What Female Athletes Wear...

It seems we can’t go very long as a culture without someone complaining about how someone else dresses, how long their hair is, or related foolishness.  Most of Curmie’s commentary (at least here) has related to the almost (but not quite) uniformly sexist school dress codes that have forbidden five-year-olds from wearing sun dresses with spaghetti straps, de facto declared clavicles and shoulders erogenous zones, and are so unevenly applied that allegations of selective enforcement border on the obvious.  (Curmie isn’t going to link to all those stories, Gentle Reader, but you’re free to look them up.)

In a variation on the theme, there’s been a fair amount of publicity in the last year or so surrounding what female athletes wear.  There’s Paralympian Olivia Breen, who was told by an official her shorts were too short (this does not seem to have affected her eligibility, however).  There was the brouhaha over the Norwegian beach handball team’s decision to (OMG!) wear shorts instead of bikini bottoms, in defiance of the profoundly sexist edict of the International Handball Federation.  There was the IOC’s inane decision to prevent black women swimmers from wearing “soul caps,” which, if anything, would have created more drag than traditional headgear.  (Curmie actually wrote about this one, here).  Indeed, the fact that the German women’s gymnastics team made headlines for wearing regulation-compliant unitards rather than “traditional” leotards at the Olympics tells us rather a lot.

So here are two more stories about how female athletes choose to dress and the silly responses of people in power.  Both stories involve change.org petitions, although Curmie learned of one of them through other means.

Team members posed in sports bras
for a photo to accompany the change.org petition

Let’s start with the girls track team at Albany (NY) high school.  This may come as a surprise to you, Gentle Reader, but sometimes it gets hot in May.  Not only that, but doing strenuous exercise in that heat makes you feel even hotter.  Thus, some of the girls on the team, noting that the boys team was allowed to practice shirtless, sought to practice in sports bras.  Seems reasonable, yes?  No, of course not, according to school officials.

According to the Albany Times-Union, on May 12, Athletic Director Ashley Chapple asked the girls thus attired to leave practice.  The girls complied, but Jordan Johnson, a sophomore sprinter on the team, posted a petition on change.org to rally support for their cause.  At the Times-Union’s press time on the 17th, the petition had gathered over 2500 online signatures; as Curmie writes this on the 22nd, the petition has over 10,000 signatories (including Curmie’s).  You should feel free to increase that number, of course.

The girls—13 members of a 15-member team, apparently—were subsequently banned from attending a lacrosse game later that day, and suspended the following day for “inappropriate and disrespectful behavior directed toward an administrator,” which, of course was “in no way related to wardrobe.”  Oh, no, of course not.  You may believe this if you choose, Gentle Reader, but Curmie will indeed lower his opinion of your sagacity. 

The Hegemonic Legion of Doom School officials held a meeting on Monday with the girls—parents were forbidden from attending, for reasons you’re no doubt sufficiently worldly to guess, Gentle Reader—and reiterated their position before re-instating 12 team members (what happened to the 13th is unclear).  Of course, the pseudo-educators in charge can’t even keep their story straight.  According to the girls, they were told by Principal Jodi Commerford that they were suspended for not wearing something over their sports bras because there were male coaches present.  What an insult to those coaches that they are presumed not be able to concentrate on their duties because some high school girls were wearing only a little more above the waist than those gents would see at any beach or swimming pool!  (OMG!  Midriffs!)

But if Superintendent Kaweeda G. Adams is to be believed, that’s not true.  So the problem was attending the lacrosse game (why shouldn’t they?)… or maybe something they said at the game?  School authorities say the girls were swearing; they say they weren’t.  The girls wouldn’t be the first to deny doing something they actually did; school officials wouldn’t be the first to lie about students in an attempt to extricate themselves from an embarrassing situation of their own making.  But since the power structure at the school has produced no legitimate rationale for denying the girls access to the lacrosse game to begin with (they aren’t charged with insubordination at their practice, only at the lacrosse game), there are only two possibilities: school officials are lying about the swearing, or they richly deserved it (or both, of course).

The real reason for the suspensions, of course, was that the girls had the audacity to go public with a change.org petition, thereby revealing the school administrators as authoritarian buffoons.

The suspension notices, by the way, state that each girl “poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disruption to the academic and athletic process.”  No, Ms. Adams, you’re going to have to look in the mirror to see someone who does that.

Latifa McBryde in action.

The other story pertains to Latifah McBryde.  She’s a Muslim wrestler who, according to the change.org petition, earned a place on the US team to compete at the Pan-Am Games in Mexico in July.  The problem is that for religious reasons, she “dresses in modest clothes and a hijab.”  Ah, but the stupid rules require a singlet.

Here’s the description of “A Wrestling Fan,” who started the change.org petition:

What do people in the wrestling room wear most often to practice? It’s not a singlet. What are high school wrestlers now allowed to wear in competition? Hint - also not a singlet. What does the Iranian Muslim women’s wrestling team wear? … Not a singlet! Latifah wears the same thing that the Iranian women’s wrestling team wears - knee-length pants strongly secured to spandex leggings, a long sleeve shirt also strongly secured at the waist and wrists, and a tightly secured headscarf sewed directly onto a rashguard.

Once again, as in the case of the “soul cap,” wearing what McBryde wants to wear is, if anything, a competitive disadvantage, so there ought to be no problem.  This, however, would be based on the apparently hasty assumption that the hierarchy of United World Wrestling can out-think a dead flounder.  USA Wrestling doesn’t seem to be much help, either.

If the NCAA—not known for either imparting justice or exhibiting intelligence—can ensure that a basketball team from Brigham Young University doesn’t have to compete on a Sunday in the NCAA tournament, then UWW and USAW can remove their phalangeal digits from their rectal cavities and find a way to allow McBryde to compete without violating her religious standards. 

In these two incidents, we see all-too-familiar patterns: blaming girls for being distracting (and concomitantly blaming boys/men for being so easily distracted), school officials believing their actions to be above reproach and their fecal matter odor-free, intransigent requirements imposed by sports authorities based on “the way it’s always been” without recognizing even the possibility of legitimate exceptions to the rule.

Curmie’s natural impulse is to look for guidance from Confucius, who has been referenced with approbation numerous times in this blog.  Alas, this time, Curmie is drawn instead to the wise words of a beloved former student: “People are stupid, y’all.”

Black Female Athletes and the Olympics

As preparations continue for what are still called the 2020 Olympics (opening ceremonies are Friday) ramp up, it’s not surprising that there are a handful of Olympics-related stories out there.  Curmie wants to discuss four of them, all of which, coincidentally (or perhaps not) involve black women and rulings by (mostly) old white guys.  Three of the four deal in one way or another with the notion of performance enhancement.

Let’s take them in roughly increasing sympathy for the athletes involved.

Oh, how original: an anthem protest.  Gwen Berry placed third in the US Olympic trials for the hammer throw, then, in an all-too-predictable fit of… whatever… at the awards ceremony she turned away from the flag and ultimately covered her face with a black t-shirt reading “activist athlete,” thereby disrespecting not merely the anthem and the flag, but also, of course, the event winner, DeAnna Price.  Curmie need hardly tell you that there was all manner of posturing going on, mostly by Berry, but also by those who wanted to get their names in print as objectors.

Berry has subsequently claimed playing the anthem was a “set-up” (WHAAAAT?), that she “never said [she hates] America,” and that the third verse of the anthem is racist.  Well, that part is true, which might account for why only one verse is ever played or sung at a sporting event or, indeed, virtually ever.  But the rest of it?  Nonsense.  And the faux surprise that her actions engendered a negative reaction?  Incredible.  Perhaps Curmie’s favorite line: “Y’all are obsessed with me,” Berry’s response to Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), who suggested she should be removed from the team.  To be sure, Crenshaw is using the Berry protest to try to make a name for himself, but the only person obsessed with Gwen Berry is Gwen Berry.

She claims she will continue her protest in Tokyo, although the IOC has rules against this sort of behavior.  We can be pretty certain that just as the Star-Spangled Banner wasn’t played for Berry at the trials in Eugene, OR, it won’t be in Tokyo, either.  Price beat Berry by over 24 feet (!), or over 9%.  (The difference between first and third in many events is well under 1%.)  Still, there’s a chance Berry will get on the podium in Tokyo; her best throw this year ranks her fourth in the world, behind #3 by only about 3 feet, 9 inches.  So she may get a chance to lose even more endorsements there.

But the stunt has had its desired effect: far more people have heard of Gwen Berry than of DeAnna Price.

Sha’Carri Richardson in happier times.

Even Stupid Rules are Rules.  Next up: Sha’Carri Richardson was the overwhelming favorite in both senses of the word in the women’s 100 meters coming into the Olympic trials.  She had run easily the best times of any American sprinter, and fans loved her petite size (she’s only 5’1”), her brashness, determination, and eccentricities: the bright orange hair, the false eyelashes, the absurdly long fingernails.  She didn’t disappoint, spotting the competition a meter or more before zooming past them all to win comfortably.

Then, of course, she tested positive for marijuana, which appears on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List.  This led to a one-month ban from competition imposed by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).  This took her out of the 100 meter competition in the upcoming Tokyo Games, because her win in Eugene was nullified, and US Track and Field rules state that the top three [legal] finishers at the trials constitute the contingent. 

Let’s be clear on a couple of things.  First, her use of the drug was legal in the sense that she could not be arrested for it.

Second, marijuana is far from a performance-enhancing drug; continuing it on the prohibited list is problematic and reactionary, but understandable to the extent that it is illegal in a lot of places, including the majority of US states.  Still, the USADA seems to be better at discovering dope than doping. 

Third, it’s still a violation of the rules of the sport, which are defined internationally.  To her credit, Richardson accepted responsibility for her actions and did not challenge the suspension: “I just want to take responsibility for my actions, I know what I did, I know what I’m supposed to do, I’m allowed not to do and I still made that decision. I’m not making an excuse or looking for any empathy in my case.” 

So far, really, there’s not much of a story, except for the rather unusual fact that a star athlete took responsibility for her own missteps.  Yes, there was some buzz (get it?  buzz?) about whether athletes ought to be suspended over marijuana, and there were, predictably, some loud but isolated and unconvincing accusations of racism from the likes of AOC. 

But what attracts Curmie’s attention is what comes next.  Whereas Richardson’s suspension prevents her from running in the 100 meters in Tokyo, it will expire before the 4x100 relay.  Initially, there was speculation that she might be named to that team, which is chosen by US Track and Field, and need not be linked to performance at the trials.  A couple days after the suspension was announced, we learned that Richardson wasn’t going to be on the relay team, either.  WHAT???  

Here, according to the New York Times, is the rationale: 

… the coaches had already selected the members of the relay squad and had informed those runners of their placements before Richardson’s positive test became public.

After Richardson’s disqualification, the coaches chose the next six finishers in the 100-meter race and decided it would be unfair to take a slot away from one of those runners and give it to Richardson simply because that would be the only way to get her on the team.

USA Track and Field also published a remarkably disingenuous statement of sympathy on their website: “All USATF athletes are equally aware of and must adhere to the current anti-doping code, and our credibility as the National Governing Body would be lost if rules were only enforced under certain circumstances.

“So while our heartfelt understanding lies with Sha’Carri, we must also maintain fairness for all of the athletes who attempted to realize their dreams by securing a place on the U.S. Olympic Track & Field Team.”

But it’s not a question of changing or not enforcing the rules, you stupid fucktards.  It’s about allowing your best athlete, who will have served the full term of her suspension, the opportunity to compete… and to give your team the best, legal, chance of winning.  Basically, either the officials didn’t bother to find out that Richardson would be eligible and lurched ahead, or they knew of her availability and chose intentionally to leave her off the team because, well, who knows?

Was the decision racist?  Highly unlikely: the new #4 (Gabby Thomas), the last “starting” spot, and #6 (Aleia Hobbs), the last team member, are both black.  If you replace one black athlete with another, it may be all manner of stupid, but it’s unlikely to be racist.  Was the decision ill-considered, arrogant, virtue-signaling, and petulant?  Yeah, pretty much.  The good news is that Gwen Berry is less likely to have to hear the Star Spangled Banner after the event. 

Brianna McNeal at the
2019 World Championships

What a Difference a Day Makes.  Item #3: Defending 100 meter hurdle Olympics gold medalist Brianna McNeal lost her appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport of a five-year suspension imposed by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for violating anti-doping rules.  What’s curious about this case is that she has never failed a drug test.  What she has done, at least six times over her career, is to miss a drug test.

The first such occasion resulted in a one-year ban for a series of three Whereabouts violations five years ago.  What that means: athletes at her level are required to provide officials with information about their whereabouts so they can be tested, unannounced, for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).  She took, and passed, some eight tests that year, but being unavailable three times triggered the suspension.

The USADA posted a rationale for the testing and the sanction:

Accurate Whereabouts information is crucial for effective out-of-competition testing, which helps deter and detect doping by enabling no-notice sample collection. This is especially important because some prohibited substances have limited detection windows. In an effort to help athletes understand and fulfill their Whereabouts requirements, USADA conducts in-person and online educational sessions with athletes, sends email reminders about filing dates and obligations, maintains online and app-based filing and updating platforms, and gives athletes the option to receive daily and weekly reminders of their provided Whereabouts information.

So… on to January of 2020.  McNeal was looking forward to the 2020 Olympics, which of course at that time were still on schedule.  This was a factor, at least, in her decision to have an abortion on January 10.  She then failed to answer the door or her phone on the 12^th when the drug testers showed up.  This was the second time in a one-year period she had not made herself available for a test; as noted above, it (generally?) takes three to lead to a sanction.  This much is not up for debate.

A couple of weeks later, the AIU asked for an explanation.  McNeal was under no obligation to reply, but she did, referencing a “a surprise medical procedure.”  She claimed to have been heavily sedated and to have spent much of her time over the ensuing several days sleeping.  Ultimately, the AIU didn’t believe her because she was active on social media.  Wait, what?  In the universe Curmie inhabits, it’s possible to post stuff on Facebook in between naps; apparently not in AIU’s world.

But the other incontrovertible fact is that McNeal changed the dates on the medical records associated with the abortion, making it appear that the drug test would have been one day instead of two after the procedure.  Did she really misremember and believe the doctor’s office had erred?  Curmie is skeptical.  Was she experiencing remorse or even guilt in the aftermath of the termination?  This is more plausible.  Of course, ironically, she could have had the child and still participated in the delayed Olympics.  (Even distracted by the suspension and the appeal, she qualified for the US team, pending the decision by the Court of Arbitration.)

And it’s the “tampering” with unnecessary documentation that’s the problem.  McNeal’s lawyer argued, apparently accurately, that:

The AIU has not accused Brianna McNeal of ever using any banned substances, has not accused Brianna McNeal of evading doping control; and has not accused Brianna McNeal of tampering with any urine sample or blood sample.  Had she ignored the AIU’s request that she explain the circumstances of that missed test, there would have been no consequences.

Of course, faking evidence is not a good thing, and the argument that the appropriate thing to do if you thought the doctor’s office erred would be to call them up and resolve the issue, not to just alter the document.  On the other hand, a five-year suspension for a 29 year old athlete, effectively ending her career, because she said a procedure that happened on one day actually happened a day earlier: that seems a bit extreme.

Would the decision have been different, as McNeal has suggested, if she were white or European?  Curmie thinks it’s more likely that the agencies involved are sexist rather than racist, but McNeal’s allegations aren’t completely outrageous.  What’s certain is that the attempts to simultaneously maintain the integrity of the sport and keep innocent athletes eligible will never result in perfect justice.

Alice Dearing models the offending object.

The Saga of Soul Caps.  Finally, there’s this item that actually stems from the UK, but obviously affects black female swimmers of all nationalities.  The UK-based company Soul Cap, according to their website, specializes in “haircare for the volume-blessed.”  They make swim caps primarily to satisfy the needs of the BAME community (that’s the UK equivalent of BIPOC: Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic).  Last year, they partnered with British swimmer Alice Dearing, who recently was named the first black woman to represent the UK in swimming events at the Olympics, to promote their product.

They seek to accommodate the thicker, curlier hair of black swimmers, and to provide a better fit, thereby protecting the hair from chlorine.  But FINA (the Fédération Internationale de Natation), the sport’s governing body, outlawed the cap because it doesn’t “fit the natural form of the head” and to their “best knowledge the athletes competing at the international events never used, neither require … caps of such size and configuration.”

Seriously?  As to point #1: who cares, given the fact that the increased size of the cap actually increases drag, thereby putting the athlete at a comparative disadvantage.  If an athlete chooses to wear the “soul cap,” why not?  If she gains a competitive advantage, sure.  But this, if anything, is the opposite.  As to point #2: black athletes have historically tended to gravitate towards other sports, so the fact that there was not a lot of call for such a minor accommodation can hardly be grounds for maintaining the status quo merely for its own sake.  And, of course, there have been several black women who not only competed but won medals at the Olympics: Enith Brigitha of the Netherlands, and Americans Lia Neal and Simone Manuel.  Manuel will be in Tokyo, defending her 2016 gold medals in the 100m freestyle and the 4x100 medley.

Dearing points to “decades of cultural and institutional racism which has sadly seeped into the swimming community and swimming in general for quite some time.” Usually Curmie raises a skeptical eyebrow at such claims.  In this instance, however, he sighs and nods.  International swimming can must do better.

After great international hoopla, FINA announced it would “review”its decision.  That was a fortnight ago.  Still no final decision that Curmie can uncover, and the opening ceremonies are less than a week away.