Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mboma (18yrs) - 48.54 (withdrawn from 400 in Tokyo?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by moreover View Post

    I think the counterfactuals are kind of fun. I wonder if Mboma would have ever been affected at all if not for the entire Semenya case. After 2008 world championships, I spoke with a returning female coach who said that everyone knew that Semenya was male, showing all the male secondary sex characteristics and none of the female. Mboma doesn't have any of that (Masilingi does as does Seyni). Seems like much of Mboma's advantage may come from the lack of female reproductive systems enabling better more consistent training rather than increased skeletomuscular development from androgens.
    Growing up with high testosterone and male DNA provides other advantages that don't show up in the physique, such as greater heart and lung size which help in the 400m and up, but are less important in the 200m and shorter.

    Comment


    • Masalinga is running the 200m at Stockholm DL today.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Flumpy View Post
        Masalinga is running the 200m at Stockholm DL today.
        Came in 3rd with a PB NR.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

          Growing up with high testosterone and male DNA provides other advantages that don't show up in the physique, such as greater heart and lung size which help in the 400m and up, but are less important in the 200m and shorter.
          Was this part of the CAS decsion to allow DSDs in the short sprints?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in View Post

            Was this part of the CAS decsion to allow DSDs in the short sprints?
            As I understand it. World Athletics were able to prove a clear advantage from 400 to mile, but not for shorter or longer distances.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in View Post

              Was this part of the CAS decsion to allow DSDs in the short sprints?
              I think in laymen's terms the decision was not to allow in the short sprints but that the not eligible would only apply to 400m to 1500m because those were the only events there was evidence at the time of an advantage.

              The assumption has been that if an athlete such as those not eligible 400m to 1500m competed in the shorter or longer events or a field event and evidence was gathered that there was an advantage that those events would be eliminated for them as well. How quickly that would occur I'm not sure.
              Last edited by NotDutra5; 07-04-2021, 04:46 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post

                I think in laymen's terms the decision was not to allow in the short sprints but that the not eligible would only apply to 400m to 1500m because those were the only events there was evidence at the time of an advantage.

                The assumption has been that if and athlete such as those not eligible 400m to 1500m competed in the shorter or longer events or a field event and evidence was gathered that there was an advantage that those events would be eliminated for them as well. How quickly that would occur I'm not sure.
                Ok, I'm all for evidence but the field events seem obvious. The short sprints not so much I guess. Do we have any examples of DSDs in any throwing events?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in View Post

                  Ok, I'm all for evidence but the field events seem obvious. The short sprints not so much I guess. Do we have any examples of DSDs in any throwing events?
                  The papers presented in the CAS hearing were metadata performance and testing records of world class international competitions and not personally identifiable. In the 800, it was pretty easy to figure out who was who because it also identified drug-enhanced performances. There had been DSDs in the throws (IIRC in every event except maybe pole vault), but none were dominant so as to be identifiable.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by moreover View Post

                    The papers presented in the CAS hearing were metadata performance and testing records of world class international competitions and not personally identifiable. In the 800, it was pretty easy to figure out who was who because it also identified drug-enhanced performances. There had been DSDs in the throws (IIRC in every event except maybe pole vault), but none were dominant so as to be identifiable.
                    Thanks!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trickstat View Post

                      As I understand it. World Athletics were able to prove a clear advantage from 400 to mile, but not for shorter or longer distances.
                      I'm not so sure they have proven anything yet. Which is why they are likely to have egg on their faces at any time between next month and the next 2 years, and we will be in for a big reset.

                      Comment


                      • Despite a new NR, and chatter and speculation from posters on here, there's no way Masilingi or Mboma will be any kind of threat in the 200m this year, and probably next. They are just too slow over 100m, and have to run so hard down the straight to make ground, they cannot cruise through the heats like other women (as we saw with Seyni in Doha 2019). I think for now, the restricted events will remain as is for the next few years.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post
                          Despite a new NR, and chatter and speculation from posters on here, there's no way Masilingi or Mboma will be any kind of threat in the 200m this year, and probably next. They are just too slow over 100m, and have to run so hard down the straight to make ground, they cannot cruise through the heats like other women (as we saw with Seyni in Doha 2019). I think for now, the restricted events will remain as is for the next few years.
                          Sub-21 is in their future after one or two full seasons of focusing on the 200.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
                            Sub-21 is in their future after one or two full seasons of focusing on the 200.
                            Sub-22?

                            Comment


                            • Can anyone explain why the IAAF found no positive association between higher T and success in the sprints, and still banned anabolic steroids in those events? It's not okay to use synthetic derivatives of testosterone, but if your natural T is higher than the average woman, that's no problem.

                              Doesn't seem to make sense if this is true:

                              "Testosterone, whether of a natural endogenous or manufactured exogenous source, has an identical chemical structure and biological effects, aside from minor differences in isotopic composition, which are biologically insignificant"

                              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                                Sub-22?
                                Lmao. I saw sub 21 in his post and was like whattttttttt.
                                Apparently Ignorance is bliss

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X