Rio 2016: Women's 800m medalists - Castor Semenya

It was put in place because of her, but you're still misleading with your claim of her having higher testosterone levels than the average male. Nobody is saying that. Well, at least from what I've read and heard on the topic. Source?

September, 2011:

Semenya, likely while taking the hormone medication, wins silver in the 800 meters at the world championships in Daegu, South Korea, behind Russia's Mariya Savinova.

---

August, 2012:

Semenya, a hero back home, carries South Africa's flag in the opening ceremony at the London Olympics. On the track, she again finishes with silver behind Savinova, the Russian athlete now accused of doping. But the controversy over Semenya is stirred again when a television commentator suggests she may have lost intentionally to avoid the scrutiny that would come with a gold medal. Semenya dismisses the suggestion as nonsense.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/news/business/health-care/article96973587.html#storylink=cpy

Emphasis on "likely while taking the hormone medication".

While there's no question she wasn't on top of her game during this period, she still managed to win silver at both the 2011 Worlds and 2012 London Olympics. Point being: she wasn't exactly chopped liver during this time period when it was widely assumed she was on these hormone treatments. At least early on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In that same article, South African sportswriter Wesley Botton – who has covered Semenya's career as close as anyone – explains how the testosterone-suppressing drugs were not the reason behind her slower times.

After the IAAF introduced its testosterone limits, Semenya's time for the 800m blew out to as much as 2:03.18. But Botton argues personal reasons are behind the rise and fall and rise again of Caster Semenya.

"Caster needed help and she was approached by people she shouldn't have trusted," he said. "Someone sold an article with Caster to You magazine where they dolled her up in a dress. You never see Caster in a dress. It was so awkward. Caster went off the rails. Over the next few years her performances dropped for a multitude of reasons. It wasn't just [testosterone-suppressing] medication. She was a long way from home – a very rural community – and thrust into this global limelight. Then she fell out with her old coach Michael Seme and, apparently, started partying hard in Pretoria. Michael said she was spending more time with her girlfriend than training.

"She then went to Maria Mutola [the former Olympic 800m champion from Mozambique] and won silver at the London Olympics. But then Mutola had business problems in Mozambique and went home. Everything only improved dramatically when she moved to Potch to work with Jean Verster."

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympic...-of-800m-at-rio-olympics-20160815-gqtab7.html

Which brings us to 2013-15. This is really the only window of opportunity you have to make the "hormone drugs severely diminished her performance" argument.

To that point, I say for an athlete that's been subjected to as much controversy, degradation and public embarrassment as her....it makes sense that this vortex of negativity would eventually break her and lead to personal problems. As unfortunate as that may be. Over the years I've read about problems in her personal life, drama with her coaches, injuries, fatigue, etc.

Any number of these variables could explain why she hit a wall. To me, that's a much more convincing argument than the "She won silver supposedly on these hormone drugs, but she also ran some of her worst performances ever while supposedly on these hormone drugs too. So these drugs make all of the difference" argument. Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

That is just flat out wrong. It isn't that simple.

 

I did and it contradicts the idea that it works overnight.

 

she or he should be disqualified if its found out thats it was a born male

 

Ok what is your definition of overnight? Like literally overnight?

 

Yes, that is the reason he wrote that much longer reply that includes semantics that can be changed. We will soon get down to "OK there is a study showing it works in men but not women" "10 weeks isn't overnight" "I wasn't talking about Testosterone Suspension, but testosterone with an attached ester"

His first post was short, sweet and completely false. The next one was pure garbage and too long pointless to be bothered with.

Do you really want to spend your life unpacking this gem?
"there is a lot of debate on whether it increases endurance or speed as the increased muscle mass is harder on the joints"

Basically a defense of all PEDs in the second half that "back ups" his statement that there is debate about testosterone in the first. It's pointless.

 

So there were a few articles I read that I used to inform what I wrote.

This one is saying that the range of T for women varies widely and there isn't any clear proof that a woman with triple the level than average will perform better than other women and it's unfair to ban women just for having a condition given this: http://www.livescience.com/50938-female-athletes-testosterone-olympics.html

The other article (about it not working overnight and debateable it improves performance was this

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/fashion/10Fitness.html?_r=0

 

Worse than I thought. By overnight he meant as fast as a completely unrelated drug with a half life of 6 hours.

The best part is this is all irrelevant.

 

Has she destroyed the WR?

 

You make some valid points, but again - if researchers are unable to conclusively prove there's a link between high testosterone levels in females and increased athletic performance, the only fair thing to do is to allow her (and others subjected to this type of scrutiny) to compete. The science has to be certain before restrictions or preventative action can be taken. Agreed?

As for surgeries and hormonal therapies, the biggest point to make about that is who are we to tell her what she should do with her body? Sure, from a medical standpoint there are positives (and some negatives, too) to the type of treatments you're alluding to. That's fine. From a medical standpoint that's credible. There's actual science and data behind those suggestions in regards to the long-term health of these athletes.

But for the IAAF, this governing authority, imposing a ban without any degree of substance backing their decision is completely inappropriate, IMO. Which is precisely why that Swiss court of arbitrators ruled in favor of Dutee Chand (plaintiff in the case) and other athletes like Semenya that were affected by these arbitrary rules. Evidently, there wasn't a sound legal case made by the IAAF and I couldn't agree more with the CAS's decision.

 

No. The science is certain that higher testosterone increases strength. The studies all use males because injecting female test subjects to vastly increase their testosterone would give them irreversible side effects. Such a study would also be pointless and redundant. If she did not have a medical reason (balls) for these levels it would be assumed she was doping and would be disqualified for PEDs.

She can do whatever she wants with her body. Women's athletics is a protected event to level the playing field as men would push them all out of competition. Removing that protection blurs the hard line of the category. I am indifferent, but my guess is the disadvantaged female athletes are not.

 

If you want me to engage you in debate, stop acting like a child.

 

Your posts so far are idiotic falsehoods and backtracking. This was followed by undefinable, irrelevant statements. Why would anyone want to engage you in debate? Your current BBS character is a r****d.

 

Then why do you keep harassing me everywhere I post? Go away then!

I swear, it's like you are begging me to respond to you and you just make things more and more ridiculous to provoke me. You have a problem my friend.

 

I need to see your proof that increased testosterone levels in females increases athletic performance. Without that, there's nothing for us to discuss here on the topic of the actual science.

This is the fair but overly simplistic argument that many people make. We're obviously on different sides of this issue, but one thing we can agree on is Semenya's case is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

That said, why is her case any different than other athletes with natural advantages?

Kenyan runners live and train at high altitude which boosts their oxygen carrying capacity. Do you have an objection to this?

Michael Phelps, with his massive wingspan and gigantic flipper-like feet, looks like he was practically genetically engineered to be a swimmer. I bet you don't have an issue with him competing in his sport, the same way you wouldn't have an issue with Brittney Griner and DeAndre Jordan being very good basketball players mainly because they are giants in their respective sports. All natural advantages.

Eero Mantyranta, an Olympic Finnish skier from the 1960-70's, had a genetic condition that caused 50% increased hemoglobin levels. Something that undoubtedly aided him in endurance sports. Is his success legitimate?

Usain Bolt, with his 6'5" frame and fast-twitch muscle fibers, obviously has a huge advantage in sprints. Nobody bats an eye.

What about Miguel Indurain, a cyclist with roughly twice the lung capacity of his peers? Should he have been allowed to compete?

Bottom line: all Olympic athletes are unique. That's what makes them Olympic athletes. Ordinary athletes don't make it to this type of stage. History is filled with examples of athletes with unorthodox physical and natural advantages. You can't selectively (and without verified science) decide to single out one athlete. If you're going to enact restrictions you need to present a valid case for doing so and that has yet to happen.

 

I already explained specific studies have been done in men. If you did that study with women, all of the (non-placebo) subjects would end the study a few months later with a 5 o'clock shadow. This doesn't satisfy your arbitrary requirements so I guess I don't need to read your second paragraph.

There is no study out there showing anabol increases athletic performance in females. It is still banned. Your explanation of "better safe than sorry" isn't the reason.

 

All the athletes you mentioned are men and it therefore has nothing to do with my post. There is not some other race Bolt would lose in but doesn't have to because he is allowed to compete with slower competition. If Bolt's testosterone fell 5 standard deviations outside the cutoff for 99.99% of Olympic men's sprinters he would be banned for doping test suspension.

 

As we speak the IAAF is the middle of their two year provisional period trying to make the connection you so clearly refuse to acknowledge: that there's no proven connection between high testosterone in females and athletic performance. They're trying to do exactly what you're making sound like is impossible to do. Stay tuned.

 

It's a simple deduction from her race times, the time of the ruling, and Botton's own comments which you actually quoted. He admits she was taking the medication. If she didn't have testosterone higher than the average male, per the rule, then she wouldn't need to be taking the medication.

Over the next few years her performances dropped for a multitude of reasons. It wasn't just [testosterone-suppressing] medication.

Even if she was taking the medication, you can be absolutely certain that it was just enough to just barely put her below the testosterone level of the average male per the high testosterone rule.

This issue of whether testosterone makes women stronger is like gravity. Just because we can't prove it with a scientific certainty doesn't mean we don't know. I would say the same thing for transgendered people and gay folks, we know that's how they feel but we can't prove why. Her facial features and her musculature make it pretty evident that there's something dramatically different about her.

You can choose to believe the two fastest times in her career, six years apart, while not on testosterone lowering drugs are a coincidence but I think when you put it all in context it is enough circumstantial evidence to say there is a link.