A glimmer of hope for women's decathlon

The followers of this blog know that I am a great fan of combined events and in particular of women's decathlon. The latter was officially introduced in 2004 and the first world record was that of M. Collonvillé with 8150 points. (The IAAF/WA always making life hard for women, had permuted the field events between the first and second day, something totally illogical from a technical point of view). And after its official introduction the women's decathlon was left to die, since it never became part of major competitions. Had the international federation been sincere in their support of the new discipline, they would have organised an annual cup, which would have allowed the emergence of real female decathletes. But nothing happened and almost 20 years later only a handful of female decathlon practitioners do exist.

If the decathlon manages to become one day the combined event for women, establishing, at long last, parity between men and women in athletics, that would be due to the incessant efforts of Jordan Gray. She has been, for several years now, promoting this discipline for women. She has launched the campaign "Let Women Decathlon". She is the current US decathlon record holder and with 8246 points she is second in the all time list, at 112 points from the world record of A. Skuyte. 

Still Gray's initiative was up to now an isolated one. However a recent decision of the Decastar organisers is bringing some hope. Next year's organisation will include a women's decathlon, open to 8 selected athletes. The decathlon competition will have the status of an "exhibition" but, still, it will be an excellent occasion for women to show that they can perform very well in this demanding event. After all, women have been competing for decades now in all the disciplines of the decathlon. M. Collonvillé will be the official patron of the event. And one can dream of a world record established on that occasion. J. Gray obtained 8246 points after having trained specifically for the discus, where she threw 40.98 m, and the pole vault, jumping 3.91 m. But her heptathlon personal best is a mere 5903 points. One can wonder what a 6500+ competitor can do in the heptathlon with a specific preparation on these two technical disciplines. In my 2014 article on women's decathlon I did a fast calculation on the possible total for C. Klüft, who had had some experience in pole vault and discus throw, and estimated that she could obtain a 9000+ score. And while not many athletes have the talent of Klüft, a 8500-8700 score does not look as out-of-this-world.

So let's wait for 2023 Decastar. It would be a great rendez-vous for women's decathlon.

The amateurism myth (part two)

Or how amateurism had nothing to do with Ancient Greece

De Coubertin would have liked us to believe that the amateur status of athletes, required by the Olympics, was directly inherited to us by the Ancient Greeks. Nothing is further from the truth. The participants to the ancient Olympics (and the other games, like Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean or Panathenaean) were definitely not amateur according to the deCoubertenian definition.

On the other hand I just laugh when I see the misguided etymological interpretation of the word "athlete", coming for "athlon", supposedly meaning the prize, and thus establishing a non-amateur origin. Let us put things straight. The word "αθλος" in ancient greek initially means a feat, a difficult accomplishment. The labours of Heracles are "οι άθλοι του Ηρακλέους". It evolved in order to mean contest and subsequently to the prize of said contest. So, for me, αθλητής is somebody who enters a contest. In less ancient greek the word for prize evolved to "έπαθλον", something given as reward for an "άθλος". And yes, there were material rewards for the ancient winners, not just the kotinos. (See my article "Before the olympic medals: the olive wreath" where I give further details).

Ancient wrestlers

In the Iliad, Homer gives a particularly detailed account of the funeral games organised in order to honour Patroclus and of the valuable prizes that Achilles had offered to the winners. The first Olympic Games came later, in the 7th century, although those were the first for which an account exists, some archaeologists believing that the Games had started a century of two earlier. The first recorded winner was Koroivos, a local athlete from the Olympia region, who won the stadion race in 776 B.C. (And since we are giving chronologies, the last recorded winner was Zopyros, a boxer from Athens, who won in 385 A.D., with emperor Theodosios banning the games in 393).

In order to participate in the Games an athlete had to fulfil three conditions: to be of pure Greek lineage, to have paid his vows to Zeus Olympios and be ceremonially free from pollution by manslaughter. All competitors at the Games were required to train for ten months and were required to spend one month of this period in residence in Olympia. This was already making the preparation impossible for somebody who had to work in order to make a living. But such was the prestige of the Games that the cities were ready to sustain financially the athletes. 

Prizes offered by the various games. (Notice the shield for the games of Argos).

Under the laws of Solon, a winner in Olympia from Athens would receive 500 drachmas (an enormous sum). Those who won at the other great Games were receiving 100 drachmas. Athenian winners were also receiving a free meal in the City Hall every day for the rest of their lives. So, while the wreath of the winner had no intrinsic value, the subsequent rewards were quite substantial.

To tell the truth, not everybody was happy with the excessive rewards of the athletes and some observers pointed out that the financial rewards of the Games were causing young Greek men to shirk their other studies to concentrate on athletics, resulting in these men becoming worse soldiers and scholars. And the attraction of the profit led to behaviour similar to the one observed today with rich cities trying to attract the best athletes by offering particularly rich prizes and in some cases even attempting to have them change allegiance and compete for them.

I have already written about the opulence of the Panathenaean Games. Victors there were awarded olive oil harvested from the sacred groves of Athena, presented in an amphora that held 30 to 40 litres. And we are not talking about just one amphora. The winner of the men’s stadion race was receiving 100 and there was even a prize for the second (20 amphoras). In the case of wrestling the prizes were 60 and 12 respectively. While it is not easy to estimate the value of this oil at the period of the Games it remains that, by any calculation, we are talking about a small fortune, and for just one victory.

Amphora from the Panathenaean Games

At some point even the major games started adding prizes to the winners wreath as in the case of the Pythian Games, in Delphi, in the 3rd century B.C. and to make things clear there was no rule, not even a social norm, that prevented Olympic athletes from participating in competitions that offered material prizes, even cash.

C. Mann, summarises perfectly the situation.

Coubertin and his supporters let the public believe that the idea of ‘gentlemen’s sport’ followed the ancient model. According to their view, ancient athletes during the so-called good times, which means from the origins of the Olympic Games to the time of Pindar, were ‘amateurs’ who traveled to Olympia out of love for sport and noble competition. Later on, greedy ‘professionals’ from the lower classes entered the scene, causing specialisation, over-competition, and corruption; as a consequence, aristocrats and ‘true sport’ left the Greek stadia contests. This decadence model was repeated time and again by IOC officials. Scholars also adopted this view: for many decades it was the communis opinio that professionalism had caused the decline of Greek athletics.

Well, the ancient greek Olympics survived for more than 1000 years. Will the modern ones even come close to such a longevity? I strongly doubt this.

Game over for transwomen

I have been criticising Sir Sebastian from the very first day of his presidency. To my eyes World Athletics did never take courageous and/or groundbreaking decisions. That's it till now. In a press release that surprised me enormously World Athletics announced that transgender women will not be allowed to participate in women's competitions.

Hallelujah!

From March 31, 2023, transgender, male-to-female, athletes who have been through male puberty, are excluded from female competitions, so as to protect the future of the female category. The decision was reached after consultation with national federations, the coaches academy, the athletes' commission, the IOC as well as representative transgender and human rights groups.

Coe admitted that there will be reactions to the decision, but said that Athletics has always been guided by the principle of fairness. In his own words:

“Decisions are always difficult when they involve conflicting needs and rights between different groups, but we continue to take the view that we must maintain fairness for female athletes above all other considerations. We believe the integrity of the female category in athletics is paramount”.

And in order to appease the minds of the transgender community the WA council agreed to set up a Working Group for 12 months to further consider the issue of transgender inclusion. 

It is expected that LGBTQ+ groups like Stonewall will react to the decision. Just recently they declared that "the trans population have every right to participate in sports and enjoy the many physical, mental and community benefits of sports". My naïve question to this statement is "why can't they enjoy the benefits of sports competing in the men's category?". Ricki Coughlan, an australian transgender runner, said that the WA ruling would "embolden the 'forces of hate' against transgender people".

Fortunately the LGBTQ+  voices are not the only ones to be heard. The group Fair Play For Women welcomed the WA decision as being "the right thing for women and girls, in line with all the scientific evidence and common sense”. 

To tell the truth I was less surprised by the decision on transgender than by the one on DSD athletes. Those who follow my blog know that I have been most unhappy by the presence of athletes like Semenya or Niyonsaba. I wrote time and again on this question, criticising in particular the existence of restricted events. Since the DSD regulations concerned distances from 400 m to the mile, DSD athletes could very well avoid them by moving downwards or upwards. So, C. Mboma obtained a silver olympic medal over 200 m, while F. Niyonsaba moved to the 5000 m and would have obtained a medal in the Olympics had she not been disqualified for lane violation. (C. Semenya, also tried to convert to the longer distance but given her somatotype that was a desperate move, probably meant to entice sympathy).  

So from March 31, there are no more restricted events. At long last, the DSD restrictions apply to all track and field events. Moreover the new regulations require any relevant athletes to reduce their testosterone levels below a limit of 2.5 nmol/L for a minimum of 24 months to compete internationally in the female category. There are interim provisions for the events that were unrestricted before, requiring a six-month testosterone suppression while for the previously restricted events the two-year suppression is mandatory. 

What does all this mean in practice? Simply, no DSD athletes will be allowed to take place neither in the World Championships not in the Diamond League. The six-month period carries us to the end of September and, practically, the end of the season. 

Sir Sebastian boasted that  

“We have been prepared to take these issues head on. In the past they would have been allowed to drift or be kicked into the long grass. That is not the nature of my leadership and it is certainly not the instincts of my council”.

Although I would beg to differ concerning the "nature of Coe's leadership" this is the time that I have only praises for him and the WA Council.

Full disclosure: I was going to write a post following an article which appeared in Inside the Games on a law proposed by republican legislators in the US aiming at banning transgender women from competing in women's teams (in fact only for high schools and colleges). I was going to give my post the title

I never thought I would side with the MAGA gang

I disagree with those bozos on almost everything. But banning transwomen from women's sports is the one domain where I am 100 % in agreement with them.

Republicans control the Congress and so the bill would most probably pass. However since the Democrats control the Senate the bill could be defeated there and, in the worst case scenario, the champions of the woke-ism would expect president Biden to veto the law. 

Frankly I do not understand what the supposedly progressive people are thinking. Are they ready to sacrifice women sports to a band of cheaters who, profiting from the current, gender-fluid, age of identity, decided to obtain in women's category the honours that are beyond their reach in the men's one?