I think it should also be clear that when she was taking the medicine, it had to be lowered to an amount that is three times that of 99% of female athletes. ie what keeps getting quoted. Pay attention misinformation, this is the truth of what you read in the NY Times So as CometsWin is saying, when her performance dropped off significantly, her limit was set to three times that of 99% of women's athletes. Now it is NOT restricted. This is how misinformation is spread.
The correct information is the IAAF has an ongoing provisional two year window to prove the connection. I misquoted when I stated that it had already happened. I've been following Semenya's case for years and got the timeline mixed up in my head. Honest mistake. That said, it still doesn't change the point I'm making that it's unfair and discriminatory to issue bans and restrictions without verified scientific proof connecting high testosterone in females and athletic performance. We're not there yet. You're free to ignore relevant examples of other naturally advantaged athletes because that doesn't suit the argument you're trying to make or try to embarrass me by highlighting an error in a post, but ultimately none of that will change the fact that you're basing your argument on something you cannot prove. It's the same problem I have [with a much less smug and condescending] CometsWin's post: "you just know" isn't good enough. If you're going to impose restrictions, bans or whatever you need to conclusively prove what you're doing is backed by fact. Until that point comes, if ever, I'm going to side with the athletes since these are natural conditions.
You're just ignoring the evidence. She's taking advantage of something where the rules haven't yet been perfected. She does have higher testosterone levels than the average man. Her times were much faster, 9 seconds faster, with higher testosterone levels than the average man. You can fall back to some bureaucratic machinations but she's different and she has an unfair advantage over other women. She has masculine features and musculature because she has a man's testosterone. That's not hatred for her situation, it's just an honest representation of who she is as an athlete.
Point 1: Semenya is NOT a female(I have referred to Semenya as a lady multiple times out of respect, but she is really a he as per genetics). Since he has the Y chromosome, Testosterone will have an impact on him(granted that his target receptors are able to respond normally). Testosterone is produced in both males and females, but the levels that males have allow for the fundamental variation btwn males and females. To subject a "him" to the rules of a "her" is NOT appropriate. Unfortunately, he just didnt have the adequate levels during embryological development to ensure that his external/internal features matched his genetics. Point 2: I completely agree in regards to this. We can not and MUST never force treatment on a perfectly rational human being. It is recommend as the standard of care to offer him the option, but ultimately his decision. That being said, medical science is clear of the risks patient take if they have undescended testes that arent removed. If you have access to information that states that performing any such operation may increase the likelyhood of mortality...I'd like to see it. Point 3: The Chand case was judicial overreach... they failed to establish if Duttee was a MALE or a FEMALE. Their ruling should reflect that decision. Chand Duttee also is a 46XY genotypical male, with female external genitalia/ and internal testes. It is very clear that the effects of high levels of Testosterone confer a physiologic advantage for males over females. While it is true that the impact of Testosterone on FEMALES is still ambiguous(unclear research), Duttee like Semenya isnt a female either. A ruling was made on the basis that she is a female...and studies are inconclusive on Testosterone actions on females...IS an error by the court and those that litigated the case. I have NEVER seen any examples in medical literature of a genotypical Female(XX) have testes. The Y chromosome provides the genes to allow for the formation of testes. How the body develops from this point forward is what is different...Doesnt change the fact that if you are 46XY!
Ignoring evidence? I'm agreeing with the CAS's decision. You have every right to reject their determination or disagree with their reasoning. It's not as if there aren't valid points on both sides of the debate. But for me, personally, I need more than "you just know". As for the times, she won silver at both the 2011 World's (1:56.35) and 2012 Olympics (1:57.23) while supposedly on these hormone drugs. Silver. As in second best in the world. It wasn't the 1:55.45 she ran during her breakthrough performance in 2009, but the 800m is a grinder. Times fluctuate. There's nothing alarming to me about those times before she hit a wall a year or so later. That said, this type of argument gets cloudier from this point forward because we don't know the details (i.e. exact dates she was on these hormone drugs, any dosage differences, other medication or variables that may explain why she was both successful and at her worst while likely on these drugs, etc). We don't know any of those details, so this really all boils down to speculation.
when she did 1:59.59 in Beijing last year it was her fastest time since 2013. Her Olympic performance of 1:55.28 seems eerily close to the 1:55.45 at 18 years old. So really less fluctuation and more large decline, followed by several years of subpar times, followed by an increase to her previous times. All going along with two rule changes. derp I wonder wtf happened.
I'm not a geneticist or scientist, so I'm not even going to entertain the thought of getting into a debate of that nature with you. I appreciate your insight and it's interesting to hear an argument framed in that manner. That said, legally she's a female. It's not as if there's some sort of legal course of action to be taken to formally change her gender. Obviously, that's not going to happen. She registered, competed and qualified as a female. She also happens to live and identifies as a female. So for the purposes of a track & field discussion, she's a female. Not that hearing things explained from a genetic standpoint isn't interesting, though.
You didn't read that correctly. The conversation about times was a shortened version of this (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=10667425&postcount=41) from yesterday. She was still very successful while supposedly on these drugs early on. The fluctuation comment was about noticing nothing abnormal about her silver medal performances of 1:56.35 and 1:57.23 compared to her then-PR of 1:55.45. That was what the fluctuation comment was about. The second part of that paragraph is about speculation regarding her at her worst. You and CometsWin are choosing to believe it's all about the hormone drugs. I'm choosing to believe there was likely much more to it given the various reports of turmoil in her personal life. Either way, it's all speculation.
Society labels her a female while science does not. Not sure where she's allowed to compete but she should be able to.
