Jump to content

ugarte

Members
  • Content Count

    895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by ugarte


  1. 7 hours ago, buck said:

    Mike Gray or Grey needs another gig.  Getting a little stale passing out towels.  Time for grasshopper to land his own program.

    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.


  2. 8 hours ago, 1032004 said:

    Don't they already do that?  But it requires one year of testosterone suppression treatment I think - https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf ?  Could that part be challenged due to this case?

     

    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.


  3. On 6/29/2020 at 12:39 PM, Katie said:

    There may soon be legal challenges to the existence of women-only college sports teams. Here’s why. 

    As I understand it,...

    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.


  4. 11 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

    If you’ve paid attention over the past couple weeks, Roberts and/or Gorsuch appear to tend toward socially liberal decisions, especially those upheld in past cases.
     

    With Bostock, it seems like gorsuch found a way using the law to make what he felt was a just decision regardless of the original intent of the law-much like how the 14th amendment is often applied in ways not originally intended by the amendment. I don’t see a similar logic being applied to limit opportunity for women. 

    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. 

    11 hours ago, Katie said:

    I only skimmed a few excerpts of the case, but my understanding is that the majority's underlying logic is that employers must treat both sexes the same way.

    Now, turning to Title IX. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (including in college sports), but does not specifically provide for segregated sports programs on the basis of sex.

    As a result, I think Bostock makes it inevitable that someone will challenge a segregated college sports team as illegal under Title IX. That being so, I believe that courts will reexamine the law. And I think it's possible that Congress might take a look at Title IX as well.

    I thought I was clear about all that.

    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.

    11 hours ago, Katie said:

    I agree that college sports teams will continue to be segregated on the basis of sex, even if Title IX is reexamined in light of Bostock. That's just common sense. To my mind, the questions are: Will the courts adjust their interpretation of Title IX in some way? Will Congress amend the law?

    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.


  5. On 6/29/2020 at 12:39 PM, Katie said:

    There may soon be legal challenges to the existence of women-only college sports teams. Here’s why. 

    As I understand it, in the recent Bostock v. Clayton County case, the Supreme Court considered what it meant for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect against employment discrimination on the basis 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.

    On 6/29/2020 at 3:46 PM, Katie said:

    I'd add that if Congress responds to Bostock by amending Title IX to specifically allow for segregation in sports along the lines of biological sex, then there could potentially be a new debate about how to ensure women and men have an equal opportunity to participate in sports.

    For example: Do expenditures for men's and women's teams have to be equal? Do the number of male and female athletes have to be equal? Are high school participation numbers relevant? Etc.

    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.


  6. 10 hours ago, ShakaAloha said:

    Thanks for your thoughts on Yapoujian vs. Richard.

    So based on your previous response you think that Saunders beats Richard out for 149, if Yianni stays at 141?  It would kinda be sad to bench a senior, returning EIWA 2nd/NCAA qualifier for a unproven freshman (no matter how highly ranked a recruit the freshman is).  

     

    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.


  7. 4 minutes ago, NJDan said:

    Just looked attractive the roster and saw that Yapoujian is a graduate of Jeffco Virtual Academy (though he wrestled somewhere else). Looks like Jeffco is a school for kids who don't wanna go to school. Must be an interesting story about how he wound up there and then wound up at Cornell.

    you know his sat's? what his grades were like before jeffco?

    Just now, NJDan said:

    Who are the 4 qualifiers on the bench?

    i bet if you keep reading you'll find them


  8. i prefer the all-things-cornell thread to a million single topic threads. 

    2 minutes ago, ShakaAloha said:

    What was the reasoning behind Koll sending out Santoro over him at 157 for EIWA's?  Do you think it was a mistake?

    Yapoujian got injured over winter break and never returned to the lineup


  9. Kenny Monday and CP got into a tiff over this because for some reason Kenny decided to get snippy over a journalist/commentator asking a reasonable question about what was behind the four day appearance in the portal. You'd think a simple no comment or no response at all would be the way to go there. Weird.


  10. 2 hours ago, klehner said:

    The original reference I found said that Koll "circulated" the video, but I can't verify that.  The poster said it was in email sent by Koll, so it would seem legit.

    Tucker said he was done wrestling at Cornell, unless they (and the Ivy League) chose to make a COVID-19 exception for graduating seniors who lost out on some or all of their senior year competition.  He knew the rules.

    If you look at the 20-21 roster and the video, it would seem like

    125:  Arujau/LaJoie

    133: Arujau/Moomey/Wilson

    141:  Yianni/Saunders

    149: Yianni/Richard/Saunders

    157:  Yapoujian/Richard

    165:  Santoro/Ramirez

    174:  Berreyesa/Foca

    184:  Dean/Loew (not a starter but a solid backup)

    197:  Darmstadt/Cardenas (one of only two listed frosh)

    285:  Fernandes/Furman

    I think a couple of weights are up in the air because who knows. Incredible that there are 4 NCAA qualifiers from last year who are assumed to be on the bench.


  11. 22 hours ago, klehner said:

    Video detailing the Class of 2024.

    No Greg D, but Saunders, Ramirez, Foca, Cardenas (so much for those rumors), and Fernandes.

    would you go to Arizona today?Saunders at 141. Either Yianni is at 149 or a wrestle-off is coming between Saunders and Richard.

    On 5/29/2020 at 7:13 PM, jdalu75 said:

    Nothing surprising about weights -- Furman still listed at 285.

     Where else would he be listed? Furman would have to lose both of his legs to make 197. I know this post is a month old but where did you see the preliminary roster?

    CP tweeted about Chas going in the portal so that he could talk to other schools about a grad assistant job but that he doesn't intend to wrestle and also that he could have stayed but is electing not to (which sounds like Vito at 133...) but the explanation was as thin and confusing as this sentence. Anyone else know what's up?


  12. 1 hour ago, wrestlingnerd said:

    Here's a suggestion. Post what you mean or don't and grow thicker skin. Or just don't reply if you don't want a conversation.

    "Ah, so you don't like an annoying doofus. Guess you're just afraid of conversation!"


  13. 9 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

    I don't have a car. I don't care for either Tesla or Musk. I already explained that, but for a lawyer, your reading comp needs some work. That reading comp deficiency applies to your own writing, by the way, since you said that nothing Musk says, including that tweet, can ever be trusted. He may have had ulterior motives for sharing the research which wasn't even his, I have no idea, nor do I really care. The point of referencing his tweet was that it linked that specific research doc before Google took it down for whatever reason. NOT Musk. The research he linked was interesting. ALL I SAID was that the drug has potential. That was a lightly informed opinion, like that of anyone else's here since I'm assuming nobody here is literally working at the labs doing the research. Can you chill now? Isn't it past midnight in NYC? For a guy accusing me of having loyalty to Musk, it is you who clearly appears to have some emotional connection to him, not me. I couldn't care less about Musk or anything he does or says, but you clearly do. At least he's trying to help produce respirators now. He can't be that bad a guy, right?

    why are you so tediously literal?

    I'll believe Musk is producing ventilators when he starts rolling out ventilators.

    This is the result of Musk's tweet and why I find him a dangerous nuisance, regardless of the state of chloroquine/covid-1 research: 

     


  14. 2 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

    I don't have it out for you but you changed your tune pretty quickly. There is a difference between "promising" and ready for FDA approval. Nobody said anything was ready for mass distribution. Whether something is promising is subjective. Whether it passes clinical trials is not. We were discussing the former, not the latter, so to suggest that something has no merit and cannot be trusted just because a guy you dislike tweeted about it is totally missing the point. There is obviously some merit to the drug's potential to help or it wouldn't be seriously researched by credible doctors and scientists with finite resources under intense time pressure.

    what we disagree on is the merits of a loudmouth promoting cures before they're cures. the adults are doing the work of science. that's not what musk's tweet was. I don't know why you think I'm saying, or have been saying anything other than that. I'm sorry if I insulted your car or something. 

×
×
  • Create New...