Caster Semenya Loses Appeal

All incorrect as proved by previous posts.

That is the feeling of the walls closing in on you.

Really? Nobody can do any better?

I advocated for this outcome, I predicted this outcome, and I applaud this outcome. The arguments and reasoning used by the IAAF and CAS are those that I have always made.

Once again, I was “right”, which some of you can’t stand.

You also can’t stand that my opinions and expressions differ from your own, because you are thin-skinned and intolerant.

You also can’t stand that I see through what you are trying to do, that I reveal that you have your own agendas, and that I don’t let you turn this into something it’s not, because you are not accustomed to opposition and hearing the word “no”.

What do you mollycoddled people do when you run into something really serious in life?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Really? Nobody can do any better?

I advocated for this outcome, I predicted this outcome, and I applaud this outcome. The arguments and reasoning used by the IAAF and CAS are those that I have always made.

Once again, I was “right”, which some of you can’t stand.

You also can’t stand that my opinions and expressions differ from your own, because you are thin-skinned and intolerant.

You also can’t stand that I see through what you are trying to do, that I reveal that you have your own agendas, and that I don’t let you turn this into something it’s not, because you are not accustomed to opposition and hearing the word “no”.

What do you mollycoddled people do when you run into something really serious in life?

Here is the reality : most have moved on from conversing with you because it's like explaining complex ideas of calculus to a small child. You (the child) can simply not understand at this time and will arrogantly and angrily make mistakes and insist correctness on even the most egregious and obvious of errors.

The debate is still taking place, but they've moved on and away from the brick wall you're screaming at.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Really? Nobody can do any better?

I advocated for this outcome, I predicted this outcome, and I applaud this outcome. The arguments and reasoning used by the IAAF and CAS are those that I have always made.

Once again, I was “right”, which some of you can’t stand.

You also can’t stand that my opinions and expressions differ from your own, because you are thin-skinned and intolerant.

You also can’t stand that I see through what you are trying to do, that I reveal that you have your own agendas, and that I don’t let you turn this into something it’s not, because you are not accustomed to opposition and hearing the word “no”.

What do you mollycoddled people do when you run into something really serious in life?

Seriously dude book yourself a ticket to Thailand asap and bang as many ladyboys as you can.

Your comments on here are eerily reminiscent of that another custodian of righteousness Kevin Space and his performance in American Beauty.

I honestly believe you will be more at peace with yourself once you have cured yourself of this strange fascination.

Good luck!

You also can’t stand the fact that I don’t elevate your cherished identity politics and political correctness conditioning over personal responsibility.

Some people bow out because they realize that I will not be bullied, and because they see their bogus attempts get revealed and defeated. It is true that the way to defeat bullies is to stand up to them.

It is unacceptable behavior to abuse the goodwill extended to one by the regulators and especially by one’s female competitors, to disrespect fair play, to show poor sportsmanship, and to harm innocent women both personally and professionally.

While a limited end has rightly been put to that behavior, there unfortunately will likely be no avenue for reparations for past damages caused by such actions, which actions created a history that leaves a bitter taste.

+1000

While I definitely would not say that I am stepping up to defend Sprintgeezer's position, I would point out that resort to ad hominem and emotional attacks on him for his position do nothing to rebut the points he makes. Calling Semenya "he" can be argued as bad manners, but it is scientifically correct based on the CAS evidence and other prior reporting on Semenya.

I personally find this whole debate interesting because I am a normal (?) male whose college times were reasonably close to Semenya's. That made me someone who could barely qualify for a small college men's team. If I had "identified" as female I could have been contending for the podium in NCAA D1 women's championships. I have no insight as to what kind of a person Semenya is off the track, but my point of view is that Semenya is a biological male with a superficial external female appearance who exploited that appearance to unfairly compete against biological females.

ANC wrote:

Even Caitlin Jenner........had to compete in the men's division.

Because he was a man.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Really? Nobody can do any better?

I advocated for this outcome, I predicted this outcome, and I applaud this outcome. The arguments and reasoning used by the IAAF and CAS are those that I have always made.

Once again, I was “right”, which some of you can’t stand.

You also can’t stand that my opinions and expressions differ from your own, because you are thin-skinned and intolerant.

You also can’t stand that I see through what you are trying to do, that I reveal that you have your own agendas, and that I don’t let you turn this into something it’s not, because you are not accustomed to opposition and hearing the word “no”.

What do you mollycoddled people do when you run into something really serious in life?

While I have mostly never publicly (IE on Lets Run) agreed with the Geezer and don't really think the he vs. she rhetoric adds anything to the discussion except to inflame it, he does happen to be right in this case IMO. My personal opinion having read the study abstract and some of the critiques of the study/study limitations I was able to find is that the ban, without testosterone modification, didn't go far enough. Should be for all running related distances, not just mile and below. I suspect that the lawyers got involved to maximize the probability of the mile and below ban remaining intact.

+1

Best post I've seen on this thread.

If someone is truly acting like a fool then there is nothing wrong with pointing out pollutant idiocy from them.

The nuance lies in the fact that the old "obvious" lines we once drew to separate competition between males and females is no longer quite so obvious (as you yourself pointed out : "Semenya is a biological male with a superficial external female appearance"). There are clearly individuals like Semenya who are in a gray area and the rights of those individuals to compete in sport at the highest level is, to me, the ultimate question. Admittedly, I do not know the answer to that question because it is hard. This issue is further muddled for Semenya in particular due to the excess speculation on what her exact medical condition (so to speak) actually is. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but is there a definitive publicly available medical chart or official diagnosis, or has everything mostly been a guess based on one of the many blunders of the IAAF?

And I highly doubt this was all an elaborate maliciously intended ploy by her to game the system.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

My personal opinion having read the study abstract and some of the critiques of the study/study limitations I was able to find is that the ban, without testosterone modification, didn't go far enough. Should be for all running related distances, not just mile and below. I suspect that the lawyers got involved to maximize the probability of the mile and below ban remaining intact.

You may have read the study abstract, but it appears you don't think the ban has to actually be based on evidence? That is why it is restricted to the events that it is, those are the only events where there is evidence of an advantage.

The CAS ruling was not about what sex Semenya is or what gender she identifies with. Yet that red-herring is what the critics of the Court's decision hang their hats on. They duck the core issue, which is whether male levels of testosterone in female sport fundamentally changes the nature of the competition. The Court says it does.

Then there are those who argue in great detail that the research the Court relied upon is flawed, choosing to ignore what is before their and our own eyes, which is the glaringly obvious gulf between male and female sport, produced - we know - substantially by sex differences in testosterone. Reality does not exist for some unless research says it does.

By the Court's decision Semenya is not denied the right to continue to compete in her sport; but she cannot now do so with an advantage that only those born male can have. As hard as it is for some to accept, the Court came down on the side of fairness - to all women, not just one.

In the end it is quite irrelevant what Semenya identifies with. The issue is solely a biological feature she possesses that is denied her fellow competitors - ironically enough, because of their gender. They do not have male levels of testosterone and the Court has accepted that for athletes like Semenya, much higher than normal female levels of testosterone constitute unfair advantage in a restricted category such as female sport.

Only those consumed by their political agenda - which has nothing to do with sport - refuse to see that. In their simplistic and over-generalised view of what constitutes "female" - for them it is enough to "identify" - they would sacrifice women's sport to that agenda.

I can see that. But sport is all about advantages. Some genetic combinations are better suited for some sports than others. So why is this unfair? As long as she is medically identified as a female she shouldn’t be restricted based on her genetics. Based on that logic people with high natural hemoglobin shouldn’t be allowed to compete either. So what is your logical answer?

Ofcourse it is unfair, but tell that to the short dude wishing to become a professional basketball player

FinnJ wrote:

I can see that. But sport is all about advantages. Some genetic combinations are better suited for some sports than others. So why is this unfair? As long as she is medically identified as a female she shouldn’t be restricted based on her genetics. Based on that logic people with high natural hemoglobin shouldn’t be allowed to compete either. So what is your logical answer?

Ofcourse it is unfair, but tell that to the short dude wishing to become a professional basketball player

What does 'medically identified' mean?

Semenya is biologically male but (supposedly) raised as a female.

Dude you called me a Nazi like three pages ago - don't claim the intellectual high ground here. I have insulted your character because basic decency is a character trait and something necessary for constructive conversation, but I'm repeating myself. I have discussed the scientific and politic aspects of this CAS case A LOT in other threads, that is not why I came to this thread. I agree with the CAS decision in the interim, but hope the IAAF can collect better data before we set this rule in stone. To point #3 - generally these threads have been moderated to remove posts mislabeling Semenya or using slurs. This thread has a gotten a bit out of hand but we will see. Your other points are pretty much noise. If you can't see the difference between labeling someones actions in a discussion (i.e. you being childish) and purposely denying someones identity, I am at a loss, Miss Geezer.

There's a little something here. Again, again, again, again if categorizing 'he' vs. 'she' for sport were so easy this issue wouldn't be before CAS and we wouldn't have been discussing it for the last 10 years. To get around stubborn reactionaries like you I vote we rename the categories to "low-T" and "high-T" so you can't leverage the 'mens' and 'womens' labels to support your disrespect - this seems to be the foundation of your entire argument. The CAS made no determination on her gender, they explicitly acknowledge her as a woman.

Just a tip:

When you have to frantically response to 15 posts calling you crazy, maybe you should step back and reanalyze the situation.

We answered this 6 pages ago. What is biologically male? The whole point of the IAAF ruling was set the metrics for "what is the division between men and women in sport?" If it were as easy as you think it is, we wouldn't be here. Why can people not get this?!?!? LRC is bad for my health.

trollism wrote:

Semenya is biologically male but (supposedly) raised as a female.

Oh well, those in favor of no science won this round, as Coe states he will implement the rule for 1500m running.

Expect another roynd before the CAS.