Seems to me to be a totally bullshit ruling. What if Usain Bolt has naturally higher levels of testosterone than other sprinters? Just more shit thrown at a woman who’s already been through a lot of bullshit.
There is nothing I can take to make me taller; there is nothing I can take to give me better lung capacity; however, I can dope to increase my testosterone level. If my testosterone is above x or my ratio of testosterone to other hormones is above y than I am considered to have cheated by doping. Those ‘x’ & ‘y’ values are set above the standard deviation of what the average or even above-average person has. The problem is that she’s so far off the charts.
Pro cycling has Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs); allowing a rider to take certain drugs above the normal legal limit if they have a doctor sign off on a TUE. It’s a non-zero percentage of TUEs that have been formally written (& backdated) after a rider gets caught above the legal limit. If you can get your athlete above the normal limit but below the higher, TUE limit & ‘show’ (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) a reason for them being there; you’ve just created an end run to the doping regs.
That is only relevant if having a higher level of naturally occurring testosterone is considered to be a key distinguishing factor in the class of sport he competes in. It isn’t because he isn’t competing in a protected and ring-fenced class. Whatever genetic hand is dealt to him he is free to maximise and play it how he likes.
As soon as you introduce a restricted class that is no longer the case and I have still to see any better ideas as to how to navigate it.
You say it is a bullshit ruling but what is your alternative? (and let us all bear in mind that none of us are privy to the full details behind this ruling)
Some female athletes can receive a genetic hand that, arguably, doesn’t just give them an advantage against those in their class, it may raise the question of whether they are even a sensible fit for that class. This question doesn’t arise for Usain Bolt because it is a completely open class. There is no need to worry about what being “male” actually means, because any homo sapiens is able to (or should be able to) take part. The same cannot be said of “female” and the discussions go wider than the Semenya case and the debate has barely started.
I mean, it kind of is. It’s only in events she takes part in. To date, she’s the only person of note to face these issues. It’s definitely about her. And uh… there’s probably a bit of a racism element too.
Caster Semenya is a woman. I don’t think this is in dispute. She identifies as a woman, she lives as a woman, and she has an XX karyotype. The idea that she can’t take part in women’s sports because she has a condition that makes her better than everyone else… What? Has someone else completely fucking missed the point of elite sports, or is it me?
Like, just to get an idea of how absurd this is, here’s an article outlining all the ways that Michael Phelps is basically a genetic monster, which explains a lot of his success. His torso is grossly disproportionate, his arms are much longer than they are expected to be, and his body produces half the lactic acid of most of his competitors, which is absolutely fucking insane. That’s a pretty crazy host of perks for a dude to have. And yet, none of the coverage has been, “Is Michael Phelps too good for sports?” despite him winning event after event, probably because matching the skills of the most talented and gifted people in the world is the whole fucking point of olympic sports!
As stated elsewhere, this is a bit like saying that Margo Dydek shouldn’t be allowed to play basketball because her height is so far outside the norm for women. Or that Katie Ledecky shouldn’t be allowed to swim because she’s so much better than everyone else.
As promised last night, I did a bit more digging, and here’s the CAS press release.
There are a couple of things of interest that were not immediately apparent. Firstly the process was limited in scope as follows: "The DSD covered by the Regulations are limited to athletes with “46 XY DSD” – i.e. conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes. "
As the process was initiated by Semenya and her team, I presume this means that, as has long been speculated, Semenya has an intersex condition; and it appears she is not straightforwardly XX (so that answers some questions up thread). There has been press speculation about this but I don’t remember it previously being confirmed; and it ain’t great to have anyone’s privacy affected in this way. (Wikipedia page on XY gonadal dysgenesis. Do we have a geneticist in the house?)
Second, the court decision was by a majority (I read elsewhere 2 to 1). I guess this reflects the difficulty in navigating the situation.
Third, this quote:
Overall, my impression is that the CAS has been diligent and sensitive in it’s deliberations in what is a near impossible situation. Well done to them.
j
But we are talking about a bullshit regulation. It is bullshit to force someone to take drugs to participate in a sport they would otherwise dominate in. Because there is no reason it would or should stop at testosterone. “Oh, you produce lower amounts of prostaglandins than the norm? And you also produce higher amounts of dopamine and adrenaline? You are a freak of nature, girl! No more gold medals for you, you unnatural woman you!”
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Well “woman” is not a precise definition so you’ll find plenty who might debate that with you, but I confess I’ve not seen any confirmation anywhere that she is definitely XX. Do you have a cite for that? Not a snarky “cite please?” from me here but an honest question because the private medical details haven’t been released (to the best of my knowledge)
Actually I take that back, I need to be more careful about getting my info from twitter. I don’t have a solid source on that.
Well the press release (post 25) is the CAS decision on an appeal lodged by Semenya’s team against a rule that applies specifically to “to athletes with “46 XY DSD” – i.e.
conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes.”
I don’t see why they would appeal a rule that applied to XY if Semenya was XX. At least, that’s my non-expert understanding of it.
j
where does that leave trans athletes who don’t wish to take testosterone reducing drugs?
Certainly if the presence of any of those substances gave the potential performance-enhancing benefits that testosterone does, and they are closely associated with defining a sub-classification of sports competition then…I suppose such a challenge could be made.
There is no need to introduce such wording as “unnatural” here though. No-one in this thread has been anything other than sympathetic and respectful. It is a very difficult position for all concerned, not least for Caster Semenya who is utterly blameless. The depth and breadth of the CAS ruling, complete with acceptance of the difficulties and implications, suggests to me careful consideration and that this was not a “coin-flip-and-off-down-the-pub” decision.
It is, as I have said repeatedly. Not as simple as many choose to frame it. And I suspect that this is as simple as it is ever going to get.
Not a problem, I wasn’t sure either. There’s been so much swirling around her case for the last 10 years that the gossip and innuendo becomes the fact without us even realising it.
If CS has XY chromosomes then CS is male and should not be competing in female-only events.
Meanwhile, on Fox News…
Note: she’s not transgender.
Note: this probably wasn’t a mistake.
Regarding my non-expert understanding: everything’s relative.
j
Except that’s not the way the rules are written.
But hang on, even just a tiny moment of honest research would have informed any reputable and credible news agency that…oh! I see.
Not the same thing. The problem here as far as I can tell is that she isn’t clearly neither male nor female while we assume a clear distinction with our sporting categories. As someone said, regardless of what definition you come up with to decide who can compete in women sports, some people in this grey area will feel wronged.
There is a wider medical ethical debate to be had here.
This ruling in effect compels an athlete with an established career to take a medication against her consent or to give up her career.
Do we actually understand what effects that long term use of medication would have upon her physically or psychologically - because if we do not then it cannot be acceptable to compel someone to undergo experimental medical treatment against their consent, additionally if it is acceptable to compel medical treatment then where does this end? Are we saying that we are going to allow non-medical associations to decide which treatments we are required to take?(as opposed to medications we are not allowed to take for non-medical use)
I’d not be surprised if the detail of the CAS ruling addressed precisely these points.
I don’t think “consent” comes into it though. No-one is going to do it to her unless she agrees to it.
I agree that she shouldn’t face such a choice. She should have been flatly told instead : “you can’t compete in women events, period”. Even if she would prefer the alternative that she’s offered.