Semenya loses appeal at CAS

[Bill]

Phelps and Bolt were both able to take advantage of their physical advantages, which gave them their competitive edge. I wasn't suggesting that Semenya should shorten her legs or feet. She hasn't cheated to get those elevated testosterone levels and neither did Phelps or Bolt to get theirs.

And where do you draw the line with regard to regulating testosterone levels? Do you start regulating men's as well, as some men have higher levels relative to other men and then have a competitive advantage?




But the IAAF have allowed women's world records from the 1980s to still stand, which can't possibly have been done without PEDs. Semenya even with elevated testosterone still can't get within a second of the 800m world record, which has stood since 1983 (pre out of competition drug testing). Flo Jo's 10.49 secs in the 100m is the most ridiculous time which will unlikely ever to be broken and can't possibly have been performed without PEDs.

Caster is basically being told to take something to suppress something naturally occurring to her whilst the IAAF still recognise times performed by women who took PEDs to enhance their performance as the world's best times performed by a woman. It's a stance which is irreconcilable and IMO any records pre 1988 and still standing should no longer be recognised and assumed PED enhanced.

1. no, you don't regulate mens testosterone because it's an open event. testosterone is tested for womens' events because people are defined as women based on their testosterone level. the same applies to people with only female genitalia and to people with female and male genitalia. the alternative is to just have an open (ie mens') event, and to stop having sports events for women.
2. I don't understand your argument that because IAAF were unable to accurately test for performance enhancing drugs in the 1980s, they shouldn't be allowed to test whether competitors in womens' events are women now. makes no sense to me.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

2. I don't understand your argument that because IAAF were unable to accurately test for performance enhancing drugs in the 1980s, they shouldn't be allowed to test whether competitors in womens' events are women now. makes no sense to me.

I didn't say anything about IAAF not being allowed to test whether competitors in women's events are women now. I said the pre 1988 times which still stand as world records should no longer be recognised because they were clearly PED enhanced. It's crystal clear now that women athletes now (even Caster with her elevated testosterone) can't get near those times, despite better nutrition, training, science and in Caster's case elevated testosterone levels over and above the normal range for women athletes.

And it's irreconcilable that they are forcing Caster to take medication to lower something naturally occurring in order to compete, whilst still recognising times by women who clearly took "medication" to give them a competitive advantage which they would not have had but for the "medication".

 

[Bill]

I didn't say anything about IAAF not being allowed to test whether competitors in women's events are women now. I said the pre 1988 times which still stand as world records should no longer be recognised because they were clearly PED enhanced. It's crystal clear now that women athletes now (even Caster with her elevated testosterone) can't get near those times, despite better nutrition, training, science and in Caster's case elevated testosterone levels over and above the normal range for women athletes.

And it's irreconcilable that they are forcing Caster to take medication to lower something naturally occurring in order to compete, whilst still recognising times by women who clearly took "medication" to give them a competitive advantage which they would not have had but for the "medication".

I don't see why it's irreconcilable. So far as I can see it's a completely different issue.

ISSUE 1. Some times ran in the 1980s were so low that in all probability they were obtained in breach of competition rules with the use of undetectable performance enhancing drugs. IAAF should consider whether they have sufficient evidence to wipe the applicable times from the records (presumably if they did there would be issues with knowing which times to wipe and if not).

ISSUE 2. An athlete today is seeking to compete in womens' events whilst not biologically a woman. Because it's no longer considered acceptable to apply the straightforward "if you have a dick then you are not eligible for this race" criteria, IAAF have therefore introduced a clarification on the eligibility criteria for womens' races, which is based on the aspiring competitors' level of testosterone. All competitors whether biologically women or people who have simply elected to be a woman, have to comply with the eligibility criteria. If in order to comply with the criteria they have to take drugs then they are allowed to use those drugs.

ISSUE 3. Usain Bolt is very fast.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I don't see why it's irreconcilable. So far as I can see it's a completely different issue.

ISSUE 1. Some times ran in the 1980s were so low that in all probability they were obtained in breach of competition rules with the use of undetectable performance enhancing drugs. IAAF should consider whether they have sufficient evidence to wipe the applicable times from the records (presumably if they did there would be issues with knowing which times to wipe and if not).

ISSUE 2. An athlete today is seeking to compete in womens' events whilst not biologically a woman. Because it's no longer considered acceptable to apply the straightforward "if you have a dick then you are not eligible for this race" criteria, IAAF have therefore introduced a clarification on the eligibility criteria for womens' races, which is based on the aspiring competitors' level of testosterone. All competitors whether biologically women or people who have simply elected to be a woman, have to comply with the eligibility criteria. If in order to comply with the criteria they have to take drugs then they are allowed to use those drugs.

Well it's not a completely different issue and is irreconcilable IMO. Recognising world records when they didn't test out of competition in the 1980s, hence why Flo Jo immediately retired after 1988 once out of competition testing was brought. So those times, including Flo Jo's, were easily run by those athletes and those behind them knowing they could juice up and train out of competition and then a few weeks before competition stop the PEDS to ensure it was out of their system they beat the in competition testing. The 400m and 800m world record times were run by athletes from at the time East European communist states and most likely state sponsored. The whole testing regime was flawed pre 1988 (not that it is by any means perfect now) so many of those times that still stand as world records today are now discredited.

Deliberate use of drugs to enhance performance in flawed pre 1988 testing period, where it is clear the system could be easily manipulated, which the IAAF have continued to be recognise as the best women can run at 100, 400, 800m (and therefore get away with) as opposed to forced medication of Caster, if she wants to continue to compete at the events she is best at, which will lower her performance below which naturally performs at. This is irreconcilable IMO and hence why I said to reconcile it is to just not recognise the pre-1988 times if they are going to continue to the rule of forced medicating Intersex athletes such as Caster. Either that or create a third category because it's clear she can't compete against men even if it is open competition.

For me it's about the "competitive" advantage which is the heart of the issue and is difficult to reconcile because the IAAF don't know how to classify Caster without forcing her to change who she is biologically/physiologically without medication. Effectively a reverse PED.

I suspect Caster just won't run 400 to a mile distances anymore if it means having to take medication to lower her testosterone. Certainly whilst she appeals again. Her case is more complex as it goes to the very heart of her identity and changing her physiology to compete is abhorrent to her. She's run 5000m twice before i believe so could just jump up to that distance until they sort out whether the rules apply across the board.

 

[Bill]

Deliberate use of drugs to enhance performance in flawed pre 1988 testing period, where it is clear the system could be easily manipulated, which the IAAF have continued to be recognise as the best women can run at 100, 400, 800m (and therefore get away with) as opposed to forced medication of Caster, if she wants to continue to compete at the events she is best at, which will lower her performance below which naturally performs at. This is irreconcilable IMO...

​

​

There's nothing irreconcilable about it, but you're entitled to your views obviously, no matter how illogical.

changing her physiology to compete is abhorrent to her.

She's confirmed to you that this is her reasoning is it ? That to her taking drugs is abhorrent ? Nothing to do with not wanting to go slower ?

Anyway, we obviously have irreconcilable views on this matter !

 

[TRF_heineken]

Actually, an argument can be made for Michael Phelps.

He naturally produces less lactic acid than other swimmers. Which reduces his fatigue. And the IAAF has even praised him for being "special". There's even a facebook page about this where people are asking why the IAAF is discriminating against Caster, but haven't done anything with regard to pharmaceuticals to level the playing field with regard to lactic acid. In essence that is what this is all about, leveling the playing field. So why is Phelps being overlooked? Because he's white? Male? Non-african?

 

[Bill]

Actually, an argument can be made for Michael Phelps.

He naturally produces less lactic acid than other swimmers. Which reduces his fatigue. And the IAAF has even praised him for being "special". There's even a facebook page about this where people are asking why the IAAF is discriminating against Caster, but haven't done anything with regard to pharmaceuticals to level the playing field with regard to lactic acid. In essence that is what this is all about, leveling the playing field. So why is Phelps being overlooked? Because he's white? Male? Non-african?

because he's not entering an event for people with regular amounts of lactic acid.

Btw Thorpe WOULD be banned from the womens' races, but not due to his lactic acid levels.

 

[ncurd]

Actually, an argument can be made for Michael Phelps.

He naturally produces less lactic acid than other swimmers. Which reduces his fatigue. And the IAAF has even praised him for being "special". There's even a facebook page about this where people are asking why the IAAF is discriminating against Caster, but haven't done anything with regard to pharmaceuticals to level the playing field with regard to lactic acid. In essence that is what this is all about, leveling the playing field. So why is Phelps being overlooked? Because he's white? Male? Non-african?

The answer is Male but because he actually competes in an open category which women including Caster if capable are allowed to compete with him as such hes allowed his natural attributes.

Caster competes in a category for women only and that's where the crux of the problem lies. Does Caster qualify as a woman? And it's a pretty damn complex thing.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

There's nothing irreconcilable about it, but you're entitled to your views obviously, no matter how illogical.

Well if you can't see it then I can't help you anymore. Anyway agree let's just leave it otherwise we're just going round in circles.

She's confirmed to you that this is her reasoning is it ? That to her taking drugs is abhorrent ? Nothing to do with not wanting to go slower ?

Pretty much i.e. she has said why should she have to change who she is when she hasn't cheated to produce the testosterone. But yes, then the two go hand in hand; she will undoubtedly be unable to perform at her best by taking the medication. No elite athlete would or want to take anything to lower their performance.