- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Leia Genis individual pursuit USA national championships (screenshot USA Cycling / YouTube)USA Cycling accused of "transphobia" after individual pursuit medallist stripped of national championships medal
Update: On 5 August USA Cycling, responding to a request for comment from road.cc, claimed that Leia Genis was ineligible to compete at last week’s Track National Championships – where she took second place in the women’s individual pursuit before being stripped of her silver medal and removed from competition less than 24 hours later – as she had failed to provide the UCI with the documentation required to race in the Elite Women’s category.
The national governing body pointed out that Genis’ earlier participation in non-elite events fell under USA Cycling’s Policy VII Non-Elite Competition guidelines for transgender athletes, which allows competitors to self-select their gender (according to these guidelines, members are also able to file a grievance “in the event that a question should arise about a member’s eligibility to participate in a manner consistent with their gender”).
However, by upgrading to compete in the elite women’s category, USA Cycling says that Genis then became subject to the policies and regulations of the UCI and International Olympic Committee (IOC).
As noted in the original article below, the UCI’s new rules on transgender cyclists – which came into effect on 1 July – stipulate that athletes transitioning from male to female must demonstrate that their testosterone levels have been below 2.5 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L) for 24 months.
According to USA Cycling, Genis did not provide the UCI with the required documentation to upgrade to elite level and, when a review was carried out during last week’s track championships, had not completed the “required steps” to meet the eligibility criteria.
In a statement provided to road.cc, USA Cycling said: “At the 2022 USA Cycling Elite & Junior Track National Championships, a transgender woman, Leia Genis, registered for several Elite Women's events.
“Ms. Genis was made aware of the UCI's Transgender Policy in March 2022 and her responsibilities in complying with this policy. At the time, Ms. Genis was participating in non-elite categories and fell under USA Cycling's Policy VII Non-Elite Competition guidelines.
“Ms. Genis subsequently upgraded but did not provide the UCI with the necessary documents to race in the Elite Women's category.
“When USA Cycling discovered that Ms. Genis was participating in the event, a representative from the organization met with Ms. Genis to review her eligibility in accordance with the UCI’s policy.
“This review revealed that Ms. Genis was ineligible to participate in the championships as she had not completed the required steps to meet the UCI's Athlete Eligibility Regulations. As a result, USA Cycling refunded Ms. Genis’ registration fees, vacated her event results, and removed her from further events at the 2022 USA Cycling Elite & Junior Track National Championships.
“USA Cycling supports transgender athletes' participation in sport and was one of the first national governing bodies to adopt an inclusive transgender athlete policy.”
The original article appears below:
A silver medallist in the women's individual pursuit at last week's USA Cycling Elite Track National Championships has accused the governing body of "transphobia" after being stripped of her medal and removed from competition less than 24 hours later.
Leia Genis finished second in the women's elite individual pursuit, behind Bethany Matsick, at last week's national championships in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. However, the next day both of the bronze medal race participants, Skyler Espinoza and Elizabeth Stevenson, were upgraded to second and third respectively, and Genis removed from the results list.
Writing on Instagram alongside a picture of her standing on the podium next to Matsick and Espinoza, with a silver medal around her neck, Genis said the "transphobia" behind USA Cycling's decision was "so blatant it's almost laughable".
"Being a trans woman in this sport is so incredibly frustrating," Genis said. "Poorly-communicated guidelines, restrictions and requirements that are constantly changing, lack of empathy from USA Cycling, and a peloton full of furtive whispers and sideways glances mean that even showing up to compete is an immense struggle.
"I am obviously heartbroken. I have worked my ass off to be here and I rightfully earned my silver medal. I will continue to train and race but this experience has left me disgusted and abhorred."
Genis also explained the events which saw her pulled from competition ahead of the next day's events.
"I was preparing for the mass-start races, a USA Cycling official informed me that I was no longer allowed to compete and that my place on the IP [individual pursuit] podium was to be revoked on account of my trans identity," Genis continued.
"Six weeks ago I was eligible for competition at UCI C1 and C2 races held at the same velodrome and overseen by the same technical director. Yet six weeks later, now that I am doing well at nationals, I am suddenly ineligible to compete. The transphobia is so blatant it's almost laughable."
Genis also took the opportunity to congratulate Matsick, who set a new track record in qualifying, on her "incredibly fast times".
USA Cycling remained silent on the decision in the days following the championships, with no comment other than to remove mention of Genis from the opening day's results.
While the governing body has since responded to road.cc's request for comment (see update above), questions remain surrounding why Genis, seemingly ineligible to compete under the tightened UCI rules, was allowed to race the event before being told.
From July 1, new UCI rules on transgender female cyclists competing in women's races came into effect, doubling the time an athlete transitioning from male to female needs to wait before being able to compete in women's races to 24 months.
It now stipulates that athletes transitioning from male to female need to have had testosterone levels below 2.5 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L) for 24 months. Previously, the rules required testosterone levels below 5 nmol/L for 12 months.
According to the athlete's Instagram, Genis began racing last year.
"Unfortunately, not everyone is happy to see a trans person racing," she said at the time.
"Many of which have expressed their disapproval quite loudly. But there have also been many supporters and honestly, I've had so much fun, they couldn't keep me away if they tried."
In March, British-based racer Emily Bridges was barred from making her racing debut as a woman at the National Omnium Championships. British Cycling said that the UCI had intervened to say Bridges "is not eligible to participate in this event".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Legin 25 min 51 sec ago
The tory party will oppose anything that might restrict their tanks rolling at the next election.
- EraserBike 31 min 30 sec ago
I'm sure this (and other 3D printed models) are made where labour costs are cheap also. Nobody is making these in Europe. There's only so much ...
- quiff 35 min 52 sec ago
I did start asking myself why there is a legal limit for a class A drug, until I read this bit: "In the UK, cocaine is classified as an illegal...
- chrisonabike 42 min 31 sec ago
Don't forget the trains when you get there also...
- mdavidford 56 min 49 sec ago
Especially since the similarly priced Tickr X did have that functionality.
- anke2 1 hour 36 min ago
CX is brutal in terms of forces acting on the chain. A single, technical kick at 40 RPM by Iserbyt with a small chainwheel might put more load on...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 1 min ago
Perhaps some of the difficulty here is in the language - what we're comparing with what?...
- Andrewbanshee 2 hours 14 min ago
I experience this quite often when out running. I follow the guidelines, running towards traffic and keep hard right. I am very visible too but...
- mctrials23 2 hours 28 min ago
Not enough to warrant having the role exist at all would be my guess.
Add new comment
139 comments
Ah - well now you're getting in to the Mother's/Mothers'/Mothers Day debate.
Is it an apostrophe pertaining to an archetypal grocer, or to all grocers as a collective? Most sources prefer the former, but I'd argue it's one of those cases where there's no right answer - which you choose is reflective of your own conceptualisation of the subject.
Shall we go with Mothering Sunday?
And there you've very neatly encapsulated the entire thread - I salute you!
Perhaps best illustrated by the reverse. If people are not "woke" (and I'm easily reactionary enough to dislike the use of a verb as an adjective) then are their eyes closed to the difficulties placed into the lives of people with different skin colour / orientation / gender / etc? Because if they think that life is dandy for any such person, they are wrong, and many of those difficulties are caused by those who either choose to ignore others' situations, or actively hate them.
These debates are difficult and I can't agree with anyone who thinks they have the full answer. Concerns on all sides are legitimate and those who think they cannot be voiced are very wrong - they are not woke, but a different flavour of authoritarian, because a truly woke person would have their eyes and ears open to diversity of opinion.
The current lot of Tories are playing a very dangerous game with this. Fanning the flames of a culture war because they think it may appeal to their core vote and their membership is a very bad thing. Political activity should be to change things for the better, not an attempt to satisfy an appetite for power through perceived popularity to a fraction of society. The appeal solely to the core vote (as we see in the US with primary elections) is a route to polarisation and hence extremism, and that's exactly where we are now.
And if Liz Truss wants to come after me for saying that the UK is, in many ways, vile, she's welcome to. In many ways it is wonderful too. But almost all of those good things are under severe pressure from those who do not realise the consequences of their actions or inactions, or do but don't care because money / power / ideology / short termism.
What worries me most about the current Tories is that they seem to be aiming ever further right-wards in an attempt to get more support. There's a real danger of fascism becoming more popular due to people having economic difficulties and the UK's economy is not likely to improve any time soon. We can look forward to the economic policies of a pound-land Thatcher if Truss gets in, and that seems likely as far right Tories are unlikely to want someone non-white to get into power. (From what I can remember, wasn't Thatcher's main economic policy to use up oil profits to dig herself/UK out of the hole she'd created?)
IIRC Norway set up some huge social fund out of their North Sea oil profits which is still going. The UK Govt blew it on winning another election...
Unfortunately, nobody will believe it until it's too late ("They came for the intellectuals and I said nothing because I wasn't an intellectual..." et al.).
My God, it's bad enough that this cycling thread has been hijacked by the trans activists. Don't bring bloody politics into it!
But fundamentally it is about politics in the end. Trans people face a lot of discrimination but some (perhaps from both sides, but my observation is more one side than the other) use the issue for their own ends.
Yknow, you're right. The other day I posted something on the internet to random strangers all over the world about how my boss was a gangster, my co-workers were deviants and addicts, all our products and services were useless and our customers were fools. Genuine belief. Next thing I know I lost my job! Can you believe it? Censorship run amok.
It's not like the good old days where you could walk into a pub, or up to a policeman and start shouting your views and everyone would respect that.
I'm thinking of moving somewhere freer, like... Rwanda. Oh, OK, Myanmar. Well, that's a bit poor so maybe Saudi Arabia. No, too hot, what about China? Hmm, I forsee "cultural difficulties", Russia maybe?
Satire aside there have always been "unsayable things" in any society I can think of. They change over time. Consider ol' Oscar Wilde. When he was tried his homosexuality was the problem. Nowadays we'd be triggered by the paedophilia (underage sex workers).
Don't get fooled by the magnifying effect of the meeja. Those who really want to "cancel" folks aren't in the majority even if some of the views they espouse are more mainstream now.
"woke" as a term eas started to mean anti-fascist, anti-homophobic etc sll rolled into one
I generally find people throwing "woke" around as a pejorative don't have any clue as to what the word means and are just parroting back a daily hate mail hate piece.
What? Just like Transphobe is thrown about to anyone with a different view?
people in glasshouses.......
I'm reminded of this old joke...
www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion
if by "different " you mean "literally transphobic in nature and expresssion" then oddly yess, stating a fact is pretty self explanatory.
own your hatred.
That's the thing. I'm not going to address the alleged transphobia of the UCI, but that right there is some really sh!tty communication regardless of anything else
Without getting into the ideological discusses I think calling this decision transphobic is similar to calling the recent Bronze medal decision in the Para Commonwealth games Para-phobic (or what ever the correct term is).
Its a shitty application of bureaucracy that may have an outcome that appears trans/paraphobic - but it fundamentally nothing more than the existing rules being applied in a very poor and non-transparent way.
Its rude, insulting, and hurtful to the athletes involved and they deserve apologie and to be managed and informed better - but its not in itself xxxx-phobic.
Wasn't that more math-phobic?
Triskaphobic, no?
Here we go. Strap yourself in. Everyone who thinks this is the correct decision according to UCI rules will be labelled a transphobe.
I don't see what the issue is here.
A recently updated rule was correctly applied which meant the biological female competitors were rightly given the placings they should have.
Biology 1 Ideology 0.
There are primarily two issues:
-the sporting body (once again) having unclear/shifting rules and poor communication, that unnecessarily aggrevate the issue
-a pile on by people with a broader agenda, in either direction, with mudslinging, abusive language etc.
FWIW, I work professionally with a parellel issue - single sex prisons and refuges. People pile on with an opinion on whether trans people should be allowed into single sex spaces like these without considering the implications for the rights (and safety) of other people already in these places.
srop spouting your lies. You know full well that your idea of "biology" is so simplistic it's laughable.
geneticists say you're wrong
You're just hoping that by saying often enough your transphobic attitude won't show through
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-...
Hahaha! Here we go, blah blah blah.
What you have linked to isn't proof, it's propaganda. You know it and so does everyone else. You're argument is paper thin and getting weaker.
Remember all those weeks/months ago how I predicted what has happened will come to pass? The names you called me, the pearl clutching etc etc.
Thanks to people like Leah Thomas, Fallon Fox, Emily Bridges et al, all they've done is prove the gap exists between the biological sexes. No blurred lines, no "close enough", just clear, irrefutable proof.
Not long ago, the average person such as I didn't really have a view on transgender rights as such. It wasn't harming anyone and seemed the right thing to do. Yes, transgender people should have the right to live as the gender they choose and with it the rights associated.
Then, biological men started to erode the rights of biological women on the sporting front. Stood there on the podiums of various sporting activities were biological men that had been bestowed gifts that biological women could only dream to have, or at least could get somewhere near with the use of performance enhancing drugs. An ideology was hoping to crush biology and with it, the rights of biological women to compete fairly. Dreams were being shattered. It's then that the average people like me thought "nah, fuck this shit, something needs doing about this".
And that, dear Nosferatu1001 is where we find ourselves today.
Well said. Could you imagine if, say, Usain Bolt was still competing? And decided to compete as a woman? Would that be fair? Or if Mike Tyson had decided to compete as a woman? How many people would be comfortable and think it was fair to watch him 'her' batter shit out of a woman?
If people want to say they're a different gender, fair play, it's their choice. But they should not be allowed to compete in sports against anyone other than other trans athletes.
I would be very interested in seeing results from trans men competing against biological men.
This nonsense has gone too far, as always the very vocal minority cannot respond with anything other than nasty threatening bile, spouting the usual 'Transphobe, TERF' etc etc etc.
Nosferatu is the perfect example of this woke ideology, whereby anyone with a view different to theirs are viciously attacked and shut down. Little does he/she/they/them know the damage they're doing to their cause. This madness will go full circle and will ruin it for the trans people.
I await a bigoted angry response complete with name calling from Nosferatu, who seems to be an angry homophobe, which will prove my point completely
Despite what the more hysterical sections of the press say, I've yet to see a serious trans advocate say that a man should be able simply to say "I'm a woman" and go straight into competition. You can disagree that a man who's undergone testosterone-lowering treatment is sufficiently reduced in performance to compete fairly with women (I have no view on this, or rather my views seem to change day to day) but strawmen such as "do you want Mike Tyson to be allowed to start fighting women" don't really help matters, nobody is advocating that.
That's what they wanted or at least were aiming for. Self-identification, no hormonal manipulation, no body modification.
But that's exactly what could happen?
No, it's sufficient evidence to anyone with the ability to understand. With every post you confirm your incapable or unwilling to understand. Your lies keep coming, your mysogynism keeps showing, etc.
Youre a transphobic person who doesn't have the slightest clue about what defines a "biological woman" and you know it. You're just hoping that by you repeating your bullshit that people will somehow think you're at all credible, as opposed to a sad, sad individual full of hate.
Mmm, and yet it seems that more and more sporting bodies are agreeing with me...
On your idea of what a "biological woman" is? No. No they're not.
little transphobic troll, sub-gcse level of understanding of genetics.
Pages