"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

Is amateur racing legit?

Reply

Old 10-24-18, 09:01 PM
  #101  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 8,985

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2698 Post(s)
I still think racing everyone together by skill, ability level would work best (just repeating my 6+ month old suggestion). It is easier to fill fields. And, that is where a bunch are in competitive racing now. Men women and kids all in the same fondo are all trying to beat the other. Some are going very fast and trying real hard. You then look at the electronic results and know the fist ( favorite grouping here). Of course the 1st place overall has the most significance, that is just the way it is.

Acknowledging I started the having X and Y chromosomes in a women's race, I see this is a rather small challenge to cycling's fairness.
OP (who has not responded since the OP) asked about amateurs being legit.
There are many non-cheaters using TUEs and benefiting. I "know" (no proof, just rather certain and admissions) of juniors on Adderall gaining cycling (and more impact-full SAT test taking) benefit , the little blue pill, Insulin, ex-T taking body builders etc. all benefit under the rules. That is just drugs.
Budgets also affect what a rider can do. There are many vague rules to leverage to get an advantage. Actual rules that make juniors have different gears than the adults they compete against is obviously unfair.
I do not think cycling is fair, and with TUEs, less so.
But like in life, you just find the angle you can. In context of the OP, an amateur recreational sport, cycling is not fair.
Too much advantage, too unfair, is not cool, but a bit seems in-line with what the sport is about.

Cheating - I posted above what I think.
Doge is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-18, 10:23 AM
  #102  
Psimet2001 
I eat carbide.
 
Psimet2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 20,288

Bikes: Lots. Van Dessel and Squid Dealer

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
I hate this general discussion because when you step back the only ones having it are usually.... cis males - like myself. IMHO - we have no role in this discussion.

All I know about that track championship is that a racer won. The UCI presented an award. The UCI hasn't relegated, vacated, or otherwise removed that award.
__________________
PSIMET Wheels, PSIMET Racing, PSIMET Neutral Race Support, and 11 Jackson Coffee
YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels
Psimet2001 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-18, 12:43 PM
  #103  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,677
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Psimet2001 View Post
I hate this general discussion because when you step back the only ones having it are usually.... cis males - like myself. IMHO - we have no role in this discussion.
That's sort of saying cis men can't grasp the science or philosophy of the various arguments. Or that we couldn't have an opinion of who is racing with our friends or relatives. Not sure I buy that. My wife certainly has opinions about who I race against.

That's it's only men having the conversation isn't really true. Heathpack can grasp all that sciencey stuff and has been vocal. It's also an international story at this point, and it's being discussed all over. Amongst the most unskillful things I see is shouting down folks who support transrights on all other levels but have questions of the competitive fairness as transphobic. Seems ultimately to hurt the cause more than help it.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 View Post
All I know about that track championship is that a racer won. The UCI presented an award. The UCI hasn't relegated, vacated, or otherwise removed that award.
And surely the UCI isn't the ultimate decider of fairness. Folks, even folks on BF, have argued endlessly various UCI decisions. Sure, fact is she's the winner. That hardly ends the discussion though. Or is an indicator that at some point the UCI wouldn't have some other standard.
gsteinb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-18, 01:05 AM
  #104  
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Posts: 15,270
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Psimet2001 View Post
I hate this general discussion because when you step back the only ones having it are usually.... cis males - like myself. IMHO - we have no role in this discussion.
Yup. We have opinions, but are they legit?

All I know about that track championship is that a racer won. The UCI presented an award. The UCI hasn't relegated, vacated, or otherwise removed that award.
It was just some masters race anyway.
__________________
cat 1.

my race videos
mattm is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-18, 11:29 AM
  #105  
Psimet2001 
I eat carbide.
 
Psimet2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 20,288

Bikes: Lots. Van Dessel and Squid Dealer

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
I understand why people think it should be discussed, but the reality of it is that it can't be discussed currently. We don't appear to have enough of the answers to have that discussion intelligently. Not taking everything at face value has become a hallmark of being trans-phobic. I have seen so many in the industry being labeled as that these last couple of weeks that I know better than to even remotely enter the discussion. I know enough to know that I don't know anything. I don't believe that I am trans-phobic. I also know that due to who I am as a white cis-male that I am liable to mis-speak, be incorrect, etc. Not through intention but through plain ignorance.

I have known a few trans-athletes. I don't know a single one that has just dominated in women's fields. My experience and my meager understanding of what is in play here has shown me that it's just not that simple.

That being said I have heard some friends liken this discussion by cis-males to having men discuss and make laws and policy decisions regarding women's reproductive rights. I personally feel that men have no place in that discussion. I therefore recognize and realize that most likely means I have no place in this discussion either. I'm not attacking anyone else for choosing to participate in it - just hoping to share some thoughts that I found to be poignant enough to make me decide to disengage from it.

As for relying on the UCI - as I am not in the discussion I have to rely on the UCI to make decisions in these situations. If they aren't doing their job in this regard then I will expect to see the women of this sport that I follow and respect to start sharing their opinions and reasoning about that. I think that's the biggest thing about this that I see - the women who I know that compete at that level have only been having an issue with the fact that this seems to be an issue. I personally can't ignore that.
__________________
PSIMET Wheels, PSIMET Racing, PSIMET Neutral Race Support, and 11 Jackson Coffee
YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels
Psimet2001 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-18, 03:57 PM
  #106  
echappist
fuggitivo solitario
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 9,044
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Psimet2001 View Post
I understand why people think it should be discussed, but the reality of it is that it can't be discussed currently. We don't appear to have enough of the answers to have that discussion intelligently. Not taking everything at face value has become a hallmark of being trans-phobic. I have seen so many in the industry being labeled as that these last couple of weeks that I know better than to even remotely enter the discussion. I know enough to know that I don't know anything. I don't believe that I am trans-phobic. I also know that due to who I am as a white cis-male that I am liable to mis-speak, be incorrect, etc. Not through intention but through plain ignorance.
Thing is, Dr. McKinnon believes that there are sufficient evidence to have that discussion. For her, being allowed to compete by fiat from a governing agency is nice, but she really wants to argue (without sufficient evidence) that such a fiat is completely backed by science. That is to say, she thinks there is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that no advantage could be carried over. I'm not putting words in her mouth, as she said so as much, on this particular forum, a bit more than two years ago. Anybody with any training in debate or logic can spot the folly in trying to defend that position. But the best part is that someone supposedly an expert in epistemology (viz. Dr. McKinnon) cannot. And oh, one better agree with her view and withdraw all reservations, lest one wants to be labeled as blind to the facts or worse.

I have known a few trans-athletes. I don't know a single one that has just dominated in women's fields. My experience and my meager understanding of what is in play here has shown me that it's just not that simple.

That being said I have heard some friends liken this discussion by cis-males to having men discuss and make laws and policy decisions regarding women's reproductive rights. I personally feel that men have no place in that discussion. I therefore recognize and realize that most likely means I have no place in this discussion either. I'm not attacking anyone else for choosing to participate in it - just hoping to share some thoughts that I found to be poignant enough to make me decide to disengage from it.

As for relying on the UCI - as I am not in the discussion I have to rely on the UCI to make decisions in these situations. If they aren't doing their job in this regard then I will expect to see the women of this sport that I follow and respect to start sharing their opinions and reasoning about that. I think that's the biggest thing about this that I see - the women who I know that compete at that level have only been having an issue with the fact that this seems to be an issue. I personally can't ignore that.
That, too, is logically indefensible. Anyone who hold this view should ask, if that were truly the case (which is to say that men don't get to dictate on policies affecting women, because only women have a say in such matters), how could women receive the right to vote in the first place? Or to draw a parallel, does the civil right and voting right acts have to be legislated and voted on solely by people of color in order to be legitimate? I will grant though, that men should spend more time to listen and understand women's positions in order to realize that there may be blind spots, but a blanket "gag order" would seem quite counterproductive

Last edited by echappist; 10-29-18 at 04:06 PM.
echappist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-18, 04:09 PM
  #107  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,677
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Originally Posted by echappist View Post
Thing is, Dr. McKinnon believes that there are sufficient evidence to have that discussion. For her, being allowed to compete by fiat from a governing agency is nice, but she really wants to argue (without sufficient evidence) that such a fiat is completely backed by science. That is to say, she thinks there is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that no advantage could be carried over. I'm not putting words in her mouth, as she said so as much, on this particular forum, a bit more than two years ago. Anybody with any training in debate or logic can spot the folly in trying to defend that position. But the best part is that someone supposedly an expert in epistemology (viz. Dr. McKinnon) cannot. And oh, one better agree with her view and withdraw all reservations, lest one wants to be labeled as blind to the facts or worse.



That, too, is logically indefensible. Anyone who hold this view should ask, if that were truly the case (which is to say that men don't get to dictate on policies affecting women, because only women have a say in such matters), how could women receive the right to vote in the first place? Or to draw a parallel, does the civil right and voting right acts have to be legislated and voted on solely by people of color in order to be legitimate? I will grant though, that men should spend more time to listen and understand women's positions in order to realize that there may be blind spots, but a blanket "gag order" would seem quite counterproductive

I think further complicating things is that she thinks that having to reduce her testosterone level in order to qualify to be a violation of her human rights, and that she should be able to compete with her normal testosterone levels. As a guy with a philosophy degree some of the posts make my teeth hurt.
gsteinb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-18, 04:50 PM
  #108  
Heathpack 
Has a magic bike
 
Heathpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,949

Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone

Mentioned: 642 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3895 Post(s)
@Psimet2001 , I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say the women you know who compete at that level are "only having an issue with the fact that this seems to be an issue". Not sure if you're trying to say that women in elite racing fields don't care about transwomen racing. But I don't necessarily think racing women's "opinions" on this issue are necessarily any better than men's- if all boils down to how much you understand the physiology and bike racing.

I've been reluctant to have tons to say in this thread because I think I literally already said most of what I have to say on the subject a couple of years ago when I tried to hash it out with Rachel here in the road racing forum.

But basically:
1. Men are faster cyclists than women mostly because of testosterone, which has affects body size and muscle mass but also VO2 max. Thus both endurance and sprint numbers are improved by testosterone.
2. Transwomen who go through puberty as male and then transition to female may or may not take drugs to block the production of testosterone.
3. As pertains to transgender women who race with testosterone levels reduced to the female range, you sometimes hear that "power" is decreased by 10% from the power numbers that were seen when that person was racing with male testosterone levels. The difference in FTP between men and women of the same age and training is about 10% which makes transwomen racing with ciswomen seem "fair".
4. However, we all know that short duration power efforts are more important to many types of bike racing than FTP- ie crits, road races, and track sprinting.
5. Generally speaking the power differences between men and women when sprinting is around 20%. So now a transwoman having a "power" decrease of around 10% is obviously "not fair"- if sprinting is important to the event.
6. But no one has looked at a population of transgender female bike racers racing various cycling disciplines (because there's not enough such people to do a meaningful study). You need to look at the "whole organism" and by this I mean race results not one specific measure of exercise physiology like V02max or FTP. Not on a trainer in a lab. Because things like body size, leverage, center of balance, etc etc etc when combined with sprint power numbers may be important factors as well.
7. There is one study of transgender female endurance runners and how their performances changed when they transitioned from male to female. They got slower. Male race times went to female race times. Sound "fair" and like the issue is settled; this study gets quoted by transgender advocates as "scientifically proving" that transgender women are no different from cisgender women when racing.
8. That claim of the endurance runner study "proving" that transgender women racing with cisgender women in bike racing is fair is however completely absurd. First, endurance running results are dictated most heavily by V02 max (and therefore current but not past testosterone levels). Second, the author of that study, herself a transgender female athlete, clearly states in her conclusions that results should not be extrapolated beyond endurance running and specifically *not to any sport with a significant sprint component*. Third, the paper has serious methodological flaws (not because the authors are stupid but because the subject is just very hard to study)- so its persuasive strength is not high to someone with a science background.
9. The bottom line is that we just don't have enough information to state "scientifically" whether transgender women racing with cisgender women is fair or reasonable. If you understand physiology and training with power, you would predict that transgender women would find more success in sprint events and crits than they would in TTs. Probably based on the typical power difference between men and women, transgender women have an unfair advantage in races where sprinting is important.
10. All of what I wrote above only pertains to transgender women racing with testosterone levels in the female range. It doesn't pertain to transgender women racing with male testosterone levels. Rachel's current position is that its a violation of transgender women's civil rights to require that they reduce testosterone levels to female levels.

Beyond all this, I believe the overall policy on transgender female athletes was dictated by the IOC and applies to all sports. In some sports, male body size and shape is a huge advantage. For example: fighting sports like boxing, where reach is important. Basketball, where wingspan is important. Cycling or track and field sprint events, where larger frame size and muscle mass is important And so on. Developing one policy that applies to all sports just makes no sense. But I think also that there's a sense that women's athletics are less "significant" than men's athletics (Doge essentially stated this upthread when he said that the fastest races are always more significant in bike racing, meaning men's races are almost always more significant than women's, yet not one person in this thread called him on that statement- admittedly possibly just because it would be pointless to do so). If you're going to have to sacrifice something for a PR or PC win, is it easier for the IOC to just allow it to happen to the women? Sadly, maybe.

Who should have a voice in this? Personally, I think both men and women who understand bike racing should be able to talk about this issue. But honestly the people who should have the biggest voice with the most weight given to it are people who understand bike racing AND who can be fair minded AND who understand what the science does and does not say. Male or female does not matter as much as the ability to be intellectually honest about it. Talking about this issue has never gone too well for me though- I just get called a transphobic bigot when nothing could be further than the truth. The ability to use our brains and calmly discuss something seems likes its getting lost in our society, which a scarier to me than the impact on women's bike racing, which I could just drop out of my life if necessary with no harm done.

tl/dr slow afternoon at work
Heathpack is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-18, 07:54 PM
  #109  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 10,872
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1134 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Heathpack View Post
@Psimet2001
tl/dr slow afternoon at work
Thank you for your post (in a futile desire to keep the thread less long on my infinite scroll, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, even though it is valuable). Would that we had more female racers (especially sprinters) and people who understand the science posting.
himespau is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-18, 03:31 PM
  #110  
Psimet2001 
I eat carbide.
 
Psimet2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 20,288

Bikes: Lots. Van Dessel and Squid Dealer

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Heathpack View Post
@Psimet2001 , I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say the women you know who compete at that level are "only having an issue with the fact that this seems to be an issue". Not sure if you're trying to say that women in elite racing fields don't care about transwomen racing. But I don't necessarily think racing women's "opinions" on this issue are necessarily any better than men's
Ah - saying that I have not heard from a single one of the many current and former women who I know either personally or through sponsoring/supporting them while racing that has taken the position that they are in any way upset with competing against trans women. Rather they have almost unilaterally posted that are upset that men are so bothered about it. They have been upset that people consider it to be an "issue" at all. Considering these are women discussing the competitors in their own fields I wholehearted disagree with your statement that their opinions on the issue aren't better than anyone else's. They are the field. By definition they are the most important opinions.

Originally Posted by Heathpack View Post
Beyond all this, I believe the overall policy on transgender female athletes was dictated by the IOC and applies to all sports.
Thus my point about the UCI. In other words - discussing the science is fun but it's meaningless outside of the decisions of the governing bodies. We would all hope that the science plays a role in their decisions but this isn't a Boolean thing. With that in mind there has to be an arbiter and for me the governing and sanctioning bodies are covering that role.

Originally Posted by Heathpack View Post
Who should have a voice in this? Personally, I think both men and women who understand bike racing should be able to talk about this issue. But honestly the people who should have the biggest voice with the most weight given to it are people who understand bike racing AND who can be fair minded AND who understand what the science does and does not say. Male or female does not matter as much as the ability to be intellectually honest about it. Talking about this issue has never gone too well for me though- I just get called a transphobic bigot when nothing could be further than the truth.
I understand the women racers who are having an issue with men being involved in this. It is our (male), role to decide on the "fairness" of the women's field when they themselves have voiced loudly and repetitively that they believe it to be fair. Jumping on the transphobic name calling bandwagon is unfortunate as it just simply shuts down what could be a meaningful discussion but I have begun to understand where that motivation comes from. Its the anger of once again being told/rather man-splained to - about what should be considered fair. It really just does come across as men acting like they have to come to their rescue because they aren't able to know when it's unfair, They aren't able to comprehend the full depth or science of the situation.

Originally Posted by Heathpack View Post
The ability to use our brains and calmly discuss something seems likes its getting lost in our society, which a scarier to me than the impact on women's bike racing, which I could just drop out of my life if necessary with no harm done.
Agreed. I have really wanted to participate in the discussion but haven't until this thread because quite simply I watched all of the racers I consider close friends - racers I respect and admire - destroy any man in the industry that even remotely expressed interest in looking into the question with the frame of reference of discussing its "fairness". It has taken my engineering brain a long time to wrap itself around why that's the case. I would naturally question why we consider things to be illegal performance enhancing things in one scenario and yet so basic and necessary for human dignity and existence in another scenario that to imply it may be performance enhancing is akin to joining a hate group. Yet that is where we are.

I do miss the old days where everyone could just throw out ideas, thoughts and beliefs only to have them challenged by logic, science, opposing beliefs, etc. I know I've learned a ton but I fear the "everyone else is always wrong" approach we have taken in all things in life is just simply eliminating the discussion and ending any possible collaboration.

Meh. Smarter people than I - most likely women - will figure this out. I just wish people still showed up to races. I feel like I'm at the reg table holding a sign that says, "I don't care -Thank you for being here - just wash your hands"
__________________
PSIMET Wheels, PSIMET Racing, PSIMET Neutral Race Support, and 11 Jackson Coffee
YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels
Psimet2001 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-18, 03:46 PM
  #111  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Originally Posted by himespau View Post
Would that we had more female racers (especially sprinters) and people who understand the science posting .
I made a couple edits to make this broadly applicable to life and our modern times
tetonrider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-18, 04:55 PM
  #112  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 10,872
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1134 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tetonrider View Post
I made a couple edits to make this broadly applicable to life and our modern times
I'm not going to say I fully understand the science (and I say that as a biologist - I'm much more comfortable talkng about my bacteria), but I appreciate the attempts to turn it into a discussion of facts rather than, "but he was born with ____ so he's a man" that so often fills these threads.

I am also glad to hear from someone who may (or may not) be affected by the presence of a transgender athlete in their field. It's sort of like that old quote about the difference between a chicken and a pig's contribution to breakfast. Most of us commenting are (as usual on this site) men, and it's nice to hear the opinion of someone directly affected.

But yeah, I agree with your point too.
himespau is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-18, 05:16 PM
  #113  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,677
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
In the interest of accuracy Sarah Fader pulled out of the finals in protest, and the bronze medal winner said it was unfair. So there are two women in the thick of it.
gsteinb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-18, 05:26 PM
  #114  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Originally Posted by himespau View Post
I'm not going to say I fully understand the science (and I say that as a biologist - I'm much more comfortable talkng about my bacteria), but I appreciate the attempts to turn it into a discussion of facts rather than, "but he was born with ____ so he's a man" that so often fills these threads.

I am also glad to hear from someone who may (or may not) be affected by the presence of a transgender athlete in their field. It's sort of like that old quote about the difference between a chicken and a pig's contribution to breakfast. Most of us commenting are (as usual on this site) men, and it's nice to hear the opinion of someone directly affected.

But yeah, I agree with your point too.
I was mostly commenting upon how social media has given everyone an equal voice, without regard to one's credentials. While this can be a good thing, it seems more often to result in people taking sides without real understanding of the facts. This has some weird results.

I do agree with the earlier comment that @Heathpack 's opinion is of particular note because she is informed, level-headed and (more) directly impacted. It does not mean hers is the only important opinion on the matter, of course.
tetonrider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-18, 06:06 PM
  #115  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 8,985

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2698 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Heathpack View Post
... he said that the fastest races are always more significant in bike racing... yet not one person in this thread called him on that statement- admittedly possibly just because it would be pointless to do so). ...
Would I be called a fastest?

I am not speaking of what the athlete perceives, but what the non-athlete perceives as measured by direct money and overall money (sponsors, media) that goes into it. That also correlates to effort and selectivity. The worlds greatest athlete could be an Olympic curler, but likely not.

I admit, contrary to my earlier statement, the women's worlds 200M track event was certainly more significant than many pro events this year, not because of speed.

Last edited by Doge; 10-30-18 at 07:09 PM.
Doge is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-18, 12:47 PM
  #116  
Ygduf
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,920

Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.

Mentioned: 101 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 940 Post(s)
Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
In the interest of accuracy Sarah Fader pulled out of the finals in protest, and the bronze medal winner said it was unfair. So there are two women in the thick of it.
also, only reason I knew about it was my facebook feed which was a mix. Some women for, some against. More people (women I know and ride with) against in private conversation than in the public ones.
Ygduf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-18, 01:33 PM
  #117  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,677
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Ygduf View Post
also, only reason I knew about it was my facebook feed which was a mix. Some women for, some against. More people (women I know and ride with) against in private conversation than in the public ones.
from the velonews article

“I’m not blaming Rachel for competing. A lot of people are calling her a cheater, and she’s not a cheater because the current rules allow her to do it legally,” Fader said. “I just don’t believe the current rules.”

Fader says her opinion was upheld by what she saw in the qualifying rounds. In Fader’s eyes, Dr. McKinnon dominated the other riders at the competition. Her power on the bicycle was simply too great for tactics and strategy to overcome, Fader said. And when Fader learned that Dr. McKinnon had switched from road cycling to track racing less than two years ago, she also questioned her inclusion. Fader is a cycling coach, and she believes Dr. McKinnon’s rapid rise from track newbie to world champion is a sign of an unfair advantage.

“It’s taken some women five to eight years to get that fast and [Dr. McKinnon] made these leaps and bounds in a few years,” Fader said. “For her being such a beginner and being able to hit these times that took us years to hit how do you even measure that progression?”

Other female competitors shared her opinion, Fader said, however, they were scared to speak out publicly against Dr. McKinnon. These riders feared being labeled discriminatory and insensitive, and thus kept their opinions to themselves. Indeed, one other rider from the race reached out to me to share a similar opinion to Fader’s. This rider wished to remain anonymous.

“There’s a lot of sensitivity here. I’ve spoken with women who are afraid to give their opinion because they think they will be deemed to be discriminating against transgender people, or that people will think they hate [transgender people],” Fader said. “I don’t think it’s about discrimination, I think it’s about looking logically at the rules.”
gsteinb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-18, 02:12 PM
  #118  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 10,872
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1134 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
I still think racing everyone together by skill, ability level would work best (just repeating my 6+ month old suggestion). It is easier to fill fields. And, that is where a bunch are in competitive racing now. Men women and kids all in the same fondo are all trying to beat the other. Some are going very fast and trying real hard. You then look at the electronic results and know the fist ( favorite grouping here). Of course the 1st place overall has the most significance, that is just the way it is.

Acknowledging I started the having X and Y chromosomes in a women's race, I see this is a rather small challenge to cycling's fairness.
OP (who has not responded since the OP) asked about amateurs being legit.
There are many non-cheaters using TUEs and benefiting. I "know" (no proof, just rather certain and admissions) of juniors on Adderall gaining cycling (and more impact-full SAT test taking) benefit , the little blue pill, Insulin, ex-T taking body builders etc. all benefit under the rules. That is just drugs.
Budgets also affect what a rider can do. There are many vague rules to leverage to get an advantage. Actual rules that make juniors have different gears than the adults they compete against is obviously unfair.
I do not think cycling is fair, and with TUEs, less so.
But like in life, you just find the angle you can. In context of the OP, an amateur recreational sport, cycling is not fair.
Too much advantage, too unfair, is not cool, but a bit seems in-line with what the sport is about.

Cheating - I posted above what I think.
I wouldn't agree that the overall fastest is the most important, but I do think that UCI definitely feels that women's racing in general is of secondary importance, and, if they can allow transgender athletes to race there, it will be good PR by making them look open and welcoming and it's only women's racing, so who cares if it leads to competitive? Again, that's my take on their feeling, not that I'm agreeing with it by any means. A more cynical me thinks that they also think that, if someone raises a stink, it means more press for them and that's always a good thing. I mean would we really still be talking about womens' masters champs (or any world championships) if not for this?
himespau is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-18, 02:47 PM
  #119  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 8,985

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2698 Post(s)
Originally Posted by himespau View Post
I wouldn't agree that the overall fastest is the most important, but I do think that UCI definitely feels that women's racing in general is of secondary importance, and, if they can allow transgender athletes to race there, it will be good PR by making them look open and welcoming and it's only women's racing, so who cares if it leads to competitive? Again, that's my take on their feeling, not that I'm agreeing with it by any means. A more cynical me thinks that they also think that, if someone raises a stink, it means more press for them and that's always a good thing. I mean would we really still be talking about womens' masters champs (or any world championships) if not for this?
Despite my rep to some, I care very little that fairness discussion is around women, trans or those that medically need drugs. It is pretty evident that TUEs do not lead to fairness.

An unfair win is not a "legit" win in my opinion. It is a real win and it is not cheating, but the "honor" that comes from being "legit" they do not deserve.

Without looking it up, does anyone posting know the new women's 200m record time set by the athlete that did the event once?
I do know the time set by the legit (I believe) American that set it in the pursuit this year.

I also pay attention to many legit women's times past and present - Amber, Kristen, Summer, Cloie, Megan, Linda.

TUE wins regardless of sexual orientation or affliction are very grey to me. As posted many times, TUEs should go way.
A TUE athlete should recuse themselves and not race against others that do not have the same access to what they do. When they can race like everyone else they race against, they are legit.
Doge is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-18, 07:32 PM
  #120  
Heathpack 
Has a magic bike
 
Heathpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,949

Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone

Mentioned: 642 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3895 Post(s)
Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
from the velonews article
I would agree with pretty much everything Fader says, I could not have stated it better myself.

I think a lot of women who race bikes relate to people who are marginalized or at a disadvantage. So the initial instinct may be to be supportive of a transgender woman racing. On a superficial level, it kind of seems inspiring.

But if you think about it more deeply or gain more experience training with power, you may begin to question it. If you do, it’s hard to parse out the truth. You’re told (very misleadingly) that “the science is settled” and most people don’t have enough knowledge base on this subject to argue the issue. The UCI implemented this rule and they must know more than me, right? And then, culturally women are expected to be “nice” and cheery, and to not make waves. So there’s lots of reasons to not speak up. Not to mention that you may be supportive of transgender rights generally and find yourself struggling to articulate why this is different.
Heathpack is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-18, 08:27 AM
  #121  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 8,985

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2698 Post(s)
I can't find the winning 200m women's master time (EDIT - found it. 11.92 which was 1st indoor, said slower than outdoor), so moot point in this situation. But in juniors and elites UCI records are posted: About Track Cycling - Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)
This particular event - flying 200m record is held by Kristina Vogal @ 10.384 done Dec 2013. Kristina was/is very popular and more so after her tragic crash this year.
If we see those that developed as males putting a UCI record viewed as unreachable by women on the board, that may just kill the time/distance events for women all together.
This would carry over to swimming, track and field as well.

I was reading that the Olympic committee decided T level needs to be super low for at least a year. My kid's trainer took about 20 years to loose all his body building mass. There are structural differences that also affect sport.
Imagine a Micheal Phelps at super low T competing in women's swimming.

Last edited by Doge; 11-01-18 at 08:34 AM.
Doge is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-18, 08:53 AM
  #122  
big john
Senior Member
 
big john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 11,999
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
Imagine a Micheal Phelps at super low T competing in women's swimming.
Imagine Mike Tyson at low T fighting women. HBO did a segment on "Real Sports" back in 2014 about transgender athletes. There was a story about Fallon Fox, an MMA fighter who did actually suffer one loss against a woman but generally mowed down her opponents. It was argued that no amount of transitioning could make someone who had gone through puberty as a male make that person the same as a genetic female. Bigger bones, more powerful punches, stronger jaw, etc.
Anecdotally, the women I know who race are opposed to racing against transgender women.
big john is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-18, 08:58 AM
  #123  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,553
Mentioned: 174 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2492 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Psimet2001 View Post
I do miss the old days where everyone could just throw out ideas, thoughts and beliefs only to have them challenged by logic, science
As if such a time ever existed.
PepeM is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-18, 09:41 AM
  #124  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,083
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1146 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
I can't find the winning 200m women's master time (EDIT - found it. 11.92 which was 1st indoor, said slower than outdoor), so moot point in this situation. But in juniors and elites UCI records are posted: About Track Cycling - Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)
This particular event - flying 200m record is held by Kristina Vogal @ 10.384 done Dec 2013. Kristina was/is very popular and more so after her tragic crash this year.
.
Some of the records on the UCI site are outdated. The current Masters Womens 35-39 World Record 200m time is 11.889. Set earlier this year at Masters Worlds in LA.
topflightpro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-18, 09:51 AM
  #125  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,677
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Geopolitical realities aside, I bet Caitlyn Jenner could have crushed some events in 1980.
gsteinb is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service