BREAKING: Study finds that women runners born with high testosterone levels enjoy a "significant competitive advant

borleeeeeeeeeeeeeee wrote:

I have no problem with female athletes with naturally high testosterone. All the best athletes have some sort of genetic advantage over others. I do have a problem with athletes with, or with part of, a y chromosome in women's races.

The problem with high testosterone among "women" in running is that it's not just one genetic advantage, it's effectively every advantage. It will help your endurance & your kick.

In other sports, such as basketball, there are multiple facets -- running, jumping, hand-eye coordination, tactics, etc. Maybe a tall guy gets a better jump ball, or the high-t guy is faster across the court, but the short guy or low-t guy could be better at dribbling, be better at 3-point shots, etc. But in such a pure sport as running, you can't make up the competitive advantage elsewhere. It's only made worse in a long sprint / short middle-distance event like the 800, where tactics don't matter if your opponent (e.g. Caster) can out-run you in ever stage of the race.

Isn't having ridiculously high naturally occurring haemoglobin levels similar in long distance running - surely you wouldn't argue that they shouldn't be able to compete.

Going back to the original point though, I thought Semenya had high testosterone because she had a y chromosome or is this just speculation?

LOL.. Right.... SMDH

Comparing a 1:57 800 meter time to 2:00 does not mean a 2.5% (3 second) advantage if you actually look at the race. Semenya out-kicks the pack in the last 200 meters or so, which means a 3 second advantage over the last 30 seconds, which is (at least) a 10% advantage.

What those reports show most clearly is that sports science is not real science.

aaaaaaaaa wrote:

What those reports show most clearly is that sports science is not real science.

Why do you say that? Specifics.

Otherwise STFU.

the true percent advantage wrote:

Comparing a 1:57 800 meter time to 2:00 does not mean a 2.5% (3 second) advantage if you actually look at the race. Semenya out-kicks the pack in the last 200 meters or so, which means a 3 second advantage over the last 30 seconds, which is (at least) a 10% advantage.

Right answer. He/she is so dominant, nobody can shake her. Then kicks it home as if his competitors were hobby joggers.

Again, this is the federation's terrible policy choices, not personal to Semenya.

####

Separately, if only there was a way to increase Test that was easy to use, relatively inexpensive, and never tests positive.

the true percent advantage wrote:

Comparing a 1:57 800 meter time to 2:00 does not mean a 2.5% (3 second) advantage if you actually look at the race. Semenya out-kicks the pack in the last 200 meters or so, which means a 3 second advantage over the last 30 seconds, which is (at least) a 10% advantage.

Right answer. He/she is so dominant, nobody can shake her. Then kicks it home as if his competitors were hobby joggers.

Again, this is the federation's terrible policy choices, not personal to Semenya.

####

Separately, if only there was a way to increase Test that was easy to use, relatively inexpensive, and never tests positive.

kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:

Just wait until CAS rejects the evidence.

+1

Sure, of course being born with a body that produces higher than average levels of testosterone will give that woman an advantage. Just like it would for a man born with higher than average levels of testosterone. Just like it would for anyone born with a better than average anything in any area that matters (longer arms for M Phelps, for instance).

Where do we draw the line, then?

Why not test male sprinters for their naturally occurring levels of testosterone, and declare the outliers to have an unfair advantage and require them to take drugs to reduce their testosterone levels?

Surely there are male athletes with freakish genetic advantages - why not test and seek to control them?

zs58 wrote:

Sure, of course being born with a body that produces higher than average levels of testosterone will give that woman an advantage. Just like it would for a man born with higher than average levels of testosterone. Just like it would for anyone born with a better than average anything in any area that matters (longer arms for M Phelps, for instance).

Where do we draw the line, then?

Why not test male sprinters for their naturally occurring levels of testosterone, and declare the outliers to have an unfair advantage and require them to take drugs to reduce their testosterone levels?

Surely there are male athletes with freakish genetic advantages - why not test and seek to control them?

Longer arms are not the problem

zs58 wrote:

Where do we draw the line, then?

How about people with testes v. people without testes?

zs58 wrote:

Sure, of course being born with a body that produces higher than average levels of testosterone will give that woman an advantage. Just like it would for a man born with higher than average levels of testosterone. Just like it would for anyone born with a better than average anything in any area that matters (longer arms for M Phelps, for instance).

Where do we draw the line, then?

Why not test male sprinters for their naturally occurring levels of testosterone, and declare the outliers to have an unfair advantage and require them to take drugs to reduce their testosterone levels?

Surely there are male athletes with freakish genetic advantages - why not test and seek to control them?

We draw it here:

Females with no DSDs (Disorders of Sexual Differentiation)---> in this race.

Everyone else---> in that race.

If some female has no discernible "condition" (xxy, internal testes, whatever) yet has a high T, fine, female.

Until we know the T levels for Semenya (and her specific DSD), its tough to say much more. How those things have not been leaked I'm not sure (have they?)

The IAAF cutoff is 100 ng/dL, iirc. For females.

Is the CAS case a "continuation" of the interim decision, or will it have a new Panel?

Please pleas pleaz let it be the same panel. So Brave! Casting off the shackles of gender!

Clear bias currently wrote:

Is the CAS case a "continuation" of the interim decision, or will it have a new Panel?

So the question is: What ARE semenya's T levels?

110?

410?

810?

1200? Some men have over 1000.

At some level, I'd bet the competitors in the 800 would just stand there when the gun went off.

Birmingham wrote:

When did the athletes consent to their doping tests be used for research ?

The study was done on Swedish athletes - both Olympic athletes and a control group.

It wasn't done at all on the intersex athletes and didn't use their doping tests.

rojo wrote:

Birmingham wrote:

When did the athletes consent to their doping tests be used for research ?

The study was done on Swedish athletes - both Olympic athletes and a control group.

That's the related Eklund study (see fifth post in thread), 100 athletes, women only.

The wider IAAF study (published in the BJSM) used Daegu (2011) and Moscow (2013) data (2100 athletes, 1300 women).

The IAAF has commissioned a second piece of research and sources told The Guardian it would look at the effect naturally occurring testosterone has on 100m and 200m sprinters such as Chand, as well as middle-distance runners and throwers.