As Boston city officials clear the parade route, the Blues and Sharks continue to duke it out for the right to oppose them for the Cup. But that's not the only playoff hockey going on right now. There are plenty of NHL stars currently in Slovakia, where the World Championships are taking place.
Hockey's World Championships are always around this time, which means they're usually overshadowed in North America. Which is understandable, since they're right smack in the middle of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And it's impossible for the U.S. or Canada to host, since we'll have no idea who'll still be playing and what arenas will be available (although, they could theoretically hold Worlds in non-NHL cities like Halifax and Quebec, which they did in 1998).
So, that means the World Championships are held in Europe virtually every year (the only non-European edition since 1962 was the Halifax/Quebec tournament). And in Europe, the tournament is revered. As such, the European nations send the best teams they possibly can every single year (the fact that European leagues are finished certainly helps in that regard).
The U.S. and Canada are obviously at a bit of a disadvantage because their top players are usually still involved in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. But that's true for the other top nations, too (for the Bruins, Tuukka Rask is Finnish, Zdeno Chara is Slovakian, and David Krejci is Czech; San Jose has a couple Swedes'; and the Blues' best player, Vladimir Tarasenko, is Russian). That's another reason why the NHL guys should play in the Olympics, but that's another conversation for another day.
Here's the thing about the World Championships, though. Despite the fact that the playoffs are still going on, the rosters are still sprinkled with NHL players left and right. And that alone is enough to make the hockey World Championships worth watching.
It really is incredible how many NHL players, after an 82-game season, travel to Europe for the World Championships every year. For players on teams that don't make the playoffs, it would be easy to just pack things up and rest up for next season. Instead, they put on their national team jersey for a different type of playoffs...with a similar intensity.
That hasn't always been the case. The U.S. and Canada used to not care about the World Championships at all, and the NHL guys on other rosters were few and far between. That certainly isn't true anymore. Of the 16 teams at this year's World Championships, the only ones without at least one NHL player on the roster are Great Britain and Italy, the two lowest-ranked teams (Canada, as you'd expect, is all NHL, while Russia is a combination of NHL and KHL).
And those NHL players come from all over the league. As you'd expect, the bulk of the NHL players come from the 15 teams that miss the playoffs (and there are some pretty good players on those bottom 15 teams). But, since Worlds don't start until the second round of the playoffs, they're able to pluck players from teams that lost in the first round. This year, that meant plenty of Lightning, Penguins, Predators and Golden Knights.
Of course, every player in the NHL would prefer to be going for the Stanley Cup than the World Championship. Which makes it all the more impressive that they show up in droves. And you don't want to play in too many World Championships because it means your NHL team isn't very good. But it really does show how much these guys love the game and just want to keep playing.
Take Patrick Kane. Arguably the best American-born player ever, he's played deep into June before, getting his name on the Cup three times and scoring the Cup-winning goal against the Flyers in 2010. But the Blackhawks have struggled and missed the playoffs for the last few seasons.
So, Kane has been available for the World Championships. And he hasn't just shown up. He's SHOWN UP! He was the tournament MVP last year, when he led the U.S. to the bronze medal. This year, he's the captain again. And he set the all-time U.S. World Championships scoring record the other day.
Kane doesn't have to play at Worlds. The fact that he keeps coming back shows what the tournament means. It's not the Stanley Cup. But it's not a consolation tournament either. And it's made so much better by the fact that seemingly every nation is putting together the best roster possible.
Joining Kane on the U.S. roster--Jack Eichel, Johnny Gaudreau and Dylan Larkin. Canada took full advantage of the late roster deadline, naming Matt Murray and Jonathan Marchessault to the team. Sweden's got Henrik Lundqvist in goal, and Gabriel Landeskog joined the squad after Colorado was eliminated (and the Avalanche reached the second round of the playoffs!). Alex Ovechkin won the Cup last year. This year, he's trying to win a World Championship with Russia. Finland, meanwhile, has 18-year-old Kaapo Kakko, who'll be playing for the Devils next season after they take him 1st overall in the Draft.
These rosters are loaded! This isn't the PyeongChang Olympics, where Russia was the only nation to send its best team and went on to win gold. That won't be the case here. Whoever wins will have to beat some tough competition. This World Championship is going to be earned. Like it is every year. As the best of the rest from the NHL battle it out for World Championship gold instead of Stanley Cup silver.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Expanding Opportunities
The other day I was reading an article where they quoted a FIBA official about 3x3 basketball's upcoming Olympic debut in Tokyo. It covered the qualification system and some other aspects of the tournament and was actually pretty enlightening. In fact, it made me view the 3x3 tournament in a new light.
When the IOC added 3x3, my initial reaction was "Why?" It seemed gimmicky, an obvious ploy to cater to the younger fans that they're desperate to attract. I'm still lukewarm about 3x3 and I still don't think it's 100 percent necessary (unlike skateboarding and surfing, which were added only for the Tokyo Games, 3x3 was added by the IOC to the permanent program, so it's here to stay). But I failed to look at it from one very important perspective. One that proves the tournament does have value.
In the regular 5x5 basketball tournament, 12 teams qualify for both men and women. There are one or two surprises, but, for the most part, you know who those 12 teams are going to be. For the most part, they're generally the same from Olympics to Olympics. And you're also gonna have a pretty good idea of who's got a shot at winning a medal.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Fans want to see the stars of the NBA and WNBA playing for their countries, and having NBA or WNBA stars on their rosters is what makes those nations the best in the world. The Olympics is where the best take on the best, which is how it should be.
But...it does limit the opportunities for smaller countries, which have little chance of qualifying and an even lower chance of actually being competitive if they do. Everyone goes in knowing that the African and Asian teams are most likely going to be the ones that don't make the quarterfinals. And if they do, they're not going to medal (outside of the Australian women's team, all Olympic basketball medalists have come from the Americas or Europe).
However, there is one basketball court where the playing field is much more level--the 3x3 court. For 3x3, all you need is four people. It's obviously a lot easier to field a team of four than a team of 12, which gives smaller nations the chance to also play Olympic basketball.
These are some of the countries that played 3x3 at the 2018 Youth Olympics: Andorra, Estonia, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. At past Youth Olympics, there have been teams from Guatemala, Syria, Vanuatu, Chinese Taipei, Guam, Chile and the Virgin Islands. Belgium won the silver medal and Slovenia won the bronze on the boys' side in 2018, while the Netherlands won the silver and Hungary finished fourth in the 2014 girls' tournament.
Without 3x3, would we ever mention Olympic basketball and any of these nations in the same sentence? Of course not! And for that reason, 3x3 is a tremendous addition to the program.
There will only be eight men's and eight women's teams in Tokyo, but they've made it a point to make sure it's not all the same countries we'll see in the 5x5 tournaments. That would defeat the purpose. Will there be overlap? Sure. But we're also going to see some nations where 3x3 is their only realistic chance to play Olympic basketball. And don't be surprised if they end up being medal contenders.
It's like when they added beach volleyball to the Olympics in 1996. Suddenly Olympic volleyball was open to a lot more countries. You didn't need the six players necessary for the indoor game. On the beach, you only need two. Sometimes you can find that in one family (two Swiss brothers were one of the top teams in the world for years). And, with 24 teams in the Olympic field, you know you're gonna see some nations beyond the traditional powers. Which is great. A lot of those teams are good, too.
While that first Olympic beach volleyball tournament in Atlanta seemed somewhat weird, it has since become one of the marquee Olympic sports. Seriously, can you picture the Olympics today WITHOUT beach volleyball? Beach volleyball is always one of the hottest tickets at an Olympics. I'd even argue that it's more popular than the indoor version (and the bikinis are only part of the reason).
Will 3x3 basketball ever get to that same level? Probably not. Especially since traditional basketball is the second-biggest sport on Earth behind soccer. But 3x3 will accomplish a lot more than just that youthful, urban vibe the IOC is going for. It'll open up Olympic basketball to different players and whole new group of nations. That alone is enough to make the 3x3 experiment worthwhile.
When the IOC added 3x3, my initial reaction was "Why?" It seemed gimmicky, an obvious ploy to cater to the younger fans that they're desperate to attract. I'm still lukewarm about 3x3 and I still don't think it's 100 percent necessary (unlike skateboarding and surfing, which were added only for the Tokyo Games, 3x3 was added by the IOC to the permanent program, so it's here to stay). But I failed to look at it from one very important perspective. One that proves the tournament does have value.
In the regular 5x5 basketball tournament, 12 teams qualify for both men and women. There are one or two surprises, but, for the most part, you know who those 12 teams are going to be. For the most part, they're generally the same from Olympics to Olympics. And you're also gonna have a pretty good idea of who's got a shot at winning a medal.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Fans want to see the stars of the NBA and WNBA playing for their countries, and having NBA or WNBA stars on their rosters is what makes those nations the best in the world. The Olympics is where the best take on the best, which is how it should be.
But...it does limit the opportunities for smaller countries, which have little chance of qualifying and an even lower chance of actually being competitive if they do. Everyone goes in knowing that the African and Asian teams are most likely going to be the ones that don't make the quarterfinals. And if they do, they're not going to medal (outside of the Australian women's team, all Olympic basketball medalists have come from the Americas or Europe).
However, there is one basketball court where the playing field is much more level--the 3x3 court. For 3x3, all you need is four people. It's obviously a lot easier to field a team of four than a team of 12, which gives smaller nations the chance to also play Olympic basketball.
These are some of the countries that played 3x3 at the 2018 Youth Olympics: Andorra, Estonia, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. At past Youth Olympics, there have been teams from Guatemala, Syria, Vanuatu, Chinese Taipei, Guam, Chile and the Virgin Islands. Belgium won the silver medal and Slovenia won the bronze on the boys' side in 2018, while the Netherlands won the silver and Hungary finished fourth in the 2014 girls' tournament.
Without 3x3, would we ever mention Olympic basketball and any of these nations in the same sentence? Of course not! And for that reason, 3x3 is a tremendous addition to the program.
There will only be eight men's and eight women's teams in Tokyo, but they've made it a point to make sure it's not all the same countries we'll see in the 5x5 tournaments. That would defeat the purpose. Will there be overlap? Sure. But we're also going to see some nations where 3x3 is their only realistic chance to play Olympic basketball. And don't be surprised if they end up being medal contenders.
It's like when they added beach volleyball to the Olympics in 1996. Suddenly Olympic volleyball was open to a lot more countries. You didn't need the six players necessary for the indoor game. On the beach, you only need two. Sometimes you can find that in one family (two Swiss brothers were one of the top teams in the world for years). And, with 24 teams in the Olympic field, you know you're gonna see some nations beyond the traditional powers. Which is great. A lot of those teams are good, too.
While that first Olympic beach volleyball tournament in Atlanta seemed somewhat weird, it has since become one of the marquee Olympic sports. Seriously, can you picture the Olympics today WITHOUT beach volleyball? Beach volleyball is always one of the hottest tickets at an Olympics. I'd even argue that it's more popular than the indoor version (and the bikinis are only part of the reason).
Will 3x3 basketball ever get to that same level? Probably not. Especially since traditional basketball is the second-biggest sport on Earth behind soccer. But 3x3 will accomplish a lot more than just that youthful, urban vibe the IOC is going for. It'll open up Olympic basketball to different players and whole new group of nations. That alone is enough to make the 3x3 experiment worthwhile.
Monday, May 13, 2019
Another Edition of the World Relays
After three editions in the Bahamas, the fourth IAAF World Relays were held over the weekend in Yokohama, Japan. With their carnival-like atmosphere, live music and raucous crowds, the World Relays have developed a reputation as one of the IAAF's funnest events. Although, I think a lot of what made the World Relays such a party had to do with the location. Because I didn't get a sense there was any of that in the stands this weekend.
In the Bahamas, they would have a sellout crowd on both days, and they'd go nuts the entire time. Those Caribbean fans weren't going all the way to Japan, though, and the Japanese fans didn't seem to embrace the event nearly as much. That might be bit of an unfair comparison, but the stadium was gigantic. It was built for the 2002 World Cup. As a result, they didn't sell the upper deck, which made it look a lot emptier than it probably was. (Although, the crowd on Sunday did look bigger than the one on Saturday.)
To say that the crowds were disappointing would be an understatement. Yokohama is only about 20 minutes outside of Tokyo, and the World Relays were, in many respects, viewed as a test-run for next summer's Olympics. And, seeing as people had to wait hours when they officially opened the lottery the other day, we know that the stadiums will be full then. It's just that this event doesn't resonate as much as the Olympics.
There are plenty of reasons for that to be sure. First and foremost, the World Relays are still new and people (athletes included) are still figuring out what to make of them. They tied in qualifying for the World Championships in the 4x100 and 4x400, but there were still a lot of countries that didn't bother showing up and those that did didn't necessarily send their A teams.
The World Relays are also still trying to find their footing in a crowded international track & field landscape. In that vein, they keep tinkering with the events, trying to find the right balance. This was the fourth World Relays, and the program has been different each time. And you can bet it'll look different again at the next World Relays in 2021.
This is where the IAAF tries things, and some of those innovations have caught on. The World Relays gave us instantaneous medal ceremonies, and it was at the World Relays where they started doing those one-by-one team introductions that have become popular with the fans and athletes alike. The World Relays is also where the mixed 4x400 relay made its international debut, and that event worked so well that it's been added to both the World Championship and Olympic programs.
I'll admit that I was skeptical about the mixed 4x400 relay at first, but I've since come around. The first one was held in 2017. The final was the last event of the meet, and the Bahamas staged an epic comeback on the final leg to beat the United States for gold. It was the best race of the meet. And it's the one mixed event in track & field that works, which is why it was added to the Olympics (as a part of the IOC's new obsession with mixed events).
Looking to repeat that success, they added two more mixed events at this year's World Relays, the reaction to which wasn't the best. The first was the 2x2x400 relay, which ended up being as stupid as it sounds. It's basically an 800 workout. Run a 400, rest for a minute, run another 400. It was dumb and unnecessary.
What made things worse is that they took the 4x800 out to add it. Hopefully they reconsider that change for the 2021 World Relays. Because there wasn't really a good reason to get rid of the 4x800, which turned the World Relays into essentially a sprint-only meet (although the 2x2x400 teams were made up of 800 runners). And they can't blame it on lack of entries, which was a problem they still had in the events that were contested.
They also added a mixed shuttle hurdles, which is fine, I guess. Even though the men run 110 meters and the women's hurdles are only a 100, they found a way to make it work. I wish they'd had the foresight to have a "B" final, though. Because they ended up with no bronze medalist. Since every team needs two lanes, you can only have four at a time. But Jamaica didn't start the final due to an injury, leaving them with three, which became two after Australia false started. If there had been a "B" final, the winner of that could've gotten the bronze medal (just like when the Netherlands set a world record in the "B" final of the short track relay in PyeongChang).
Frankly, because of the different distances, I'd prefer to see a men's shuttle hurdles and a women's shuttle hurdles. But if the IAAF wants to keep the mixed version, I'd have no problem with it. They need to consider a way to avoid a two-team final, though. And, if they are committed to it, they need to get more countries interested in doing it, seeing as there were just seven teams in the shuttle hurdles to being with.
Some people were also critical of the World Relays' scheduling, which had the three 4x400 finals back-to-back-to-back, and the two 4x100 finals after both 4x200 finals. That made it difficult for athletes to compete in more than one event (but not impossible, because some did try it).
While that's a reasonable criticism, it's also unavoidable at a two-day event like this. Yes, it made it more difficult, especially since most nations don't have the six quality 400-meter runners necessary to field a competitive team in all three races. At the World Championships and Olympics, when the program is spread over 10 days, that's not an issue. But when you only have two days to work with, there's no possible way to create enough separation in the schedule to make it doable (although, one solution might be to have the mixed 4x400 start the day and the men's and women's 4x400s as the last two events, which would leave at least a little bit of a gap).
As expected, the United States dominated, winning five gold medals and finishing on the podium in every event. That's apparently not enough for some people, either. I guess they expected the U.S. to go 9-for-9 and weren't willing to accept anything less than that. Which is not only ridiculous, it would be horrible for the sport.
Because for the World Relays to work, you can't have everyone going in just expecting the U.S. to win everything. That's why none of the European countries go to World Cross, where they know they're going to lose to the Kenyans and Ethiopians. And, to be honest, the races that the U.S. loses generally turn out to be the best races at the World Relays (take that mixed 4x400 in 2017 and both single-gender 4x400s this year).
Ultimately, though, the World Relays serve their purpose, and the 2019 edition was no different in that respect. They were fun, there was some good competition, and the athletes got some quality early-season competition. It gave some different events and countries a chance to shine, too, and that's never a bad thing.
In the Bahamas, they would have a sellout crowd on both days, and they'd go nuts the entire time. Those Caribbean fans weren't going all the way to Japan, though, and the Japanese fans didn't seem to embrace the event nearly as much. That might be bit of an unfair comparison, but the stadium was gigantic. It was built for the 2002 World Cup. As a result, they didn't sell the upper deck, which made it look a lot emptier than it probably was. (Although, the crowd on Sunday did look bigger than the one on Saturday.)
To say that the crowds were disappointing would be an understatement. Yokohama is only about 20 minutes outside of Tokyo, and the World Relays were, in many respects, viewed as a test-run for next summer's Olympics. And, seeing as people had to wait hours when they officially opened the lottery the other day, we know that the stadiums will be full then. It's just that this event doesn't resonate as much as the Olympics.
There are plenty of reasons for that to be sure. First and foremost, the World Relays are still new and people (athletes included) are still figuring out what to make of them. They tied in qualifying for the World Championships in the 4x100 and 4x400, but there were still a lot of countries that didn't bother showing up and those that did didn't necessarily send their A teams.
The World Relays are also still trying to find their footing in a crowded international track & field landscape. In that vein, they keep tinkering with the events, trying to find the right balance. This was the fourth World Relays, and the program has been different each time. And you can bet it'll look different again at the next World Relays in 2021.
This is where the IAAF tries things, and some of those innovations have caught on. The World Relays gave us instantaneous medal ceremonies, and it was at the World Relays where they started doing those one-by-one team introductions that have become popular with the fans and athletes alike. The World Relays is also where the mixed 4x400 relay made its international debut, and that event worked so well that it's been added to both the World Championship and Olympic programs.
I'll admit that I was skeptical about the mixed 4x400 relay at first, but I've since come around. The first one was held in 2017. The final was the last event of the meet, and the Bahamas staged an epic comeback on the final leg to beat the United States for gold. It was the best race of the meet. And it's the one mixed event in track & field that works, which is why it was added to the Olympics (as a part of the IOC's new obsession with mixed events).
Looking to repeat that success, they added two more mixed events at this year's World Relays, the reaction to which wasn't the best. The first was the 2x2x400 relay, which ended up being as stupid as it sounds. It's basically an 800 workout. Run a 400, rest for a minute, run another 400. It was dumb and unnecessary.
What made things worse is that they took the 4x800 out to add it. Hopefully they reconsider that change for the 2021 World Relays. Because there wasn't really a good reason to get rid of the 4x800, which turned the World Relays into essentially a sprint-only meet (although the 2x2x400 teams were made up of 800 runners). And they can't blame it on lack of entries, which was a problem they still had in the events that were contested.
They also added a mixed shuttle hurdles, which is fine, I guess. Even though the men run 110 meters and the women's hurdles are only a 100, they found a way to make it work. I wish they'd had the foresight to have a "B" final, though. Because they ended up with no bronze medalist. Since every team needs two lanes, you can only have four at a time. But Jamaica didn't start the final due to an injury, leaving them with three, which became two after Australia false started. If there had been a "B" final, the winner of that could've gotten the bronze medal (just like when the Netherlands set a world record in the "B" final of the short track relay in PyeongChang).
Frankly, because of the different distances, I'd prefer to see a men's shuttle hurdles and a women's shuttle hurdles. But if the IAAF wants to keep the mixed version, I'd have no problem with it. They need to consider a way to avoid a two-team final, though. And, if they are committed to it, they need to get more countries interested in doing it, seeing as there were just seven teams in the shuttle hurdles to being with.
Some people were also critical of the World Relays' scheduling, which had the three 4x400 finals back-to-back-to-back, and the two 4x100 finals after both 4x200 finals. That made it difficult for athletes to compete in more than one event (but not impossible, because some did try it).
While that's a reasonable criticism, it's also unavoidable at a two-day event like this. Yes, it made it more difficult, especially since most nations don't have the six quality 400-meter runners necessary to field a competitive team in all three races. At the World Championships and Olympics, when the program is spread over 10 days, that's not an issue. But when you only have two days to work with, there's no possible way to create enough separation in the schedule to make it doable (although, one solution might be to have the mixed 4x400 start the day and the men's and women's 4x400s as the last two events, which would leave at least a little bit of a gap).
As expected, the United States dominated, winning five gold medals and finishing on the podium in every event. That's apparently not enough for some people, either. I guess they expected the U.S. to go 9-for-9 and weren't willing to accept anything less than that. Which is not only ridiculous, it would be horrible for the sport.
Because for the World Relays to work, you can't have everyone going in just expecting the U.S. to win everything. That's why none of the European countries go to World Cross, where they know they're going to lose to the Kenyans and Ethiopians. And, to be honest, the races that the U.S. loses generally turn out to be the best races at the World Relays (take that mixed 4x400 in 2017 and both single-gender 4x400s this year).
Ultimately, though, the World Relays serve their purpose, and the 2019 edition was no different in that respect. They were fun, there was some good competition, and the athletes got some quality early-season competition. It gave some different events and countries a chance to shine, too, and that's never a bad thing.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Hockey Conference Finals
After a crazy first round, the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs went a little closer to form. Everyone expected Dallas-St. Louis to be close, and it was. Colorado and Columbus gave them each a run, but the Bruins and Sharks proved to be the superior teams that they are. The only real surprise was the Islanders, after looking so dominant while sweeping Pittsburgh, getting swept themselves by a Hurricanes team that's now 8-1 since going down 0-2 against Washington.
In fact, all four teams left have really hit their stride. Boston and San Jose are still the favorites, but they're both in for a challenge. Carolina was arguably the most impressive team in the second round. It's hard to believe now that they were the 7-seed in the East, especially with the way they took it to the defending champs then an Islanders team that was nearly as good as Washington in the regular season. St. Louis, meanwhile, looks nothing like the squad that had the worst record in the entire NHL in January. I can definitely see the Blues playing for the Cup.
St. Louis would be the sixth different Western Conference champion in six years (going back to the tail end of the Kings-Blackhawks era). San Jose is one of those five, having finally gotten over the hump in 2016. For the Blues, meanwhile, it's been nearly 50 years. They went to the Final in each of their first three years of existence, but haven't been there since. Although, their most recent Stanley Cup Final game in 1970 gave us one of the most iconic hockey photographs of all-time--Bobby Orr's midair celebration after scoring the Cup-clincher.
Neither West team has ever won the Cup, while both Eastern Conference finalists have. In fact, the Carolina Hurricanes have a pretty good track record. They've made it at least this far in each of their last four playoff appearances (2002, 2006, 2009, 2019), including a Cup win (2006) and another Final appearance (2002). And you've gotta feel for those long-suffering Boston fans who've had to wait a whole eight years since the Bruins last lifted the Cup (and six since they've even played for it).
Bruins vs. Hurricanes: It took a little while, but Boston finally displayed its superiority over Columbus as that series went on. For all the Blue Jackets' talent, they were eventually stifled by the Boston defense. And the Bruins' depth really came into play, as well. That's always been one of their strengths, and their fourth line really delivered against Columbus. Which was especially important, considering how good Sergei Bobrovsky looked throughout most of that series.
For Carolina, I'm curious to see how much of an impact their long rest is going to have. I definitely think that was a factor against the Islanders, especially early in the series. This time they're the ones who've been sitting around waiting for an opponent. And for a team as hot as the Hurricanes were, that might not necessarily be a good thing. We'll see how they react, especially for Game 1 in Boston. And with Game 2 not until Sunday, that'll be their only game in an eight-day span. Not exactly what you want when you're on a roll.
Can the Hurricanes keep their momentum after that break? That will be an early key. Once the series gets going, they'll be fine. But will it be too late by then? Especially with the way Tuukka Rask has been playing of late. Combine that with the Boston defense, and I'm not sure Carolina will be able to score enough. I also thought that against Washington and the Islanders, though. And, this is a team taking full advantage of its opportunity. I don't expect that to change against the Bruins.
However, Boston's depth will prove to be simply too much. That was the difference against Columbus, and it'll be the difference here. Also, keep in mind that the Bruins have a ton of playoff experience, which is another thing they can bank on should they need it. In a way, they've gotten lucky, playing Columbus and Carolina instead of Tampa Bay and Washington. They know the Hurricanes are a worthy adversary, though. They wouldn't be here if they weren't. And Boston will be ready for them. The Hurricanes will win a game or two, but I don't see them winning four. Bruins in six.
Sharks vs. Blues: Having home ice sure paid off for the Sharks in each of the first two rounds, as they won a pair of Game 7's in their building. And they just keep getting better. Game 7 against the Avalanche might've been the best game they've played in the entire playoffs. Martin Jones is a completely different goalie than the guy who got pulled in Game 3 of the Vegas series, too. If he continues to play at that level, the Blues will have a very difficult time scoring.
That scoring was fully on display against Dallas, though. The Blues have a number of offensive weapons, and they're all capable of being The Man on any given night. Which is a tremendous asset. Because it means San Jose has an awful lot of people to think about. And it also means Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson might see even more ice time than they did in the first two rounds.
What concerns me about the Sharks, though, is those back-to-back seven-game series. Those two defensemen play a lot, and so do San Jose's top forwards. They haven't really had to travel (only going to Las Vegas and Denver), which is good. But you have to wonder how much of a toll it'll take, if any. And at least they haven't had to go back-and-forth after the Game 7's.
Although, from a rest standpoint, they might actually have the advantage. Yes, the Blues played one day earlier, but they went double overtime and had to travel. That series was far more physically-demanding than Sharks-Avalanche was, too. Which is enough for me to give the Sharks a slight edge.
I anticipate another long series. When these two met in the West Final three years ago, San Jose won in six, but none of the games were particularly close. I think this one will be much closer. The Sharks and Blues were separated by just one win in the regular season (San Jose was 46-27-9, St. Louis was 45-28-9). When the teams are that evenly-matched, it comes down to the little things. Those small details are going to make-or-break the series. Sharks in seven.
When it's all said and done, the two better teams will emerge. In the East, I feel comfortable saying that'll be the Bruins. Carolina's had a nice run, but it ends here. Out West, though, it's splitting hairs to find differences between these two. Game 7 being in San Jose should be advantage Sharks, but is it with how good the Blues have been on the road all postseason? We could very likely be hearing "Gloria" into June. I'm still taking the Sharks, though.
Monday, May 6, 2019
Controversial Decisions (and No-Decisions)
Well, that Kentucky Derby was sure one we're gonna keep talking about, wasn't it? For the first time in history, the horse that finished first didn't actually win the race. Instead, Maximum Security was disqualified for impeding other horses as they rounded the final turn for the home stretch and, 25 minutes after the race ended, Country House was declared the "winner."
I'm not in a position to say whether the race stewards made the right call or not. Personally, I don't think I would've made a move as drastic as changing the winner of the Kentucky Derby based on something you couldn't tell without studying the video over and over again, but that's just me.
Maximum Security's owner protested the result, but it was quickly denied since the stewards' decision isn't subject to appeal. Nevertheless, he's vowed to continue the fight, and this'll likely end up in court. Even though an overturn seems unlikely, the controversy will rage on. And it's certainly going to be a giant cloud hanging over the Preakness and Belmont. Maximum Security was the best horse in the Derby and would've had a legitimate shot at the Triple Crown. Country House does not.
This is far from the first controversial judging decision in sports history. It's not even the first this year. Pick a sport, and there's been some sort of controversial ruling somewhere along the way. Whether it's a call or a no-call, people are still talking about these controversial game-changing decisions, sometimes years after the fact. Take these for example...
Sharks-Golden Knights, Game 7 (2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs, First Round): You don't have to go back very far to find a controversial call that turned a game (and a series). Vegas had a 3-0 lead in Game 7 when Cody Eakin was called for a five-minute major and game misconduct for cross-checking Joe Pavelski to the ice on a face-off. The power play led to an incredible San Jose comeback, as the Sharks scored four times with the man advantage before winning in overtime. The Golden Knights called the penalty a "disgrace," and the officials weren't selected to work the next round of the playoffs.
USA-Finland (2019 World Women's Hockey Championships, Gold Medal Game): Talk about a wild sequence. It's difficult to even try and explain what happened here. Finland thought they'd scored in overtime to win a historic first World Championship. However, after the Finns' on-ice celebration, the officials disallowed the goal and instead called a penalty on the American goalie (international rules are different, but even with the different rules, I still don't quite understand how they came to that decision). Anyway, the U.S. went on to win in a shootout.
Rams-Saints (2018 NFC Championship Game): Ah yes, the pass interference non-call in the NFC Championship Game. We all remember what happened there, too. The officials missed an obvious pass interference on the Rams that would've given New Orleans a first-and-goal with a chance to run out the clock and move on to the Super Bowl. Instead, LA got the ball back, kicked the game-tying field goal as time expired in regulation and won in overtime.
2018 US Open Women's Final: Serena Williams wasn't going to win last year's US Open final. But that doesn't make what happened between her and the chair umpire any less controversial. Serena received a warning for coaching, then a point penalty for breaking her racket. Then, after some confusion about the coaching warning, a discussion with the chair umpire turned into a dispute, and he issued her a third code violation, resulting in the automatic loss of a game. It completely overshadowed Naomi Osaka's dominant and well-earned victory.
France-Ireland (2010 World Cup Qualifying): There have been plenty of controversial calls/no-calls in international soccer, perhaps none more glaring than Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland in 2009. It was the second leg of the UEFA playoffs. The aggregate was tied 1-1 when France's William Gallas scored in extra time to send Les Bleues to the World Cup. Except the goal never should've counted since it came off a pass from Henry, who had clearly handled the ball with his left hand first (something he admitted to). But, in the pre-VAR days, the referee's call on the field stood, leaving the Irish justifiably upset.
2004 Olympic Men's Gymnastics Individual All-Around: What?! A controversy in the Olympic final of a sport where the result is determined entirely by judging? Say it ain't so! Two years after the 2002 figure skating judging scandal, there was another in the men's gymnastics all-around at the Athens Games. This one wasn't deliberate, however. The judges made an honest mistake, giving the Korean bronze medalist a start value that was 0.1 points too low on one of the apparatus. He finished less than 0.1 points behind American Paul Hamm, so, had he been given the correct start value, he would've been the gold medalist instead.
2002 Olympic Pairs Figure Skating: For years, figure skating was ripe for corruption and biased judging. Never was that more evident than in the 2002 Olympic pairs free skate. Canadians Jamie Sale and David Pelletier were clearly the best, but, by a 5-4 decision, the gold medal went to the Russian team of Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze. In the days following the competition, it was revealed that the French judge had agreed to vote for the Russians in exchange for a Russian vote for the French team in the ice dancing event. As a result, her vote was thrown out and the Canadians were declared co-gold medalists. Four years later in Torino, figure skating had dropped the 6.0 system with the cumulative point system still in use.
1988 Olympic Light Middleweight Boxing Gold Medal Bout: Roy Jones, Jr., is one of the greatest boxers in history. At the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, he cruised into the light heavyweight final against South Korea's Park Si-Hun. Jones dominated the final, winning at least three rounds and landing nearly three times as many punches as Park. However, when they announced the winner of the bout, a 3-2 decision went to Park. Park and the referee both apologized, one of the judges admitted they made a mistake, and all three judges voting against Jones were suspended. Making the decision even sillier, Jones was named the best boxer of the entire Olympic tournament despite not winning a gold medal.
Argentina-England (1986 World Cup Quarterfinals): Is there any goal in the history of international soccer more famous than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God?" It was scoreless early in the second half when Maradona scored the goal that remains controversial to this day. Every replay clearly shows Maradona punch the ball past the English goalkeeper and into the net. Maradona played coy after the match, admitting it was deliberate without actually saying so. The referee, however, didn't see it. Maradona went on to score a truly majestic game-winner a few minutes later, and Argentina would eventually go on to hoist the World Cup.
Soviet Union-USA (1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Gold Medal Game): Forty-seven years later, this is still one of the most controversial results in Olympic history. The U.S. had a 50-49 lead when mass confusion led to them granting a Russian timeout prior to an inbound play. They reset the clock to three seconds and the Russians tried another inbound play. After the last-second shot fell short, everybody assumed the U.S. had won the gold. However, for reasons that are still unexplained, a FIBA official (who had no authority to do so) ordered the final three seconds replayed once more. This time, the Russians completed a full-court pass and sank the game-winning layup, handing the U.S. its first-ever Olympic loss. The Americans refused to accept their silver medals. They're still sitting in a vault at IOC headquarters.
I'm not in a position to say whether the race stewards made the right call or not. Personally, I don't think I would've made a move as drastic as changing the winner of the Kentucky Derby based on something you couldn't tell without studying the video over and over again, but that's just me.
Maximum Security's owner protested the result, but it was quickly denied since the stewards' decision isn't subject to appeal. Nevertheless, he's vowed to continue the fight, and this'll likely end up in court. Even though an overturn seems unlikely, the controversy will rage on. And it's certainly going to be a giant cloud hanging over the Preakness and Belmont. Maximum Security was the best horse in the Derby and would've had a legitimate shot at the Triple Crown. Country House does not.
This is far from the first controversial judging decision in sports history. It's not even the first this year. Pick a sport, and there's been some sort of controversial ruling somewhere along the way. Whether it's a call or a no-call, people are still talking about these controversial game-changing decisions, sometimes years after the fact. Take these for example...
Sharks-Golden Knights, Game 7 (2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs, First Round): You don't have to go back very far to find a controversial call that turned a game (and a series). Vegas had a 3-0 lead in Game 7 when Cody Eakin was called for a five-minute major and game misconduct for cross-checking Joe Pavelski to the ice on a face-off. The power play led to an incredible San Jose comeback, as the Sharks scored four times with the man advantage before winning in overtime. The Golden Knights called the penalty a "disgrace," and the officials weren't selected to work the next round of the playoffs.
USA-Finland (2019 World Women's Hockey Championships, Gold Medal Game): Talk about a wild sequence. It's difficult to even try and explain what happened here. Finland thought they'd scored in overtime to win a historic first World Championship. However, after the Finns' on-ice celebration, the officials disallowed the goal and instead called a penalty on the American goalie (international rules are different, but even with the different rules, I still don't quite understand how they came to that decision). Anyway, the U.S. went on to win in a shootout.
Rams-Saints (2018 NFC Championship Game): Ah yes, the pass interference non-call in the NFC Championship Game. We all remember what happened there, too. The officials missed an obvious pass interference on the Rams that would've given New Orleans a first-and-goal with a chance to run out the clock and move on to the Super Bowl. Instead, LA got the ball back, kicked the game-tying field goal as time expired in regulation and won in overtime.
2018 US Open Women's Final: Serena Williams wasn't going to win last year's US Open final. But that doesn't make what happened between her and the chair umpire any less controversial. Serena received a warning for coaching, then a point penalty for breaking her racket. Then, after some confusion about the coaching warning, a discussion with the chair umpire turned into a dispute, and he issued her a third code violation, resulting in the automatic loss of a game. It completely overshadowed Naomi Osaka's dominant and well-earned victory.
France-Ireland (2010 World Cup Qualifying): There have been plenty of controversial calls/no-calls in international soccer, perhaps none more glaring than Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland in 2009. It was the second leg of the UEFA playoffs. The aggregate was tied 1-1 when France's William Gallas scored in extra time to send Les Bleues to the World Cup. Except the goal never should've counted since it came off a pass from Henry, who had clearly handled the ball with his left hand first (something he admitted to). But, in the pre-VAR days, the referee's call on the field stood, leaving the Irish justifiably upset.
2004 Olympic Men's Gymnastics Individual All-Around: What?! A controversy in the Olympic final of a sport where the result is determined entirely by judging? Say it ain't so! Two years after the 2002 figure skating judging scandal, there was another in the men's gymnastics all-around at the Athens Games. This one wasn't deliberate, however. The judges made an honest mistake, giving the Korean bronze medalist a start value that was 0.1 points too low on one of the apparatus. He finished less than 0.1 points behind American Paul Hamm, so, had he been given the correct start value, he would've been the gold medalist instead.
2002 Olympic Pairs Figure Skating: For years, figure skating was ripe for corruption and biased judging. Never was that more evident than in the 2002 Olympic pairs free skate. Canadians Jamie Sale and David Pelletier were clearly the best, but, by a 5-4 decision, the gold medal went to the Russian team of Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze. In the days following the competition, it was revealed that the French judge had agreed to vote for the Russians in exchange for a Russian vote for the French team in the ice dancing event. As a result, her vote was thrown out and the Canadians were declared co-gold medalists. Four years later in Torino, figure skating had dropped the 6.0 system with the cumulative point system still in use.
1988 Olympic Light Middleweight Boxing Gold Medal Bout: Roy Jones, Jr., is one of the greatest boxers in history. At the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, he cruised into the light heavyweight final against South Korea's Park Si-Hun. Jones dominated the final, winning at least three rounds and landing nearly three times as many punches as Park. However, when they announced the winner of the bout, a 3-2 decision went to Park. Park and the referee both apologized, one of the judges admitted they made a mistake, and all three judges voting against Jones were suspended. Making the decision even sillier, Jones was named the best boxer of the entire Olympic tournament despite not winning a gold medal.
Argentina-England (1986 World Cup Quarterfinals): Is there any goal in the history of international soccer more famous than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God?" It was scoreless early in the second half when Maradona scored the goal that remains controversial to this day. Every replay clearly shows Maradona punch the ball past the English goalkeeper and into the net. Maradona played coy after the match, admitting it was deliberate without actually saying so. The referee, however, didn't see it. Maradona went on to score a truly majestic game-winner a few minutes later, and Argentina would eventually go on to hoist the World Cup.
Soviet Union-USA (1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Gold Medal Game): Forty-seven years later, this is still one of the most controversial results in Olympic history. The U.S. had a 50-49 lead when mass confusion led to them granting a Russian timeout prior to an inbound play. They reset the clock to three seconds and the Russians tried another inbound play. After the last-second shot fell short, everybody assumed the U.S. had won the gold. However, for reasons that are still unexplained, a FIBA official (who had no authority to do so) ordered the final three seconds replayed once more. This time, the Russians completed a full-court pass and sank the game-winning layup, handing the U.S. its first-ever Olympic loss. The Americans refused to accept their silver medals. They're still sitting in a vault at IOC headquarters.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Another Women's Hockey Boycott
In the lead up to the 2017 World Championships, members of the U.S. women's hockey team threatened to boycott the event over a number of issues, most notably their demand for better compensation (both in terms of salaries and travel conditions). Adding to the situation was that those World Championships were set to take place in Plymouth, Michigan.
The players and USA Hockey eventually came to an agreement days before the World Championships were set to begin, and the U.S. went on to win the event. Since then, they've gone on to capture Olympic gold in PyeongChang before capturing another World title (in a sensational gold medal game) a few weeks ago in Finland.
All of this took place in the shadow of the CWHL's demise. One of two professional women's hockey leagues in North America, the CWHL announced at the end of March that it was folding after 12 years. The NWHL, the U.S.-based women's professional league, immediately responded that it planned on continuing operations and would be adding expansion teams in Toronto and Montreal for the upcoming season.
However, those plans have hit a snag. Because, at the moment, the members of the U.S. Women's National Team have no intention of playing in the NWHL next season. In a statement, which most of the team members (including such prominent players as Hilary Knight, Kendall Coyne Schofield and Brianna Decker) posted on social media, they declared that they wouldn't play in any North American pro league "until we get the resources that professional hockey demands and deserves." Several Canadian players, including those who played in the shuttered CWHL, have joined in the boycott.
"We come together, over 200 players strong, to say it is time to create a sustainable professional league for women's hockey," the statement said. "We cannot make a sustainable living in the current state of the professional game. Because of that, together as players, we will not play in ANY professional leagues in North America this season until we get the resources that professional hockey demands and deserves. It's time for a long-term viable professional league that will showcase the greatest product of women's professional hockey in the world."
Players in the NWHL make as little as $2,000 a season and don't have health insurance. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to adequately train and compete at the highest level. Many, if not all, of the players need to have another job just to make a living wage while still being expected to be available for the National Team and be in proper playing shape.
Contrast that to the NWSL, which is partially funded by US Soccer and the salaries of the players on the National Team are covered by US Soccer. Or the WNBA, which has lasted more than 20 years and is still going strong. WNBA salaries pale in comparison to those in European leagues (which is why a number of WNBA players, even the biggest stars, play overseas in the winter), but they at least have health insurance. And the league is financially viable. It wouldn't be the most successful women's professional sports league in history if it wasn't.
A big difference between the WNBA and the NWHL is that the WNBA has financial backing from the NBA. It has throughout its existence. The NHL, meanwhile, didn't want to pick a side between the NWHL and the CWHL, so they provided modest support to both leagues. Now that there's only one league, the NHL has increased its financial commitment to the NWHL, although it's still not a significant amount.
That's not enough for the women's players, and their boycott puts pressure on the NHL to take on a larger role. One of the biggest reasons for the WNBA's success is the NBA backing, and you'd have to figure the NWHL could also find some level of success with solid NHL support.
It makes sense, too. Especially since most of the teams have those relationships already. Four of the five American-based teams are affiliated in some way with the NHL team in their home market, and Toronto and Montreal teams have had similar agreements with the Maple Leafs and Canadiens in the past.
What will be the end result here? I have no idea! The NWHL is still going ahead with its plans to play next season, but I'm not sure how they'll be able to move forward without any of the top players from either the U.S. or Canada. And I don't see how they can come to an agreement without raising salaries and providing health insurance, which I'm not sure they'd be able to do without more sponsorship dollars and/or funding from the NHL. And I don't know where those sponsorship dollars come from without the participation of the top players. They already don't have a TV contract, and it's not like this'll get them one.
Without those things, the league isn't viable. But a professional league without the best players isn't viable, either. And the players are totally justified in their demands for better salaries and, perhaps even more importantly, health insurance. If you want to call it "professional" hockey, the players need to be able to treat it as their full-time job. Which they're not able to do in the current environment.
Two years ago, the boycott was a success and the players were able to get pretty much everything they were demanding. This is a much different situation, but the point they're making is a similar one. You can't call the league "professional" without treating it as such. And there's much more that goes into a professional sports league than simply paying salaries.
Hopefully this doesn't mean the NWHL will meet a similar fate as the CWHL. Nobody wants that. And, frankly, one league makes more sense than two (which a lot of people were saying all along). It certainly makes more sense than zero. But, unless a solution is reached, the NWHL could easily find itself in that exact situation. Which would be even worse. Then the players won't even have a league to boycott.
Friday, May 3, 2019
The Semenya Decision
I have to admit I'm surprised by the Court of Arbitration's verdict in the landmark Caster Semenya case. I agree with their decision. I just didn't think it's the one they would come to. I thought they'd cave to public pressure and rule in Semenya's favor. And she could still get a favorable ruling. She has 30 days to appeal to Swiss federal court (the CAS is based in Switzerland), so who knows how much longer this will be drawn out?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, Semenya has presented the IAAF with a very difficult dilemma for nearly a decade. Semenya has dominated the women's 800 meters ever since bursting onto the scene at the 2009 World Championships. Almost immediately, her appearance led to questions about her sexuality.
Now, I'm not smart enough to try and explain the science that I don't really understand, but Semeya has a (naturally-occurring) condition called "hyperandrogenism." Basically, her body produces twice the testosterone of a "normal" woman. It's this excess testosterone that has allowed her to be so dominant.
So, in an attempt to level the playing field, the IAAF came up with new rules for hyperandrogenous athletes, requiring them to take medication to lower their testosterone levels to compete in the 400, 800, 1500 and mile (the events that their research indicated athletes with increased testosterone have the greatest advantage). The rules were supposed to take effect in November, but that was delayed because of Semenya's appeal. CAS was originally set to rule in March before finally announcing its decision on Wednesday. And by a 2-1 vote, CAS agreed with the IAAF. As a result, the new testosterone rules will take effect next week.
However, while the IAAF technically "won," there are no winners here. Semenya has done nothing wrong. She wasn't taking drugs and everything she's done she's done naturally. Now she has two choices: either immediately start taking medication (which could potentially lead to long-term health risks) or change events (which she might do anyway; she won the 5000 at the South African Championships last week). Neither one is fair.
From the beginning, Semenya felt like she was being singled out, and it's easy to see why. All kinds of derogatory words were thrown out, including "racist" and "sexist," which are both ludicrous suggestions (it's also worth noting that, despite what some critics tried to imply, at no time did anyone ever actually argue that Semenya isn't a woman). And it got the attention of advocates on all sides of the fence.
She derided the regulations as "discriminatory." And she's absolutely right. They are discriminatory. Because they need to be. This is about preserving the integrity of women's sports, which is the one part of the argument where everybody agreed. And the hyperandrogenism rules don't apply to a vast majority of female athletes, which is the entire point.
The ruling was going to be unfair to somebody. So, let me ask you this--Which is worse: Being unfair to a handful of athletes or being unfair to the other 99 percent? For years, Semenya's competitors went into races knowing they had no chance of winning. It's not any different than those female athletes who went against the East Germans and their state-sponsored doping program for all those years (I'm not trying to imply that Semenya doped in any way). Then hyperandrogenism rules were designed to level the playing field. Nothing more.
This is the basic point on which CAS came to its decision. There's a specific reason why sports are divided along gender lines. If they weren't, men would dominate. Why? Testosterone. It's the biggest reason for the physical differences between men and women. The male body contains 75 percent more testosterone than the female body. There's no overlap. The low-end of male testosterone levels is still significantly higher than the high-end of female levels.
Most women's testosterone level falls in the 0-1.7 range. The IAAF's limit at which athletes will be required to take testosterone-suppressing medication is 5.0. That's a huge gap. And that's the point. Very few women come anywhere near that level. Semenya happens to be one of those athletes that's above it. Does it suck? Yes. But it's necessary to preserve fair competition.
A few years ago, there was a similar case involving Indian 400-meter runner Dutee Chand that was just as high-profile. The hyperandrogenism rules that the IAAF put in place at the time applied across the board. Chand appealed, and that time CAS ruled against the IAAF, arguing that their evidence didn't support it and giving them two years to prove their case. This time, they had the science on their side and the new rules withstood the appeal.
How did the previous testosterone rules impact Semenya's performance? Her 2013 season best (the year before the Chand case) was 1:58.92. In 2014 (the first year under those regulations), it was 2:02.66. In 2016 (the first full season after they were overturned), she was back to 1:55.28 and won her second Olympic gold medal in Rio. You can bet that her times will be similarly affected this time. She'll still be one of the premier women's 800 meter runners in the world. She just won't be unbeatable anymore. Everyone else will have a chance.
As for her feeling singled out, she's got a point. The timing is too coincidental for it not to be. However, in my opinion, whether it was intentionally directed at Semenya or not (it was) ultimately doesn't really matter. Because this is a complex issue that was going to come up again eventually and had to be addressed sometime. And it was only going to get harder and more complicated the longer they waited. It won't stop being an issue. But now there's at least a policy in place that's clear and "fair" for everybody.
Caster Semenya hasn't done anything wrong. No one is saying she has. That point can't be emphasized enough. So it's understandable that she's disappointed with the "unfair" ruling. But a ruling the other way would've been just as disappointing and just as "unfair" for her competitors. Like I said, there are no "winners" here. Just one side that lost less.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, Semenya has presented the IAAF with a very difficult dilemma for nearly a decade. Semenya has dominated the women's 800 meters ever since bursting onto the scene at the 2009 World Championships. Almost immediately, her appearance led to questions about her sexuality.
Now, I'm not smart enough to try and explain the science that I don't really understand, but Semeya has a (naturally-occurring) condition called "hyperandrogenism." Basically, her body produces twice the testosterone of a "normal" woman. It's this excess testosterone that has allowed her to be so dominant.
So, in an attempt to level the playing field, the IAAF came up with new rules for hyperandrogenous athletes, requiring them to take medication to lower their testosterone levels to compete in the 400, 800, 1500 and mile (the events that their research indicated athletes with increased testosterone have the greatest advantage). The rules were supposed to take effect in November, but that was delayed because of Semenya's appeal. CAS was originally set to rule in March before finally announcing its decision on Wednesday. And by a 2-1 vote, CAS agreed with the IAAF. As a result, the new testosterone rules will take effect next week.
However, while the IAAF technically "won," there are no winners here. Semenya has done nothing wrong. She wasn't taking drugs and everything she's done she's done naturally. Now she has two choices: either immediately start taking medication (which could potentially lead to long-term health risks) or change events (which she might do anyway; she won the 5000 at the South African Championships last week). Neither one is fair.
From the beginning, Semenya felt like she was being singled out, and it's easy to see why. All kinds of derogatory words were thrown out, including "racist" and "sexist," which are both ludicrous suggestions (it's also worth noting that, despite what some critics tried to imply, at no time did anyone ever actually argue that Semenya isn't a woman). And it got the attention of advocates on all sides of the fence.
She derided the regulations as "discriminatory." And she's absolutely right. They are discriminatory. Because they need to be. This is about preserving the integrity of women's sports, which is the one part of the argument where everybody agreed. And the hyperandrogenism rules don't apply to a vast majority of female athletes, which is the entire point.
The ruling was going to be unfair to somebody. So, let me ask you this--Which is worse: Being unfair to a handful of athletes or being unfair to the other 99 percent? For years, Semenya's competitors went into races knowing they had no chance of winning. It's not any different than those female athletes who went against the East Germans and their state-sponsored doping program for all those years (I'm not trying to imply that Semenya doped in any way). Then hyperandrogenism rules were designed to level the playing field. Nothing more.
This is the basic point on which CAS came to its decision. There's a specific reason why sports are divided along gender lines. If they weren't, men would dominate. Why? Testosterone. It's the biggest reason for the physical differences between men and women. The male body contains 75 percent more testosterone than the female body. There's no overlap. The low-end of male testosterone levels is still significantly higher than the high-end of female levels.
Most women's testosterone level falls in the 0-1.7 range. The IAAF's limit at which athletes will be required to take testosterone-suppressing medication is 5.0. That's a huge gap. And that's the point. Very few women come anywhere near that level. Semenya happens to be one of those athletes that's above it. Does it suck? Yes. But it's necessary to preserve fair competition.
A few years ago, there was a similar case involving Indian 400-meter runner Dutee Chand that was just as high-profile. The hyperandrogenism rules that the IAAF put in place at the time applied across the board. Chand appealed, and that time CAS ruled against the IAAF, arguing that their evidence didn't support it and giving them two years to prove their case. This time, they had the science on their side and the new rules withstood the appeal.
How did the previous testosterone rules impact Semenya's performance? Her 2013 season best (the year before the Chand case) was 1:58.92. In 2014 (the first year under those regulations), it was 2:02.66. In 2016 (the first full season after they were overturned), she was back to 1:55.28 and won her second Olympic gold medal in Rio. You can bet that her times will be similarly affected this time. She'll still be one of the premier women's 800 meter runners in the world. She just won't be unbeatable anymore. Everyone else will have a chance.
As for her feeling singled out, she's got a point. The timing is too coincidental for it not to be. However, in my opinion, whether it was intentionally directed at Semenya or not (it was) ultimately doesn't really matter. Because this is a complex issue that was going to come up again eventually and had to be addressed sometime. And it was only going to get harder and more complicated the longer they waited. It won't stop being an issue. But now there's at least a policy in place that's clear and "fair" for everybody.
Caster Semenya hasn't done anything wrong. No one is saying she has. That point can't be emphasized enough. So it's understandable that she's disappointed with the "unfair" ruling. But a ruling the other way would've been just as disappointing and just as "unfair" for her competitors. Like I said, there are no "winners" here. Just one side that lost less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)