bgoldstein wrote:
I think it's ironic you mention Bjorn Daehle, but in this thread there has been no mention of Eero Mantyranta, who had a genetic condition that increased his red blood cell count. I see this as a similar situation, where there is a genetic disposition to 'enhanced performance,' but the athlete in question has taken no explicit action to engage in 'performance enhancing' activity.
I would also contend that there is some genetic predisposition to VO2. If there's an AG classification, why not a VO2 classification? I see no reason that someone should be required to take a pill to lower their T level, as you suggest, but people with high VO2 can compete against people with lower VO2. If total equality is really what we're going for, let's all race, in the words of Pre, "to see who has more guts," and not to see who has a better genetic makeup.
competing in "open" categories we expect the winners to be biological outliers in some respects at least - they are the best human performers.
the difference in the women's category is that it is not open. by definition it is excluding ~50% of the population who happen to have some biological advantages (much as many of us would get our asses whipped by top women in most sports)
AG is a simple definition and reflects the fact that at different times in our lives we have different capabilities. notably, an AG win is not seen as the equal of an open win whereas an open women win is generally seen in similar light to an open men win.
both categorisations encourage people to make the most of themselves competing with vaguely similarly disadvantaged opposition
VO2 is by in large the determining factor in many sports so if we categorised on it we might as well not hold any competition. it is also something that can to some extent be trained rather than set at birth. it would be interesting though to try this, sort of like standard classes in motor racing - everyone has the same engine, see who can tune it best and then leave it to tactics and guts
if any categorisation, i'd take issue with weight classes in sports like weightlifting. to a fair extent if you want to lift heavy you should build muscle mass to the point where you shouldn't need a lighter weight class. i don't however want to encourage any more acceptance of large size as a norm though...
but yeah, it has already been suggested that we should get rid of all category competitions given the distortion of results and difficulties drawing the lines. there are pros and cons to that...
personally i say you can compete as a woman if you are undebatably female ie low T, no testes, no Y chromosome, normal lady parts etc. otherwise you can only compete in open (aka mens). tough on someone who's been raised as a woman and only finds out otherwise when they get to serious competition but thems the breaks. better to maintain integrity for the other 99%.
what would AGers think if i claimed to be 50 only for it to turn out that my parents had miscounted when i was a kid and actually i was only 45? (semi-serious)