A Late Take on Recent Events

I do this often, fall into a funk and take extended breaks from blogging and writing in general. It's why I'll probably never finish the novel I started, even though I now have the entire story in my head and close to 60,000 words down, most of which combine in some boring way but could probably be rewritten into something more exciting if I could find some motivation. While I didn't disappear completely, I wasn't very active on social media, not that I am anyway, but I reduced the time I spent on certain websites.

It doesn't look like I missed much by slightly limiting my time on the Internet. I opted to watch some Olympic gymnastics, equestrian, and track and field events during this period. The latter was entertaining if you suspended disbelief and depressing if you think about why so many runners are breaking records. Psst, it's not just the shoes or the fancy track. During this time, Lindsay Crouse got paid to recycle the same article at least three times, Lauren Fleshman cheered on a runner despite Molly not being the type of athlete she prefers to recruit because of the athlete's past struggles, and Latoya somehow got chosen to run the Boston marathon, even though over 9,000 others who qualified by running a specific time were denied entry due to field size limitations. Men and women in their 80s are forced to run faster than she does if they want to run the race, over two hours faster, in fact. In other words regarding all of this, same shit, different day. 

Several years ago, someone I know mentioned he had hired an editor-in-chief for his newly formed local publication. After reading the first story she wrote in her position, I couldn't understand how someone who knew so little about writing and editing could land a job like that. She had no prior experience, was far from a gifted writer, and knew very little about correct grammar. When I pointed this out, my friend told me that she got the job because she showed up. She presented herself well and was committed to getting the job, qualifications and talent be damned. She sold herself as someone more capable than she was, and that's all it took, though flattering the founder probably didn't hurt. My sister got a freelance writing job in a similar way, by showing up, but the big difference is that my sister, a talented writer with a Master's in English, deserved the position and did well. 

It's not in me to sell myself. I'm fascinated by those who consider themselves important for merely having an online presence or those who claim to be experts in an area when they're not. Feeling morose lately has a lot to do with seeing the kinds of people who get attention and rewarded online, mostly liars, cheats, and self-promoters lacking any real talent. Fortunately, hard-working individuals occasionally do get praise and recognition, too, but many deserving individuals are ignored. I think it's because it's all too much. 

There's too much information, not all of it accurate, being thrown in our faces, and the media make the situation worse by too often presenting opinion as fact. We get bombarded with conflicting ideas about what's inspiring when people celebrate athletes pushing themselves too far while simultaneously condemning those who did in the past. For the record, it turns out Simone Biles is no stranger to competing while injured. I'm glad she did what was right for herself this time around by not competing in certain events, but nobody should be shamed for decisions made under very different circumstances at a different time. I mean, Jesus Christ, the way Crouse continually rips on Kerri Strug, you would think she has some kind of personal grudge against the poor woman. 

I didn't watch the Diamond League events last night, but I saw that some individuals posted results on Twitter. While the usual suspects continue to lobby for trans and DSD athletes to run in women's races and focus on "naturally elevated" testosterone levels of those running or hormone therapy for those who want to run, they leave out a few important bits of information. I highly suggest everyone read this entire thread or this post or this one before commenting on social media about whether or not it's right for inclusion to trump fairness in sports. Like many others, I don't think it is. A trans athlete competing in women's sports, even one in her late 40s, will have an advantage over a cis woman, even after she undergos hormone therapy. I appreciate so much anyone who is honest and doesn't want to run unfairly, and my heart goes out to anyone in a position of feeling left out or unsure of how to compete fairly. Hell, with all the dopers who cheat, desperate for a secret edge, it's refreshing to see some people who would like the playing field to be equal.  

I keep saying this, but focusing on hormones, like testosterone, that affect recovery, healing, bone health, and, if everyone is honest, performance (just ask Lance Armstrong) doesn't address physiological differences between individuals born with internal testes or tissue or those born biologically male who wish to transition and cis women. Regarding general differences between the sexes, in addition to hormone levels, one must consider heart and lung size, leg length, and hip-width. And, as someone else pointed out, if testosterone is no biggie and everyone thinks it's OK that DSD athletes race in women's events with "naturally" higher levels, what's wrong with women doping to boost theirs into the same range? The whole thing is ridiculous, this idea that women must be inclusive, even if it's not fair to them, or else they face a huge blowback and even death threats. 

But support for DSD athletes running in women's races is widespread, at least among the loudest voices in running media, even though not everyone agrees that it's fair. Fast Women's recent Tweet makes it seem like World Athletics goes around and randomly assigns DSD classifications to unsuspecting women, which is not the case. I wish more people would read about the biology behind the differences in sex development. There's a reason for the classification, even if few are willing to address it. I still think there's a way for both DSD athletes and trans athletes to compete and possibly even compete as they identify while still being fair to women, but nobody has come up with a realistic solution yet. The closest I have seen is a race director who created an entirely separate category for anyone who identifies as "other", but, unfortunately, in that case, it meant scrapping the masters division. 

I know I focus a lot on certain publications and writers, but it's not just the running world that suffers from journalists who want to impress their peers more than they want to report the facts. I just notice it more because I follow running now and then, and I wonder how and why certain individuals got into the positions they did. I'm not sure how I feel about a journalist at the New York Times suggesting that nepotism might not be so bad. Is there a reason anyone would bring this up unprompted? It really makes me wonder. 

My neighbors on one side all got jobs through connections. Our family got jobs on our own merit. The ones next door boast about what they do and where they work. Everyone in our family tends to keep quiet. I'm thinking that their boasts wouldn't be so bad since they work hard and have some knowledge of what they are doing, but at least one of them also put down my sister for working as a flight attendant while getting a Master's degree. When my sister finished her degree and landed that freelance job I mentioned earlier, one of the ladies next door told her, "Oh good. Now you can get a real job." We all took some pleasure in knowing that, years later, my niece got a job all on her own with the very firm that rejected my neighbor's son, despite the guy having parents with the best connections, and yet none of us ran over to put anyone down or boast. We're not a mean bunch, but sometimes a little rare poetic justice seems fitting. 

Recently, one of the neighbors from that same family came over and confronted a friend of mine and his dog, accusing him of not picking up dogshit, which was really weird because 1. it's our yard and 2. there was no poop, not a single croton. The animal hadn't even farted. It just gets really fatiguing seeing others act so fucking full of themselves. Fine if you want to be part of the neighborhood poop patrol and monitor the excrement that comes out of the rear ends of pets, but don't come on our property and start creating shit out of nothing. Same thing in the running community. Stop trying to take a dump on women's running under the guise of activism. If you truly believe that testosterone doesn't make any difference and running races should be a fucking free-for-all, then do away with all classifications entirely, no age group categories and no male or female categories. Then let everyone know how fair that would be in major competitions that award prize money to the top 10 overall, no matter the athletes' gender or age. That seems to be where some people want to go. 

Here She Goes Again

****Warning, Potentially Triggering Content with Mention of Behaviors, Fad Diets, And Numbers****

Whenever Lindsay Crouse comes up with a new opinion piece for the New York Times, I hold my breath, hoping for the best but not expecting it. I suppose audience members watching a child they know is unprepared walk up to the piano for a recital feel the same way. They want the kid to do well but know it takes practice and commitment in order to hit the right notes. What's surprising is that, unlike an out-of-practice child taking the stage solo and attempting to tackle a challenging song in front of friends and family, Crouse has help from a team. In her case, even with the aid of fact-checkers, she still manages to fuck up details. Worse, with all the attention she puts on women and mental health, she can't seem to wrap her head around what constitutes triggering content, or maybe she just doesn't care. She's not the only one. Erin Strout, after retweeting this bit of sound advice: 

decided it would be great to attempt to get a few laughs a few weeks later by posting this:

I get that she's not promoting the product and is actually agreeing that it's dangerous. She's trying to be cute or funny or relevant. However, I've mentioned it before that it's important to know your audience. A tweet like the above with no warning or caution preceding it is fine for the average person or if you're one of the many in the media who likes to shock others, but both Crouse and Strout have made an effort to gain audience members consisting of feminists, anyone struggling with mental health issues and eating disorders, and athletes. As a reminder, athletes are more at risk for eating disorders than the general public, so I find it incredibly frustrating how careless these two are, especially considering they write for larger publications. Is receiving a few likes, clicks, or views more important than taking the time to think about what might be triggering to someone suffering with a potentially deadly disorder? 

The simple solution for anyone who would rather be acknowledged than think of the greater good or how actions can be detrimental to certain individuals would be to stop pretending to be an advocate for recovery and simply post like anyone else. When you write about the dangers of eating disorders and point your finger at others, expecting them to be more thoughtful about what they post, you assume some responsibility as well. It takes effort to avoid promoting diet culture and unhealthy behaviors, to stop and think, "Am I helping or potentially hurting or triggering those who follow me with this content?" Is it really necessary to risk upsetting someone or worse, giving someone who's ill ideas just to get a few laughs or likes? 

If you don't understand the mindset of someone who struggles, it's OK to stop pretending you do. You don't have to take any pledge to do better and can post links to all the dangerous weight-loss devices and fad diets you want. This is the type of shit that drives me absolutely nuts. Does it mean nothing to these types that eating disorders kill more people annually than all other mental illnesses combined? If you want to target a specific audience, you really should be more aware of the sensitivities of its members.  

I will come back to triggering content later, but more often than not, Crouse's writing comes off as rushed and not well researched, an attempt to quickly get out anything on a popular topic. Hell, some of my blog posts are more researched than the essays she gets published. 

In two of her most recent pieces, she misleads her audience yet again. Some might not notice or care about the little details, but facts matter. They should anyway. In her article addressing Sha'Carri Richardson's suspension, she brings up Suzy Favor Hamilton and a few others in an effort to demonstrate that athletes also suffer from mental health issues, a topic that has been addressed in scholarly articles, books, and in other publications long before the year 2021, though people are more open about it now. Richardson, unlike many of her fans, has handled the situation with as much grace and maturity as humanly possible, especially considering most people in this country don't think marijuana should even be on the banned list. She is definitely someone to be admired in that regard. What Crouse seems to be saying but fails to in any kind of clear way is that there's a difference between actual cheating in order to improve performance and using a banned substance in order to help cope with life events. 

Addressing mental illness in athletes, Crouse writes, "Suzy Favor Hamilton, a nine-time N.C.A.A. champion, suffered from depression after she retired from her athletic career; it led to scandal after the revelation that she was working as an escort." But this is inaccurate. Suzy has said over and over again that she is bipolar. What happened wasn't exactly the result of depression related to an incident or her career coming to an end. It's far more complex than that. She was on medication that exacerbated her manic episodes. This wasn't exactly a situation in which someone was self-medicating, and depression didn't lead to scandal. If you're interested in reading a more accurate account of what Suzy was going through at the time, you can read my interview with her here, but, more importantly, Crouse is giving the wrong impression about both depression and what was happening in Suzy’s life at the time.  

Crouse adds: 

We don’t just expect our Olympians to be incredible athletes. We expect them to be role models and to adhere to impossibly high levels of self-discipline, work ethics, and sportsmanship that have nothing to do with their actual job. Women, especially women of color, face even higher expectations.

But those traits, things like self-discipline and work ethic, generally have a lot to do with being a good athlete. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. What she probably means is that in addition to being good on the field or on the track, some people expect athletes to also be exceptional role models and overall good people. Charles Barkley and Tonya Harding shot that unrealistic idea down some time ago, but I suppose not everyone got the message. Expecting athletes to be perfect in all areas is about as wise as expecting all rich people to be smart. Athlete or not, people are people, and those engaging in athletic activities don't always behave in the same ways. Not all athletes feel pressured to set a good example, but others feel compelled, either by internal and/or external forces, to be or appear perfect. It's crazy how often we forget that people, even athletes, are unique individuals. 

Always one to sprinkle more names of athletes appearing in the news cycle into her work, Crouse throws in Gwen Berry by saying:

Gwen Berry, a track and field Olympian who is facing criticism from conservative lawmakers for turning away from the American flag on the medal podium during the national anthem at the Olympic Trials, told me Ms. Richardson was being held to an impossible standard.

Well, at the moment, Berry is facing criticism more because of her past racist tweets and her attempt to joke about rape victims, but, offensive tweets aside for just a second, Richardson wasn't being held to an impossible standard. She was being held to the same standard as any other athlete. Regarding Berry, despite her past tweets and turning away from the flag, she has plenty of support, even from those who strongly and relentlessly condemn anyone who's male and white and looks like he possibly maybe sort of could be a racist. In general, athletes of color probably do face an imbalance in the way they are treated, but the ban Richardson faces is not an example of racial injustice. Banning specific swim caps, on the other hand, is a gross injustice, and hopefully, that issue will be resolved in a new ruling.   

Regarding drug testing, Crouse adds:

It’s becoming increasingly challenging to avoid banned substances and still live in the real world. (I’ve wondered how many of us mortals would pass a doping test if we took one today.)

That might be true in this country where more states have moved to legalize recreational marijuana, but if she's talking about tainted burritos or meat or even if she's only looking at THC, she might want to take a closer look at the levels required to test positive. Additionally, why are so few suspected cheaters caught if everyone is filling up on banned substances? The anti-doping system is failing but not because it's outing those who have drugs in their system. What Crouse probably means is that a few American female athletes were caught this year for actual violations or for skipping out on tests, so it must be the agencies in place that are at fault, not the adored athletes. 

After just implying that Olympians are not like us mere mortals, Crouse goes on to say in a different article published shortly after that Olympians are just like us by using one of the most extraordinary athletes she could find as her case in point, Simone Biles. 

In her opinion piece on Biles, Crouse once again can't help but focus on looks and comparisons, which isn't surprising considering she believes nobody can get past caring what others think, but she completely leaves out the long history of gymnastics and how both it and its athletes have changed over the years. 

Her focus is entirely on American athletes, and she doesn't care to include anyone before the 80s, as if the sport sprang up out of nowhere along with big hair and shoulder pads. As Lorraine Moller suggested in the foreword of my book, the early 80s saw a return to the age of Twiggy. Everyone was striving to be thinner in a cultural shift. At the time, someone like Mary Lou Retton was considered an outlier because, despite being lean, she looked different, more powerful than some of the other teenagers she competed against. 

Additionally, if you look at a chart of medal-winning gymnasts in the all-around event over the years, you see that women and girls competing are actually a lot leaner now than they were in the mid-70s and before. On average, they were also older back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It should be noted that in the mid-70s, an age limit was put in place that restricted anyone younger than 14 from competing. That changed to 15 in the 80s and lasted until 1997 when it changed to 16. Speaking of age, Oksana Chusovitina is in her 40s and still competing in international meets. How 'bout that? 

From Harvard Sports Analysis

Leaving out the history of the sport isn't the worst offense Crouse commits. As someone who has written about a young woman who struggled with an eating disorder and has admitted to having some issues herself, she should know better than to post the very dangerously low daily calorie content of a competitive athlete. Again, if she knows her audience, she should understand how detrimental it can be for someone struggling to see these kinds of specific numbers without warning. She could have just as easily said that the athlete restricted her calorie intake to the point where it became dangerous. There are countless ways to say something similar without using exact numbers. Or she could have put a warning at the top of the article. It's so fucking easy. 

Crouse also compares an adult Biles to young athletes still in their teens, as if they should also be posting images of themselves with drinks and boyfriends on Instagram. It's absurd to think what someone posts on Instagram accurately represents who she is in real life, but suggesting that posting a picture of pizza means she's completely happy and healthy is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. Biles might be a great example of a well-rounded athlete and individual, but it's not because she posts images of food on social media. 

In addition to the somewhat bizarre takes she presents, Crouse also fails to get simple facts correct. She claims that Kerri Strug "tore her ankle" and makes it sound like a wild beast ripped the appendage from her body. No, it wasn't a "torn ankle," it was a sprained ankle with damage to the tendon. Why is fact checking so difficult for her and her team? 

In this article, as opposed to the previous one, Crouse seems to be pushing the idea that you can be a regular 'ole person and reach some kind of elite status. That's not typically the case, but that doesn't mean an athlete can't have balance. 

I remember talking to Suzy Favor about being an elite athlete. It would be nearly impossible to get to a top level without having the drive and desire to push yourself. It's often a balancing act trying to figure out how to not go too far, but being an athlete takes a lot of hard work and dedication. You almost have to be a little nutty and on the over-driven side to achieve success, and the most successful athletes tend to be those who are able to avoid going too far over the edge while still working hard. 

The one thing that Crouse left out that might have made someone as phenomenal as Biles more relatable is that she has ADHD and has had to take Ritalin since she was young. It's little details like that, not her posting pizza images, that let others know she's human and has the same kinds of struggles as others. 

Here. Now I'm all balanced and happy and shit.