@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby We are hearing this argument a lot. People have the idea that unless you directly study rugby AND show that TW are causing more injuries, it can’t be evidence based. But of course, it can. Because there are peer reviewed studies that show two related things. First, you have...
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby …a ton of studies that identify what causes injury and performance in the sport. You know, based on hundreds of studies, when injuries happen, and how, and so you can identify the significant risks for injury and the determinants of performance. The performance variables are...
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby …so robust that teams actually have minimum standards for them, and select or drop players based on achieving these targets. Then second, you have a host of peer reviewed studies that have examined what the biological differences are between M and F, and what this means for
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby …performance. So, for instance, you know that throwing, kicking, punching, jumping, hitting etc are all 20% to 160% better in Males, as a result of biological variables that include muscle mass, levers, tendons etc. Now, you have these two parallel streams, both very solid, and
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby …you just have to ask what the implications are of each? Then you consider 11 studies, all peer reviewed, that show that T suppression does not remove the advantages of muscle mass, volume, or strength, and doesn’t change skeletons, and you are left having to somehow conclude
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby …that even though the biological differences underpinning the performance differences remain the same, performance in rugby will be affected differently, and thus TW will retain no advantage DESPITE the persistence of measured biological advantages? That’s ideology, not science
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby What you have to ask is the following:
If there is evidence that the large disparities between M and F are only marginally reduced by T suppression, then on what basis are performance and safety risks in rugby going to be removed? What is the basis for this claim? Answer: None
If there is evidence that the large disparities between M and F are only marginally reduced by T suppression, then on what basis are performance and safety risks in rugby going to be removed? What is the basis for this claim? Answer: None
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby We can get more specific. We know that in rugby, injury is literally the result of excessive energy transfer to the structure. This is a function of mass, speed and force exerted, along with the ability of a player to absorb that force/torque. We know, for instance, that head
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby …injuries occur when head kinematics (acceleration) and kinetics (neck force and moments) exceed a certain level. So there are DIRECT links between these risk factors and the ‘inputs’, which are speed, mass and force. So we can take mass, just as an illustrative point and ask:
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby “What would happen in a typical male bodied mass tackled a typical female bodied mass?”. That’s where we find a model that predicts a 20-30% increase in risk factors based on mass alone. Note we haven’t even factored in a 60% increase in strength that the male-bodied player has
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby Nor have we even considered how speed, greater in the male, will affect risk even more. Each one is additive, possibly exponentially. Ideology will dismiss this as a model, but the premise of the model is real - injury and performance are the DIRECT result of variables A, B and C
@AntiAnja @Lukeyswords @cuthbert_shaw @JohnJMcGivern @WorldRugby Thus, if you take A, B and C, and find:
a) they’re significantly higher in males than females, and;
b) reducing T for 12 months does not reduce A, B and C to female levels,
The ONLY conclusion you can draw is that injury risk and performance will remain significantly elevated.
a) they’re significantly higher in males than females, and;
b) reducing T for 12 months does not reduce A, B and C to female levels,
The ONLY conclusion you can draw is that injury risk and performance will remain significantly elevated.
