Anna Merlan at Mother Jones:
By the time J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump were falsely referring to her as a man, the lies about Imane Khelif had already traveled halfway around the world. Last week, two Olympic boxers—Khelif, from Algeria, and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan—were subjected to brutal international scrutiny about their sex and gender, and whether they were entitled to compete in women’s events; the attention on Khelif became particularly acrid after her opponent, Italian Angela Carini, quit 46 seconds into their bout, declaring that she had “never been hit so hard in my life.” A photo of the two women exiting the ring, Carini in tears, Khelif casting a glance, was widely shared, with people like Rowling—who’s promoted transphobic views for years, but has denied being transphobic—offering heated and derogatory commentary about Khelif.
“Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better?” Rowling tweeted. “The smirk of a male who’s [sic] knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered.”
While the attacks on Khelif are of a piece with familiar recent Western controversies over who is allowed to participate in girls’ and women’s sports, many of the articles and individuals magnifying the debate relied on or relayed the claims of a discredited group with strong ties to the Russian government, a deep grudge against the International Olympic Committee, and a seemingly vested interest in proving that the IOC-run games are, as the group’s leader has claimed, a venue for “sodomy.”
In trying to unravel what led up to this moment, many individuals and news outlets cited a statement released by the official-sounding International Boxing Association, which stated that both Khelif and Yu-Ting had previously been disqualified from competing in the IBA-administered Women’s World Boxing Championships in March 2023. The women were barred from that competition, which took place in New Delhi, following tests the organization has not publicly clarified, citing privacy rules. At the time, IBA president Umar Kremlev told a Russian state news agency that the women had been found to have “XY chromosomes” and claimed the two had “pretended to be women” and “tried to deceive their colleagues.”
Even if the IBA’s findings were true, having XY chromosomes does not automatically make someone male—women with Swyer syndrome, a rare genetic condition, have XY for instance. Nor are XY chromosomes proven to constitute an “unfair advantage,” although that is exactly what an IBA official claimed in a press conference on Monday. One pediatrics expert told NBC in 2009—one of the innumerable times this issue has been raised in women’s sports—that such a claim was “malarkey.”
[...]
When Khelif and Yu-Ting were disqualified by the IBA back in New Delhi, skeptics questioned how it benefited Azalia Amineva, a Russian fighter. The women were not ruled ineligible until after they’d already competed and Khelif had won a bout against the previously undefeated Amineva. While IBA officials said the sequence of events was due to a week’s delay in being provided testing results, as the Associated Press has pointed out, the decision meant the Russian fighter’s perfect record was retroactively restored.
Kremlev isn’t shy about expressing a broad fixation on gender and sexuality, with him, as the sports website Defector has pointed out, decrying the IOC on YouTube for promoting “outright sodomy and the destruction of traditional values.” In the wake of the Paris games’ opening ceremony, he blasted the spectacle, which featured queer performers, as “pure sodomy,” while saying the IOC “burns from pure devilry” and that its president is a “chief sodomite.” He also claimed that “men with changed gender are allowed to fight with women in boxing at the Olympics.” (Videos with such remarks have been helpfully subtitled in English to draw a wider, Western audience.) Last week, Kremlev announced the IBA would give $50,000 in prize money to the defeated opponents of Khelif and Yu-Ting.
[...]
The Khelif affair captures English-speaking transphobes with rigid ideas about the nature of womanhood picking up on a politically motivated campaign from a discredited organization at open war with the IOC. Indeed, right-wing organizations in the United States, including the Independent Women’s Forum and CPAC, via its chair Matt Schlapp, have paid for sponsored posts on Musk’s X platform, calling her “a man“—posts that appear when users search for information on the controversy.
The International Boxing Association, which is a Kremlin-led body led by Umar Kremlev that is permanently banned from being the sanctioning body for Olympic boxers, has instigated a transphobic war against cis women boxers Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif.
The IBA issued politically-motivated disqualifications of the pair in 2023 that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
147 notes
·
View notes
Calacus Monthly Hit & Miss – World Athletics and Sebastian Coe
Every month we look at the best and worst communicators in the sports world from the last few weeks.
WORLD ATHLETICS & SEBASTIAN COE
The Olympic Games is considered to be the pinnacle of sporting achievement for most sports.
The opportunity, every four years, to represent your country and compete against the world’s best underlines the importance of Pierre de Coubertin’s vision for the modern Games.
De Coubertin was committed to Olympic athletes being amateurs, with professionalism considered a risk to sport’s integrity.
There have been reports that athletics and cycling events provided cash prizes as far back as 1900, with Britain’s Edgar Bredin receiving 250 francs for his victory in the 100m.
Conversely, in 1912, Jim Thorpe was stripped of his track and field medals for taking money for expenses when playing baseball.
It would be a further 60 years before the strict rules on amateurism were relaxed, due in no small part to athletes in the Communist Eastern bloc bypassing the rules through their state-controlled ‘employment’ while training for sport full-time.
By the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, when Team USA fielded NBA all stars that swept to gold in the basketball, any hint at amateurism was over.
Athletes could secure lucrative sponsorships and endorsement deals, with national governing bodies providing financial assistance where they could, with 60% of National Olympic Committees giving bonuses to their athletes too.
But unlike other sporting competitions, the Olympic Games remained free of prize money until World Athletics made their surprise announcement in early April.
Starting at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games this summer, gold medallists in 48 athletic events will walk away with US$50,000 in prize money, with the rewards being extended to podium medallists from Los Angeles 2028 onwards.
World Athletics President Sebastian Coe said: “The introduction of prize money for Olympic gold medallists is a pivotal moment for World Athletics and the sport of athletics as a whole, underscoring our commitment to empowering the athletes and recognising the critical role they play in the success of any Olympic Games.
“This is the continuation of a journey we started back in 2015, which sees all the money World Athletics receives from the International Olympic Committee for the Olympic Games go directly back into our sport.
“We started with the Olympic dividend payments to our Member Federations, which saw us distribute an extra US$5m a year on top of existing grants aimed at athletics growth projects, and we are now in a position to also fund gold medal performances for athletes in Paris, with a commitment to reward all three medallists at the LA28 Olympic Games.
“While it is impossible to put a marketable value on winning an Olympic medal, or on the commitment and focus it takes to even represent your country at an Olympic Games, I think it is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes at the Olympic Games are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is.”
Sport is nothing without its athletes, so rewarding them financially, when some are not attracting huge sponsorships and endorsement deals, could be seen as a positive step.
But when making such a momentous announcement in the history of the Olympic Games, World Athletics made a basic error which they could and should have avoided: they had not discussed or even informed the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or other stakeholders ahead of making their statement.
“The one thing the International Olympic Committee has consistently recognised – and they’re right to – is the primacy of international federations to fashion their own futures,” explained Coe.
“I don’t believe this is remotely at variance with the concept that the International Olympic Committee often talks about, which is recognising the efforts that our competitors make.
“I am hoping the IOC would share in this principle, given their avowed commitment to make sure that revenues raised through the Olympic Movement find their way back onto the front line. I think they make the point that 80 or 90 per cent of that goes back.”
The IOC made a statement of its own, explaining how it spends the $7.6bn it made between 2017 and 2021 in revenues from the Olympic Games.
It has also provided training grants of up to $1500 through an IOC division called Solidarity, awarding over 1800 grants worldwide on an original budget of $32 million ahead of the Tokyo Games.
It said: “The IOC redistributes 90% of all its income, in particular to the National Olympic Committees and International Federations. This means that, every day, the equivalent of $4.2m goes to help athletes and sports organisations at all levels around the world. It is up to each IF and NOC to determine how to best serve their athletes and the global development of their sport.”
That is where some of the problems lie – track and field is one of the highlights of the Olympic Games, but if other sports cannot afford to match the prize money, it could create conflict between the haves and the have nots.
The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) voiced their concern about the process as well as the context of the announcement.
The stated: “ASOIF was neither informed nor consulted in advance of the announcement, which was made one day after the ASOIF General Assembly and during SportAccord. As a matter of principle, ASOIF respects and defends the autonomy of each and every member federation. However, when a decision of one IF has a direct impact on the collective interests of the Summer Olympic IFs, it is important and fair to discuss the matter at stake with the other federations in advance. This is precisely why ASOIF was created more than 40 years ago, with the mission to unite, promote and support its members, while advocating for their common interests and goals.
“ASOIF has historically taken a close interest in the general issue of athlete compensation, particularly within the context of Olympic Agenda 2020 and vis a vis the professional leagues since 2014.
“During the last days, ASOIF’s membership has expressed several concerns about World Athletics’ announcement. First, for many, this move undermines the values of Olympism and the uniqueness of the Games. One cannot and should not put a price on an Olympic gold medal and, in many cases, Olympic medallists indirectly benefit from commercial endorsements. This disregards the less privileged athletes lower down the final standings.
“Second, not all sports could or should replicate this move, even if they wanted to. Paying prize money in a multi-sport environment goes against the principle of solidarity, reinforces a different set of values across the sports and opens up many questions.
“If the Olympic Games are considered as the pinnacle of each sport, then the prize money should be comparable to, and commensurate with, the prizes given in the respective top competitions of each sport. This is technically and financially unfeasible.
“Furthermore, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the owner and primary rights holder of the Olympic Games. IFs establish and enforce the competition rules at the Games.
“ASOIF fully agrees that athletes are at the centre of the Olympic Movement, and play a critical role in the success of any Olympic Games. However, it appears that World Athletics’ latest initiative opens rather than solves a number of complex issues.
“ASOIF will raise these concerns with World Athletics and will continue to promote dialogue amongst its members and the IOC. Unity and solidarity among ASOIF’s membership will remain crucial to ensure a healthy future of sports governance and the Olympic Movement at large.”
That was a fairly damning response to the news.
The Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa (ANOCA) released a statement following consultation with athlete representatives.
“Some athlete representatives expressed concerns about the fairness of the proposal, which would result in only gold medallists from one sport being rewarded for their achievements. Concerns were also raised on the issue of clean sport, as by increasing the incentive to win even more, athletes may be at risk of betting, manipulation or pressure to turn to doping," the organisation said.
"Athletes' representatives welcomed the idea of rewarding athletes for their efforts and achievements as elite athletes, but this should not be at the expense of the solidarity model that supports and develops athletes at all levels of sport."
Coe was Chair of the British Olympic Association until 2016, but its current chief executive, Andy Anson, criticised the announcement.
"What wasn't great about the announcement last week is when one sport goes off and does something on their own, doesn't include the sports, doesn't include the IOC, doesn't include the National Olympic Committees," Anson told Sky News.
"They create a problem because now other sports are clearly going to get some scrutiny or even pressure from athletes saying, 'Well what about us? How can this sport do it and not others?'.
"I don't think it's particularly appropriate or helpful for one sport just to announce that. We've got to look at it holistically and make sure that we don't create a two tier system.”
Head of World Rowing, Jean-Christophe Rolland, was concerned about the lack of consultation before World Athletics made their announcement and commented: “I fully respect the WA decision as long it concerns athletes from their sport but at the Olympic Games it is not about your sport but all sports.
"I would appreciate if we had the discussion between us. This decision impacts not only athletes. It has other implications."
There were some supporters when the news broke, though.
Team GB’s most decorated Olympic swimmer. Duncan Scott, is all in favour of payments for Olympic medals.
He said: “I definitely think it would be welcomed within swimming. It's taxing so much on the body in terms of 20-plus hours a week in the pool and so many gym sessions. It can be really tough being a swimmer in GB but Aquatics GB seem like they're wanting to move it in a positive direction."
Coe is a seasoned politician, having become a Lord after a spell as a Member of Parliament in Britain and helping London win the 2012 Olympic Games before his positions in sports administration.
Putting the athletes at the heart of his strategy appears admirable, and he explained that not all elite athletes are thriving, with their finances often “precarious.”
To make such an aggressive move, without collaborating with the IOC and other stakeholders, might appear naïve and foolhardy but equally could be a shot across the bows amid speculation that he wants to become the next IOC President.
Rather than adhering to the status quo, Coe has proved himself to be an alternative, positioning himself firmly against Russian athletes competing at the Olympic Games as neutrals.
And the prize money issue comes ahead of the Friendship Games, to be held in Russia in September, offering $100m in total prize money and run by Umar Kremlev, head of the International Boxing Association which has been excluded from running Olympic boxing due to governance issues.
The first Friendship Games is expected to attract up to 6,000 athletes from more than 70 nations amid the backdrop of its invasion of Ukraine and punishments for state-sponsored doping.
When launched, the IOC issued a powerful communique which it accused of being a “cynical attempt by the Russian Federation to politicize sport,” noting a “disrespect for the athletes and the integrity of sports competitions.
“The commission even sees the risk of athletes being forced by their governments into participating in such a fully politicized sports event, thereby being exploited as part of a political propaganda campaign.”
With such significant prize money available, despite a lack of sports governance recognition, the Friendship Games represent a real threat to the IOC.
Could the World Athletics announcement be the start of more serious discussions to award all Olympic victors a cash prize, even if it costs up to $100m each Games? And would that see off the threat the Friendship Games poses?
Or should competing for glory be reward enough when the value of winning Olympic gold is so immeasurable?
Coe thinks not and said: “This fits very much with a contemporary template that we should do everything we can to recognise the performance and primacy of athletes.
“As a president who was a double Olympic champion, the largest part of my life has been involved with the Olympic movement. The world has changed. I don’t believe this is at variance with any deeply held philosophical commitment to the Olympic movement which, as a sport, we clearly have.
“It is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes … are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is. And as we grow as a sport I want to increase that pot.
“I have to accept the world has changed. If you had asked me that question 30 or 40 years ago,” whether paying athletes for winning was in line with what Scott called the Olympic ‘ethos, I might have given you a different answer.”
The key learning here is to ensure collaboration and discussion with stakeholders to gain support and understanding.
By blindsiding the IOC, ASOIF and other governing bodies, World Athletics very much set its stall out as a renegade, making a rogue decision regardless of the wider consequences for other sports federations and their athletes.
Coupled with the Friendship Games, the developments threaten the IOC’s authority just ahead of Paris 2024, which will no doubt serve as a reminder of the excellence and inspiration the Olympic Games continue to provide.
0 notes
The Best News of Last Week - March 18
1. FDA to Finally Outlaw Soda Ingredient Prohibited Around The World
An ingredient once commonly used in citrus-flavored sodas to keep the tangy taste mixed thoroughly through the beverage could finally be banned for good across the US. BVO, or brominated vegetable oil, is already banned in many countries, including India, Japan, and nations of the European Union, and was outlawed in the state of California in October 2022.
2. AI makes breakthrough discovery in battle to cure prostate cancer
Scientists have used AI to reveal a new form of aggressive prostate cancer which could revolutionise how the disease is diagnosed and treated.
A Cancer Research UK-funded study found prostate cancer, which affects one in eight men in their lifetime, includes two subtypes. It is hoped the findings could save thousands of lives in future and revolutionise how the cancer is diagnosed and treated.
3. “Inverse vaccine” shows potential to treat multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases
A new type of vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) has shown in the lab setting that it can completely reverse autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes — all without shutting down the rest of the immune system.
4. Paris 2024 Olympics makes history with unprecedented full gender parity
In a historic move, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has distributed equal quotas for female and male athletes for the upcoming Olympic Games in Paris 2024. It is the first time The Olympics will have full gender parity and is a significant milestone in the pursuit of equal representation and opportunities for women in sports.
Biased media coverage lead girls and boys to abandon sports.
5. Restored coral reefs can grow as fast as healthy reefs in just 4 years, new research shows
Planting new coral in degraded reefs can lead to rapid recovery – with restored reefs growing as fast as healthy reefs after just four years. Researchers studied these reefs to assess whether coral restoration can bring back the important ecosystem functions of a healthy reef.
“The speed of recovery we saw is incredible,” said lead author Dr Ines Lange, from the University of Exeter.
6. EU regulators pass the planet's first sweeping AI regulations
The EU is banning practices that it believes will threaten citizens' rights. "Biometric categorization systems based on sensitive characteristics" will be outlawed, as will the "untargeted scraping" of images of faces from CCTV footage and the web to create facial recognition databases.
Other applications that will be banned include social scoring; emotion recognition in schools and workplaces; and "AI that manipulates human behavior or exploits people’s vulnerabilities."
7. Global child deaths reach historic low in 2022 – UN report
The number of children who died before their fifth birthday has reached a historic low, dropping to 4.9 million in 2022.
The report reveals that more children are surviving today than ever before, with the global under-5 mortality rate declining by 51 per cent since 2000.
---
That's it for this week :)
This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation here:
Buy me a coffee ❤️
Also don’t forget to reblog this post with your friends.
781 notes
·
View notes