Hyperandrogenism / Caster Semenya & others

That is one solution

cafcnick1992 said:

ValleyGary said:

Someone calling me out on being too PC. 'Kin hell, seen it all now.

What would Trevor think if he saw you now

Did big T have hyperandrogenism issues?

MuttleyCAFC said:

I have explained my view - you can disagree! Wish you would disagree with a bit of rigour but that's up to you. I do accept there are other views.

I disagree.

There are two classifications within Olympic track and field: men and women. CS is a woman and therefore should be allowed to compete in the women's category. All of the competitors have been born with physiognomy which lends them an ability to compete in their chosen event(s) far greater than the average woman. On top of that, each has undergone years - for some, many, many years - of grueling, challenging and difficult training. Anyone born with a natural advantage and putting themselves through extensive conditioning and practice should be afforded the chance to demonstrate their ability. However, any competitor making use of illegal or proscribed drugs disqualifies herself from being afforded that chance.

So, in summary, there are two ways of looking at this. First, if you don't break the rules, you should be given a chance to compete against others who have not broken the rules. Second, if the competitors against whom you compete prove to be better than you - through natural physique, more natural ability, better conditioning, more extensive practice, or anything else within the rules - you just have to accept it.

She's had a "sex verification test". I don't know how many other athletes in the 800m have had to undergo such testing, but, in her case, she has been proven to be female.

Hyperandrogenism is a medical condition. It's not chosen by an athlete. It's therefore not an "unfair advantage". Other physiognomy advantages are equally "fair advantages".

Certain people have suffered from a tumor on the pituitary gland, during childhood, resulting in gigantism. Would it be right to exclude an athlete such as 7' 4" 13 year old Robert Bobroczky on the basis that other basketball players might not enjoy being shorter than him?

But the issue as to whether CS has a higher level of testosterone than her competitors goes further. It's not illegal to have higher, natural levels of testosterone. It's not against IAAF rules. But I would go further: because it's not outlawed, it's actually no-one else's business. It's a private and, in fact, very personal issue. I will give you an example to illustrate. Marfan Syndrome is a disorder in the FBN1 gene, affecting the the body's ability to manufacture the complex protein fibrillin-1. The fibillin-1 molecules bind together, forming threadlike filaments called microfibrils, which among other things, store a protein called TGF-β. With Marfan Syndrome, a genetic mutation results in more TGF-β being created than "normal". TGF-β is a growth hormone. Marfan Syndrome results in those people affected being slimmer and much taller than average. It's not illegal to suffer from Marfan Syndrome; it's not against any rules. So, if anyone does suffer from this, it's no-one's business. There are rumours that Peter Crouch has this syndrome. But it's no-one else's business unless he decides to disclose it.

The condition with which CS presents is not illegal; it's not against any rules; and it's no-one else's business. To suggest that, despite these three facts, she should be disbarred from competing in her chosen sport and from earning money at her chosen career - a career in which she has demonstrated she excels - is very, very wrong.

Sport - particularly Olympic sport - should be about fairness. Excluding someone who has not transgressed is a very long way from being fair.

MuttleyCAFC said:

Yes, I appreciate the reasoning - see you can do it without 'smart alec' one liners. Not saying my view is more valid but when you have a situation where there isn't a perfect solution, both have their justifications.

The basis of my argument is that women's sport is less reliant on muscle than men's sport. So the best women are not the fastest or strongest so you need to look at things differently. This can only apply to women's sport. By quoting Peter Crouch who I am pretty sure is a man - you don't seem to have fully understood the counter point!

You understood the point about hyperandrogenism and Marfan Syndrome not being dissimilar insofar as neither being illegal and neither being against the rules of the sports in which these athletes participate, I hope.

Further, I hope you agree that it's unfair - and therefore against the underlying principle of sport - to single out and disbar competitors on the basis of their physiognomy.

You're presenting the "solution" to a "problem" as being the unfair exclusion of an athlete from participating, despite her not having transgressed any rules. In fact, it's even worse than that: you're suggesting she's excluded, despite it being proven she has no case to answer.

I am not suggesting a solution. Because I don't see that there's a problem. She's an athlete; but more than that, she's a very, very good one.

I am not accusing her of cheating or of being a man by the way!

Yes, so she can compete after surpressing her tesosterone levels medically or she can compete with those that have similar levels (men). Rules would have to be changed, but that is what I am suggesting! look I can see your point of view, but a lot share mine too! There is unfairness on both sides of the argument - I can see them both and have taken a view - you can only see one side! I don't begrudge your view I understand it and you might be right - the fact you cant see the counter view or understand why people might hold it is the point!

I think I have said what I mean clearly enough - I don't need you to summarise it how you chose too. I could do the same, but there is little point! It is an interesting argument because there are many facets too it. I have said I undertsand the argument you make, but I can see all the facets. You have made a decision without understanding them all IMO. Doesn't make you wrong, you may be right - but I don't think you will ever get the point I am making so there is little point continuing us discussing.

Let me interrupt too. Thanks for informing me about Marian Syndrome. At 5 feet 8 and 18 stone, I think it's safe to say I don't have it.

*women

killerandflash said:

Certain people have suffered from a tumor on the pituitary gland, during childhood, resulting in gigantism. Would it be right to exclude an athlete such as 7' 4" 13 year old Robert Bobroczky on the basis that other basketball players might not enjoy being shorter than him?

An event like the 800m causes problems, as running events are so much more about the physiology of the body than basketball. Somebody could be 7 foot but have no skills, similarly someone could have enormous feet (like Ian Thorpe) but have no coordination and swim like a stone.

The split in sport is between men and women. Improving male performance artificially is hard, steroids enable you to train harder, but you still have to do the work. Additional testosterone only gives incremental benefits etc

With women, it's much easier to improve performance artificially, by making them more like men. The communist countries dominated women's sport, but not men's sport. China's female swimmers in the 90s(?) set some unbelievable times, but not their men etc.

Thus, when someone (through no fault of her own) has a excess of testosterone, giving her many male attributes, this is a massive advantage over her competitors, far more than Usian Bolt's height. I don't know what the answer is, but just asking all the competitors to lump it doesn't seem fair.

But far less unfair than banning, or interfering chemically, with someone who has done nothing wrong whatsoever.

So what we seem to be saying is that competitors should be able to used any means at their disposal to win races, Okay I'll use me motorbike

I agree with both sides on this one, but if I had to make a decision, I would go with @Chizz rather than @MuttleyCAFC.

There are many genetic factors that lead to one person being a better athlete in a particular sport than another. Even if no one is taking performance enhancing substances, people's bodies are different. Even if they had the same training, psychological depths to push on to win and so on, one althlete could be genetically predisposed to high lung function, heart function, building body mass.

I find it difficult to see how this is different in the case of female athletes who have a genetic predisposition to higher testosterone.

Despite attempts to characterise this particular advantage/difference as especially severe, I don't see that.

I think the examples of Phelps and the Nordic skier (can't recall his name) who have genetic abnormalities which have allowed them to win on their chosen sports support this.