[Transcend]

Wow, thgis is the most absurd thing I have ever seen. At first this may seem like a political post, but with the issues in the DH world right now revolving around M. Dumaresque, I figured it was approriate.

The reason she is allowed to race, is that she is legally regarded as a female. What happens when everyone and anyone can choose their gender on their birth certificate???

Also, allowing people to CHANGE their birth certificate, no matter what your mental state is. You were born either one sex or the other. Period. You may change that during your life, and be legally considered the opposite gender, but this doesn't change what you were born as, what your muscle and bone structure formed as, etc.

Anyways, interesting article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/n...n/07gender.html

quote:

Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.

Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.

“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender.

In New York, the proposed change comes after four years of discussion among health officials, an eight-member panel of transgender experts and vital records offices nationwide. It is an outgrowth of the transgender community’s push to recognize that some people may not have money to get a sex-change operation, while others may not feel the need to undergo the procedure and are simply defining themselves as members of the opposite sex. While it may be a radical notion elsewhere, New York City has often tolerated such blurring of the lines of gender identity.

And the proposal reflects how the transgender movement has become politically potent beyond its small numbers, having roots in the muscular politics of the city’s gay rights movement.

Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.

“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”

The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)

The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.

At the final public hearing for the birth certificate proposal last week, a string of advocates and transsexuals suggested that common definitions of gender, especially its reliance on medical assessments, should be abandoned. They generally praised the city for revisiting its 25-year-old policy that lets people remove the sex designation from their birth certificate if they have had sexual reassignment surgery. Then they demanded more freedom to choose.

Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said transgender people should not have to rely on affidavits from a health care system that tends to be biased against them. He said that many transgender people cannot afford sex-change surgery or therapy, and often do not consider it necessary.

Another person who testified, Mariah Lopez, 21, said she wanted a new birth certificate to prevent confusion, and to keep teachers, police officers and other authority figures from embarrassing her in public or accusing her of identity theft.

A few weeks ago, at a welfare office in Queens, Ms. Lopez said she included a note with her application for public assistance asking that she be referred to as Ms. when her turn for an interview came up. It did not work. The woman handling her case repeatedly addressed her as Mister.

“The thing is, I don’t even remember what it’s like to be a boy,” Ms. Lopez said, adding that she received a diagnosis of transgender identity disorder at age 6. She asked to be identified as a woman for this article.

The eight experts who addressed the birth certificate issue strongly recommended that the change be made, for the practical reasons Ms. Lopez identified. For public health studies, people who have changed their gender would be counted according to their sex at birth.

But some psychiatrists said that eliminating identification difficulties for some transgender people also opened the door to unwelcome advances from imposters.

“I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there,” Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President’s Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. “He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them.”

The move to ease the requirements for altering one’s gender identity comes after New York has adopted other measures aimed at blurring the lines of gender identification. For instance, a new shelter policy approved in January now allows beds to be distributed according to appearance, applying equally to postoperative transsexuals, cross-dressers and “persons perceived to be androgynous.”

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority also agreed last month to let people define their own gender when deciding whether to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms.

Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.

“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Yeah, ummm. I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

 

[Transcend]

Bah, I was going to agree with opie's post until he deleted it.

 

[S.K.C.]

Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.

He's GOT to be kidding...

or she.... whatever.

“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”

...O.K. - but what planet does that happen on?

This seems to be another case of someone trying to impose their belief system on the rest of us... Artificially creating a new gender out of on old one is fine with me - do what makes you happy - just call it what it is: "transgender" not "male" or "female"...

 

[Transcend]

He's GOT to be kidding...

or she.... whatever.

It's pretty insane. They are trying to blur the line between gender and sex (sex being physical, gender being mental state). Currently all legal rulings are drawn along sex, not gender.

Last I checked, my birth certificate listed only sex on it, not gender. What a bunch of loons.

 

[trust4130]

Last I checked, my birth certificate listed only sex on it, not gender. What a bunch of loons.

Do you happen to recall which sex was listed?

 

[S.K.C.]

Interesting - I just added more to my previous post...

I didn't know gender was now classified as a "mental" state... When did this happen???

In my Webster's dictionary it says that "Gender" is synonomous with "Sex"....

Insane...

 

[trust4130]

Gotta admit that was a decent jab... sorry but you set yourself up for it. (All in fun)

 

[sayndesyn]

outtie=male, innie=female, outtie/innie=mad bank at the circus....

case closed.

 

[mandown]

The legal implications could be heavy. It could provide a loop-hole for the gay marriage issue. The issue of determining where to imprison a criminal could get quite difficult. Men's vs. Women's sports could become complicated.

The census would change. Any demographic statistics based on those numbers would shift. Medical studies on various health factors and issues with underlying gender foundations (e.g. height, weight, prostate cancer, breast cancer, etc.) will require additional research to ensure "pure" statistics.

Heavy stuff. Not the thing for gut-reactions.

 

[Transcend]

Interesting - I just added more to my previous post...

I didn't know gender was now classified as a "mental" state... When did this happen???

In my Webster's dictionary it says that "Gender" is synonomous with "Sex"....

Insane...

For quite a long time now actually. Being views as "Masculin" or "Feminine" is gender, whereas being a man or a woman is sex. Yes, I dropped this class fairly quickly due to the sheer stupidity of it.

Since the 1950s, the term gender has been increasingly used to distinguish a social role (gender role) and/or personal identity (gender identity) distinct from biological sex. Sexologist John Money wrote in 1955, “[t]he term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.”[5] Elements of such a role include clothing, speech patterns, movement and other factors not solely limited to biological sex.

 

[Banshee Rider]

How would this affect the drafting process is there was ever a war? Let me rephrase that; another world war. They don't draft women and put them on the front line correct? Seems like it opens up a loophole to draft-dodgers if ever an issue in the future. (I know this is irrelevant to sports, just throwing it into the mix)

 

[Secret Squirrel]

How do you "live as a woman" without getting the surgery....??

I mean....seriously, does putting a dress on and applying some foundation count as "living as a woman"?? In that case a few buddies of mine have some halloween costume 'splainin' to do....

 

[Transcend]

While some of you make good points, keep it sports related until someone moves it to the political forum please. If it gets too political, I will move it myself.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

[n8] :biggrin: [/n8]

 

[Jm_]

Uh, no. We don't want pics.

 

[OGRipper]

You say "What Happens?" like it's the coming of the apocolypse or something. Why do you really care how someone identifies themselves? On the sports tip, are you worried about Michelle D. setting a trend and a sudden influx of she-men having a real impact on your girlfriend's race results or something? I mean it's not the way I'd choose to live but how does it affect you?

 

[bdamschen]

I personally am worried ant the women who are going to move over to sport men and kick my butt

It would be interesting to see if certain men who claim they are women have their brains wired the same as women and vice versa. For example, it is said that men use only one hemisphere of their brain when lisitening to someone talking whereas women use both. I wonder if a she-dude uses both... If they don't, what makes them able to claim being a woman, just because they want to be?

 

[julian_dh]

You say "What Happens?" like it's the coming of the apocolypse or something. Why do you really care how someone identifies themselves? On the sports tip, are you worried about Michelle D. setting a trend and a sudden influx of she-men having a real impact on your girlfriend's race results or something? I mean it's not the way I'd choose to live but how does it affect you?

well of course you dont care, but think of the women who came 4th with that freak on the podium, if IT wants to race so badly IT can race with the men simple as that.

i dont think homosexuals or transgender people should have any special rules, they get plenty of acceptance within there own groups why do they look for acceptance among scociety.

i think the best way to settle things like this is simple

[] check here if you were born with a penis
[] check here if you were born with a vagina

things like this cant be argued with and cant be pointed out as discriminatory

 

[SLanD3r]

Regarding the statement you are born either M or F is not entirely true. Don't forget there are those whom are born hermaphrodite.

One case I recall was when a baby was born with both male and female organs and the parents chose a sex for the baby (which one I do not remember). According to the parents sex of choice, the doctors went ahead with the medical procedures to make the baby one sex.

Although the kid was raised as one particular gender he/she had always exhibited characteristics of the opposite gender. I believe he had a sex change later in life when he found out the circumstances surrounding his birth.

Anyways, the point is very little in the world is black and white. All the categorizations that we have are for the most part arbitrary; and exceptions exist for just about any rule/category/difference ever thought of.

Classifications are for the most part a human creation to try to understand this complex world we live in (it's how we make sense of it). If you follow the history of any science you'll see that its nomenclature/classifications are constantly changing to reflect more current knowledge of the field. Laws regarding these new understandings almost always lag far behind, as far as I know,its completely reactionary. Big and slow.. but we all know that.

In nature there exists animals that naturally change sex; organisms, which as far as modern scientific understanding is concerned, is considered dead; yet will spring back to life when the conditions are right. There also exists oral sex loving, homosexual monkeys (no im not talking about humans) etc...

going off on a tangent:

if you look to the forefront of physics you'll see that their theories to describe our reality get crazier and crazier (of course none of it is solid). i.e. possible 26 spacetime dimensions, bread slice-like dimensions which collide to cause an effect we observe to be gravity (a phenomena physicists still struggle to understand), the possibility of infinite parallel dimensions, the possibility our universe is not continuous but occurs in discrete quanta etc...

It almost seems that anything the mind can possibly think of could be a possibility. Taking all this into consideration, you can get a glimpse as to how much we really understand our "reality."

 

[Dogboy]

Regarding the statement you are born either M or F is not entirely true. Don't forget there are those whom are born hermaphrodite.

True, but what percentage of the world's population is hermaphrodite? Miniscule I would think. They can put male and female on their birth certificates.

 

[SLanD3r]

heres a few excerpts from "THE FIVE SEXES(revisited):
The emerging recognition that people come in bewildering sexual varieties is testing medical values and social norms."

by Anne Fausto-Sterling (a biologist at Brown University):

"...absolute dimorphism(being either M or F) disintegrates even at the level of basic
biology. Chromosomes, hormones, the internal sex structures, the
gonads and the external genitalia all vary more than most people
realize. Those born outside of the Platonic dimorphic mold are called
intersexuals.

In "The Five Sexes" I reported an estimate by a psychologist expert in
the treatment of intersexuals, suggesting that some 4 percent of all
live births are intersexual. Then, together with a group of Brown
University undergraduates, I set out to conduct the first systematic
assessment of the available data on intersexual birthrates.

We scoured the medical literature for estimates of the frequency of various categories of intersexuality, from additional chromosomes to mixed gonads, hormones and genitalia.

For some conditions we could find only anecdotal evidence; for most, however, numbers exist. On the basis of that evidence, we calculated that for every 1,000 children born, seventeen are intersexual in some form. That number--1.7 percent--is a ballpark estimate, not a precise count, though we believe it is more accurate than the 4 percent I reported.

Our figure represents all chromosomal, anatomical and hormonal
exceptions to the dimorphic ideal; the number of intersexuals who
might, potentially, be subject to surgery as infants is smaller--probably between one in 1,000 and one in 2,000 live births.

Furthermore, because some populations possess the relevant genes at high frequency, the intersexual birthrate is not uniform throughout
the world."


Clarification for dimorphism was added and paragraphs have been re-edited for ease of reading (big blocks of words are usually a turn-off to casual observers)

One more thing, the distinctions between Male, Female and Both are not set categories; remember everything in between also exists. Think of a continuous spectrum from full male to full female.

 

[SuspectDevice]

Indeed, the dichotomus gender system is archane, stupid and based solely on tradition, not scientific fact. I personally see very little merit in breaking down sporting events by gender, just as I see little merit in breaking it down by skill or ability classifications. I personally am not intersexed, but many of my friends and aquantiances are geneticaly intersexed, and/or were wrongly identified at birth. Remember, 4% is 4 people out of every 100. That is a significant percentage of the population, and nothing to scoff at.

 

[mandown]

don't forget that many people who are transitioning are using hormones as part of the transition. it is possible to "live as a woman" in a pre-op state and look very fem. in order to do this, hormones are used. this change in body chemistry might offset any sports genetic "advantage" of being born male and racing as a female. i don't know that there are studies to support the impact of such hormones on atheletes.

i used the example of a male transitioning to a female because i believe that is where the biggest issue lies in sports. i don't often hear men concerned with females attempting to compete in male events, except as a blow to the male ego.

 

[bikenweed]

Does anyone really think every transgender male will start racing the women's downhill class?

Are your pre-concieved ideas of gender and sex really so important that no one ought to challange them? Why do you care so much?

Just what comes to mind with this topic. No need to fear the grey area. Unless you can doubt yourself, you don't have any true beliefs.

 

[InsideMan]

mod edit: The adults are speaking. If you can't behave, go to your room.

 

[InsideMan]

Mod edit again: I said to keep it sports related so the thread doesn't have to be moved. If you want to troll, go to the political forum.

 

[Transcend]

Indeed, the dichotomus gender system is archane, stupid and based solely on tradition, not scientific fact. I personally see very little merit in breaking down sporting events by gender, just as I see little merit in breaking it down by skill or ability classifications. I personally am not intersexed, but many of my friends and aquantiances are geneticaly intersexed, and/or were wrongly identified at birth. Remember, 4% is 4 people out of every 100. That is a significant percentage of the population, and nothing to scoff at.

Sorry, gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex is clear at birth. Male, female. You are either XX or XY. There may be some medical abnomalies here, but when it comes down to the genetic level, I am sure they are less than 4/100. Your mental state is NOT something that anyone can identify at birth, obviously, and is understandably questionable for some people due to personal reasons.

When it comes to sports, the XX or XY difference IS crucial. Men and women have different body makeup, like it or not this is a fact. History has shown that some countries have, in the past, had men go through the entire process of competeing as women for olympic medals. (edit: Polish sprinter. Found it.)

Though no clear-cut case of a male athlete competing in a women’s event has ever been documented, a handful of sensational gender identity scandals have rocked the athletic community. In 1980, an autopsy revealed that Polish sprinter Stella Walsh — who won silver at the 1932 Olympics in the 100-metre race and 41 amateur titles — had male genitalia. German high jumper Dora Ratjen, who competed in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, was later examined and discovered to have ambiguous genitalia. She was disqualified from further competition. After the war, Ratjen — then living as Hermann — acknowledged that the Nazi Youth Movement had forced him to compete as a woman.

I'd be curious to see how the case actually panned out chromosome wise, I couldn't see if a test was ever done and made public.

You see very little merit in seperating sports by sex? Ok let's throw everyone in one big pool. Let's use DH as an examnple, simply top keep things on topic. When was the last time any woman actually stood a chance of making a male podium at a world cup? Anne Caroline beat 15-25 men at these events AT BEST. She recorded it on her helmet for all the world to see. How is this fair putting them in the same category?

How about track and field, one of the purest of sports. No woman has ever come close to a male 100 200 or 400m world or olympic record.

So yes, there is a difference when it comes down to physiology. There are very few physical sports where women can compete on the same level as men, due solely to body makeup and nothing more.

9.77 100m Men
10.49 100m Women

In track and field that is an eternity. At no time since the 1972 (when recording of these records became anywhere near reliable with electronic timing) has any woman held a records faster than the men of the same era. In fact, the gap between them has remained relatively consistent as they both got faster.

The IOC recently voted to ALLOW transgender athletes to compete (just before Athens). Good article on it here: http://archives.xtra.ca/Story.aspx?s=15161783 . One of the reasons this debate came up, was lawsuits threatened by a few individuals.

don't forget that many people who are transitioning are using hormones as part of the transition. it is possible to "live as a woman" in a pre-op state and look very fem. in order to do this, hormones are used. this change in body chemistry might offset any sports genetic "advantage" of being born male and racing as a female. i don't know that there are studies to support the impact of such hormones on atheletes.

i used the example of a male transitioning to a female because i believe that is where the biggest issue lies in sports. i don't often hear men concerned with females attempting to compete in male events, except as a blow to the male ego.

There is proof that the hormones DO make a difference after a minimum of 2 years (see above article). I am not a doctor, I am not about to argue their proof.

My opinion however, is that the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Dumaresque has podiumed in every event she participated in sa a female recently (as far as I know). She would not have placed remotely near the top in the men's category. She is only one case of course, but if you have ever met her, she is HUGE. She is a very big girl (close to 6ft, 180lbs minimum I'd say), not some little girl. She is however, a great person after talking to her a little bit on lifts here and there.

Why does this bother me and how does it affect me? Directly, it doesn't bother OR affect me. I do have many friends who happen to be female and are atheletes, both professional and amateur. It is simply not fair to them (and the downhill ones are getting pretty ticked, but that's a debate I am not getting into).

I believe if you are going to play a sport, no matter what level you are at, play it hard, play to win and play it fairly.

PS: I have a ton of info on this from having written a paper for my politics and sports class ages ago. I am not obsessed, honest! I just find it a very interesting topic facing the sports community today. The new article posted to start this thread is what i find absurd...you should not be able to change your sex on your birth certificate in my opinion.

 

[SlackBoy]

So should there then be strength parameters set. cos there are some women out there who are natural large and strong. Should they also be discriminated against cos nature made them like that.
Should the really wimpy and small guys be allowed to race in the ladies class, purely cos they can't develop muscle mass to even that of an average female??

 

[Transcend]

So should there then be strength parameters set. cos there are some women out there who are natural large and strong. Should they also be discriminated against cos nature made them like that.
Should the really wimpy and small guys be allowed to race in the ladies class, purely cos they can't develop muscle mass to even that of an average female??

Again, that isn't the point. Don't look at particular cases, as that can lead to all sorts of strange conclusions.

Look at the bigger picture. Track is a great example as it is a pure sport. No equipment, no "guts" mental side of things. It is a pure physical sport. No woman has ever even been close in the 100m example.

On average, women are smaller than men. On average, men are larger than most women and have higher muscle mass and lower body fat. There are big 6ft girls who can bench a few hundred pounds, there are guys who are 5' and 100lbs soaking wet. They are exceptions, not the rule.

If you need a cycling example look there, no woman has ever been close to a male world cup podium.

There IS a difference, like it or not.

 

[SlackBoy]

Waht if michelle d is the exception

 

[Transcend]

Did you read what I posted? She isn't the exception.

 

[hungryleprican]

double u tee ef

 

[ianjenn]

While some of you make good points, keep it sports related until someone moves it to the political forum please. If it gets too political, I will move it myself.

Talking about the male or female now rider. Is she even that fast? I have never seen anything about here in WC standings and NORBA events? I am asking that if she used to be a man was AC still putting the smack down on her?

 

[black noise]

Do you guys really think this is somehow going to affect cycling? That some especially effeminate guy will start racing in the women's class just to win? Cycling has never been about that anyway, and should that happen the UCI could simply make a rule categorizing people by their sex, not what they feel like they are.

And all those calling Michelle "it", "thing", etc, way to be classy.

 

[Rip]

Please don't jump on me for this, but if one can't cut it at a certain level with dh regardless of gender they shouldn't be at a professional level to begin with.

 

[ianjenn]

Again, that isn't the point. Don't look at particular cases, as that can lead to all sorts of strange conclusions.

Look at the bigger picture. Track is a great example as it is a pure sport. No equipment, no "guts" mental side of things. It is a pure physical sport. No woman has ever even been close in the 100m example.

On average, women are smaller than men. On average, men are larger than most women and have higher muscle mass and lower body fat. There are big 6ft girls who can bench a few hundred pounds, there are guys who are 5' and 100lbs soaking wet. They are exceptions, not the rule.


If you need a cycling example look there, no woman has ever been close to a male world cup podium.

There IS a difference, like it or not.

You are right that no women has been close to podium times but AC has beaten many mens top 20 finishers at WC over the years. And she is a women just a freaky fast one.

 

[Transcend]

Michelle is fast in the ladies category. She is CND national champ for the second year running, and is usually within a half second of races she does not win. She has raced WCs in the past, but only raced the CND nationals this year. She was selected to attend worlds, but broke her wrist just before.

black noise: The UCI can't really change their rules, as the IOC and UCI have been in this mess for years now. They finally came to a decision fairly recently. It isn't so much that it could affect cycling (though it already has to an extent) it is that it can potentially affect all sports in some way.

The chance of your hypothetical situation happening is very low of course in cycling specifically, but in bigger money sports...who knows?

What about IAAF "golden league" track meets? They pay $10 000 or $15 000 appearance fees simply to show up to the top athletes at many events. IAAF is the professional track and field league in europe.

The problem isn't that it may happen, it is that it could potentially happen.

 

[Transcend]

You are right that no women has been close to podium times but AC has beaten many mens top 20 finishers at WC over the years. And she is a women just a freaky fast one.

She has not. For years she had a number on her helmet. That number was the amount of men she had beat at preceding world cups. I believe the most she ever beat was in the low 20s. Ie she would have been 45th or 50th in the men's category. Sorta besides the point though, as no one has even come close since.

Please don't jump on me for this, but if one can't cut it at a certain level with dh regardless of gender they shouldn't be at a professional level to begin with.

That's completely fair...but who do you base the standard on? Nico? Sam Hill? Steve Peat? Those 3 are easily 3 of the best ever. Where do you draw the line? Any given time percentage (say 50% slower than the leader), means you will have maybe 125 men, and 3-5 women?

I'm not slagging on the women racers at all, don't get me wrong as that isn'y anywhere near the reason for the thread, but it's reality. Look at a results list from a world cup or worlds - i would be hard pressed to draw any line that woudl be "fair".

 

[Rip]

That's completely fair...but who do you base the standard on? Nico? Sam Hill? Steve Peat? Those 3 are easily 3 of the best ever. Where do you draw the line? Any given time percentage (say 50% slower than the leader), means you will have maybe 125 men, and 3-5 women?

I'm in agreement with you with the thread.

Going based on that there have been many who thought they could cut it professionally at the world level. Nico,Peat,Hill are amongst the best ever. With every category regardless of the category, there are people who should be at a category or two below where they are I'm talking about the ones who are consistently getting slower times through out the runs than someone at a lower level. Yes people do have off days, but it's saying something if you are consistently getting out done by people in lower categories. Can't really name names right now, being that I'm just getting back into the DH game seriously again. Still am getting caught up with who's where and who is no longer racing. In drawing the line, I'm talking about the bottom 20%.