Mixed Relay - World Athletics Championships

[Dyrne]

I’m watching the World Athletics Championships because my Size 20 arse can really critique world class athletes and there was a new-ish event involving the Relay being 2 x Men and 2 x Women. Quite an interesting concept - and really shows the difference between men and women as in some of the heats they’ve got women running against men in the legs; and some interesting tactics.

What’s odd is on the BBC commentary, Michael Johnson got really funny about the event - essentially questioning what the point of the event was and saying “innovation is important but this isn’t the way to do it”.

I found this odd, as surely you can say that about any event in athletics? You’ve got the 100m and the 400m, so why bother with the 200m? The vibe I was getting was very much “Why should elite male athletes lower themselves to compete alongside women?” The other commentators were trying to talk around it but he stuck to his opinion that the mixed relay was a massive waste of time and kept calling it “fun”, like it wasn’t a real sport and not worthy of being taken seriously.

Maybe someone more au-fait with athletics can explain the reasoning; but is Michael Johnson just a massive misogynistic twat?

For the Euros and the Olympics you can switch to Eurosport who (gasp) cover the whole programme without favour.

So for this you're stuck with the parochial broadcasting corporation and their obsession with GB medal prospects.

The radio coverage is better, (TV with sound down) but its intermittent.

@andyoldlabour The restriction of the testosterone limits on athletes with 46XY DSDs to distances between 400m and 1500m was essentially forced on the IAAF by CAS's (Court of Arbitration for Sport) requirement for the limits to be based on data and not just theoretical arguments. So it's CAS who are largely responsible for this situation.

Sports Scientist Ross Tucker has written some excellent, detailed blogs on this issue. I don't agree with 100% of his opinions, but he's extremely well-informed and generally sensible.

For the Euros and the Olympics you can switch to Eurosport who (gasp) cover the whole programme without favour.

Oh yes, I much prefer Eurosport where I have the choice. Furthermore you sometimes find the same commentators on both BBC and Eurosport but on the latter they demonstrate their in depth knowledge so it is obviously an institutional choice, not a problem of individual commentators.

"So it's CAS who are largely responsible for this situation."

After reading up on the case I am not entirely sure which party is to blame. The following would infer that it is the IAAF who put the new rules in place.

"Semenya is challenging new rules from the sport's world governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations, that she and other athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) must either take testosterone-reducing medication in order to compete in track events from 400m to the mile or change to another distance."

Semnya tried to use CAS to overturn that decision.

"In May, Semenya filed an appeal to the court after failing to have new IAAF rules overturned by Cas."

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49169509

Whoever made the rules, they are still wrong, as no XY person should be competing in women's sport.

Thankfully, the properly collated scientific data showing the bleeding obvious is on its way, and the chances of the Swiss Federal Court backing Semenya are slim to vanishing. It is not even an appeal court. It can only rule on whether CAS has the right to come to the decision it found.

There is already a 400m individual event and a 4 x 400m relay. Adding an extra, mixed relay makes it nearly impossible to put the best people out for all 3, thus devaluing one or other of the relays. Obviously, some people's default setting is to assume misogyny everywhere.

@andyoldlabour CAS's upholding of Dutee Chand's appeal against the IAAF's earlier hyperandrogenism regulations in 2015 is where CAS made it clear that they would uphold appeals against any regulations which weren't based on data.