rationalskepticism.org

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You're not defending a position, unless it is that, in sport, commerce and the public are more important than the athletes, but there is no basis for this -- it's just your opinion. It's much easier to ask others who have only asked you what position you're defending to fucking do so. I don't know why you'd insist that anyone but competitors have any interest in the rules that apply to athletes with 'conditions', but you could always defend your notion regarding 'champions'. Sure, without media and sponsor interest, there isn't any money in it, and maybe no competition, but I doubt it. How does that weigh against the interests of other competitors? Does anyone have a right to earn a living as a sports competitor? No, it's just entertainment. I can defend your point of view better than you can. In four fucking words. I can cut it down to three: Athletes are chattel.

Ah, so you claim is that "What's desired is not champions, but competition." applies to sports competitors? Is that it?
Why is that then? Don't you think competitors aspire to be giant killers and hope to be become champions themselves?
As I said I don't see a case that sport with no champions is "desired".

No one said a sport with no champions is desired. No one even hinted at this. What else would you like to extract from your rectum in this discussion?

Do you disagree that Semenya's obvious competitive advantage is reflected in race results? Why may we not treat this as being due to specific physiology which has been measured? Nobody questions that East Africans dominate in marathons, nor that one individual stands out currently from the rest? Nobody's citing any particular physiological abnormality in a single individual to call this competitive advantage into question. Someone could try, but how would the investigation begin?

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:This is a very interesting debate. There is clearly not going to be any resolution that will satisfy everyone. I am in agreement with Cito about competition. If Nadal, Federa, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka weren't capable of beating each other on any given day, the competition would be pointless. There are many other good players capable of beating the very best, just not as frequently.

Isn't that the situation that applies here? That a champion wins most of the time but not every time?
So do you have a threshold in mind? Where does it sit between Semenya and Usain Bolt? Was Bolt too good? Does your definition of desired competition lead to an athlete like Bolt being medicated to slow him down? Would that improve competition?

As with the marathoners, there was not a cause to investigate. Nobody suggested that Bolt's physiology was abnormal, only exceptional. When Lance Armstrong won TDF 7 times running (or whatever it was) some thought he might have his advantage in physiology. That turned out not to be the case.