IOC Executive Board meeting on 12 and 13 February 2013 in Lausanne - Information for the media - Updated
| If you cannot view this email, click here | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
Thursday, February 7, 2013
IOC - News letter on Feb. 2013 .....
IOC News letter....
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
from Brent .....
[Effortless Swimming] How To Develop Your Freestyle Catch
ScanaveIt's one of the best feelings in swimming.
When you pull in freestyle, you're holding
the water and your body moves easily
past your hand.
It's a skill that takes practice, but it's possible
even if you're a late starter in the sport.
This week we talk about how to develop
freestyle catch so you really feel the water.
Watch the video
Highlights this week:
- Using the 'inital catch' to hold the water
- When to start the elbow bend
- Which drill to use for developing your catch
- Are you pulling with one lever or two?
Regards
Brenton Ford
Effortless Swimming
Catch is one of the most important aspects of freestyle. Click here to see why.
I reply to all emails personally.
Inspirati-va .....
Great Dryland Products
|
Swimming World Swim Shop
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Sports Publications InternationalP.O. Box 20337
Sedona, AZ 86341
USA
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Exista posib ilitatea de a organiza competitii fara a tine cont de gen ....?
Da, in cazul folosirii valoriilor date de IPA in contextul aplicarii formulei BEST {vezi raspunsul meu din final ...}
From: The Science of Sport
To: scanave@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 2:10:18 PM
Subject: Let male and female compete together
To: scanave@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 2:10:18 PM
Subject: Let male and female compete together
|
Posted: 15 Apr 2010 03:37 AM PDT
The abolition of gender categories in
sport: a sound argument?
As a follow up to my earlier post (see below), I am currently reading a book called "Genetic technology and sport: ethical questions". And Chapter 15 of this book is titled "The genetic design of a new Amazon". Below is an excerpt from that chapter. I'm rewriting it, word for word, to build on what I wrote about in my earlier post regarding Caster Semenya. I'd love some debate, and I know you would too!
"We have argued that it (gender
categories in sport) should be abolished. Women and men should compete
against one another on equal terms on sports arenas. The reasons for
giving up sexual discrimination within sports, and for allowing individuals
of both sexes to compete with each other is simple. In sports it is
crucial that the best person wins. The sexual differences are simply
irrelevant. If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete,
this female athlete should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male
athlete. If she cannot beat a certain male athlete, so be it. If
the competition was fair, she should be able to face the fact that he was
more talented. It is really as simple as that. Sexual
discrimination within sports does not have any better rationale than sexual
discrimination in any other fields of our lives". - Tamburrin and Tannsjo, Genetic
technology and sport
Your thoughts? Let's throw that
open to women everywhere and get their take on it, I'd love to hear.
One thing that strikes me is that we spend a lot of time "telling"
and not enough "listening", so I'd love to hear an objective view
on the above paragraph.
The debate - can women compete against
men in athletic events?
The reason I make this point again, is that this scenario is invited by allowing Caster Semenya to compete as a female on the grounds that she may have a "natural" physiological advantage as a result of an intersex condition. I'd love your thoughts - mine are expressed at the end of my previous post. But, I would hope that the implications of this on the results from the next hundred years of competition would be obvious to everyone - no female athlete makes the top 500 of any athletic, swimming event each year, and so the chance that "a female athlete will perform better than a male athlete" at the top level of competition (Olympic Games) is basically zero. The counter-points debated But there's more to say on this. The chapter continues to say the following, and this time, I've put my immediate thought in maroon alongside each argument, which I've put in italics: "Many arguments have been readily called forth in objection to our proposal. Here are some of them:
1.Sexual discrimination within sports is no different
that the use of, say, different weight classes in certain sports, intended to
make the result less predictable. We use sexual discrimination because we
seek, to use Warren Fraleigh's term, "the sweet tension of uncertainty
of outcome". Comments on this one below...
2.
If
women and men compete, and women defeat men, then this will cause violent
responses from men. So we had better retain the discrimination. This point is, sadly, a possibility.
But it's not grounds for eliminating discrimination. Fortunately, perhaps, it
would never happen in athletics at the top level.
3.
If
we give up sexual discrimination in sports, then probably all women will
find, because on average they perform poorly in comparison with men, that
they are always defeated by some men. This will be discouraging for women in
general and female athletes in particular. This is exactly the point, except the
authors of this piece haven't recognized that it's not a question of
"average", but rather that the best female is more than 10% behind
the best male - 12 minutes in a marathon (and 20 for most of the top women at
the moment), more than 1 second in a 100m race, more than 1 meter in the long
jump. These are massive differences, but more on this below.
"The first argument is mistaken.
When we discriminate in some sports such as wrestling between different
weight-classes, this has to do with the fact that weight is a decisive factor
in wrestling, that directly affects the outcome of the competition. But there
exist no sports where sex is a decisive factor in that sense: sex is only
indirectly related to the outcome of a sports contest."
This is only partly true. Yes, sex is only "indirectly" responsible for the outcome. But it's influence is so large, according to my analysis, that the outcome would all but be decided by it. To repeat (apologies for repetition), the very best women in history do not make the top 500 performances in track and field athletics PER YEAR. In swimming, it may be narrower, but consider that Michael Phelps is a full 26 seconds ahead of the women's world record holder in a 400m medley and you get the idea. The result in athletics and swimming is too strongly influenced by sex for the ethical position argued here to hold. I would argue, for example, that a wrestler in the lighter weight division is MORE likely to have a chance of beating a heavyweight than the very best woman has of beating the very best man. Some may disagree. Perhaps freed of "discrimination", women would narrow this gap. This is what Tamburrini and Tannsjo argue. But to leap up from outside the top 500 to challenging even the top 100 - physiologically, that's a stretch of the imagination. Tamburrini and Tannsjo, incidentally, continue to argue that in the face of the statistical evidence that no woman will outperform the best men (which they do eventually acknowledge), there should be genetic engineering to help women catch up with men, and that where possible, this should be desirable. In otherwords, women should seek out genetic engineering to be able to remain competitive in sport! I'm not sure what to make of this...
Conclusion
I'm going to leave it at that, and invite debate. I can imagine I may face some hostile emails, and that's OK. I believe the evidence speaks loudly enough, and I'd encourage people to look into it - look back at historical performances and ask where the women champions would finish in the men's events, and it should become clear. The reality is that separation of male and female categories, while termed "sexual discrimination" by these ethicists, is actually fundamental to equality of sport. To apply this to the case of Caster Semenya, what it means is that our categorization of males and females, as flawed and suspect as it may be, demands that the line be defended. Or removed altogether, and then above is the situation. But to commit only halfway and permit participation when the gender line is blurred (and seriously, how often does this happen?) is neither here nor there, and damaging for the sport, and the other female athletes in the event. Physiologically, there is simply too much to overcome. And I don't believe that's a bad thing. Ross
The Science of Sport Dr. Ross Tucker Dr.
Jonathan Dugas
==========================
Atash
Science of sports 19042010 by Mircea Olaru
TO:
The Science
of Sport
Dr. Ross
Tucker, Dr. Jonathan Dugas
Posted: 15 Apr 2010 03:37 AM PDT
The abolition of gender categories in sport: a sound argument?
The title and the theme of your
article are intriguing as there is an obvious discrepancy between the physical
possibilities of a man compared to those of a woman.
This is true considering the
classical athletic competition, but let’s not forget that there are sports in
which competition between men and women could be fair – for instance ping-pong,
shooting, etc.
I also agree to your opinion that
there are clear differences between men and women’s abilities, but if we extend
the sphere of what sports competition represents, what its purpose and means
are, we might find a way to level the field for these two different genders.
Here is my idea and it refers to
swimming, the sport you’ve mentioned in your article, with Michael Phelps and
his clearly superior records compared to the women’s.
If you can accept that swimming
competitions could be done differently, with different objectives, please take
a look at the following two ideas, which could allow men and women to compete
on equal grounds:
1.
Competing from the point of view of swimming efficiency – fastest, but with the
least number of strokes (as in the ancient saying “festina lente”, by
Suetonius)
2. The
non-subjective / mathematical separation of competitors into categories, just
as in other sports, using a gliding index as reference.
If, by now, haven’t got your
interest or approval, please see what the BEST (biomechanical efficiency
swimming test) formula means for swimming – and especially the IPA (personal
gliding index).( see atash What mean the BEST formula)
This type of competition represents
a different approach; not for the sake of being the ‘coolest’, but to
demonstrate to oneself and to others that it is possible to swim with great
technique regardless of gender.
Those that cannot become Olympic
champions can become champions in their own right, relative to the „best
technique” criterion, proven against bio-metrically equal competitors.
==
About BEST concept - What
mean this new concep…?:
[attention:he can be aplicated/adapted for more other sport-disciplins]
With this formul we can calculate, very exactly-
mathematic way,
the individual
efficiency + the best personal technique of each swim-style , but she derive from the ancient
aforismus – festina lente…! (Suetonius); in the swim-version that means -
[ P.I.G. + (K]
) - [ Time in sec. + Stroke arms, tempo / 5om ] = ....
points of the Biomecanical Efficiency Swimmming Test (B.E.S.T.) ....
*(K) = aleator -100 points. ------------------------ P.I.G. = Personal Index for Gliding ... so [ L. + (K) ] - [ Kgr.+ Q ] L. = extrem longer of the body in float position (ventral). (K) = aleator -100 points. Kgr. = weith Q = circumf. of the Torax in max. Expiration (under axile arms) --------------- M.O. ph.ed, Bucharest, Romania 17 12 08 scanave@rnc.ro |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)