mikehammer wrote:
rojo toga wrote:
Who is the true world record holder over 800 meters?
Letsrun answer
Kelly hodginson
White ✓
British ✓
Must be clean ✓
Only the last is correct. Which rules out Jarmila and any random Kenyan.
mikehammer wrote:
rojo toga wrote:
Who is the true world record holder over 800 meters?
Letsrun answer
Kelly hodginson
White ✓
British ✓
Must be clean ✓
Only the last is correct. Which rules out Jarmila and any random Kenyan.
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
Coe has a mess on his hands indeed. Let's hope he does something before next year Worlds, because at the rate Mboma is going, she will be running 20.8 for the 200M by this time next year.
I agree with you and TrackCoach (well 20.8 maybe a bit low), but WA is running out of time. Recall how long the Caster show lasted.
The most likely clean WR holder?
I'd disregard:
- everyone in the 70s and 80s because of the Cold War doping,
- everyone before 2005 because of lack of (reliable) EPO testing, plus a record that old despite all the technology improvements is too questionable,
- all DSD athletes (although they might formally be clean).
So who is next?
Jelima 2008, pre ABP, but still ran a 1:56 in 2012, but still before testing in Kenya got serious
Mu 2021 - no issue other than being fast (in superheroes?)
Wilson 2017 - tested positive for roids but was left of the hook with the good old beef excuse
Hodgkinson 2021 - no issue other than being fast
Wilson is actually only place 21, and Hodgkinson place 26!
As an optimist, I put my money is on Mu.
Did I miss anyone?
khcglhc wrote:
OozmaKappa wrote:
..,
It's cruel. It comes at the cost of the careers of many real women who will be robbed of the recognition and rewards for their hard work, but it's this sacrifice that will make people demand something be done to save womens athletics.
Agreed. My sprinting career was destroyed because of people like Bolt, De Grasse…
Unfair…
Don't some of you possess any logic or a modicum of commonsense? You probably think you are making some sort of statement, but you are not. The analogy you are trying to draw is stupid. The fact that you don't realize this is telling.
It's bc of idiots like this that we should lift all restrictions and let the disaster play out.
Let people see the horror of all time greats like Hassan and Gidey be robbed of gold medals.
Let people see incredible young talents like Athing Mu and Gabby Thomas be ran through as if theyre standing still.
And let all the World Records fall.
It's not fair to these incredible women, but their sacrifice wont be in vain.
Coe better get on the rule change in a hurry because she could break the womens 200m record as early as next year. Not sure if she ever will in the 100. She’ll go sub 21 in the 200 tho.
OozmaKappa wrote:
It's bc of idiots like this that we should lift all restrictions and let the disaster play out.
Let people see the horror of all time greats like Hassan and Gidey be robbed of gold medals.
Let people see incredible young talents like Athing Mu and Gabby Thomas be ran through as if theyre standing still.
And let all the World Records fall.
It's not fair to these incredible women, but their sacrifice wont be in vain.
Hey if the women who are losing to her and getting their records broken won’t speak out against it then why should anyone else? They’re too damn scared to. Just a pu$$y word we live in. Lets hope Mboma brings out the testes in everyone lol.
casual obsever wrote:
The most likely clean WR holder?
I'd disregard:
- everyone in the 70s and 80s because of the Cold War doping,
- everyone before 2005 because of lack of (reliable) EPO testing, plus a record that old despite all the technology improvements is too questionable,
- all DSD athletes (although they might formally be clean).
So who is next?
Jelima 2008, pre ABP, but still ran a 1:56 in 2012, but still before testing in Kenya got serious
Mu 2021 - no issue other than being fast (in superheroes?)
Wilson 2017 - tested positive for roids but was left of the hook with the good old beef excuse
Hodgkinson 2021 - no issue other than being fast
Wilson is actually only place 21, and Hodgkinson place 26!
As an optimist, I put my money is on Mu.
Did I miss anyone?
If you are prepared to put your money on anyone be prepared also to lose it. Doping hasn't gone away. It has simply found other ways to beat antidoping - David Howman has acknowledged that. There is no era from the 70's onwards in which it can be assumed there is a clean world record holder. That includes the best runners of today.
Sean B. wrote:
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say.
I wasn't saying the rules were based on chromosomes. I was saying that the rules were made only for certain DSD conditions. My understanding is that these particular DSD conditions that the rules apply to, do not occur in people that are XX. Therefore any of the DSD athletes that are not allowed to compete in the mid distances cannot be XX.
It is also my understanding that a natural XX women would not be subject to the rules that would prevent them from running 400-mile, even if their testosterone is naturally high. Though I don't know if natural XX women can even have testosterone levels that reach the levels for the DSD rules to apply.
It's clear now that IAAF/World Athletics does not limit the DSD rulings to only XY women. And confidentiality standards mean we don't know if any recently restricted athletes are XY or XX (or any other karyotype) other than by their own admission. Athletics Namibia said Mboma and Masilingi are XX.
FYI, there are XY DSD conditions that produce a female phenotype, often with a uterus and fallopian tubes. Some of these women can bear children despite being XY. 46, XX Ovotesticular DSD results in both ovarian and testicular tissue. Mixed gonadal dysgenesis can present as 46, XX / 46, XY mosaicism. So it's not as simple as XY = male, XX = female like some people seem to think.
World Athletics even permits some conditions ('without limitation' ) such as PCOS and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia that could give an XX woman testosterone over 5ng/mL. That means there could hypothetically be some athletes with CAH (who may have male genitalia) or other non-specified DSDs who are not restricted. It's not really fair that they would be allowed to compete, while others are restricted and could eventually be banned.
I also have my suspicions about the application of these rules because the criteria for assessment appears to be: junior athlete with rapid development or exceptional talent, from a poor country , and who has some overtly androgenic features. How do we know these rulings are being applied fairly? There could easily be some phenotypically female athletes out there with DSDs and elevated testosterone who haven't been flagged for 'assessment' because they don't rouse controversy with their appearance or results.
In the U20 World Championships in Nairobi for example, I noticed another athlete who fits the criteria they might use to assess for DSDs. She will probably maintain a low enough profile not to be assessed though, as she's a middling athlete.
Who will win at this upcoming meet in the woman's 200m? Mboma or SCR? or Jackson?
VroomVroom wrote:
OozmaKappa wrote:
It's bc of idiots like this that we should lift all restrictions and let the disaster play out.
Let people see the horror of all time greats like Hassan and Gidey be robbed of gold medals.
Let people see incredible young talents like Athing Mu and Gabby Thomas be ran through as if theyre standing still.
And let all the World Records fall.
It's not fair to these incredible women, but their sacrifice wont be in vain.
Hey if the women who are losing to her and getting their records broken won’t speak out against it then why should anyone else? They’re too damn scared to. Just a pu$$y word we live in. Lets hope Mboma brings out the testes in everyone lol.
Didn't Lynsey Sharpe speak out against the Caster farce in the 800m, I know she was criticized by left wing idiots who know nothing about physiology or how much money DSD athletes are costing XX athletes in terms of prize money and endorsements.
As a far as I know she wasn't burned at the stakes for stating the Emperor has no clothes.
EmilieS wrote:
Sean B. wrote:
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say.
I wasn't saying the rules were based on chromosomes. I was saying that the rules were made only for certain DSD conditions. My understanding is that these particular DSD conditions that the rules apply to, do not occur in people that are XX. Therefore any of the DSD athletes that are not allowed to compete in the mid distances cannot be XX.
It is also my understanding that a natural XX women would not be subject to the rules that would prevent them from running 400-mile, even if their testosterone is naturally high. Though I don't know if natural XX women can even have testosterone levels that reach the levels for the DSD rules to apply.
It's clear now that IAAF/World Athletics does not limit the DSD rulings to only XY women. And confidentiality standards mean we don't know if any recently restricted athletes are XY or XX (or any other karyotype) other than by their own admission. Athletics Namibia said Mboma and Masilingi are XX.
FYI, there are XY DSD conditions that produce a female phenotype, often with a uterus and fallopian tubes. Some of these women can bear children despite being XY. 46, XX Ovotesticular DSD results in both ovarian and testicular tissue. Mixed gonadal dysgenesis can present as 46, XX / 46, XY mosaicism. So it's not as simple as XY = male, XX = female like some people seem to think.
World Athletics even permits some conditions ('without limitation' ) such as PCOS and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia that could give an XX woman testosterone over 5ng/mL. That means there could hypothetically be some athletes with CAH (who may have male genitalia) or other non-specified DSDs who are not restricted. It's not really fair that they would be allowed to compete, while others are restricted and could eventually be banned.
I also have my suspicions about the application of these rules because the criteria for assessment appears to be: junior athlete with rapid development or exceptional talent, from a poor country , and who has some overtly androgenic features. How do we know these rulings are being applied fairly? There could easily be some phenotypically female athletes out there with DSDs and elevated testosterone who haven't been flagged for 'assessment' because they don't rouse controversy with their appearance or results.
In the U20 World Championships in Nairobi for example, I noticed another athlete who fits the criteria they might use to assess for DSDs. She will probably maintain a low enough profile not to be assessed though, as she's a middling athlete.
You have become distracted by your own argument. XX individuals do not produce male levels of testosterone unless they possess also male gonads. The line drawn in the sand by the IAAF rules is over levels of testosterone and those individuals that exceed the prescribed levels are XY. They are male. An XX with male levels of testosterone would be medically unwell.
All that rambling huge ass wall of text and no common sense. It's not that complicated.
When you see a teenaged girl with the physique of a young man, you know something's up. It's common sense, but unfortunately there is currently a gap in the research bc its not exactly feasible or ethical to prove what we all know to be true here. And as if that were not enough impediment, researchers face public scrutiny and censorship that jeopardizes their careers and disincentivizes them from answering questions we already know the answers to.
OozmaKappa wrote:
It's bc of idiots like this that we should lift all restrictions and let the disaster play out.
Let people see the horror of all time greats like Hassan and Gidey be robbed of gold medals.
Let people see incredible young talents like Athing Mu and Gabby Thomas be ran through as if theyre standing still.
And let all the World Records fall.
It's not fair to these incredible women, but their sacrifice wont be in vain.
Gabby Thomas is on drugs
Time to put an end to it! wrote:
Coe and World Athletics ( former IAAF ) must put an end to this. DSD athletes should not be allowed to race women. If not it will end interest in women's Track & Field.
They have tried to. Court cases prevent them doing so. What we need is for all the normal female athletes in the sport to bring class action cases demanding their protection against DSD athletes.
eurodonkey wrote:
Time to put an end to it! wrote:
Coe and World Athletics ( former IAAF ) must put an end to this. DSD athletes should not be allowed to race women. If not it will end interest in women's Track & Field.
They have tried to. Court cases prevent them doing so. What we need is for all the normal female athletes in the sport to bring class action cases demanding their protection against DSD athletes.
Probably the only solution
eurodonkey wrote:
They have tried to. Court cases prevent them doing so. What we need is for all the normal female athletes in the sport to bring class action cases demanding their protection against DSD athletes.
This is true. The president of WA doesnt have standing. We need the people who do to gather the courage to stand up and fight for themselves.
Unfortunately they quite literally havent got the balls.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have become distracted by your own argument. XX individuals do not produce male levels of testosterone unless they possess also male gonads. The line drawn in the sand by the IAAF rules is over levels of testosterone and those individuals that exceed the prescribed levels are XY. They are male. An XX with male levels of testosterone would be medically unwell.
Maybe you became distracted while reading?
I already provided examples of XX women who could have testosterone levels within the male range. Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia is one example. Some effected individuals are not medically unwell.
OozmaKappa wrote:
All that rambling huge ass wall of text and no common sense. It's not that complicated.
When you see a teenaged girl with the physique of a young man, you know something's up. It's common sense, but unfortunately there is currently a gap in the research bc its not exactly feasible or ethical to prove what we all know to be true here. And as if that were not enough impediment, researchers face public scrutiny and censorship that jeopardizes their careers and disincentivizes them from answering questions we already know the answers to.
But the problem is, when you see three teenage girls with a combination of ovarian and testicular tissue in varying quantities and formations, one may present as feminine, one ‘strong’ but borderline and the next visibly hyperandrogenic. Based on appearance, lots of female athletes fall in the first and second categories and will never be questioned on their gender.
Intersex is a broad spectrum, and it seems as though World Athletics have deliberately left gaping loopholes in their restrictions.
Why not introduce an upper T limit for ALL FEMALE ATHLETES, rather than just the ones who fit within their box? You guys have been saying no female would have testosterone within the male range unless XY and/or with male gonads (which is not strictly true, but let’s go with it anyway), so why the caveat of ‘relevant athletes’?
One can only posit this is to permit certain athletes that serve their interests, and ban other athletes who don’t. It’s also a convenient way for them to legally avoid assessing any athlete they want to permit despite having testosterone higher than 5nmol/L.
Ghost1 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_MbomaShe has only been running for a few years and she has phenomenal talent. She started out as a middle distance runner in the 800 m and 1500 m. She comes from a very poor family and was abandoned by her father and then her mother died when she was still a child so she was the breadwinner for her younger siblings. Let’s give credit to this brave woman. She’s not asking for anything. Her main motivation is to please her coach Mr. Botha. She’s a simple lady and this comes out in interviews.
Fine.
But her running against XY women is unfair.
This post was removed.