rojo wrote:
The only agenda I have is I wish society would worry mainly about the rightness or wrongness of people's actions rather than their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
We know. That's why you host stuff like this:
"Female only wrote:
The 1987 World championships were a female only championships ?"
"Bush Meat" replied: "No, those are mostly Shemale results. "
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9988412#9988665Although I believe that there are extenuating circumstances to both of these situations, I do agree that the male-female relationship between MC and AS was a little overplayed. Is it specifically damaging in its own way because it's a male coach and young, female athlete? I believe so, but it's also specifically damaging for a female coach to be abusive relative to her female athletes as well; they are different and yet the same, for the same reasons.
The real issue here is that elite athletes deal with the same pressures as everyone else relative to their success and their careers, but athletes deal with the physical aspects of their career more so than anyone else because that's exactly what their jobs are: physical. Being healthy mentally and staying mentally strong is incredibly difficult due to these pressures. Coaches need to step it up and understand that their athletes are all different, and I can't think of a sport that highlights these differences more so than running, at any distance.
A good coach will take his or her style and adapt to suit the needs of the individual athletes, not berate them until they fit the parameters of the coaching strategy. Shaming, telling an athlete that they need to lose weight without giving them tools they need, etc, is just lazy f**king coaching, in my opinion. If you truly believe an athlete will preform better if they lose weight, figure out who that athlete is and how they need to hear that info so it isn't damaging.
The only agenda is to what now? wrote:
rojo wrote:
The only agenda I have is I wish society would worry mainly about the rightness or wrongness of people's actions rather than their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
We know. That's why you host stuff like this:
"Female only wrote:
The 1987 World championships were a female only championships ?"
"Bush Meat" replied: "No, those are mostly Shemale results. "
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9988412#9988665
Rojo, response?
It's relevant because body shaming is perpetrated by both genders, but historically (and presently) is male to female and it's not even close. Real world vs. ideal world.
Zhukov wrote:
It's relevant because body shaming is perpetrated by both genders, but historically (and presently) is male to female and it's not even close. Real world vs. ideal world.
Bingo
I tried to respond to Rojo's post with something thoughtful but ran into "inappropriate language" block. Nothing in my response was innapropriate. These filters are ridiculous.
I used to do gymnastics (I’m female btw) so always get into women’s gymnastics around Olympics time. I remember watching documentaries or interviews with the gymnasts leading up to it and something just didn’t sit right with me regarding this coach. Honestly she seemed like the biggest b**ch and it seemed like it was all about her and what she could get out of it. Just look up images of her, she even looks mean. I’m not surprised this happened.
ready made wrote:
First, Alberto Salazar isn’t a white man. HIS LAST NAME IS SALAZAR.
Always have to introduce race into the subject, do you?
How lame.
obvious911 wrote:
I tried to respond to Rojo's post with something thoughtful but ran into "inappropriate language" block. Nothing in my response was innapropriate. These filters are ridiculous.
When that happened to me it was because Rojo's response had forbidden language in it (a$$hole), but he isn't subject to the moderation filters. So when he wrote it, it slipped through. When we reply to it, we are flagged for inappropriate language the Rojo used.
The first time you essentially defend Salazar against a charge is when he is charged with sexism, because that crosses your political wires, causing a short--you think, "there's no sexism in the world; why are people inventing sexism?"
klo672 wrote:
I used to do gymnastics (I’m female btw) so always get into women’s gymnastics around Olympics time. I remember watching documentaries or interviews with the gymnasts leading up to it and something just didn’t sit right with me regarding this coach. Honestly she seemed like the biggest b**ch and it seemed like it was all about her and what she could get out of it. Just look up images of her, she even looks mean. I’m not surprised this happened.
totally! Her gymnasts were from "MG Elite". it means "Maggie's Girls". One of these gymnasts had to stop training last year because she had rhabdomylosis. that screams abuse right there.
I can see your ego baby wrote:
obvious911 wrote:
I tried to respond to Rojo's post with something thoughtful but ran into "inappropriate language" block. Nothing in my response was innapropriate. These filters are ridiculous.
When that happened to me it was because Rojo's response had forbidden language in it (a$$hole), but he isn't subject to the moderation filters. So when he wrote it, it slipped through. When we reply to it, we are flagged for inappropriate language the Rojo used.
Wow double standard!