So we have to talk about it:
At first glance, the thing is clear: testosterone increases performance. The fact that men are on average more muscular and physically efficient than women is also due to the fact that they have more testosterone in the body – about a factor of 15 to 20. It is also undisputed that athletes who artificially take in testosterone have an unfair advantage. That is why the hormone is on the doping list. Caster Semenya doesn’t dope, but her body produces more testosterone than most of her competitors. For the World Athletics Association, it is clear that this also gives them an unfair advantage – and two out of three judges in Lausanne also saw it that way. So why the fuss?
In fact, things are much more complicated. Critics sometimes make serious allegations – from a scientific, medical and ethical perspective. The main arguments in detail:
Article section:
1. There are massive doubts about the studies
In a detailed analysis, Roger Pielke, professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, sports scientist Ross Tucker and Oslo cell biologist Erik Boye question the scientific results behind the IAAF rule. They focus primarily on the study that comes with the performance benefits described above.
According to their review, between 17 and 33 percent of the data in this study are incorrect. You will find double-counted athletes – as well as times that cannot be assigned to any athlete. In addition, the authors used times of athletes who had been disqualified for doping. Pielke and his colleagues call for the British Journal of Sports Medicine to withdraw the publication.
That does not happen. But the authors of the criticized work react: in 2018, they published a revised version in which they respond to allegations by Pielke and other researchers. They confirm irregularities in the original version. However, the basic statement on the performance advantages remains in the revised version.
But there are still irregularities, says Roger Pielke, who also deals extensively with the topic in a blog on his website. He sees the case as “the integrity of science at risk”.
In fact, the CAS also sees problems with the evidence, at least for two of the disciplines concerned. The judges see a “lack of evidence” to justify applying the rule to the 1500 meter and one mile routes. The judges recommend that the rule should not be applied to the two disciplines until more evidence is available. However, they leave the decision to the IAAF officials. An IAAF spokesman for the Sports Integrity Initiative website said that the recommendation had been reconsidered and decided to “ignore it”.
For Caster Semenya, who also starts over 1,500 meters, this is further evidence of her assumption that the rule should be tailored especially to her personally.
Other errors discovered
The sports scientist Ross Tucker from the University of Cape Town in South Africa emphasizes further, very fundamental inconsistencies in the online magazine The Science of Sports. For example, he points out that the study is not only flawed but also does not explicitly compare intersex athletes with non-intersex athletes. In fact, the study compares the performance of low and high testosterone athletes. Tucker finds it questionable that on this basis such a far-reaching rule is introduced that explicitly refers to a group of athletes.
Upon request, the IAAF would like to point out data related to the previous “testosterone rule”, which applied from 2011 to 2015. During this time, affected athletes, including Caster Semenya, had to lower their elevated testosterone levels with medication. The data thus provide information about the performance of the athletes before, during and after taking testosterone depressants.
Caster Semenya was slower between 2011 and 2015 than in the years before and after – but during that time she also suffered from a knee injury. The IAAF keeps secret from how many other athletes comparable data are available, to protect the affected athletes. Intimate and medical details should not be made public. However, one of the IAAF studies says that there is a statistical accumulation of athletes with XY chromosomes in the relevant competitions: “7.1 out of 1000 top athletes have increased testosterone values - the majority of them in the disciplines 400 meters to one mile. That’s about 140 times more than the rest of the female population. ”
However, confidentiality only works to a limited extent, as research by the ARD doping office shows. It says: “Research by the ARD doping editorial team has shown that far more athletes are affected than previously suggested by the public discussion limited to Semenya. Out of nine athletes with different sexual development, whose documentation is known by the ARD doping editorial team, five have almost exactly identical hyperandrogenic factors as Semenya. ”
The evidence is questionable
Another aspect that independent scientists stumble upon is the limitation to the distances of 400 meters to one mile. Patrick Diel, biochemist and doping expert at the Cologne Sports University, says: “The testosterone level has an impact especially on routes where strength and speed dominate.” Of course, this also included the 100 and 200 meters.
In this connection, he points to a fundamental problem of the studies. It is hardly possible to completely exclude other influencing factors. In other words, it is hard to prove that testosterone alone is responsible for the differences in performance.
Testosterone alone does not make a world champion. This is shown by the example of the Indian Dutee Chand. Despite hyperandrogenemia, she was eliminated in the run-up to the 2016 Summer Olympics and was almost a second slower than the Olympic champions. And apparently the performance of the other athletes with hyperandrogenemia is not as clear as that of Caster Semenya. At least not so much that they become a public issue.
Despite all the inconsistencies, Diel still finds the decision of the court “understandable” as a scientist. As a doping expert, he knows the importance of the hormone in top-class sport. From the perspective of the competition, it is simply unfair if women are allowed to start with an elevated testosterone level – even if the increase is natural. “If the other women took testosterone to get into Ms. Semenya’s area, they would be banned for doping.”
Article section:
2. Not only hormones offer physical benefits
As stated above, the judges also consider the rule to be discriminatory – but not discriminatory enough. Criticism is also discharged at this point. Nobody would come up with the idea, for example, of restricting body size for basketball players or hand size for swimmers. It is in the nature of the top-class sport that hard training and an iron will are usually not enough – exceptional athletes usually also have the appropriate physical equipment.
That Caster Semenya has an increased level of testosterone in the blood is basically due to her physical equipment. So what’s the difference – why is one regulated, the other not?
The IAAF argues that the integrity of women’s sports should be preserved. The argument relates to the basic separation between competitions for men and competitions for women. It seems logical that men should not compete with women. However, implementation requires that the gender issue in sport has to be clarified, i.e. there has to be a dividing line between males and females. The problem: Biology does not know this dividing line – the transition between typically male and typically female is not sharp, but smooth.
Article section:
3. Hormone therapy carries unnecessary risks
The “testosterone rule” requires that the athletes concerned artificially lower their body’s hormone levels to below 5 nanomoles per liter of blood – permanently. In practical terms, this means that you have to take medication even though you are healthy. The case is clear for medical professionals. Interventions in the hormonal balance have side effects, endanger the health and should only be carried out if there is a medical reason.
According to the IAAF, “normal contraceptives” are enough to lower the hormone level to the required level. Aside from the fact that contraceptives like the pill also have side effects, endocrinologists doubt that this is true. In order to achieve such reductions, special drugs, so-called antiandrogens, are needed. The risks would include depression, anemia, and osteoporosis.
In fact, the World Medical Association (WMA) has commented on the case. Your President, Dr. Leonid Eidelman, has strong ethical reservations about the rule. In a statement on the WMA website, he says: “[The rules] are based on weak evidence from a single study. They also conflict with a number of important WMA ethical statements. That is why we are calling for the rules to be withdrawn immediately. ”
The German chairman of the WMA, Dr. In a conversation with the Australian broadcasting company ABC, Frank-Ulrich Montgomery emphasized that doctors cannot be forced to carry out hormone therapy. He further said: “We urge all our colleagues to defend themselves and to refuse to do so”.
Article section: And now?
And now?
A third competition category?
The situation seems to be going on. Both sides have understandable arguments. Are there any ideas for mediation? Theoretically, a third competition category would come into question, for example, besides women and men, the category Divers. Stéphane Bermon, head of the IAAF science department, told the British Guardian last year that he felt that “it will happen someday, probably in 5 to 10 years”. But he also said: “I also feel that the public is not yet ready for this. We don’t want to stigmatize athletes. ”
It is also unclear whether that would solve the problems. Because the IAAF would still have to determine who falls into which category. It is unlikely that all athletes would agree with the classifications.
Site Title 