
Would a Japan double in the men's Softball and Baseball have better odds?Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:40 pmClose, mind. Shortened from 50/1 pre-tournament to 4/1 by the time of the semis. I'll take it!
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT