Watch Semenya race 2k - Live now 4 pm ET.

dunes runner wrote:

rojo wrote:

Woman who was 2nd was celebrating like she did something amazing.

Obviously, she won the women's race, so she certainly has the right to celebrate.

Too bad the race was not ONLY for women.

Good one

The bottom line is that regardless of the interminable and contorted arguments about Semenya's categorisation as either male or female she produces levels of testosterone way beyond what biological women can produce. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid. If testosterone isn't fundamental to the argument then why is Semenya fighting tooth and nail to avoid reducing her levels? Before the Chand decision, which suspended the IAAF's requirement that female athletes' testosterone levels be subject to limitation, Semenya couldn't break 2.02 for the 800. She knows testosterone is crucial to her success. And she has levels that "women" who don't have testes can't get near.

Semenya is 46XY. No extra "X"s or "Y"s. She thus fits the same genetic/chromosomal category as all the males on the planet. She has functioning testes, which produce testosterone in the same way as they would for any other male, and she has no ovaries to produce suppressants of her testosterone levels. She is not androgen insensitive - if she was there wouldn't be an issue with her competing against women, as she wouldn't have the biological

advantages (that include strength, size and cardiovascular superiority as a result of masculinisation) that women who aren't DSD cannot have. There is nothing that naturally limits her testosterone levels. Call her a woman if you or she wish - and the IAAF has wisely chosen to avoid that political argument - but as a sports competitor she is effectively a man. The IAAF has properly drawn a line to protect women's sport.

She really is a gigantic and persistent case of sporting herpes that the IAAF can't get rid of.

Niyonsaba's best event is 800m. 2000 is a very long race for her, she never ran a single 1500 in her career... so it's not strange to see her struggling a bit. Semenya, on the other way, has run sub4 for 1500 so her time at 2000 is not particularly impressive.

And you can call her whatever you like, as long as it's founded in fact. If you want to call her a man because in your mind XY DSD makes her a man, that's your right to do so, even though it's more complex than that, but at least you have some foundation for the statement. Saying that she has testosterone levels of a man however, is 100% untrue. Facts matter. Say she has 10 times as much as her competitors if you want, that could be true, but why embellish to fit your narrative?

Just the facts please.

Caster Semenya is a natural born female. End of discussion. She does not run in the XX division. She runs in the Female division of athletics. Until there is and XX division and XY division she should be allowed to compete without restrictions.

I'm all for people like CeCe Telfair being kept out of women's athletics. They chose to change the identity and they live their as the opposite gender from what they were born as.

So tell us the facts about what prevents her from having male levels of testosterone, when she has testes but no ovaries?

no mo taboo wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

No, it's the testosterone. She still has an advantage, and would likely be worse without the extra testosterone. She doesn't have to win every single race to have an advantage.

Like most things in life it is multivariable. Testosterone is important, maybe the most important, but not the only variable. Otherwise the East Germans would’ve put up women’s records approaching the Men’s. They didn’t.

Yep...the East Germans were using boatloads of Oral-Turinabol with their mid-d runners and didn't come close to any men's times. In fact, they weren't even beating the Soviets who used steroids andblood doping with their runners.

Here's the scoop wrote:

no mo taboo wrote:

Like most things in life it is multivariable. Testosterone is important, maybe the most important, but not the only variable. Otherwise the East Germans would’ve put up women’s records approaching the Men’s. They didn’t.

Yep...the East Germans were using boatloads of Oral-Turinabol with their mid-d runners and didn't come close to any men's times. In fact, they weren't even beating the Soviets who used steroids andblood doping with their runners.

http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/43/7/1262

The argument isn't that testosterone makes women as fast as men, but that it makes some women competitors way faster than others. The E Bloc runners and Semenya have that in common.

Semenya's T level has been reported to range as low as 450 and as high as 110.

She's not high by women's standards, she's high for men at times as well.

At least it's off Zola's 5:38.07 from April 8, 1991, when SHE won in Cape Town.

The HE is disgusting running as a woman.

Let's see how HE does in the 3,000m. In Durban, in nationals, on April 29, 1991, Elana Meyer (a real woman) won in 8:32.00 and Zola (a real woman) was 2nd in 8:35.72 (with a PB in '85 of 8:28).

The clean women have had to deal with the drug cheats and the cheating men for a long time.

Very interesting and, to me, new information I had not seen. Thanks for posting.

If I read this correctly, the IAAF is categorizing Caster has having a male DSD, not a female DSD?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Here's the scoop wrote:

Yep...the East Germans were using boatloads of Oral-Turinabol with their mid-d runners and didn't come close to any men's times. In fact, they weren't even beating the Soviets who used steroids andblood doping with their runners.

http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/43/7/1262

The argument isn't that testosterone makes women as fast as men, but that it makes some women competitors way faster than others. The E Bloc runners and Semenya have that in common.

No doubt. It is just that these threads tend to pretend that the only variable is testosterone, which it isn't.

It is a farce to believe that you can take a top XX and make her as good as a top XY simply by adding testosterone. In the same way it is farce to go the other direction. Yet this is one of the prime tenets put forward for allowing the sporting categories to be a "choice".

RunRagged wrote:

The IAAF last month published several documents clearly explaining that the regs that Semenya has challenged pertain only to those athletes who want to compete in women's events who have differences/disorders of male sex development, not female DSDs. Yes, the IAAF said, these athletes have official identity documents (issued by their home countries) stating they are "legally female (or intersex)." But the IAAF clarified that all these athletes also have ALL FOUR of the following characteristics that make them biologically male:

1) male XY sex chromosomes, not female XX sex chromosomes

2) testes, not ovaries

3) circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L), not in the much lower female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L)

4) the ability to make use of the testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgen-sensitive’) as males typically do.

Circulating testosterone of 7.7 nmol/L does not fall within the range of males. The IAAF didn't just arbitrarily pick that number as the starting point, where do you think they got the 7.7 number from and why do you think they used it? Why not 7.8 or 7.9 or how about a nice round number like 8.0 or even 9.0? In case you are unaware, the male range in (nmol/L) starts at 9.7 which is the same as 280 ng/dL. Why did they start it at 7.7?

Go find that out and then come back. I already know the answer.

You're wrong. Again. Semenya's counsel at the CAS hearing did not dispute the male testosterone range provided by the IAAF. If the figure had been wrong it would undoubtedly been challenged. It wasn't. The scientists who have independently challenged the fairness of the IAAF policy have also not disputed the range defined by the IAAF.

But more importantly, the limit of 5 nmles imposed by the IAAF rule is far above that of normal women; it is therefore a concession to the higher levels to be found in DSD(male) athletes. But that limit still has to be below normal male levels. As it should. And as you don't appear understand.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're wrong. Again. Semenya's counsel at the CAS hearing did not dispute the male testosterone range provided by the IAAF. If the figure had been wrong it would undoubtedly been challenged. It wasn't. The scientists who have independently challenged the fairness of the IAAF policy have also not disputed the range defined by the IAAF.

But more importantly, the limit of 5 nmles imposed by the IAAF rule is far above that of normal women; it is therefore a concession to the higher levels to be found in DSD(male) athletes. But that limit still has to be below normal male levels. As it should. And as you don't appear understand.

We're done here!

It's obvious that you are willing to get on your knees and swallow whatever you are fed about this topic of male testosterone without respect to scientific fact. The male range of testosterone is not in question, it's a known scientific fact and 7.7 nmol/L does not fall within that range. The range actually is irrelevant to but the IAAF wants you to believe it is to further their narrative and you are all too happy to oblige them. They chose 7.7 because someone that they are targeting has a level at or near 7.7. The IAAF is one of the most corrupt sporting organisations out there, possibly only second to FIFA and yet many find it so difficult to comprehend that they may have an ulterior motive. Just remember, sheep get eaten!

Let's look at the ridiculous nature of IAAF's own numbers.

What is lowering testosterone from 7.7 to 5.0 going to do? There is absolutely no evidence that this tiny reduction will do anything and it's evidenced by their own limits. If a difference of 2.7 nmol/L makes that much of a difference, then why does Semenya only have to reduce it to 5 nmol/L when the highest non DSD female caps at 1.6, that's still 3X the amount of the highest non DSD females. If testosterone is the issue and Semenya lowers hers to 5 nmol/L, she will still be running as a female with at MINIMUM, 3 times as much as her competitors. No scientific data exists to suggest that circulating testosterone in females carries any more punch above 5nmol/L than it does below, so why would a 3X multiple be allowed?

Also, rational minds would wonder, if reducing testosterone from 7.7 to 5.0 is the gold standard that will add parity, how is it that men can successfully compete within such a wide range. Using their own numbers, if the male range starts at 7.7 as they claim and tops out at 37.0 as science proves, that is a HUGE range of testosterone for men to compete within.

The IAAF is ditching the 10,000 the 5,000 and going after Semenya all for the same reason. It's about the appearance of their sport. Their own "science" makes no sense and only wannabe internet geneticists actually buy into it.

For many, Semenya is an easy target: "She doesn't look like me or act like me" is the gateway drug to hate, but remember this life lesson:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Good luck to you!

Dr Taboo wrote:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Good luck to you!

Now you are just being dramatic. This thread is maybe not long enough to hit Godwin's law, but here we are none the less.