New Nike commercial with Caster Semenya

[gassius_clay]

Is Nike’s new campaign just to troll Trump Lickspittles?

No, they're just trolling society with this one.

 

[irish_thug]

Shes a chick with high testosterone.

Yeah. Testicles will do that for you.

 

[gassius_clay]

This will be their next ad -

 

[irish_thug]

This will be their next ad -

That actually came to mind as I was watching the commercial.

 

[Kalitaur]

So you just agreed that T:E has nothing to do with how much test is NATURALLY produced by saying that T:E is for detecting elevated usage of testosterone when exogenous testosterone is used.

Negative. You claim T:E "has nothing to do with how much test is NATURALLY produced." I said "T:E can absolutely tell you whether an elevation in testosterone levels is naturally produced," and then proceeded to explain exactly why your statement was wrong. How did you possibly come to the conclusion that my counterargument somehow supported your claim?

Furthermore when exogenous test is used the test levels rises but the epitest level lowers, it doesn't stay the same.

Negative. "In abusers, the concentration of testosterone in the urine is expected to be higher than normal owing to direct ingestion of the drug. However, epitestosterone levels will remain suppressed. Therefore, a urinalysis that reveals lowered epitestosterone levels in concert with abnormally high testosterone levels is indicative of anabolic steroid use."

"Suppressed" does not mean "decreased" in this context, it simply means no change. An easy mistake to make, but still a mistake on your part.

(edited for quotation management)

 

[Madmick]

I know why it's used, and that's not what the point was. The discussion was on testosterone levels and how men can have drastically different natural levels and still be allowed to compete against each other.

Then you for some inexplicable reason brought up a 6:1 T:E ratio and asked for anyone competing with a ratio higher than that as if that somehow disproved what @GOATER said about men being able to compete against other men that had much higher natural test levels.

For example

Person A has a T:E ratio of 2:1

Person B has a T:E ratio of 3:1

Person C has a T:E ratio of 1:1

Which person has the highest testosterone levels?

Is that is what has been argued? These are yours and Goater's misplaced inferences. I"m toying with your misconceptions. "There is men who make a shitload more testosterone than other men....why not put limits on these men?" They have. They've limited them to those endogenous production levels-- those coming from their testes. Women do not have testes. That is not a level playing field. This is how they limit testosterone levels. The playing field isn't raw testosterone production, but on the testes.

You're missing the underlying logic to applying this test. Do you know why there is variance between the 4:1 and 6:1 ratios used by different anti-doping bodies? Even that ratio itself sees wide variance between the male population. The primary reason they chose T:E isn't because they didn't want to limit natural testosterone production, or are unwilling to arbitrarily set baselines for policing, but because it's so much more difficult/expensive (impossible when they established this protocol, IIRC) to distinguish endogenous T production from exogenous T. Meanwhile, endogenous levels of E tend to be more static, and thus men with higher level of endogenous E production tend to average higher levels of endogenous T production.

This is the rubber-band soft cap effect of using E as a baseline, and why they also test for E metabolites in urine. By limiting men to E they have established an anchor by which they can draw natural limits to testosterone production; meaning, in theory, they effectively have limited testosterone levels. They just use a more elaborate measure of ensuring that you're in the natural range.

Get it?

Negative. You claim T:E "has nothing to do with how much test is NATURALLY produced." I said "T:E can absolutely tell you whether an elevation in testosterone levels is naturally produced," and then proceeded to explain exactly why your statement was wrong. How did you possibly come to the conclusion that my counterargument somehow supported your claim?



Negative. "In abusers, the concentration of testosterone in the urine is expected to be higher than normal owing to direct ingestion of the drug. However, epitestosterone levels will remain suppressed. Therefore, a urinalysis that reveals lowered epitestosterone levels in concert with abnormally high testosterone levels is indicative of anabolic steroid use."

"Suppressed" does not mean "decreased" in this context, it simply means no change. An easy mistake to make, but still a mistake on your part.

(edited for quotation management)

Looks like you beat me to it, again. I think he'll find my post easier to digest.

 

[vengeful]

Negative. You claim T:E "has nothing to do with how much test is NATURALLY produced." I said "T:E can absolutely tell you whether an elevation in testosterone levels is naturally produced," and then proceeded to explain exactly why your statement was wrong. How did you possibly come to the conclusion that my counterargument somehow supported your claim?



Negative. "In abusers, the concentration of testosterone in the urine is expected to be higher than normal owing to direct ingestion of the drug. However, epitestosterone levels will remain suppressed. Therefore, a urinalysis that reveals lowered epitestosterone levels in concert with abnormally high testosterone levels is indicative of anabolic steroid use."

"Suppressed" does not mean "decreased" in this context, it simply means no change. An easy mistake to make, but still a mistake on your part.

(edited for quotation management)

Because your explanation only explained how T:E levels are used to determine the usage of exogenous testosterone. It said nothing about how high/low the levels are naturally.

Suppressed means lowered. The expectation is that you produce testosterone and epitestosterone at the same ratio before and after usage. Using exogenous testosterone (or other anabolic steroids and some SARMS) will cause the body to suppress (lower) natural testosterone production, when the natural test production lowers so to will the epitestosterone production. The mistake is on your part not mine.

 

[vengeful]

Is that is what has been argued? These are yours and Goater's misplaced inferences. I"m toying with your misconceptions. "There is men who make a shitload more testosterone than other men....why not put limits on these men?" They have. They've limited them to those endogenous production levels-- those coming from their testes. Women do not have testes. That is not a level playing field. This is how they limit testosterone levels. The playing field isn't raw testosterone production, but on the testes.

You're missing the underlying logic to applying this test. Do you know why there is variance between the 4:1 and 6:1 ratios used by different anti-doping bodies? Even that ratio itself sees wide variance between the male population. The primary reason they chose T:E isn't because they didn't want to limit natural testosterone production, or are unwilling to arbitrarily set baselines for policing, but because it's so much more difficult/expensive (impossible when they established this protocol, IIRC) to distinguish endogenous T production from exogenous T. Meanwhile, endogenous levels of E tend to be more static, and thus men with higher level of endogenous E production tend to average higher levels of endogenous T production.

This is the rubber-band soft cap effect of using E as a baseline, and why they also test for E metabolites in urine. By limiting men to E they have established an anchor by which they can draw natural limits to testosterone production; meaning, in theory, they effectively have limited testosterone levels. They just use a more elaborate measure of ensuring that you're in the natural range.

Get it?

Looks like you beat me to it, again. I think he'll find my post easier to digest.

You mean their bodies naturally limited their levels. The testing only ensures that they're not using exogenous testosterone to a point where their ratios are beyond 6:1. Men don't have vaginas, apparently Semenya does--not fair to compete with men.

Do you realize the natural range is from 300 ng/dl to 850 ng/dl so a man can have nearly 3 times the test production as another when both are natural and still compete against each other? This was the point the entire time, yet you failed to grasp that and keep "explaining" what I already know as if you're an expert doting out knowledge.

That's not a cap on natural levels, that's just their way of ensuring that you're natural. What your levels of testosterone being produced naturally is irrelevant as long as it's being produced naturally. You can test and could for a while test the levels of testosterone in the blood. You can tell if exogenous test is being used by using CIR testing on urine and that was developed maybe 15 years ago or so, but USADA (for example) only uses this after a suspicious T:E ratio. VADA on the other had uses CIR testing on all urine samples.

 

[Madmick]

You mean their bodies naturally limited their levels. The testing only ensures that they're not using exogenous testosterone to a point where their ratios are beyond 6:1. Men don't have vaginas, apparently Semenya does--not fair to compete with men.

Do you realize the natural range is from 300 ng/dl to 850 ng/dl so a man can have nearly 3 times the test production as another when both are natural and still compete against each other? This was the point the entire time, yet you failed to grasp that and keep "explaining" what I already know as if you're an expert doting out knowledge.

That's not a cap on natural levels, that's just their way of ensuring that you're natural. What your levels of testosterone being produced naturally is irrelevant as long as it's being produced naturally. You can test and could for a while test the levels of testosterone in the blood. You can tell if exogenous test is being used by using CIR testing on urine and that was developed maybe 15 years ago or so, but USADA (for example) only uses this after a suspicious T:E ratio. VADA on the other had uses CIR testing on all urine samples.

No, I did not fail to grasp that. You, however, are continuing to fail to understand what I am trying to impart to you. They do arbitrarily set limits on endogenous testosterone production, and they set them according to observed ranges that exist outside the individual athlete. They control for this range by testing for ratios. So they do, in fact, limit the natural testosterone range by extension of limiting the T:E ratio. We know this because men with "natural" T:E ratios can fail (and in fact we can expect 1 out of 20 to fail by a 4:1 ratio).

Do you understand, now?

 

[ImNotSurpisedDonks!]

I think if someone has functioning testes, internally, they should have to compete as men.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/sports/caster-semenya-800-meters.html

I can't believe we would even waste time debating this.

Arbitration panels are worthless for everyone but people like Lance Armstrong and Vladimir Putin. If you were ever looking for a microcosm demonstrating that bureaucracies are ineffective, bloated, corrupt, incompetent structures-- look no further. Arbitration panels are Brazil in a nutshell.

"I think if someone has functioning testes, internally, they should have to compete as men." - there you go again, Madmick, with your patriarchy, racism and sexism all rolled in to one <Lmaoo>

 

[vengeful]

No, I did not fail to grasp that. You, however, are continuing to fail to understand what I am trying to impart to you. They do arbitrarily set limits on endogenous testosterone production, and they set them according to observed ranges that exist outside the individual athlete. They control for this range by testing for ratios. So they do, in fact, limit the natural testosterone range by extension of limiting the T:E ratio. We know this because men with "natural" T:E ratios can fail (and in fact we can expect 1 out of 20 to fail by a 4:1 ratio).

Do you understand, now?

Of course I understand, and like I said, that's a ratio that doesn't do anything for the actual limit of what is naturally occurring in these individuals. It's only a test for what isn't natural. Limiting the T:E range doesn't limit the levels as they're not correlated between individuals. A person can have a 1:1 t:e ratio naturally and levels of 800 ng/dl another person an have a 3:1 t:e ratio and levels that are 350 ng/dl. And it's 1 out of 40 not 1 out of 20.

 

[Madmick]

Of course I understand, and like I said, that's a ratio that doesn't do anything for the actual limit of what is naturally occurring in these individuals. It's only a test for what isn't natural. Limiting the T:E range doesn't limit the levels as they're not correlated between individuals. A person can have a 1:1 t:e ratio naturally and levels of 800 ng/dl another person an have a 3:1 t:e ratio and levels that are 350 ng/dl. And it's 1 out of 40 not 1 out of 20.

It's a cap on what is "natural" according to a range, and not that specific individual.

No, you are still not getting it.