Was the poster "caiadoc" banned from the forum? His comments about Cain including "saddlebags" and "I'd smash" were extremely offensive.
Was the poster "caiadoc" banned from the forum? His comments about Cain including "saddlebags" and "I'd smash" were extremely offensive.
appearance guy wrote:
It would be tough to make definitive rules used to police comments regarding an athlete's appearance. Posting that an athlete looks heavy or needs to drop a few pounds to return to good form....as with Cain and Bekele....should be allowed.
Yes objectively they should be allowed but what I was wondering is, "What do we gain by allowing performance-related talk?" Or "what do we lose by banning suck talk?"
Everyone with a brain can tell that Cain is heavier than your average elite professional women's distance runner.
But what out of a courtesy to the difficult nature of this topic to many women, what if we just don't allow the discussion of weight and a specific women's performance at all. We just make a rule - you can't talk about weight an a specific women's performance period. If you want to start a thread about how to lose weight, or how weight impacts running so be it but you can't discuss an individual runners weight.
Yes, it's censorship. And yes it's treating women differently than men but so what? (Plus I guess we could make it apply to both genders.)
The only negative to me is that it's a little scary when the SJWs determine what is and isn't allowed to be talked about on a forum but if we make the decision ourselves, then so be it.
I'm just wondering, "What do we lose by banning suck talk?"
Predictor wrote:
She may be the most talented runner in the US but is not willing to get her body to the fitness level of Coburn, Simpson, or Houlihan. It is obvious that they spend hours in the gym.
That to me is an ignorant comment. You act like everyone can just work to get their body to a certain state. I imagine plenty of male distance runners could hit the gym for 3-4 hours a day and never get big enough to be NFL linemen.
rojo wrote:
appearance guy wrote:
It would be tough to make definitive rules used to police comments regarding an athlete's appearance. Posting that an athlete looks heavy or needs to drop a few pounds to return to good form....as with Cain and Bekele....should be allowed.
Yes objectively they should be allowed but what I was wondering is, "What do we gain by allowing performance-related talk?" Or "what do we lose by banning suck talk?"
Everyone with a brain can tell that Cain is heavier than your average elite professional women's distance runner.
But what out of a courtesy to the difficult nature of this topic to many women, what if we just don't allow the discussion of weight and a specific women's performance at all. We just make a rule - you can't talk about weight an a specific women's performance period. If you want to start a thread about how to lose weight, or how weight impacts running so be it but you can't discuss an individual runners weight.
Yes, it's censorship. And yes it's treating women differently than men but so what? (Plus I guess we could make it apply to both genders.)
The only negative to me is that it's a little scary when the SJWs determine what is and isn't allowed to be talked about on a forum but if we make the decision ourselves, then so be it.
I'm just wondering, "What do we lose by banning suck talk?"
Did a SJW contact you?
Ignorant to think that they spent several hours per day for years focused on getting as fit as possible? Give them the credit that they are due. They didn't just live an average life and wake up with those physiques. Those 3 should be role models for every young woman. Cain is probably more talented which is why I hope she decides to put in the same effort. I don't hope she does it if that is not what she wants in life. As an American track fan, that is why I personally hope she does it.
Unequivocally, weight, meaning body composition conducive to optimal performance, is a significant performance factor in most athletic pursuits.
Discussing weight (by coaches, peers, and the public) is entirely valid in a context of competitive running, just as is assessing races, workouts, attitude, recovery, nutrition, and such.
The subject should not be taboo.
People have varying opinions about everything, but opinions should be offered without malice and consider the subject's state of mind.
Not everyone is adequately/equally equipped to cope with critical feedback (e.g. Mary Cain).
It's reasonable posters don "kid gloves" for kids, steering clear of, or being particularly careful with, weight discussion relating to young athletes, particularly girls, as this is a sensitive issue entwined with body image and self worth.
Letsrun moderation has got this right.
But if the subject is an adult, fair comment is fair.
For example, seeing this picture, one might reasonably observe David Rushida packed on pounds and is not ready to compete at an international level.
As and adult and running celebrity, Rushida might expect this (and all sorts of) feedback when placing himself in the public eye:
https://www.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rudisha-instagram-dildo.jpg
I'm late to the show, but as long as it's not intended as an insult then let it fly.
It's fine to say "so and so looks a little heavy after coming back from their injury, I bet their times will drop significantly once they get further into their training and get back to racing weight".
What isn't okay is "so and so looks really fat in this picture, they need to stay away from the cheeseburgers"
sleazazar wrote:
Seyta wrote:
The discussion should pretty much always be allowed.
The situation with Cain makes almost no sense.
Alberto Salazar is accused of:
- Planning to circumvent anti-doping controls (Testosterone Gel experiments)
- Potentially Encouraging falsification of medical data (Dr. Brown)
- Having athletes use prescription medications that they lack a prescription for (Goucher)
- Transfusing substances beyond allowable limits (L-Carnitine in Magness)
Yet somehow, what people complain about is that he tells a runner she needs to lose weight, which is an actual LEGAL method of performance enhancement??
Again, I posted this on the other threads, but in every other sport, coaches rip apart, scream at, and insult athletes in front of a live audience of thousands, and a televised audience of possibly millions. In fact, some coaches even get into physical altercations with athletes from opposing teams, or even their own teams.
A running coach tells a runner that she needs to lose weight in private, and somehow it's too much?
Attempting to boil down Cain's complaints about the NOP to merely "being told to lose weight" is intellectually dishonest.
That is objectively what she was told to do.
Have you seen how wrestlers and fighters are treated by their coaches when it comes to cutting weight? They are practically "shamed" to oblivion and are often running on treadmills in sweatsuits to force water out of their bodies. Even at the HIGH SCHOOL level. And they DO it.
Question: how many women moderators are there?
I think it would be useful to have women chime in on this.
I agree about subjectivity.
1) Anything that legally compromises the site. Libel, defamation, ...
-(mostly) objective
2) Any trollish uncivilized comments just to wind people up.
-subjective
HS / College / Pro are all fair game. Even Lauren Fleshman, a very intelligent and mature competitor, is super sensitive to those comments. The age / maturity argument does not work for me. No one grows into comfortably accepting shaming.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
His comments about Cain including "saddlebags" and "I'd smash" were extremely offensive.
This is something I agree with. There's no reason to be rude. You wouldn't want someone to say that to your mother or sister.
I think genuine comments about weight should be allowed as long as defenders are given an equal chance to freely talk about the other side of the argument. That's only fair.
Fatg shaming is a regular occurrence on this site.
Discussions of female runner bodies is a regular occurrence on this site.
Discussions of high-school runner bodies is a regular occurrence on this site.
This thread will lead to no change whatsoever. And rojo, the SJW comment was unnecessary.
the problem is that this forum has a disproportionate representation of one demographic, so the chances that comments, intentionally constructive or not, will be made about women's bodies in a certain context is higher, and as indicated by the multi platform dialogue in the fallout of Mary Cain & other runners, this forum is regarded especially by female runners quite negatively (and can you blame them?)
to be honest, despite my leftist tendencies, while I don't see neutrality as a tangible or real, I also don't know if the forum's moderation should necessarily reflect a position or serve actively as an agent of social change. that seems insincere to the reason why many of us come here; We come to Talk About Running, unfortunately that comes with the territory.
my one personal exception to this is that unless it is blatantly satire (see the: "the year is 2027 thread", that seems to be in good faith and is not taken really at severe expense of athletes/coaches given recent events) any discussion of underage runners in any context outside of results, performances, coaching, and interviews, should be banned, discouraged, and repeat offenders should have their IP addresses blocked.
the way some posters (especially unregistered ones) have discussed the bodies and behavior (esp in interviews) of underage, namely high school girls, has completely crossed a line on a number of occasions and is part of why the forum is seen How it is
If the comments are sexual or are evaluating attractiveness or desirability, they shouldn't be allowed.
Otherwise, I think you should allow them. It's not worth your energy to do more.
In my very humble opinion, opinions stated as fact regarding one's weight cross the line. Even if it's an obvious and probably true statement. Something like "cutting weight would give that guy a much better shot a Worlds" should probably be off limits, even if it's most likely true (and in running, it's generally true). There are a lot of weight dysphoria issues surrounding distance running, and stuff like that doesn't help.
On the other hand, I don't really think something like "she looks really lean and fit right now" or "he looks a little heaver coming back from injury" are problematic.
I think there can be discussions of problematic college programs without naming names. Sure, people can then go figure out who is being talked about, but the names don't need to be stated. In an era of Google searches and internet history that lives forever, it's unfair to Jane Smith if for the rest of her life (or at least for years to come) that every time someone searches "Jane Smith at Boise State" a LRC thread pops up criticizing her weight, whether too thin or too heavy.
So, to use Boise State as an example, I'd be fine with thread about "hey, Boise State seems like a toxic program, several of their top 5 look unhealthy and the coach seems to encourage it." But, for the reasons I said above, let's keep names out of the thread and out of the internet search history.
David S wrote:The Floyd wrote:
2) No discussion about collegiate athletes whatsoever. This is more gray since the athletes are legal adults, but in my view they're still young amateurs and it's not appropriate to rake their bodies over the coals on the message boards, regardless of too heavy or too thin. Particularly in college, if it's a case of too thin, the coaches or others are well-aware of it and it doesn't need to be a topic of discussion. General discussion, sure, but not naming particular athletes.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. My main concern is that there have been a bunch of abusive college programs and that sort of behavior becomes normalized unless it's discussed critically. Can those issues can be raised somehow without discussing individual athletes? I'm not sure. Gotta go.
The Floyd wrote:
I think there can be discussions of problematic college programs without naming names. Sure, people can then go figure out who is being talked about, but the names don't need to be stated. In an era of Google searches and internet history that lives forever, it's unfair to Jane Smith if for the rest of her life (or at least for years to come) that every time someone searches "Jane Smith at Boise State" a LRC thread pops up criticizing her weight, whether too thin or too heavy.So, to use Boise State as an example, I'd be fine with thread about "hey, Boise State seems like a toxic program, several of their top 5 look unhealthy and the coach seems to encourage it." But, for the reasons I said above, let's keep names out of the thread and out of the internet search history.
Whenever males are allowed to compete in female events, I think we should be able to point out and discuss all the various ways their bodies look and function like the biologically male physiques they are - and the myriad unfair advantages they have over their female competitors as a result. Even when they are in HS or college.
As one of the few female contributors here, it's gaslighting enough that the rules say I must refer to athletes like college competitors CeCe Telfer and June Eastwood and HS track champs Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller with she/her pronouns and pretend that they are all just a new kind of women or girls. To not be able to discuss their male bodies would be beyond the pale. Especially with the Olympics coming up, we need to be able to speak about males in women's sports honestly and openly.
As for athletes who are actually female, there's so much gratuitous misogyny allowed on this site, I dunno why there should suddenly be new rules forbidding all possibly negative or judgmental comments about the fitness level, shape, weight, flabbiness, muscularity, amount of body fat, etc of females who participate in public athletic events. Sports is about bodies, after all.
I also disagree with a previous poster's suggestion that there should be a rule forbidding comments about the bodies of anyone known to have suffered from an eating disorder. Lots of people in and out of sports have hidden eating disorders. And nearly everyone, male or female, has issues with their body image. Treating one small segment with kid gloves because they are perceived to be especially vulnerable isn't fair. And it does those individuals no favor in the long run.
Like swimming, diving, gymnastics and rowing, track and field are sports where lots of skin is exposed and bodies are on fully display. When watching such sports, people are going to look, see and comment. Comes with the territory. Anyone who doesn't like having their body so exposed and scrutinized can choose another sport. There are plenty of sports - snowboarding, skiing and skeet shooting come to mind - where people compete fully clothed, and others - like golf and cycling - where long shorts, full-length trousers and sleeves of some length are commonplace or customary.
Running is a power to weight ratio sport. If you can't talk about how to make that ratio more advantageous then just make this a forum to talk about politics.
My opinion is you know it's wrong when you see it so any specific rules can't be made.
Only discussion allowed should be evaluating NON-RUNNERS.
Actors, models, baristas, gfs, gf’s friends, milfs, etc...
