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Mboma (18yrs) - 48.54 (withdrawn from 400 in Tokyo?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



  • It is not hard to figure out who can use the gas or the if they are XY or PAIS (in general), or have testes, or if the T is within the normal female range. The details of figuring how they go about determining the degree of sensitivity is the unknown here. As such every characteristic they are able to and is known is MALE.

    Comment


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

      And that statement does not even reflect what those who disagree with her are saying.

      I don't want men with and unfair advantage competing with woman. And anyone who distinguishes men from woman biologically and does not think that someone with XY karyotype, PAIS, T levels within the normal male range, and testes is not biologically male enough and insists on calling them biological females is out to lunch in my view. How is any of those characteristics female - they dare not support - they just start talking in psychological and social terms snipping at certain authorities, and nit picking the science while ignoring the basic and obvious fact in that science.
      Well I haven't been nit picking the science. I raised what you said were good questions, and at present you said you cannot answer them.

      As I pointed out, and for those who haven't seen it, the degree to which they test in order to determine the amount of androgen insensitivity involves multliple layers of testing and reassessment that can look like this:

      Step 1 - inconclusive, despite lab work
      Step 2 - review Step 1, if still inconclusive, proceed to Step 3
      Step 3 - do more lab work. You said you don't know if they're repeating Step 1 lab work, or adding to it, or even what tests they're doing.

      At this point, they've done lab work, gone back and reviewed it, still don't know, off to Step 3, either repeat or enhance Step 1 lab work, AND if still inconclusive,
      the Expert Panel seeks further expert opinions. Which we could call Step 4 and now the situation is starting to look like this:


      ?
      Step 1 + ?
      Step = 1


      At every step, the deciding factor in whether to advance to the next step, is the degree of uncertainty as to how much androgen insensitivity there is.

      So, they can do all this work, checking, rechecking, lab tests out the ying yang and right back in again, and STILL not know what ability to use T an XY PAIS cajones-owning square-jawed Barbie with milk-squirting breasts has. AND now they have to go asking someone else.

      If it's this frickin hard to figure out who with PAIS can use the gas in their car, nobody should be confident in saying much of anything about anyone with PAIS, cuz the damned IAAF sure isn't.

      Comment


      • As of this thread were not sufficiently scientific, 1.609 done gone and brung Calculus into it!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by KevinR View Post
          As of this thread were not sufficiently scientific, 1.609 done gone and brung Calculus into it!
          Ha! LMAO!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post

            Well I haven't been nit picking the science. I raised what you said were good questions, and at present you said you cannot answer them.

            As I pointed out, and for those who haven't seen it, the degree to which they test in order to determine the amount of androgen insensitivity involves multliple layers of testing and reassessment that can look like this:

            Step 1 - inconclusive, despite lab work
            Step 2 - review Step 1, if still inconclusive, proceed to Step 3
            Step 3 - do more lab work. You said you don't know if they're repeating Step 1 lab work, or adding to it, or even what tests they're doing.

            At this point, they've done lab work, gone back and reviewed it, still don't know, off to Step 3, either repeat or enhance Step 1 lab work, AND if still inconclusive,
            the Expert Panel seeks further expert opinions. Which we could call Step 4 and now the situation is starting to look like this:


            ?
            Step 1 + ?
            Step = 1


            At every step, the deciding factor in whether to advance to the next step, is the degree of uncertainty as to how much androgen insensitivity there is.

            So, they can do all this work, checking, rechecking, lab tests out the ying yang and right back in again, and STILL not know what ability to use T an XY PAIS cajones-owning square-jawed Barbie with milk-squirting breasts has. AND now they have to go asking someone else.

            If it's this frickin hard to figure out who with PAIS can use the gas in their car, nobody should be confident in saying much of anything about anyone with PAIS, cuz the damned IAAF sure isn't.
            It's not hard to figure out if they can use the gas (T) but to what degree within the normal male range. It is also not hard to figure out who is XY (male), PAIS (general utilization), T (in the male range), and Testes (male). Being hung up on degrees of utilization because they are not specific in the paper even though it mentions that they will follow all the standards for doing so is not a justification to throw all the facts out and throw up your hands and allow these athletes to compete in the female classification.

            Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 07-09-2021, 07:19 PM.

            Comment


            • Level 1 Assessment - initial clinical examination and compilation of data and preliminary endocrine assessment.

              Step 1 -clinical exam and compilation of medical history with endocrine assessment is for the purpose: a) to confirm T level above 5nmol/L, b) gather info to assist in diagnosis for the cause of the elevated T, and c) gather info to assist in assessing androgen insensitivity (and, if so, to what degree).

              Pretty much it! If that info has been already gathered by the athlete's physician and presented then they will not repeat the process. If there is lacking info the WA Medical Manager will refer the athlete to:

              "...an appropriate examining physician, who should be a gynaecologist, endocrinologist or pediatrician with extensive experience of DSDs and other conditions leading to female hyperandrogenism.The examining physician should be familiar with the relevant literature, including (1) American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of hyperandrogenic disorders, Goodman et al, Endocrine Practice 2001 Mar-Apr;7(2):120-34; (2) Lee et al, Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders, International Consensus Conference on Intersex, Pediatrics 2006; 118:E488-E500; and (3) Lee et al, Global Disorders of Sex Development, Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care, Horm Res Paediatr 2016;85:158-180."

              Once that is done this physician will do the examine in accordance with the above standards set for for female hyperandrogenism.The WA may provide a checklist for the examiner.

              They will perform the endocrine assessment to be collected for an analysis by an approved lab by the WA.

              The lab then reports the results and along with the report of the examining physician and the medical history to WA and they give these to the athletes physician.

              WA's Medical Examiner will review all of this info to decide whether this is sufficient for the Expert Panel (Level 2 Assessment). At this point the Manager may seek to gather further tests to exclude that the results are from exogenous administration of androgens, to confirm results, seek and advisory opinion.

              Once confirmation is made it then goes off to the Advisory Expert Panel - Level 2.

              It seems that some people will complain no matter what - on the one hand if WA requests a second opinion, seeks confirmation, or tries to exclude through further testing they are confused and can't figure it out and fumbling around doing tests they already have done. On the other hand if they did not do this people would say they are irresponsible and trying to manipulate results. You just can win! You would think that such a thorough set of checks and balances would be desired by those concerned for athletes with DSDs but instead all of this is justification to call into question there integrity, competency, and ethics.

              Go figure! Who would have thunk such and attitude could arise under these politicized and racial times. I won't deal with Level 2 yet - it probably would be a waste of time.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by scottmitchell74 View Post

                So you do want women with an unfair advantage competing?
                Honestly, I would rather have XY intersex women whose advantages came from God hold the world records in the currently impacted range than the people who hold them now.

                But I also do not disagree with the concept that the line in the sand between men and women needs to be drawn somewhere.

                I think the current system allows women from the western world who have the same biological advantages compete unfettered, because of cultural biases, while women from the global south with the same level of advantage get restricted.

                I am also very concerned that Dr Bermon is a creepy pervert and I think he should have been removed from having anything to do with this issue years ago.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post

                  Honestly, I would rather have XY intersex women whose advantages came from God hold the world records in the currently impacted range than the people who hold them now.

                  But I also do not disagree with the concept that the line in the sand between men and women needs to be drawn somewhere.


                  I think the current system allows women from the western world who have the same biological advantages compete unfettered, because of cultural biases, while women from the global south with the same level of advantage get restricted.

                  I am also very concerned that Dr Bermon is a creepy pervert and I think he should have been removed from having anything to do with this issue years ago.
                  Paragraph 1 - Interesting way of putting...from God, not chemistry. I get you.

                  Paragraph 2 - It is a whole mess, isn't it?

                  I think most people feel deeply both for the DSD ladies... and the non-DSD ladies...both groups not doing anything wrong...yet facing things out of their control that are unfair.
                  You there, on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons!

                  Comment


                  • With all the requirements for declaring an athlete a DSD and ineligible for female category in 400 through mile, safe to say the declaration is not in error. Seems to me that WAF landed at a good place for the line between female athletes and males. It's kind of admitting these DSDs don't belong in the female category if you allow them to take performance-inhibiting drugs or what is essentially castration to compete as female. Those are the actual doubly unethical options - in essence handicapping by damaging the body of the athlete. Very risky and unpleasant. The Namibians have a few years if either has the raw speed to win world medals/break records in the 200 - as soon as one does the women's 200 will be unavailable to them because they would then present the lacking proof that DSDs have an advantage in that event too.

                    Comment


                    • But if the motivation to win the big one is such that they improve even more rapidly in the 200, to the point where Tokyo is the right time and place for either one to pop a very low-21.xx or a high-20.xx, what then? I surmise the post-race inquiry and the aftermath, regardless which way it goes, is not going to be pretty. ☹

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CookyMonzta View Post
                        But if the motivation to win the big one is such that they improve even more rapidly in the 200, to the point where Tokyo is the right time and place for either one to pop a very low-21.xx or a high-20.xx, what then? I surmise the post-race inquiry and the aftermath, regardless which way it goes, is not going to be pretty. ☹
                        Tokyo is too soon for them to improve the technical aspects of 200m sprinting (block starts, curve running, arm swing etc.) to reach sub-22 from where they are now.

                        Eugene next year is another story though. Another full year of maturing physically + improved power and fitness + technical learning and we're going to see 21.2 or faster.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
                          Honestly, I would rather have XY intersex women whose advantages came from God hold the world records in the currently impacted range than the people who hold them now.
                          Physically, with more male indicators than female, athletes affected by the DSD regulations are closer to being men with a (possible) disadvantage, not women with an advantage.

                          But I also do not disagree with the concept that the line in the sand between men and women needs to be drawn somewhere.
                          And it needs to be done in a manner that is as objective and noninvasive as reasonably possible. T level, chromosomes, and CAIS can be detected without invasiveness or subjectivity. They shouldn't be trying to discern the degree of PAIS at the individual level, as that gets both invasive and subjective, just as they don't try to discern the degree of maturity or aging for age-group divisions -- you either meet the cutoffs for the age group or you don't; there's no attempt to assert that a 14-year-old boy should still get to compete in under-14 because he hasn't started puberty yet.

                          Comment


                          • NNOC slams World Athletics over handling of Masilingi and Mboma cases (insidethegames.biz)

                            Namibia National Olympic Committee (NNOC) President Abner Xoagub has described World Athletics' handling of the Beatrice Masilingi and Christine Mboma case as an "unacceptable invasion" of the two teenagers' privacy.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

                              Physically, with more male indicators than female, athletes affected by the DSD regulations are closer to being men with a (possible) disadvantage, not women with an advantage.



                              And it needs to be done in a manner that is as objective and noninvasive as reasonably possible. T level, chromosomes, and CAIS can be detected without invasiveness or subjectivity. They shouldn't be trying to discern the degree of PAIS at the individual level, as that gets both invasive and subjective, just as they don't try to discern the degree of maturity or aging for age-group divisions -- you either meet the cutoffs for the age group or you don't; there's no attempt to assert that a 14-year-old boy should still get to compete in under-14 because he hasn't started puberty yet.
                              I'd go further - they are male! Humans are highly dimorphic and the whole purpose of the organism is to differentiate into two distinct sexes for the purpose of sexual reproduction in order to have viable offspring. If there is a problem in this differentiation that is a problem that is built upon a foundation of chromosomal/genetic factors (karyotype or more specifically the SRY gene), gonadal factors (testes or ovaries), hormonal factors (T-levels and utilization), etc., etc., as the biological pathways continue downstream. What we need to recognize first is what you mentioned - these are MALES with disorders of sexual development and thus depending on the type of DSD could be just males that would not perform well as elite athletes - they are at a disadvantage because of it - just like a 16 year male who is not as physically developed as another 16 year old male would have disadvantages.

                              For example: Semenya has all the characteristics being a male as a 5-ARD DSD. This confusion over the degree of utilization is understandable but someone who refuses to let it go as if it is meaningful is just either not grasping the biology or they want too hide in the complexity of it and use that to score points against WA. The reason many 5-ARD DSD people have ambiguous genitalia (underdeveloped masculinization in this area) is because the androgen receptors IN THE GENITAL TUBERCLE are insensitive, to some degree, because of the problems in the gene SRD5A2 and thus the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase type 2 is not abundant in tissues such as the testes and the tubercle which is used to convert T into DHT to drive the differentiation of the clitoris and the penis. They still can have DHT via 5-alpha-reductase type 1 in other tissues and utilize T elsewhere (DHT has no known role in the development of XX fetuses). They can check T/DHT ratios in certain tissue and do other tests. The fact that they develop testes and lack Mullerian structures shows utilization in general, they can check androgen binding in non-genital skin, etc., etc. The bottom line is these are MALES with low T or low normal T and decreased levels of DHT. Why this means they are female and allowed to compete with females is beyond me.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
                                NNOC slams World Athletics over handling of Masilingi and Mboma cases (insidethegames.biz)

                                Namibia National Olympic Committee (NNOC) President Abner Xoagub has described World Athletics' handling of the Beatrice Masilingi and Christine Mboma case as an "unacceptable invasion" of the two teenagers' privacy.
                                They will find out soon enough if they really are XX an what condition they have. Even if they are XX-male (SRY-positive) WA does not restrict these athletes. WA chose to do their own confirmation of that XX test to see what the facts really are.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X