Gender in Sport (Split)

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c0w44q1nlw2o

Lin now guaranteed a medal.

The article says "an interview with BBC sports editor Dan Roan on Thursday, IBA chief executive Chris Roberts said XY male chromosomes were found in "both cases".

Not that this would have impacted the IOC's eligibility criteria, as I understand it. And the IOC are disputing the process that resulted in that finding too.

 

IBA news conference set for Monday with supposedly detailed explanations for their disqualifications. Should be interesting. Are the IOC disputing the process? Or the finding it self do you know? 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

IBA news conference set for Monday with supposedly detailed explanations for their disqualifications. Should be interesting. Are the IOC disputing the process? Or the finding it self do you know? 

The article used "validity of testing" and another "process". However, it leads to the IOC quote of:-

“The current aggression against these two athletes is based entirely on this arbitrary decision, which was taken without any proper procedure — especially considering that these athletes had been competing in top-level competition for many years,”

If the IBA present their findings, then the above in bold is not going to look convincing. On the other hand, there have been any number of articles around the IBA's removal from oversight. They cite financing, transparency and integrity of judging. I've not seen any that specify testing falsification (links welcome on that one).

Either way, there would then be eligibility discussions around various DSD and how those would be implemented, sensitively considering the identity and cultural backgrounds of those impacted.

[badgerx16]

39 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

IBA news conference set for Monday with supposedly detailed explanations for their disqualifications. Should be interesting. Are the IOC disputing the process? Or the finding it self do you know? 

And there you have a significant part of this issue, the political slanging match between the 2 organisations.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And there you have a significant part of this issue, the political slanging match between the 2 organisations.

That doesn't help one bit, but it doesn't alter the fact that women born and recognised as women, albeit afflicted with swyer syndrome, are not men. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

That doesn't help one bit, but it doesn't alter the fact that women born and recognised as women, albeit afflicted with swyer syndrome, are not men. 

You have no evidence this individual has Swyer syndrome and even if they did they would still be biologically male. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

The article used "validity of testing" and another "process". However, it leads to the IOC quote of:-

“The current aggression against these two athletes is based entirely on this arbitrary decision, which was taken without any proper procedure — especially considering that these athletes had been competing in top-level competition for many years,”

If the IBA present their findings, then the above in bold is not going to look convincing. On the other hand, there have been any number of articles around the IBA's removal from oversight. They cite financing, transparency and integrity of judging. I've not seen any that specify testing falsification (links welcome on that one).

Either way, there would then be eligibility discussions around various DSD and how those would be implemented, sensitively considering the identity and cultural backgrounds of those impacted.

Thanks. So I haven't seen any challenge yet to the validity of the results (two separate tests with the same result) it's the process that they have a problem with. If it is just the process the one is it doesn't change the results. Maybe best to do the test for a third time. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You have no evidence this individual has Swyer syndrome and even if they did they would still be biologically male. 

FFS. You're as boring as you are bigoted. 

I don't need evidence for anything. She's born a woman. Recognised as a woman. Has competed as a woman.

It's dinlo's like you trying to prove from behind a keyboard that a woman with female genitalia is a bloke who need to prove their argument. 

I'm still waiting for the links to your evidence that she's a man.

Edited August 4 by egg

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

FFS. You're as boring as you are bigoted. 

I don't need evidence for anything. She's born a woman. Recognised as a woman. Has competed as a woman.

It's dinlo's like you trying to prove from behind a keyboard that a woman with female genitalia is a bloke who need to prove their argument. 

I'm still waiting for the links to your evidence that she's a man.

And there is the key point. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it. The irony of you droning on and on to provide evidence that I have already provided when you suggest you can just state something that is inaccurate and claim you don't need any evidence for that false assertion. 

You use the same logic as the ioc. "She" has F on the passport so she is a woman. Unfortunately for you it's more complicated than what which is why this is becoming something of a scandal. No evidence for female genitalia either... 

 

Edited August 4 by hypochondriac

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Yeah, it's clear that historically, whether IOC or IBA or predecessors, all are incredibly dodgy.

Where there's doubt about the procedure and doubts about the organisation, no doubt there will be questions on the results. I don't know if the actual tests are carried out by some scrupulous third party.

Due to confidentiality, I'm a little surprised at the release of information regarding the test. Perhaps the announcement can only go so far, as in general findings.

Likewise, if it relies on a new test from a new sample, the athletes in question are under no obligation to comply. They've met the entry criteria and are going to get medals.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Yeah, it's clear that historically, whether IOC or IBA or predecessors, all are incredibly dodgy.

Where there's doubt about the procedure and doubts about the organisation, no doubt there will be questions on the results. I don't know if the actual tests are carried out by some scrupulous third party.

Due to confidentiality, I'm a little surprised at the release of information regarding the test. Perhaps the announcement can only go so far, as in general findings.

Likewise, if it relies on a new test from a new sample, the athletes in question are under no obligation to comply. They've met the entry criteria and are going to get medals.

The athletes are not at fault, other than when finding out they are biologically men and have a competitive advantage they should be withdrawing from competition. I can't remember the details but I believe there were two separate tests by separate bodies at different times that delivered the same result. Maybe we will get more information at the presentation tomorrow. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

The athletes are not at fault, other than when finding out they are biologically men and have a competitive advantage they should be withdrawing from competition. I can't remember the details but I believe there were two separate tests by separate bodies at different times that delivered the same result. Maybe we will get more information at the presentation tomorrow. 

I was careful with that. There's no evidence providing information on the physical development of these athletes. No evidence if there's a DSD or how, if there is, this is expressed. Not surprising, considering the sensitivity.

The only thing I have seen is that after competing for years (which does not mean there wasn't an underlying issue), they subsequently failed tests. There's nothing to suggest any of these athletes knew about any issues prior to that.

We're no doubt going to be hearing more about that procedure, and it's veracity, in days to come. But the procedure is in doubt, and it will be interesting if the results can be considered credible. I think the majority of both sides will end up with the view they started with.

If credible, then will feed into future eligibility criteria, complete with all the issues the IOC, using it's passport approach was trying to avoid. If not credible/ uncertain, then people will have to make up their own minds. But testing may well have to go through changes anyway.

You could easily have people legitimately considered by nations to be of one sex, disqualified through DSD advantages, where things like testosterone limits are fine. The IOC would be an arbiter of determining sex, which is exactly what they've tried to get away from. That would shift to national organisations, who would run right into their own legal systems as if hit by a heavyweight.

I don't know following those tests what the impact on the athletes was in other competition. It was recent enough that they presumably already knew they passed the Olympics criteria (the same as the last one?). In the absence of other information, and considering DSD (of which there's not even evidence of that here) and identity (a personal driving factor, if arguable in other respects), there's not necessarily any compelling reason for them to have withdrawn.

[Weston Super Saint]

One question that doesn't appear to have been raised...

Why the fuck were the Russians allowed to compete in the first place, I thought they were banned from all sports, for, you know, invading their neighbours.

If they weren't allowed to play in the first place, looks like none of this would have kicked off...

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

One question that doesn't appear to have been raised...

Why the fuck were the Russians allowed to compete in the first place, I thought they were banned from all sports, for, you know, invading their neighbours.

If they weren't allowed to play in the first place, looks like none of this would have kicked off...

How do you figure that? Firstly that isn't true and secondly what difference does banning Russians make? 

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I was careful with that. There's no evidence providing information on the physical development of these athletes. No evidence if there's a DSD or how, if there is, this is expressed. Not surprising, considering the sensitivity.

The only thing I have seen is that after competing for years (which does not mean there wasn't an underlying issue), they subsequently failed tests. There's nothing to suggest any of these athletes knew about any issues prior to that.

We're no doubt going to be hearing more about that procedure, and it's veracity, in days to come. But the procedure is in doubt, and it will be interesting if the results can be considered credible. I think the majority of both sides will end up with the view they started with.

If credible, then will feed into future eligibility criteria, complete with all the issues the IOC, using it's passport approach was trying to avoid. If not credible/ uncertain, then people will have to make up their own minds. But testing may well have to go through changes anyway.

You could easily have people legitimately considered by nations to be of one sex, disqualified through DSD advantages, where things like testosterone limits are fine. The IOC would be an arbiter of determining sex, which is exactly what they've tried to get away from. That would shift to national organisations, who would run right into their own legal systems as if hit by a heavyweight.

I don't know following those tests what the impact on the athletes was in other competition. It was recent enough that they presumably already knew they passed the Olympics criteria (the same as the last one?). In the absence of other information, and considering DSD (of which there's not even evidence of that here) and identity (a personal driving factor, if arguable in other respects), there's not necessarily any compelling reason for them to have withdrawn.

Good post though I don't agree with all of it. Essentially what it comes down to is if these athletes have XY chromosomes or not. They've had plenty of opportunities to disprove this and haven't done so. Hopefully they will clarify it one way or the other as soon as possible. If they are in fact xx then I'd be suing the arse off any figure in boxing who has claimed otherwise. 

Regarding your final point, I read yesterday about an athlete from another sport who withdrew after finding out they had DSD because they realised the advantage it gave them wouldn't make competition safe or fair though I can see the logic in saying you've met the criteria so are entitled to compete. It must be a pai full reality to confront. 

Edited August 4 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How do you figure that? Firstly that isn't true and secondly what difference does banning Russians make? 

If the Russians were b-anned like they should have been, they wouldn't have been there to complain in the first place.

Simples.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Good post though I don't agree with all of it. Essentially what it comes down to is if these athletes have XY chromosomes or not. They've had plenty of opportunities to disprove this and haven't done so. Hopefully they will clarify it one way or the other as soon as possible. If they are in fact xx then I'd be suing the arse off any figure in boxing who has claimed otherwise. 

Regarding your final point, I read yesterday about an athlete from another sport who withdrew after finding out they had DSD because they realised the advantage it gave them wouldn't make competition safe or fair though I can see the logic in saying you've met the criteria so are entitled to compete. It must be a pai full reality to confront. 

Ta. You've been consistent on your thoughts on it, and I get your points. it's been good to have a think and discussion. Appreciated.

And well worth the reminder of all those who think, feel or have legitimate concerns that they are at an unfair disadvantage. Huge amounts of dedication and focus for all of them.

Interesting example too, and yeah just a massive impact on anyone involved. We'll have to wait and see if that had a bearing here, and how it impacts future eligibility.

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

And there is the key point. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it. The irony of you droning on and on to provide evidence that I have already provided when you suggest you can just state something that is inaccurate and claim you don't need any evidence for that false assertion. 

You use the same logic as the ioc. "She" has F on the passport so she is a woman. Unfortunately for you it's more complicated than what which is why this is becoming something of a scandal. No evidence for female genitalia either... 

 

That's nonsense. The starting point is the status quo, and that prevails until there's evidence to the contrary. 

She is and has been recognised as a woman. Thus, until it's proven that she isn't a woman, she's entitled to be treated and termed as such. The IOC have done exactly that.

Whether she should compete with her natural advantage is a separate discussion. However, such  advantage does not render her a man and entitle people like you to misgender her and refuse even to respect that she's entitled to be addressed as she - thoroughly disrespectful of you to be unwilling to do that. 

You have provided zero evidence. None. You've rejected invitation upon invitation to provide links to your evidence. Instead, you've mentioned that this lady has XY chromosomes. That much is already known. The presence of those chromosomes do not make her a man, and there's no evidence that she is a man - that's your belief/hope/opinion. 

And yep, it is vastly more complicated than you thinking that she's a bloke, so she must be. If science and testing reveals that on balance she's a man, then so be it, but until then the presumption is that she's what she's always been. That's indisputable. 

And as difficult as it is for this woman's opponents, the spotlight upon her must appalling, and things can't be helped by knowing that there's loads of keyboard warriors trying to re-asign her gender. 

Edited August 4 by egg

[sadoldgit]

Been out for a lovely day at the coast. Come back to find the resident bigot still banging on about a woman born a woman being a man

It’s not funny hypo. It is obsessive behaviour. Perhaps you should stay out of the sun? 🙄

Edited August 4 by sadoldgit
Added text

[sadoldgit]

5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Nobody forces them, and why can't women have equality in sport ?

Would you ban rugby because of brain injuries ? What about sports with weapons, such as hockey ?

I didn’t say that anybody forces them and I didn’t say that they couldn’t have equality. I said that I thought that they would have more sense. At no point did I say that boxing should be banned. Please read my posts properly before you reply.

I didn’t mention rugby. I specifically mentioned an activity where the whole aim is to hit someone in the head and ideally knock them out before they knock you out.

Edited August 4 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I was aware they wouldn't be allowed to be trans in their country but had no idea what religion they were. Not everyone from Algeria is a Muslim. Irrelevant anyway as they aren't trans. 

Missed this earlier. I was pilloried for using the word “trans” by the same people who give you a free pass for your posts. One rule for one…?

[sadoldgit]

What have we learnt from today?

If there is any doubt at all about someone’s gender, the go to person for a definitive answer is hypochondriac. What he says goes. Ok?

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Missed this earlier. I was pilloried for using the word “trans” by the same people who give you a free pass for your posts. One rule for one…?

You were not pilloried for that, and you know it

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Missed this earlier. I was pilloried for using the word “trans” by the same people who give you a free pass for your posts. One rule for one…?

No you cretin you said "a trans". How can you still not grasp the difference? 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

What have we learnt from today?

If there is any doubt at all about someone’s gender, the go to person for a definitive answer is hypochondriac. What he says goes. Ok?

Nope. Already said it's not my opinion that makes him a man. And it's nothing to do with gender it's biological sex. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t say that anybody forces them and I didn’t say that they couldn’t have equality. I said that I thought that they would have more sense. At no point did I say that boxing should be banned. Please read my posts properly before you reply.

I didn’t mention rugby. I specifically mentioned an activity where the whole aim is to hit someone in the head and ideally knock them out before they knock you out.

You said that people should speak out about boxing being a ' dangerous sport', and that women might show more sense. What would be the purpose of 'speaking out' against boxing if not to ban it ?

I reckon if you want to rail against 'dangerous' sports then rugby should be part of the conversation, and as for the women boxing I repeat, nobody forces them.

 

Perhaps you should read your own posts more carefully, and stop being so patronising.

Edited August 4 by badgerx16

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I was wondering why I was posting a fair bit this afternoon. Our village idiot wasn't around.  No sooner back, and we have call backs to that recent time he made a sexist remark and didn't learn from it and that recent time he made a transphobic remark and didn't learn from it. Normal service resumes. >sigh<

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You were not pilloried for that, and you know it

Yes I was.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

No you cretin you said "a trans". How can you still not grasp the difference? 

I was pilloried for using the word “trans” as a noun, just a you did. You cretin.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I was pilloried for using the word “trans” as a noun, just a you did. You cretin.

Oh my god. He genuinely is that thick. Here I've substituted a word in my paragraph so it may penetrate your skull:

 

I was aware they wouldn't be allowed to be black in their country but had no idea what religion they were. Not everyone from Algeria is a Muslim. Irrelevant anyway as they aren't black. 

 

I was aware they wouldn't be allowed to be a black in their country but had no idea what religion they were. Not everyone from Algeria is a Muslim. Irrelevant anyway as they aren't a black. 

Edited August 4 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

You said that people should speak out about boxing being a ' dangerous sport', and that women might show more sense. What would be the purpose of 'speaking out' against boxing if not to ban it ?

I reckon if you want to rail against 'dangerous' sports then rugby should be part of the conversation, and as for the women boxing I repeat, nobody forces them.

 

Perhaps you should read your own posts more carefully, and stop being so patronising.

You can speak out about sports being dangerous without calling for them to be banned.

There has been a lot of discussion about brain injuries through heading footballs but I have not heard of anyone wanting to ban football.

There are many sports that can be dangerous. The only one I was posting about was boxing. If you want a wider discussion then perhaps start a thread on dangerous sports?

I was only patronising towards you because you chose to respond to something I didn’t write. Respond to what I do write and I will engage with you normally. Sound reasonable?

 

Edited August 4 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Nope. Already said it's not my opinion that makes him a man. And it's nothing to do with gender it's biological sex. 

Well it clearly is your opinion because a female, born female with female parts, living their life to date as a female, is a male according to the hundreds of posts you have made in the subject.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Well it clearly is your opinion because a female, born female with female parts, living their life to date as a female, is a male according to the hundreds of posts you have made in the subject.

It's perfectly plausible that a biological male with xy chromosomes but a dsd born in a conservative country is observed as female at birth due to ambiguous genitilia. A man with xy chromosomes, no proof of full female genitalia is biologically male, even if they've lived their entire life presenting and believing they are female. That doesn't mean they should be discriminated against, but it does mean they shouldn't compete against biological females in sport. 

If a boxer failed a drug test and then didn't appeal the ban, would you ask for proof that they'd taken drugs? The failed test and lack of appeal speaks for itself. 

Edited August 4 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You can speak out about sports being dangerous without calling for them to be banned. To what end ? Your exact words - "Punching anyone in the head, whatever their gender, is not ok and is dangerous" If it is not OK, surely you are saying it should be stopped ?

There has been a lot of discussion about brain injuries through heading footballs but I have not heard of anyone wanting to ban football. Nobody, other than you, has mentioned boxing being dangerous on this thread.

There are many sports that can be dangerous. The only one I was posting about was boxing. If you want a wider discussion then perhaps start a thread on dangerous sports? No, I'll leave that to you, you are the expert on starting spurious threads.

I was only patronising towards you because you chose to respond to something I didn’t write. Respond to what I do write and I will engage with you normally. Sound reasonable? No, I responded directly to what you wrote. The fact I was widening the discussion does not alter that.

 

 

Edited August 4 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

Oh dear. Ok, I’ll bite.

it is dangerous to punch anyone in the head. It is possible to point out an obvious fact without calling for a sport to be banned. That is totally your own assumption and a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I did not suggest that anyone else has mentioned boxing being dangerous. Again, something that you have made up. Having said that, hypo did say that he was worried that someone was going to be killed, possibly by this super human female he keeps insisting is a bloke - I guess killing someone is dangerous?

Thanks for the comment about spurious threads but you are the one who went off on a tangent about rugby which had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. A spurious comment maybe?

No, you did not respond to what I wrote. You responded to your interpretation of what you imagined I wrote. Two very different things.

To be clear. I have not and did not call for boxing to be banned and I have no interest in rugby. Hopefully we are now back on track?

 

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Oh dear. Ok, I’ll bite.

it is dangerous to punch anyone in the head. It is possible to point out an obvious fact without calling for a sport to be banned. That is totally your own assumption and a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I did not suggest that anyone else has mentioned boxing being dangerous. Again, something that you have made up. Having said that, hypo did say that he was worried that someone was going to be killed, possibly by this super human female he keeps insisting is a bloke - I guess killing someone is dangerous?

Thanks for the comment about spurious threads but you are the one who went off on a tangent about rugby which had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. A spurious comment maybe?

No, you did not respond to what I wrote. You responded to your interpretation of what you imagined I wrote. Two very different things.

To be clear. I have not and did not call for boxing to be banned and I have no interest in rugby. Hopefully we are now back on track?

 

I think I am going to have to go all Duckhunter on that.....utter PONY !!!!!

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cnk4427vvd2o

The link is an update on the boxing. It's now saying there's doubt about the test (IOC quotes), as well as the previous issues around the procedure of the tests.

The IBA quote says that  there were ' "different strands involved in that" and therefore the body could not commit to referring to the fighters as "biologically male". So, that seems less than clear.

Having started off their coverage with a simply "Russian" to indicate their opinion of the IBA, this report now indicates that although the fighter was disqualified rounds after fighting a Russian, the disqualification retroactively wiped that defeat from the Russian's record.

No doubt there will be more tomorrow.

[hypochondriac]

11 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cnk4427vvd2o

The link is an update on the boxing. It's now saying there's doubt about the test (IOC quotes), as well as the previous issues around the procedure of the tests.

The IBA quote says that  there were ' "different strands involved in that" and therefore the body could not commit to referring to the fighters as "biologically male". So, that seems less than clear.

Having started off their coverage with a simply "Russian" to indicate their opinion of the IBA, this report now indicates that although the fighter was disqualified rounds after fighting a Russian, the disqualification retroactively wiped that defeat from the Russian's record.

No doubt there will be more tomorrow.

I had a listen to the daily briefing from the IOC. As I understand it, it seems that they are dismissing the tests due to why they were done and the lack of due process rather than the results themselves. I haven't yet seen anywhere where they have challenged the results. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I had a listen to the daily briefing from the IOC. As I understand it, it seems that they are dismissing the tests due to why they were done and the lack of due process rather than the results themselves. I haven't yet seen anywhere where they have challenged the results. 

That Beeb one, was the first I've seen to say "accuracy of the tests." I took that to include the results.

Looks like the lines are well drawn between the two organisations.

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

That Beeb one, was the first I've seen to say "accuracy of the tests." I took that to include the results.

Looks like the lines are well drawn between the two organisations.

You're right:

"We don't know what the protocol was, we don't know whether the test was accurate, we don't know whether we should believe the test," said IOC spokesperson Mark Adams.

"There's a difference between a test taking place and whether we accept the accuracy or even the protocol of the test."

It's important they address why they wouldn't accept the accuracy of the tests and what about them they wouldn't regard as accurate. 

[pingpong]

Insanity at the IBA press conference, over an hour delay, tech issues, the poor guy who had to go first could barely string a sentence together, the toilets are blocked, the ceo went on a rant about how the ioc chair was a "sodomite", they couldn't share any new information.  Their doctor, who happens to be on their board, was abusing journalists and threatening to stop the conference, and that's before the questions started. They said they couldn't prove she was trans (which she isnt), or what was "between her legs", or what her birth was like, but that "passports can be changed".

 

If my post is coming across like verbal diarrhea, then i have accurately portrayed the conference.

 

High level summary

The iba are calling on the old testament to bring fury upon the ioc for not protecting women. The first test in 2022 was inconclusive, and they couldn't do anything until 2023, when they tested again, but they can't say what kind of test or what the results were. Basically, it's every bit as clouded as it was before the conference, but we now know their ceo is not credible, and their doctor is an emotional basket case.

 

Edit: it got so bad that reuters cut the feed, and the bbc walked out before the end!

 

Edited August 5 by pingpong
Wasn't ridiculous enough already...

[The Kraken]

Just been reading about the press conference, it sounds like it went well and cleared everything up! 😆

"I attended this IBA news conference. It was so bad that the moderator apologized to a few of us reporters out on the sidewalk after and said it was the most embarrassing thing he’s ever been part of."

"I've never been to such a farcical press conference. It's been a shambles.  Any credibility concerning these failed gender tests is very quickly evaporating."

"Kremlev is being asked if he regrets or will apologise for calling Thomas Bach the “chief sodomite”. He goes off into a bizarre rant about Biblical scripture, which is now translated on the live stream.  He replies: “When I said sodomite, I meant Thomas Bach and those who made this declaration. They have been making fun of Christiantity and the Bible. In scripture, Sodom and Gomorrah existed and God destroyed these cities because they had no human value in them.  As president of an international federation and a firm believer in god, and a person defending human values and democracy I couldn’t keep silent. And this opening was arranged and designed by Thomas Bach and his friends. He did it in order to improve his PR status. As a Christian, believing in god, I disagree with this presentation of the scripture. And I would never like to see that happening again in the sport.”

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Just been reading about the press conference, it sounds like it went well and cleared everything up! 😆

"I attended this IBA news conference. It was so bad that the moderator apologized to a few of us reporters out on the sidewalk after and said it was the most embarrassing thing he’s ever been part of."

"I've never been to such a farcical press conference. It's been a shambles.  Any credibility concerning these failed gender tests is very quickly evaporating."

"Kremlev is being asked if he regrets or will apologise for calling Thomas Bach the “chief sodomite”. He goes off into a bizarre rant about Biblical scripture, which is now translated on the live stream.  He replies: “When I said sodomite, I meant Thomas Bach and those who made this declaration. They have been making fun of Christiantity and the Bible. In scripture, Sodom and Gomorrah existed and God destroyed these cities because they had no human value in them.  As president of an international federation and a firm believer in god, and a person defending human values and democracy I couldn’t keep silent. And this opening was arranged and designed by Thomas Bach and his friends. He did it in order to improve his PR status. As a Christian, believing in god, I disagree with this presentation of the scripture. And I would never like to see that happening again in the sport.”

I didn't hear an English translation of Kremlev's rant, so thanks for providing more behind all the annoyed reporters who came out of there.

Yesterday's muddled statement, is no clearer. Unsurprisingly, they can't release the data. Apparently we can "read between the lines." Except we can't and shouldn't either.

However, credibility over IBA procedures, motivations, results and now sanity do remain.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Eep, 2 posts in a row...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cq5dd2lz8y8o

More contradiction of IBA, leading to comical (if it weren't for 2 boxers and their families at the heart of it) interview at the bottom. What a shambles.

 

 

[Colinjb]

12 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Eep, 2 posts in a row...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cq5dd2lz8y8o

More contradiction of IBA, leading to comical (if it weren't for 2 boxers and their families at the heart of it) interview at the bottom. What a shambles.

 

 

Really got to feel for Khelif and Yu-Ting. 

They did not deserve this nonsense. Scapegoats in a pathetic political game 

Edited August 6 by Colinjb

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Gold for Khelif

A lot of the reports don't stray far from the controversy.

So, here's the Sky Sports reporter who, when getting drawn on it, prefers to focus on the performance and achievement, having a grown up talk about the politics and eligibility at the end.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Lin also wins gold

https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/c1w7q075pw0o

Olympic committee will be looking for another body to oversee this, so it has a place in the next Olympics.

It will be interesting to find out the tests used by other boxing authorities, how that impacts their sport, as well as others and also the legal ramifications of that testing.

The Beeb have also put up an article with some general science based information.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko

The Beeb coverage annoyed on this as well. Reporting facts, but adjusting the narrative around them, to fit a point they wanted to make. I expect better of them, but it's probably always been like that, and just more noticeable in today's media cycle.

Nowhere near the lunacy of the IBA in all of this. Any data they may have had or concerns about advantage lost in biblical rants, and inconsistent claims.

[hypochondriac]

 

Worth listening to an actual expert on this who knows very clearly that these are two men. I don't think the controversy from this is going to go away. Just as I said you can't be XY and a woman. 

Edited August 12 by hypochondriac

[rallyboy]

I know that we're blessed to share this forum with renowned experts in subjects as diverse as Middle-Eastern geography, Russian diplomacy, EU trading conditions and US political history, but it's good to see now that the world's leading academics in developmental biologyclinical genetics are also Saints fans and happy to share their expertise having analysed all of the medical notes of these cases.

Steve has clearly been gently culling the less qualified posters all these years so now his social experiment is just left with the finest minds - a forum of recognised experts in the most complex of issues, and we're also lucky here to have some who are experts on literally everything.

 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

I know that we're blessed to share this forum with renowned experts in subjects as diverse as Middle-Eastern geography, Russian diplomacy, EU trading conditions and US political history, but it's good to see now that the world's leading academics in developmental biologyclinical genetics are also Saints fans and happy to share their expertise having analysed all of the medical notes of these cases.

Steve has clearly been gently culling the less qualified posters all these years so now his social experiment is just left with the finest minds - a forum of recognised experts in the most complex of issues, and we're also lucky here to have some who are experts on literally everything.

 

I'd suggest watching the video above from a developmental biologist who is an actual expert. I'd say they have a fair bit more credibility than anyone who posts on here. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

From just the opening summary...

While the IBA indicated it was a genetic test, although they disagreed with themselves around that press conference, we have no detail on the result.

They were widely discredited on practically everything except testing. As the story progressed, that was also disputed. And all that was before one of them went on a religious based rant, that undermined any shred of credibility they had.

It's not sufficient to say "read between the lines." That sort of insinuation could be used for practically anything. It's not evidence that can be tested, and the IBA testing is in doubt.

There's no indication that the athletes "know that about themselves." At all. No evidence has been presented.

The IOC is less likely to be "ideologically captured" than it is not wanting to enter a legal and cultural minefield. Which is why it's keen to pass it over to another body, and why it's keen to let the countries decide through things like passports, birth certificates etc. It's why the ground on this issues has been shifting, as sporting bodies have had to adapt.

Less "ignoring science for woo woo" and more avoiding a number of another issues. Just because an organisation has gone against the wishes of the programme makers, doesn't mean it's automatically captured.

"Main stream media" is never a good look. Neither was "woo woo"

Since we have no details or evidence, they can moan about other people's use of "men" and "women"  " male" and "female" all they like.

I hope that the programme itself gives a lot of depth to the summary. Because, regardless of their credentials, jumping to unsupported conclusions is poor science.