Women's sports activist aims to 'platform' knee-taking fencer as the latest winner of courage award
XX-XY Athletics founder and CEO Jennifer Sey spoke out about why she was awarding a female fencer with a courage award after the athlete's stance against a transgender opponent in a match.
Sey announced during an interview with "America Reports" that she is honoring fencer Stephanie Turner, who was disqualified in March from competing in a tournament at the University of Maryland after she took a knee rather than compete against a transgender athlete.
"We call them our Courage Wins Champions," Sey said. "They are women who stand up or stand down from competing to defend women's sports."
The athletics brand also used a portion of its sales to award its latest Courage Wins Champion a $5,000 grant, according to its post on X, formerly Twitter.
"We aim to take the sting out of monetary cancelation and platform these women and bring them on board," Sey said. "They have community. They have support. They will not stand alone."
Turner joins a growing group of female athletes opposed to competing against transgender athletes.
More recently, professional disc golfer Abigail Wilson went viral for walking out of her tournament in Nashville, Tenn., after she learned she had the same tee time as a transgender athlete.
"I believe women like Stephanie Turner, the fencer, and Abigail Wilson, the disc golfer, are starting a movement," Sey said. "This is not a moment. It is a movement of truth and bravery that has begun."
Sey, the country's 1986 national gymnastics champion, praised both athletes' bravery.
"I'm so proud of these women," Sey told co-anchor John Roberts. "I have such admiration for them. It could be career-ending, and they do it anyway."
After Roberts noted a transgender runner setting season records in an Oregon high school's girls' track races, Sey insisted that cases like Turner's and Wilson's are not isolated incidents.
"Women's sports are not the place for failed male athletes or mediocre male athletes to go," Sey said. "Compete in the category to which you were born. People say it's just a handful. It's not a handful — I can name 10 in the last week alone. Enough, it's over."
On Feb. 5, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning biological men from competing in women's sports.
While the NCAA followed Trump's executive order the following day, USA Fencing wrote in a statement to the University of Maryland's student newspaper that the tournament from which Turner was banned was not an NCAA event.
The club defended Turner's disqualification as being in accordance with international rules to compete with eligible opponents, before affirming its commitment to "inclusivity" in a statement.
"… we recognize not all individuals' gender identities are binary, and a gender binary default for participation could potentially cause harm — leaving some individuals to feel excluded and unsafe," USA Fencing stated on its website. "Within our divisions, USA Fencing will not discriminate on the basis of gender identity, regardless of sex assigned at birth."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders?
ORLANDO, Fla. — The man steps onto a raised platform, walks behind a podium and leans toward the microphone. Before him, more than 200 college athletic administrators shift to the front of their seats. For months now, they've been waiting for this moment. Advertisement 'I'm Karl,' the man says, 'with Deloitte.' Karl Schaefer is a young man with perfectly cropped hair, a sharp grin and slender frame. He is here to lead a 40-minute presentation on the single most talked-about concept of college athletics' new revenue-sharing era: the Deloitte-run clearinghouse dubbed 'NIL Go.' Though it remains unsaid by those in power, the goal of NIL Go is quite clear: prevent booster payments to athletes that, for four years now, have been masquerading as commercial and endorsement deals. As Schaefer flips through slides of the NIL Go software system, for the first time revealed publicly, whispers within the room build to murmurs. Attendees capture slides with photos. Some video the entire event. Others scribble notes on a pad. How Deloitte and the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, plan to prevent booster pay is the target of much criticism and fascination — plenty of it shrouded in secrecy for the last many months. Advertisement In central Florida, at an annual conference of administrators this week, the shroud was at least partially lifted. Not only was the platform's interface shown on a giant projection screen during Schaefer's presentation — including the six-step submission and approval process — but, in interviews with Yahoo Sports or during other public presentations, college sports executives who helped craft the system answered questions that, up to this point, had remained unanswered. While many doubt that the clearinghouse will withstand inevitable legal challenges, administrators here provided legitimate reasons for why they believe in its long-term survival. Most notable of those, says NCAA president Charlie Baker, is that the clearinghouse's appeals process — arbitration — is equipped with subpoena powers. 'They do have that power,' Baker told Yahoo Sports this week. 'Arbitration typically has subpoena power and I'm pretty sure since this one sits inside an injunction, they will have it.' Officials at the power conferences confirmed that 'significant subpoena powers' exist under the arbitration appeals process, but those powers are less expansive than subpoena authority within a courtroom. The decision to use subpoena powers and how exactly to use them — limited or broad — is expected to rest with the arbitrator presiding over the appeals process. Advertisement A subpoena compels individuals or entities to produce evidence under penalty of law, such as turning over text messages, emails and phone call logs as well as testifying before investigators. It is one of the more important tools for officers of the law, such as police investigators — and something that was never available to the NCAA enforcement staff. 'We won't have complete subpoena power, but if an athlete goes into arbitration … those records, you can get access to some of those records,' said Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork, who is a member of a settlement implementation committee that helped construct the new enforcement entity. 'It's going to be a new day.' The algorithm Back in the Deloitte presentation room, Schaefer is explaining the submission process for NIL Go. Athletes are required to submit third-party NIL deals of $600 or more using a web-based submission system, not unlike an online registration system for, say, a passport. Advertisement Shaefer explains, gesturing toward a giant projection screen, that the clearinghouse makes three determinations once a deal is submitted: Is the third party an 'associated entity' with the university, such as a booster, or a business contracted with a school like a university sponsor or apparel brand? If so, more intense scrutiny is applied in the vetting process. Public companies can, and many of them will, be deemed as associated entities. Is the deal for a 'valid business purpose?" The third-party business, brand or individual must be receiving true value from the activities, such as an autograph session, television commercial or speaking engagement. Is the deal within Deloitte's 'range of compensation' paid to similarly situated individuals? This is perhaps the most criticized of the concepts. Deloitte created 'the range of compensation' through an algorithm using fair market value analysis, comparing similar types of NIL deals struck between an athlete and the third party. More is now known about that algorithm. Clemson athletic director Graham Neff, one of the implementation committee members, details the factors used to form a compensation range: 'Athletic performance is a big part of it. Your social media reach and following. Market — where schools are at. The reach of your school within said market.' This will vary by school. Neff offers an example. 'The reach of Georgia Tech in Atlanta is different than the reach of Georgia State,' he says. Advertisement Neff believes that a 'majority' of NIL deals will derive from 'associated companies,' as school sponsors, multi-media rights partners and individual alumni and boosters work to provide universities with additional compensation so they can exceed the $20.5 million revenue sharing cap that each school is afforded. Third-party NIL compensation that passes the clearinghouse does not count against the cap. Even those who helped craft the new enforcement entity acknowledge that the system is attempting to do a very difficult thing: bring regulation to an enterprise that has, for four years now, seen little to no regulation or enforcement of athlete compensation. 'There's some toothpaste back in the tube a little bit given the environment,' Neff said. For example, Deloitte officials claim that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied in their algorithm, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved. Deloitte has also shared with officials that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000. Advertisement These figures suggest that the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that school-affiliated, booster-backed collectives are distributing to athletes. 'No one is trying to restrict someone's earning potential, but what we're trying to say is, 'What is the real market?'' Bjork says. 'Everybody you talk to about the pro market will tell you that NIL deals for pro athletes are really small. In the collective world, we created a false market.' Denial, approval and arbitration Displayed on the giant screen before hundreds of athletic administrators is the six-step clearinghouse submission and approval process. Advertisement Step 6 lays out the process for a player if his or her deal is denied by the clearinghouse because it either is not struck for a valid business purpose or it does not meet the compensation range. (1) Revise and resubmit the deal so that the compensation amount falls within the algorithm's range. For instance, if the clearinghouse deems that a submitted $1 million deal should be $500,000, the athlete can resubmit for $500,000 and the school, if it so chooses, can compensate the athlete for the other $500,000 through its revenue-share pool. (2) Cancel the deal completely. (3) Request arbitration as an appeals process. Advertisement (4) Accept the rejected deal as is. In this case, the athlete 'may face enforcement consequences (e.g., loss of eligibility),' the Deloitte presentation slide reads. According to settlement terms, attorneys for the plaintiffs (the suing athletes) and defendants (NCAA and power conferences) will work together to select a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators to preside over these cases. Individual arbitration processes are expected to last no more than 45 days. In an interview last fall, plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey Kessler described the arbitration as a trial-like set of hearings in front of an arbitrator — the new enforcement entity on one side (NCAA and power conferences) and the athlete on the other side. NCAA president Charlie Baker says the new NIL enforcement process will add accountability to the system, as long as athletes and schools follow the rules. (Photo by) (Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images) How an arbitrator rules may 'depend on what evidence' each side produces, Kessler said. As Baker and others have noted, that evidence may now be generated through limited subpoena power. Advertisement But one lingering question remains: Will an athlete's school fight alongside him or her in the case? 'I expect that if the athlete pursues it, the school will support the athlete and help provide the athlete with counsel to help represent them in that challenge,' Kessler said. Penalties for NIL violations Implementation committee members say they are finalizing a 'menu' of penalties for those found to commit violations within this new revenue-sharing era, most notably those found to have (1) circumvented the cap with old-fashioned cheating or intentional or accidental miscalculations; and (2) tampered with another college athlete or prospect who is under contract. Officials decided against using a set penalty matrix as the NCAA currently does (Level I, Level II, etc.). Instead, they are providing the new College Sports Commission CEO, Brian Seeley, with the flexibility to choose penalties from a wide range of options, depending on the individual circumstance. Advertisement 'Those penalties being worked through are going to be significant and are going to be different than any penalties we've had previously,' said new Michigan State athletic director J Batt, a member of the implementation committee. An example of a new kind of penalty is a reduction in transfers that a school can acquire from the portal, Bjork says. But there are others. A postseason ban remains among the penalties, said Desiree Reed-Francois, the Arizona athletic director and implementation committee member. There are also stiff fines — multi-million dollars in value — that may be levied against schools, administrators and coaches. Suspensions, for coaches and administrators, are on the penalty menu as well. 'The fines are substantive,' Reed-Francois says. Advertisement One penalty is off the table. Administrators say that reducing a school's revenue-share pool for subsequent years is not permitted. The settlement guarantees that schools are afforded the same revenue share pool. Pushback The clearinghouse has made its way to the U.S. Capitol. During a congressional hearing over college sports on Thursday, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, chided college leaders for instituting a new enforcement process that 'guarantees people in power always win and the athletes who fuel this multi-billion dollar industry always lose.' One of the witnesses in that hearing, Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association, chimed in as well, accusing the NCAA and conference leadership as wanting to 'shut down boosters' ability to pay players just to monopolize it' themselves. Advertisement College executives reject these notions and consider all of these elements — even the new enforcement process — as protected by a legally binding settlement. The new enforcement entity was not created by committee members in some 'backroom,' Bjork says. The implementation committee only provided structure to an enforcement piece that is 'codified' within the settlement. 'There are processes here that have been approved by the court and the plaintiffs and the defendants that people are going to be expected to follow,' Baker told Yahoo Sports. 'Given so much of what's been going on in the third-party space hasn't been accountable or transparent, and has made a lot of people outside of college athletics a lot of money, I can understand why there might be some grumpiness about this.' Soon, power conference schools — and others opting into the settlement — are expected to sign an affiliation or membership agreement. With this binding document, schools waive their right to sue over enforcement decisions and commit to settlement terms, even if their state laws contradict them. The agreement — itself the subject of legal concerns, even from some schools — is an indictment on an industry of stakeholders that, for competitive reasons, are constantly scrambling to bend, break and shatter rules to gain even the slightest edge. Advertisement Earlier this week in Orlando, members of the implementation committee publicly implored schools to follow rules. 'This has to be a mindset change,' Bjork told the audience. 'We see all the reports and naysayers, that 'we're going to go back to old-school cheating and all these things and that this is not going to work.' This has to work.' 'This will work if we make it work,' Reed-Francois said. 'We need to shift our mindset and make this work.' Can it be done? But what if athletes decide not to submit any of their third-party deals at all? 'People will be turning in people,' Reed-Francois said. 'There's a lot more `transparency now.' Advertisement Back in the convention hall, Schaefer, from Deloitte, is winding down his presentation. He thanks the crowd before beginning to walk off the stage. From among the crowd, a few raised hands emerge. Folks have questions. Others in the audience remind the hand-raisers of something announced before the presentation began: The Deloitte employees are not taking questions.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
College football's hopes to rein in transfers with one portal window gaining momentum
With the House v. NCAA settlement finally approved, the people in charge of college football are turning quickly to the sport's next potential rules changes. At the top of the list: moving to a single transfer portal window for football, instead of the current two in December and April. At SEC meetings last month, Georgia coach Kirby Smart called it 'the biggest decision that has to be made in college football right now, by far, to me.' Advertisement During a call next Monday, its first meeting since the House settlement's approval, the Football Bowl Subdivision Oversight Committee is expected to have a deep discussion on a single portal window. The hope is to come out with a recommendation and begin a path to solidify a change before the upcoming season. 'I'm confident we'll get there,' committee chair and Buffalo athletic director Mark Alnutt told The Athletic. But when would that single window be? And what would it mean for players and teams? According to several people involved in the process, granted anonymity in order to describe the state of discussions before a formal decision, early January is the option with the most momentum; one person described it as an 80-20 split. At its annual convention this January in Charlotte, the American Football Coaches Association proposed the window run Jan. 2-12 beginning in 2026, following a unanimous vote of dozens of FBS head coaches in attendance. That date would allow most schools to finish the season with their full team, a response to rising numbers of opt-outs from bowl games and even College Football Playoff teams losing players off their roster. It would also help set teams in place heading into spring practice, especially as rosters begin to shrink with the House settlement roster limits. 'I want January,' Texas Tech head coach Joey McGuire said. 'I want to get my team, and I want to roll and get ready for winter conditioning, spring football, and take that team into the fall.' The institution of a transfer window only restricts when players can enter the portal. They aren't required to pick a new school in that time, though their prospective schools' academic calendars may create a deadline. One player agent, granted anonymity to discuss his work with players, told The Athletic he prefers January and tells his clients to avoid the spring portal anyway unless they're an elite athlete. The agent was concerned that a later portal could cause kids to check out and create a limbo period, or that it would open up even more opportunities for springtime tampering. Advertisement 'Kids are going to know they're leaving before they even talk with their coaches,' the agent said. 'With January, kids are home for the holidays, talk it over with your circle, people you trust, and if you leave, you can find a school and enroll in time for class. If it's spring-only, you may have kids fall into a mental ditch.' Not everyone is on board with a January portal window. Multiple people involved in the process said some power conference schools prefer spring, especially those whose academic calendars run on a quarter system and start class earlier in January, before the portal closes. There's also the issue of the portal opening and closing before the College Football Playoff ends. This past season's national championship game took place on Jan. 20. Current rules give players an extra five-day portal window if their season runs long. Another player agent told The Athletic a client of his couldn't schedule a transfer visit to Columbus in January because the CFP schedule bumped events around. 'If we didn't have the second transfer portal window, it's very, very difficult,' Ohio State coach Ryan Day said in February on 'The Joel Klatt Show.' 'We're trying to make decisions about next year, yet our year isn't even done yet. So that affects your current roster, and it's just messy. I think you've gotta have two portals unless you're finishing the season sooner.' Smart, who supports a January window, said top programs would just have to handle it for the sake of everyone. 'It's really hard to be playing in a championship setting and having to deal with that,' he said last month. 'When I brought that up as a complaint or a problem, I was told there's no crying from the yacht.' A move to a single portal would be the latest in a long list of rule changes since 2021, when NCAA committees approved a one-time transfer with immediate eligibility in football and basketball. When players began entering the portal during the season, coaches asked for windows to restrict their movement. Fall and spring sports got two windows, while winter sports got one because they take place over two semesters. All sports' windows lasted 60 days. Advertisement Then in late 2023, a series of lawsuits and court rulings forced the NCAA to allow players an unlimited number of transfers without sitting out, sparking a surge of player movement and leading to calls from coaches to shrink the windows they'd asked for. NCAA committees changed the windows from 60 to 45 to now 30 days over the past few years. A single 10-day portal in football would be the most dramatic change yet. Athlete advocacy groups have pushed back on moving to a single portal window. Oversight committee members have tried to emphasize the benefits of stability. Messages left with multiple players on the Football Student-Athlete Connection Group were not returned. 'A single portal window likely reduces players' leverage by limiting transfer timing options,' said Darren Heitner, a lawyer who represents numerous players. 'Two windows allow more negotiation flexibility. One could rush decisions, especially for non-stars.' There has also been discussion on the oversight committee about removing the automatic 30-day portal window for players who have a head coaching change, the theory being it would give a new coach an opportunity to convince players to stay before the regularly scheduled portal opens. But there is some concern that going too far in shrinking the portal could invite a legal challenge and create more problems than it solves. Some also question whether portal windows matter. There is nothing to stop players from unenrolling at one school and enrolling at another like a normal student. In January, former Wisconsin cornerback Xavier Lucas, represented by Heitner, enrolled at Miami after Lucas said Wisconsin refused to let him in the portal. Wisconsin alleged Miami had impermissible contact with Lucas because he hadn't gone in the portal and that he'd signed a two-year name, image and likeness deal with the school based on the pending House settlement. 'Enforcement is shaky, schools can block portal entry, even if it is against NCAA rules, as seen with Lucas,' Heitner said in an email to The Athletic. 'Wisconsin appears to have escaped punishment, at least for the time being, despite the clear rules violation. He is eligible at Miami and practicing with the team.' The oversight committee is also discussing changing spring football around that window, with a focus on an AFCA proposal of NFL-style OTA practices that would add six non-padded practices to the existing 15 practices, with the ability to spread the 21 workouts over two different flexible periods from January to June. If a single portal were instituted in the spring, this change would allow schools to hold more practice after the spring window closed. But other members of the committee told The Athletic they're concerned about the mental strain of putting players through multiple spring practice sessions. Advertisement It's also not yet clear who the oversight committee's portal recommendation would go to. The Settlement Implementation Committee (made up of 10 athletic directors) handles post-House rules, and the NCAA is undergoing a larger governance change. One person involved in the discussions said the process is still under discussion. Previous attempts to move to a single portal window have been stopped by athlete pushback, but the approval of the House settlement has college football's leaders trying to regain control of the sport. Uncontrolled player movement is the most visible issue with the current system in the eyes of many coaches and fans. Momentum for a single window is strong, wherever on the calendar it lands. 'Do I think it's better for a player? Not necessarily,' said the second agent. 'But it makes logical sense for the sport.'
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Does college baseball have a pitch clock? Action clock length, rules explained
Does college baseball have a pitch clock? Action clock length, rules explained Show Caption Hide Caption Which NCAA baseball teams could blow up the bracket The Montgomery Advertiser's Adam Cole and The Southwest Times Record's Jackson Fuller break down who could wreck the tournament bracket. Sometimes the professionals can learn from the amateurs. That has been the case with the pitch clock in the sport of baseball. While college baseball has had one implemented since 2011, the MLB added a pitch clock ahead of the 2023 season has helped speed up the game. REQUIRED READING: College World Series bracket: Schedule, matchups for 2025 NCAA baseball championship Just as it was in the 2024 College World Series, pitch clock rules are in place for the 2025 College World Series in Omaha, Nebraska. For the second straight season, Division I games must have at least one "action clock" visible on the field. Here's what you need to know about college baseball's pitch clock ahead of the CWS, including how long it is and the differences from the MLB. Is there a pitch clock in college baseball? Pitch clock: 20 seconds Yes, college baseball does have a pitch clock. A pitch clock has been in place for all divisions of college baseball since the 2011 season. Pitchers have 20 seconds to deliver a pitch with no runners on base. With runners on base, a pitcher is required to start the motion of pitching or make a pickoff to avoid the clock violation. Pitchers are allowed one step-off or fake throw to a base per batter to reset the clock. A defensive player or the batter can request a timeout as well, and the clock is reset if it is granted by the umpire. Unlimited step-offs and pick-off attempts are no longer allowed. If a pitcher violates the pitch clock, a ball is added to the count. Which means if it happens on a 3-ball count, the batter is awarded a walk. On the flipside, if a batter violates the clock ― which includes the batter not being in the batter's box and informs the pitcher with no fewer than five seconds on the clock ― a strike will be added to the count. Likewise, if it's a 2-strike count, the batter strikes out. The NCAA approved requirements for all Division I games to have at least one "action clock" visible on the field by Jan. 1, 2024. The requirement is for a visible clock for Division II and II by Jan. 1, 2025. Per the NCAA, the timer shall stop under the following circumstances: The pitcher begins the windup motion or, from a set position, begins the motion to deliver the pitch. The pitcher makes a pickoff attempt (throw) to any base. With runners on base, the pitcher steps off the pitcher's plate to get a new sign or to feint a pickoff attempt. This action counts as a 'reset' and is allowed one time per at-bat. The catcher leaves the catcher's box to give defensive signals or to confer with the pitcher from a distance (in which case the timer shall stop, reset, and start again after the catcher returns to the catcher's box). This action counts as a 'reset' and is allowed one time per at-bat. The umpire calls 'time' for any legitimate reason. How does the college baseball pitch clock differ from MLB? The MLB actually followed college baseball's lead of adding a pitch clock to the sport to speed up the game. However, there are differences between the pitch clock in college and in the pros. In the MLB In there is a 30-second timer in between hitters and pitchers have 15 seconds to deliver a pitch with no runners on and 18 seconds with runners on base (the rule was 20 seconds in 2023). Other major differences include:
