Drugs in other sports and the media.

Dorset_Boy

Definitely pre-meditated act of cheating.
Been given a soft ban too - only 1 year and only from international and state cricket in Australia (they will be encouraged to play club cricket apparently), rather than 2 years from all forms of the game.
See Dan Roan has bagged an all expenses paid trip to South Africa at the licence payers expense......

RichN95.

Dorset Boy wrote:

Definitely pre-meditated act of cheating.
Been given a soft ban too - only 1 year and only from international and state cricket in Australia (they will be encouraged to play club cricket apparently), rather than 2 years from all forms of the game.

I thought it was quite a harsh ban, myself. I suppose with little precedent it's hard to tell.

Having said that, if you can go to jail for deliberately bowling a no-ball, I suppose it can be considered soft.

narbs

Dorset Boy wrote:

See Dan Roan has bagged an all expenses paid trip to South Africa at the licence payers expense......

Screaming 'Did you cheat in the Ashes too' at David Warner.

Carole Cadwalladr he isn't.

awavey

feels about right to me in terms of ban length, its enough to act as deterrent for others, but doesnt consign them as players to the dustbin for good, for whilst it was premeditated bit of cheating, we have to believe it was a one off dumb thing they did on the spur of the moment...till any evidence is provided to the contrary of course, but it has to be evidential not based on rumour.

though whether the likes of Warner will ever be picked to play for Australia again anyway as there seems to be quite alot of animosity towards him in his own dressing room, let alone what he will likely get from the Aussie press/fans and the opposition too, and who knows how Steve Smith will reintegrate, Bancroft I suspect his career at international level is probably over, already seemed to be technically flawed as an opener and Australia get 9months to play with a replacement.

felt Lehmann should have gone too, even if he had no part of it, because hes running a team as coach, where his two most senior players clearly werent talking to him or felt they had to, which suggests a complete breakdown in the team management structure and the way they were operating. What is he doing if he isnt managing his team in a way that means he knows exactly whats going on at all times.

larkim

I bet cricket forums are full of conspiracy theorists now saying "see, I told you it was rife" and disputing the outcome now of every major event. "I reckon the clean winner of the 2016 TT was really Canada" etc etc

Wonder where they got the sandpaper from if it was just a plan concocted by the leadership team and they were away on tour? Do they just nip down to the SA version of B&Q in their whites and baggies?

kingstongraham

I wonder if it is the bringing of a foreign object into the equation that makes this premeditated cheating worse than all the other examples of premeditated cheating in most team sports.

Like bloodgate in rugby was worse than deliberately never putting the ball in straight.

awavey

larkim wrote:

I bet cricket forums are full of conspiracy theorists now saying "see, I told you it was rife" and disputing the outcome now of every major event. "I reckon the clean winner of the 2016 TT was really Canada" etc etc

Wonder where they got the sandpaper from if it was just a plan concocted by the leadership team and they were away on tour? Do they just nip down to the SA version of B&Q in their whites and baggies?

well bats are made of wood,they can get nicks/burrs/splinters from hitting the ball, especially on the edges, its not unreasonable to expect you to have a bit of sandpaper in your kit bag to help smooth out those defects..

and yes the conspiracy theorists are trying to review all hours of footage from previous series

but it is a remarkable thing to quote Skys, just to keep it some relevance to cycling this is the line we dont cross, to be able to step over that line, just after a quick chat at lunch when the game situation wasnt exactly running away from them.

Pross

Oddly the BBC seem to be far more sympathetic to Smith and Bancroft for being caught red handed then lying than they have been to Wiggins for possibly breaking undefined ethics. It seems all you have to do is admit to something (even if the admission itself is full of lies) then burst into tears in front of the world's (well, 7 or 8 countries that have heard of cricket) and everyone forgives you.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Oddly the BBC seem to be far more sympathetic to Smith and Bancroft for being caught red handed then lying than they have been to Wiggins for possibly breaking undefined ethics. It seems all you have to do is admit to something (even if the admission itself is full of lies) then burst into tears in front of the world's (well, 7 or 8 countries that have heard of cricket) and everyone forgives you.

Journalists just want a sacking. Another notch on their notepad. Another big name brought down. And in this case they got one.

If Brailsford had quit they'd have forgotten who Wiggins was by now.

They don't actually care about 'the integrity of the sport' or any of that guff they spout.

orraloon

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

darkhairedlord

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

bompington

darkhairedlord wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

You're definitely being a caster of aspersions here.

kingstongraham

darkhairedlord wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

I have to say that's outrageous. If you are putting rules in like that, excluding field events especially is just perverse.

Pross

KingstonGraham wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

I have to say that's outrageous. If you are putting rules in like that, excluding field events especially is just perverse.

Depends if there is scientific evidence to suggest excess testosterone has a negligible effect in those other events surely? If not then surely a challenge at CAS would be in order.

darkhairedlord

Pross wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

I have to say that's outrageous. If you are putting rules in like that, excluding field events especially is just perverse.

Depends if there is scientific evidence to suggest excess testosterone has a negligible effect in those other events surely? If not then surely a challenge at CAS would be in order.

No, it depends if the rules have been specifically written to target an individual athlete. You would think lord "golden boy" coe would be more progressive with his reputation but, obviously, like many tory boys attacks others for fear of being targeted himself.

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

I have to say that's outrageous. If you are putting rules in like that, excluding field events especially is just perverse.

Depends if there is scientific evidence to suggest excess testosterone has a negligible effect in those other events surely? If not then surely a challenge at CAS would be in order.

Potentially it's the other way round and there's not enough evidence to suggest testosterone has a significant effect in the longer distances.

I don't understand why it doesn't apply to the shorter distances.

Hard to see how there wouldn't be some effect in the longer distances anyway. The Sports Gene has a really interesting section about gender, turns out testosterone is the biggest single determinant of athletic performance by some way (in terms of performance between the genders).

kingstongraham

Pross wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Well this is a different approach. Take drugs or you cannot compete?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/43890575

I note this only applies to distances between 400m and 1mile.
So not specifically targeting one competitor or anything like that then!

I have to say that's outrageous. If you are putting rules in like that, excluding field events especially is just perverse.

Depends if there is scientific evidence to suggest excess testosterone has a negligible effect in those other events surely? If not then surely a challenge at CAS would be in order.

If this is being used as a determining factor in whether someone is allowed to compete in a certain category of sport, then it would make sense for the rules to be the same for that category across all events.

rick_chasey

It's quite complex.

A lot of it revolves around how you identify gender.

I can't comment on Caster Semenya, but more broadly....levels of certain hormones are part and parcel of gender. If you're going through a sex change, you'll be given more of the destination gender hormone in order to help facilitate the physical transformation.

We can also assume that there will be people who are born with less conventional hormone levels of each gender hormones; it should be no surprise that people can and will sit in various places on that spectrum.

We also know that the male hormone - testosterone - does help with athletic performance.

I think what we are beginning to veer towards in women's sport is a fairly specific and ultimately arbitrary line in the sand in terms of what hormone levels constitute being eligable to be a female athlete.

The challenge will be with those people who, by their nature, are somewhere towards the middle of that spectrum, and where that line is drawn.

There won't be an easy solution, and one side or other will feel agrieved.


FWIW, regarding Caster, a lot of female athletes have been very vocal in saying they can't compete against her because of her naturally elevated testosterone levels. This will be playing both into the decision and the challenges discussed above.

timothyw

It is a tricky one, because fundamentally female categories in most sports are handicap categories.

Men are taller, stronger, have more blood cells etc.

When someone does have some of the characteristics of a male, it confers an advantage.

Ultimately, elite sport is largely a genetic lottery - the vast majority of the population don't have the genetics to become great athletes, regardless of how much they train.

It does somewhat amuse me that Caster competes as a female despite largely taking on a male role in her personal life - not something that should have any bearing on whether she is allowed to compete but amusing to me nonetheless!

Anyhow, if you're going to have female categorisation in sports then the line does have to be drawn somewhere, this undeniably seems a bit unfair on Caster Semenya though - I suppose opening these new restrictions up to the more traditional power events on the field and the sprints might open a rather bigger can of worms than they want to.

More clearcut IMHO is the example of male to female sex change weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard - the idea of a level playing field for the other athletes who haven't lived and trained for decades at male levels seems laughable - and I can't help but feel that a fairly blanket ban might be the only solution there.

I remember it being commented when Oscar Pistorius was going through the rigorous qualification process to be allowed to compete at the able bodied olympics that it was lucky he wasn't a truly exceptional talent - IE, that if you put someone world class like a David Rudisha or Wayde van Niekerk on carbon fibre blades then the advantage would have been insurmountable to the other competitors (perhaps bad examples as those two are already far ahead of the field!)

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

Anyhow, if you're going to have female categorisation in sports then the line does have to be drawn somewhere, this undeniably seems a bit unfair on Caster Semenya though - I suppose opening these new restrictions up to the more traditional power events on the field and the sprints might open a rather bigger can of worms than they want to.

Maybe it's time to (officially at least) stop classifying them as men and women's events and have them as Open and (Gender) Restricted. It would also allow women to compete against men if they so wish.

darkhairedlord

RichN95 wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Anyhow, if you're going to have female categorisation in sports then the line does have to be drawn somewhere, this undeniably seems a bit unfair on Caster Semenya though - I suppose opening these new restrictions up to the more traditional power events on the field and the sprints might open a rather bigger can of worms than they want to.

Maybe it's time to (officially at least) stop classifying them as men and women's events and have them as Open and (Gender) Restricted. It would also allow women to compete against men if they so wish.

Maybe they need Peter Griffin, Quagmire, Clevelend and Joe, to sit at the bar and yes/no if they would....
Seems about the same as the IAAF test if you ask me.

flite

I was born, raised, and have always been a woman. Now I'm expected to compete against a trans woman who has had testosterone circulating their body for more than 70 years, and has the bone structure and muscle development of a man. No testing needed, just a statement that they are now a woman. I have no avenue to object. I'm the one who feels I'm being discriminated against! (and yes, I am old enough to think I shouldn't really care, but I do)

rick_chasey

That is a rather gross oversimplification.

blazing_saddles

Rick Chasey wrote:

That is a rather gross oversimplification.

An over simplification of what, exactly?

rick_chasey

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That is a rather gross oversimplification.

An over simplification of what, exactly?

I think in many instances, and Caster is a good example, it's not just a case of allowing "trans" people to compete on an equal footing.

Caster, to be clear, is not a trans woman.

I certainly don't know of any instances where former men are competing against women.

The issue around hormones, as I described earlier, isn't all that straightforward.

timothyw

Rick Chasey wrote:

I certainly don't know of any instances where former men are competing against women.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/spor ... index.html

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I certainly don't know of any instances where former men are competing against women.

There are instances, but not very high profile. For example I found Michelle Dumaresq who was Canadian MTB champion in 2006. As you can see from the photo, the second placed rider was unimpressed.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

I certainly don't know of any instances where former men are competing against women.

Fallon Fox.

Not many yet though.

rick_chasey

Sure ok.

I don’t have the answer re trans athletes.


To be clear, that’s not related to Caster.

twotoebenny

The worlds gone mad with all this stuff... absolute bonkers.