Mboma (18yrs) - 48.54 (withdrawn from 400 in Tokyo?

[Wiederganger]

Interestingly the NNOC's president has since come out in the media saying at least one of the two women were previously karyotyped a year ago and are XX female, which should technically exempt them from the testosterone regulation. He did not state the reason for the karyotyping, however.

This us hugely significant if true. It makes sense it was Masilingi, if it were last year, but could still be either. But either way, this would mean she, whichever of the women it is, should not have been withdrawn from the Tokyo 400m as she is eligible to run that event.

I think we need to accept that subjective determinations are a not insignificant part of how athletes are chosen for WA's screening, especially if they're like Mbomba and Masilingi and suddenly have a breakout year before they can get into the bio passport system. How that comes up in your assessment of the ethics of the whole enterprise is y'all's call.

Agreed. They were obviously targeted based on looks and performance.

[jjimbojames]

I think performance was the biggest factor here, given they looked the same in 2019 and presumably didn’t get picked for testing - if juniors are smashing up the A-T list very early in their career, they’re either complete prodigies or there’s something else at play. Makes sense to check for all eventualities. I think the issue is certain countries/cultures are more likely to have hidden (most likely, inadvertently) issues, so now more countries are getting involved with international sport, we are seeing more cases but it also likely to lead to people claiming it’s solely racial prejudice / profiling, which I don’t think is the case.

As someone who does not know the science others have so eloquently described above, titled seems society’s use of the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ are getting broader, so perhaps the reality is we need to rename categories based on exactly what each one is supposed to be for (e.g. XX and XY) and give clarity that way....although everyone would presumably need to have a test completed before competing

[scottmitchell74]

Even if it could, is it right we stop these women from competing? I really don't know what to think.

This is the same deceptive and blame-shifting language used in the Male-female trans sports debate. Nobody is stopping anyone from competing. The effort is to protect one group (1/2 the World's population) from being wiped out athletically.

As far as I know the boys/mens (open) division is welcome to all in sports these days.

[mgallagh43]

Even if it could, is it right we stop these women from competing? I really don't know what to think.

This is the same deceptive and blame-shifting language used in the Male-female trans sports debate. Nobody is stopping anyone from competing. The effort is to protect one group (1/2 the World's population) from being wiped out athletically.

As far as I know the boys/mens (open) division is welcome to all in sports these days.

I'd say this is incorrect. If intersex athletes do not meet regulations, they cannot compete in their events. They can try to do what Semenya is doing and move up or down in distance, but there's no guarantee this will save a career or a livelihood built on competitiveness in one of the regulated events.

One of the precepts of informed consent is that the consent is not coerced or forced. If an athlete at the top of the world in the 800m is told she must take a drug to continue competing in her event, that is by definition coercion. The World Medical Association, which established the Declaration of Helsinki in the 60s to provide ethical foundations for medical research, has already clearly stated the ruling should not be followed by physicians.

The trans debate is not an equivalence here either, but has its own ethical issues outside the scope of this discussion.

[Wiederganger]

Even if it could, is it right we stop these women from competing? I really don't know what to think.

This is the same deceptive and blame-shifting language used in the Male-female trans sports debate. Nobody is stopping anyone from competing. The effort is to protect one group (1/2 the World's population) from being wiped out athletically.

As far as I know the boys/mens (open) division is welcome to all in sports these days.

Why do people stupidly conflate DSD debate with the Trans debate? They are two different issues.

'Protect one group'...? 'Wiped out athletically'...hyperbole in the extreme.

Why would a woman with DSD want to compete in the men's category?

[mgallagh43]

Ah I see, that's good news for her being XX. I don't think WA should be doing any testing based off of looks either. We can't assume that they are DSD let alone what type of DSD beforehand. They should be subject to regular testing like everyone else and if their T is high do further investigation. But as noted it would have been good to have her biological passport already in place with karytype already known by WA. Was her T endogenous? And what level (obviously above 5) was it if we know?

This brings up another sticky problem - on social media there is a lot of talk about racism because many are suggesting that African woman have higher natural T than other 'races'.

I'm would be interested in studies on large population groups based on race or geography of natural T levels for woman. I have no doubt that like all things biological there are some natural extremes and she may be one of them - more power to her if so. Any guidance on this issue.

There is some data to suggest there is a small percentage difference in free T, but honestly most studies are done on men and postmenopausal women so it's difficult to comment specifically. As studies get larger the difference between, say, a white and Black American man tends to disappear. I know IAAF took some racial considerations when establishing T:E ratios, but even then the upper limit is pretty high (4:1).

There are ethical issues with racializing this kind of data especially in the US, given the historical use of purported race differences to justify slavery, segregation, and discrimination, so I am not sure anyone wants to look too deeply. See also this absolutely cursed paper from 2016 for how deep the racist rabbit hole can go and still get published: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...016.00001/full

A couple not super useful but at least not shady papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._meta-analysis

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/7/2519/2598282

[scottmitchell74]

Why do people stupidly conflate DSD debate with the Trans debate? They are two different issues.

'Protect one group'...? 'Wiped out athletically'...hyperbole in the extreme.

Why would a woman with DSD want to compete in the men's category?

Stupidly? Easy there.

Just saying no one is stopping anyone from competing. That is hyperbole. That language (your language) is indeed used in both of these arguments. No conflating needed on my part

And yes, left unchecked, 1/2 the athletic world would have no hope in reaching the highest level of their sport. Just ask all the Rio 800 women.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

There is some data to suggest there is a small percentage difference in free T, but honestly most studies are done on men and postmenopausal women so it's difficult to comment specifically. As studies get larger the difference between, say, a white and Black American man tends to disappear. I know IAAF took some racial considerations when establishing T:E ratios, but even then the upper limit is pretty high (4:1).

There are ethical issues with racializing this kind of data especially in the US, given the historical use of purported race differences to justify slavery, segregation, and discrimination, so I am not sure anyone wants to look too deeply. See also this absolutely cursed paper from 2016 for how deep the racist rabbit hole can go and still get published: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...016.00001/full

A couple not super useful but at least not shady papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._meta-analysis

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/7/2519/2598282

Ok, Thanks! I will read those papers. I would think even if there were some differences it would not be too extreme and WA would account for that and have the allowable woman's upper range beyond what that data showed to account for some extreme and anomalous/unique situations. You would think!

[1.609]

If I understand much of what has been posted above, we still cannot tell how much performance advantage is provided by excess T (in some or all DSD athletes), because we cannot measure the number of androgen receptors that can take that excess T, and do for some or all DSD athletes, what anabolic steroids do for regular females. If I am wrong, please point to reliable documentation that concludes otherwise.

[GHM]

Why NOT 200m? I know this is not a movie "Chariots of Fire".

I did not follow these two young ladies careers. Did they run 200m races during the qualifying period?
At this junction they could have qualified for Tokyo in 200m if they (coaches, Federation, and IAAF) knew about this quandary and told athlete and coaches about their options.

[mgallagh43]

If I understand much of what has been posted above, we still cannot tell how much performance advantage is provided by excess T (in some or all DSD athletes), because we cannot measure the number of androgen receptors that can take that excess T, and do for some or all DSD athletes, what anabolic steroids do for regular females. If I am wrong, please point to reliable documentation that concludes otherwise.

There is a test to assess if someone is sensitive or not but no way to quantify an individual's sensitivity as far as I know. Basically you measure someone's level of sex hormone binding globulin (protein that binds androgens), give stanozolol for three days, measure again daily on days 5-8 and compare the first value to the values after the stanozolol. If there's not much of a difference before and after, the person is probably completely insensitive. If there's a little difference (~70% ratio), the person is probably partially sensitive. If the difference is </= 63%, not likely to have an androgen insensitivity. Not sure if WA wants to get into the weeds on dosing some of its athletes with three days of a banned anabolic when you can do genetic screening in your suspect population, though!

With improvements in immunoassays there may be a test that can quantify an individual's sensitivity coming in the future, but you'd probably have to find someone to fund that research.

[mgallagh43]

Why NOT 200m? I know this is not a movie "Chariots of Fire".

I did not follow these two young ladies careers. Did they run 200m races during the qualifying period?
At this junction they could have qualified for Tokyo in 200m if they (coaches, Federation, and IAAF) knew about this quandary and told athlete and coaches about their options.

They're both on the 200m list for Tokyo. Worth noting though that in a situation where they weren't qualified, the Namibian OC was notified of the testosterone results and their withdrawal from the 400m list the day after the selection window ended.

[1.609]

With improvements in immunoassays there may be a test that can quantify an individual's sensitivity coming in the future, but you'd probably have to find someone to fund that research.

Thank you for all your informative remarks.

At this point, this is what I see:

• We can tell who is a man, and who is a woman, and assign them to one of 2 categories, in most cases.
• Some people are born DSD, and appear androgynous, but we cannot tell how much advantage, if any, they get from excess T.
• We assume ( or rely on studies I don't know about that prove ) that regular females get an advantage from synthetic derivatives of T, and tell them they cannot use them.
• We cannot reliably compare the performance advantage accrued from steroids to regular females, with any gained by DSD athletes from excess T.
• Regular females who dope with steroids may have a far bigger advantage than DSD athletes who cannot use some or all excess T.
• We are using some degree of performance advantage enjoyed by regular males over regular females in the decision making process regarding where DSD athletes can and cannot compete. I am not 100% sure on this point but that's the impression I got in some of what I've read, and not necessarily on this board.

The only conclusions I'm willing to state from these observations, at this time are :

People should give DSD athletes the benefit of the doubt before commenting on any sudden improvement in performance, because to do otherwise is deeply flawed. It is based on the assumption that they have some advantage where they may not, and possibly also based on a distaste for people who do not fit typical stereotypes of what a woman or man should look like.

The rules that bar DSD athletes with excess T are inconsistent with rules that prohibit steroid use by women, because there is no way (yet) to compare the performance advantage (if any) from excess T in DSD athletes.

There may be some benefit in having a 3rd category, but you wouldn't even be able to say for sure that it was a level playing field.

[fasttrak85]

Thank you for all your informative remarks.

At this point, this is what I see:

• We can tell who is a man, and who is a woman, and assign them to one of 2 categories, in most cases.
• Some people are born DSD, and appear androgynous, but we cannot tell how much advantage, if any, they get from excess T.
• We assume ( or rely on studies I don't know about that prove ) that regular females get an advantage from synthetic derivatives of T, and tell them they cannot use them.
• We cannot reliably compare the performance advantage accrued from steroids to regular females, with any gained by DSD athletes from excess T.
• Regular females who dope with steroids may have a far bigger advantage than DSD athletes who cannot use some or all excess T.
• We are using some degree of performance advantage enjoyed by regular males over regular females in the decision making process regarding where DSD athletes can and cannot compete. I am not 100% sure on this point but that's the impression I got in some of what I've read, and not necessarily on this board.

The only conclusions I'm willing to state from these observations, at this time are :

People should give DSD athletes the benefit of the doubt before commenting on any sudden improvement in performance, because to do otherwise is deeply flawed. It is based on the assumption that they have some advantage where they may not, and possibly also based on a distaste for people who do not fit typical stereotypes of what a woman or man should look like.

The rules that bar DSD athletes with excess T are inconsistent with rules that prohibit steroid use by women, because there is no way (yet) to compare the performance advantage (if any) from excess T in DSD athletes.

There may be some benefit in having a 3rd category, but you wouldn't even be able to say for sure that it was a level playing field.

I dunno we have seen alot of evidence with many high profile examples. Considering how rare this condition is the fact they find themsekf competing on the world stage often the best in the field or one of the best says alot. I was a huge fan of Semenya and wanted her to break the wr but honestly her being in the race was unfair to girls like Wilßon and Rogers. Mboma running 48.5 at 18 yrs old tells ne all I need to know. If you look masculine and are running times an avg 18 year old male would then you gotta call a spade a spade. Everyone is gonna try to be overly intellectual at the cost of biological females. Sometimes common sense needs to be in order.

[moreover]

I'm not getting it if one of these girls is XX, how is there any problem at all with them in the 400?
Their 1st Q&A on the rule from 2019 said:

The DSD regulations only apply to individuals who are:

• legally female (or intersex) and
• who have one of a certain number of specified DSDs, which mean that they have:
  • male chromosomes (XY) not female chromosomes (XX)
  • testes not ovaries
  • circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) not the (much lower) female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L); and
  • the ability to make use of that testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgen-sensitive’).

Those bullets seem to have an implied "and". The only one that is ambiguous is the final one.
This describes a person whose body has made no attempt to prepare them for bearing children (and I would say "testes not ovaries" makes them phenotypically male, not female though they don't exhibit the male characteristics as plainly).
Requiring data or experiments that definitively show an advantage for the DSDs having the first three characteristics in any athletic competition involving speed and strength was always a near impossible task. It's a case where everyone knows and it's impossible to prove. And then, as soon as a DSD does become dominant in some other event they will regulate it but after the fact.
That said, the athletes involved have to have been hit hard by this news. It was a gut punch to me just because I was excited thinking Mboma was going to challenge the East German 400 record and she is tiny and not outwardly male at all. Fingers crossed for Mu who is a perfect runner taking down the 8 and then the 4 from the roid-infused Eastern Bloc.