2024 Paris Olympics General (non-Basketball/Track & Field) Discussion Thread

[G R E Y]

Wow they're GREAT live...

[Rich Rane]

LA is gonna be a huge party.

[G R E Y]

Billie Eilish!

Great live, too!

[Rich Rane]

I hope Raygun performs for when we pass it to Australia.

[Slacktard]

RHCP!

I guess ignorance is bliss. It's been a long time since stuff came out about Anthony Kiedis

Spoiler:

and having bragged about sleeping with a 14 year old girl when he was in his mid 20s... Then confirming he started his relationship with Ione Skye before she was 16

I guess we couldn't let Paris Olympics have

Spoiler:

the only sex predators such as that volleyballer

[Buckets22]

Snoop landing it.

[G R E Y]

RHCP!

I guess ignorance is bliss. It's been a long time since stuff came out about Anthony Kiedis

Spoiler:

and having bragged about sleeping with a 14 year old girl when he was in his mid 20s... Then confirming he started his relationship with Ione Skye before she was 16

I guess we couldn't let Paris Olympics have

Spoiler:

the only sex predators such as that volleyballer

*Sigh*

Gross...

[G R E Y]

Snoop landing it.

Yeah this bangs...

[Buckets22]

LA 2028 will be insane.

[Nuntius]

Evolutionary and developmental biologists Emma Hilton, Colin Wright, Richard Dawkins, Zachary Elliott et al whose words are clearly written by themselves.

Many of which are here for people to read:
viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793


I reiterate: they all understand their own science
They understand T sensitivity in DSDs (since that's the latest salvo) and are clear it does in fact offer competitive advantage

They all call for sex tests and clear XX category delineation.

They do understand their own science, yes. And they also understand that there is no scientific consensus that justifies their stance.

Of course, the lack of scientific consensus doesn't stop them from calling for the exclusion of these athletes. But that has more to do with their own biases than it has to do with actual science. There's a reason why you have to resort to scientists with specific political leanings, after all. These political leanings are the key in informing their stance on this topic, it's not the science.

You know who else disagrees with you? Dr. Georges Cazola, who came up with IK's training program, and revealed IK did indeed have xy chromosomes, high T, and they were working to lower it in time for Paris. Look it up.

You're talking about this interview, right?

https://www.lepoint.fr/sport/exclusif-jo-2024-imane-khelif-a-ete-aneantie-de-decouvrir-d-un-seul-coup-qu-elle-pourrait-ne-pas-etre-une-fille-09-08-2024-2567609_26.php

The interview in which Georges Cazorla said the following:

Le Point: What happens after this thunderclap announcement?
Georges Cazorla: After the 2023 World Championships, where she was disqualified, I took the lead by contacting a renowned endocrinologist from the Parisian University Hospital, Kremlin-Bicêtre, who examined her. He confirmed that Imane is indeed a woman, despite her karyotype and her testosterone level. He said: "There is a problem with her hormones, with her chromosomes, but she is a woman." That's all that mattered to us. We then worked with a doctor based in Algeria to monitor and regulate Imane's testosterone level, which is currently within the female norm. Tests clearly show that all her muscular and other qualities have been diminishing since then. Currently, she can be compared on a muscular and biological level to a woman-woman-woman.

This is what you're talking about, right? This is what you're trying to use as the evidence that she should be excluded? That's absolutely hilarious

Saying there is no consensus among the scientists without showing any evidence disputing the biology doesn't stand even the slightest scrutiny. All listed are in favour of a single cheek swab for sex test.

As for IK trainer- do you understand what problem with chromosomes and problem with testosterone and needing to regulate the latter actually means? I think not. This plus the two failed sex tests and withdrawing appeal is a preponderance of evidence against XX inclusion.

As to T in DSD, I've posted this before:

Read on Twitter

Seb Coe will get it sorted should he lead IOC. And then we'll see the impact of a clear XX category.

Once again:

You are the one that makes the assertion that these athletes should be excluded. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you to prove your position. You need to prove that there is scientific consensus that athletes who are phenotypically female, were assigned female at birth but have intersex conditions should be excluded from competing in the women's categories in sports.

Without that consensus, you cannot claim that your calls for exclusion have a scientific basis. I don't see why we have to keep going in circles here.

It's the same thing with the Hooven tweet. You posted it before. I replied to it before. The tweet is specifically about athletes with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, the condition that Semenya has. We have no idea what condition Khelif and Yu-ting have. But even if we did, Hoover's tweet represents her opinion and her opinion alone. It is not indicative of a scientific consensus because there is no scientific consensus on the matter.

[Slacktard]

LA 2028 will be insane.

I have read that the beach volleyball will be at Santa Monica Pier.

[Nuntius]

That was a pretty good closing ceremony. I enjoyed the artistic part of it quite a lot.

[Buckets22]

LA 2028 will be insane.

I have read that the beach volleyball will be at Santa Monica Pier.

I hope they put some events in The Forum...at least the womens basketball final.

[a-French-Fan]

That was a too soft closing ceremony, sorry we gave everything on the opening ceremony

[Nuntius]

That was a too soft closing ceremony, sorry we gave everything on the opening ceremony

Hey, there was a pretty good guitar solo at some point

[azcatz11]

LA 2028 will be insane.

I have read that the beach volleyball will be at Santa Monica Pier.

I hope they put some events in The Forum...at least the womens basketball final.

LA is going to be really spread out. There’s going to be events at the coliseum, Malibu, down to Dana point. The Olympic planners for LA have done quite a bit of media. If you are interested they have been on many, many podcasts the past 4+ years. This is going to be the biggest Olympics ever

[G R E Y]

They do understand their own science, yes. And they also understand that there is no scientific consensus that justifies their stance.

Of course, the lack of scientific consensus doesn't stop them from calling for the exclusion of these athletes. But that has more to do with their own biases than it has to do with actual science. There's a reason why you have to resort to scientists with specific political leanings, after all. These political leanings are the key in informing their stance on this topic, it's not the science.



You're talking about this interview, right?

https://www.lepoint.fr/sport/exclusif-jo-2024-imane-khelif-a-ete-aneantie-de-decouvrir-d-un-seul-coup-qu-elle-pourrait-ne-pas-etre-une-fille-09-08-2024-2567609_26.php

The interview in which Georges Cazorla said the following:



This is what you're talking about, right? This is what you're trying to use as the evidence that she should be excluded? That's absolutely hilarious

Saying there is no consensus among the scientists without showing any evidence disputing the biology doesn't stand even the slightest scrutiny. All listed are in favour of a single cheek swab for sex test.

As for IK trainer- do you understand what problem with chromosomes and problem with testosterone and needing to regulate the latter actually means? I think not. This plus the two failed sex tests and withdrawing appeal is a preponderance of evidence against XX inclusion.

As to T in DSD, I've posted this before:

Read on Twitter

Seb Coe will get it sorted should he lead IOC. And then we'll see the impact of a clear XX category.

Once again:

You are the one that makes the assertion that these athletes should be excluded. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you to prove your position. You need to prove that there is scientific consensus that athletes who are phenotypically female, were assigned female at birth but have intersex conditions should be excluded from competing in the women's categories in sports.

Without that consensus, you cannot claim that your calls for exclusion have a scientific basis. I don't see why we have to keep going in circles here.

It's the same thing with the Hooven tweet. You posted it before. I replied to it before. The tweet is specifically about athletes with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, the condition that Semenya has. We have no idea what condition Khelif and Yu-ting have. But even if we did, Hoover's tweet represents her opinion and her opinion alone. It is not indicative of a scientific consensus because there is no scientific consensus on the matter.

Hooven is NOT an opinion. You saying so doesn't make it so. This is such blatanly blind science denial it's almost worrisome. And you repeating no scientific consensus exists with zero proof to back it up is, too.

Both boxers failed two XX tests. IK had high T. Hiding behind well we haven't seen the results of the tests therefore they're phenotypically female having failed said tests is inaccurate.

All those scientists previously mentioned, the coaches of boxers who faced IK and LYT who called for tests to be done to begin with, former Olympians and athletes are calling for clarity with the boxers, for sex tests. So is the likely upcoming IOC president, Seb Coe.

We'll how the boxers test come 2028 sex tests. My money is on neither participating by then.

At least future XX athletes will hopefully be able to be better assured that they're competing in a fair and safe boundary.

[Sofia]

Seriously, **** Anthony Kieidis, this a page out of his own autobiography:

^^^

[G R E Y]

That was a too soft closing ceremony, sorry we gave everything on the opening ceremony

Yeah a *bit* muted, but it was also right after the big LA bands on the beach energy. Maybe they wanted to go out gently or something. Maybe that's just how it felt. I read how there were lots of conversations behind the scenes about changes to the closing ceremonies so who knows what got cut or altered and whether this was the intended ending but this is what we got. Less spectacle and more bon voyage.

[G R E Y]

Seriously, **** Anthony Kieidis, this a page out of his own autobiography:

^^^

You know, when you first posted that, I was on my cell, and it was a near impossible read. It still is on my laptop now having read it, but for an entirely different reason.