joedirt wrote:
The fact that she wasn't tested is the reason Kenya as a nation should be kept out of the world championships. I'm fairly certain USADA has mandatory tests for anyone qualifying for worlds.
They should be banned from the world championships. However, despite a truckload of positive doping tests they are still allowed to compete in international road races when they should have been banned so having them compete in the world champs is sort of consistent.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
Very interesting situation in Kenya.
Reuters is reporting that two women were forced to withdraw from Worlds after refusing to take testosterone level tests. One of them is Jackline Wambui, the World U18 champ in the 800 who won the Kenyan trials in a big PR of 1:58.79.
...
This is also great news for Ajee Wilson. When I saw Wambui's results from the Kenyan trials, I thought she immediately became Wilson's biggest threat for gold. Now she won't even be in Doha.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-kenya-idUSKBN1W42KE
I disagree with J. Wambui being a threat to win world championships. It doesn't really matter because she is out now. But usually you need 1:55-1:56 level to be a competitive for medals. 1:58.79 is just lucky-to-reach-final level. I know you can still improve a lot at 18 yo from one year to the next, but you will not magically find 3 seconds at the end of the season.
Partridge wrote:
Jonathan Gault wrote:
Very interesting situation in Kenya.
Reuters is reporting that two women were forced to withdraw from Worlds after refusing to take testosterone level tests. One of them is Jackline Wambui, the World U18 champ in the 800 who won the Kenyan trials in a big PR of 1:58.79.
...
This is also great news for Ajee Wilson. When I saw Wambui's results from the Kenyan trials, I thought she immediately became Wilson's biggest threat for gold. Now she won't even be in Doha.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-kenya-idUSKBN1W42KEI disagree with J. Wambui being a threat to win world championships. It doesn't really matter because she is out now. But usually you need 1:55-1:56 level to be a competitive for medals. 1:58.79 is just lucky-to-reach-final level. I know you can still improve a lot at 18 yo from one year to the next, but you will not magically find 3 seconds at the end of the season.
It's not really the case now it's a 'women only' event. Only two actual women have gone under 1:58 these year and even then not by very much.
That said, it seems clear that this is an '18 year old' 'female' athlete, so hopefully will be forgotten about now they're on to 'her'.
Armstronglivs wrote:
We are probably talking at cross-purposes here. The rules for eligibility apply to all, according to principles of fairness, but the T-level rule will only affect DSD males because XX competitors cannot naturally have T levels above 5nml, and that includes XX females who are hypoandrogenic. So, yes, the rules explicitly target DSD males competing as females.
How do they decide who has DSD? Do they do a karyotype test on all female competitors?
Don't they normally test for testosterone as a part of the regular PED testing panel, or is this a separate test for testosterone only?
Partridge wrote:
I disagree with J. Wambui being a threat to win world championships. It doesn't really matter because she is out now. But usually you need 1:55-1:56 level to be a competitive for medals. 1:58.79 is just lucky-to-reach-final level. I know you can still improve a lot at 18 yo from one year to the next, but you will not magically find 3 seconds at the end of the season.
1:58 at 6000' altitude for someone that has raced very little in 2019 (only once outside of Nairobi) would at least be enough to put her on the radar of other medal favorites.
C/M Runner wrote:
Don't they normally test for testosterone as a part of the regular PED testing panel, or is this a separate test for testosterone only?
They do, that's why I suspect there might be more situation than we all know...
Athletics Kenya should have never let it get to this point. If these women had been tested in accordance with standard anti-doping standards prior to Doha, then someone would have been well aware of an issue, if there were one.
I wouldn't be surprised if Athletics Kenya had failed to sufficiently test these women throughout the year and they are in the same boat as the two men in the 5k. Refusal to take the testosterone test as a saving face measure for a inadequate anti-doping program.
open question wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
We are probably talking at cross-purposes here. The rules for eligibility apply to all, according to principles of fairness, but the T-level rule will only affect DSD males because XX competitors cannot naturally have T levels above 5nml, and that includes XX females who are hypoandrogenic. So, yes, the rules explicitly target DSD males competing as females.
How do they decide who has DSD? Do they do a karyotype test on all female competitors?
I agree with Armstronglivs here.
It would be far too expensive to do a karyotype test on all female athletes. The first step is a blood test and then karyotype and genetic mutation testing is performed on those women with T above the threshold (currently 5 nmol/L).
Standard drug testing is done based on urinalysis, although the biological passport tests require blood too.
Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:
joedirt wrote:
The fact that she wasn't tested is the reason Kenya as a nation should be kept out of the world championships. I'm fairly certain USADA has mandatory tests for anyone qualifying for worlds.
You think if an individual from the USA refused to be tested it would make sense to remove the entire USA team or maybe, just maybe, remove that individual?
Anyway, here is the only photo I can find of Linda Kahega. Her bests on IAAF show a 52.52 400 and 38.17 for discus.
https://www.nation.co.ke/image/view/-/5014398/highRes/2273466/-/n32wj5z/-/kahega_pix.jpg
That’s a man in pink capris !
Soon they'll have enough of these xys to run their own competition.
As others have said, she may have simply been doping.
But who was the other woman?
jumping jo wrote:
As others have said, she may have simply been doping.
But who was the other woman?
Gonna say that it's just another one with a touch of the Semenyas.
Especially as Wambui translates from Swahili to English as 'Born in the spring time with a large appendage'.
Jackline looks like a teenage female and her voice is one of the lightest and softest of any female in athletics. Most be another reason she is out because I don't see how this athlete can be in the same category as Caster Semenya.
tgirl wrote:
open question wrote:
How do they decide who has DSD? Do they do a karyotype test on all female competitors?
I agree with Armstronglivs here.
It would be far too expensive to do a karyotype test on all female athletes. The first step is a blood test and then karyotype and genetic mutation testing is performed on those women with T above the threshold (currently 5 nmol/L).
Standard drug testing is done based on urinalysis, although the biological passport tests require blood too.
Are you saying that this is how it is actually done? Or are you just speculating?
Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:
Partridge wrote:
I disagree with J. Wambui being a threat to win world championships. It doesn't really matter because she is out now. But usually you need 1:55-1:56 level to be a competitive for medals. 1:58.79 is just lucky-to-reach-final level. I know you can still improve a lot at 18 yo from one year to the next, but you will not magically find 3 seconds at the end of the season.
1:58 at 6000' altitude for someone that has raced very little in 2019 (only once outside of Nairobi) would at least be enough to put her on the radar of other medal favorites.
The altitude is immaterial to an 800 meters distance. Actually an advantage.
messi wrote:
Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:
1:58 at 6000' altitude for someone that has raced very little in 2019 (only once outside of Nairobi) would at least be enough to put her on the radar of other medal favorites.
The altitude is immaterial to an 800 meters distance. Actually an advantage.
Incorrect, especially in the women's event where a greater energy system contribution from aerobic metabolism, the break-even point is closer to 600m.
The correction factor for women in the 800m is typically given as around 1 second but those corrections tend to be overly generous, I would place it closer to a half-second.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
Obviously this is a delicate situation.
HAH! Only insofar as that weirdos exist who want men in women's sports as long as their testes are contained within the ABDOMEN rather than hanging (relatively) free in a SCROTAL SAC!
It's NOT a difficult distinction to make, absent the noise of "social injustice warriors"!
open question wrote:
tgirl wrote:
It would be far too expensive to do a karyotype test on all female athletes. The first step is a blood test and then karyotype and genetic mutation testing is performed on those women with T above the threshold (currently 5 nmol/L).
Standard drug testing is done based on urinalysis, although the biological passport tests require blood too.
Are you saying that this is how it is actually done? Or are you just speculating?
The IAAF shared the process with me. More detail will soon be available here.
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538112960/Sporting-Gender-The-History-Science-and-Stories-of-Transgender-and-Intersex-AthletesOK, I appreciate you sharing it.
One big issue I have had with this whole process is how clouded the actual procedures are. I have no clue why IAAF just doesn't publish them all. They are often their own worst enemy.
