Olympic Boxing Controversy

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's interesting, and not that surprising when you think of it. And it would help justify the exclusion of trans athletes that have undergone male puberty. I wonder whether that would apply to Khelif, though.
I think the scientific consensus is that should be the criteria for exclusion: if the sportsperson been through a testosteronised puberty, they have an unfair advantage over those who haven’t.
If I remember my highschool biology classes correctly, testosterone is produced by male gonads - testicles -
Yes, the Leydig cells of the testes but also the ovaries and small amounts in the adrenal glands
and it says here that people with Swyer's have non-functional female gonads. So that would be incompatible with high levels of testosterone,
You have to remember that syndromes are rarely clear cut in their effects. A person with Swyer’s syndrome might produce lots of testosterone from their ovaries/adrenal glands. This is why the ‘testosteronisation during puberty’ is such a good measure for sports categorisation.
 
Well, please keep your ‘USA political views’ to yourself to avoid locking this fascinating conversation, and the rest of us will discuss the biology etc.
OK doctor. I mean, 'doctors', since everybody here is apparently an expert on biology now.
 
Why not have an ‘ambiguous biology’ category in sports? Would that be an issue? Or let everyone compete against each other…no categories at all.

I’ve heard the fear is that someone might be permanently damaged (or worse) in boxing events by someone with a ‘testosteronisation at puberty’ advantage.
 
Are we removing black people from sport because their biology makes them uniquely suited?
 
Isn’t it interesting that in this case the IOC behave in opposition to the rules of boxing’s governing body?

I’d highly recommend Olympian, Sharron Davis’s bestselling book ‘Unfair Play: The Battle For Women's Sport’. It lays the issue out very clearly, backed up with scientific data and sporting achievement. What surprised me is the data showing just how far behind elite biologically female athletes are to elite biologically male athletes and thus what an advantage testosterone bestows. Katie Ledecky, the outstanding ‘living legend’ swimmer with 19 world titles to her name would not make it onto a US Junior team! Her Tokyo Olympic winning time over 800 metres would place her 14th in the European junior boys heats of the same year while her historic and amazing 2016 world record would place her 6th among the junior boys and at world level she would not even make the boys final! Arsenal’s international cup winning women’s football team were beaten 5-0 by the Arsenal under 15s team. There’s page after page of stats like this which was astonishing and evidence that there is no overlap between women’s and men’s performance and the need to have separate categories due to the lingering advantages of ‘testosteronisation’ during puberty.
Really wasn't aware it was so big a difference - thank you
 
Well, does Swyer syndrome change you physically and does it give you an unfair advantage? Does it change your muscle structure? Obviously dna shows anomalies. If sports is about fairness in competition, is it fair or is it ideological? Considering the opening ceremonies, I would lean toward the latter. Also, I’m I wrong or are the raised trophy podiums missing?
Anyone who's ever watched a NBA game can't really talk of unfair genetic advantages :D
 
Really wasn't aware it was so big a difference - thank you
It’s very surprising, eh? You can see the possible motivation for very mediocre athletes who have been testostronised during puberty to enter categories where the others haven’t undergone testosteronisation during puberty!
 
As an example of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ perhaps all athletes shouldn’t be allowed to train at all. That way, the advantages in premier training facilities, the top nutritional advice and lightest equipment that wealthy countries are able to bestow on their athletes (China, USA) would be negated and countries without those advantages (Bhutan, Nepal etc) would have a fighting chance in sports. They’d be made to be couch potatoes, watching TV all day, eating pizza and drinking beer until the day of the race. They’d waddle to the start line, their feet in that ‘10 and 2’ position heavy people tend to have, in hyper-stretched lycra and wobble down the track to complete a 37second, 100 metres sprint. It’d be fairer 😐

…or let athletes take whatever pharmaceuticals their coaches want and run a 5 second 100 metres race! Big Pharma could sponsor the Olympics! 😅
 
Her record includes 9 losses and she was defeated in the quarterfinals in 2020 Olympics when no one had any issues with her competing.

This is political and the OP is just blatant pot stirring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top