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Mboma (18yrs) - 48.54 (withdrawn from 400 in Tokyo?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

  • Could you repeat the question . . . (joke, my pay grade got passed about six levels ago).
    I have learned, however, that not all DSDs respond to T in their system the same way, and that certainly wrinkles the issue.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post
      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?
      Here is a response from WA regarding a question they got about Leg length.

      It is correct that elite sport celebrates and rewards genetic differences (height, wing span, fast twitch muscles, etc).

      The only genetic difference that elite sport does not celebrate is the genetic difference between men (with male chromosomes, XY) and women (with female chromosomes, XX). That is because XY chromosomes produce testes (rather than ovaries), which produce testosterone in the typical male range (rather than testosterone in the – much lower – typical female range), which is what produces men’s bigger and stronger bones and muscles and higher haemoglobin levels, which gives them a massive performance advantage over women.

      CAS accepted this, and therefore accepted that the main driver of the marked sex difference in sport performance (10-12% on average) is the physical advantages conferred by having testosterone levels in the male range (7.7 - 29.4 nmol/L in blood) rather than the normal female range (06 - 1.68 nmol/L).


      Everyone agrees there must be separate male and female competition categories precisely to ensure that this genetic difference (XY chromosomes producing testes and high testosterone levels rather than XX chromosomes producing ovaries and low testosterone levels) is not outcome-determinative.

      We regulate 46 XY DSD athletes because they have that same genetic difference. If that genetic difference makes it unfair for men to compete against women, it also (obviously) makes it unfair for 46 XY women to compete against women. The 46 XY DSD athlete’s testes mean that she produces testosterone not in the female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L) but instead in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L). If a 46 XY DSD athlete's body can make use of the testosterone that it produces, then she has all the same advantages as a 46 XY man has over a 46 XX woman.

      That conclusion is supported by our research and observation, which show such athletes possess a very clear performance advantage. Our research of more than a decade included testing all female athletes at the Daegu 2011 and Moscow 2013 World Championships. We have been able to study performances of athletes with elevated and supressed testosterone levels and have seen the difference in performance in long sprint and middle distance running events. This has informed our regulations.


      ADD to that this:

      We have seen in a decade and more of research that approximately 7.1 in every 1000 elite female athletes in our sport are DSD athletes with very high testosterone levels in the male range. The majority of those athletes compete in the restricted events covered by the regulations. This frequency of DSD individuals in the elite athlete population is around 140 times higher than you will find in the general female population, and their presence on the podium is much more frequent even than this. The CAS accepted that this demonstrates, in statistical terms, that they have a significant performance advantage.
      Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 07-05-2021, 08:10 PM.

      Comment


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

        Here is a response from WA regarding a question they got about Leg length.

        It is correct that elite sport celebrates and rewards genetic differences (height, wing span, fast twitch muscles, etc).

        The only genetic difference that elite sport does not celebrate is the genetic difference between men (with male chromosomes, XY) and women (with female chromosomes, XX). That is because XY chromosomes produce testes (rather than ovaries), which produce testosterone in the typical male range (rather than testosterone in the – much lower – typical female range), which is what produces men’s bigger and stronger bones and muscles and higher haemoglobin levels, which gives them a massive performance advantage over women.

        CAS accepted this, and therefore accepted that the main driver of the marked sex difference in sport performance (10-12% on average) is the physical advantages conferred by having testosterone levels in the male range (7.7 - 29.4 nmol/L in blood) rather than the normal female range (06 - 1.68 nmol/L).
        Not a valid construct. Even chromosomal sex is not truly binary.

        Additionally re: WA's explanatory notes on the regulations, the mention of "material androgenising effect" does a lot of heavy lifting without further explanation of the criteria for what a material effect is. If someone high up enough thinks a woman looks too masculine and is winning too often, could that be sufficient androgenising effect?

        Comment


        • 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?
          Because even being an unambiguous XY male doesn't mean you'll be much better than world class women. There are many men running the 800m for their D2 or NAIA team who haven't broken 1:54 after 3 or 4 years of college competition. World class men are 10-12% faster than world class women, but very very few men are world class men. Semenya is basically a D2 half-scholarship talent who got elevated to Olympic gold level because of running against women instead of men.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post

            Not a valid construct. Even chromosomal sex is not truly binary.

            Additionally re: WA's explanatory notes on the regulations, the mention of "material androgenising effect" does a lot of heavy lifting without further explanation of the criteria for what a material effect is. If someone high up enough thinks a woman looks too masculine and is winning too often, could that be sufficient androgenising effect?
            There is a difference between what WA and CAS's acceptance of Statistical significance and other types of scientific evidence. Some of my posts are being marked unapproved so hopefully the corrections will be available soon. The rarity of other types of Karyotypes (and the fact that thye don't and could nt participate at this level) and the WA's concern with 46 XY and XX pretty much makes it binary - statistically speaking.

            We have seen in a decade and more of research that approximately 7.1 in every 1000 elite female athletes in our sport are DSD athletes with very high testosterone levels in the male range. The majority of those athletes compete in the restricted events covered by the regulations. This frequency of DSD individuals in the elite athlete population is around 140 times higher than you will find in the general female population, and their presence on the podium is much more frequent even than this. The CAS accepted that this demonstrates, in statistical terms, that they have a significant performance advantage.
            Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 07-05-2021, 08:17 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

              Because even being an unambiguous XY male doesn't mean you'll be much better than world class women. There are many men running the 800m for their D2 or NAIA team who haven't broken 1:54 after 3 or 4 years of college competition. World class men are 10-12% faster than world class women, but very very few men are world class men. Semenya is basically a D2 half-scholarship talent who got elevated to Olympic gold level because of running against women instead of men.
              If you have a smaller talent pool, your "top talent" is more likely to be less exceptional. This is more true once you pass the first one.

              (The first among 10,000 could be as exceptional as the first among a million. But the 10th among 10,000 cannot be as exceptional as the 10th in a million.)

              Comment


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

                There is a difference between what WA and CAS's acceptance of Statistical significance and other types of scientific evidence. Some of my posts are being marked unapproved so hopefully the corrections will be available soon. The rarity of other types of Karyotypes (and the fact that thye don't and could nt participate at this level) and the WA's concern with 46 XY and XX pretty much makes it binary - statistically speaking.

                We have seen in a decade and more of research that approximately 7.1 in every 1000 elite female athletes in our sport are DSD athletes with very high testosterone levels in the male range. The majority of those athletes compete in the restricted events covered by the regulations. This frequency of DSD individuals in the elite athlete population is around 140 times higher than you will find in the general female population, and their presence on the podium is much more frequent even than this. The CAS accepted that this demonstrates, in statistical terms, that they have a significant performance advantage.
                But none of it is binary in reality.

                There are lies, damn lies, and statistics

                EDIT: to put it another way, statistical significance does not remotely imply clinical (or I guess in this case performance) significance.
                Last edited by mgallagh43; 07-05-2021, 08:32 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post

                  But none of it is binary in reality.

                  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics

                  EDIT: to put it another way, statistical significance does not remotely imply clinical (or I guess in this case performance) significance.
                  Of course it is not in reality - practically speaking and on the track it is though at a very high statistical significance.

                  And that the reason why the stats vs clinical standard is somewhat problematic here given such a complicated endocrine system and outcomes in certain events.

                  This is how I see the situation:

                  There is already an accepted binary system in place to protect XX woman - XY vs XX. The other karyotypes are not relevant at the elite sporting level or fall under the concern of WA for many reason - one being that they don't and connot confer advantage because of lack of androgen utilization. So for these purposes there really is a binary system that is practically significant.

                  This is so because the obvious and foundational biological difference is the fact that XY karyotype produces testes that in turn produce T that in turn produce the physical advantage that result in the 10-15% difference between XY and XX karyotypeswe see in the data.

                  As such DSDs that WA is concerned with (under their guidelines) fall under the XY category as male that have an advantage.

                  This is shown, primarily, to be relevant in their stat data not just the biological clinical studies or the obvious advantage we all see day day.

                  CAS accepted this data for 400 to 1 Mile but left it open for WA to gather for data in the future for the other events. The fact that these DSDs are 140 time more likely to be in these events thus is evidence, stat wise, that there is a significant performance advantage.

                  This seems pretty reasonable to me!

                  I should also say that the proof of performance results should not be the main issue, if at all an issue, so much as that fact these DSDs start out with the general advantage of all males and the different male range of T. Where they end up performance wise is somewhat irrelevant but it obviously shows up with the ones they are concerned with given that there is this 140 times prevalence and even higher podium prevalence.
                  Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 07-05-2021, 09:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post

                    Not a valid construct. Even chromosomal sex is not truly binary.

                    Additionally re: WA's explanatory notes on the regulations, the mention of "material androgenising effect" does a lot of heavy lifting without further explanation of the criteria for what a material effect is. If someone high up enough thinks a woman looks too masculine and is winning too often, could that be sufficient androgenising effect?
                    It isn't some random administrator making that decision. They go to one of the centers listed that specializes in DSDs, and a doctor there makes that call. But at the end of the day, it is subjective.

                    Some of the women who have been outed as DSD because of the restrictions clearly look more masculine than others. And we see athletes with very similarly built bodies as the less-masculine DSD athletes coming from western countries who are competing, and we don't know if it is just a coincidence that they have a similar build or perhaps they are lowering their testosterone or perhaps they had ambiguous genitalia that were mutilated at birth, which is the STANDARD OF CARE that World Athletics keeps going off about, so someone decided they are too feminine looking to meet that "material androgenising effect" and they are free to compete without restrictions.

                    Appendixes that were once public are now private, so we do not know what guidance these doctors are being given in order to make that very subjective determination.

                    Honestly I think the biggest challenge is that today's science is not able to accurately and precisely measure what our eyes and stopwatches are telling us. The physiology is far more complicated than just "T" levels, but some of it is not easy to measure and we do not fully understand it yet.

                    I know what the stopwatch says and I know what our limited understanding of these DSDs says, but at the end of the day, I cannot shake the feeling that if Semenya had chosen to live as a more feminine looking straight woman, none of this would be happening.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
                      If you have a smaller talent pool, your "top talent" is more likely to be less exceptional. This is more true once you pass the first one.

                      (The first among 10,000 could be as exceptional as the first among a million. But the 10th among 10,000 cannot be as exceptional as the 10th in a million.)
                      Say 46XY DSD is a 1 in 7800 occurrence globally (I've seen figures from 1:5000 to 1:20000, but for argument's sake let's use 7800 because it's within the range and to make the calculations simpler).

                      With the world's population now at 7.8 billion, 1 in 7800 is 1 million people. Running a time competitive with world class men, say sub-1:45, is something done by less than 1 in 20 million men in the 18-35 age range.

                      So even if we assume that 100% of 46XY DSD individuals have 100% of the physical advantages of being male, with a population of 1 million they're statistically not expected to have anybody competitive with world class men, especially because they're randomly distributed around the world and not concentrated in a track-savvy country like Jamaica or Kenya.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post


                        Honestly I think the biggest challenge is that today's science is not able to accurately and precisely measure what our eyes and stopwatches are telling us.
                        Particularly when it's shoddy science:


                        "We have identified three types of anomalies/errors, in addition to the inclusion of times (for several events) for athletes who have been disqualified by IAAF for doping. These are:
                        • Duplicated athletes More than one time is included for an individual. In each of these instances, more than one time from the 2011 and 2013 World Championships is included for the same athlete.
                        • Duplicated times The same time is repeated once or more for an individual athlete, which is clearly a data error.
                        • Phantom times No athlete could be found with the reported time for the event.

                        Problematic data make up between 17 and 33% of the values used in the BG17 analysis for these four events. Given the pervasiveness of these errors, we consider it likely that similar problems might be found in the data for the other 17 women’s events and 22 men’s events, and perhaps also in the anonymous medical data, which are the basis for the study’s main conclusions regarding the performance effects of elevated testosterone levels. Such pervasive errors in the four regulated events for which we carefully recreated data call into question the fidelity of the entire analysis."


                        https://link.springer.com/article/10...18-019-00143-w

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
                          I know what the stopwatch says and I know what our limited understanding of these DSDs says, but at the end of the day, I cannot shake the feeling that if Semenya had chosen to live as a more feminine looking straight woman, none of this would be happening.
                          This wasn't just about Semenya. Remember the critical case that went to CAS was about Dutee Chand. And then the medal sweep in 2016 by 3 XY DSD athletes in the women's 800 helped seal the deal.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post

                            It isn't some random administrator making that decision. They go to one of the centers listed that specializes in DSDs, and a doctor there makes that call. But at the end of the day, it is subjective.

                            Some of the women who have been outed as DSD because of the restrictions clearly look more masculine than others. And we see athletes with very similarly built bodies as the less-masculine DSD athletes coming from western countries who are competing, and we don't know if it is just a coincidence that they have a similar build or perhaps they are lowering their testosterone or perhaps they had ambiguous genitalia that were mutilated at birth, which is the STANDARD OF CARE that World Athletics keeps going off about, so someone decided they are too feminine looking to meet that "material androgenising effect" and they are free to compete without restrictions.

                            Appendixes that were once public are now private, so we do not know what guidance these doctors are being given in order to make that very subjective determination.

                            Honestly I think the biggest challenge is that today's science is not able to accurately and precisely measure what our eyes and stopwatches are telling us. The physiology is far more complicated than just "T" levels, but some of it is not easy to measure and we do not fully understand it yet.

                            I know what the stopwatch says and I know what our limited understanding of these DSDs says, but at the end of the day, I cannot shake the feeling that if Semenya had chosen to live as a more feminine looking straight woman, none of this would be happening.
                            I'm a physician myself. Of course there's an element of medical scrutiny in the decision-making but what gets a person noticed enough to be scrutinized is an aesthetic judgement - they look wrong and are running too fast to be normal. I agree that if Semenya, Wambui, Niyonsaba, or these two young women looked more "the part," there would be no questions.

                            Add to that doctoring's less than stellar record with treating groups outside the societal norm with dignity and I don't think anything short of ironclad science could ever sit right with me. Even if someone told me clinics are doing sensitivity assays on each case, you can't sell me on the testosterone regulation. There's not solid enough correlation. It's sex testing by another name.

                            Honestly, I think my opposition to the rulings is mostly philosophical. WA wants to bury the fact that it does not consider Semenya a woman under a load of scientific jargon, so they can say Semenya is a woman in public statements while still treating her as separate but equal. Just come out and say it; those of us who find the regulations unjust will complain either way.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mgallagh43 View Post
                              It's sex testing by another name.
                              As far as I'm aware no one has claimed it's not sex testing.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post

                                Particularly when it's shoddy science:


                                "We have identified three types of anomalies/errors, in addition to the inclusion of times (for several events) for athletes who have been disqualified by IAAF for doping. These are:
                                • Duplicated athletes More than one time is included for an individual. In each of these instances, more than one time from the 2011 and 2013 World Championships is included for the same athlete.
                                • Duplicated times The same time is repeated once or more for an individual athlete, which is clearly a data error.
                                • Phantom times No athlete could be found with the reported time for the event.

                                Problematic data make up between 17 and 33% of the values used in the BG17 analysis for these four events. Given the pervasiveness of these errors, we consider it likely that similar problems might be found in the data for the other 17 women’s events and 22 men’s events, and perhaps also in the anonymous medical data, which are the basis for the study’s main conclusions regarding the performance effects of elevated testosterone levels. Such pervasive errors in the four regulated events for which we carefully recreated data call into question the fidelity of the entire analysis."


                                https://link.springer.com/article/10...18-019-00143-w
                                Also worth noting from this article is the authors found the disputed data points in the 2017 paper effectively account for the entire purported advantage from 400-1500 (table 4). In the 400, 800, and 1500, removing erroneous data points and re-running the analysis suggests high T actually slightly hurts performance in those events, bringing these in line with the rest of the events not under regulation (figure 2).
                                Last edited by mgallagh43; 07-06-2021, 03:03 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X