Sarah Hartley on world and Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenyas challenge to new rules limiting the permitted levels of testosterone in female athletes at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas).
What are the grounds for Semenyas challenge?
Semenyas legal team will challenge governing body the IAAFs Eligibility Regulations for The Female Classification: Athletes With Differences of Sex Development – the DSD rules – as discriminating against women with elevated natural levels of testosterone without adequate medical science supporting the conclusion that the condition gives them a material competitive advantage.
Semenya will argue that the 2017 study submitted by the IAAF to prove the advantage simply cannot support the exclusion of androgen-sensitive hyperandrogenic women. Semenyas team will say the DSD rules violate fundamental human rights and cannot be justified by any of the scientific evidence offered by the IAAF to overcome the admittedly discriminatory rules.
What are the potential problems of the 2017 study upon which the IAAFs rules are based?
The study is authored by IAAF-affiliated doctors, raising concerns regarding its independence. The study also focuses on a specific set of womens distances and finds less than a five per cent competitive advantage experienced by women with elevated testosterone levels.
The study also fails to control for other advantages those women may have enjoyed, and made no findings regarding the materiality of the competitive advantages identified. Notably, the DSD rules do not regulate the races for which the study identified the highest level of competitive advantage, while Semenyas newest focal point – the 1500m – was not even addressed in the study.
Why does the IAAF think the rules will stand, after Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged similar restrictions in 2015?
The IAAF has taken the position that its rules are necessary to ensure a level playing field for women in athletics and that science overwhelmingly establishes the correlation between elevated endogenous testosterone and performance advantage.
Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged a ban which prevented her from competing 2015 (Source: Getty)
The IAAF justifies its DSD rules on the grounds that the current medical consensus is that athletes with higher androgen levels will experience meaningful advantages. They say this correlation is now proven and that medical intervention to comply is minimal and non-invasive.
The rules cite a litany of studies in support, but most were relied upon in Chands case and deemed insufficient then. The IAAF apparently takes the position that the 2017 study remedies any perceived deficiencies in scientific support for its regulations.
How is the case likely to play out?
Given the 1 November 2018 effective date of the DSD rules and the need for athletes to lower testosterone levels for six months beforehand, it is likely Semenya will request provisional or preliminary relief from the Cas in an attempt to obtain an immediate suspension of the rules pending final resolution of her challenge.
The IAAF is likely to defend its rules aggressively, as it did in the Chand case. Whether the Cas addresses Semenyas challenge on an expedited basis or in the normal course, we can expect little insight into the process while it is ongoing, but it will be a contentious decision no matter the result.
Given the limited additional science propounded by the IAAF since the Chand decision, a suspension of the DSD rules seems the most likely outcome, despite vociferous support for regulation from certain high profile track athletes, such as Paula Radcliffe.
Sarah Hartley on world and Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenyas challenge to new rules limiting the permitted levels of testosterone in female athletes at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas).
What are the grounds for Semenyas challenge?
Semenyas legal team will challenge governing body the IAAFs Eligibility Regulations for The Female Classification: Athletes With Differences of Sex Development – the DSD rules – as discriminating against women with elevated natural levels of testosterone without adequate medical science supporting the conclusion that the condition gives them a material competitive advantage.
Semenya will argue that the 2017 study submitted by the IAAF to prove the advantage simply cannot support the exclusion of androgen-sensitive hyperandrogenic women. Semenyas team will say the DSD rules violate fundamental human rights and cannot be justified by any of the scientific evidence offered by the IAAF to overcome the admittedly discriminatory rules.
What are the potential problems of the 2017 study upon which the IAAFs rules are based?
The study is authored by IAAF-affiliated doctors, raising concerns regarding its independence. The study also focuses on a specific set of womens distances and finds less than a five per cent competitive advantage experienced by women with elevated testosterone levels.
The study also fails to control for other advantages those women may have enjoyed, and made no findings regarding the materiality of the competitive advantages identified. Notably, the DSD rules do not regulate the races for which the study identified the highest level of competitive advantage, while Semenyas newest focal point – the 1500m – was not even addressed in the study.
Why does the IAAF think the rules will stand, after Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged similar restrictions in 2015?
The IAAF has taken the position that its rules are necessary to ensure a level playing field for women in athletics and that science overwhelmingly establishes the correlation between elevated endogenous testosterone and performance advantage.
Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged a ban which prevented her from competing 2015 (Source: Getty)
The IAAF justifies its DSD rules on the grounds that the current medical consensus is that athletes with higher androgen levels will experience meaningful advantages. They say this correlation is now proven and that medical intervention to comply is minimal and non-invasive.
The rules cite a litany of studies in support, but most were relied upon in Chands case and deemed insufficient then. The IAAF apparently takes the position that the 2017 study remedies any perceived deficiencies in scientific support for its regulations.
How is the case likely to play out?
Given the 1 November 2018 effective date of the DSD rules and the need for athletes to lower testosterone levels for six months beforehand, it is likely Semenya will request provisional or preliminary relief from the Cas in an attempt to obtain an immediate suspension of the rules pending final resolution of her challenge.
The IAAF is likely to defend its rules aggressively, as it did in the Chand case. Whether the Cas addresses Semenyas challenge on an expedited basis or in the normal course, we can expect little insight into the process while it is ongoing, but it will be a contentious decision no matter the result.
Given the limited additional science propounded by the IAAF since the Chand decision, a suspension of the DSD rules seems the most likely outcome, despite vociferous support for regulation from certain high profile track athletes, such as Paula Radcliffe.
