The focus is on evidence, not emotion. And it’s about being as systematic as possible, relying on data, freed from “side of the field” bias, which means:
- Identifying problems
- Understanding the cause
- Seeking solutions from experts
- Ongoing evaluation
The biggest challenges are:
- How do you know if it worked?
- How do you know if it caused a set of unintended consequences that are undesired?
Trying to understand those in a complex, dynamic environment is challenging. Too many “simple” solutions offered without thought of “B"
Classic example now is the desire to limit substitution numbers. It’s easy to understand the theory for why you’d want this. It’s less obvious to consider that it *might* make things worse, or replace one issue with another, depending on what creates injury risk (fatigue vs size)
Another great example was head injury risk. Once we’d found, pretty clearly, that:
- The player most at risk is the tackler,
- The risk is higher for upright tacklers & higher contacts,
the approach to focus on law (as advised by expert coaches) was meant to carry a MESSAGE
That message would be carried by sanction, its intention being to change A (high risk) into B (low risk), or to modify A through better technique, as illustrated below. The alternative is total removal of the risky behaviour, which is what comes if this doesn’t work.
In this instance, the principle is informed by evidence, and is really simple:
- Protect the BC by avoiding their head as much as possible;
- Protect the tackler by ensuring the head is in the least risky position possible
This means appreciating the root issue - head contact
Naturally, there will be unavoidable head contact in the sport. The issue is whether it’s high risk or not? We knew where risk was higher - evidence was clear. It just wasn't always what was thought to be obvious. This was a great illustration of “intuition/emotion” vs evidence
More on this in the video, including some other explanations and examples of how the sport is trying to manage risk without creating new (or returning to old) problems: vimeo.com/531690887
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Basically, IOC paid tens of thousands to show that a small slice of the female population overlaps in performance with a small slice of the male population, and now try to spin it as proof of no advantage. Could’ve watched Boston yesterday to see overlap. It is totally irrelevant
If that slice of the female population happens to come from further towards the “high” end of athleticism, and the male slice is further to the “low” end, of course you’ll find similar performances. Look at the VO2, BMI, Fat %, and you know exactly how this “similarity” was made
And so look at the most crucial section of the paper - participant recruitment & eligibility. It says basically nothing of value for matching 2 populations of interest. I fit these criteria, and I have no expectation that anyone would reasonably compare me to F to assess M adv
@NakulMPande The "unbeatable advantage" bit you have taken from these tweets is you manipulating an argument. Because of normal overlap between the populations, some women outperform many men, everyone knows this. But it's irrelevant, as you surely know, no? Or do you need this explained too?
@NakulMPande I'm guessing you might, so let's put it this way - many women, who are exceptional athletes, outperform most* men. But no women outperform all men. The reverse, however, IS true. Some men outperform all women. Their advantage is insurmountable.
* depending on task/sport type
@NakulMPande So the moment you match the populations (eg: International cricketers, Olympic qualified runners, Top 100 ranked weightlifters), the sex-overlap disappears, and the 'worst' male from that group is better than the best female from her respective group. What does this mean?
The South African commentators and studio pundits still don’t understand the four elements of the head contact process. Quite disappointing how superficially they explain it. I know it’s imperfect, but it involves more than our SA viewers are told
@fmessack …assessment (eg low danger if tackler is passive, with “passive of feet planted, not going forward, passive tackler rather than dynamic. Mitigation if suddenly change in direction etc). So it’s systematic, with outcomes determined by the (guided) answer to each question.
@fmessack For example what we saw there for Tonga 9 was assessed as head contact yes, foul play, low danger (tackler passive, not dynamic tackle), so YC. But then with mitigation, so he’s given a pen. One can disagree re degree of danger, then it’s red to YC.
With the UCI decision today, even if imperfect, it means rugby, swimming, track and field and cycling have all recognized the biological implications of sex, and respected women’s rights to fair and safe sport. The IOC, meanwhile, still believe in “no presumption of advantage”,
…whereas others have recognized that women’s sport has meaning precisely BECAUSE male biology is known to have performance implications. It’s not presumption so much as reality. That’s the start point for scientific evidence. Thereafter, it follows that unless the male biology
…can be removed, entirely, the integrity of women’s sport is undermined when males are permitted to enter it. The “lack of science” is what necessitates a closed category for women, not the accessible one that IOC continues to promote. Today the UCI reached that understanding
@CAMOKAT6@SVPhillimore Yes, largely, it's the same argument that we've heard for the last few years, once it became clear that there are advantages. It involves a lot of evasive wordplay - overwhelming adv vs meaningful, conflating advantage types, using under-representation to dismiss advantage.
@CAMOKAT6@SVPhillimore Just to take one - left-handers in fencing. The scale of this advantage is so small compared to male vs female, and you only have to ask one question to reveal this: How many left handed females are competitive against right-handed males? Zero. The gap created by LH vs RH is tiny
@CAMOKAT6@SVPhillimore ...compared to that created by being male. And yes, we do allow advantages in sport - that's the whole point. But we create categories precisely so that these advantages can be found out by the result. A middleweight champion has advantages, but heavyweights would beat them. Why?
Good to see from British Cycling. Yes, it follows the evidence, and yes, it respects women’s rights to fairness, and their voice. But it still takes a degree of conviction to go against the international governing body (however misguided that policy may be).
The path that leads to this “departure” is interesting. Scientific evidence for retained advantage (and refuting its removal) was there all along, for all parties to recognize. What @BritishCycling had was vocal women who refused to be ignored. Plus a case that demonstrated the
…performance implications of the retention of male advantage. The key, however, was that women forced a conversation that couldn’t be ignored. What the IOC prioritized, as a matter of principle (literally, it’s on their principles), is the diminishing of that voice.