So why do we keep trying to disqualify the best athletes?
Every four years I get hooked on the Olympics – I research the careers of weightlifters and long jumpers and cry every time an athlete cries on the podium and become more patriotic than I ever thought possible.
And every four years I wait with bated breath for the sore losers to emerge. For over a decade, champion 800m runner Caster Semenya had her gender, legitimacy and very existence questioned. In oversimplified terms, Semenya was assigned female at birth but has elevated testosterone in the male range. As a result, shortly after reaching the top of her event, Semenya was made to take a form of contraceptive that would lower her testosterone levels to an “acceptable” level.
At the time, it was said by an IAAF (athletics governing body) that Semenya’s testosterone levels “makes the competition unequal in a way greater than simple natural talent and dedication”. I’m sorry but if you think the Olympics is a showcase for “natural talent and dedication” then you have unfortunately vacated your senses. After years of scrutiny, abuse and changing international rules, one of the fastest women to ever run retired from track and field having barely been able to run as herself. So much for a celebration of the world’s greatest athletes.
Just this week, with no Semenya at the Games, the issue of supposedly unfair advantage sparked up again. Algeria’s Imane Khelif, who has been competing in top-level boxing tournaments for years, comprehensively beat Italy’s Angela Carini in her opening fight. So far so sane. Khelif is good, and watching the (very short) fight shows that, much like many opening events that pair favourites with low-ranked contenders, the results can be pretty devastating.
Within the first minute, Khelif hit Carini with a straight left to the face. Carini stepped back, retreated to her corner and abandoned the fight. For what it’s worth, I think if you choose to be a boxer, it should not come as a shock when someone punches you hard.
Cue: mania. Social media erupted with calls for Khelif to be disqualified, with the number one poster of inane rubbish (JK Rowling) calling her a man despite Khelif being a cisgendered woman. Why? Because Khelif was controversially disqualified from last year’s world champs by the International Boxing Association. The reason for the disqualification was shrouded in secrecy, and there was no proof of failed standards. Since then, the IOC has decertified IBA and taken over the running of the boxing tournament at the Olympics. It released a statement condemning the abuse thrown at Khelif and reiterating her eligibility to compete.
But no one is really that concerned about fairness. These instances always boil down to the types of female athletes that people will accept success from. Semenya is masculine and powerful. Khelif looked intimidating standing next to the much slighter Carini. And when people who look dominant turn out to be dominant? That’s unfair.
The Olympics is supposed to be an event that lets us witness the greatest physical beings in the world show what human bodies are capable of. And yet when we don’t like the look of some of them (and it’s only ever powerful women) suddenly the parameters for physicality start tightening.
At the same time all of this toxic sludge was spilling out over the internet, I saw a very funny photo of Japan’s Yuki Togashi (1.67m) trying to guard France’s Victor Wembanyama (2.24m) in a basketball game. The photo went viral, with universal good humour, despite Wembenyama’s 80cm height advantage making the match-up “unequal in a way greater than simple natural talent and dedication”.
I have also been enjoying the rowing, equestrian and sailing, but if we wanted to make sure every athlete got a fair shot, perhaps we should put up the family net worth of every athlete as well as the government investment in their sport. Access to training facilities, coaches, expensive equipment and opportunities will account for more than “dedication” in winning Olympic medals.
This is all to say there is nothing fair about the Olympics. We aren’t even watching the best athletes in the world because most will never have the opportunity to dedicate their lives to sport and will have more pressing things to be worrying about. Instead we are simply watching very impressive people – most of whom had the good fortune to be born in the right country and into the right socio-economic environment – doing very impressive things. So why are we constantly trying to disqualify the best of them?
This week’s episode of Behind the Story
This week I’m talking to Spinoff regular contributor Hera Lindsay Bird. Hera has been writing the extremely popular Help Me Hera advice column for over a year now, offering incisive, funny and wise guidance to New Zealand’s biggest and smallest problems. And soon, you’ll be able to hear her talk about that advice at some Spinoff live events.
I wanted to speak to Hera this week as she’s also an Olympics obsessive and has written about the games, specifically which events should be culled and which should be added. It’s surprisingly reasoned and justified for such a hot take.
So what have readers spent the most time reading this week?
- A retired 72-year-old living off super, with ‘not much left in the pot’ shares how they get by for The Cost of Being
- Anna Rawhiti-Connell investigates whether the Olympic opening ceremony was satanic.
- Hera Lindsay Bird makes the case for cutting ten sports from the Olympic programme and replacing them with new ones
- Madeleine Chapman unpacks the many complex truths within the Darleen Tana saga
- Gabi Lardies has a guide to spending your hotly anticipated tax cut
Comments of the week
“Hera – I think it’s time that some of the gymnastic events reflect the equine-based history of the Olympics. Pommel horse should go back to being on an actual horse. much more interesting than actual equestrian events. what a challenge!”
— feijoafiesta
“So glad this topic came up!! I have tried to have such conversations often, with friends and acquaintance of similar age (I’m a young boomer). Usually I get a blank look before they carry on talking as though I hadn’t said anything. The latest time I did this, the friend just said they’d prefer to travel than worry about the climate. Would we all! But I agree that while individual actions won’t fix things, influencing more individuals to do actions can.
PS I don’t try too hard with the young ones, because I truly believe travel is great learning and I think some travel in one’s lifetime is acceptable.”
Pick up where this leaves off
Sign up for Madeleine’s weekly Saturday newsletter where I add more handpicked recommended reading and essentially bundle everything up to land in your inbox at 9 a.m.