Again, your layman interpretation is incorrect, and they have done the studies to prove it.
Should this guy able to compete against normal people?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Again, your layman interpretation is incorrect, and they have done the studies to prove it.
So your argument for this is based on your own emotions. That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that doesn't change the fact this matter went to a committee and was voted on. You also state that they were “pushed” into voting to let him compete. That works both ways, I’m sure athletes also “pushed” the IAAF into not letting him compete. So others would feel sadden for him if he wasn’t allowed in.
Ok look IAAF clearly did not allow the other handicap guy to compete. This is obviously causing an issue in IAAF, and there is no one side of a coin. My argument is based on the fairness of someone with a mechanical devise in competing with those who do not have such device.
and in addition to that he DOES have an advantage:
So basically IAAF disregarded the study and under pressure allowed him to participate.
http://www.runnerspace.com/members/images/4/614_full.jpg
The situation is similar to the high school kid who (rightfully) refused to wrestle with a girl. The same running against a legless dude, it is a lose-lose situation.
If you win, you beat a legless dude, if you lose, you lost against a legless dude. He should think of the other competitors' feelings...
If you win, you beat a legless dude, if you lose, you lost against a legless dude. He should think of the other competitors' feelings...
Why was he right in refusing to wrestle a girl? Are you saying females aren't capable competitors? Whatever happened to judging a person on their merits?
So you're saying that the amputee should take into account the ignorant feelings of a bigot? That's like asking a black person to reconsider marrying a white person because the KKK doesn't approve of it. I mean, are you being serious here?
exactly emotions/feelings associated with this...and especially while you are running and see him run alongside or know he is running. And in sports emotions are everything, you need a focused mind to win. But of course the main argument is the fairness of the guy running, not just emotions.
No its not like the KKK example you just gave. The feelings are not ignorant, the feelings are part of the competition where competitors are all given a fair chance to compete. In running someone with a cooling pad shirt for example has a better chance against someone who does not, in winning.
I dunno. Different sexes and such. There is a reason why the sexes are separated in contact sports. But you know what? If you are so big on equality, I will play dumb: How come men can not compete in female races???
I am judging them by the size of their vaginas...
Of course. I want Mike Tyson to be able to box against girls...
Did you read the findings of the committee? Obviously not. Because if you did, you'd know two very important things: Firstly, the advantage that the runner has is in straight lines after acceleration, because of his running motion. The researcher that found this advantage was specifically told not to look for disadvantages. "We're looking for advantages, not disadvantages" was the exact quote. And as such, the first team didn't look at whether or not he consumed as much oxygen, expended as much energy, or fatigued at the same rate. Nor did they measure him in any other scenario he'd face in a 400m race, such as rising from the block, accelerating, or turning.
The committee threw out the findings not because of any pressure, but because the research done that found he had an advantage was inconclusive. The rule (which was written with him in mind) only excludes runners who have a net advantage. In other words, they did not show he had an overall advantage over other runners.
Well bringing up a slightly different issue: The American weight lifting "lady" who happens to be 340 lbs, used to play football in HS, she was a deffensive lineback or what. I assume she was already 240 lbs or so back then. A few reasons why it is OK to let a girl play in the men's field:
1. At a younger age the difference is smaller between the sexes. Although late in the HS it is pretty obvious, I guess she compensated it by being overweight.
2. There are no such a sport for females.
Still, generally it is not a good idea to mix the sexes. In table tennis or basket waving, it OK, in boxing, not so much...
1. At a younger age the difference is smaller between the sexes. Although late in the HS it is pretty obvious, I guess she compensated it by being overweight.
2. There are no such a sport for females.
Still, generally it is not a good idea to mix the sexes. In table tennis or basket waving, it OK, in boxing, not so much...
Right, because the label "inconclusive" is truly conclusive enough to let him compete. Net advantage? Thats just stupid, he can always change those legs, if they did not provide the spring support, for carbon fiber ones or something longer. How are their studies now become "conclusive"?
And please give me a link where the committee did a study on this guy.
The issue with different sexes competing in sports is even more complicated than that. Many women for example have been taking steroids or are on a boundary of being a man or a woman that they have to prove by some means that they are indeed women to compete in women field of sports.
Youreyes, you should just agree with Balerion and myself. You know we're right, one study said he used less energy he also cannot do the turns as well doesnt that even out? If the other athletes felt as strong about this as you don't you think they might have protested doing the actual run?
And what would that reason be, exactly?
In racing? I don't know. In certain sports it makes sense to maintain separate divisions, if for no other reason than women would have a very hard time winning (it might be the opposite in racing; I want to say the women were faster than the men in the 100m hurdles this year). Think of weightlifting, or shot-put. But these aren't laws. Rather, they exist so that one sex won't be left in the cold due to a natural disadvantage. But if a woman, say, shows she can lift weights with the best man in the world, then she should be able to compete against men in that sport. Same goes for wrestling. If she's strong enough that she's not at any great disadvantage against men, why shouldn't she be allowed to wrestle men?
On the size of their vaginas? So then it isn't that they have vaginas, but that they have vaginas that are either too big or too small? Or is this just your clumsy way of saying that you judge them based on the fact that they have vaginas.
That's different. We were talking about wrestling, not boxing. Though if there is a woman who shows she can box successfully against men, she should be allowed to.
Thing is other athletes are trying to focus on the actual run, than be bothered by this issue. And when they do feel that it is unfair, how do you go up to the IAAF or even this handicap and tell him, "Hey you handicap guy, I feel that you competing with us is unfair because you got those artificial legs!". Can anyone have the guts to say that when they feel so? I doubt it. After all he is the weak one, and weak people need support and motherly care.
it's not about "guts" if you feel so strongly about something then speak up.
http://www.caaglop.com/robbenisland-blog/tag/iaaf/
I recommend you read this. It has a bunch of sources regarding the issue.
How is he weak? He was in the semi-final of the 400m event in the Olympics.
I was considering this argument too. Sounds valid...
None of your other arguments got off the ground. Why the hell not?