Mboma (18yrs) - 48.54 (withdrawn from 400 in Tokyo?

[18.99s]

NNOC slams World Athletics over handling of Masilingi and Mboma cases (insidethegames.biz)

The Namibian federation and their coach should be slammed for not detecting their conditions earlier and not quietly removing them from the 400m before their performances and publicity* blew up, like when Kenya quietly removed a couple of DSD 400m runners from their team in 2019 before the World Relays rather than waiting for WA to remove them.

Instead the Namibian federation was pinning medal hopes on them, hoping for them to snag a medal or two before World Athletics detected them and took action.

*publicity among track fans, not the general population.

[TN1965]

I'd go further - they are male! Humans are highly dimorphic and the whole purpose of the organism is to differentiate into two distinct sexes for the purpose of sexual reproduction in order to have viable offspring.

So XX people with Ovotesticular DSD are women, and thus should be allowed to compete as women? Mboma and Masillingi could be among them, if what NNOC says is correct.

[18.99s]

So XX people with Ovotesticular DSD are women, and thus should be allowed to compete as women? Mboma and Masillingi could be among them, if what NNOC says is correct.

WA wouldn't have removed them from the 400 if they're XX. The NNOC's president is making up stuff or misinterpreting it to suit his own agenda. Notice that he didn't mention that XX claim in the media release which bears his signature.

[TN1965]

WA wouldn't have removed them from the 400 if they're XX. The NNOC's president is making up stuff or misinterpreting it to suit his own agenda. Notice that he didn't mention that XX claim in the media release which bears his signature.

WA rule is not specific about the karyotype, and Ovotesticular DSD is listed in rule 2.2 regarding "relevant athletes."

Screenshot - Imgur

[18.99s]

WA rule is not specific about the karyotype, and Ovotesticular DSD is listed in rule 2.2 regarding "relevant athletes."

Screenshot - Imgur

Sza63Lu.png

Where did the above come from? The CAS summary of the 2019 decision said the restrictions don't apply to individuals with XX chromosomes.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/us...ary__5794_.pdf

Screenshot-CAS-DSD.png

[TN1965]

The above comes from here.

IAAF introduces new eligibility regulations for female classification | PRESS-RELEASE | World Athletics

[18.99s]

The above comes from here.

IAAF introduces new eligibility regulations for female classification | PRESS-RELEASE | World Athletics

But that is from 2018, and the CAS decision was in 2019.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

So XX people with Ovotesticular DSD are women, and thus should be allowed to compete as women? Mboma and Masillingi could be among them, if what NNOC says is correct.

People with XX Ovotesticular DSD would not be subject to the regulations only XY Ovotesticular DSDs. Of course there is XX - SRY positive DSDs which are not subject even though they can have normal masculinization because of the SRY gene on one of the X chromosomes.

[rhizobium]

But that is from 2018, and the CAS decision was in 2019.

There's a revision of the regulation dated 1 November 2019 that also doesn't mention XY chromsomes here. So there's a disconnect between what was said in the CAS hearing and what the actual regulation says. The Q&A page on the World Athletics website also mentions XY chromosomes while the regulation does not.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

There's a revision of the regulation dated 1 November 2019 that also doesn't mention XY chromsomes here. So there's a disconnect between what was said in the CAS hearing and what the actual regulation says. The Q&A page on the World Athletics website also mentions XY chromosomes while the regulation does not.

The regulations only apply to XY DSD because under those regulations no XX would ever fulfill the requirements. The Q&Aand CAS are clarifying that fact while the regulations are more specific in their expressions of the DSDs and the other two necessary conditions. Which makes me think, after reading them again, that an XX-male (SRY positive) can be under the regulations given steroidgenesis caused by the genetic condition of having the Y SRY gene on one of the X chromosomes pretty much making it male particularly if it fulfills the other two criteria under 2.2(a).

[rhizobium]

The regulations only apply to XY DSD because under those regulations no XX would ever fulfill the requirements. The Q&Aand CAS are clarifying that fact while the regulations are more specific in their expressions of the DSDs and the other two necessary conditions. Which makes me think, after reading them again, that an XX-male (SRY positive) can be under the regulations given steroidgenesis caused by the genetic condition of having the Y SRY gene on one of the X chromosomes pretty much making it male particularly if it fulfills the other two criteria under 2.2(a).

You're gonna need to quote the text from the regulation that narrows it down to XY chromosomes only because I'm not seeing it.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

You're gonna need to quote the text from the regulation that narrows it down to XY chromosomes only because I'm not seeing it.

You misunderstood what I'm saying. The regulations don't use XY because all the specific criteria in them, that need to be filled, would never result in an XX female fulfilling them so as to cause WA to apply them. Only XY could fulfill them.

The first three DSDs are solely male conditions - 5-ARD, 17 beta, and PAIS. The fourth would only be significant if it was an XY ovotesticular DSD as no XX ovotesticualr DSD would be considered given the other criteria. This non XX application would apply to the fifth DSD group - genetic disorders of gonadal steroidogenesis.

Note that an XX-male SRY positive is male to different degrees given the SRY gene on one of the X chromosomes - this being the main reason for genetic males not so much the Y chromosomes per-se.

The Q&A and CAS docs were explaining this - no XX would fall under their authority given such criteria.