Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=210)
-   -   Interesting finds around the web (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=929230)

tobukog 10-18-18 11:48 AM

Now this is cool.

https://vimeo.com/292876302

700wheel 10-18-18 04:34 PM


Originally Posted by 700wheel (Post 20621729)
It appears that the Olympic Channel will broadcast this weekends (10/19 to 10/21) World Cup event from France (probably no more than an hour or so each day)
https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/events/full-calendar

Anyone know of any other streaming of this event?

This afternoon I searched the cable TV schedule and found the following times listed for world cup coverage:
Mon 10/22, 1 - 4 pm MST
Tues 10/23, 7 - 10 am MST

Update:
Results now available by Tissot
http://www.tissottiming.com/2018/ctrwcI/en-us/Default/

seau grateau 10-20-18 04:03 PM


Originally Posted by tobukog (Post 20622611)
Now this is cool.

https://vimeo.com/292876302

Just started watching this and already said "whoa" out loud at 1:10.

gl98115 10-20-18 04:46 PM


Originally Posted by 700wheel (Post 20621729)
It appears that the Olympic Channel will broadcast this weekends (10/19 to 10/21) World Cup event from France (probably no more than an hour or so each day)
https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/events/full-calendar

Anyone know of any other streaming of this event?

Eurosport is covering it, so if you have access to the Eurosport player you can watch. Also the UCI streams over youtube if you can access from a non geoblocked country.

carleton 10-21-18 12:27 PM

In world news:

https://www.r e d d i t.com/r/news/comments/9q279k/not_fair_world_cycling_bronze_medalist_cries_foul/

Apparently, the word r e d d i t is censored here because spammers used to post links to there.

Copy the text above and reassemble the URL.

carleton 10-21-18 02:52 PM



This is international news. Many major cycling news outlets are covering this.

https://www.velonews.com/2018/10/new...athlete_480206

We have discussed other sensitive topics here, Perkins defecting from AUS to Russia, doping, rules violations, IOC bans, WADA bans, etc...

Why should this topic be any different?

carleton 10-21-18 03:01 PM

If I were accused of doping, cheating, race-fixing, whatever... and it were in Cycling News, Washington Post, NY Times, as much as I would hate to see the conversations here, it is only fair that they be allowed.

I cannot ask that they be censord because it paints me in a bad light.

Period.

topflightpro 10-21-18 03:48 PM


Originally Posted by Spoonrobot (Post 20626889)
The only place I've seen this discussed reasonably has been slowtwitch. Everywhere else has deleted threads, comments or locked them early and not allowed any discussion to occur. I checked here but after the other thread had been censored, but I checked in specifically to see what the posters here had to say as this sub forum is usually good for interesting and well reasoned discussion.

Just started reading the Slowtwitch thread. I think you and I have different definitions of "reasonable."

And the reason why the discussion keeps getting shut down is because it turns to trans bashing. There was a discussion on this exact topic in the 33 a couple years ago. It wasn't moderated, edited or deleted. Perhaps you can look that up.

carleton 10-21-18 04:32 PM


Originally Posted by topflightpro (Post 20626925)
Just started reading the Slowtwitch thread. I think you and I have different definitions of "reasonable."

And the reason why the discussion keeps getting shut down is because it turns to trans bashing. There was a discussion on this exact topic in the 33 a couple years ago. It wasn't moderated, edited or deleted. Perhaps you can look that up.

From what I've seen of SF's responses here, in respected newspapers (USA Today, Washington Times, etc...), respected websites (Cycling News), and on social media (Twitter, Instagram), anyone that doesn't agree with her is trans bashing, when many state that their objection is regarding the class in which she should race, not whether she should be allowed to race at all, in a "If you aren't with me, you are against me." sort of way.

Recall that other trans athletes actually disagree with her, too. She considered them "wrong" as well. The only viewpoint that she tolerates are the ones with which she agrees.

This isn't about being trans. It's about competitive advantages and sportsmanship.

carleton 10-21-18 04:38 PM

As I was taught as a young man, it's not always about what you do, it's also about how you do it.

For example, Terrell Owens still doesn't understand why some people don't like him.

seau grateau 10-21-18 05:16 PM

I thought the VeloNews coverage was pretty good, comprehensive and fairly evenhanded, which is nice to see in a conversation that usually devolves into an ugly mess very quickly. Seeing the big media outlets report on this is pretty rich, though -- they never give a **** about women's sports until they find a controversy they can sell.

carleton 10-21-18 05:29 PM


Originally Posted by seau grateau (Post 20627020)
I thought the VeloNews coverage was pretty good, comprehensive and fairly evenhanded, which is nice to see in a conversation that usually devolves into an ugly mess very quickly. Seeing the big media outlets report on this is pretty rich, though -- they never give a **** about women's sports until they find a controversy they can sell.

She hasn't been shy about publicizing this. She @ mentioned all of the major news outlets. Read all of the @ mentions she added after the initial tweet.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rachelvmc...95467979173888

Edit:

This is what I mean by how she can't go on a publicity road-show then claim here that she doesn't want anyone to talk about it as though it were a private matter. Really?

seau grateau 10-21-18 06:24 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20627033)
She hasn't been shy about publicizing this. She @ mentioned all of the major news outlets. Read all of the @ mentions she added after the initial tweet.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rachelvmc...95467979173888

Edit:

This is what I mean by how she can't go on a publicity road-show then claim here that she doesn't want anyone to talk about it as though it were a private matter. Really?

Sure, and as long as it's a respectful conversation, I don't see why it should be an issue. I was pretty disappointed to see it get shut down here.

queerpunk 10-21-18 06:59 PM

People have a lot of ****ty things to say about trans people. And in the case of a trans person winning stuff, people have a lot of particularly badly-informed, science-has-proven-it-wrong things to say. Loudly.

Makes it hard to believe that people are coming to the conversation in good faith, without an axe to grind about their prejudices.

JuiceWillis 10-21-18 07:24 PM

The bottom line is that it’s a man competing in a women’s field...period...end of discussion. It doesn’t matter how much surgery, hormones, etc. you take or how you dress, it’s a MAN....in a women’s field. Any women “transitioning” to men competing in men’s fields? Of course not, they wouldn’t be competitive. I really don’t get how disagreeing with a biological man competing in a women’s field is trans bashing. You can do whatever you want to your body and dress however you want, but you should have to compete in your biological field.

carleton 10-21-18 07:25 PM


Originally Posted by seau grateau (Post 20627088)
Sure, and as long as it's a respectful conversation, I don't see why it should be an issue. I was pretty disappointed to see it get shut down here.


Originally Posted by queerpunk (Post 20627162)
People have a lot of ****ty things to say about trans people. And in the case of a trans person winning stuff, people have a lot of particularly badly-informed, science-has-proven-it-wrong things to say. Loudly.

Makes it hard to believe that people are coming to the conversation in good faith, without an axe to grind about their prejudices.

I wholeheartedly agree with both of you and also wouldn't tolerate it.

But, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". There is obviously room for honest discussion and debate on this topic.

I think the knee-jerk reaction to anything other than 100% support for what was done and how it was done is seen as [whatever]-phobic, when there could be some other very valid points to be debated.

Similar examples that I've seen come up in our world:

- Should Olympians be allowed to compete at Masters Track Nationals/Worlds?
- Should UCI Pros be allowed to compete at Collegiate Track Nationals?
- Are they simply cherry-picking (relatively) easy championships to pad their resumes and egos?
- Should International pro level racers be allowed to enter local/regional events to win cash?
- Even if technically eligible, should they respectfully decline to participate?

These are all things that I've seen happen and people have varied opinions about...and the conversations can be productive.

carleton 10-21-18 07:57 PM

Other examples:
- How are pedal straps legal when the clipless variants are all modded and thus break UCI rules about modifying parts.
- Is weed a PED? (One masters champ got busted and banned for testing positive in 2012). I think the rule has changed since.
- Team KGF's Preying Mantis position that's not the Preying Mantis position...but was.
- Should juniors be limited to 28-spoked wheels and aluminum frames to even the playing field?
- Should junior gear restrictions change or be lifted in this era of big gears?


Basically, our sport is never without controversies (small and large).

brawlo 10-21-18 09:00 PM


Originally Posted by queerpunk (Post 20627162)
People have a lot of ****ty things to say about trans people. And in the case of a trans person winning stuff, people have a lot of particularly badly-informed, science-has-proven-it-wrong things to say. Loudly.

Makes it hard to believe that people are coming to the conversation in good faith, without an axe to grind about their prejudices.

This is possibly the most accurate statement on here. An interesting point to note is that the vast majority of commenting on this issue is coming from males, those people who are not directly impacted by the whole situation. What is needed is a lot more input from females that have and do. I only knowingly have one friend that has competed against trans women and she has no problem it seems.

As the parent of a daughter that, despite being young, is proving herself to be quite an adept sportswoman, I have been paying attention to this discussion. Via a friend, I have had exposure to the whole trans situation years ago and I have come to my own terms on this, that being no problem with them. Now if my daughter continues with sport into higher senior levels, it is very likely that she may be confronted by this very situation. The situation is that it is a very grey area. It is not black and white, sausage and taco. Science rules above emotion and the scientific facts are that there should be no issue BUT there are qualifications for that to be so IMO. The science behind a transitioned male is fairly solid in longer term examples. I think the original IOC stance was close with full transition required, but I think that was a touch heavy handed. Maybe not fully transitioned, but definitely a longer term exposure to the transition process should be required. As a fellow Aussie pointed out on FB, illness had caused him to have the T to be able to compete as a female. The current IOC stance where T levels just have to be on a comparable level I don't think is fair. On the surface a male could compete after only a short stint in transition where many benefits of being male are carried over. Now the science shows that after a prolonged period of transition, factors that people throw around like bone density and muscle mass begin to be on par with comparable females. This is the point where I feel the playing field becomes fair. I believe some transition timeline should be in place to level things out. Now what that is comes down to studies. Perhaps it is 2 years of tracked results or whatever.

Now, an even greyer area goes back to science once again, and SF points to it in the velonews link above. It is a scientific fact that despite what you may be showing on the outside, there's many individuals that are chemically the other way around. Now I have zero doubt that when it comes to strength and power sports, this is where the top performers come from. I believe it is part of the whole puzzle of what it takes for them to be the genetic outliers that make them great.

Now on the surface I don't really have a problem with what SF has achieved. As with my stance above and what I have read about her, she has paid her dues. How she has gone about things definitely rubs a lot of people up the wrong way. But she is a pioneer and those sorts of personalities tend to be just like that. If she didn't do it, someone else would have come along eventually and done the same. I don't believe in her stance that testing her T is against her human rights. In everyday society, sure it is, but she came to compete in sport outside of her birth gender. Competing at this level of sport outside of your birth gender is not your human right IMO, it is a choice, and there is a cost to buy into the game, and that is it.

What is needed on this discussion is for the males to sit down and shut up for a while and encourage as many women as possible to come forward with their opinions and experiences. Because males don't actually compete against trans women at such levels and so anything that they say is just an opinion based on emotion without any actual experience.

carleton 10-21-18 09:55 PM


Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 20627306)
This is possibly the most accurate statement on here. An interesting point to note is that the vast majority of commenting on this issue is coming from males, those people who are not directly impacted by the whole situation.

I beg to differ.

The #1 qualifier in the event declined to race. It's my understanding is that she did this to protest McKinnon's entry. The bronze medalist in the same event (the woman on the right in the podium photo) also spoke out against this on Twitter and in the press. She has since accepted the results but has also vowed to push for a rule change though official channels.

How more direct can it get?


Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 20627306)
As the parent of a daughter that, despite being young, is proving herself to be quite an adept sportswoman, I have been paying attention to this discussion. Via a friend, I have had exposure to the whole trans situation years ago and I have come to my own terms on this, that being no problem with them. Now if my daughter continues with sport into higher senior levels, it is very likely that she may be confronted by this very situation. The situation is that it is a very grey area. It is not black and white, sausage and taco...

Given the following dystopian scenario:

- The IOC and UCI cannot make a set of rules that makes everyone happy. This is impossible.
- The IOC and UCI reluctantly declare that all fields are "Open to all comers that qualify".

This means:

- One Olympic Road Race
- One Olympic Road Time Trial
- One Olympic Sprint tournament
- One Olympic Time Trial (kilo)
- One Olympic Pursuit (4k)
- One Olympic Team Sprint (3 laps)
- One Olympic Team Pursuit
- One Olympic Keirin
- etc...

All open to both men and women. May the best person win.

This also goes for:

- Juniors Nationals/Worlds
- Elites Nationals/Worlds
- Masters Nationals/Worlds
- Pan-Ams, European Championships, Oceanic, Asian Championships, etc...
- Olympics

Since you mention you and your daughter, how would you and her feel about this respectively?

carleton 10-21-18 10:12 PM


Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 20627306)
This is possibly the most accurate statement on here. An interesting point to note is that the vast majority of commenting on this issue is coming from males, those people who are not directly impacted by the whole situation. What is needed is a lot more input from females that have and do. I only knowingly have one friend that has competed against trans women and she has no problem it seems.

Filtering out the intolerant BSers and focusing on men with fair comments...

Real talk, McKinnon in particular is no threat to competitive 35-39 year old males if she's riding 11.9" with a peak at Worlds after training for nearly 2 years. Her short-lived WR time would not have even earned her entry into the men's 35-39 tournament. I can't see any men feeling threatened.

Given the scenario I laid out above, It's the girls and women who lose opportunities.

m_sasso 10-21-18 10:58 PM

New track training shoes
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/nhkn...anesefootwear/

brawlo 10-21-18 11:37 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20627348)
I beg to differ.

The #1 qualifier in the event declined to race. It's my understanding is that she did this to protest McKinnon's entry. The bronze medalist in the same event (the woman on the right in the podium photo) also spoke out against this on Twitter and in the press. She has since accepted the results but has also vowed to push for a rule change though official channels.

How more direct can it get?

BUT WHY? The No.1 qualifier, to my knowledge hasn't actually publicly declared her reasoning for withdrawing. I have seen a lot of speculation, but nothing that has come from her directly. Also the bronze medal rider has said "It's definitely not fair", nothing more that I have seen. What I want to see is the reasoning for this. There are rules in place and SF competed within those rules. If the rules are unfair then petition to have them changed (good luck with that). Why, if noone else seemed to pull out of the competition, didn't Fader get out there and race? On paper she had the legs to beat SF. If she had beaten her would we be hearing as much protest? SF isn't the first trans athlete to compete and do well and win medals, yet you would think from all the press and protest that this has never been done before.

I don't like subjective reasoning and try to maintain an objective attitude to most things that I do. I find emotion can land you in the poo more times than not. I qualify my stance with this reasoning. Science tells us that long term transitioning results in reduced bone density and reduced muscle mass, to the point where some particularly solid athletes can be at a distinct DISadvantage.

Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 20627306)
Science rules above emotion and the scientific facts are that there should be no issue BUT there are qualifications for that to be so IMO. The science behind a transitioned male is fairly solid in longer term examples. I think the original IOC stance was close with full transition required, but I think that was a touch heavy handed. Maybe not fully transitioned, but definitely a longer term exposure to the transition process should be required.


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20627348)
Since you mention you and your daughter, how would you and her feel about this respectively?

I think my daughter is too young to have to worry about such woes of life, but it is something that will have to be tackled in her teen years without a doubt. Reading of trans athletes competing in high schools and college means that you don't have to be masters age to have this experience. I am taking my time in formulating my opinion and I like to think that it is a fluid transition and open to change. I will admit that when first confronted with gender transition I was definitely not as accepting as I am now. It was new to me and strange and confronting, but even moreso for my friend who enabled me to gain my insight. Over the years I now have no issue with it. Re the situation now, being objective, there is no issue. SF ticked the boxes and won legitimately. It's all new and weird for a lot of people, but it's by the rulebook. I feel that there are loopholes there that need closing to increase the fairness of a situation that likely won't change - that being transgender inclusion in competition.

I teach my children not to fight the system, but to beat the system. The system allows them to compete, so look at them like any other gifted athlete and beat them!

carleton 10-22-18 12:04 AM


Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 20627426)
BUT WHY? The No.1 qualifier, to my knowledge hasn't actually publicly declared her reasoning for withdrawing. I have seen a lot of speculation, but nothing that has come from her directly. Also the bronze medal rider has said "It's definitely not fair", nothing more that I have seen. What I want to see is the reasoning for this. There are rules in place and SF competed within those rules. If the rules are unfair then petition to have them changed (good luck with that). Why, if noone else seemed to pull out of the competition, didn't Fader get out there and race? On paper she had the legs to beat SF. If she had beaten her would we be hearing as much protest? SF isn't the first trans athlete to compete and do well and win medals, yet you would think from all the press and protest that this has never been done before.

I don't like subjective reasoning and try to maintain an objective attitude to most things that I do. I find emotion can land you in the poo more times than not. I qualify my stance with this reasoning. Science tells us that long term transitioning results in reduced bone density and reduced muscle mass, to the point where some particularly solid athletes can be at a distinct DISadvantage.




I think my daughter is too young to have to worry about such woes of life, but it is something that will have to be tackled in her teen years without a doubt. Reading of trans athletes competing in high schools and college means that you don't have to be masters age to have this experience. I am taking my time in formulating my opinion and I like to think that it is a fluid transition and open to change. I will admit that when first confronted with gender transition I was definitely not as accepting as I am now. It was new to me and strange and confronting, but even moreso for my friend who enabled me to gain my insight. Over the years I now have no issue with it. Re the situation now, being objective, there is no issue. SF ticked the boxes and won legitimately. It's all new and weird for a lot of people, but it's by the rulebook. I feel that there are loopholes there that need closing to increase the fairness of a situation that likely won't change - that being transgender inclusion in competition.

I teach my children not to fight the system, but to beat the system. The system allows them to compete, so look at them like any other gifted athlete and beat them!

We have this:


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20618365)
Why did the top qualifier not race?


Originally Posted by southernfox (Post 20619180)
I have a very good guess, and it's not flattering.

My question about, "Since you mention you and your daughter, how would you and her feel about this respectively?", I meant of my extreme scenario that I outlined above where the IOC and UCI get rid of gender grouping because of inability to please everyone. Basically we have a situation like, "The miller, his son and the donkey", where no one will be fully pleased.

Basically, how would you and your daughter feel if she had to compete against all other children in her age group in sports. It may not be an issue now, depending on her age (not asking). But, after puberty, a performance gap forms and it gets wider every year after.

For the record, I'm not endorsing the scenario above where there are no men's and women's divisions.

In general, I think the happy medium lay with the idea that, when there is significant debate as to which is the right category in which to place a rider, the decision must be into the more competitive category. I think that's fair. I would be happy to race against McKinnon.

brawlo 10-22-18 12:32 AM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20627440)
My question about, "Since you mention you and your daughter, how would you and her feel about this respectively?", I meant of my extreme scenario that I outlined above where the IOC and UCI get rid of gender grouping because of inability to please everyone. Basically we have a situation like, "The miller, his son and the donkey", where no one will be fully pleased.

TBH I don't have an opinion and I don't care. Formulating an opinion on an extreme speculation is something I just don't bother with. I can't ever see that happening and I don't think it's really all that relevant and assisting to the discussion here. The issue is about trans athletes competing in their respective "new" gender categories. For M-F there are guidelines in place now that I think are too relaxed. We can get all PC about it but IMO a track record of transitioning should be proven that puts you into the even playing field category. Whatever that timeline is. The previous IOC stance requiring full transition was just that one step too far, but it was close to what I think should be right. As I said before, the science says that makes the playing field pretty much level and then we just begin to talk about genetic differences that aren't M/F

Females can compete against males irrespective of what they want. Basically the IOC is saying that women are not physically as good as men so whatever. But what if a woman were to come in and race US nats and win or place. Given the times that are posted I would say that is something that could reasonably happen. There are women in other parts of the world that could be well expected to win or podium some of the age groups so one would assume it's entirely possible for a US athlete to do. What if you were a male and in a shooting or archery mens competition category and a group of women came in and took home all the medals. That's entirely possible and fully legit too.


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20627440)
In general, I think the happy medium lay with the idea that, when there is significant debate as to which is the right category in which to place a rider, the decision must be into the more competitive category. I think that's fair. I would be happy to race against McKinnon.

So maybe we test athletes and categorise them based on say a T marker, kind of like the UCI Biological Passport? That would be much more fair and equitable. So as all those men get old and their T drops low, does it just become a women's category :foo:

carleton 10-22-18 12:46 AM


Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 20627459)
So maybe we test athletes and categorise them based on say a T marker, kind of like the UCI Biological Passport? That would be much more fair and equitable. So as all those men get old and their T drops low, does it just become a women's category :foo:

This is exactly what I mean by the fact that we may be in a, "The miller, his son and the donkey" situation. No single answer to your question will satisfy everyone.

The most egalitarian way is simply run time trials, sort the results from high to low. Pick the top 16 and start the event...which is the dystopian scenario I set out.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.