Modern Athlete Magazine Issue 115, February 2019 | Page 28

Apart from the potential allegations of victimisation, it seems illogical that athletes
in these other (power) events were found to have lower testosterone levels. It begs
the question whether the data is fair and correct, or whether such athletes have
found ways to manipulate levels through training, because from the early years of
testing, doping to achieve high testosterone levels amongst sprint athletes and
weight-lifters, etc, has been rife, perhaps not so much for the competition period,
but for the heavy loading peaks of the training cycle.
IAAF President Sebastian Coe
•
Is it ethical to force a person to undergo medical treatment for a totally
naturally occurring level of hormones (or any other biological condition)?
This has been partly addressed above when discussing what are normal levels, but
the issue around morality and civil rights, perhaps religious and cultural beliefs as
well, could trump all other debates in this matter, but it’s not one for discussion here.
IS THERE A WAY FORWARD?
There seems a logical solution, but not one that appears to be easily adopted:
If, as the IAAF contends, the primary issue of potential elite performance is the
level of testosterone, then this should surely be the classification used for athletic
performance. Boxing and weight lifting currently use weight as a means of classifying
competition, because the athlete’s weight is seen to influence their ability to perform,
but if testosterone is the key, then that logically is the way to classify.
In other words, there would be no such thing as gender classification, but rather
three, or better five, classifications of testosterone level, say T1 to T5. This
would then, if the IAAF position is correct, ‘level the playing fields’ and open the
opportunity for medium and low testosterone athletes to excel within their specific
testosterone levels. It could even reduce the need for doping, as each athlete could
compete with his or her own natural condition.
Of course, competition would then be gender-neutral, as the highest level athletes
are likely to be around the 10-15% of males, the next classification predominately
male, then a mixed category with high-end females, then predominately females
with minimal males, and then finally an all-female low testosterone level. The
system would be like the classification of blind or amputee athletes in Paralympics,
in as much as it allows the athlete to work hard and compete to excel within
their own circumstances and against athletes with similar situations. This would
neutralise the current detractors who protest about unfair advantage.
to will have a domino effect on sport as we know it. How long will it be before a
team or individual failing to win the World Cup in women’s soccer or rugby, or
a tennis major, protests that the winning team or player is ‘intersexed,’ or has
exceptional testosterone levels and hence an unfair advantage?
There are no guilty parties in this debate. Everyone is in search of a solution, and
all circumstances are natural, but it may be the largest decision ever to impact on
global sport, and the ball is currently sitting in Seb’s court. With careers, earning
potential, sponsorships, recognition and lifestyles at stake, just how long will it take
for the outcome of the CAS challenge on the proposed IAAF gender rules to be
extrapolated to all other sports? My advice... Don’t blink.
Several African female middle distance athletes have faced extra
scrutiny over the gender issue
The real challenge would not be in the practical implementation of such a system,
but in the sea-change of mindset required to take this step. Besides each athlete’s
medical condition needing, to some degree, to be made public, thus creating a
privacy debate hurdle, the strategy is also one that the public at large could battle
to get to grips with, and hence the sport could struggle to get the required media,
and commercial support, to make it happen. It would be a complete change
in thinking, but for the first time in over 2000 years athletics would give open
recognition to the complex issues of the gender spectrum.
THE POISONED CHALICE
In July 2015 he was handed the CAS ruling that called for research to prove the
argument on testosterone versus performance, and he has been left to lead the
search for the ‘Holy Grail’ of solutions… ‘Mission Impossible’ in many eyes. He
faces the complaints of would-be contenders and supporters of various women’s
events, claiming that some athletes have an unfair advantage and often speaking
as if there are two different races taking place within the same event. He also has
to struggle with the whole gender issue, not simply on a biological level, but also
moral and ethical, and how this could be received by vastly different cultures. And
this while trying to find a solution that creates inclusivity in the sport, and also
maintains or grows the interest in what is now the business of athletics.
But there is more! If we think this is just about athletics, we are sorely mistaken.
The outcome of the CAS challenge in March 2019 will affect all gender-defined
sports on a global level. What the IAAF accepts, demands or is forced to concede
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Norrie has represented Scotland, Great Britain and South Africa in ultra-distance running and triathlon, and he is an IAAF-accredited coach and
course measurer. You can read more from him at www.coachnorrie.co.za.
28
ISSUE 115 FEBRUARY 2019 / www.modernathlete.co.za
In all of this, thought and empathy should be given to all involved in the case,
including the President of the IAAF, former world class athlete, Lord Sebastian
Coe. The gender issue exploded in August 2009, under a different presidency and
debatably different regime-style, but since Seb (as he is known to most athletics
fans) took office in Beijing in 2015, things have changed markedly.