IAAF accused of insensitivity over Semenya statement

Hours prior to the women's 800 meter final, the IAAF released a statement asking South Africa to determine the gender of their athlete, Caster Semenya. Semenya had already breezed through the semi-finals and was expecting a podium position in the final, but the timing of the IAAF statement was heavily criticised as wholly insensitive and unnecessary. The IAAF conceded that questioning the sex of an athlete is a very difficult issue but they appeared to demonstrate further insensitivity to Semenya by suggesting that she hasn't been accused of cheating as she may be unaware that she is not female.

Whether Semenya was aware of the media furore that was being created over the IAAF statement is not known, and fortunately it didn't appear to have a detrimental effect on her result in the final as she finished first, a full two seconds ahead of her nearest rival. But the effect that the statement and interest subsequently generated from it is sure to cause concern, not least to Semenya herself. Since sex and gender, in our society, is one of the most fixed categories since birth and one of the fundamental tenets of our identity (nearly everything we do is labelled by our gender) to cast aspersions on it is to challenge the very core of who we are. This whole case, unfortunately, highlights the problem with maintaining the binary categories of male and female; categories challenged recently by Gerald Callahan in 'Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the myth of two sexes'. Callahan provides solid evidence that sex is a spectrum not a binary (or tri, if you want to include hermaphrodites) category. Taking Callahan's argument seriously would cause serious problems for international sport which relies heavily upon the premise that only two sexes exist. This accounts for the IAAFs awkward and clumsy defence of their statement when faced with what they view as a someone who doesn't fit the 'standard' mould.

This case highlights two issues; first, the problems that occur when we divide the world into fixed categories leaving no space for grey areas in between, and second, and more importantly, the insensitivity that is created when a real, feeling, human being is questioned over a core part of their identity based on such interminable categories. The IAAF needs to realise that whatever their rules and world view, athletes should still be treated with the respect and dignity that all sentient beings deserve.

Twilight: The Rugby Chronicles

[Above: Vampire pin-up Tom Williams]

“They say that in war truth be the first casualty”
- Zack de la Rocha, One Day As A Lion: Wild International (with apologies to Aeschylus)

~

Dean Richards, former director of rugby at Harlequins has just been banned from coaching at a European level for three years. He “masterminded” a few (we can’t be sure how many) fake blood injuries for tactical reasons, the most notable being that of young Harlequins’ player Tom Williams.

Right, so he’s a cheat, he’s banned, good. But hearing former England captain Will Carling discuss the issue, one would swear we – coaches, athletes, sports media, starving refugees, the world – are just the victims of circumstance. God rolled the dice and we lost. I’ll just discuss three of Carling’s obfuscations.

“I’m shocked. But we must remember, rugby is played by human beings who sometimes overstep the mark.” (aka Poor Dean Richards syndrome)

Rugby, like war, is a business, the bottom line of which is winning. Richards was doing all he could to win. Moral outrage, much less surprise, should not take pride of place in a society that worships the primacy of performance. I don’t see the BBC doing 15-minute specials on the machinations and intrigues of an unjust war (by the way, how many young British men and women have to die before someone in the House of Lords asks exactly why democracy in Afghanistan is so damn important to everyone?). I would suggest (ala Mark Rowlands) that the real reason we feign surprise and indignation is that we can’t believe we were taken in (“And did you see how bright the “blood” coming out of that boy Williams’ mouth was?”)… And we can’t believe he got caught. In that sense, Carling’s words are almost Gandhian. We’re all human beings, so we get angry when one of us gets caught at it. Damn it Dean you moron, couldn’t you have been cleverer?

“I feel so sorry for Tom Williams. He’s just a young lad, and as we all know, when your boss at work tells you to do something, you do it.” (aka Poor Tom Williams syndrome)

A list of things your boss may have said to you:
“Undo these staples.”
“Phone [disgruntled customer’s name] and tell her about the delay.”
“If the fees negotiator calls, tell him we don’t do rebates. But if he threatens legal action, obviously we can make an exception.”
“If the fees negotiator calls, tell him I’m not in.”
“Put this fake blood capsule in your sock, and if we need you to, slip it into your mouth and bite.”
“Go to a country you have never heard of and kill people you’ve never seen for reasons you do not need to know.”

A list of everyday sacrificial items:
Integrity.
Honesty.
Backbone.
Responsibility.
Clean air, factual and impartial media, etc

[Say loudly, and with a gusto that demonstrates how much respect you have for The Rules] “This will carry on unless Rugby wakes up and changes the rules! We don’t want to tarnish the great name of rugby etc.” (aka Poor Rugby syndrome)

Yes. That darn slippy “No Cheating” rule. Perhaps we should just print it twice, like the rules of Fight Club:

The First Rule Is: Do Not Cheat.
The Second Rule Is: Um…Do Not Cheat.

But Will raises an important existential question: How do you litigate a human nature frayed and distorted by a lust for the top spot on the podium, a psychology perverted by the impression that We Must Always Win? How indeed, Will.

Bradley Wiggins Blood Profiles

Over the past year or two, I've become much more interested in the sport of cycling. And I've become a fan of the Garmin-Slipstream team, for several reasons. One of those reasons is their explicit, public, and verifiable commitment to "clean cycling." Of course, it's no secret that one of the big revelations of the Tour de France was the emergence of Bradley Wiggins as a serious stage racer demonstrated by his overall 4th place finish. In light of the anti-doping stance taken by Wiggins and his team, his blood profiles have been made public. I wonder if this is the path other sports will have to take to retain their fans, at least the ones who care about whether or not their favorite athletes and teams are using performance-enhancing substances. This does raise issues related to the privacy of athletes, and of course there is the problem of techniques that can evade detection, but I wonder if the integrity of sport will require this sort of thing, as long as the bans against doping are in place?

Michael Vick's Second Chance

For a time, Michael Vick was one of the most exciting quarterbacks to watch in the National Football League. Many thought he would redefine the position. Of course, since then his moral and legal troubles have been widely reported on and discussed ad nauseam. Vick has now been reinstated in the NFL on a conditional basis, with full reinstatement a possibility. Professional athletes commit all sorts of crimes, and are allowed to play. I'm interested in what people think about Vick and any other athlete who is convicted of a serious (i.e. harmful to other sentient beings) felony. It seems that the current commissioner of the NFL has a policy of being more strict, so to speak, about these sorts of cases, though he has conditionally reinstated Vick. Why might the NFL be justified in not reinstating Vick, or athletes convicted of assault, spousal abuse, and so on?

Ultimate Fighting: Fistful of Dollars

On Wednesday, July 29, CNBC takes viewers back inside the Octagon with "Ultimate Fighting: Fistful of Dollars," revealing how the UFC continues to grow - even as other professional sports face financial crisis. While the recession is putting a beat-down on the economy, Ultimate Fighting's revenues are up 30%. CNBC's Scott Wapner travels to Germany for the UFC's first-ever event in mainland Europe and speaks with Dana White, as well as billionaire backers Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta. Hear what they have to say about the sport's successes, challenges and growth. And, in just 18-months since CNBC first took viewers inside the UFC, see how this controversial sport has flexed its muscles worldwide to include major sponsors, product endorsements and brand extensions. You can check out a Preview Clip and explore some of the Web Extras if you're interested.

UPDATE: July 24 2009

Here are three new video clips from the documentary:

Ultimate Fighting: Fistful of Dollars -Clip #1

Ultimate Fighting: Fistful of Dollars -Clip #2

Ultimate Fighting: Fistful of Dollars -Clip #3

37th Annual Meeting of IAPS

Information about the upcoming conference of the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport can be found here.

The Tour de France Radio Ban

VeloNews has an article on the growing opposition to the ban on race radios for 2 stages, including tomorrow's stage from Limoges to Issoudon. According to the article, "Two-way radios were first introduced into the peloton by Armstrong’s former Motorola squad in the 1990s and have become a crucial element of team tactics; managers communicate with riders, who race with earpieces, to advise on strategy, approaching hazards and other important information." Critics complain about the predictability that the radios foster regarding race tactics.

On other hand, Lance Armstrong states that “Technology evolves, the bike evolves, the training, the diet, everything evolves… the fabrics that we wear. Look at [reporters’] cameras, the microphones… the transponders on the bike… all of it has evolved. So we are going to go back to a place where directors will have to ride up into the peloton to give orders to riders. That is not a good thing. I remember those days, I have been around long enough to remember them, and that is stupid too. A few of the guys think it is a cute idea, but I don't agree.”
Others who support using the radios argue that it keeps the riders safe, as an oil spot on a treacherous descent can be pointed out and injuries thereby avoided.

In response to these points, consider Matt White's view (White is team director for Garmin-Slipstream):
"I’d rather we banned radios. I don’t mind if we lost radios altogether. We go through the stage everyday in the morning, and what I am telling them on the radio is only what I’ve told them in the morning, just reminding them. The Garmin units have nothing to do with the radios; we have more information on their bikes than in their ear anyways… The only difference (without radios) is that I’m not telling them in the race. We have the same tactics, the same plan before, and the boys have to think and act themselves. That’s like cycling was 10 years ago. Whatever the Tour decides, just go with it. I think it’s a bit strange doing one day. I’d rather do no radios or all radios, but as for safety issues, I don’t really see that as a problem either. The amount of times you actually tell riders there is something dangerous on the road it just creates more stress because everyone knows about it. The guys are riding five or six hours a day, you can’t point out every dangerous bit of the road, so I don’t think it’s a real safety issue. I think some of the younger guys have struggled thinking about it. They are so used to being told what to do, they aren’t used to thinking for themselves, and I think that’s going to hurt some teams more than others."

I tend to agree with White, mainly because I'd like to see the riders demonstrate some of the intellectual aspects of athletic excellence that the radios can at least sometimes prevent. But perhaps this could still occur if the riders are involved in strategy sessions prior to the race, and simply communicating with their directors about which strategy to follow given the particular circumstances that arise in a given stage?