Sports scientist Tim Noakes is wrong on World 800m champion Caster Semenya

I don't think a panel of people should be the definitive authority on one's sex. These questions are what we have science for. If a Y chromosome is present, the individual is a male, regardless of "performance advantages." Since when is someone's gender dependent on his/her athletic ability. One's athletic ability is indicative of his/her sex, not the deciding factor thereof.

idk--

You assume what you set out to prove.

It could easily be decided that athletic ability is determinative of sex, especially if the purpose of the determination was to assign an appropriate competitive class.

Although I never suggested that athletic ability should be a criterion for the decision, why shouldn't it be?

Why shouldn't Koch and Kratochvilova have competed as men?

It wouldn't be a mandatory criterion, but it surely could be one, if one or more of the panel members chose it to be so. If the panel was sufficiently large, the basing of the voting upon any one criterion would be lessened, as presumably different people would use different criteria.

If they all used the same criteria, so be it.

Remember, the panel wouldn't be the definitive authority on one's sex, as you suggest. But it WOULD be the definitive authority on what competitive class the athlete would be permitted to compete in.

Think of it this way: the vote wouldn't be on WHETHER the athlete was male or female, but whether the athlete would compete in the male or the female category.

Other authorities would of course be free to decide gender for whatever purpose they exist--to determine spousal status, medical status, compile census data, whatever.

Remember, it's only sports.

Also idk, we have science for whatever we choose to use it for. If we don't choose to use it, fair enough. There are plenty of decisions made in society every day that are not the product of "scientific" reasoning or principles, and that can be a good thing, for various reasons.

By your Y-chromosome criterion, you would assign EVERY XXY woman to the male competitive pool. That sort of thinking fits within my suggested model--that would be your criterion, if you could find the information, and you could use it as either the entire or partial basis for your decision, as you so choose.

It is obvious that not all people agree with your criterion. As is well known, there have been plenty of XXY women who have competed in the female classes in various Olympic sporting events.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

The "gender test" for sporting events SHOULD BE ARBITRARY.

A diverse panel should be convened, and the majority vote on a simple M-F question should decide. No abstentions.

Easy. Quick. Infallible by definition.

This is essential what the IAAF has now. People, at least people on this board don't seem happy w/ the decision they made in the Semenya case. It is unclear if a ban would have stood up to appeal in the CAS.

Arbitrary decisions give nobody confidence that the rules are applied fairly and uniformly across the board. Other athletes and the track watching public have too little knowledge of how things were decided and by who to have any confidence in the integrity of the ruling and thus in the integrity of future competition.

Finally, idk, even the author of the original article suggested that athletic ability could be a deciding factor, when he said that "If she was running 1:41, then we would have a problem."

Fair enough. That attitude would also be accommodated.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

To be eligible to vote, panel members must at a minimum have been exposed to at least one photo of the athlete in question. There would be no pre-approved photos, but each vote would have to be accompanied by at least one photo, to provide evidence that something relevant was considered.

Oh yeah, this is an absolutely horrible idea, to have it based on a photo. Can't see internal testes on a photo, just for instance. At least the current panel is made up of medical experts. I still don't have much confidence in the process, but it is better than this.

Mr. Obvious--

If the "rule" was defined similar to how I've described it, all that would be required to demonstrate individual compliance with the rule would be a vote, and one piece of evidence--and not necessarily that piece of evidence upon which the matter was decided by that individual.

People will point out that the ultimate decision will just be shifted to deciding who gets to sit on the panel. That is a fair criticism, but it is an easier issue to address non-controversially than is any "scientific" determination of gender.

I don't agree that current IAAF decision-making comports with my suggested model. Panel size, panel composition, evidentiary basis, the offering of reasons for decision--these are all different in the current system than would be in mine. Remember, the simple fact of having to publish reasons can affect the decision.

I am disappointed in Dr. Noakes. Well, not that disappointed, but his comments seem par for the course. A second cousin of mine is a head of an endocrinology department at a major university medical center. He also had done a lot of work in psychiatry, and specializes in children's issues, especially those relating to gender and sexual development (or abnormal development, if you will). He testifies often as an expert witness.

He is fascinating and intelligent and persuasive. Yet he is also, strain against it as he might, beholden to the very politically correct university culture. It is just the way it is.

I have engaged in him a discussion of the Semenya case, and can only offer up logical and measured questions to him. Clearly I have neither the scientific background nor the access to data which he has - and indeed, it is a struggle to ask the most pertinent questions of him (I am well educated, but in another field).

In any event, I asked him to focus on the competitive advantage of testosterone in Semenya's case, and he is very reluctant to conclude that Semenya's much higher levels of testosterone than her female competitors testosterone affords her a significant advantage over other females. This despite the fact that my understanding is that while gender is in essence a continuum, there is little or no overlap in testosterone levels between those that identify and have the attributes of females and those that identify and have the attributes of males. I also mentioned to him as a former sub 1:50 800 guy (many moons ago) that it seems clear to me that testosterone would be a significant advantage in the 800, an event where power and strength (particularly in terms of being able to relax at a fast pace during the first 400) really count. I pointed out that experiential observations (about every good or better 800 runner says the same thing) also have to count.

Suffice to say this is a difficult case, and I will drag a definitive response out of this cousin someday. We feel for Semenya's plight, but at the same time the potential to make a mockery of track and field for women exists. I am fascinated watching her - she absolutely reminds me of many of the male 800 runners I ran against in high school and college - which I guess shouldn't be surprising.

Mr. Obvious--

You clearly didn't read the entire post.

I never suggested that a vote would be based upon a photo (although it COULD be). The submission of a photo would be the minimum evidentiary submission required of a panelist, and would be used only to prove that SOME evidence could have been considered.

Some panelists may very well base their decision upon a photo. Fair enough--all that is needed is one photo of Dwain Chambers to assign him to the M category, or Allyson Felix to the F category. Other panelists would be free to vote on whatever criteria they feel are valuable to their decision.

Again, with the right size and composition of panel, no one mode of determination would become the dominant one over time.

la la land wrote:

But the fact remains that human organisms have a mix of female and male properties. Semenya is an extreme example, but there are, no doubt, somewhat less pronounced cases.

Many top female athletes are exceptionally masculine - although some of that is due to drugs rather than genetic make up. How do we proceed? Some guidelines need to be spelled out. Do we simply allow athletes to declare themselves male or female?

If a male has breast in-plants,wears make up and considers himself female, should he be allowed to compete in women's events?

Where are the gay rights activists on this?

You answered your own question. If a female athlete is rather masculine due to drugs, well then shes a doper and should be suspended. If she is just naturally masculine (like Caster) then there should be gender tests done. And yes male or female, those are the categories for which people compete. And no, just because a guy wants to dress up like a girl does not mean he doesn't have an unfair advantage over females in competition.

And what the hell does sexual orientation have to do with running? Caster has an unfair advantage over females due to the extra amount of testosterone in her body. Sure, some females have more then others but I believe she has 9x the normal amount a female should have, I doubt any other female 800m has that much.

So, hmmm, would you vote M or F?

Would you be as fascinated watching Semenya run in a men's race?

hmmm--

You never told us if your cousin was able to reach a decision, and if so, what that decision was.

Regardless, there is nothing to suggest that someone with his technical and/or medical qualifications is any better suited to provide an answer to the question than is anybody else.

What is the point of the decision, really? Is it not to provide athletes with a suitable level of competition, one that benefits all competitors contained therein?

It happens all the time, not just by gender, but by age, disability status, etc.. The decision is made for the benefit of all athletes not just for the individual under consideration.

Jim........ wrote:

Is Noakes campaigning for womens rights? His last point about genetics shows how profound his misunderstanding about genetics is!

Noakes feels that men should be able compete in women's events, i.e that there should be no exclusive women's events.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Mr. Obvious--

You clearly didn't read the entire post.

I never suggested that a vote would be based upon a photo (although it COULD be). The submission of a photo would be the minimum evidentiary submission required of a panelist, and would be used only to prove that SOME evidence could have been considered.

Some panelists may very well base their decision upon a photo. Fair enough--all that is needed is one photo of Dwain Chambers to assign him to the M category, or Allyson Felix to the F category. Other panelists would be free to vote on whatever criteria they feel are valuable to their decision.

Again, with the right size and composition of panel, no one mode of determination would become the dominant one over time.

I've read the post several times. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I highly doubt such a system would withstand a challenge in the CAS.

Would athletes be required to undergo medical testing and have those results reviewed by the panel? Doesn't sound like it. What gender would you vote for Mutola? Jelimo? Koch? Would you really want a woman barred from competing on no more factual basis than that the majority of a panel felt she looked manly? I wouldn't.

If it looks like shit, smells like shit, acts like shit, then it's shit.

Medical testing--

An athlete would not be required to undergo any such testing, but could do it voluntarily, or could supply any documentary evidence whatsoever and make it freely available to any and all panelists. Whatever.

And again, your suggestion that a woman could be banned from female competition simply because a panel majority believed her to look manly is misleading. That certainly COULD be one outcome of the vote, but there is no reason whatsoever that it WOULD be the outcome--again, any panelist could vote for any reason(s) whatsoever, and you'd never know their reason, as the reason would not be revealed.

As for the three athletes you asked about, who cares how I personally would vote? Since you seem to care, I'll say that if I were a panelist, I would ask for more information than I currently possess to decide. If no further information was available to me than I already possess, I would vote, depending on the stage of their career, Koch (M), Mutola (F), Jelimo (F).

Others may vote differently. So what? What would matter would be the aggregate vote.

Mr. Obvious--

Do you understand exactly how the CAS works?

Maybe you can prove to us that you know by telling us whether and under what conditions the arbitration is binding, what rights of appeal exist to nationally-based tribunals, what the relationship is between the IAAF, CAS, USATF, IOC, USOC, WADA, the extent of which the decisions of nationally-based tribunals are binding upon international organizations, and so on.

For instance, PRECISELY WHY is it that you don't believe that such a system would withstand challenge in the CAS, and even if it didn't, PRECISELY WHAT would be the effect of an adverse CAS decision upon the USATF, the USOC, the IOC, and the IAAF, and what right(s) of appeal would the IAAF or other parties have in, say, a court of federal jurisdiction in the U.S.A.?

Sprint - what bothers me is that I indeed think my second cousin can empirically demonstrate with some degree of clarity the advantage that Semenya obtains, but is reluctant to do it. His expert testimony work (which I have read) reflects that this type of question is well within his wheelhouse. He is in my view constrained by his own sense of political correctness, an attribute for survival in a university. Note that I agree with many of his views, especially on the gender continuum, but that I am disappointed he is not willing to come to firm conclusions, or at least aver as to the reasons why.

My own layperson's view is that Semenya's testosterone level offers her a considerable advantage over her fellow female competitors. What level of advantage? Not sure. She has just won an 800 in 2:02 - looking inefficient and being still far from being in top shape. She can and likely will run 1:52 or faster. This issue is not yet resolved, and won't be soon. There is a value to being open and direct here - something that has not yet been achieved.

hmmm really wrote:

My own layperson's view is that Semenya's testosterone level offers her a considerable advantage over her fellow female competitors. What level of advantage? Not sure. She has just won an 800 in 2:02 - looking inefficient and being still far from being in top shape. She can and likely will run 1:52 or faster. This issue is not yet resolved, and won't be soon. There is a value to being open and direct here - something that has not yet been achieved.

What is Semenya's testosterone level?

There is also value in judging based on actual facts, not just rumors printed in the media.