5 Things We Learned at the Leogang DH World Cup 2019
The third round of the World Cup in Leogang provided another weekend of exciting racing with some of the closest racing in the venue's history, here are five things we noticed from the sidelines:
1. This race was close... even for Leogang
The track in Leogang is known for its tight racing with only two races resulting in a winning margin of more than two seconds in the past ten races held at the venue. This race was no different with the second closest winning margin ever recorded at the venue in the men's race. The 0.324-second gap between Loic Bruni and Greg Minnaar was only beaten by the incredibly narrow win by Aaron Gwin over Connor Fearon, just 0.045.
Looking further down the results sheet, the racing remained close with the top 10 riders being separated by 3.562 seconds. This is also second closest race in Leogang, beaten only by the 2014 race won by Josh Bryceland (the last World Cup win on a 26" bike) where the top 10 were within 2.905 seconds of his winning time. Looking even further down to the top 40 racers, the story stays the same with the close racing of 2014 coming out on top and the 2019 racing following shortly behind with 40 riders separated by just 9.382. The largest gap to 40th place was in 2011 where there was over a 19-second gap to the top spot.
2. Thibaut Daprela is one of the most consistent juniors ever
The current French domination of World Cup downhill might be led by the likes of Amaury Pierron, Loic Bruni and Loris Vergier in the Elite ranks but in the Junior Men, there is another young Frenchman with complete control over the competition. The Commencal Vallnord rider Thibaut Daprela has won 8 of the 10 World Cup races he has attended over the past two seasons and the two races he didn't win he still came second in. Thibault also currently sits on a seven-race winning streak and hasn't been beaten in a World Cup for a whole year now. For comparison, Finn Iles won 10 races across his two full seasons of racing with a maximum streak of 5 in a row.
3. The Leogang track changes for 2019 were a success
Leogang is often referred to as the 'bikepark' track of the World Cup circuit with high speeds and a mostly manicured surface, Phil Atwill even rode the track in practice on a hardtail back in 2017. For 2019, the trail crew put in some surprises that would shake things up across the weekend and even put in some entirely new sections of the track featuring multiple different lines.
The changes definitely upped the difficulty level and we saw riders like Amaury Pierron, Rachel Atherton, and Loris Vergier all go down on the revised course. Despite the efforts to make the track slower and potentially allow for bigger winner margins though, the winning time was only six seconds slower than 2018 in the men's race and was one of the closest races at the venue too.
4. Tracey Hannah's consistency finally paid off
On the dusty Leogang track, Tracey proved once again why she is one of the world's best. After three back to back qualifying wins this year, it was only a matter of time before she would take the top step of the podium in 2019. The Australian took her fourth ever World Cup win this past weekend adding to her wins in Schladming (2007), Pietermaritzburg (2012) and her last win at Fort William back in 2017. In the finish area, she said this one was extra special as it was the first time she's beaten Rachel for the win when both of them were in the start gate.
Despite it being over two years since her last win on the world stage, Hannah is one of the most consistent riders on the circuit. Since 2006 she has only dropped off the podium in 16 of the 54 World Cup races she has finished. In that same time period, she was only outside the top 10 once, getting an 11th place finish at Val Di Sole back in 2013.
5. It was a great weekend for privateer racers
The exciting racing in Leogang also saw some great results from the privateer racers that made it into finals. Nina Hoffmann improved upon her sixth and third position at previous rounds and went one better crossing the line in second. Kate Weatherly got her first podium too, coming in just over two seconds behind Hannah.
In the Elite Men, the standout privateer of the weekend had to be Johannes Von Klebelsberg, rocking up to a World Cup and riding in blue jeans is always going to get you noticed and they didn't seem to slow him down either. He qualified 16th and it was all go for the finals where he finished just eight seconds off Bruni in 31st.
Wyn Masters' new Privateer of the Week award went to the denim destroyer Johannes Von Klebelsberg and in an Instagram story, Masters said how when they tried to call Johannes to give him the prize money he was already halfway home as he had to work on Monday morning. He had also spent the whole weekend riding with his phone in his jeans pocket in case he got a call from his job as a restaurant manager.
The UCI currently follows IOC rules that transgender athletes must have total testosterone levels below 10 nmol/L during and for at least 12 months before competition.
The debates about transgender athletes, inclusion, and fairness are contentious. As these conversations unfold, please remember that there are other people at the end of your words. We expect the comments on Pinkbike to be respectful and constructive.
Specifically, please don’t violate our terms of use, which state that any hate speech or personal attacks will not be tolerated. Transgender advocates, social media platforms, and other media companies consider misgendering and ‘deadnaming’ (using someone’s former name) as slurs and personal attacks.
The aim is not to censor conversations or ideas, but just like other slurs and personal attacks, misgendering and deadnaming are not welcome on our platform. Violations of Pinkbike’s terms of use may result in comment deletions, suspensions, or bans. Any harassment, bullying, or incitements to violence will result in lifetime bans from the site.
The debates about transgender athletes, inclusion, and fairness are contentious. As these conversations unfold, please remember that there are other people at the end of your words. We expect the comments on Pinkbike to be respectful and constructive.
Specifically, please don’t violate our terms of use, which state that any hate speech or personal attacks will not be tolerated. Transgender advocates, social media platforms, and other media companies consider misgendering and ‘deadnaming’ (using someone’s former name) as slurs and personal attacks.
The aim is not to censor conversations or ideas, but just like other slurs and personal attacks, misgendering and deadnaming are not welcome on our platform. Violations of Pinkbike’s terms of use may result in comment deletions, suspensions, or bans. Any harassment, bullying, or incitements to violence will result in lifetime bans from the site.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
7. Minnaar's still got it.
The guys who put time into competition between splits 3 and 4 such as Minnaar and Bruni looked to be going visibly faster in that section then everyone else other then maybe Brosnan and Harrison.
They're not doing this to please the MTB gang, they're in this to make money - we'll revisit comment sections like this one in a couple of years where everything is motorway style with jumps and wallrides, and not a single root section to go thorigh;
The most royally f$cking annoying thing the commentators do is disclose what happened in the Womens race when commenating on the mens race! I sometimes watch the men first which then takes the excitement out of watching the women.
Also having Claudio taking about split times only can see, and with his constant negative comments does my tits in.
gewd, right there, all over the place... In every sentence.
Losinj was awesome because it was all televised and just a massive rock garder. More of that please!
It just sounds like a bunch of ungrateful, whiny little crybabies who don't realize just how lucky we are right now to even have coverage of one of the single hardest sports to film live in this world.
I've watched coverage increase exponentially over the years and have a great grasp of what it takes to film DH in the woods over a course that ranges from 1-2 miles in length. Those who aren't satisfied are just unaware of how good the product they are seeing is.
Could we have seen everything? Sure, but the most relevant crash of the race happened on flat gravel in full view of most every spectator there & every single person watching it on live or replay TV.
Also, people don't seem to grasp that a slow, techy rock section is going to be the most mundane thing on video to watch, even though it multiplies the time gap on a track like this. It's an utter impossibility to just guess with the cameras where carnage will happen. Wish people would stop being so damn ungrateful & realize how good we have it. But what can I expect from people who didn't witness OLN coverage, then NO coverage, then some random website coverage, then Freecaster, then the crap shoot that bought them & now RedBullTV, which is flat out amazing.
I wonder if people notice the clearcutting that goes on to get site lines for these events that most other sports don't even think about.
The Riders start in 2min - 3min gaps while the time for them to get into the finish line is 3:15. Of course you can't cut to the next rider as soon as they cross the line, which means you need at least another 10-15sec, and also at the start you'd want to see them a few seconds before they're off, and you also want to see some replays of the run.
So, to see all of the run, you would need around 4min gaps.
With a 3 minute gap, it's not possible to show at least 1 minute of the Racerun.
Next Problem is, that you need to be live-.live to actually see the timing of the run, that's why the start of the racerun is prerecorded, and then comes the cut to the live.
The more you think about it, the more you'll see that it's simply not possible to stitch the run together live and feature the most interesting zones.
I mean hes a top bloke, but commenting might not be his number 1 talent.
@drangus it has. I was being facetious.
interactives.stuff.co.nz/2018/03/a-level-playing-field
It was an interesting read, all those criticizing should probably read through beforehand.
Our muscles are different too. There are over 3000 genes that express themselves differently between males and females.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4285578
"type-I fibers account for 36% of the total biopsy area in men and 44% in women, whereas type-IIA fibers account for 41% in men and only 34% in women (89)."
You don't need to be a kinesiologist to guess that Type-1 fibers are slow-twitch and Type-IIa fibers are the fast twitch type.
Let's go with another difference. Our brains.
"Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles."
Men have superior visuospatial skills...think that might help when barreling down a trail at 40 mph?
stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
It's called "sexual dimorphism". That is the term for the differences between males and females of a certain species. There's a lot there.
It's kind of telling that these rules and regulations only exist in one direction, and I think it's because we all inherently know the performance difference between the genders comes from more than just a nmol/L measurement of an individual's testosterone.
It's a tough position for any governing body to be in, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It'll probably be road cycling that will test the policy in a more thorough manner, higher prize money will always draw more attention and competition, and roadies already have a bit of a history of doing "whatever it takes" to get a win.
I think the problems will more likely happen when you try to vet people who are genuinely transgender for their own social reasons, and those who will claim transgender to play the system. It's not going to take much for a masters (already lower testosterone) getting to a point where they meet the 10nmol/L criteria and getting a nice injection into the retirement fund by sweeping the field if they choose to do so. And good luck to anyone who wants to question the validity of such a gender claim without being crucified in the media.
Guess we'll just have to see how it all plays out.
I absolutely think Kate deserves respect and I can't imagine how hard it would be to have lived the life she has lived. And I would be her friend,ride bikes with her, crack beers, ... no problem.
But, personally, I don't think trans-women should compete in elite athletics. Female DH racers have a tough enough go already. Hell, there's a women that's been on the podium twice already this year that doesn't have a sponsor.
If a mid-pack female from this year transitions and next year kicks the poop out of the rest of the men’s field next year then I assume that we would all be cheering for that person.
In the big picture I’m very happy to see trans people out in the world being free to be themselves. This aspect trumps competitive sport to me. But I would like sport to be fair. I hope it is.
Personally I do agree that the physical advantage of a trans athlete over female athletes is real, and needs to be dealt with. How to deal with it sensitively, now that’s where it gets tricky.
Science is definitely not questionable and I personally am glad that people are taking into consideration how hard it already is for all female atheletes in all disciplines, yet some questions must be raised:
Given female transgender atheltes have said advantages, which I’m sure the UCI is aware of, I can imagine the testosterone level is sufficiently low as to asure a level playing field, while transgender women might have some advantages the level of testosterone could be viewed as a “balance” for that.
Is this the currently the case?
As for the male mind having a cognitive advantage on average, there are so many factors that weigh into brain development that it is quite possible women on a scale are less exposed to situations which stimulate such development, but the actual potential for male and females brains could be about the same, yet determining this is extremely difficult given so many variables. I have no doubt all WC DH women have a far better ability than me in those areas, for example.
I would also like to point out how separating transgender athletes into a separate category could cause trouble:
1) It would make it harder for them to recieve commercial attention, fans, and screen time, and could be an extinguisher for bringing more diversity into the sport.
2) There could exist huge disadvantages for some athletes who transitioned sooner/later, have more money or are more willing to consume certain enhancing hormones, etc.
I personally understand why we put certain restrictions on these atheletes but there is another question to be raised there:
Until what point is a persons body considered unfair? Cleary some atheltes have an enormous genetic advantage, Phelps has larger lungs compared to his body, some atheletes have larger legs compared to the rest of their body, the list goes on. We don’t put restrictions on them, so, when and where do we put restrictions in place?
Of course, it shouldn’t be an open field, that too would be injust. Drawing a line is quite difficult is all I’m saying here.
Great chat, stoked to see it veing carried out so respectfully. It would be awesome if more experts (I’m not) and transgender athletes chimed in.
Cheers!
I don't really think this is as complicated as ya'll make it. Lady is a lady, so she shreds with the ladies.
What's clear enough with MTB'ing is that there is a yawing gap in performance between the top men and the top women in the sport. Both fields generally compete quite tightly amongst themselves despite the body size differences between the individuals in their categories. You only need to go as far as Leogang's Podium to observe that, 190cm tall Minaar with 167cm Brosnan with Loic in between them; all within a second of one another.
There is an 11% gap in the fastest mens and women's times from Sunday's Race.
If we take the mean times of the top five (3:48.7958 women, 3:17.2284 men) it's almost 13.79% gap between the genders.
The top 50 men's times have a 6% spread on them to put that into perspective.
The only times the fastest women are beating, are of the men that had MAJOR crashes (even then Kerr still came in with comparable time to Hoffman).
Now not all sports are the like this, some have much smaller gaps between men and women. But we have to deal with what we know, and as far as we can see, at the pointy end of the sport, there is a clear and insurmountable difference in performance between the genders, and the categories have been separated for good reason. The observation of such differences is the exact reason we split the sports in order to keep the playing field fair.
The corollary can also be argued, in matters where gender physiology doesn't really play a part, there isn't reason for splitting the fields; we still have men's and women's Archery and Shooting, E-sports, Chess, etc
Just to re-iterate my point from my earlier post, I don't think it's so much a problem as it stands. But it could be, especially if there is more prize money (large pushes in most sports lately to match the different gender's prize pools) and if people decide to game the system. I doubt it'll rear it's head so much in MTB'ing, but anywhere large amounts of prize money could be up for grabs is likely where we'll see these types of rules being stress tested; Golf, Tennis, Road Cycling.
So can women now (biological women) juice up their T levels to 10 nmol/L, the bar the IOC has set for transgender women? Will it be like what wrestlers do with weight cutting, but in reverse? Can a woman hyper elevate her T levels for a few years and train, then get them down to 10 nmol/L for the 12 months proceeding competition? Can women now take other steroids, so long as their T levels are at the IOC specified levels?
If all men stop watching the womens race, there wouldn’t be a womens race. So yes, the opinion of the men also counts.
"It's been discussed a bit" Understatement of the day.
That said there is more to downhill than pedalling power
Gender, as it has been defined until recently, has strongly correlated to groups of similar athletic potential and thus been a reasonable way of providing groupings for athletes to compete against others of similar potential. A number of countries have recently redefined gender such a way that this correlation is no longer true. This means the definition of the categories previously based on gender must be redefined to continue to have athletes grouped by maximum potential, which most athletes and spectators seemed pretty happy with, or the gender grouping needs to be dropped as it no longer serves the intended purpose.
Trying to redefine gender categories based on testosterone and estrogen levels has proven to be a failure, the small percentage of transgender athletes competing in the top level sports are skewed heavily towards the high end of the performance distribution and setting of records.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is define categories based on chromosome pairs instead of gender. Your body, your life, identity as you want, compete in the category that places you against other athletes of similar performance potential. Estrogen shots and the like are no different than poor training, poor sleep, or poor nutrition in terms of being choices you make that end up limiting your ability to realise your own maximum potential and the fact that you choose that should not influence the grouping, which is based on maximum potential, into which you are placed.
Alternatively, get rid of gender categories altogether because as of right now they are increasingly failing to serve their originally intended purpose.
Best comment so far: Every bro has an opinion, let the women discuss.
IF you have a problem with it, turn to www.olympic.org, whose rules are being followed here. Your bitter comments here won't make any difference, not for the better anyway.
In many different sports, there have been and will continue to be athletes who compete in age groups that they are no longer eligible for and more often than not, place very highly in that category. In other words, an athlete places themselves in a pool against other athletes of lower maximum potential, in this example due to age differences. This is terribly poor sportsmanship and damages the competition for the other athletes and spectators. Many find such conduct reprehensible and often choose to disengage from the activity if such conduct goes on unchecked.
How and why should a grouping of athletes of similar maximum potential defined by gender rather than age be exempted from similar responses?
We have brains and we can discuss things, even if we're not the ones to make the decision, it helps if our half of the population is engaged, knowledgeable and open minded. So, not only we can discuss it - we should!
@Adamrideshisbike interesting, I learned a couple of things from your post.
Most people here say 'yeah, but it's not only about testosterone', which fair enough it apparently isn't, but from what I gather - muscle composition, bone density, and a plethora of other things also change when transitioning and there have been some studies on it, so the advantages quickly diminish, no?
Also @JaToledo and @Zaff raise some good points.
I can't even imagine the backlash from society if sports are no longer split by M/F but something else instead.
I'm wondering, would we be having this conversation if Kate didn't get good results? Which after all is the ultimate goal.
BUT, to some extent, this is also a case of "(ex)man inviting self to women's field and being quite close to dominating it"... almost like there are only 9 spots left to compete for in women's top 10.
For the record : I'm not saying that this is Kate's intention, but there is definitely some irony here.
The IOC guideline are simply wrong and need to be changed.
The UCI should think for itself and find a fair resolution to this issue. What are the chances of that?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259
It talks a lot about participation, discrimination, but had little to say about physiology.
"In summary, there is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport or not. The limited physiological research conducted to date has informed the development of transgender sport policies that are implemented by sporting organisations all over the world. It is these sport policies that appear to be instrumental in transgender people’s experiences with competitive sport, most of which are negative."
The above study was written by activists, whose work seems mostly to be about eating disorders previously and other things to do with psychology, which is fine, but I'd be interested in a study done by a sports physiologist where things like lung function, reaction times, strength testing were performed. If those studies exist, I'd be interested in reading them.
Personally, I'd be surprised if some advantage was not retained. Men and women are different. And it's not a post-puberty thing, it's starts in utero. Hell, men have greater lung capacity. That alone is pretty hard to account for if people are going to claim "level-playing field."
And I would also like to say that I don't think Kate Weatherly is trying to take advantage of the system. I think she is a person trying to live her life. I do however disagree with UCIs ruling and I do feel that trans athletes would "routinely and unfairly beat their competitors" in certain sports, such as downhill mountain biking.
QOTETE START
--
Some remained unconvinced.
"Sorry Kate, I feel for you in this situation, but I don't think it's fair on the biological girls," someone posted. "Maybe a new gender neutral class should be created?"
That's a common suggestion, but doesn't appeal to Weatherly.
"My thing is, I'm not gender neutral, I'm a girl. The whole idea of a third category invalidates my sense of identity."
--
QUOTE END
I would also like to comment how certain restrictions on transgender athletes could be equally unfair, if they are forced to keep a maximum of physical effort/potential which bars them from achieving their best performance. At what point is it acceptable? When they are equal to average women? Average racers? The best racer? Would it be ethical to force a trangender athlete to compete at a level which is not his or her potential?
Given how complicated this is, and the UCI’s investment and effort for doping and transgender atheltes, as well as how seriously they take this aspect of the sport, I trust their effort and rule, and believe it must be fair, or else they would have kept investigating and come up with a better limit.
PS: It’s rude at the least the way people are referring to Kate and transgender people. You don’t have to be to say that you believe she belongs in another category. This alot more than “feelings” and “abnormalities”.
Good luck!
Any other questions?
This reveals something important, women join this sport alot less than men. This thread itself is a sausage fest. Alot of women join because of dads and brothers but what guy joins because of mother/sisters? For more women to opt into our sport we need to be more open minded and encourage them and their skills from a younger age. Part of this is believing that soley because of today’s differences women are that much less capable of riding hard. News flash buddies, girls can achieve similar power to weight rations, equal technical abilities, are just as capable of strategy and experience. With more of them the level they have as an overall will rise. Just look at XC and how much cooler the womens races are compared to guys.
I’m not even going to start on how women participating in the same volume as men would benefit the industry.
I don't know man, I just remember the last couple of seasons how people were complaining about Rachel dominating the girls, how she should compete with the guys, that it was unfair that she grew up biking with Gee and Dan and taking the men's lines...
What about financial/geographical disadvantages, when are we gonna bitch about those? Next year? I have a few message drafts already!
Here's also some good discussions going on here, but calling the current state of the sport "a farce and a sideshow" is something else.
Peace and out.
Average speeds in the men's top 20 are about of 19.5km/h vs the women's 16km/h (for Albstadt at least). You need to go back and look at the time sheets of the men's and the women's races, and then count the laps each category have raced to get a real perspective on the differences in the races.
I'm not saying the women's race isn't more of a spectacle, but they're still a long ways off being level with the men. If anything, XC displays an even larger performance gap than Enduro and DH; and in all cases it would appear to be insurmountable.
I wasn't born transgender, but I've seen nudies of people with every kind of combo of genetics there is. And there are certainly tons of people that don't fall under the 2 category man/woman system. So maybe they need to figure out how to have their own genetically defined race category that matches them against those of their physical ability. But even in that category, there won't be a real established "winner".
Trans is almost like the men's 40+ category. Once you get to 40, you realize that being lumped in with everybody in your age group either firmly benefits the heck out of you if you've managed to stay uncrippled & fit & were naturally talented & hard working. That is very few of us hard asses. The rest of us lumped into it (to be FAIR) to everybody would need weight categories, lingering body injury categories, sight limitation categories, reaction time dulled by a percentage category, waste circumference category...etc.
Bottom line is that COMPETITION CATEGORY SELECTION only seems to BENEFIT transgenders who pick FEMALE. So it's obvious to any and all people involved in athletics that there is a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE for transgenders slotting into the FEMALE category.
What does this imply for females who don't want to lose to a person who has a substantial difference in testosterone? It implies that they would have to RAISE their testosterone levels to attempt to even the playing field with their newfound competitor.
What is the black and white implication of a women having to amplify her testosterone to battle a transgender person? It means a FEMALE has to contemplate making herself TRANSGENDER to remain competitive.
I don't have the answers, but it's insanity. If we are going to race based on gender, there has to be a genetic testosterone cut off or my daughters should just forget about competing in any sport ever again.
My daughter just went to state in the 4x400. The only talk among the girls is about the person who is blowing the doors off women's track who has internal testicles. It looks pretty hopeless if you're a female athlete looking 4 years down the road in her event and know there will only be more like that person matched up against her...and the ONLY thing you can do to beat her is get your testosterone UP...UP...UP???
No clue what you’re thinking with females becoming transgender to “remain competitive” though. I might have misread your comment or you don’t really understand much about transgender people but could you explain this better?
In scientific circles the IOC have proven to be incompetent. Members of the IOC advisory committee advised that there is very little relevant research relating to transgender and intersex athletes and its an area that needs to be urgently researched.
The IOC have completely ignored the important issue of cellular male muscle memory. (as well as other evidence)
The guidelines are about to change so that the testosterone levels will now need to be below 5 for 12 months. One of the people advising them is a transgender runner. However even this reduction will still not level the playing field.
Then there is the welfare of athletes. women having to push themselves harder to compete. Trans athletes taking drugs so they can compete - what are the long term implications of that!
if the UCI don't get it right they will be paying out some serious $$££ in compensation.
The whole subject is a shit storm
If you're a 9th grade girl & your dream is to be the World Champion in the 400 meters & each year, more trans teens show up on the line, but you look around you and you're the fittest, fastest female and yet the trans person dwarfes you...what are you going to have to do to beat them? You've lifted every weight, taken everything there is to take nutritionally & you've slept every hour you can sleep & had the best Olympic staff taking care of you as a child prodigy.
Your only choice to become as powerful as the trans person is to take male enhancement drugs like testosterone. You're the best woman racer in the US but that's the only thing you can do to get to that trans person's level is to change your body to become closer to that grey area between male & female. If you do take that testosterone, you're pushing yourself closer to being just as trans as them.
I think where the line should have been drawn was making 2 clear distinctions:
1. It's OK to take male or female altering drugs like testosterone to be who you want to be in this world
2. It is NOT OK to take sex altering drugs to compete in Sex defined athletic events - REGARDLESS
3. Maybe an "Open" category at World Cup events is a band aid. But still...we're talking about trying to wedge a social construct into a non-socially constructed category.
We do need to separate the two constructs and be unremorseful in doing so.
Sports is about racing your genetic peers once you've put in all the work to be the best you that was given to you. It is not a societal construct or social classification meant to be inclusive & protect our feelings. If it was, there wouldn't be a cutoff at 60 riders or have a podium.
w how sensitive the rules are about drugs. How can the UCI justify drugging into a class as not altering performance w drugs? Oh yeah they just say follow our rules not logic. Trans people are not the biological sex they choose to gender into and insisting they are is dishonest, and before anyone wants to give a sermon on it, keep in mind you don’t know what my gender is do you? @hamncheez:
If a women was being victimized or marginalized in nearly any other context, then it would be shameful to not do something, or say something, for example if a female co-worker was being discriminated against or harassed at work. In this context though, you and others who have raised a similar arguments seem to think that men are supposed to just go "hey, those are women problems...let's mind our own business and get back to having fun, guys!".
A lot of these same commenters have been hearing about how tough it is for women bike racers, with minimal sponsorship opportunities, unequal prize money, a "boys club" environment (although most men I know are very supportive of women riding), etc...And yet now you are complaining about those same men caring and taking interest in things that affect those same women racers, simply because it touches on an even hotter PC button? You can't tell everyone to suddenly stop caring about a marginalized group that in other contexts you would expect them to advocate for, that's just crazytalk and doublespeak.
And before you say, "Well what if the cis-women are all cool with it?", I can tell you the women aren't all cool with it. This article covers Shania Rawson. interactives.stuff.co.nz/2018/03/a-level-playing-field and then most of us saw the FMD racing post that seems to speak for Tahnee Seagrave. There was also another NZ female racer in the Leogang results thread who seemed to have similar sentiments. And that doesn't even mention that after the blowback that I'm sure FMD is suffering right now, most other women will be afraid to speak their minds, for fear of jeopardizing their sponsorships. It could be that the vast majority of the cis-women are cool with it, but it will be very tough to get an honest accounting in this political environment, so they'll essentially be gagged. Please keep in mind, I'm not saying that trans and cis gendered women shouldn't be competing in the same class, but I am saying that acting as if honest discussion and debate among male MTB fans is some sort of "ism" or "phobia" is nothing but nonsense.
Having said that, without a whole societal rethink, I'm not sure how much buy-in you will get from the pro women's field. The thing that distinguishes them, is being the fastest women. Period. Not being "Fastest in "Gender neutral field 3" or whatever you want to call it in this alternative system being proposed.
We already have ability ranked classes for amateurs, and while the people racing in those classes get very worked up about a victory, its hard to get friends and family to give a damn, no less fans or sponsors. And if you win too much in a given category, then people start talking about how you are "sandbagging" and should move up to the next class, where you are likely to be mid-pack, and people will resume not-caring about your placing. Such is the nature of the meritocracy of racing.
I could see some potential for doing things with a handicap type system, like golf, where people would have an established handicap based on their past results and would then have that deducted from their time in an event against the clock, like DH, or in head to head racing, they'd get a head start of a commensurate amount. But I have trouble imagining fans getting excited about my mom, dad, or gran, "winning" a DH race, because they started with a x 500% advantage over Minnaar, or whatever, as anything other than a novelty. It certainly hasn't happened with golf.
You wrote "I'm wondering, would we be having this conversation if Kate didn't get good results? Which after all is the ultimate goal.".
That is actually very similar to the USA cycling rules for Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) for older men. Basically, they had tons of older men with doctor's notes saying they need TRT, who were applying for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) to allow them to use the Testosterone (which would generally be considered "doping". Ultimately, they decided on 2 different standards...a more relaxed one for amateurs (which would allow these guys to use their TRT and race while being in compliance with the rules), and a more stringent one for pros, which basically forbids TRT regardless of circumstance.
The interesting thing is that even for amateurs, they have a sort of scale they use to measure your performance, and if you start winning on TRT, then they red flag you. In other words, they're cool with you doing what some would call "doping", as long as you continue to be slow. If you start getting fast though, they suddenly pay attention and make things tougher.
(Sarcasm font) Because we all know that science is never open to debate and further study after a result is returned.
1. Fairness in sport is a myth. At best, we hope for a very loose approximation, but it really isn't.
2. If you trust the UCI (who, incidentally, is subject to the IOC), then you need to dig back into their past misdeeds.
3. You brought up doping, so I will reiterate what I mentioned to another commenter above, that USA Cycling has a rule that allows "doping" in the the form of Testosterone Replacement Therapy for men with "low T" levels. It is permissible, up until the point when you stop sucking. Once you start to get top 3 finishes, then they tighten the restrictions. If you place so much faith in governing bodies, then I suggest you consider their stance on hormone levels and fairness too.
Hey man! Yeah I saw your comment it’s an interesting one! I have more or less covered each of those subjects in this thread (I’ve written way to much), and I know the UCI doesn’t meet the best of standards, someone pointed out how the IOC made bad calls that the UCI followed. The good news is that they restructured the team investigating and designing rules including a former trangender athlete who suggested a much lower permitted amount of testosterone for females transgender athletes. Apparently it’s a much more appropriate level.
What I’ve really tried is to keep this open minded and respectful more that judge what is currently in place as I simply am not qualified to do so (I study nothing to do with biology). Some people here have said things that are really important like the ones you highlighted!
By having and encouraging good and respectful discussions the sport will grow, and it’s happened for most of this thread
Similarly, governing bodies (or at least USA cycling), have taken a similar attitude, with no waiting period required for newly transitioned men to compete in the men's category, unlike the waiting period for people going the opposite direction.
That whole argument about Rachel growing up with Gee and Dan ignores the possibility that Tahnee might have been born with genetic advantages over Rachel. And what about Tracy growing up biking with Mick? Its a quagmire, and at some point we all decide "good enough" and get back to the races. Some things we, as a society, have decided are not fair, like doping, although from a certain perspective you could make the argument that taking EPO or Testosterone is simply compensating for one rider's naturally lower levels vs. another genetically gifted rider.
Either way, I see where you are coming from, in terms of it being this morass, where you have a human continuum, and various highly impassioned parties all claiming to have knowledge of the "proper" standards with which to draw dividing lines, when really those lines will inevitably be arbitrary, political, and easily contradicted by other evidence.
Elimination of gender categories seems like a way out of the mess, which would account for both transgender competitors, as well as various intersex points on the spectrum, but then it would basically eliminate all of the headway that women's sports have made in the last 50 years, and would force a host of people with real careers as racers to market themselves to sponsors based on being "influencers" or whatnot, rather than based on race results, which would no longer be realistically achievable.
And on the Testosterone level rules, I hope that people are right, and they truly have found a good universal limit, but my understanding is that XY people and XX people respond differently to Testosterone, and some people within a given chromosome group have different natural levels, and/or will respond more or less to manipulation of those levels. I fear that a one-size-fits-all approach would leave some still having what many would perceive to be an unfair advantage, while compromising the long term health of others, who genuinely need more just to maintain homeostasis. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, open-minded discourse like this is the only way to get to the fairest, nearest approximation of a level playing field that we can achieve.
If the athlete remained in the same part of the population distribution of the new class, there would be no issue because there would be no advantage. So no, we wouldn't be talking about it.
Gender fluid... now that is really a tough one, and I think that wouldn't really be an issue until we have a far more accepting society, which, judging by this forum, is really a very long way off.
Most of society accepts gender fluidity. We just don't think it fits into the binary system of competitive sport.
We are specifically addressing competition. Nothing stops any person of any identity from participating in a sport. Competition is separate.
media.tenor.com/images/27da77ae825ab875aadeb83766d8ccc6/tenor.gif
www.transitionbikes.com/Feature_WelcomeMarco.cfm
Be f*cking happy we get to watch the races for FREE !!!!!
Half the planet can’t even watch supercross racing cause of conflicts in broadcast rights.
I personally happy to be able to wake up and watch the race
Now if I could get the dam racers to stop posting on Instagram before I watch the race ..haha
I love this sport !!!!!
(Last year he was riding in the co-factory team of Mondraker together with Brage Vestavik)
When you increase, the "specialness" of each decreases.
Additional races would most likely be in Europe.
More races make it harder & more expensive for privateers and smaller teams.
I ask because I'm not sure what that number should be.
I am speaking strictly from selfish spectator's point of view, i wouldn't mind 2-3 more races per season, let's say.
More races could mean better chances to race for bigger number of privateers, local guys anyway.
I didn't mean to dig deeper into the case of larger amount of races, we can of course...it's pretty simple, i enjoy them more than just about any other sports event, there aren't that many, give me more....but yeah specialness decreases.
And to be clear : transgender athletes can be top 3/ top 10 / top 40 I don't care ! It's not about the position or being transphobic! Everyone out there thinking that it's transphobic ... is transphobic himself ! Identify yourself as what you want . Go out there and compete! Do what you want !
The world is not ready but ..we don't protect transgender athletes and in this case female athletes!
There are inherent problems with covering the whole track and it isn't lack of cameras. The main challenge is there is more than one competitor on the course at a time but they cover one at a time. So they show the start of each rider delayed and pick them up live partway through their runs. This keeps the overall broadcast close to live and not 4 hours long.
Some things they could do and I am sure have considered.
1) Don't show instant replays. This would be way out of the ordinary for sports coverage. Can you imagine not replaying Pierron's nose-wheelie finish or Gwin's explosive crash at Ft. William? But they could show less replays for uneventful runs.
2) Switch back and forth between the riders who are on course at the same time. Focus on key sections of the course. This is more like mass start races where there are battles for other positions but it would be strange for a time trials race.
3) One rider at a time on course. Lot's of waiting between riders for fans lining the course and either super long races or limit number of finalists. If long race, conditions likely to change over the event.
4) Mix start order and only cover the top half of qualifiers. Would still have more than one on course but you would have order like 80, 40, 79, 39, ... , 42, 2, 41, 1 or even have the top 10 qualifiers go one at a time at the end. Don't show 41 - 80 on the broadcast unless they have an eventful run. Even with this format, longer races like Ft. William would likely still have the issue of missing portions to keep the broadcast time reasonable.
I have been following the sport for many years. Many of the men that are racing have been riding /competing since they were kids ( and thats not just the top 20 racers ) Its not just a sport you jump into and expect to podium., it takes many years, and much the same for the womens cat. Respect for all competing.
www.rootsandrain.com/rider136238/kate-weatherly/results
vs
www.rootsandrain.com/rider54373/anton-weatherly/results
Bit of a jump in results....
Most arguments center around the fact that Kate is now faster than most women - OK, that's a fact and I can see that. Ergo, because she was a man before and now a woman, she has a physiological advantage, which puts the women on the back foot. Agreed?
Ok - Rachel Atherton is a woman (I mean, I'm pretty sure she is) and she SMOKES Kate and everyone else consistenly. This proves two things:
a) women can be much faster than the average elite women
b) Kate is not without competition
I understand the predicament of transgender people and how hard it is to transition and I understand the "purists" who want people of the same biological gender (from a physical standpoint) to compete in their own category.
It doesn't change the fact that one women is much, much faster than most of the elite women - Rachel Atherton. Does that make it unfair? Does that mean she trains harder or everyone else less hard?
It's simply not as easy as everyone makes it out.
There is no perfect solution regarding transgender athletes and regulations can never enforce 100% fairness even discounting that particular topics. The rules are what they are right now and it isn't up to fans to decide what they should be.
Except for those who aren't, but don't let that stop you.
1. People are complaining about 'fairness'. If the competitors arent claiming its unfair, is there any relevant argument here. Do we feel genuinely so shortchanged by someone who didnt win anyway? Does a spectator who isnt paying to watch something really matter if they feel cheated?
2. Gender changes and men competing as women to cheat has occurred (See USSR in the olympics) but there isnt any evidence of this here.
3. Trans athletes have to put up with a tonne of crap. Think about how much Castor Semenya has had to go through. Whether we agree with it or not, we should acknowledge how public and how physically exposed their choices are.
4. People arent being the usual di*ks they normally are because there is a warning at the top of the comments threatening bans. Its not because we have pulled ourselves out of the swamp, so lets not be too quick to pat ourselves on the back.
5. MTB is a young sport. Id warrant a guess that other sports saw the gaps were bigger at the start between genders and they have closed over time.
Just thought I tell u that
bigoted, how so?
They didn't just step into the whole transgender issue (which isn't much of an issue imo, but that's aside the point), but they fully diminished the achievements of Tracey by phrasing it as if she couldn't win with Tahnee and Rachel making it to the bottom (isn't making it down part of racing?)
Big surprise that he would now have something crappy to say about this.
Hysteria is more like it. If someone disagrees with inclusion, they get shouted down and rioted. Label those who think differently than you so you don't have to honor their opinions and get to have only yours. Inclusiveness sure does behave a lot like censorship....
**As a note, I have zero issues with trans, gay, etc. One of my groomsmen is gay as well as several other close friends and family. So not a 'wing nut' either. Just a concerned fan of fair women's racing in a sport I truly love.
/ˌtranzˈfōbēə/
noun
dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.
Now if you feel us having a conversation questioning the logic of transwomen/men competing (notice I and many others have done zero name calling), is some type of 'phobia', I can't do anything to change your narrow focus and/or virtue signalling comments. Have fun in your pigeon holed viewpoint.