|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 25, 2024 18:24:18 GMT -5
What confuses me is that all of this is coming about NOW. Surely, if they cared so much, Lia Thomas was in all the headlines. Transgender participation in NCAA sports has been occurring. To demand eligibility requirements changed mid-season and go to court over it... is certainly interesting. Did they only care when it involved an athlete they may personally be playing against? That's the point for the court, too. The judge's decision pointed out that the rule hasn't changed since 2022, so it's far to late to be screaming about it now. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 25, 2024 18:25:38 GMT -5
I also thought her safety part of her explanation was more in line with the 80mph swing. It did NOT seem genuine to me. They should have asked if San Jose State had male club players and if they come to practice, and if she feels like that is a safety issue the NCAA needs to address? No anti-trans media interview is going to mention male practice players. |
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Nov 25, 2024 19:47:07 GMT -5
What confuses me is that all of this is coming about NOW. Surely, if they cared so much, Lia Thomas was in all the headlines. Transgender participation in NCAA sports has been occurring. To demand eligibility requirements changed mid-season and go to court over it... is certainly interesting. Did they only care when it involved an athlete they may personally be playing against? That's the point for the court, too. The judge's decision pointed out that the rule hasn't changed since 2022, so it's far to late to be screaming about it now. Didn't read the opinion; don't know the facts, but speaking generally a number of factors could affect or alter the timing of litigation, including finding a law firm willing to take the case on a reduced or free-fee basis. Also, I'm unclear, from the little I've read, when the trans status of the player in question becoome known. Could one sue to contest the rule, without an identifiable instance in which it was being applied and applied in a way that personally affects the plaintiffs? I don't know the answer to that, either, but wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "no." In fact, I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "no." There are "standing" rules that limit who can sue and when. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,554 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 25, 2024 20:05:17 GMT -5
That's the point for the court, too. The judge's decision pointed out that the rule hasn't changed since 2022, so it's far to late to be screaming about it now. Didn't read the opinion; don't know the facts, but speaking generally a number of factors could affect or alter the timing of litigation, including finding a law firm willing to take the case on a reduced or free-fee basis. Also, I'm unclear, from the little I've read, when the trans status of the player in question becoome known. Could one sue to contest the rule, without an identifiable instance in which it was being applied and applied in a way that personally affects the plaintiffs? I don't know the answer to that, either, but wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "no." In fact, I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "no." There are "standing" rules that limit who can sue and when. If those do not know eligibility rules, then that is their ignorance, not “known”. There have been other trans athletes that have shared their stories and experiences. Also, like, FERPA people. How is a trans athlete going to be “known” in all scenarios? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 25, 2024 20:26:17 GMT -5
That's the point for the court, too. The judge's decision pointed out that the rule hasn't changed since 2022, so it's far to late to be screaming about it now. Didn't read the opinion; Probably you should, then. |
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Nov 25, 2024 20:30:10 GMT -5
Probably you should, then. do you have a convenient cite or site where it can be read? |
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Nov 25, 2024 20:47:14 GMT -5
Probably you should, then. I'll take an educated guess in the meantime that the court's opinion doesns't address some of the points I raised, such as the effort and expense involved in finding suitable and affordable counsel and, for that matter, deciding to launch a federal law suit. Unlike spouting off on VT, preparing and filing a law suit in any court, but in particular federal court, is not something one just does on the spur of the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by interstate680 on Nov 25, 2024 20:53:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RoxasNobody on Nov 25, 2024 21:28:29 GMT -5
Probably you should, then. I'll take an educated guess in the meantime that the court's opinion doesns't address some of the points I raised, such as the effort and expense involved in finding suitable and affordable counsel and, for that matter, deciding to launch a federal law suit. Unlike spouting off on VT, preparing and filing a law suit in any court, but in particular federal court, is not something one just does on the spur of the moment. The court doesn't specifically call out those issues, but it does address them broadly:
To me, it reads like the plaintiffs had a chance to bring up any of the issues you mentioned but didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Nov 25, 2024 22:33:21 GMT -5
The judge's decision pointed out that the rule hasn't changed since 2022, so it's far to late to be screaming about it now. The court's words have a particular context, namely, the request, premised on the a supposed emergency, for extraordinary injunctive relief. The court wasn't saying that "it's far too late" to object to the policy or to seek a declaration that the policy is unlawful, although someday it might say that if the issue arises. Rather, it was saying, don't start a law suit 2 weeks before the tournament and come to the court and ask for immediate injunctive relief with respect to a situation that you're known about for many months, if not years. I haven't read the complaint and don't know what other relief the plaintiffs are seeking. But the "too late" ruling is specific to the request for a preliminary injunction. |
|
|
|
Post by fromonhigh on Nov 25, 2024 23:42:21 GMT -5
What confuses me is that all of this is coming about NOW. Surely, if they cared so much, Lia Thomas was in all the headlines. Transgender participation in NCAA sports has been occurring. To demand eligibility requirements changed mid-season and go to court over it... is certainly interesting. Did they only care when it involved an athlete they may personally be playing against? Are you quite certain that all of the MWC coaches and players knew a male was playing for SJSU? I’ve seen nothing to indicate they had. If the young women who joined Slussler’s lawsuit found out mid-season than the timing of their lawsuit makes complete sense. |
|
|
|
Post by fromonhigh on Nov 25, 2024 23:59:00 GMT -5
I also thought her safety part of her explanation was more in line with the 80mph swing. It did NOT seem genuine to me. They should have asked if San Jose State had male club players and if they come to practice, and if she feels like that is a safety issue the NCAA needs to address? No anti-trans media interview is going to mention male practice players. Garrison, you know how male practice players are utilized during practice. Most of the time males are used to train hitters to hit against a bigger block than can be created by the actual girls in practice. Sometimes they simulate the other teams setter or an opponents top-spin server. When they are used as hitters, you can can bet your last dollar that a coach would run a male player out of the gym if he hit with 100% power against his team. In the event of injury to a team member the coach would have to answer a lot of questions. |
|
|
|
Post by outofrotation on Nov 26, 2024 0:05:13 GMT -5
I also thought her safety part of her explanation was more in line with the 80mph swing. It did NOT seem genuine to me. They should have asked if San Jose State had male club players and if they come to practice, and if she feels like that is a safety issue the NCAA needs to address? No anti-trans media interview is going to mention male practice players. Male practice players are just that practice players. Talk to many of them just like the male coaches. They do not swing at 100%, they are mostly dialed back and supposed to give a look like what the team will see in their next game. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,554
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2024 0:26:30 GMT -5
No anti-trans media interview is going to mention male practice players. Male practice players are just that practice players. Talk to many of them just like the male coaches. They do not swing at 100%, they are mostly dialed back and supposed to give a look like what the team will see in their next game. They don’t swing at 100%? Says who? Maybe not Nikolov. But plenty of men’s club practice players do. That is my experience at two P4 programs. |
|
|
|
Post by fromonhigh on Nov 26, 2024 0:29:27 GMT -5
Which P4 programs. I’m not buying it.
|
|
