Modern Athlete Magazine Issue 115, February 2019 | Page 27

Indian sprinter Dutee Chand
with greater load per session, or sooner between sessions. The key here is that the
end performance is still based on the athlete’s dedication, diligence, determination,
consistency and overall preparation.
•
What is a normal level and how is it defined?
Who defines ‘normal,’ the IAAF? Or the mathematical ‘norm’ based on the inverted
U curve? Is there an athletic norm? Is there an ‘event norm?’ There are clearly
defined upper testosterone levels for both male and female athletes in athletic and
doping terminology, but how these were determined, and on what basis, will surely
be questioned in the hearing.
Just as there are females with high testosterone, so there will be others with low
testosterone. Similarly, there are males with high and low testosterone levels. Are
these acceptable limits determined on levels of the ranges found in the general
public? Is that a global level, or based on selective countries? Does this vary in elite
sporting levels? It becomes a greater point of interest because there is no declared
lower end to these ranges.
If, as the IAAF contend, the female athletes with high testosterone levels, have
an unfair advantage, then logically it must follow that athletes with naturally low
testosterone levels must have an unfair ‘disadvantage’ and should be allowed to
medically supplement until their levels are at the upper end of the ‘acceptable’
range. This is an incredibly dangerous route to go…. “doping’, (as in medical
manipulation) to either increase or decrease in order to change naturally occurring
hormone levels. If accepted then this principle of course could be extended to
many other scenarios.
•
Caster’s case was not the first, but the previous cases are said to have been
handled in considerably more private and coercive scenarios, where athletes had
options that are claimed to include medical treatment or retirement from the sport.
A similar, but more open approach, saw Indian sprinter Dutee Chand take the IAAF
to the CAS. She was also a Junior when she made her breakthrough with attention-
grabbing performances, and also has high testosterone levels. In 2014 Chand was
dropped from the Indian Commonwealth Games team, and it was her case in 2015
that resulted in the suspending of the IAAF gender/natural testosterone level rules,
as well as a requirement for the IAAF to provide scientific research that natural
high testosterone automatically improved performance. Despite one paper being
presented by the IAAF, the outcome of this research has not been tested at CAS, and
it is this that is under the spotlight in a challenge brought by, and on behalf of, Caster.
Why is it restricted to the 400m to 1600m distances, when events which
relate to greater strength input, such as horizontal jumps, sprints, and
throws, are being left out?
The research presented by IAAF has yet to be challenged in court, but there
have been social media questions over some of the stats and methodology. The
conclusion that sprints, horizontal jumps and throws should be left out have raised
eyebrows, and could be one of the most controversial and extended debates of
the case. This choice of events is going to require explanation and substantiation
before the case is resolved.
Caster’s eligibility to
compete has been
questions by Lindsay
Sharp of Great Britain
In my opinion, athletics, world sport and even the global public should be
applauding and thanking Caster for a decade of struggle. Her stand, along with
Dutee Chand’s, at such a young age, and for so long, has been nothing short of
amazing, when others may simply have buckled under the pressure and the abuse
of her basic right to be respected. Without her ability to withstand this onslaught,
the matter may well have been brushed under the carpet for another century or
two. Of course, this challenge will again put Caster in the spotlight, but it is not
about Caster, it’s about finding a solution to a ‘challenge’ that has existed since
the beginning of gender-defined sport, one that has yet to be correctly and fairly
addressed.
IS THE LOGIC FLAWED?
Amongst the contentions is the IAAF belief that high levels of testosterone in
females provides an unfair advantage in performance. Strangely, this was said
to only affect the 400m to 1600m distances, and this only went to serve a belief
amongst some that the IAAF was specifically targeting Caster and other African
middle distance athletes. (This will probably be a challenge in the court case, but is
not being addressed here.)
The IAAF proposal requires the athlete to seek medical intervention to lower those
levels to ‘normal,’ if the athlete wants to continue to compete as a woman. (Of
course, this debate is related only to natural levels, and not to doping, which is
universally accepted as cheating, and results in being banned.) The proposed
ruling requires consideration of many facets:
•
Has it been proven that testosterone is indeed an automatic unfair
advantage?
Ironically, both Caster and Dutee Chand may well present input on this. It took
both time to build back to their previous performance levels after they were able
to return to normal competition after suspension. It is not the pure presence
of testosterone that gives the performance, but rather the improved (reduced)
recovery time of having higher testosterone, that allows the athlete to train either
27