t-and-f: Gender Bending Rules
Just another case of Political Correctness run amuck! IOC Clears Way for Transsexuals to Compete Mon May 17, 4:13 PM ET LAUSANNE, Switzerland - Transsexuals were cleared Monday to compete in the Olympics for the first time. Under a proposal approved by the IOC (news - web sites) executive board, athletes who have undergone sex-change surgery will be eligible for the Olympics if their new gender has been legally recognized and they have gone through a minimum two-year period of postoperative hormone therapy. AP Photo The decision, which covers both male-to-female and female-to-male cases, goes into effect starting with the Athens Olympics in August. The IOC had put off a decision in February, saying more time was needed to consider all the medical issues. Some members had been concerned whether male-to-female transsexuals would have physical advantages competing against women. Men have higher levels of testosterone and greater muscle-to-fat ratio and heart and lung capacity. However, doctors say, testosterone levels and muscle mass drop after hormone therapy and sex-change surgery. IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said the situation of transsexuals competing in high-level sports was rare but becoming more common. IOC medical director Patrick Schamasch said no specific sports had been singled out by the ruling. Any sport may be touched by this problem, he said. Until now, we didn't have any rules or regulations. We needed to establish some sort of policy. Until 1999, the IOC conducted gender verification tests at the Olympics but the screenings were dropped before the 2000 Sydney Games (news - web sites). One of the best known cases of transsexuals in sports involves Renee Richards, formerly Richard Raskind, who played on the women's tennis tour in the 1970s. In March, Australia's Mianne Bagger became the first transsexual to play in a pro golf tournament. Michelle Dumaresq, formerly Michael, has competed in mountain bike racing for Canada. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx (TM) 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated... - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
t-and-f: Olympic Games Are No Longer Showcasing Amateurism
Olympic Games Are No Longer Showcasing Amateurism Athletes Seem More Concerned With Money Than Competing for Country By JOHN FEINSTEIN A little bit less than three months before the start of the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, the newspapers are filled with Olympic news these days. None of it has anything to do with competition. Almost every day there is another story on whether the Athens facilities will or will not be ready; whether the stadium or the swimming pool will have a roof to protect athletes and spectators from searing heat; whether the city is prepared to withstand the huge influx of people that come with an Olympic games. An educated guess on the last issue at this point would be not in a million years, much less in three months. There are also the inevitable stories about security planning. The security budget for the games is now up to $1.2 billion and who knows if that will be enough? It certainly isn't enough to make those going to Athens feel safe and confident -- there isn't enough money on earth for that in these times -- but the one thing that is certain is that those who do go to Athens will be forced to go through constant security checks every hour of every day that they are en route to Athens; in Athens or en route home from Athens. Sadly, if you are going to attempt to bring together the athletes of the world, thousands of media members and thousands of fans there is no way around this. No one connected to these or any future Olympics will be able to exhale until the last plane has landed with the last load of athletes at the conclusion of the games. If the only headaches right now were facilities and security, all would be relatively well in the Olympic world. Both are an inevitable part of Olympic life. In fact, everyone knew Athens was going to have problems from the day the city was awarded the games. The International Olympic Committee -- the most corrupt and incompetent organization in the world this side of the NCAA -- wanted to give the Olympics to Athens in 1996. Their reasoning was, for once, sound and not based on bribes: the first modern Olympics had been staged in 1896. For the 100th anniversary of those games, why not go back to the country where the Olympics actually began all those thousands of years ago? The answer it turned out was simple: Athens simply couldn't handle an Olympics financially or logistically and the bid from Atlanta was backed with millions of American corporate dollars. If the IOC members are capable of nothing else, they know what money looks like, sounds like and feels like. They rolled into Atlanta quicker than you can say, Sherman just left here a little while ago. Whether it was guilt or ego or perhaps even naiveté that caused the IOC to turn back to Athens eight years later is difficult to say. Maybe they were caught up in the romantic notion of going back to where the Olympics began on the 108th anniversary of the modern Olympics. Or maybe they were bribed. It has happened before. Regardless, they're there and the problems associated with getting ready for the games have made headlines on a regular basis almost since the dousing of the flame in Sydney. Athens is going to be a logistical nightmare. That's an accepted part of the equation. So is overwhelming security. But wait, there's more. The two best known American athletes going into these Olympics will be Marion Jones and Michael Phelps. NBC has already had people following Phelps, the 18-year-old swimming phenom from Baltimore, for months. Phelps won't be able to sit down to breakfast for the next three months without a camera crew shooting a close-up of his cereal or a reporter asking him how many calories he is allowed per meal. Phelps happens to be a nice kid with an easygoing demeanor and a very smart coach who will keep him focused on the job he has to do. He is going to be just fine. The next controversy that crosses his path -- of any kind -- will be his first. Sadly, the same can't be said for the fabulously talented and spectacularly beautiful Jones. She's already got five Olympic medals from the Sydney games and should have come out of those Olympics as one of those stars that people who know nothing about sports know all about. She should have been up there in the American Olympic pantheon with people like Carl Lewis and Eric Heiden and Mark Spitz. She is a spectacular performer, like Lewis as adept in sprints as she is in the long jump. What's more, if you add her looks to her talent, corporate America should have been at her feet. She had more air time on NBC four years ago than the stars of Friends, had in the last month so there was no reason to believe she wasn't headed for corporate millions. Only it didn't happen. Part of it, no doubt, is an Olympics malaise in this country. What made the Olympics Olympian for years and years was the romantic notion that the athletes who won medals were doing so not just for themselves, but for flag and country. What
t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
On 2004-05-16 20:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all the rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It had to do with the pole Seagren was using being on the approved list. There was something about the pole having to have been available worldwide at least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to theoretically ensure an equal playing field). There was a big on-the-field argument about whether the 12 month requirement had been met- something that probably needed some analysis about just HOW widely it had been available in those 12 prior months. But my problem was with how it was enforced. There was every indication that with Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', the Games officials decided beforehand that they were gonna go after Seagren on the pole rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all the vaulters were out on the field warming up with their poles, they made a big live-on-TV to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded that he surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other poles and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended the poles to IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from another vaulter, and still got the silver after being a huge gold medal favorite beforehand. So my problem may not be so much with the basis for the ruling, but the procedure which the officials chose to follow. It was an obvious case of intentionally holding back a ruling until the worst possible time, in order to embarass an athlete and make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find a way to comply and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by taking away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another vaulter came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. It was obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and complicated, but they're a direct result of the Seagren fiasco. I think until after '72, while the rule said something about 12-month prior availability, the IAAF was not in the business of publishing an official approved list, making possible on-the-field dirty dealing like happened to Seagren. Now we have approved lists up the kazoo. Randy concludes his post with I was 16 at the time, perhaps giving it somewhat more believability than Ray Cook's, since Ray admitted to being only 10 at the time. There's no reason to think my version any better than Randy's, except that I was 44 at the time-- As I remember the events at Munich, the IAAF first banned the carbon-fibre poles a month before the games, then reversed itself four days before the prelims; then, after some highly questionable bench tests the night before the event, reinstated the ban on the basis of the carbon poles not meeting some sort of ad hoc stiffness-to-weight ratio limit. That worked to the disadvantage of world record holder Seagren, but also that of former record holder Kjell Isaaksson, bronze medalist Jan Johnson, Canada's Bruce Simpson, the fifth-place finisher, Sweden's Hans Lagerquist, France's Francois Tracanelli, USA's Steve Smith, etc., etc.; all of whom had expected to use the Pacer Carbon. Talking later with the Pacer people, I was told that the argument of prior availability was ridiculous, since the carbon poles were universally available (and available gratis to any vaulter of Olympic calibre), and the basic reason for their disqualification was that Wolfgang Nordwig, former world record holder and the eventual champion, had used the carbon pole but had not benefited to the extent of most vaulters and had returned to fibreglas poles, objecting to any competitor being permitted use of carbon. Three personal perspectives: Since use of the carbon poles wasn't reinstated until four days before the event, I'd feel quite sure that all of the vaulters had taken their own fibreglas poles to the meet and that Seagren wouldn't have had to use a borrowed pole. I seem to remember that there was a considerable hullabaloo about Seagren's ceremoniously handing his fibreglas pole to Adriaan Paulen when the event concluded; prompting some demand for his forfeiting the silver medal for unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd think Paulen was rather lucky that Seagren didn't shove the pole up his butt. Four years later, I sat in the pole vault end of the Montreal Olympic Stadium, watching the finals with other vault aficionados. Late in the event, Paulen strode down the field toward the vault runway, to make sure everything was being conducted properly. When that
RE: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
OK...I was only 10, but hadn't the USA won every pole vault gold prior to Munich with the exception of 1906? OH...and every basketball gold prior to Munich? And I remember our coach in high school telling us they had the poles in 1972 so they were readily available. It sure sounds like the fix was in to me. Seriously though I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it does make for an interesting thread. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Ruth Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:56 PM To: t-and-f Subject: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .) On 2004-05-16 20:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all the rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It had to do with the pole Seagren was using being on the approved list. There was something about the pole having to have been available worldwide at least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to theoretically ensure an equal playing field). There was a big on-the-field argument about whether the 12 month requirement had been met- something that probably needed some analysis about just HOW widely it had been available in those 12 prior months. But my problem was with how it was enforced. There was every indication that with Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', the Games officials decided beforehand that they were gonna go after Seagren on the pole rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all the vaulters were out on the field warming up with their poles, they made a big live-on-TV to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded that he surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other poles and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended the poles to IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from another vaulter, and still got the silver after being a huge gold medal favorite beforehand. So my problem may not be so much with the basis for the ruling, but the procedure which the officials chose to follow. It was an obvious case of intentionally holding back a ruling until the worst possible time, in order to embarass an athlete and make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find a way to comply and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by taking away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another vaulter came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. It was obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and complicated, but they're a direct result of the Seagren fiasco. I think until after '72, while the rule said something about 12-month prior availability, the IAAF was not in the business of publishing an official approved list, making possible on-the-field dirty dealing like happened to Seagren. Now we have approved lists up the kazoo. Randy concludes his post with I was 16 at the time, perhaps giving it somewhat more believability than Ray Cook's, since Ray admitted to being only 10 at the time. There's no reason to think my version any better than Randy's, except that I was 44 at the time-- As I remember the events at Munich, the IAAF first banned the carbon-fibre poles a month before the games, then reversed itself four days before the prelims; then, after some highly questionable bench tests the night before the event, reinstated the ban on the basis of the carbon poles not meeting some sort of ad hoc stiffness-to-weight ratio limit. That worked to the disadvantage of world record holder Seagren, but also that of former record holder Kjell Isaaksson, bronze medalist Jan Johnson, Canada's Bruce Simpson, the fifth-place finisher, Sweden's Hans Lagerquist, France's Francois Tracanelli, USA's Steve Smith, etc., etc.; all of whom had expected to use the Pacer Carbon. Talking later with the Pacer people, I was told that the argument of prior availability was ridiculous, since the carbon poles were universally available (and available gratis to any vaulter of Olympic calibre), and the basic reason for their disqualification was that Wolfgang Nordwig, former world record holder and the eventual champion, had used the carbon pole but had not benefited to the extent of most vaulters and had returned to fibreglas poles, objecting to any competitor being permitted use of carbon. Three personal perspectives: Since use of the carbon poles wasn't reinstated until four days before the event, I'd feel quite sure that all of the vaulters had taken their own fibreglas poles to
