BERLIN (AP)—Facing questions about her gender, South African teenager Caster Semenya easily won the 800-meter gold medal Wednesday at the world championships.
Her dominating run came on the same day track and field’s ruling body said she was undergoing a gender test because of concerns she does not meet requirements to compete as a woman.
Semenya took the lead at the halfway mark and opened a commanding lead in the last 400 meters to win by a massive 2.45 seconds in a world-leading 1 minute, 55.45 seconds. Defending champion Janeth Jepkosgei was second and Jennifer Meadows of Britain was third in 1:57.93.
After crossing the line, Semenya dusted her shoulders with her hands. Semenya did not speak to reporters after the race or attend a news conference.
Popular Across Yahoo!Congressman lashes out at protester for Nazi remark Biggest Loser contestants get married 10 cheapest cars worth buying ADVERTISEMENT
About three weeks ago, the international federation asked South African track and field authorities to conduct the verification test. Semenya had burst onto the scene by posting a world-leading time of 1:56.72 at the African junior championships in Maruitius.
Her dramatic improvement in times, muscular build and deep voice sparked speculation about her gender. Ideally, any dispute surrounding an athlete is dealt with before a major competition. But Semenya’s stunning rise from unknown teenage runner to the favorite in the 800 happened almost overnight. That meant the gender test—which takes several weeks—could not be completed in time.
Before the race, IAAF spokesman Nick Davies stressed this is a “medical issue, not an issue of cheating.” He said the “extremely complex” testing has begun. The process requires a physical medical evaluation and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist and gender expert.
South Africa team manager Phiwe Mlangeni-Tsholetsane would not confirm or deny that Semenya was having such a test.
“We entered Caster as a woman and we want to keep it that way,” Mlangeni-Tsholetsane said. “Our conscience is clear in terms of Caster. We have no reservations at all about that.”
Although medals will be awarded for the 800, the race remains under a cloud until the investigation is closed, and Semenya could be stripped of the gold depending on the test results, IAAF general secretary Pierre Weiss said.
“But today there is no proof and the benefit of doubt must always be in favor of the athlete,” Weiss said.
Semenya’s rivals said they tried not to dwell on the issue before the race.
“I’ve heard a lot of speculation, but all I could do was just keep a level head and go about my business,” Meadows said. “If none of it’s true, I feel very sorry for her.”
One thing not in doubt was Semenya’s outstanding run.
“Nobody else in the world can do that sort of time at the moment,” Meadows said. “She obviously took the race by storm.”
BERLIN — On the blue track at the Olympic Stadium, all three medalists celebrated after the women’s 800 meters at the world track and field championships. But when it came time for the postrace news conference, the gold medalist, Caster Semenya, was nowhere to be seen. She had been replaced on the rostrum by Pierre Weiss, the general secretary of the International Association of Athletics Federations, the sport’s governing body.
Caster Semenya at the finish. Earlier in the day, I.A.A.F. officials had confirmed that Semenya, a muscular 18-year-old from South Africa competing in her first senior championship, was undergoing sex-determination testing to confirm her eligibility to race as a woman.
According to Weiss, track and field officials had not had time to resolve the issue before this meet because Semenya had emerged at the world-class level only in the past month. Weiss said that I.A.A.F. officials and South African track and field officials had agreed that it would be too much to ask of an inexperienced teenager to field questions about the gender issue from the news media.
But Weiss stressed that the testing had been initiated because of “ambiguity, not because we believe she is cheating.”
It was an unprecedented scene at a major sports event, one that eclipsed the night’s other finals, including Yusuf Saad Kamel’s victory for Bahrain in the men’s 1,500 meters with Bernard Lagat of the United States taking the bronze medal.
But despite the controversy, Semenya had no apparent difficulty handling the pressure of her first major final. She broke free of her much more experienced competitors on the final lap and won by the huge margin of more than two seconds, finishing in 1 minute 55.45 seconds. (That was still more than two seconds slower than the world record.)
The silver medal went to Janeth Jepkosgei, the defending world champion from Kenya, who finished well back in 1:57.90. The bronze went to Jennifer Meadows of Britain in 1:57.93.
Weiss said that the medal ceremony for the 800 would take place as scheduled on Thursday evening in the stadium but that if the investigation proves Semenya is not a woman, she would be stripped of the gold and the other medalists elevated. The investigation could take weeks, he said.
“But today there is no proof and the benefit of the doubt must always be in favor of the athlete,” he said. “Which is why we had no reason, nothing in our hands, to forbid the athlete to compete today.”
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
But sex-determination testing is a complex process that has often not been handled effectively by sports organizations.
“It turns out genes, hormones and genitals are pretty complicated,” Alice Dreger, a professor of medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, said in a telephone interview. “There isn’t really one simple way to sort out males and females. Sports require that we do, but biology doesn’t care. Biology does not fit neatly into simple categories, so they do these tests. And part of the reason I’ve criticized the tests is that a lot of times, the officials don’t say specifically how they’re testing and why they’re using that test. It should be subject to scientific review.”
Sex-determination testing was once obligatory for female athletes at the Olympics because of persistent allegations that some competitors were not really women. Sanctions are very rare. One case came at the 2006 Asian Games, where a middle-distance runner, Santhi Soundarajan of India, was stripped of a silver medal after failing a verification test.
The sex-determination testing was phased out in 1999 because of concerns about inequities. The testing is now reserved for specific cases in Olympic sports.
Nick Davies, a spokesman for the I.A.A.F., said that Semenya, who is listed at 5 feet 7 and 140 pounds in her I.A.A.F. biography, first came to his organization’s attention this year by slicing more than seven seconds off her best time of 2008 in the 800.
That is a huge drop in a relatively short race, but after running 2:04.23 and winning the 2008 Commonwealth Youth Games, she ran 2:00.58 in a local South African meet on March 9 and burst to prominence by winning the African Junior Championships on July 31 in Bambous, Mauritius, in 1:56.72. That was the fastest time of the year, senior level included.
Davies said that potential doping was the first concern when a dramatic drop in time occurs, but in Semenya’s case, he said the I.A.A.F. had moved on to examining other possibilities.
“We just acted in a way we thought was sensible,” Davies said. “If we would have sat back and done nothing, it would have been very strange of us as well.”
He said the I.A.A.F. had decided to confirm the existence of the investigation only when asked about it in Berlin by reporters. “The choice is that you lie, which we don’t like to do,” said Davies, acknowledging that it was unfortunate that Semenya’s privacy had been violated.
Weiss said there had not been enough time to reach a conclusion. “She was unknown three weeks ago,” he told reporters. “Nobody could anticipate this one. Sorry. We are fast, but we are not a lion.”
He said the I.A.A.F. would have “preferred not to have the controversy” at its marquee event, but not at the price of depriving a potentially eligible athlete like Semenya from competing.
“If none of it’s true, I feel very sorry for her,” said Meadows, the British athlete who sat next to Weiss during the medalists’ news conference.
Weiss said that the two-pronged investigation was being conducted in South Africa and in Berlin in hospitals that specialize in sex-testing issues. He said that Dr. Harold Adams, a South African on the I.A.A.F. medical commission, was helping to coordinate the work in South Africa.
Davies emphasized that the testing is extensive, beginning with a visual evaluation by a physician. “There is chromosome testing, gynecological investigation, all manner of things, organs, X-rays, scans,” he said. “It’s very, very comprehensive.”
Dreger, the Northwestern professor, said the doctors could examine genes, gonads, genitalia, hormone levels and medical history.
“But at the end of the day, they are going to have to make a social decision on what counts as male and female, and they will wrap it up as if it is simply a scientific decision,” Dreger said. “And the science actually tells us sex is messy. Or as I like to say, ‘Humans like categories neat, but nature is a slob.’ ”
Um what? tl;dr this South African teenager won some amazing record and has to have [her] gender "verified". Nothing in the article says anything about her being a hermaphrodite, so I'm confused.
Maybe this could lead to a new pickup line though: "excuse me miss, I'm from the IAAF Internet and I need to perform a gender test on you..."
There was something about really high performing women actually being "male," but with some sort of disorder that makes them look superficially like women (eg penis is ingrown and looks like a vagina, feminine breasts, ect). Don't remember all the details so I don't want to get into it any further.
If someone else could elaborate that would be great.
On August 20 2009 17:09 mahnini wrote: this situation seems fairly familiar. didn't something happen like this before at the olympics or something?
Yeah, there was some "girl" (from Africa or India if I remember correctly) who estabilished a new WR or something like that and then had all the credit taken away since according to the doctors she "didn't resemble female both physically and hormone-wise".
I guess that's all because of steroid abuse in some countries. You know, men grow boobs and lose their sexual powers and women grow hair on their chests etc.
Like this old joke about the German female swimmer speaking to her coach (in a deep bass voice ofc): "Hey coach, I have a problem..." "What is it?" "I've got hair growing..." "Where? On your chest?!" "No, on my balls!"
On August 20 2009 17:14 benjammin wrote: yes, the '66 olympics had soviet union men posing as women to win more medals than the US, it's certainly not unprecedented but not common
On August 20 2009 17:06 Nightmarjoo wrote: Her dominating run came on the same day track and field’s ruling body said she was undergoing a gender test because of concerns she does not meet requirements to compete as a woman.
:O. The way they pose that is absolutely hilarious. As if you have to run an obstacle course to verify your womanness.
I don't understand how hard it is to verify? Maybe the individual has gone through a gender change or whatever but how in the flying fuck would you not be able to know a persons gender otherwise
This has happened before. In case you didn't know, back in the day people were forced to drop their pants infront of some officials to confirm their gender. These days if suspected, they just do a test.
On August 20 2009 17:09 mahnini wrote: this situation seems fairly familiar. didn't something happen like this before at the olympics or something?
Hmm, I didn't follow the Olympics much, the only thing I remember is the controversy around whether China forged some of their gymnasts' papers because of being too young to be eligible.
I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
It's really hard to be objective when the whole idea of people running for medals is pretty stupid anyway. I think the IAAF has done the best they could under the circumstances.
I think it's pretty clear from the photos that she does have a genetic anomaly of some kind. Gender isn't clear-cut so there's always going to be problems when you have categories that aren't easily definable. I doubt she is cheating on purpose and regardless of what the authorities decide she'll still be a "she".
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
Well, she didn't beat the world record, and the other contestants, even if they are the best in the world, didn't have a very good run. If you look at the race carefully, Semenya basically stays with the pack for 600m's, and then accelerates a bit. She doesn't even accelerate drastically, she just ups her pace a notch. The rest of the pack then fail to increase in pace at all, and generally tend to slow down. The fact that Semenya didn't get close to a world record with that run, and still managed to have as big an advantage over the others, makes me think that the others had a bad run, rather than hers being amazing (it was very good though).
But yes, steroids are obviously a threat as well. I'd tend to think that it isn't steroids, as South African athletes have not been involved in many doping scandals that I am aware of. There isn't the same kind of pressure on South African athletes that there are on athletes from, say, the US or Australia, and most athletes don't have the finances to dope before they turn professional, so you don't need to dope to be recognized. There is always the possibly that she did, however.
Regarding the 8 second drop in time, she is described as a teenager in the article, so I don't think it is that unbelievable that she could improve as drastically over two years. It's obviously worth investigating, but physical development during that time could also explain the change. Usain Bolt was in a similar situation. In 2006, his personal record for the 100m was 10.03, and 3 years later he's improved on that by .5 of a second, an amazing improvement for that race.
I think people from poorer countries tend to take steroids or anything of that kind even more; they have nothing to loose. And that husain bolt guy, it won't suprise me at all if he used doping anyway.
On August 20 2009 21:21 Navane wrote: I think people from poorer countries tend to take steroids or anything of that kind even more; they have nothing to loose. And that husain bolt guy, it won't suprise me at all if he used doping anyway.
They've got a few weeks of money for food to lose... I don't think you get what "poorer" countries really means. It means that you have a family of five to take care of with maybe $300 a month. These people don't have the money, or the connections, to buy proper drugs, so even if they could dope, they'd be picked up on in the first test.
In anyway, historically, first world countries have had way more doping problems that other countries.
On August 20 2009 21:10 Daigomi wrote: Well, she didn't beat the world record, and the other contestants, even if they are the best in the world, didn't have a very good run. If you look at the race carefully, Semenya basically stays with the pack for 600m's, and then accelerates a bit. She doesn't even accelerate drastically, she just ups her pace a notch. The rest of the pack then fail to increase in pace at all, and generally tend to slow down. The fact that Semenya didn't get close to a world record with that run, and still managed to have as big an advantage over the others, makes me think that the others had a bad run, rather than hers being amazing (it was very good though).
It's called sandbagging, could've easily been done to "blend in" to the race rather than just go off and shave even more time.
On August 20 2009 21:10 Daigomi wrote: Regarding the 8 second drop in time, she is described as a teenager in the article, so I don't think it is that unbelievable that she could improve as drastically over two years. It's obviously worth investigating, but physical development during that time could also explain the change. Usain Bolt was in a similar situation. In 2006, his personal record for the 100m was 10.03, and 3 years later he's improved on that by .5 of a second, an amazing improvement for that race.
Her drop was 8 seconds in a years time. When you're around that 2:00 mark, that's pretty big and unusual. .5 seconds over 3 years in the 100M is great, but plausible.
Honestly, I don't know what it is here - we'll have to see. I won't be shocked if she is a he though.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
This isn't being framed as a steroid story and considering this is track and field, it probably was steroid induced. Does anyone really believe Bolt's new record is clean? If so, I've got Luis Gonzales' 57th homerun ball to sell you.
This is being framed as something totally different, and the scrutiny/ridicule she's facing is pretty unfair.
On a related note, a canadian bloke that undervent a sex change became national champion in MTB Downhill a couple of years ago. For some weird reason the "real" girls were not so happy about that. Dont remember all the facts about the story.
Because in the majority of them, women would never even qualify. You can look at the differences in world records for most events to see the discrepancy.
holy crap she definetly looks like a man. seriously. no sign of breast in the chest area. arms so manly-built that even female bodybuilders wish they could have. waist area could not possible be more squared. ab muscles look unsual on her. and her thies are not thick-er like women's. if you just compared her to any of the other runners in that video...
On August 20 2009 21:10 Daigomi wrote: Regarding the 8 second drop in time, she is described as a teenager in the article, so I don't think it is that unbelievable that she could improve as drastically over two years. It's obviously worth investigating, but physical development during that time could also explain the change. Usain Bolt was in a similar situation. In 2006, his personal record for the 100m was 10.03, and 3 years later he's improved on that by .5 of a second, an amazing improvement for that race.
Her drop was 8 seconds in a years time. When you're around that 2:00 mark, that's pretty big and unusual. .5 seconds over 3 years in the 100M is great, but plausible.
Honestly, I don't know what it is here - we'll have to see. I won't be shocked if she is a he though.
Well, she was running at 2:04, a very average time, which she them improved to 1:56, a very competitive time. It's not like she went from 2:00 to 1:52. And as I said, the 2:04 time was set up when she was still running in the world youth championships, so it's not unbelievable that she still developed physically after that. Also if you look at it, she actually won the youth championships with her time of 2:04, which means she was a top junior athlete at that time already, so I don't find it completely unreasonable to believe that she could have improved from a top junior athlete into a strong senior athlete within a year.
Bolt's time might be less if you do a direct conversion, but I think that the amount of change is similar. Bolt went from an average sprinter in 2006, to the fastest man ever in 2009. I mean, the difference between 10 seconds and 9.5 seconds in the 100m is huge. Also Jibba, I think Bolt's run was done without doping. He's been tested tons of times, he's said that he is willing to be tested whenever, and more importantly, if you look at his body and his technique, it is very believable that he could run the times he does. His stride is huge in comparison with the other runners, and yet he is almost perfectly agile and in control. Also, if you doubt his new record, you have to doubt his old record as well, as with his old record he was well on his way to setting up a similar time, until he decided to jog the last bit.
Back to Semenya though, I'm not saying that she shouldn't be investigated for doping and what not, simply that it is conceivable than an improvement like that would occur naturally.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
This isn't being framed as a steroid story and considering this is track and field, it probably was steroid induced. Does anyone really believe Bolt's new record is clean? If so, I've got Luis Gonzales' 57th homerun ball to sell you.
Sure, sit back in your armchair and libel someone based on the evidence that...oh right--you have no evidence. Way to go, Jibba. (obviously libel is not really an issue here because nobody cares about your opinion, but even so...not cool.)
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
This isn't being framed as a steroid story and considering this is track and field, it probably was steroid induced. Does anyone really believe Bolt's new record is clean? If so, I've got Luis Gonzales' 57th homerun ball to sell you.
Sure, sit back in your armchair and libel someone based on the evidence that...oh right--you have no evidence. Way to go, Jibba. (obviously libel is not really an issue here because nobody cares about your opinion, but even so...not cool.)
T&F is as dirty as baseball has ever been and they have no problem turning a blind eye to it for the same reasons MLB did. Bolt made a similar ridiculous improvement in his time from 2007 to 2008 and he also comes from a program with poor testing and other steroid implicated athletes. The real issue is that none of these substances should be banned, but to pretend his performance isn't suspicious is ludicrous.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
This isn't being framed as a steroid story and considering this is track and field, it probably was steroid induced. Does anyone really believe Bolt's new record is clean? If so, I've got Luis Gonzales' 57th homerun ball to sell you.
Sure, sit back in your armchair and libel someone based on the evidence that...oh right--you have no evidence. Way to go, Jibba. (obviously libel is not really an issue here because nobody cares about your opinion, but even so...not cool.)
T&F is as dirty as baseball has ever been and they have no problem turning a blind eye to it for the same reasons MLB did. Bolt made a similar ridiculous improvement in his time from 2007 to 2008 and he also comes from a program with poor testing and other steroid implicated athletes. The real issue is that none of these substances should be banned, but to pretend his performance isn't suspicious is ludicrous.
I'm not sure about which substances you're talking but steroids/... should be banned. I want to see the best athlete, not the most chemically enhanced. I don't know if Bolt is cheating but I think no more than the other 7 guys in the final.
Btw: Semenya won easily but it's ridiculous that that would be suspicious. Isinbayeva always wins the pole vault(not this time). Vlasic was also utterly dominant in the high jump. I'm not saying she shouldn't be investigated but "look at her" or "she won too easily" are dumb arguments.
It's now well accepted (in academic circles) gender and sex, which by the way are different things, are far more fluid than male/female. Intersex is the term preferred over hermaphrodite, because it's more accurate, and chromosome disorders are not the only way in which they come about. Other genetic differences, partial chromosomal disorders, and the prenatal environment are also important. Point being, sports rely on a rigid male-female divide which doesn't exist. Hence the numerous tests needed.
As for whether or not she's outstanding...For anybody who follows any sort of distance sport, you know WR or even times in general are a lousy way to judge performance by. Sandbagging was mentioned previously. Distance sports are far more strategic than sprints (or more specifically time trials), mainly because you move faster in a pack due to wind drafting, and you can't rely on a straight-up times to judge a competitor.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
This isn't being framed as a steroid story and considering this is track and field, it probably was steroid induced. Does anyone really believe Bolt's new record is clean? If so, I've got Luis Gonzales' 57th homerun ball to sell you.
Sure, sit back in your armchair and libel someone based on the evidence that...oh right--you have no evidence. Way to go, Jibba. (obviously libel is not really an issue here because nobody cares about your opinion, but even so...not cool.)
T&F is as dirty as baseball has ever been and they have no problem turning a blind eye to it for the same reasons MLB did. Bolt made a similar ridiculous improvement in his time from 2007 to 2008 and he also comes from a program with poor testing and other steroid implicated athletes. The real issue is that none of these substances should be banned, but to pretend his performance isn't suspicious is ludicrous.
I'm not sure about which substances you're talking but steroids/... should be banned. I want to see the best athlete, not the most chemically enhanced. I don't know if Bolt is cheating but I think no more than the other 7 guys in the final.
Btw: Semenya won easily but it's ridiculous that that would be suspicious. Isinbayeva always wins the pole vault(not this time). Vlasic was also utterly dominant in the high jump. I'm not saying the shouldn't be investigated but "look at her" or "she won too easily" are dumb arguments.
I want to see the most chemically enhanced.
Also, its pretty funny to see other female runners, who sacrifice nearly all their "obvious" femininity to become T&F athletes, saying things like "Just look at her." Particularly, when I wouldn't be able to differentiate most female T&F athletes from crack addicts in a line up.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
What I do find rather shitty though is some of the other contestants' responses to the situation:
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
and
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
The other contestants' responses are really crappy. But I don't know how can you say that there's nothing wrong with her, it's top of the world that compete there, yet she comes way ahead. Sure, things like that do happen, but have you read the entire article you're quoting? Semenya had over 7 second drop in the times she runs 800m (which isn't a very long distance) during a year, that's pretty huge. I don't know if she's a male or not, I'm more concerned that they fed her with steroids and that's why she won. I hope that they're going to clear her and it'll be just that she's in her golden age now, a new talent blahblahblah and she won fair and square.
This isn't being framed as a steroid story and considering this is track and field, it probably was steroid induced. Does anyone really believe Bolt's new record is clean? If so, I've got Luis Gonzales' 57th homerun ball to sell you.
Sure, sit back in your armchair and libel someone based on the evidence that...oh right--you have no evidence. Way to go, Jibba. (obviously libel is not really an issue here because nobody cares about your opinion, but even so...not cool.)
T&F is as dirty as baseball has ever been and they have no problem turning a blind eye to it for the same reasons MLB did. Bolt made a similar ridiculous improvement in his time from 2007 to 2008 and he also comes from a program with poor testing and other steroid implicated athletes. The real issue is that none of these substances should be banned, but to pretend his performance isn't suspicious is ludicrous.
I'm not sure about which substances you're talking but steroids/... should be banned. I want to see the best athlete, not the most chemically enhanced. I don't know if Bolt is cheating but I think no more than the other 7 guys in the final.
Btw: Semenya won easily but it's ridiculous that that would be suspicious. Isinbayeva always wins the pole vault(not this time). Vlasic was also utterly dominant in the high jump. I'm not saying the shouldn't be investigated but "look at her" or "she won too easily" are dumb arguments.
I want to see the most chemically enhanced.
Also, its pretty funny to see other female runners, who sacrifice nearly all their "obvious" femininity to become T&F athletes, saying things like "Just look at her." Particularly, when I wouldn't be able to differentiate most female T&F athletes from crack addicts in a line up.
Exactly. If she had long hair, she wouldn't look much different than most other female runners.
And why are chemical enhancements (even though corticosteroids get abused like crazy except no one mentions that) off limits but other types aren't? I'm not sure how HGH is fundamentally more "unnatural" (doesn't mean anything) or immoral than sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber.
On August 20 2009 19:24 Daigomi wrote: I don't know about this one. Obviously I hope she's properly female, but I don't think it would be too bad if she turned out to be physically female, but due to some chromosone disorder she's actually male or something. As long as the South African government didn't fuck up and do something stupid again, I'd be happy.
From the photos, she looks very masculine, but in the race itself she doesn't look masculine to me. In all honesty though, it looks more like the rest of the runners sucked than that she was amazing. I mean, the time was still 2 seconds off of the WR, and she just picked up a bit of speed at the end and nobody else could sprint to the finishing line.
Not all of the finalists agreed. “These kind of people should not run with us,” Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. “For me, she’s not a woman. She’s a man.”
Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. “Just look at her,” Savinova said.
I mean seriously, have a little respect for a fellow competitor before you make judgements, regardless of how they look.
All in all, I just hope SA doesn't get another embarassment
Huh? It looks very manly to me. Maybe you confused her with the other African girl?
On August 21 2009 10:05 Savio wrote: At first after reading OP, I thought "This is ridiculous" then after seeing the pics I thought, "HOLY COW!"
So I guess its a good idea. A bit embarrassing for her. But if she was using steroids, then she needs to be called out and dismissed.
Frankly, something is up
I don't think steroids are the question. It's what's between the legs. Judging by the appearance, it's probably a penis. (And I don't mean that in a literal sense, necessarily. I mean, they're probably going to find that "she" isn't woman enough to compete with women. Based on the way "she" looks.)
Nothing wrong with gender test, considering that the competition was split into two field. Although the definition of a women is not very deterministic, whether it is just pants down, chromosome test or whatever, I bet there isn't a fix line between the split of male/female. I would say the best way to categorise women are those who can get pregnant and give birth naturally, which I guess is not hard to find out.
Davies emphasized that the testing is extensive, beginning with a visual evaluation by a physician. “There is chromosome testing, gynecological investigation, all manner of things, organs, X-rays, scans,” he said. “It’s very, very comprehensive.”
it isn't just a matter of seeing if something is dangling between the runner's legs. many people are born with both sets of genetalia. that does not necessarily mean they are men.
it could be a genetic defect. its common knowledge that there are men (born with a functional penis and fertile), but develop large breasts and sharp voice.
likely i wouldnt be surprised if there are women (with a fertile and functioning vagain) with 6 packs.
On August 21 2009 13:26 dybydx wrote: it could be a genetic defect. its common knowledge that there are men (born with a functional penis and fertile), but develop large breasts and sharp voice.
likely i wouldnt be surprised if there are women (with a fertile and functioning vagain) with 6 packs.
6 pack..really?
they have to verify the hormone levels, they could be injecting her with testosterone, or she could simply have a genetic mutation which leads to higher testosterone production, either way I'm pretty sure they checked if she had a penis.
How intriguing. I'd be interested to know more about the testing they do to determine gender in situations like this. Maybe a third gender category could be introduced for the future. Please choose from the following. [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Hermaphrodite/Transexual/Unsure at the moment.
Also wonder if being hormonally imbalanced would affect gymnastics.
This line from the article is amazing. "Weiss said there had not been enough time to reach a conclusion. “She was unknown three weeks ago,” he told reporters. “Nobody could anticipate this one. Sorry. We are fast, but we are not a lion.”
On August 22 2009 02:57 lazz wrote: can she give birth? woman
can't give birth? it's a man, baby.
You know a lot of women can't give birth right?
ok, ill agree that infertility is an exception to this rule, if a woman has all the tubes and shit set up right, hormones at a woman-like level but it's just that their eggs dont work thats close enough. anything other than that though.. wtf it's a man
Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
On August 20 2009 22:11 L wrote: Because in the majority of them, women would never even qualify. You can look at the differences in world records for most events to see the discrepancy.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
On August 20 2009 22:11 L wrote: Because in the majority of them, women would never even qualify. You can look at the differences in world records for most events to see the discrepancy.
So why have sports events for women at all?
Because they can't qualify in the male tournaments? That should be pretty obvious.
Even if it's scientifically judged that Caster Semenya is past whatever maleness threshold they're setting, there's a decent chance that s/he was raised as a girl etc. and was not intentionally trying to cheat. Some people just are born and develop very ambiguously.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
But they don't.
They're not allowed to compete together for that reason. Some sports are excluded for male advantage, some are excluded for female advantage. The difference in upper body strength is mitigated by much better flexibility and better leverage.
Actually, I believe the biggest advantage men have over women is simply height, not muscle composition. Durability is worse for females (the number of ligament tears for women is ridiculously high compared to male athletes) though.
On August 21 2009 15:09 Arnic wrote: How intriguing. I'd be interested to know more about the testing they do to determine gender in situations like this. Maybe a third gender category could be introduced for the future. Please choose from the following. [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Hermaphrodite/Transexual/Unsure at the moment.
Also wonder if being hormonally imbalanced would affect gymnastics.
This line from the article is amazing. "Weiss said there had not been enough time to reach a conclusion. “She was unknown three weeks ago,” he told reporters. “Nobody could anticipate this one. Sorry. We are fast, but we are not a lion.”
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
But they don't.
They're not allowed to compete together for that reason. Some sports are excluded for male advantage, some are excluded for female advantage. The difference in upper body strength is mitigated by much better flexibility and better leverage.
Actually, I believe the biggest advantage men have over women is simply height, not muscle composition. Durability is worse for females (the number of ligament tears for women is ridiculously high compared to male athletes) though.
Yeah. its definitely the height. And men aren't felxible. (leverage?)
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Semenya doesn't appear to be very feminine but I guess that doesn't mean she's a man. Maybe she's just a masculine chick in which case I'm glad she can have success with athletics because I'm sure other parts of her life suffer.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Jibba, what is this politically correct nonsense of yours? I want you to show me proof in any sport requiring physical exertion that a woman can compete with a man. I'm not talking about amateurs here, I'm talking at the highest level. I challenge you to show me any sport, even one, where a woman can compete with men at the highest level. You think height is the only factor that gives men the advantage? Are you pretending to be ignorant? Women cannot even touch men when it comes to physical sports. It's not even close.
"Women have the same lower body strength as men". Yeah I've heard that trash before as well. If that's the case, why don't women have any records in weight lifting that compare to men? Get your facts straight before you tell me not to post because I challenge your flawed worldview where women and men are one in the same. There's nothing wrong with women being physically weaker than men, it's just a reality. How can you challenge that?
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Are you serious? I wrestled for 6 years, 4 being in High School. I can tell you two things. Wrestling is mostly technical, but in a match against a girl, the girl will more often than not lose the vast majority because the sheer disadavantage of muscle tissue and strength. Women genetically have near double the fat content as men. Why do you think men can lift 500+ lbs and no women can do that without abusing steroids (I'm not even sure even with abuse they can). Strength does play a huge role in wrestling. Try getting out from bottom position being a female. Isn't going to happen. When I played all the female wrestlers I saw sucked ass precisely because of strength reasoning.
You do know genetically there are vast differences between men and women and this is why sports are seperated between men and women. I'd love to see a women try and play football, hockey, or baseball with men. They would get creamed figuratively of course.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Dude stop trying to make excuses for the time that girl pinned you. If you stop talking about it maybe people will forget.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Dude stop trying to make excuses for the time that girl pinned you. If you stop talking about it maybe people will forget.
edit: you're retarded lol
i dont get what you are saying. pound for pound, men are stronger as they have more muscle % and women are more fatty. also, its not just strength that is a weaker aspect. ever seen a female soccer match? they lack alot of control and coordination, i dont know how to explain this in terms of physique though
In terms of physical/athletic power, women are roughly equivalent to 14 year old boys. This is based on comparing records from various athletic activities.
You think Korean pro's sacrificed a lot? Apparently these women sacrifice their gender as well as everything else to be that good. When was the last time you heard of some guy cutting off his wang to play Starcraft better.
That must suck for her. If she was raised a girl and there was this much testing needed she obviously doesn't have the physical male characteristics. Must be very humiliating to believe you're a woman and have your self image shattered in the world news while being stripped of a medal. Obv she should still continue her life as if she's a woman because physically she is, it's when you start doing extensive tests she becomes other which gets grouped with men.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
lol WHAT?! Yes, because linemen are all about elbow flexibility.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Are you serious? I wrestled for 6 years, 4 being in High School. I can tell you two things. Wrestling is mostly technical, but in a match against a girl, the girl will more often than not lose the vast majority because the sheer disadavantage of muscle tissue and strength. Women genetically have near double the fat content as men. Why do you think men can lift 500+ lbs and no women can do that without abusing steroids (I'm not even sure even with abuse they can). Strength does play a huge role in wrestling. Try getting out from bottom position being a female. Isn't going to happen. When I played all the female wrestlers I saw sucked ass precisely because of strength reasoning.
You do know genetically there are vast differences between men and women and this is why sports are seperated between men and women. I'd love to see a women try and play football, hockey, or baseball with men. They would get creamed figuratively of course.
Hayley Wickenheiser "In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists." from Wikipedia.
It's been done, but I wonder if there'll ever be mixed professional leagues in any physical sport. We're not likely going to see a woman show up and KO Floyd Mayweather anytime soon.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Are you serious? I wrestled for 6 years, 4 being in High School. I can tell you two things. Wrestling is mostly technical, but in a match against a girl, the girl will more often than not lose the vast majority because the sheer disadavantage of muscle tissue and strength. Women genetically have near double the fat content as men. Why do you think men can lift 500+ lbs and no women can do that without abusing steroids (I'm not even sure even with abuse they can). Strength does play a huge role in wrestling. Try getting out from bottom position being a female. Isn't going to happen. When I played all the female wrestlers I saw sucked ass precisely because of strength reasoning.
You do know genetically there are vast differences between men and women and this is why sports are seperated between men and women. I'd love to see a women try and play football, hockey, or baseball with men. They would get creamed figuratively of course.
Hayley Wickenheiser "In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists." from Wikipedia.
It's been done, but I wonder if there'll ever be mixed professional leagues in any physical sport. We're not likely going to see a woman show up and KO Floyd Mayweather anytime soon.
In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists.[2][4][5] Wickenheiser joined a European league to play professional hockey, as the game is more open and less physical than North American leagues. This attempt to play professional hockey was not an entirely smooth process, as Wickenheiser was initially slated to play in Italy, until the Italian Winter Sports Federation ruled that women were ineligible to play in a men's league. She also turned down an offer from Phil Esposito to play for the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL. Finland's Hockey Federation unanimously supported letting women play in a men's league, allowing her to debut with HC Salamat in the Suomi-sarja, the third highest hockey league in Finland, on January 10, 2003.[6] Wickenheiser played briefly with Salamat in 2004. They had won promotion to Mestis, Finland's second tier of professional hockey, and this was not as good a fit for her. She left the team after ten games.
In 2007, Wickenheiser had a week-long tryout contract with Swedish club IFK Arboga IK in the Swedish male third league. After two practice games, where Wickenheiser scored two goals in the first game, she was not offered a contract.[7] In 2008, Wickenheiser signed a one year contract with Eskilstuna Linden, also in the Swedish men's third league.[8][9]
She didn't play in the NHL, she played in some European league. That's like tossgirl coming and winning a foreign tourney.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Are you serious? I wrestled for 6 years, 4 being in High School. I can tell you two things. Wrestling is mostly technical, but in a match against a girl, the girl will more often than not lose the vast majority because the sheer disadavantage of muscle tissue and strength. Women genetically have near double the fat content as men. Why do you think men can lift 500+ lbs and no women can do that without abusing steroids (I'm not even sure even with abuse they can). Strength does play a huge role in wrestling. Try getting out from bottom position being a female. Isn't going to happen. When I played all the female wrestlers I saw sucked ass precisely because of strength reasoning.
You do know genetically there are vast differences between men and women and this is why sports are seperated between men and women. I'd love to see a women try and play football, hockey, or baseball with men. They would get creamed figuratively of course.
Hayley Wickenheiser "In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists." from Wikipedia.
It's been done, but I wonder if there'll ever be mixed professional leagues in any physical sport. We're not likely going to see a woman show up and KO Floyd Mayweather anytime soon.
In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists.[2][4][5] Wickenheiser joined a European league to play professional hockey, as the game is more open and less physical than North American leagues. This attempt to play professional hockey was not an entirely smooth process, as Wickenheiser was initially slated to play in Italy, until the Italian Winter Sports Federation ruled that women were ineligible to play in a men's league. She also turned down an offer from Phil Esposito to play for the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL. Finland's Hockey Federation unanimously supported letting women play in a men's league, allowing her to debut with HC Salamat in the Suomi-sarja, the third highest hockey league in Finland, on January 10, 2003.[6] Wickenheiser played briefly with Salamat in 2004. They had won promotion to Mestis, Finland's second tier of professional hockey, and this was not as good a fit for her. She left the team after ten games.
In 2007, Wickenheiser had a week-long tryout contract with Swedish club IFK Arboga IK in the Swedish male third league. After two practice games, where Wickenheiser scored two goals in the first game, she was not offered a contract.[7] In 2008, Wickenheiser signed a one year contract with Eskilstuna Linden, also in the Swedish men's third league.[8][9]
She didn't play in the NHL, she played in some European league. That's like tossgirl coming and winning a foreign tourney.
"the third highest hockey league in Finland"
Is the important part.
She was playing in the THIRD league... Thats not even close to top level. She for sure wasn't bad, but competing with really good males? Never... It also states she dropped out once her team went a league up. Also i don't know about the overall quality of finlands hockey league (every european country has it's own and the quality between countries varies widely).
She was good, very good, staggeringly good - for a woman.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Jibba, you seem to be relatively intelligent, so I have to assume that you are trolling here. You can't seriously believe, based on armchair theory-spinning, that women have a pound-for-pound advantage over men in wrestling. Lots of people in the thread have already explained why you're wrong (pound-for-pound != strength-for-strength; if you adjusted for body-fat percentage then it might be an interesting question), but all else aside, the data does exist. It's not as though women have never competed against men in wrestling.
Because of Title IX, and a dearth of women's wrestling programs, women have frequently wrestled in the "men's" wrestling program, especially in high school. In high school wrestling, especially at lower weight classes, girls have had some success; there was even one who won the Alaska state championship (for her weight class) a few years ago. However, at 103 pounds, most boys of that weight have probably not finished going through puberty. Perhaps it is hard to judge who does better overall at low weight classes in high school because of the disparity in numbers; although boys win nearly all of the titles, there are also far more boys competing in high school wrestling than girls.
In any case, once you start talking about fully grown men and women, there is no longer any question. Women are allowed to compete against men in college as well, if there is no women's wrestling program; that rarely happens, simply because they don't have the strength to compete. I remember reading about one exception to the rule: Patricia Miranda. She wrestled throughout her college career, losing every match she started in. Finally she picked up a single victory, which was considered extremely impressive, since it was only the second time a woman had beaten a man in NCAA history. She then went on to get a bronze medal in the Olympics.
I don't have time to read all seven pages so maybe this has already been done to death, but the line between men and women can get very blurred sometimes. As has been said, at one point they would have a panel of judges visually inspect the athletes before the competition. Eventually somebody realized how barbaric that was, and they started testing for the XX karyotype. Unfortunately that doesn't really work either, and it ruined the careers of several great athletes.
Embryos all start developing as females. At a specific point early on, the SRY gene (located on Y chromosome) activates, releasing androgen which starts a cascade of reactions ultimately leading to the development of the fetus as a male. If the SRY gene is broken or missing, or if the androgen receptors aren't working properly, or a whole host of other issues, you will develop as a female even with the XY karyotype. There have also been cases of people with XX that have the SRY transposed onto the X chromosome that end up developing as males. By ALL appearances (they're even fertile in some cases), these people are the sex they appear to be... but they would fail a genetics based gender test.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out),
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Are you serious? I wrestled for 6 years, 4 being in High School. I can tell you two things. Wrestling is mostly technical, but in a match against a girl, the girl will more often than not lose the vast majority because the sheer disadavantage of muscle tissue and strength. Women genetically have near double the fat content as men. Why do you think men can lift 500+ lbs and no women can do that without abusing steroids (I'm not even sure even with abuse they can). Strength does play a huge role in wrestling. Try getting out from bottom position being a female. Isn't going to happen. When I played all the female wrestlers I saw sucked ass precisely because of strength reasoning.
You do know genetically there are vast differences between men and women and this is why sports are seperated between men and women. I'd love to see a women try and play football, hockey, or baseball with men. They would get creamed figuratively of course.
Hayley Wickenheiser "In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists." from Wikipedia.
It's been done, but I wonder if there'll ever be mixed professional leagues in any physical sport. We're not likely going to see a woman show up and KO Floyd Mayweather anytime soon.
In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists.[2][4][5] Wickenheiser joined a European league to play professional hockey, as the game is more open and less physical than North American leagues. This attempt to play professional hockey was not an entirely smooth process, as Wickenheiser was initially slated to play in Italy, until the Italian Winter Sports Federation ruled that women were ineligible to play in a men's league. She also turned down an offer from Phil Esposito to play for the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL. Finland's Hockey Federation unanimously supported letting women play in a men's league, allowing her to debut with HC Salamat in the Suomi-sarja, the third highest hockey league in Finland, on January 10, 2003.[6] Wickenheiser played briefly with Salamat in 2004. They had won promotion to Mestis, Finland's second tier of professional hockey, and this was not as good a fit for her. She left the team after ten games.
In 2007, Wickenheiser had a week-long tryout contract with Swedish club IFK Arboga IK in the Swedish male third league. After two practice games, where Wickenheiser scored two goals in the first game, she was not offered a contract.[7] In 2008, Wickenheiser signed a one year contract with Eskilstuna Linden, also in the Swedish men's third league.[8][9]
She didn't play in the NHL, she played in some European league. That's like tossgirl coming and winning a foreign tourney.
It's not even close to that. 2-10-12 in 23 games is barely .5 ppg, and that's in the scrub leagues of the very finesse-orientated European leagues. It's good for a woman, but no where near good for a professional. She'd get absolutely dominated in the ECHL, which isn't exactly a high level of skill either. The physical NA game would kill her. The only position where a woman could possibly truly succeed in hockey would be goalie, but size might kill them there as well.
Women in men's sports (besides HS wrestling with a 104pound girl beating a mid-puberty guy of same weight) doesn't work. Even sports that don't really put an emphasis on strength (say, soccer) they'd still get beat. It's required enough that the difference would do them in. Any girls that can compete and succeed in mens sports are a total aberration, maybe something liek %1 percent of the athletic population
i was reading an article about the runner. they probably won't take away her medals but they will ask her not to continue pursuing her career or running (apparently it's happened 4x before).
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Are you serious? I wrestled for 6 years, 4 being in High School. I can tell you two things. Wrestling is mostly technical, but in a match against a girl, the girl will more often than not lose the vast majority because the sheer disadavantage of muscle tissue and strength. Women genetically have near double the fat content as men. Why do you think men can lift 500+ lbs and no women can do that without abusing steroids (I'm not even sure even with abuse they can). Strength does play a huge role in wrestling. Try getting out from bottom position being a female. Isn't going to happen. When I played all the female wrestlers I saw sucked ass precisely because of strength reasoning.
You do know genetically there are vast differences between men and women and this is why sports are seperated between men and women. I'd love to see a women try and play football, hockey, or baseball with men. They would get creamed figuratively of course.
Hayley Wickenheiser "In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists." from Wikipedia.
It's been done, but I wonder if there'll ever be mixed professional leagues in any physical sport. We're not likely going to see a woman show up and KO Floyd Mayweather anytime soon.
In 2003, Wickenheiser became the first woman to score a goal playing in a men's professional league. Over the course of the season, Wickenheiser played 23 games, scoring 2 goals and adding 10 assists.[2][4][5] Wickenheiser joined a European league to play professional hockey, as the game is more open and less physical than North American leagues. This attempt to play professional hockey was not an entirely smooth process, as Wickenheiser was initially slated to play in Italy, until the Italian Winter Sports Federation ruled that women were ineligible to play in a men's league. She also turned down an offer from Phil Esposito to play for the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL. Finland's Hockey Federation unanimously supported letting women play in a men's league, allowing her to debut with HC Salamat in the Suomi-sarja, the third highest hockey league in Finland, on January 10, 2003.[6] Wickenheiser played briefly with Salamat in 2004. They had won promotion to Mestis, Finland's second tier of professional hockey, and this was not as good a fit for her. She left the team after ten games.
In 2007, Wickenheiser had a week-long tryout contract with Swedish club IFK Arboga IK in the Swedish male third league. After two practice games, where Wickenheiser scored two goals in the first game, she was not offered a contract.[7] In 2008, Wickenheiser signed a one year contract with Eskilstuna Linden, also in the Swedish men's third league.[8][9]
She didn't play in the NHL, she played in some European league. That's like tossgirl coming and winning a foreign tourney.
"the third highest hockey league in Finland"
Is the important part.
She was playing in the THIRD league... Thats not even close to top level. She for sure wasn't bad, but competing with really good males? Never... It also states she dropped out once her team went a league up. Also i don't know about the overall quality of finlands hockey league (every european country has it's own and the quality between countries varies widely).
She was good, very good, staggeringly good - for a woman.
Hi, I'm Finnish. There's the SM-League, which, albeit still quite low compared to the international standards and comparing to NHL and even the Russian and Swedish and Swiss leagues, is still quite high-caliber and has plenty of national team players. Then there's Mestis aka mestausliiga, which is the second-highest league. There's basically only a couple of decent teams, and most of the games are really bad from what I've seen in the television. The worst teams there are total garbage, and the players don't really earn a lot of money. I believe that quite a few of the worse players could almost be considered amateurs from the amount of money they earn.
Then the third league is... very bad, total garbage. -_- Getting that kind of scores there could be compared to... Oh I don't even know, Tossgirl placing 4th in a SC2GG Weekly.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out),
I can do this sup
Damn, I didn't know you were a girl!
Actually, I could touch mine too, but not aligning the arms "straight out", instead a little bent like this "\/".
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Jibba, you seem to be relatively intelligent, so I have to assume that you are trolling here. You can't seriously believe, based on armchair theory-spinning, that women have a pound-for-pound advantage over men in wrestling. Lots of people in the thread have already explained why you're wrong (pound-for-pound != strength-for-strength; if you adjusted for body-fat percentage then it might be an interesting question), but all else aside, the data does exist. It's not as though women have never competed against men in wrestling.
Because of Title IX, and a dearth of women's wrestling programs, women have frequently wrestled in the "men's" wrestling program, especially in high school. In high school wrestling, especially at lower weight classes, girls have had some success; there was even one who won the Alaska state championship (for her weight class) a few years ago. However, at 103 pounds, most boys of that weight have probably not finished going through puberty. Perhaps it is hard to judge who does better overall at low weight classes in high school because of the disparity in numbers; although boys win nearly all of the titles, there are also far more boys competing in high school wrestling than girls.
In any case, once you start talking about fully grown men and women, there is no longer any question. Women are allowed to compete against men in college as well, if there is no women's wrestling program; that rarely happens, simply because they don't have the strength to compete. I remember reading about one exception to the rule: Patricia Miranda. She wrestled throughout her college career, losing every match she started in. Finally she picked up a single victory, which was considered extremely impressive, since it was only the second time a woman had beaten a man in NCAA history. She then went on to get a bronze medal in the Olympics.
Wrestling is messed up, because the weight category system --> wrestlers who have less body fat than is healthy will win. Perhaps if a certain base-level body fat (maybe 10% for men, 17% for women) were discounted from your weight measurement, wrestlers would be healthier and women would have a chance.
If you are not healthy, you probably are not going to win very many matches. If you suck down to a weight that is completely unhealthy, you will not have the energy to compete.
What I'm really wondering is why it felt like women had a hard time competing in korean pro starcraft as well. In chess I also read that the last of the three Polgar sisters was the top rated woman's chess player in the world at 36 or so, yet was the only woman in the top 100. She was essentially trained from birth along with her two older sisters to be a chess grandmaster in an effort to prove genius was made not born.
In most physical sports it's easy to know why it is very difficult for women to compete in such events. Through nature women will effectively have the body equivalent of a 14 year old boy, which makes it very unfair from the start to compete in something like wrestling since even if they can get as strong as their competitors they have to work much harder to simply reach the same level.
Why do you all feel there has been a distinct lack of women achieving top level play in non physical competitions? Aside from lack of interest.
On September 12 2009 06:19 ForSC2 wrote: What I'm really wondering is why it felt like women had a hard time competing in korean pro starcraft as well. In chess I also read that the last of the three Polgar sisters was the top rated woman's chess player in the world at 36 or so, yet was the only woman in the top 100. She was essentially trained from birth along with her two older sisters to be a chess grandmaster in an effort to prove genius was made not born.
In most physical sports it's easy to know why it is very difficult for women to compete in such events. Through nature women will effectively have the body equivalent of a 14 year old boy, which makes it very unfair from the start to compete in something like wrestling since even if they can get as strong as their competitors they have to work much harder to simply reach the same level.
Why do you all feel there has been a distinct lack of women achieving top level play in non physical competitions? Aside from lack of interest.
Of course genius is made, not born, but tiny differences in genetic ability will compound over the thousands and thousands of hours of work ALL chess grandmasters put into studying the game. The sample size for women is so much smaller in ALL competitive events, so statistically speaking the quantity disparity (only one woman in top 100) proves nothing. I personally theorize that if the sample sizes were the same, there would still be significantly more male outliers, but that's not falsifiable and thus pure conjecture.
If women were unable to achieve grandmaster level play it'd be a different story, but there is enough gender parity for the differences to be negligible or inconclusive.
His question was referring to non physical competitions. I can't think of any in which there wouldn't be a huge disparity in gender participation. Men simply compete more.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
The biggest strength advantage is upper body, which isn't as important, since wrestling isn't a lifting competition. Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out), and ask a woman in your house to do it. That's a huge advantage. It'd probably allow them to be a good offensive lineman as well.
I can't speak to why the girls at your school sucked, but my guess is it had more to do with training and social conditions (not being as competitive, or not being taught at a young age) more than physiological ability.
Jibba, you seem to be relatively intelligent, so I have to assume that you are trolling here. You can't seriously believe, based on armchair theory-spinning, that women have a pound-for-pound advantage over men in wrestling. Lots of people in the thread have already explained why you're wrong (pound-for-pound != strength-for-strength; if you adjusted for body-fat percentage then it might be an interesting question), but all else aside, the data does exist. It's not as though women have never competed against men in wrestling.
Because of Title IX, and a dearth of women's wrestling programs, women have frequently wrestled in the "men's" wrestling program, especially in high school. In high school wrestling, especially at lower weight classes, girls have had some success; there was even one who won the Alaska state championship (for her weight class) a few years ago. However, at 103 pounds, most boys of that weight have probably not finished going through puberty. Perhaps it is hard to judge who does better overall at low weight classes in high school because of the disparity in numbers; although boys win nearly all of the titles, there are also far more boys competing in high school wrestling than girls.
In any case, once you start talking about fully grown men and women, there is no longer any question. Women are allowed to compete against men in college as well, if there is no women's wrestling program; that rarely happens, simply because they don't have the strength to compete. I remember reading about one exception to the rule: Patricia Miranda. She wrestled throughout her college career, losing every match she started in. Finally she picked up a single victory, which was considered extremely impressive, since it was only the second time a woman had beaten a man in NCAA history. She then went on to get a bronze medal in the Olympics.
You're citing anecdotal experience saying "so and so girl sucked", and totally ignoring the social differences between the ways men and women are raised. Yes, a girl with a year or two of experience who hasn't been working out for very long is going to get destroyed. Even with the same muscle mass, most female wrestlers would still do poorly because they're not technically as good. That still doesn't mean anything about their physical potential.
The post about Tossgirl as a fair analogy, or any girl gaming for that matter. Men have no biological advantage when it comes to gaming, yet the best female gamers can't come close to the best male gamers. That's a result of social influences, and the same still applies to most sports.
Look at Nick Mangold's little sister that's benching like 300 and playing offensive line. She's got incredible physical strength and an incredible amount of leverage from her feminine features.
On September 12 2009 06:19 ForSC2 wrote: What I'm really wondering is why it felt like women had a hard time competing in korean pro starcraft as well. In chess I also read that the last of the three Polgar sisters was the top rated woman's chess player in the world at 36 or so, yet was the only woman in the top 100. She was essentially trained from birth along with her two older sisters to be a chess grandmaster in an effort to prove genius was made not born.
In most physical sports it's easy to know why it is very difficult for women to compete in such events. Through nature women will effectively have the body equivalent of a 14 year old boy, which makes it very unfair from the start to compete in something like wrestling since even if they can get as strong as their competitors they have to work much harder to simply reach the same level.
Why do you all feel there has been a distinct lack of women achieving top level play in non physical competitions? Aside from lack of interest.
Of course genius is made, not born, but tiny differences in genetic ability will compound over the thousands and thousands of hours of work ALL chess grandmasters put into studying the game. The sample size for women is so much smaller in ALL competitive events, so statistically speaking the quantity disparity (only one woman in top 100) proves nothing. I personally theorize that if the sample sizes were the same, there would still be significantly more male outliers, but that's not falsifiable and thus pure conjecture.
If women were unable to achieve grandmaster level play it'd be a different story, but there is enough gender parity for the differences to be negligible or inconclusive.
Aside from the gender disparity why would you feel might be why few women have been able to really compete in Starcraft? Starcraft itself and chess are interesting mainly because there are not as many obvious factors like how much muscle they have. All of your pieces are made to be equivalent to your opponent, so I feel it makes an attempt to cut out as many external factors as possible has been made to create a true competitive environment.
Of course there are factors. Gender disparity, lack of interest. I read an interview on Susan Polgar and she mentioned there were times when she had menstrual cramps which made it harder to concentrate during a three hour game.
I'm wondering if there is a main factor where if all else was equal would still cause greatly uneven numbers. Like the how much of a factor is testosterone itself for example.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out),
I can do this sup
I can pretty much get my forearms to elbows to touch sticking them straight out. This is actually easier if my arms are completely straight. When I bend them slightly I don't think I can do it anymore.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out),
I can do this sup
I can pretty much get my forearms to elbows to touch sticking them straight out. This is actually easier if my arms are completely straight. When I bend them slightly I don't think I can do it anymore.
well it's harder if you have a bigger chest
right after some chest workouts try to touch your elbows, it's very hard to do it even if you bend your forearms up
I'm wondering if there is a main factor where if all else was equal would still cause greatly uneven numbers. Like the how much of a factor is testosterone itself for example.
There very well might be, but you'd need a comparable sample size to test stuff like that, and that's not going to happen.
If you approach it from another angle you might be able to identify significant factors, but weighting those factors is an impossible assessment for even a single specimen, let alone an entire gender. You'd have to dig through all kinds of shit too, like evolutionary psychology vs. sociobiology and nature vs. nurture arguments and how basically no theory you can come up with is going to be falsifiable... and all for a whimsical, though interesting, question. My inclination is to just leave it at that -- an interesting question -- and spend my time doing useful things, like playing starcraft and watching movies.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out),
I can do this sup
I can pretty much get my forearms to elbows to touch sticking them straight out. This is actually easier if my arms are completely straight. When I bend them slightly I don't think I can do it anymore.
well it's harder if you have a bigger chest
right after some chest workouts try to touch your elbows, it's very hard to do it even if you bend your forearms up
That makes sense. Do you think arm flexibility is a big factor for this? I know in high school physical education we had this exercise where we stretch our right arm to the left, hold it, and vice versa. I'd imagine this exercise would help get people closer to elbows together. It does make sense that the bigger your chest is the harder this would be to do for sure.
On August 22 2009 03:22 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Not that it wasn't obvious already, but women just can't even remotely compete with men in sports. It's laughable. I hate it when feminists say Men and Women are the same. If that's the case, then what's the problem with her looking like a man?
You should stop posting before you reveal any more of your stupidity. All of your sentences are just wrong. BTW, pound for pound, a female wrestler should beat a male wrestler.
lol where did you get that last tidbit from... that's completely false. I mean wrestling is divided by weight divisions and pound for pound a man will be stronger because a female has a butt/boobs and more excess weight that isn't muscle. I did high school wrestling and the few girls who did it were never very good at all.
Women should always be able to get inside control in a normal stance because they can bring their arms together, men can't. Try touching your elbows together in front of your body (with your arms sticking out),
I can do this sup
I can pretty much get my forearms to elbows to touch sticking them straight out. This is actually easier if my arms are completely straight. When I bend them slightly I don't think I can do it anymore.
well it's harder if you have a bigger chest
right after some chest workouts try to touch your elbows, it's very hard to do it even if you bend your forearms up
That makes sense. Do you think arm flexibility is a big factor for this? I know in high school physical education we had this exercise where we stretch our right arm to the left, hold it, and vice versa. I'd imagine this exercise would help get people closer to elbows together. It does make sense that the bigger your chest is the harder this would be to do for sure.
it's possible there's a relation to flexibility, i'm no expert though.
all i know is that my friends who work out can't touch their elbows together no matter what because you have to squeeze your pecs to do so.
On September 12 2009 07:23 eMbrace wrote: woman are really good at gymnastics though right? they are smaller and more flexible or something ya?
I always wonder about this. Gymnastics has a lot more girls than guys and I guess people see it as a more girly thing. (I think Gymnastics is awesome btw.)
Theres videos on youtube of some Indian guys that are flexible as hell to an absurd degree. I assume that muscle mass makes it harder to become as flexible due to there being more to stretch. My general feeling is many cultures don't really care about male flexibility. In my mind I have the stereotype of a bodybuilder so buff he can barely lift his arms and has no way of touching his toes.
Most of this I'm saying is uneducated conjecture btw.
On September 12 2009 07:23 eMbrace wrote: woman are really good at gymnastics though right? they are smaller and more flexible or something ya?
I always wonder about this. Gymnastics has a lot more girls than guys and I guess people see it as a more girly thing. (I think Gymnastics is awesome btw.)
Theres videos on youtube of some Indian guys that are flexible as hell to an absurd degree. I assume that muscle mass makes it harder to become as flexible due to there being more to stretch. My general feeling is many cultures don't really care about male flexibility. In my mind I have the stereotype of a bodybuilder so buff he can barely lift his arms and has no way of touching his toes.
Most of this I'm saying is uneducated conjecture btw.
well there is male gymnastics and their routines are different in some areas. they have to do the rings for example (which requires extreme strength).
the women don't do that.
but perhaps it's once again just a social thing. it's better to be small though I think (remember the controversy around the chinese team's age because their size was unfairly superior).
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/aug2009/0/4/19-08-09-image-1-890062799.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01465/caster-semenya_1465477c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5323114,00.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5371/castersemenya1465477c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img39.imageshack.us/i/coilette.jpg/)
