Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mboma (18yrs) - 48.54 (withdrawn from 400 in Tokyo?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post
    Can anyone explain why the IAAF found no positive association between higher T and success in the sprints, and still banned anabolic steroids in those events? It's not okay to use synthetic derivatives of testosterone, but if your natural T is higher than the average woman, that's no problem.

    Doesn't seem to make sense if this is true:

    "Testosterone, whether of a natural endogenous or manufactured exogenous source, has an identical chemical structure and biological effects, aside from minor differences in isotopic composition, which are biologically insignificant"

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/
    Presumably because artificially raising your T levels is widely considered to be unethical and potentially dangerous.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mr Lover Lover View Post

      Lmao. I saw sub 21 in his post and was like whattttttttt.
      If you can run a 200 in under 21, why waste your time running mid 48s in the 400!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post

        We saw what China did with its massive talent at their 93 & 97 National Games.

        I'm sure there are some super talents hidden away in the world. And maybe there are whole ethnic groups that have some natural advantage, as has been argued Kenyans & Ethiopians do in long distance running. (let us not forget all those recent Kenyan positive dope tests..)

        At the moment though, there is an unfortunate prevalence of young women competing whos have been questioned in one way or another, and they have primarily come out of Africa & India: Semenya, Nyonsaba, Wambui, Mupopo, Seyni, Chand, (Santhi) Soundarajan, (Pinki) Pramanik and not forgetting the four unnamed women from 'developing countries' that ended up having gonadectomies to compete. So you cant blame people for questioning out-of-the-ordinary performances.
        Do you have anymore info /article about this? And do we know the DSD conditions of those others mentioned. Thanks!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post
          Can anyone explain why the IAAF found no positive association between higher T and success in the sprints, and still banned anabolic steroids in those events? It's not okay to use synthetic derivatives of testosterone, but if your natural T is higher than the average woman, that's no problem.

          Doesn't seem to make sense if this is true:

          "Testosterone, whether of a natural endogenous or manufactured exogenous source, has an identical chemical structure and biological effects, aside from minor differences in isotopic composition, which are biologically insignificant"

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/
          Long explanation warning:

          I think the easiest way to explain it, without stepping on too many toes on the political sides of this debate, is that it's a shoddy paper with political motivation driving the conclusions. The anabolics and synthetic T bans were well before the IAAF working group's paper, of course, so they stand regardless of how the authors use the literature to justify the hyperandrogenism regulations. There are a number of issues even with how the paper interprets older accepted science, let alone how it tries to use its own data to draw conclusions.

          There are a lot of reasons a woman who is intersex might have relatively high testosterone levels, and not all of them have to translate to an advantage at all. For example, someone may have a partial sensitivity to testosterone (and other androgens), where she is phenotypically female and genotypically XY male and has high levels of T, but those levels of T do not linearly correlate to higher RESPONSE to T. Basically, in women with partial androgen sensitivity, they have a certain percentage of normal functioning testosterone receptors and a certain percentage of nonfunctional ones. These are likely most of the women in competition now with intersex conditions, as these present as a spectrum and not a discrete binary - you can be pretty much phenotypically female but have internal testes, or fairly phenotypically male on the normal binary, but the important thing to consider is that each presentation is fairly unique. Some people with partial sensitivity will have normal T, but plenty will look phenotypically female but have T well above "female" and approaching "male" levels. You may also have 46-XX women with high T, in conditions like congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but the paper doesn't deal with this at all. Methodologically and philosophically, it only cares about how testosterone affects 46-XY women, which raises questions about what are the authors' criteria for what makes a woman a woman (evidently, chromosomes?).

          One of the ways the hormonal system can overcome things like partial sensitivity is by flooding the system with hormone, but unless we know the person's overall sensitivity to testosterone, we don't really know whether high T -> high T response. If my body maximizes the amount of circulating testosterone that can bind to the working receptors, it maximizes response. But what happens if even flooding the system with T produces suboptimal response? Within the study population, there may be some people like this in the sprints, where they may have XY chromosomes, sky-high testosterone but might not be sensitive at all. The study recognizes that these types of folks exist (ctrl+F in the paper for CAIS) but then treats testosterone levels as an absolute marker of performance anyway. It's really hard to draw that conclusion without ironclad experimentation, given performance is a constellation of factors. Imagine all this focus on Semenya's testosterone level and then we find out she was on EPO or whatever. Which one provided the bigger advantage? If we assume high T provides a blanket advantage of about 10-15%, as evidenced by the difference between male and female times in general, why is Semenya only about 1-2% faster than her competitors? Is that attributable purely to her T level?

          They additionally try to use trans athletes to equate them to intersex athletes, which is extremely not sound. You have to presume at least some if not most of the trans athletes in studies are androgen-sensitive, but at least a subset of 46-XY women will be somewhat-to-totally insensitive. They actually go on later to say that gains in trans athletes likely underestimate gains in intersex athletes, because T levels in intersex athletes are so much closer to male levels and not all trans men dose T to hit typical male levels. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the biochemistry of hormone and receptor action as outlined above.

          My favorite one is the table of 800m winning times for "an elite female athlete" who is certainly Caster Semenya based on the times - it clearly demonstrates that during the period between 2011 and 2014 where the original IAAF regulation was in effect, her season-best times were in the 1:56-1:58 range and she slowed down significantly in 2014 to 2:02. There's some validity to the idea that Semenya should get slower gradually over the years as the effects of her previous ability to gain muscle, maintain bone density, and recover or whatever the purported benefits of high T wane. But what if Semenya is partially sensitive (which she almost certainly is)? How do you quantify how much of a performance benefit this specific person gets from her high T level? If she's totally insensitive, you can block her T all you want and you're not going to see any change. But if she's partially sensitive, you would EXPECT her to get slower on T-blockers regardless of whether or not her natural T level is "advantageous." This isn't proof that she has a competitive advantage because of her high T, this is just proof that testosterone blockers block the action of testosterone in sensitive-to-partially-sensitive people. Which we already knew, because otherwise there'd be no point to giving anyone the drug at all.

          Couple that with a probably infinitesimally low sample size - you are looking at a tiny subset of elite female track and field athletes in specific events with relatively rare intersex diagnoses - you are highly unlikely to be able to draw quality conclusions. In the general population,46-XY intersex people are about 1 in 20k. Hence, the lack of a ban in the sprints probably has less to do with whether T provides an advantage for female sprinters and more to do with a general absence of competitive sprinters with these conditions and an inability to prove competitive advantage in general - even in the 800. No different than the moral panic over trans women sliding into competitions, these folks are exceedingly few but have become hot-button issues for political reasons that are only tenuously related to sporting ethics.

          tldr: from the paper itself: "Well-designed, placebo-controlled direct interventional studies of supraphysiological androgen effects on bone in females are few, rarely feasible, and unlikely to be performed for ethical and practical reasons." There will almost certainly never be GOOD data on the overall effects on testosterone especially in such a small subset of the population, and the IAAF allowing this paper to justify a testosterone limit is actually glaringly bad science and undermines the intent of its ruling. The fact that they could not produce blanket regulation indicates there are serious flaws both scientifically and ethically to the authors' approach (and with the IAAF/WA itself, which has been chomping at the bit to ban Semenya since 2009).
          Last edited by mgallagh43; 07-05-2021, 06:40 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post
            Can anyone explain why the IAAF found no positive association between higher T and success in the sprints, and still banned anabolic steroids in those events? It's not okay to use synthetic derivatives of testosterone, but if your natural T is higher than the average woman, that's no problem.
            They had to prove not just that an advantage exists, but that the advantage is so profound that it would justify excluding the high-T DSD athletes from the women's 100m and 200m. Without enough (or any) athletes with that condition performing at a high enough level in those events, the IAAF wouldn't have the data to convince CAS to restrict those events.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by El Toro View Post

              It would be helpful to post some links regarding the person you are talking about to assist the conversation.

              Maria José Martínez-Patiño had Androgen Insensitivty Syndrome (AIS). That is, she had male levels of testosterone but her body couldn't use it, so she got no advantage from her natural testosterone and she would have got no advantage from doping with testosterone like a normal female would. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_...ez-Pati%C3%B1o

              These women can now compete once their AIS is established.

              You don't get male levels of performance from AIS individuals unless they are a super amazing genetic freak, so it's very, very, unlikely, though theoretically not impossible, for the Namibians to have AIS.

              Maria José Martínez-Patiño is not to be confused with her namesake, Maria Patiño, who is a journalist with no public acknowledgement of her testosterone levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Pati%C3%B1o
              According to WA there are different types of AIS that are under the rules - if not mistaken PAIS and MAIS (partial and moderate).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

                They had to prove not just that an advantage exists, but that the advantage is so profound that it would justify excluding the high-T DSD athletes from the women's 100m and 200m. Without enough (or any) athletes with that condition performing at a high enough level in those events, the IAAF wouldn't have the data to convince CAS to restrict those events.
                Exactly, and it is till pen to further data in the future.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in View Post

                  According to WA there are different types of AIS that are under the rules - if not mistaken PAIS and MAIS (partial and moderate).
                  Important to note though that WA doesn't stratify based on sensitivity. Per their eligibility regulations: "Any athlete who has a Difference of Sexual Development (DSD) that means her levels of circulating testosterone (in serum) are five (5) nmol/L or above and who is androgen-sensitive" must reduce to below 5nmol/L.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post
                    If we assume high T provides a blanket advantage of about 10-15%, as evidenced by the difference between male and female times in general, why is Semenya only about 1-2% faster than her competitors? Is that attributable purely to her T level?
                    I agree with the problem of scientifically making a case because of the all the endocrine possibilities.

                    As to the above quote: WA does not assume that T is a blanket advantage per-se. But T does provide the catalyst for things that are advantages - bone structure, muscle mass, oxygen capacity etc. Since CS is 46-XY 5-ARD she was for all intents and purposes supposed to have developed into a male but had a disorder in doing so. Her condition really puts her on the lower end of maleness and T-levels but outside the normal for females. Thus as competing against males she would not have even been on radar at this level (10-15% above elite females) but competing against females she does quite well (1-2%) which is a hell of a lot at this level. As CAS agreed to with WA's findings (that 7.1 out 1000 of their restricted DSDs compete in the restricted events (400- 1 mile)) which is 140 times higher than the general population that this statistically represents and advantage.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post

                      Important to note though that WA doesn't stratify based on sensitivity. Per their eligibility regulations: "Any athlete who has a Difference of Sexual Development (DSD) that means her levels of circulating testosterone (in serum) are five (5) nmol/L or above and who is androgen-sensitive" must reduce to below 5nmol/L.
                      Correct! But as to how that insensitivity, under PAIS and MAIS, is functioning in relation to performance has to be positive but to what degree possible is not yet discernible. But with the athletes in international comp.it seems clear that there is given the disproportion of DSDs in these comps relative to the general pop.
                      Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 07-05-2021, 07:40 PM.

                      Comment


                      • The following from a WA (IAAF) document titled:

                        ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR THE FEMALE CLASSIFICATION (ATHLETES WITH DIFFERENCES OF SEX DEVELOPMENT) (In force from 1 November 2019)

                        A "Relevant Athlete" is an athlete who meets each of the following three criteria: (page 4)

                        a. she has one of the following DSDs:
                        i. 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;

                        ii. partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);

                        iii. 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β- HSD3) deficiency;

                        iv. ovotesticular DSD; or

                        v. any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis; and

                        b. as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or above; and

                        c. she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect.


                        (fn4 on page 21)

                        A woman who has androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is completely (CAIS) or partially (PAIS) insensitive to testosterone, thereby eliminating (CAIS) or reducing (PAIS) the physiological effect of that testosterone. An athlete with CAIS is not a Relevant Athlete. An athlete with PAIS will only be a Relevant Athlete if she is sufficiently androgen-sensitive for her elevated testosterone levels to have a material androgenising effect. The benefit of any doubt on this issue will be resolved in favour of the athlete.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
                          The following from a WA (IAAF) document titled:

                          ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR THE FEMALE CLASSIFICATION (ATHLETES WITH DIFFERENCES OF SEX DEVELOPMENT) (In force from 1 November 2019)

                          A "Relevant Athlete" is an athlete who meets each of the following three criteria: (page 4)

                          a. she has one of the following DSDs:
                          i. 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;

                          ii. partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);

                          iii. 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β- HSD3) deficiency;

                          iv. ovotesticular DSD; or

                          v. any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis; and

                          b. as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or above; and

                          c. she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect.


                          (fn4 on page 21)

                          A woman who has androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is completely (CAIS) or partially (PAIS) insensitive to testosterone, thereby eliminating (CAIS) or reducing (PAIS) the physiological effect of that testosterone. An athlete with CAIS is not a Relevant Athlete. An athlete with PAIS will only be a Relevant Athlete if she is sufficiently androgen-sensitive for her elevated testosterone levels to have a material androgenising effect. The benefit of any doubt on this issue will be resolved in favour of the athlete.
                          Yep! As I wortein response to the other person but it is in unapproved mode:

                          If we assume high T provides a blanket advantage of about 10-15%, as evidenced by the difference between male and female times in general, why is Semenya only about 1-2% faster than her competitors? Is that attributable purely to her T level?
                          I agree with the problem of scientifically making a case because of the all the endocrine possibilities.

                          As to the above quote: WA does not assume that high T is a blanket advantage per-se. But T does provide the catalyst for things that are advantages - bone structure, muscle mass, oxygen capacity etc. Since CS is 46-XY 5-ARD she was for all intents and purposes supposed to have developed into a male but had a disorder in doing so. Her condition really puts her on the lower end of maleness and T-levels but outside the normal for females. Thus as competing against males she would not have even been on radar at this level (10-15% above elite females) but competing against females she does quite well (1-2%) which is a hell of a lot at this level. As CAS agreed to with WA's findings (that 7.1 out 1000 of their restricted DSDs compete in the restricted events (400- 1 mile)) which is 140 times higher than the general population that this statistically represents an advantage.
                          Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 07-05-2021, 07:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

                            They had to prove not just that an advantage exists, but that the advantage is so profound that it would justify excluding the high-T DSD athletes from the women's 100m and 200m. Without enough (or any) athletes with that condition performing at a high enough level in those events, the IAAF wouldn't have the data to convince CAS to restrict those events.
                            The big question is how "profound" does the advantage have to be before CAS allows the event to be restricted?

                            Semenya never ran faster than Jelimo did (not to mention the top two -- who should be excluded from the discussion). But she won every race, and mostly by a big margin. So the winning margin may matter more than the time itself. But given the depth of women's 200m, it may be hard to beat them consistently by big enough margins. And what is the big enough margin? 0.3 seconds? 0.5 seconds? (The latter is highly unlikely)

                            Suppose Semenya did not exist. Would Niyonsaba and Wambui enough reason to to get their event restricted? Ajee' Wilson is only 0.14 slower than Niyonsaba (and faster than Wambui who lost to Wilson in 2017 Worlds).

                            Comment



                            • This is all true, but the problem is that even in the face of the physiologic effects of T, all that potential extra good stuff still doesn't reliably confer advantage even in non-intersex women and certainly not in intersex women without knowledge of androgen sensitivity. A blanket ruling isn't fair without definitive evidence of advantage, and even if there were definitive evidence, a potential for genetic advantage that exists a priori to the athlete's competition is an otherwise normal and accepted part of sport in the era of specialization. Would I suggest that a 7'5" basketball player undergo femur shortening so the 6'9 guys don't feel cheated? Why is mandating a subset of women take medication with its own health risks in order to compete considered ethical?

                              To that point, women with complete AIS are also overrepresented among elites (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lo...ic+performance), despite women with CAIS presumably being competitive failures given they don't respond to testosterone or other androgens at all.

                              Nothing the IOC or IAAF has done in the past - sex testing, karyotyping, testing for SRY - has borne out as a good way to stratify competition. Why do we presume T levels are any different?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post
                                To that point, women with complete AIS are also overrepresented among elites (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lo...ic+performance), despite women with CAIS presumably being competitive failures given they don't respond to testosterone or other androgens at all.
                                This is true. But their training is not disrupted by periods. That should be an advantage. I cannot tell how much, because I have never had a period.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X