Testosterone suppressants do not eradicate all the physical advantages of being male. It is also being assumed that the athlete concerned has followed an effective programme of hormone therapy.
Inclusivity in society and the workplace is one thing but in sports it can only be to the detriment of women. It is ironic that those who wish to be fair to the minority of intersex and other athletes are not concerned about fairness to their female competitors, who are the great majority.
Hardloper wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well done. You have completely missed her point. She's a woman and not identifying and transitioning as one.
No I didn't.
Sorry, you did. A decent hobby jogger doesn't become the best in the country through increased training. But an intersex or transgender athlete might.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Sorry, you did. A decent hobby jogger doesn't become the best in the country through increased training. But an intersex or transgender athlete might.
Not if you actually take hormone therapy. No way in hell a well-trained athlete improves their already decent times after hormone therapy.
identify with facts wrote:
It really isn't bigoted to think there should be a running category that doesn't include people with XY chromosomes and the SRY gene.
Magic Mike wrote:
Same with this guy. Why don’t we just go ahead and make a running category with too many melanin genes? Same logic!
If you take your logic to the end conclusion we should only have a single category. You can't have a valid sports category that is contested at a high level for "women" which is simply opt in. There is no reason to have the category then. Why stop there, lets let anyone compete in high school sports if they feel like it. Uncle Rico still wants his chance at fame on the football field. He never really grew up, so why the age discrimination.
Hardloper wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Sorry, you did. A decent hobby jogger doesn't become the best in the country through increased training. But an intersex or transgender athlete might.
Not if you actually take hormone therapy. No way in hell a well-trained athlete improves their already decent times after hormone therapy.
But a male athlete on hormone therapy is still better than
female hobby jogger and most other women.
identify with facts wrote:
identify with facts wrote:
It really isn't bigoted to think there should be a running category that doesn't include people with XY chromosomes and the SRY gene.
Magic Mike wrote:
Same with this guy. Why don’t we just go ahead and make a running category with too many melanin genes? Same logic!
If you take your logic to the end conclusion we should only have a single category. You can't have a valid sports category that is contested at a high level for "women" which is simply opt in. There is no reason to have the category then. Why stop there, lets let anyone compete in high school sports if they feel like it. Uncle Rico still wants his chance at fame on the football field. He never really grew up, so why the age discrimination.
That's the best description I've seen yet: women's sport is an "opt-in" category. Self-selection is the key, not anything objective.
If I was in college today I could identify as a women and do the steeplechase and absolutely dominate. CRUSH the WR!
I always wonder why women don't stand up to this? Are they just more polite?
If men had an obvious cheater in the race they would confront it immediately. Women seem to be ok with this farce.
rojo wrote:
CeCe Telfer, who was born as a man, but now competes as a woman is #2 at the NCAA 2 level in the 100h. How do her fellow competitors feel about the competition? I mean it's kind of laughable right. Last year, she was a very poor athlete on the men's team. Now she's #2 on the NCAA on the women's team.
Why do people insist on calling a man a woman, she, her and so on?????
Here's the thing. Let's say a man who's a drug cheat wants you to call him a "clean athlete."
Do you do it?????? NO YOU DO NOT!
You call him a drug cheat on the front page of this web site!
So why, why, why, why, why do you call a man a woman, just because he wants you to call him a woman????
Him, he, is a MAN. And the same goes for Caster Semenya.
Anyone with a Y chromosome is a man for competition purposes, and should NOT be allowed in women's events.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
I always wonder why women don't stand up to this? Are they just more polite?
If men had an obvious cheater in the race they would confront it immediately. Women seem to be ok with this farce.
If you're against it, then speak up. Don't hide behind women to do it for YOU.
Women do and have been speaking up about this. You just need to pay more attention.
I want to know how someone runs 12.11 and 24.00 but only 55.70.
Bad Wigins wrote:
I want to know how someone runs 12.11 and 24.00 but only 55.70.
54.41
gtfo wrote:
That is an embarrassment to sport.
Also very creepy.
identify with facts wrote:
identify with facts wrote:
It really isn't bigoted to think there should be a running category that doesn't include people with XY chromosomes and the SRY gene.
Magic Mike wrote:
Same with this guy. Why don’t we just go ahead and make a running category with too many melanin genes? Same logic!
If you take your logic to the end conclusion we should only have a single category. You can't have a valid sports category that is contested at a high level for "women" which is simply opt in. There is no reason to have the category then. Why stop there, lets let anyone compete in high school sports if they feel like it. Uncle Rico still wants his chance at fame on the football field. He never really grew up, so why the age discrimination.
Are you comparing women to CHILDREN?
Why do liberals infantilize women?
These hurdles are just a metaphor for life. Her beautiful stride is clearing all the hurdles in life! Way to go dude!
Armstronglivs wrote:
Testosterone suppressants do not eradicate all the physical advantages of being male. It is also being assumed that the athlete concerned has followed an effective programme of hormone therapy.
Inclusivity in society and the workplace is one thing but in sports it can only be to the detriment of women. It is ironic that those who wish to be fair to the minority of intersex and other athletes are not concerned about fairness to their female competitors, who are the great majority.
This also supports a theory of mine. What if an athlete goes through the full rigmarole - HGH, EPO, Steroids etc to BUILD the ultimate body. Get training like you live on an alter-g downhill treadmill. Develop into the ultimate athlete, THEN start a pro career 2 years later out of nowhere.
I came up with this when I saw the magic chinese swimmer that nobody heard of in one olympics and then nobody heard of again.
Runner3000 wrote:
Drainthefecesswamp wrote:
Definitely a limit to "taller is better" in the 100m hurdles. At a certain height, it will become very difficult to run a world class hurdles time. I am 6'1" and I've run the 100m hurdles on a lark in practice. It is extremely difficult for me to chop/shuffle my stride well enough to get my feet down between the hurdles.
There are lost of tall women out there, if it was such an advantage, we would see the women's hurdles filled with tall women at the elite level. But we dont, we see a mixed bag, some women shorter than average, some taller.
Dafne Schippers proves the point well. At 5'10", with 10.8 speed and good hurdle technique, if height was an advantage in the 100m hurdles, she should be setting the world record, but she "only" ran low 13s, because she struggled to shuffle that fast between hurdles. The hurdle wasnt the barrier to success, between the hurdles was.
My wife is 5-5 and can stand over the women's hurdle height. She doesn't have to "jump up" at all to clear a hurdle.
Tldr: The 100m hurdles are low. So the advantage is to the person with the most speed whose natural stride length matches the spacing between the hurdles. Tall people tend to have too long of a stride, so struggle over the 100m hurdles.
Argue against cece being allowed to compete with women if you want, but don't use the argument that height is an advantage in the 100m hurdles.
natural stride length? nah man... It about natural speed and exploding off the blocks that is what makes or break elite 110s Hurdles. Most elite hurdles use the same technique. It is technique and hip flexibility is why you do see 100 m runners run the 110s. I think it is 6 steps instead of 7. I might be wrong, but anyway, Technique and the ability to lead with each leg and other hurdle stuff I am unfamiliar with is all pretty standard when you get to that top level. please correct me if I am wrong. I am not a hurdler, just listened in to their conversions in college.
physiologically If you look at a 6'1 girl their frame isn't conducive to quick explosive movements. Just like a 6'8 or a 7-foot guy. You have your exceptions, but generally speaking, that is the case. It just takes more muscle to move that much weight quick. The high level of testosterone for a guy enables him to have a strong body for the height of 6'1 verse a girl at 6'1.
So if you are talking about girls, then no height isn't a factor, but if you are talking about girls and guys then yes height is an advantage when you factor any the ratio of quick twitch muscle fibers.
bro science? I just thought of this argument when reading your post. any counter arguments?
With the 110m hurdles, yeah, being taller and more explosive is definitely helpful. But with the 100m hurdles, the hurdles are way lower, in fact lower than inseam height for a lot of women runners. The hurdles are also way closer together.
If you take a 6'1" tall person who runs 11.7 (me, a man) and a 5'5" person who runs 11.7 (a man or a woman), that shorter person is likely to kill me in the 100m hurdles, because my stride length running at elite women's hurdles speed (lets say 12.5) is too long. To run at 12.5s 100m speed while going over the hurdles, I will be forced to really chop my stride to a very unnaturally short stride length. My hurdle technique is fine, I was passable over the 42" hurdles, so I can run straight through the 33" hurdles without any loss of speed. What kills me is trying to get 3 steps in before the next hurdle.
Unless somebody was so fast and strong that they could 2 step the hurdles (and alternate legs), being tall becomes a disadvantage.
I say this from experience, when I've screwed around in practice over the 100m hurdles because a female training partner was using the adjacent lane, I really couldn't get my steps down fast enough to not barrel into the second hurdle if I was trying to run at full speed.
Watch elite women's hurdlers, they have no knee drive between hurdles, because they're forced to shuffle between hurdles, and so even these 5'5" to 5'8" women are struggling with crowding in the hurdles.
Another way to think about it: your stride length is set in stone in the hurdles, because everybody fast is going to 3 step the hurdles. If you're a certain height, then running a fast hurdle race your natural stride length is near to what the hurdles force your stride length to be, so it isn't a problem. But the farther you deviate from that ideal height (or rather leg length), the more difficult the hurdles become, because you just run out of room.
Now if a 6'8" transgender woman started hurdling, then maybe they'd have a chance, because maybe now they're tall enough they can just 2 step the hurdles the whole way.
rojo wrote:
So what I'm confused about is why if she's on hormones her times this year aren't any slower than what she ran as a man.
Below you will see a comparison of her PBs as a man and woman.
Man Woman
55 7.01 7.02
60 7.67 7.63
100 12.17 (-1.2) 12.24 (0.6)
200 24.03 24.30 (-3.9)
400 55.77 54.41
55H 7.98 7.91
60H 8.52 8.33
Can someone explain this? Is she just way more motivated as she can now clean up or is something amiss with the hormone treatment? Normally there is a giant drop in performance.
How do her fellow competitors feel about the competition?
I mean it's kind of laughable right. Last year, she was a very poor athlete on the men's team. Now she's #2 on the NCAA on the women's team.
I'm glad that you pasted these. After seeing her dominate a women's race especially in the last portion, I looked at the times and noticed the same thing. Who is supposed to monitor the hormone treatment?? Is it on the honor system? No way is this a suppressed testosterone athlete. Of note CeCe's times were not that great at Indoor DII compared to the season- were hormones temporarily lowered for NCAA Indoor drug testing?
Magic Mike wrote:
identify with facts wrote:
If you take your logic to the end conclusion we should only have a single category. You can't have a valid sports category that is contested at a high level for "women" which is simply opt in. There is no reason to have the category then. Why stop there, lets let anyone compete in high school sports if they feel like it. Uncle Rico still wants his chance at fame on the football field. He never really grew up, so why the age discrimination.
Are you comparing women to CHILDREN?
Why do liberals infantilize women?
You're a bit dim. Women's sport is a restricted category, as is age group sport. The argument above could equally apply to seniors competition as to schools competition. The argument above has nothing to do with "infantilising" women.
If she's ranked #2 she's hardly DOMINATING as the headline suggests. Some gal out there is better than her.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these