Hooraydiation makes a pretty good case for her time being in line with other females. In other words she is "woman" enough to be competing at the same level as other females--shouldn't that be enough for the judges?

By that logic, a man could compete against women, as long as his times weren't drastically better than the field's? I don't think so.

That wasn't my point, which was pretty clear in context. It wasn't logic, it was part of the evidence that supports my belief that this case should be examined in greater depth. I think it lends strong support to the idea that she was competing as a female.

Edit: okay, I see on re-reading that it probably wasn't that clear, but it should be now.

I have my doubts as to how reasonable the characteristics they're determining gender are--most people are pretty conservative when it comes to gender determination.

Again, I think in life it is shitty to be so conservative and closed-minded, but sports aren't life. If the rules are "You must meet the following requirements in order to compete in women's divisions" then those are the requirements. I do agree that these rules have to be made expicit and well-known (and they shouldn't (as the case is now) vary from competition to competition.

There will always be someone on the other side of the line who thinks (and often justifiably so) that the line is arbitrary and unfair, but I don't think there's any way to draw it in a way that is "open minded."

Do you know what the rules are? What they were examining? I don't, my point is that this woman was competing at the same level as a woman and if that's the case, they may need to change how they define what a woman is, be a little more open minded about it--broaden the restrictions. I'm not saying any man in a wig should be allowed to compete as a woman just because he runs at the same speed as one, I'm saying that their gender requirements may be overly strict and in need of relaxation.

I don't think it's a point that can be reasonably argued against, all I'm suggesting is more thought on the matter.

Another question: why are psychological tests a part of it? What do they have to do with how she is competing? If a person is physically a woman but mentally a man, does that disqualify them?

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

DEC 22, 2006 10:38 AM

I would also like to point out that being "100% woman" isn't really possible, since all women have different levels of estrogen when they're born. If you take a look at female athletes and compare them to, say, ballet dancers, you'll see the difference. Or check out female gymnists vs female triatholon-ers.

Gender is NEVER complete, that's why this inconsistency in testing is so troubling.

quagmirething

I'm lost

June 2005

DEC 22, 2006 11:23 AM

Hooraydiation said:
I don't think it's fair to assume that having an ambiguous gender confers some kind of automatic advantage in athletics. Not being female by someone's standards doesn't automatically make her male, much less so hopped up on testosterone that she can demolish her competition.

There could be a detailed argument about where the line is drawn, and that this case is on the wrong side, but that would require much more information than we have. In the wider situation I don't believe it's a very controversial idea that there can sometimes be very significant advantages to being extra male.

If you look at the results for the 800 M, you'll see that Santhi ran a 2:03.16 run, earning second place behind a time of 2:01.79 and just in front of a time of 2:03.19.

For comparison, the gold medal for the men's 800 M was 1:45.74 while the lowest was 1:56.59.

But you can't set a rule by this reasoning. What might it be? That people like this could compete 'til they were clearly better than everyone else? That's the main aim, to be the best, to set the records.

Meanwhile, I'd say the majority of women (and men) have no hope of securing records or gold medal wins in any athletic competitions, regardless of whether or not people such as Santhi are banned. If it's going to be argued that she has a minor genetic advantage (and I don't think she does), then what about other genetic advantages such as being the child of two prominent athletes as opposed to the son of morbidly obese drug abusers?

I can't ague for any system which really makes sense as the whole thing seems pointless to me. You hear the occasional complaint about other things, such as in marathon running that the Kenyan men always win and perhaps something needs to be done about it. Women with ring fingers which aren't as long as their middle fingers have little chance of being pro athletes, it's just a quirk of genetics. Children with birthdays early in their school year will tend to do better and so are more likely to singled out for advanced training. When was the last time a white guy held the 100m record?

In many ways these events are just ways to determine who has the most advantages, while not being detected as being outside the rules. If the rules were changed then a lot of nations would begin testing their children in order to select this small group for exclusive, intensive training. Just not the sort of thing that groups like the Olympic committee want.

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

DEC 22, 2006 07:06 PM

starguitar said:

Hail, hail, Rob-on-i-a...
A land I didn't make up!

And, to be on topic, that is...unheard of, to say the least.

-TM

PAGE:

1 | 2

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

NEWS: Athletic Scandal: Female Runner Tests Positive for "Man"

Vestril

Coronado, CA

February 2003

DEC 22, 2006 10:29 AM