I have to admit I'm surprised by the Court of Arbitration's verdict in the landmark Caster Semenya case. I agree with their decision. I just didn't think it's the one they would come to. I thought they'd cave to public pressure and rule in Semenya's favor. And she could still get a favorable ruling. She has 30 days to appeal to Swiss federal court (the CAS is based in Switzerland), so who knows how much longer this will be drawn out?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, Semenya has presented the IAAF with a very difficult dilemma for nearly a decade. Semenya has dominated the women's 800 meters ever since bursting onto the scene at the 2009 World Championships. Almost immediately, her appearance led to questions about her sexuality.
Now, I'm not smart enough to try and explain the science that I don't really understand, but Semeya has a (naturally-occurring) condition called "hyperandrogenism." Basically, her body produces twice the testosterone of a "normal" woman. It's this excess testosterone that has allowed her to be so dominant.
So, in an attempt to level the playing field, the IAAF came up with new rules for hyperandrogenous athletes, requiring them to take medication to lower their testosterone levels to compete in the 400, 800, 1500 and mile (the events that their research indicated athletes with increased testosterone have the greatest advantage). The rules were supposed to take effect in November, but that was delayed because of Semenya's appeal. CAS was originally set to rule in March before finally announcing its decision on Wednesday. And by a 2-1 vote, CAS agreed with the IAAF. As a result, the new testosterone rules will take effect next week.
However, while the IAAF technically "won," there are no winners here. Semenya has done nothing wrong. She wasn't taking drugs and everything she's done she's done naturally. Now she has two choices: either immediately start taking medication (which could potentially lead to long-term health risks) or change events (which she might do anyway; she won the 5000 at the South African Championships last week). Neither one is fair.
From the beginning, Semenya felt like she was being singled out, and it's easy to see why. All kinds of derogatory words were thrown out, including "racist" and "sexist," which are both ludicrous suggestions (it's also worth noting that, despite what some critics tried to imply, at no time did anyone ever actually argue that Semenya isn't a woman). And it got the attention of advocates on all sides of the fence.
She derided the regulations as "discriminatory." And she's absolutely right. They are discriminatory. Because they need to be. This is about preserving the integrity of women's sports, which is the one part of the argument where everybody agreed. And the hyperandrogenism rules don't apply to a vast majority of female athletes, which is the entire point.
The ruling was going to be unfair to somebody. So, let me ask you this--Which is worse: Being unfair to a handful of athletes or being unfair to the other 99 percent? For years, Semenya's competitors went into races knowing they had no chance of winning. It's not any different than those female athletes who went against the East Germans and their state-sponsored doping program for all those years (I'm not trying to imply that Semenya doped in any way). Then hyperandrogenism rules were designed to level the playing field. Nothing more.
This is the basic point on which CAS came to its decision. There's a specific reason why sports are divided along gender lines. If they weren't, men would dominate. Why? Testosterone. It's the biggest reason for the physical differences between men and women. The male body contains 75 percent more testosterone than the female body. There's no overlap. The low-end of male testosterone levels is still significantly higher than the high-end of female levels.
Most women's testosterone level falls in the 0-1.7 range. The IAAF's limit at which athletes will be required to take testosterone-suppressing medication is 5.0. That's a huge gap. And that's the point. Very few women come anywhere near that level. Semenya happens to be one of those athletes that's above it. Does it suck? Yes. But it's necessary to preserve fair competition.
A few years ago, there was a similar case involving Indian 400-meter runner Dutee Chand that was just as high-profile. The hyperandrogenism rules that the IAAF put in place at the time applied across the board. Chand appealed, and that time CAS ruled against the IAAF, arguing that their evidence didn't support it and giving them two years to prove their case. This time, they had the science on their side and the new rules withstood the appeal.
How did the previous testosterone rules impact Semenya's performance? Her 2013 season best (the year before the Chand case) was 1:58.92. In 2014 (the first year under those regulations), it was 2:02.66. In 2016 (the first full season after they were overturned), she was back to 1:55.28 and won her second Olympic gold medal in Rio. You can bet that her times will be similarly affected this time. She'll still be one of the premier women's 800 meter runners in the world. She just won't be unbeatable anymore. Everyone else will have a chance.
As for her feeling singled out, she's got a point. The timing is too coincidental for it not to be. However, in my opinion, whether it was intentionally directed at Semenya or not (it was) ultimately doesn't really matter. Because this is a complex issue that was going to come up again eventually and had to be addressed sometime. And it was only going to get harder and more complicated the longer they waited. It won't stop being an issue. But now there's at least a policy in place that's clear and "fair" for everybody.
Caster Semenya hasn't done anything wrong. No one is saying she has. That point can't be emphasized enough. So it's understandable that she's disappointed with the "unfair" ruling. But a ruling the other way would've been just as disappointing and just as "unfair" for her competitors. Like I said, there are no "winners" here. Just one side that lost less.
No comments:
Post a Comment