Topic: IWF HIJAB RULING EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

[Albert B. Gonzalez]

Any idea why the USAW bans people for pot? It's obviously not a performance enhancer. Maybe an appetite enhancer. They don't want people giggling during competitions?



a little birdy told me that pot can temporarily increase oxygen intake so it potentionaly can be an enhancer , and it could possibly raise adrenal levels . they might as well ban endorphines while theyre at it

[Andy Dick]

I don't see the one piece making athletes hotter necessarily a bad thing.  I am thinking if you have a lot of time between attempts that it will aid in keeping the legs warm and loose.  It will be interesting to see what happens if it becomes the old saying "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" or if certain groups are made concession and other are not for political or bureaucratic reasons.

About the pot, I was always under the assumption (this was my own thinking on the topic, I do not know first hand nor am I an expert on doping) that it was banned for sports where calming the nerves could be beneficial such as archery where this could steady a hand and improve aim.  I just figured instead of saying this is banned for sports x,y,z (for example) that they just put it over all the sports.  I also figured that it was for ease of drug testing at competitions such as the olympics where they just take all the urine samples and randomly test certain ones out of the batch for randomized testing.  Just my thoughts, someone who knows more may be able to shed better light.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Some athletes might like wearing two layers of clothing while they lift for extra warmth and some might be hot and not like it. Its a silly rule with no point, as usual. Overall, I agree with their decision not to restrict participation over such unimportant issues as clothing but they shouldn't have wimped out and tried to cover all bases but rather just said wear either the singlet or the unitard, to your preference. Still, I give them a 7 out of 10 on this decision.

Pot was NEVER banned for weightlifting because it was asserted to be performance enhancing. They still don't make that claim, which is ludicrous. Only some morons who believe whatever the government or their "leaders" in the usaw tell them make that claim in defending the irrational policy. It was banned because of the political embarrassment caused by the Canadian snowboarder who was improperly tested for it, announced to be positive despite it not being banned, stripped of his medal, and then returned his medal finally when the morons realized he broke no rules. It was a black eye for the USOC in the government regulated press of the world, so they banned it for all sports. It is not supposedly tested for in out of competition testing, though usada cares nothing about the rules they are supposed to follow, and it costs MORE money to test for it, not less, meaning it takes money away from promoting and supporting the sport as well as from trying to test for actual performance-enhancing drugs. But, at least the policy is hurting the USAW by reducing their athlete pool. Eventually, maybe the idiots will realize they are spiting themselves by reducing participation.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Also I noticed that people with any past criminal convictions can't be a USAW-certified coach, even if it was for something minor and stupid, years ago. Any idea why this is, and why the ban wasn't limited to doping, wagering or fraud offenses? Will this categorical ban be expanded to athletes?

Yes, this is ALL about some coaches, politicians, and bureaucrats seeking leverage over others. Its a massive act of intimidation. Everyone has to go through the "superior" gate-keepers for permission to be allowed to coach. They will examine your entire life and make an assessment if they think you are worthy. Everything short of molesting kids, which the legal system punishes with permanent restriction on interaction with kids, is up for "discussion" and "appeal", meaning if you kiss the right butts in the right way, maybe pay some extra fees, and, most importantly, owe a few favors- you can join the little exclusive club of "qualified coaches" according to the bureaucracy. Most of the sheep probably don't have a clue how this will be abused.

[SirKriS]

I'm a novice masters lifter, so I have no intent or desire to coach. But I resent this form of arbitrary discrimination in any instance it pops up. I'm a committed father, taxpayer, active community member, high integrity, successful in my field of work, etc., but McDonalds wouldn't hire me to clean urinals because of a petty drug conviction years ago. Bills pop up in California constantly trying to ban me from everything, including being able to chaperone my own son on school field trips. Sorry for the vent, but wtf ftw sometimes. Dark will be the day they say I can't lift at sanctioned meets.

And yeah, I'm glad they are allowing Muslim women to retain their ability to observe their religion and lift in competitions.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/29/3736295/cair-applauds-weightlifting-rule.html

[Andy Dick]

I am have following this issue out of pure curiosity.  Even though a full body unitard is now allowed under a singlet, does this alone meet the muslim women's criterion.  In her presentation she wants to wear long socks or leg warmers up to her knee wrap.  Will this be allowed?  Are they going to make accommodations for her request for female officials? I believe she is requesting a female official at weigh in.  Is she also requiring a female official to judge her lift?

My true thoughts on the topic are this.  Especially if these other issues are the case.  If I was running it (which I am not so take it as it is). 
I look at it this way: any time you are negotiating you basically want to leave with everyone taking a hit somewhere.  I would rule as thus:

I agree with the ruling with the unitard under the singlet and head covering.  Anything else is out.
I would let them have these consessions but anything else as leg warmers or socks would be disallowed.  Plus if heat is going to be an issue I say that is a price to pay to get the unitard and head covering.  I agree with Chris that limiting the lifter pool is not beneficial but I would rate the decision higher than a 7 of 10.

A female being present/or conducting the weigh-in.  I thought this was normally the case.  I would allow this just in respect to decency but ultimately leave it up to the person running the meet.  I see little harm or benefit in this occurring so it is a neutral issue in my book.

A female to judge her lift.  I say yes/no, the judges at the meet are the judges there you get what you get.  I say no special concession be made in this regard.  If one is present then good for you if not you are going to have to deal with it.  More often then not if there is a female doing weigh-ins, there will be one female judge.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I guess I just don't see why clothing is such a critical issue for weightlifting. From my view, you could let an inferior lifter wear whatever they want and I'll still kick their butt. Like I said, if someone wanted to challenge me to a lifting contest, I wouldn't be worrying about setting ground-rules over clothing. Basically, the usaw is a 3rd party trying to intervene in that hypothetical contest and say, "No, you need to both dress to our desires before we can allow you to compete against each other." I think 7 out of 10 is a high mark considering the bureaucrats still want to regulate people's clothing down to the fiber, have as big a rule book as possible, and "compete" as to who can know, follow, and enfore the greatest number of rules the most consistently with how they were written down. ;)

After all, "we" (tyrants, usaw, etc), can't just allow people to wear whatever clothes they want. That would be ..... anarchy. Pure insanity. lol