ugarte

if caldwell's got muscle memory this is going to be fun

I don't get why you all make this so easy for him lol

From some interviews I've seen, I think he's been looking tbh. But I also think he wants to be matside for Yianni and Kyle (and Nahshon, why not!) in Tokyo.

I was thinking more generally than NCAA but i didn't know the NCAA had a policy manual for the issue. I don't know enough to say whether requiring hormone suppressants (rather than strictly relying on self-identification) is either (1) an infringement of a trans athlete's rights under Bostock or (2) would be considered unnecessarily intrusive to members of the trans community. The NCAA pretty clearly intends the year of hormone suppressants to remove any competitive advantage from men's higher testosterone levels to dissipate and I assume the NCAA's lawyers feel pretty good about that rule being on solid ground. I would say that there may be grounds to challenge the NCAA policy but I only have questions, not answers. I think many would consider the NCAA policy be a good faith effort to provide opportunity for and respect the dignity of trans athletes even before Bostock was decided but whether that is enough, I don't know.

B1G schools offering Bellarmine a 3 for 1 then backing out and paying the kill fee when its their turn to travel.

So, here's where I guess it fell apart. You merely pointed out that there might be legal challenges and I was foolish enough to think you were wondering if those suits would have any merit. You weren't though! You don't care about the answer to that question at all. You were merely pointing out that there may be some people who might bring lawsuits based on an entirely superficial misreading of Title IX or Bostock. I apologize completely.

This is a terrible interpretation of what Roberts and Gorsuch do. Every decision they make, regardless of the specific outcome of the case, makes the law more conservative. Read the Roberts opinion on the abortion clinic admitting privileges standard: he lists all of the ways he would gladly restrict abortion and strips out the important balancing test from the 2016 Texas case he claims to be supporting. Take a look at Bostock itself for Gorsuch's liberalism: he not makes clear that this is a statutory interpretation case - meaning it is not related to constitutional equal protection arguments, he also strongly implies that he will allow a religious exemption big enough to undo most of the rule. He also strongly implies that Alito's concerns (and Katie's wondering) that this will mean the end of sex-segregated activities of any kind are unfounded. Neither of them are liberals in any modern, political sense of the word. Your understanding of the case is wrong. Title IX has always been about "treating both sexes the same way" and the result of that is the current world, with men's and women's sports teams and all of that. Bostock only added anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination to the already existing scope of discrimination law. It does not and has never meant that men and women are the same for all purposes and Bostock doesn't change that at all. I appreciate that you skimmed parts of the case but I actually read it, multiple times, and spent an hour talking to a civil rights litigator and a Vanderbilt law professor about it. I don't think it's a secret from my posts that I am very left - especially for a wrestling forum - but whether I think the current state of the law is good or bad I don't bull**** on what it actually is. I *want* women's sports to continue to exist. I have no interest in eliminating separate locker rooms. If I thought that Bostock suggested either of those things I wouldn't tell you otherwise. Courts are not going to change the interpretation of Title IX in a way that eliminates women's sports. If the GOP got both branches of Congress and the Presidency, I do think that Title IX would be amended to reverse Bostock. They could do it in one of two ways. First, Congress could explicitly exempt anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination from the law, but this is unlikely since specifically targeting gay or trans people like that would probably run into equal protection issues even under a less exacting standard than race discrimination gets ("strict scrutiny") or even that sex discrimination gets {"intermediate scrutiny"). The more likely way is to weaken the "because of sex" language. Gorsuch read "because of sex" to mean that mixed-motive cases were covered by Title IX but a different phrasing would allow an employer to defend a case where the dismissal was based on multiple reasons including but not predominantly because of sex.

This is not what Bostock is about; if this is what that case meant, this issue the legality of having separate men's and women's sports would have arisen a long time ago. Bostock answered a different question, which was "is employment discrimination against gay or trans litigants "because of sex" as relevant under the specific legal context of Title IX." And the court said yes, because the sex of the person being discriminated against is central to the discrimination. It is "because of sex" because in the case of discrimination based on sexuality, a man who marries/dates a man is treated differently than a woman who marries/dates a man and in the case of transgenderism, a person is discriminated against for a gender identity different from the one assigned at birth. The dissenting justices felt that discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity were distinct from "sex discrimination" both linguistically and as a matter of statutory intent and therefore should have required an act of Congress to update Title IX. It says nothing about whether the existence of separate sports programs for men and women are themselves inherently discriminatory (even though Justice Alito spent a page or two loudly wondering if maybe it was true) and the hypothetical lacrosse player you quoted would have no case . There have been situations where a boy wanted to play a sport that is *only offered* for girls - like field hockey - and I think the outcome of such cases has varied has varied from state to state as I recall it. To break this post up, into the two separate points. (1) The issue of transgenderism in sports is absolutely going to come up. Schools will likely be required to allow trans female athletes to compete on women's teams. In minimize the politics here since I'm just trying to keep this about the law, I'll only say that the competitive impact is typically overstated and it's good to treat trans athletes with dignity and respect. As for your second point, Bostock will not change anything with respect to the team composition and funding questions you raised. They are interesting questions, and the subject of a fair amount of litigation and consternation since the application of Title IX to college sports, but Bostock doesn't change the answers.

you only have to go back a couple of pages to see a post with a projection and commentary.

they are now; they weren't then. also, buck was making up the numbers for yapoujian for a laugh to respond to my post.

I agree that it would suck to lose your spot in the lineup as a senior to a freshman but ... best team goes on the mat. I don't really know who would win the wrestle-off. I don't know if 149 is an optimal weight for Saunders. I do know that Yianni goes where he wants and if that means Saunders v Richard, that's what it means. The alternative is Yianni at 149 and there's no doubt that Richard hits the bench.

i think jeffco was the grayshirt year - by which i mean he spent his senior year at finger lakes and finishing high school credit online

you know his sat's? what his grades were like before jeffco? i bet if you keep reading you'll find them

eh we were mostly here anyway to chime in on other topics but for cornell stuff we keep it in the family.

how much of that $20 goes to BTS and how much goes to the streamer?