More Cheating By Trans In Sport

[retrocop]

So what if it was a second string Blondie boat. It denied a biological woman her dream of rowing in the boat race crew. Incidentally do women gain their 'blues' in Oxbridge sports?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12078831/Ex-Olympian-swimmer-Sharron-Davies-slams-male-born-trans-rower-pick-Cambridge-womens-boat-crew.html

[jourdain2]

I assume they are given their 'blues' at Oxbridge. My elder daughter gained hers in Athletics (H.Jump) and Rowing at Durham.

Yes, it denied a biological woman her chance.

[Ken4155]

Surprised the rest of the crew chose to allow him in the boat, tbh.

[douglas9401]

I could just about understand if it was the coxless pairs.

[retrocop]

//Surprised the rest of the crew chose to allow him in the boat, tbh.//

That's why I suggested cheating in the title.
Winning by any means including Fair means or Foul

[andy-hughes]

If the rower is admitted to the team under the rules, then it's not cheating in the true sense of the word.

[retrocop]

Then it is time the boat race rules were changed to catch up with the times. It is making a time honoured event a farce.

[mushroom25]

although not "cheating", as such, it's the kind of thing that will (if taken to its conclusion) seal the fate of women's sport. fielding a trans athlete gives a women's team a definite edge, leaving those that don't at a disadvantage. so to compete teams must have a trans athlete, then if every team has one, there's an incentive to recruit more, and so it goes on.

[andy-hughes]

I entirely agree with the last two posts.

[andy-hughes]

I entirely agree with the last two posts.

[DTCwordfan]

douglas for best answer

[ClareTG0ld]

// Sarah Gibson was part of the Blondie crew – Cambridge's second-string boat – that was soundly beaten by Oxford University's reserves in 2015. //

Seems kind of relevant that their team lost, and lost quite badly.

Also, seems frankly weird to dig up an eight-year-old story, that was hardly a secret at the time, all of a sudden. All of this "it can be revealed today" is then complete nonsense. It was known, to anyone who was paying attention, at the time. Perhaps it's because, as Sarah Gibson put it, "the club and coaches were very supportive ... [it was] such an inclusive environment," and, in fact, nobody cared.

So, in summary:

1. They were admitted under the established rules;
2. They and their team lost;
3. No-one seemed at all bothered about their presence on the team until almost a decade later.

[naomi24]

I don't believe no one involved cares about these things. Such is the animosity (and worse) 'carers' expose themselves to, I think they're just too afraid to say it.