Maclolm Gladwell is a distance running fan and has written an extremely interesting piece about the Caster Semenya issue. Definitely worth the read, his comments seem to be the sentiment of most any logical person.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of-olympic-competition
Good article
Excellent article.
He can still throw down too.
Ran a 5:03 at the Fifth Avenue Mile last year.
Not bad for a 52 year old.
5:03? Damn, that is impressive for a 52 year old.
He is Canadian. Don't get too excited.
The Kenyan "women" is a man!
It's a good read. Semenya has been treated roughly and endured things that no woman should endure. I'm very sympathetic to her. But, people who argue she should be able to compete without T restriction reflexively call people who argue the other side as bigots, which I find appalling. It completely eliminates the ability to have rational debate on a complicated issue.
I found this part of the exchange interesting. Gladwell used to very dismissive of doping, believed that at most athletes should be allowed to use whatever they want so long as certain parameters like hematocrit or testosterone didn't exceed certain limits. Apparently his opinion has evolved:
"Still, a careful analyst of the Gladwellian œuvre might find your position inconsistent. In a conversation we had a few years ago, you argued that athletes should be allowed to take testosterone supplements, at safe levels, as long as they revealed their regimens. So wouldn’t a solution consistent with that argument be that the other women should be allowed to take supplements—not that Semenya should take inhibitors?
M.G.: I’ve changed my mind! I used to be something of a doping/natural-advantage skeptic. But the deeper I get immersed in the world of athletics—and the more seriously I take track and field—the more of a purist I’ve become. Sports is the voluntary acceptance of unnecessary obstacles...."
It's a crappy situation.
I feel bad for Caster, especially after reading these forums, but I also don't like being labeled a bigot or misogynist for wanting to give a fair shot to more women.
I think inhibitors need a place, or else just let anyone who "identifies" as a woman run in the women's events. I heard Juwanna Mann was looking to make a comeback in the WNBA.
MG is right on the money with this one. Compare it to the drivel happening over on Deadspin right now.
http://deadspin.com/the-debate-about-caster-semenya-isnt-about-fairness-1785355953
TrackAndField wrote:
It's a good read. Semenya has been treated roughly and endured things that no woman should endure.
Oh, it's alright. He has a wonderful wife he comes home to every night.
72ozPorterhouse wrote:
Maclolm Gladwell is a distance running fan and has written an extremely interesting piece about the Caster Semenya issue. Definitely worth the read, his comments seem to be the sentiment of most any logical person.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of-olympic-competition
Okay, so I just read this piece, and, apparently, I seem to be the only guy in the Universe who even *noticed* the GIGANTIC arithmetic error Gladwell makes in supporting his argument.
I'm really not sure what's more appalling: the fact that the 'Great Genius' MG is SO sloppy and careless he'd make a gigantic blunder like this in what's probably the most important point he makes in the whole piece,... or the fact that neither the guy he's talking to, any of the New Yorker's legendary 'fact-checkers,' copy editors, etc., none of the people reading and commenting on the article,... NOBODY else is sharp enough to notice that something sounds really wrong there, and take five seconds to check his math.
Freaking incredible. A nation of innumerate idiots. God help us all.
(And yes, Gladwell's point is correct anyway, but his screw-up vastly distorts the effect, and really undermines everything he says.)
sp2 wrote:
72ozPorterhouse wrote:Maclolm Gladwell is a distance running fan and has written an extremely interesting piece about the Caster Semenya issue. Definitely worth the read, his comments seem to be the sentiment of most any logical person.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of-olympic-competitionOkay, so I just read this piece, and, apparently, I seem to be the only guy in the Universe who even *noticed* the GIGANTIC arithmetic error Gladwell makes in supporting his argument.
I'm really not sure what's more appalling: the fact that the 'Great Genius' MG is SO sloppy and careless he'd make a gigantic blunder like this in what's probably the most important point he makes in the whole piece,... or the fact that neither the guy he's talking to, any of the New Yorker's legendary 'fact-checkers,' copy editors, etc., none of the people reading and commenting on the article,... NOBODY else is sharp enough to notice that something sounds really wrong there, and take five seconds to check his math.
Freaking incredible. A nation of innumerate idiots. God help us all.
(And yes, Gladwell's point is correct anyway, but his screw-up vastly distorts the effect, and really undermines everything he says.)
I would not say it undermines what the point he is making.
Don't worry - we did. We just didn't go and throw a Mekhissi-fit about it.
Yes, this whole gender testing situation has been really tough on him. So tough, he's had ED and pops Viagra like candy.
**It's a MAN, baby!!!**
TrackAndField wrote:
It's a good read. Semenya has been treated roughly and endured things that no woman should endure. I'm very sympathetic to her. But, people who argue she should be able to compete without T restriction reflexively call people who argue the other side as bigots, which I find appalling. It completely eliminates the ability to have rational debate on a complicated issue.
Not to mention reinforcing the bad iAAF decision.
"When Semenya’s testosterone was lowered to “normal†levels, she ran in the two-minute range for the eight hundred metres, which put her comfortably among the best in the world. Now that that restriction has been lifted, she is running six seconds faster. She has gone from being very good to being, potentially, the greatest half-miler in the history of women’s running. No one will beat her in Rio. She could run the last fifty yards backward and still win. How do you think the other women in that race feel about that?"
Tough sh't isn't it? What is the argument here - she has a natural advantage over everyone else so yeah lets restrict it.
Why not restrict the hormone levels of anybody who can kick other athlete's asses? Why isn't Ledecky's natural advantage regulated? Why not regulate every athlete's testosterone, growth hormone, red blood cell etc levels so they are all the same?
"What sets Bolt apart is the length of his legs and his extraordinary percentage of fast-twitch fibers and his competitive nature"
This is mindnumbing. Where do you think all these things come from? His genes - same thing that caused Semenya to be born in the situation she is in. His competitive nature that none of his rivals have? Give me a break
And since when is 2% of 2 minutes 5 seconds?
Two pseuds talking about a subject on which they have an extremely tenuous grasp, and on such a large platform too.
Hill_runner84 wrote:
He can still throw down too.
Ran a 5:03 at the Fifth Avenue Mile last year.
Not bad for a 52 year old.
Crap. This just ruined my "Can Malcolm Gladwell run a sub-5 mile" thread.