bisme37 wrote:Really proud of the USA volleyball women for grinding out a tough 5 set win over Brazil. Gold medal game vs Italy on Sunday.
Really felt like it was gonna be 2008 all over again but the Men's side couldn't keep their end of it. I think Women have a good at the gold on Sunday.
Nuntius wrote:1) Did Kremlev present any physical evidence during that interview? Did he present a copy of those tests? Did he make a copy available to the press? The answer to all of those questions is no.
Yes, Kremlev does have access to the test's results. That's obvious. But since he didn't accompany his claim with any kind of physical evidence then all we have to go by is his word. That makes it an evidence-free claim and therefore opens it up to doubt.
2) As for Kremlev being liable for his statements. Liable to whom? What kind of repercussion can Kremlev face if he was to misrepresent anything?
Could he be sued for libel? Not really. Given his connections, no Russian court would ever allow that.
Could he be threatened by sponsors pulling their funds? Nope, the IBA's only sponsor is Gazprom.
Could he be threatened with repercussions towards the IBA? Nope, the IOC has already pulled their recognition of the IBA. What more can they do?
I mean, seriously, CAS ruled that the IBA should hold new elections and the IBA was like "nope, we ain't doing that". They straight up refused CAS and faced zero repercussions.
So, yeah, I don't buy this argument at all. Kremlev knows that he won't face any repercussions as long as the current political situation stands.
Your entire augmentation is disingenuous, repetitive and downright deceitful, you ignore all facts presented to you. You lack the minimal decency to admit you're wrong, instead you just throw shades at basic facts presented to you using politics, while accusing everyone of being politically motivated. You can bitch all you want, president of official sport organization commenting on a test his organization made is evidence, you can lie and say you don't buy it, it doesn't really matter. I have hijacked this thread enough in attempts to reason with you, you clearly don't want to reason, but keep arguing using every dishonest tool. I'm done with argument, this thread have been ruined enough.
I am not interested in exchanging ad-hominems with you or anyone else in this thread. I believe that I have clarified my position enough in this thread and that it should be obvious to everyone who has actually taken the time to read my posts (not that I blame anyone if they haven't, they are indeed rather long) that my opinion on Kremlev and the IBA and whether they are a reliable source or not is a separate issue with the validity of the tests (which I do not doubt now that there's finally evidence that this is indeed what those tests were about).
You are free to disagree with my position and we can definitely agree to disagree.
"No wolf shall keep his secrets, no bird shall dance the skyline And I am left with nothing but an oath that gleams like a sword To bathe in the blood of man Mankind..."
She Painted Fire Across the Skyline, Part 3 - Agalloch
Nuntius wrote:1) Did Kremlev present any physical evidence during that interview? Did he present a copy of those tests? Did he make a copy available to the press? The answer to all of those questions is no.
Yes, Kremlev does have access to the test's results. That's obvious. But since he didn't accompany his claim with any kind of physical evidence then all we have to go by is his word. That makes it an evidence-free claim and therefore opens it up to doubt.
2) As for Kremlev being liable for his statements. Liable to whom? What kind of repercussion can Kremlev face if he was to misrepresent anything?
Could he be sued for libel? Not really. Given his connections, no Russian court would ever allow that.
Could he be threatened by sponsors pulling their funds? Nope, the IBA's only sponsor is Gazprom.
Could he be threatened with repercussions towards the IBA? Nope, the IOC has already pulled their recognition of the IBA. What more can they do?
I mean, seriously, CAS ruled that the IBA should hold new elections and the IBA was like "nope, we ain't doing that". They straight up refused CAS and faced zero repercussions.
So, yeah, I don't buy this argument at all. Kremlev knows that he won't face any repercussions as long as the current political situation stands.
Your entire augmentation is disingenuous, repetitive and downright deceitful, you ignore all facts presented to you. You lack the minimal decency to admit you're wrong, instead you just throw shades at basic facts presented to you using politics, while accusing everyone of being politically motivated. You can bitch all you want, president of official sport organization commenting on a test his organization made is evidence, you can lie and say you don't buy it, it doesn't really matter. I have hijacked this thread enough in attempts to reason with you, you clearly don't want to reason, but keep arguing using every dishonest tool. I'm done with argument, this thread have been ruined enough.
lol y'all are so weird.
Thanks! No bigger compliment than looking weird to people like you.
Doctor MJ wrote:B) We go by agreed upon chemical traits that scientists conclude are likely to impact performance - such as testosterone levels.
Is there a scientific consensus on whether elevated testosterone levels in intersex individuals are likely to impact their athletic performance? Afaik, there isn't any. I don't even know if there have been enough studies on intersex athletes so that the scientific community can start working towards a conclusion on the subject matter.
First of all, a quick search for "intersex athletes performance testosterone" on google scholar yields around 3000 peer-reviewed papers. The same search also suggests that gender politics and biology (and other related subjects) go hand in hand in this particular topic. Thus, it is not like two biology professors from UPenn suddenly decide on investigating intersex athletes testosterone levels. If anything, unless there is a specific motivation (not always political; e.g. the topic being his/her PhD thesis or specific call for funding by NIH), US academics tend to stay away from such research.
In such a highly politicized topic, especially when social sciences/humanities (gender politics etc) involved, I can assure you there won't be a "scientific" consensus. Why? Because, as you are also aware, it is almost impossible to find enough athletes having similar rare conditions (it is a wide spectrum) to have an accurate controlled experiments that would yield generalized results for intersex athletes. Other than that, I already explained how unreliable a peer-reviewed research can be, and it is not like they are all producing fake results - the design of an experiment highly affects their results, and it is always non-trivial for such a research
What is more, when the research group is politicized (which is unfortunately the case for most social sciences/humanities academics), I can also assure you they won't even publish the results if these results don't support their political stance on the subject.
In like 3 hours the team table tennis final is. Sweden shouldnt stand a chance, but who knows. But chinas team got no1 no2 and no3 ranked in the world so really shouldnt be beatable
I’d like to reiterate that all I want out of these games is daft punk reunion medley at the closing ceremony
lottery is rigged militia President of the Pharmcat Fanclub President of the GreatWhiteStiff Fanclub Free OKCFanSinceSGA Reddyplayerone = my RealGM bae
Sofia wrote:I’d like to reiterate that all I want out of these games is daft punk reunion medley at the closing ceremony
What are the odds that you will get lucky?
Just want to see them one more time
lottery is rigged militia President of the Pharmcat Fanclub President of the GreatWhiteStiff Fanclub Free OKCFanSinceSGA Reddyplayerone = my RealGM bae
bwgood77 wrote:Wow, an open water 10km race that took an hour and 50 minutes comes down to a 2 second difference between gold and silver.
Lol I just read how they organized the course, laps of 795m with the current then 795m back AGAINST the river's current. That's half a mile back against the current. That's just so stupid.
bwgood77 wrote:Wow, an open water 10km race that took an hour and 50 minutes comes down to a 2 second difference between gold and silver.
Lol I just read how they organized the course, laps of 795m with the current then 795m back AGAINST the river's current. That's half a mile back against the current. That's just so stupid.
I don’t know if they’re keeping it tight for security reasons, but the marathon walk relay was 42 up and back laps of the same street. Looking forward to seeing the marathon course…
Edit - looks pretty normal. Loops down around Versailles and back
lottery is rigged militia President of the Pharmcat Fanclub President of the GreatWhiteStiff Fanclub Free OKCFanSinceSGA Reddyplayerone = my RealGM bae
G R E Y wrote:Here's what is known: those born with XY DSDs ie/like Semenya's 5-alpha reductase deficiency, aka 46XY go through male puberty.
An average body that has gone through male puberty punches 150% harder than one that has gone through female puberty (the latter also have less bone density).
We aren't talking about the average person here, though. We're talking about elite athletes.
For example, the average Frenchman is 5'10. Wemby, on the other hand, is 7'4. Does the average height of Frenchmen matter for him? No, it doesn't. He's an elite athlete and therefore an exception.
That is why I asked what I asked. If the claim is that athletes like Semenya and Khelif have an advantage due to their intersex condition (which, again, is only speculative when it comes to Khelif and Yu-ting and only proven for Semenya) then shouldn't we measure how their performances stack up against other female athletes of their sport? Shouldn't that be the basis of the argument? The actual performance deviation that these athletes have, not some vague average.
Is Khelif's performance abnormal among female boxers? Her boxing record per her BoxRec page is 39-9 with 5 KOs -> https://boxrec.com/en/box-am/899786
That's a 81.25% winning percentage.
To see how that stacks up, this is the BoxRec page for Amy Broadhurst, a boxer who has fought against Khelif in the past and beat her -> https://boxrec.com/en/box-am/899647
Broadhurst's record is 91-15 with 13 KOs. That's a 85.8% winning percentage. Her KO% is also 14.29% while Khelif's KO% is 12.82%.
So, Broadhurst has a clear advantage both in winning percentage and in KO percentage. And she also beat Khelif in the 2022 World Championship. Statistically, at least, Broadhurst is clearly better.
Her record is 21-0 with 6 KOs. She has won every single match she has played. Her KO percentage is a stunning 28.57%.
That's what real dominance looks like. She'd be a favorite for the Gold if she was allowed to compete but she's Russian so she's not competing in these particular Olympics.
G R E Y wrote:A previous I think Mexican opponent of Khelif said she'd never been punched harder. The first Italian opponent stopped the fight stopped the fight for fear of her physical safety.
Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. I'm not going to doubt the experience that any athlete has stated they've had which is exactly why I've never talked about any of these athletes (despite some social media stuff they posted).
And since everyone is allowed their opinion, here's what the aforementioned Amy Broadhurst had to say:
G R E Y wrote:It's a leap in logic of course to go from one statement to another.
In between, however, there has been a decided effort by IOC to skirt away from biology issue.
IBA is fraught with issues but the test results declaring Khelif and Yu-ting ineligible were legally binding. IBA eligiblity for fighting in the female category is testing XX. Both boxers could have appealed but didn't/dropped it.
We know of Semenya's XY DSD from the CAS appeal results publicly released. Appeal of both boxers would be publicly available, too.
It is of course the right or both boxers not to appeal. Both also sent letters in the last couple of days to IBA stating they did not give consent to reveal those previous test results.
The findings were sent to IOC in June of 2023.
IOC recently clarified that in a statement that when Mark said 'this is not a DSD issue' he ought to have stated 'this is not a transgender issue'.
Khelif refused to answer whether about any other tests beyond I think doping.
First of all, I'm glad that we finally agree that the IBA is fraught with issues.
Now, on to the bolded part. Where exactly do you get the information that IBA eligibility for fightning in the female category is testing XX? Is there a source for this claim?
A quick Google search on their eligibility criteria will lead you to the above PDF.
I searched the PDF for the terms "XY", "XX" and "chromosome" and the only results that I got was "xy" appearing twice in the word "oxygen". Nothing relevant to chromosomes whatsoever.
The term "gender" did appear four times. Two of those times were in Application forms towards the end of the document so not really relevant.
The third time it was about ensuring that the Competition Official who performs the Weight-in is the same gender as the Boxer:
11.8. The Weigh-In must be conducted by Competition Officials of the same gender as the Boxers
A logical rule but also not really relevant to our discussion.
The fourth time is finally something that is relevant to this discussion. And it is this passage:
10.4. In AOB Competitions, gender tests may be conducted.
That's it. That's the only information that seems relevant to the discussion we're having. A vague "gender tests may be conducted". At no point does it clarify what those gender tests actually are. They could be chromosome tests, they could be gonadal testing, they could be testosterone testing. We simply do not know. It is simply never clarified.
G R E Y wrote:IOC said nobody wants to go back to bad old days of sex testing. Last poll of Olympic female athletes (Atlanta I think) had over 80% support for it. IOC said sex tests should be private, but doping, pregnancy, weight, etc., are fine to reveal lol ok.
The complete and utter circling around the one central issue in question, both in bot directly answering it, and then attempting to downplay the importance of sex testing in categorizing are nothing short of damning.
Do you want to go back to the days of sex testing?
Eveleth: [Laughs] Right, exactly. And so it’s so funny just, like, how that line has shifted, but in 1936 the first official policy in that regard is passed by the International Amateur Athletic Federation [IAAF], which is now known as World Athletics, the governing body of track and field. And that policy allows them to pull aside any suspicious female, and they don’t really say what warrants suspicion—it’s sort of a very, like, “you’ll know it when you see it” kind of situation. And the policy allows for an examination of that athlete, so that would be a nude inspection.
Feltman: Wow.
Eveleth: There are some intervening years where you have instructions like, “We really want you to go to your doctor and get examined and bring a little, like, note—like a doctor’s note that says, like, ‘diagnosed female,’” or whatever [laughs], you know?
Feltman: Yikes, wow.
Eveleth: Yeah, and then in 1966 they decide that doing this on a case-by-case basis, or sort of this ad hoc kind of way, is not good; we need to do it to all women. And they institute what are now known as the “nude parades,” also sometimes known as the “peek and poke” tests, which were: every woman who competed in track and field had to go into a room and get naked in front of a panel—sometimes one person, sometimes more than one—to be confirmed that their body looked correct for a woman.
Or how about the chromosomes tests that they started using later on?
Eveleth: In 1968 they switch, and they change the policy, and they go to a chromosome test. And from 1968 to 1999, which is a very long period of time, every single woman who competed in the Olympics had to take a sex test, a chromosome-based sex test, and get a certificate of femininity that looks a little bit like your driver’s license and bring it with you—everywhere you go, whenever you compete. And that lasts until 1999.
And the thing that’s really interesting about this period of time is that immediately—like, as soon as the IOC [International Olympic Committee] and the IAAF start using these tests—you have doctors and scientists being like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on—this won’t do any of the things that you say it’s going to do. It will not necessarily catch all men who try to enter a women’s competition because some men can have XX chromosomes. All you’re going to do is catch women who have no idea there’s anything different about them, who have shown up to the Olympics, trained their whole lives to compete and all of a sudden are gonna be told, ‘Actually, surprise, you’re not a woman, and you need to leave.’”
You know, there was a 30-year campaign by these scientists to write to the IOC, to write to World Athletics and be like, “Guys, like, don’t do this. This doesn’t work. It’s not scientifically sound.” The guy whose test they were using wrote to the IOC and the IAAF, being like, “Please stop doing this,” and they were like, “No thanks,” [laughs] you know?
When asked about it they basically say, like, “Look, I understand that you scientists in your labs have this way of thinking about things, but this is sports, and we do things our own way here.”
And that was really, basically, the answer for 30 years, and it took a ton of work to try and convince these organizations to drop these tests.
It is important to note that these flawed tests had real harmful effects on a number of women. A famous example of that would be Ewa Kłobukowska. Kłobukowska had two X chromosomes but she also possibly had a Y chromosome and she was banned due to that. She was called a "male imposter" and got stripped of all of her medals and records. The irony? She had a son a few years later so, yeah. She probably wasn't even intersex and the test simply **** up.
Because, again, those tests weren't exactly scientific. And a lot of that testing is based on straight-up misogynistic attitudes. "A woman cannot be that strong, she must be a man in disguise". "Let's have her strip to make sure she has the right genitals". Yeah, I'm glad that this **** isn't going on anymore.
And let me say one more thing: I do not consider this a surprise that these questions are usually raised against women of color. There's a reason why the vast majority of the women that have faced controversy due to these reasons are African and Asian. Women who do not conform to the West's beauty standards have always been vilified as "ugly" and "manly". But that doesn't make them less of a woman, does it?
G R E Y wrote:Tell you what: it is expected that different IOC leadership will be in place by next Olympics (not sure if winter or summer). Should that leadership implement sex testing, and should both boxers in question pass XX, I will wholeheartedly and unequivocally apologize. My word is good. I think both are in their 20s so another Olympics may be in their future.
But colour me skeptical when the lone single issue - which could have easily long since been clarified - is being avoided so much that it stands out so much. Signs point to the presence of XY DSD and its complete and utter takedown is right there for the taking. No such actions have been taken. Current IOC does not require it. To their lasting shame. Each of the opponents has made some reference to the unfairness of the fights. The focus has been equal sex footing. IOC negligence in protecting sex categories has brought unnecessary attention to everyone involved.
And if they can find a testing procedure that is non-invasive, based on actual scientific data and accurate, I'd be all for it. But does such a procedure exist?
In the absence of such a procedure, I understand why they do not want to go back to the days of sex testing.
This is what the ECHR had to say about the case of the IAAF not allowing Semenya to compete:
In the case of Semenya v. Switzerland the Court held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination taken together with the right to respect for private life as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy.
The case concerned an international-level athlete, specialising in middle-distance races, who complained about certain regulations of the International Association of Athletics Federations requiring her to take hormone treatment to decrease her natural testosterone level in order to be able to take part in international competitions in the female category. Having refused to undergo the treatment, she was no longer able to take part in international competitions.
The Court found that the applicant had not been afforded sufficient institutional and procedural safeguards in Switzerland to allow her to have her complaints examined effectively and that the domestic remedies available to the applicant could not be considered effective in the circumstances of the present case.
RE: Height – comparing this kind of genetic feature – not sex influence – has nothing to do with male puberty advantage. Shorter than Wemby males are successful in the NBA. Almost no one at Wemby’s height can do what he can. And punching power is also really not comparable to height considering the dangers of increased injury. Be it among common public or at pro levels, male puberty has across the board benefits (more below).
RE: Khelif’s record. So what? All that points to is Khelif not being a particularly good boxer. Still, Khelif has won three golds and one silver in international and world competition; Yu-ting has won five golds and two bronzes in international and world competition. If their respective records show losses to XX women, that does not make them XX -- which could very easily been clarified had either boxer appealed the results which showed both failing two independent sex tests.
But ignoring the very notion that both boxers are pummelling their competition in the Olympics is glaring. I write this after Yu-ting had defeated yet another opponent (with no DQ or even points deducted for a rabbit punch) and two opponents wanting to end fights early. So is the point about taking up competing spots to begins with. And with them, opportunities, money, podium and ranking chances.
The main point about XY DSDs is that they should not be competing with XX (nor, of course, should XY). A point about terminology. The overwhelming majority of XX go through female puberty; the overwhelming majority of XY go through male puberty. So when XX or XY are referred to, the accompanying puberty is implied. The approximately 40 DSDs for either side, male or female, are very rare. This includes 46XY-5-Alpha reductase deficiency like Semenya’s (which about 1 in 50,000 people in US have) More info here about how it comes to be:
and Swyer Syndrome (even more rare, with about 1 in 80,000 in US affected) the latter which is sometimes used at an intended gotcha trap or whataboutism. It is a condition which has XY chromosomes, yes, but here’s more info about how it comes to be:
Neither Khelif nor Yu-ting can have Swyer because of their higher T levels. And given the risk to more brittle bones with this DSD, competing in boxing would be madness.
The entire point of using XX vs. XY and their respective DSDs is which puberty route a given body goes through, male or female. Because regardless of whether a male puberty body loses to female puberty counterparts, the boost of male puberty is on the whole entirely advantageous. Here’s a basic list in handy visual form:
At the same time, on the substance, the IOC has acknowledged that after Khelif’s first win on Thursday, it scrubbed from its own website the notation that at least Khelif—if not also Lin—has high T. To explain this, it said in part that T levels don’t matter, that lots of females also have high T. This is intentionally misleading.
Female athletes with high T—including those with polycystic ovaries—have T levels towards the top of the female range, not outside of the female range or inside the male range. Their sex is not in doubt. As I explained above, “high T” in an athlete who seeks to compete in the female category is code in international sports for either doping with exogenous androgens or being biologically male with bioavailable endogenous androgens. There’s no indication that either Khelif or Lin is doping. As an aside, the reason many federations and the IOC itself for years used T as a proxy for sex is that it’s an excellent one: neither ovaries nor adrenal glands produce T in the male range, only testes do. If you’re looking for biological sex rather than legal gender, it’s certainly more accurate than a passport.
Finally, even T suppression does not take away male biology advantage baked in through puberty:
About those sex test results: It’s a misnomer that these were IBA tests. IBA responded to calls from coaches of boxers fighting Khelif and Yu-ting to conduct said tests. The tests were conducted by CAS approved independent labs. The results were sent to both boxers, and to IOC. And while private – both boxers recently sent letters to IBA that they did not consent to make the results public, as is their right – it is now clear that they did indeed fail XX tests as outlined here (https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clarifies-the-facts-the-letter-to-the-ioc-regarding-two-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/) and here (https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Ltr-fr-IBA-to-IOC.pdf) and had a higher T advantage as well. So while the actual test results cannot be publicly revealed, what they can reveal allows for very short connection of dots.
RE: Sex testing. Using outliers like a case with Ewa Kłobukowska , or bringing up nude ‘peek and poke’ tactics are a skewed presentation of available current info. Once again, these are presented but the calls from evolutionary and developmental biologists, from former Olympians, from the overwhelming majority of female athletes polled in Atlanta, and from civil rights lawyers don’t get equal – or any – billing here.
Selective examples of ‘not exactly scientific’ sex tests as well as yet another branch swerving away from the main issue – that African or Asian women are vilified as ugly or manly – only serve to look elsewhere except the one glaring place – test the boxers. Not to say gender stereotypes doesn’t happen:
But Martina Navatilova, for instance, to this day gets the ‘you look like a guy, would you pass the sex test?” taunts on X. This happens to be a gross initiation into certain aspects of womanhood, like the male gaze and its heaps of expectations, that generations of women are all too familiar with. You know what else women since time immemorial are all too familiar with? Learn to take a punch and be **** silent about it. No.
And non-binary Nikki Hiltz competes in women’s 1500m race.
Is there any controversy of XX competing in male categories? You just don’t hear of it. I wonder why? If there’s a single thing that confirms male puberty advantage, this is it.
You cannot present only old sex test failures without looking into modern testing, ask whether scientific non-invasive tests exist, and answer that there’s no such procedure. Just because you don’t know about them, and haven’t looked too hard, doesn’t mean there have been no improvements:
Well some counterpoints: Here’s a thread discussing a type of test – CHEEK SWAB – and what it shows:
The basic gist is cheek swabs are the initial gateways of testing and if any anomalies arise, further tests can confirm DSD and which one. There’s plenty of time to get this implemented – for the next Olympics, but there must be IOC will to ensure female categories are that and not open categories in practice.
AND: (And I’m so glad I took my time putting all this together in this post given the thread below) here’s a clear, chronological outline of the various sex tests since they were first used, to the 1960s, to the 1990s, to today, and all the issues and advancements along the way. So to say that there’s no such reliable test nowadays is incontrovertibly false:
RE: Semenya’s appeal – this has to do with being forced into lowering T levels. Ok. But it does not negate the fact that someone born with XY 5ARD DSD has normal level of T for males. And they didn’t have to do a peek and poke naked test to determine it. So it IS possible. And those born with such a DSD should not compete versus XX females.
As to the part about Doctor MJ’s point about external genitalia being a determining factor for where DSDs should be categorized – beyond the hugely offensive nature of such an assertion (I know it wasn't meant that way) – this is not it. Vaginas and penises don’t do the running, punching, competing. The external genitalia is not the determining competitive factor. It is a body going through male puberty that is *the* determining factor at given levels of competition.
Semenya smoked competitors. This year’s 800m F winner, Keely Hodgkinson ran it in 1:56:72. Semenya ran the 800m in Rio 2016 in 1:55:28.
Let’s look at this chart chronicling over 100 years of the 800m race:
Next, there’s Rio, 2016, in seconds: 115.28. Semenya’s time wasn’t even an Olympic or World best. Semenya’s best time would beat a men’s category all the way back in 1908 (116s).
Would Khelif, Yu-ting, or Semanya even have made it to the Olympics had they competed in their male puberty-based sex category? (I realize we know for sure only of Semenya’s DSD but the signs pointing to DSD for the two boxers are mounting). I’m curious about how they’d fare vs. other DSDs in their respective sports. That may be a more accurate measurement of peer capability. Is it any wonder that there are growing calls from and for XX athletes to have a clearer sex-based category? This includes https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/08/08/daley-thompson-interview-ioc-defend-womens-sport/, Boris Becker, Judy Murray, MV, Christ Evert, among many brave others.
Is it any wonder there are hundreds of biological males are killing it in dozens of XX-only intended sports?
While there clearly needs to be a better solution than the current IOC stance of leaving the female category open in practice, it presently is a great disservice to everyone involved, with holes big enough to punch and run through unimpeded.
DSDs are the exceptions that prove the male puberty vs. female puberty rule. Sex categories by their nature are exclusionary, even considering DSDs. They should not be centered around which all other XX competitors are organized.
In short, bring back sex-based categories via the aforementioned swab tests. We have the means and know how to do so. Get it right.
Seems unlikely that we are going to pass China in Gold at this point. Mens Water Polo team just lost the semi's now. Just looking at some of the events left, it's still going to be tight but China has several final finishes left. If they hit on all of them or almost all of them, it seems they will have just enough to eclipse what the U.S. has left.
Not having any golds in Beach Volleyball, Water Polo or Tennis definitely hurt us a bit amongst others.
California Gold wrote:Seems unlikely that we are going to pass China in Gold at this point. Mens Water Polo team just lost the semi's now. Just looking at some of the events left, it's still going to be tight but China has several final finishes left. If they hit on all of them or almost all of them, it seems they will have just enough to eclipse what the U.S. has left.
Not having any golds in Beach Volleyball, Water Polo or Tennis definitely hurt us a bit amongst others.
This Pentathlon 'laser shoot' thing is annoying me. If winter athletes in the biathlon can ski with a rifle and then get to a station, load that rifle and then fire at a target. These athletes should be able to run with a pistol and then load a pistol at a station and fire it.
Them running up to this station to use a laser gun that's already there makes it seem like American Gladiators obstacle course ****.
