Fencer disqualified from tournament after refusing to face an opponent she says is transgender
USA Fencing disqualified a fencer from a women's tournament in Maryland after she refused to face an opponent whom she says is transgender.
Stephanie Turner was competing on March 30 in a USA Fencing-sanctioned regional tournament at the University of Maryland. It was not an NCAA-sanctioned event.
Online video shows Turner took a knee in protest before her match against the opponent. She was shown a black card by an official and disqualified from the remainder of the tournament. The Associated Press is not identifying Turner's opponent because they have not publicly commented on the incident nor disclosed their gender identity.
'A fencer is not permitted to refuse to fence another properly entered fencer for any reason,' USA Fencing said in a statement released to The Associated Press. 'Under these rules, such a refusal results in disqualification and the corresponding sanctions. This policy exists to maintain fair competition standards and preserve the sport's integrity.'
USA Fencing said it enacted its current transgender and non-binary athlete policy in 2023. The organization added that Turner's disqualifcation only applies to the March 30 tournament.
'We understand that the conversation on equity and inclusion pertaining to transgender participation in sport is evolving,' the statement said. 'USA Fencing will always err on the side of inclusion, and we're committed to amending the policy as more relevant evidence-based research emerges, or as policy changes take effect in the wider Olympic & Paralympic movement.'
Turner told Fox News Digital that after checking the competition pool the night before the event, she realized she would be competing against a transgender opponent.
'I told them that I was refusing to fence because this person is a man, and I'm a woman, and this is a women's tournament and I refuse to fence on principle,' Turner told Fox News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Simone Biles rails against ‘sore loser' conservative activist over trans athletes
Olympian gymnast Simone Biles on Friday night clashed with conservative activist Riley Gaines over a transgender athlete's participation on a Minnesota high school's softball team. Gaines railed against a post on social platform X from the Minnesota State High School League that celebrated Champlin Park High School's first softball state championship win. 'Comments off lol,' Gaines wrote, referencing MSHSL's X settings. 'To be expected when your star player is a boy.' The pitcher on Champlin Park's team identifies as transgender and pitched a shutout, delivering a 6-0 win over Bloomington Jefferson High School on Friday. 'You're truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,' Biles responded to Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer, calling her a 'bully' and a 'straight up sore loser.' Gaines, a student athlete turned political pundit, has become a vocal critic against the participation of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. Her rise on the right came after tying for fifth place in the 2022 NCAA Championships with transgender swimmer and LGBTQ advocate Lia Thomas. 'You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sport,' Biles continued in her thread on Friday. 'Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!! Earlier this year, Gaines joined President Trump at the White House when he signed an executive order barring the participation of trans athletes in sports that align with their gender identity. This order prompted an investigation into the Minnesota high school sports governing body and the state's federal funding, which the North Star State is fighting in court. The former University of Kentucky swimmer responded to the 11-time Olympic medalist's defense of the young athlete, calling her remarks 'disappointing.' 'It's not my job or the job of any woman to figure out how to include men in our spaces,' Gaines wrote on X. 'You can uplift men stealing championships in women's sports with YOUR platform.' 'Men don't belong in women's sports and I say that with my full chest,' she added. Last month, a conservative group on behalf of three softball players sued the North Star State over its 2015 transgender athlete policy, local outlets reported.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves NCAA House settlement, changing the landscape of collegiate athletics
Very late on Friday afternoon, we got a massive end-of-the week news dump when a judge officially approved a settlement in the NCAA v. House case. With the ruling, the landscape of college athletics will soon look very different than it has prior. The goal of the settlement is to provide structure to the NIL landscape in college football, which is currently effectively a free-for-all. Following the ruling, On3 discussed some of the ramifications of the ruling. 'Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes, On3's Pete Nakos wrote. 'That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports. Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men's basketball (15%), women's basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually. Advertisement 'Power Four football programs will have roughly $13 to $16 million to spend on rosters for the 2025 season. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement's approval, taking advantage of contracts not being vetted by the newly formed NIL clearinghouse . . . ' . . . The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. An NIL clearinghouse will be established, titled 'NIL Go' and run through Deloitte. All third-party NIL deals of $600 or more must be approved by the clearinghouse. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.' It remains to be seen exactly how the new rules will affect USC specifically. Given the Trojans' recent hire of Chad Bowden and the subsequent revamping of their recruiting operation, USC seemingly has the right people in place to bring the program into college football's new era. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: NCAA House settlement approved, as college sports braces for impact
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement
