By Nick Powell
The case of Caster Semenya and her right to compete with or without medication is without doubt one of the most difficult and complex cases I have ever heard in the history of sport.
So complex, that any opinion I give on how the three judges came to their decision (which they had been grappling with for two months), would be pretty irrelevant.
There are clear facts from this case however: Semenya has intersex characteristics, these massively increase testosterone levels, and increased testosterone results in greater muscle mass and therefore enhanced performance, particularly in middle-distance events, where Semenya competes.
But it's also worth pointing out that there is nothing Semenya can do about the way she was born, she will struggle to stay at the elite level when the new rules are brought in and she has been hounded over the issue throughout her career, to the point where her privacy has been infringed upon unfairly.
Whatever you can say, this is a brutal ruling for her individually. It is the culmination of a ten year struggle for her to compete at the elite level as she had always been allowed to as her career as a young athlete developed.
It is also worth pointing out that had Semenya not dominated the sport in the early part of her career or between 2016 and present as she has, this research and therefore ruling would likely not have happened. Put simply if she had failed to win a gold up to now, it's unlikely this ruling would have come to pass in this current era.
However, the idea that the decision would never have occurred is less clear cut.
Since the 1980s, where a number of East German female athletes were forced to take testosterone, in one case leading to one having gender reassignment surgery, the relationship between testosterone levels and women's sport has been highly contentious.
Andreas Kruger, formerly Heidi, believes that testosterone he was forced to take as a woman heavily influenced his decision to transition to being a man
Fortunately it was only the now defunct East German and Soviet Olympic Associations that would ever take such evil measures to enhance the performance of athletes, and many point to the obvious point that Semenya could do nothing about her testosterone levels. Going further it could be argued that in the same way that the East German athletes were, she is now being forced to take medication, albeit with completely opposite effects.
Indeed, we have long applauded genetic differences for giving athletes the edge in sport, Michael Phelps' ridiculously long arms and his body's resilience to lactic acid production, Usain Bolt's different leg lengths which means he generates more power in the stride and of course, Manute Bol, a distinctly average basketball player whose 7 foot 7 height meant he was one of the greatest shot-blockers of all time.
Combine these traits with Phelps' low lactic acid production and it's easy to see why he dominated his sport for so long
No-one forced Phelps to take medication that increased lactic acid production, and there are no arm length, leg length or height restrictions in any major sport. So why is it fair to Semenya?
This is where accusations come in that this ruling is discriminatory. Twitter is littered with people describing the ruling as racist, sexist, homophobic and setting a transphobic precedent in future sport.
This is so, horribly wrong and is a sad way to discuss a case that up to this ruling, had been discussed with the calm rationality it deserved.
Nobody is saying that this ruling is a decision that benefits anyone. As Tom Fordyce wrote on the BBC: "There are no winners.", but that is not to say that the ruling was made for cynical reasons.
The debate should simply be this: Is it fair to regulate the testosterone of female athletes with different chromosomal patterns to the vast majority? With one side arguing that no-one should be forced to regulate the body they were born with and the other arguing that it is only fair that those with an advantage on this scale take medication to, in the words of Seb Coe, "protect the integrity of women's sport".
Personally, I can see both sides. I feel enormous sympathy for Semenya and think she has been treated horribly throughout her career, but can see the dangers of having no testosterone regulations in women's sport going forward, as something that might be exploited.
However, I take issue with the idea that this is in anyway discriminatory against anyone other than intersex people, which it arguably discriminates against.
It's not racist. The IAAF has never discriminated against black athletes, and white athletes with high testosterone levels actually sparked this debate 20 years ago.
Jarmila Kratochvilova also came under huge scrutiny in both the press and in sport's governing bodies, but testing was not advanced or accurate enough to prove anything, if indeed she was did have DSD at all.
It's not sexist. It has been brought in to benefit the vast majority of women and though testosterone advantages exist in men's sport it is nowhere near on the scale that this is. The regulation is being brought in specifically to protect women's sport from the male chromosome.
It's not homophobic (some have argued that because she doesn't fit the archetypal feminine image of a woman), there have been several lesbian and masculine female athletes who have been celebrated around the world throughout sporting history (while being discriminated against in wider society), so why would the IAAF take issue with a lesbian when LGBT people are now widely accepted?
Finally, it in no way sets a transphobic precedent. Semenya is not trans, and those that are do not necessarily need to take the same medication to reduce their testosterone levels to the level the IAAF have put in place.
If we live in a world where every contentious decision involving someone who is black, LGBT or female is considered discrimination, we will never be able to live in a world where rational discussions take place.
This transcends sport, to the point where people who know nothing about sport are giving their two pennies worth, and in many cases you can really tell.
And when you hear language from Athletics South Africa that compares this ruling to apartheid-like repression (which their predecessors facilitated in sport), when they themselves were the first to conduct gender testing (without Semenya's consent), you have to wonder if we will ever be able to debate this topic again.
For what it's worth, I think the ruling is rushed and incredibly unfair. It is flawed that it has to apply to Athletes midway through their careers, the range imposed on middle distance events seems bizarre and I would support the view of Ross Tucker, who argues: "If you're going to introduce something that creates medial harm, the standard of proof must be better than what exists here."
South African Sport Scientist Ross Tucker pointed out flaws in the proof of the IAAF's decision
But in the same way that I don't immediately dismiss Brexiteers as racists, or people that don't watch women's sport as sexist, or people that don't support gay marriage as homophobes, (all three opinions which I fundamentally disagree with) l think it is much better to discuss the facts of the case, rather than allege discrimination with zero evidence.
To apply these labels to people who want to discuss things with no bad intentions is divisive and unfair.
Comments
Post a Comment