Tag Archive for 'IAAF'

Uptown Magazine

‘You don’t run like a girl…’
As the 2012 Summer Games draw near, the debate about gender testing heats up

A former Canadian Olympian thinks gender testing in sport should be abolished and wants Canada to publicly declare its opposition to the practice before the start of the 2012 Summer Games, now less than six months away.

Bruce Kidd, a professor in the faculty of physical education and health at the University of Toronto, was once a national track-and-field star; named “Athlete of the Year” in 1961 and 1962 by the Canadian Press, he competed in the Men’s 5,000 race at the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, finishing ninth in the first round’s first heat.

Goto Full Article: “CLICK HERE”

For Further Education - October 2011 Playthegame gender session, October Cologne, Germany. Guest speakers, Prof. Arne Ljungqvist (IOC), Georg Facius (Denmark) and Dr. Bruce Kidd (Canada).

Watch the Complete Session Video - “CLICK HERE”

Published February 2nd, 2012

THE “PROPER” GENDER OF ATHLETES – Presentation at “Play the Game” conference 2011

By GEORG FACIUS – DENMARK

Gender verification is a serious issue, actually a dead serious issue, and is has a long and sad history within sport.

But let me start by mentioning two very recent initiatives related to the gender issue in sport.

Earlier this year the “Court of Arbitration for Sport” has approved jurisdiction to take on a legal case against the International Olympic Committee, under the headline: “Human Rights and the Oppression of Women´s Gender in International Sport”. The outcome of this may very well bring about one of the biggest changes of all times in international sport.

A “Gender Pin Badge” has been designed for London 2012 and was unveiled on September 15th in the presence of London 2012 chief executive Paul Deighton, and the minister for Sport and the Olympics Hugh Robertson, and the deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio.

Mr. Deighton stated: “Our vision is as bold as it is simple – to use the power of the Games to inspire change, and one way of showing our support for a sporting environment built upon equality and inclusion”

Facius calls it, “The Major Medical Blunder of the 20^th Century” continuing to state, ” All along through most of these 50 years Arne Ljungquist has been the man with the overall and main responsibility for gender testing, firstly within IAAF and now within the IOC, and it is beyond me how he himself, with his history, can continue in charge of this, and as chairman of the IOC medical commission, and how on top of 50 years of failure, he can be allowed to do so, by the responsible bodies. I can only urge him to have the decency to step down.”

Goto Full Article - “CLICK HERE”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Published – January 19th 2012

Play the Game 2011 – Gender Session – IOC Medical Chair deemed “Incompetent” after 50 years of the “failure” of gender testing and policy. Asked to step down immediately!

Monday October 3rd, 2011 organizers of Play the Game during a week long conference  titled; “Bring Change to the heart of Sport” with leading delegates and experts converging on Cologne Germany, at the University of Cologne to discuss issues impacting international and Olympic sport programming. From issues of anti-doping, sport gambling, organizational corruption and issues of gender and human rights.

On Wednesday, the session titled; “Little Difference, Huge Impact: The Gender Challenge to Sport” began the day. Led by a joint key note presentation from Prof. Arne Ljungqvist, International Olympic Committee [IOC] Chairman – father of gender testing and policy. Presenting in direct parallel with Ljungqvist was Danish Georg Facius, IAAF Technical Official and key official and expert of both the EAA’s Anti-doping and Competition Committees.

Upon conclusion of Facius ground breaking presentation which he states; “All along through most of these 50 years Arne Ljungquist has been the man with the overall and main responsibility for gender testing, firstly within IAAF and now within the IOC, and it is beyond me how he himself, with his history, can continue in charge of this, and as chairman of the IOC medical commission, and how on top of 50 years of failure, he can be allowed to do so, by the responsible bodies. I can only urge him to have the decency to step down.”

Georg Facius complete  presentation titled; “Trying to Verify The “Proper” Gender of Athletes”

Later that afternoon, Canadian Dr. Bruce Kidd, O.C., PhD. and Olympian in mens athletics presented in parallel to Georg Facius earlier keynote presentation with Ljungqvist, titled; “For gender self-declaration”. Kidd, speaks about “Misdiagnosis”, saying; “The Challenge is NOT “intersex” or atypically athletes. But a social problem resulting from reassertion of moral physiology, fear/demonization of difference and patriarchal control of sport.”
Going further to suggest that there is “so much variation among humans” from “body composition and biochemistry, household and community resources, especially access to bio-medical technology and sport sciences, cultural norms of which are all related to competitive performance.”

Kidd suggests, “The Olympic Movement “celebrates humanity” in all its diversity, why single out this area of difference?” And that, “Self-identify is fundamental to human rights and the ideal of self-expression that is the basis of Olympic sport.” Then asking the fundamental question, “How can the Olympic Movement, which encourages and affirms the right of self-expression through sport, deny the right of self-identity to some humans?”

Upon conclusion, Dr. Kidd profoundly states; “By elevating the results of performance to be the determining metric of the Olympic Movement, the new gender verification requirements further marginalize the educational and intercultural goals of Coubertin, ” the “chill of surveillance culture is heightened.”

Thus stating, as did Facius in his earlier presentation stated; “The IOC must abolish the targeted ‘gender investigation’ once and for all.” Going one step further giving recommendations as next steps, removing the IOC from making such decisions that effect all sport as it pertains to gender, and that; “Academics, policy makers and journalists contribute to this effort, especially the deconstruction of gender and the furtherance of inclusive language.” and move towards; “The Olympic Movement and the broad sport community re-invigorate their efforts to empower women, especially at the level of leadership.” and; “As much as possible, school and community sport be re-organized on the basis of athletic ability, rather than gender.”

Published October 2011

__________________________________________________________________________________
(6) Key Supporting References -
__________________________________________________________________________________
NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms

Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.

Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Transgender Student-Athletes and Sex-Segregated Sport: Developing Policies of Inclusion for Intercollegiate and Interscholastic Athletics

Erin Buzuvis
Western New England College School of Law – July 20, 2010

Download Complete Research Document “PDF” CLICK HERE

Volume 9 Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report
Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination
Author: Shawn Crincoli – Associate Professor of Law

Touro College, New York, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Volume 9 Issue 4 – April 2011 World Sports Law Report
IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof
Author: Andy Brown [WSLR], UK.
For Full Article “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Lancet 2005; 366: S38 María José Martínez-Patiño
Personal Account A woman tried and tested

“As I was about to enter the January, 1986, national championships, I was
told to feign an injury and to withdraw from racing quietly, graciously, and
permanently. I refused. When I crossed the line first in the 60m hurdles, my
story was leaked to the press. I was expelled from our athletes’ residence, my
sports scholarship was revoked, and my running times were erased from my
country’s athletics records. I felt ashamed and embarrassed. I lost friends, my
fiancé, hope, and energy. But I knew that I was a woman, and that my genetic
difference gave me no unfair physical advantage. I could hardly pretend to be
a man; I have breasts and a vagina. I never cheated. I fought my
disqualification.”

Download Full Review “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

An approach to the biological, historical and psychological repercussions of gender verification in top level competitions

Martínez-Patiño et al. / Gender verification in top level competitions JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE – VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 | 2010 |

MARÍA JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ-PATIÑO1, COVADONGA MATEOS-PADORNO2, AURORA MARTÍNEZ-VIDAL3, ANA MARÍA SÁNCHEZ MOSQUERA1, JOSÉ LUIS GARCÍA SOIDÁN1, MARÍA DEL PINO DÍAZ PEREIRA3, CARLOS FRANCISCO TOURIÑO GONZÁLEZ1
1Faculty of Science Education and Sport, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
2Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas, Campus Universitario de Tafira, Spain
3Special Didactics Department. Faculty of Science Education. University of Vigo. Orense, Spain

Download Complete Review “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Published September 2011

ESPN Olympic Sports – Track and Field
Column: Women need men to set records? Yes, and no
Associated Press
September 23, 201

World’s highest mountain? Easy. World’s fastest man? Easy, too. The world record for female marathon running? That, too, used to be a cinch until the bright sparks who oversee track and field delivered a slap against women everywhere by invalidating their records set when they run marathons alongside men.

The not-so-subtle message is that women cannot complete 26.2 miles as quickly alone as they can when they have a helping hand from the guys.

That, as it happens, may be true. Still, that doesn’t make this rule change from the IAAF any less offensive, impractical or confusing. It’s also a giant black-eye for Paula Radcliffe.

Her world record of 2 hours, 15 minutes, 25 seconds set in London in 2003 is one of the all-time great sport performances by anyone, anywhere. No other woman, except for Radcliffe herself, has ever run within three minutes of that mark.

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published September 2011

The Gazette – Savinova edges Semenya for 800m title
Agence France-Presse September 4, 2011 8:12 AM

Mariya Savinova of Russia (L) celebrates winning the women’s 800 metres final with second-placed Caster Semenya of South Africa at the IAAF World Athletics Championships in Daegu September 4, 2011.
Photograph by: Kim Kyung-Hoon, Reuters

Daegu, South Korea, Sept 4, 2011 (AFP) – Russian Mariya Savinova rained on Caster Semenya’s parade on Sunday, nipping past the controversial South African for world gold in the women’s 800m. Reigning world indoor and European champion Savinova timed her run to perfection, coming from near the back of the pack at 600m to clinch the victory in 1min 55.87sec.

Read Full Article: “Click Here”
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMMENT:
Today’s results illustrates the IOC’s historic threat to womens sports.

Congratulations to both Mariya and Caster…. These results speak loud and strengthens the resolve as the “projected” controversy around gender testing, Stockholm Consensus and the new Hyperandrogenism Rule is not an athlete problem, but solely the IOC and IAAF problem, in-fact who are the “controversy”. A social science problem at the highest level of international sport on how WOMEN ARE SEEN AS ATHLETES AND THEIR ABILITIES TO PERFORM WELL.

Important to note, Mariya’s finishing time today in Daegu today was 1:55.87, which she ran at  last years Worlds 2010 1:57.56. Caster’s winning time at 2009 World’s in Berlin 1:55.45. Caster’s second place time today was clocked at 1:57.42.

Three more women running sub 1:58.00 today…. Savinova 2009 Worlds time, 1:58.68, almost (3) seconds slower than what she ran today. Moreover, looking at the 2009, 2010 and 2011 results, a significant improvement by overall women’s speed which is absolutely fantastic! The women’s 800m contingency was in a lull for many years -

*Important to note Mariya dominated the 2011 season in the 800m. Fabulous to see these incredible women run, breathing new life and interest in the 800m event, which has been stagnant for a very long-time.

Are the IOC and IAAF now going to find a fault in Mariya’s gifted physiology and design a policy around her ability to compete, and disable her and take away from her ability to run well?  I am waiting to see the policy that comes out on Usain Bolt (“Lightening Bolt” policy for men who run to fast), and his complete and expected domination and paid millions to do so, over every 100m and 200m male runner in the field, to find fault to slow him down to create fairness with other male competitors in the top elite men. Bolt marketed by BOTH the IAAF and IOC earning millions of dollars as a major financial draw at the box office ticket sales,and putting a heartbeat of public and financial interest back into Athletics over the last several years.

It seems though, women don’t qualify  and are not deemed in the same genre or pursuit as men, when we do incredible world class performances, in-fact penalized for it.  The big question is “Why?”.

In the end and reflecting to sport leaders and international colleagues, I am very pleased with the women’s results and the scale of improvement in the women’s 800m.

Today you don’t see the IAAF/IOC running out “forcing” and invasive and illegal gender test on Mariya as she was the ONLY woman that ran into 1:55.00 (she looks feminine enough that’s why…), as in 2009 Caster was forced into a situation for an outstanding performance of which has become common place with Usain Bolt. Of which when he does not perform, we question “what’s going on with him making a big deal out of a false start that no other athlete had a problem with on the 100m final start-line”, expecting him to perform. As Usain said in an interview with the CBC in Daegu just after his 200m win, “I came today to do it for the fans… to show them I am the best.”

When a women does it, she becomes a controversy – thus is gender tested, which proves nothing and seen as a “tool of oppression”. Where women now feeling fear to perform well as a woman, you will be gender tested, a highlighting threat put upon women’s performance. Thus projects, “if you do not look feminine enough and perform well, we’ll get you…”

Why is it men get that chance and women do not? When women do it, they are then punished so inhumanely for it. Raped psychologically and physically (without consent or knowledge), humiliated globally, and many time leading to attempted suicide, alienation and poverty. If that is not enough, sport and media together making as if the athlete deserves it and in-fact have a right to do it. Ironically there is no repercussions to those who have created such hideous harm.

Todays results clearly illustrates the situation well. The suggested “CONTROVERSY” that has been weighing over young Caster that she has had to wear and so many athletes in the past is NOT THE ATHLETES, BUT THE IOC AND FALSE POLICIES such as gender testing, Stockholm Consensus and now Hyperandrogenism Rule which have been purposely designed to oppress and mislead international sport around women’s performance,  which has only led to the most CATASTROPHIC IMPACT to women, women’s sport in modern sport history. Used as “tools of oppression” not to protect women, but to control and oppress women from performing well in their given sport. Solely do to projected ignorance and human rights violations by the IOC towards women.

Caster like all the other women impacted by gender testing over 4 decades, gender was never in question… The IOC/IAAF done in such an adhoc manner, spent 11 months trying to figure out if they did the right thing or not. Had nothing to do with in-fact with Caster, other than her having to wear their mistakes so publicly and affecting her eligibility to compete in 2010. It had all to do about them.

99% of what was reported in the media was untrue…

The IOC is the “CONTROVERSY” and the biggest threat to women’s development and participation in sport at all levels, not Caster and or any other female athletes, as Mariya handily proved today and the other female runners in the field closely behind Mariya and Caster. The IOC is the problem, FULL STOP…

The courage it has taken Caster and many other women who have fallen to these practices and harmful policies, are profound. A courage only deserving of an Olympic gold medal, that is inconceivable, and the passion for sport and the will to be included and be your very best. Something the IOC and IAAF, have faltered over the last many years deceiving and misleading the public, media and international sports system of the truths and true impact these horrific polices and practices, have catastrophically ruined so many women’s lives.

Well Done Ladies…. WOMEN ARE GREAT ATHLETES TOO IOC!!
__________________________________________________________________________________

(5) Key Supporting References -

NOTICE
The Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS] in Lausanne Switzerland, has approved jurisdiction to enable us to file legal case: “Human Rights and the Oppression of Women’s Gender in International Sport” to be issued by Kristen Worley (Canada) Cycling and Mianne Bagger (Denmark) Golf  v/International Olympic Committee [IOC].

Volume 9 Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report
Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination
Author: Shawn Crincoli – Associate Professor of Law

Touro College, New York, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Volume 9 Issue 4 – April 2011 World Sports Law Report
IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof
Author: Andy Brown [WSLR], UK.
For Full Article “Click Here”

NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms

Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.

Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

AthletesCAN (CANADA) Canadian Olympian Nikki Dryden – Featured Article: “Hey International Olympic Committee – Your words are not enough”

The following article was written by Nikki Dryden, retired national team athlete and two-time Olympian.

For Full Article on the AthletesCAN website “Click Here”

Also can be found on the Women in Sport International Blog “Click Here”

Published September 2011

Caster reveals her agony over sex test
BONGANI MDAKANE | 09 July, 2011 23:53

An emotional and depressed Caster Semenya has revealed the humiliation and anguish she endured when doubt was cast on her gender.

Goto Full Article: “Click Here”

Published July, 2011

NOTICE
The Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS] in Lausanne Switzerland, has approved jurisdiction to enable us to file legal case: “Human Rights and the Oppression of Women’s Gender in International Sport” to be issued by Kristen Worley (Canada) Cycling and Mianne Bagger (Denmark) Golf  v/International Olympic Committee [IOC].
__________________________________________________________________________________

Three (3) Key Recent References:

Volume 9 Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report
Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination
Author: Shawn Crincoli – Associate Professor of Law

Touro College, New York, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Volume 9 Issue 4 – April 2011 World Sports Law Report
IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof
Author: Andy Brown [WSLR], UK.
For Full Article “Click Here”

NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms

Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.

Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Published July 2011

Volume 9  Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report

Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) recently released rules and guidelines designed to prevent women with elevated androgen levels from competing, which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is also planning to adopt. Shawn Crincoli, an Associate Professor of Law at Touro Law Center, explains why the rules and guidelines are highly likely to violate non-discrimination laws in a number of jurisdictions.

There is no basis for the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)’s confidence in the legal validity of its newly issued hyperandrongenism rules regulating the eligibility of women in sports1. Contrary to IAAF claims that the new rules are ‘challenge proof ’2, the hyperandrogenism regulations (HA regulations) pathologise healthy female bodies and label them as excessively androgenic – or in other words, as too masculine – and are hardly immune to challenge. There is a high likelihood that the HA regulations violate the nondiscrimination laws of a number of jurisdictions. Furthermore, there is no basis in law for the IAAF’s suggestion that failing to regulate the overproduction of androgens would open the federation up to legal attack from other female athletes, nor that such regulation is necessary to guarantee the fairness of competition for all female participants. The IAAF’s assertion that the HA regulations have been supported by ‘lawyers and human rights experts’ and thus are ‘challenge proof’ ring hollow, given the IAAF’s prior exclusion of atypical athletes, whether the differences stemmed from sex, gender or disability – a history that no independent judicial arbiter would ignore.

The primary failure is that the new rules treat men and women differently from one another without demonstrating an acceptable rationale supporting the regulation of androgens in women, but not men. This unequal treatment is the hallmark of discrimination based on sex. Second, even if one were to accept that permissible sex segregation of sport also justifies differential treatment, the HA regulations seek to discriminate against specific women on account of their naturally occurring physiology by labelling their endocrinological make-up as insufficiently female. To do so is not only an affront to the biological diversity represented in the female population; it is also an imposition of an artificial standard on women to meet a particular sex stereotype, which in some jurisdictions is a recognised sub-category of discrimination prohibited by law.

The HA regulations pathologise only women
The HA regulations have been issued to regulate women but not men. All bodies produce hormones and all bodies produce sex hormones. Androgenic hormones – the best known of which is testosterone – are produced by both male and female bodied athletes, albeit in different amounts and proportions. Despite the fact that both male and female athletes produce androgens, the HA regulations dictate that only women who produce androgens at a level deemed to be excessive are ineligible to compete with other women. There is no such adopted set of rules with respect to men who produce higher levels of androgens than other men. Indeed, there isn’t even a concept of excessiveness or having ‘too much’ when it comes to men naturally producing androgens3.

If naturally producing excessive androgens creates an unfair competitive advantage for an athlete or presents a safety issue, then the HA regulations should be adopted to govern both male and female athletes. It is telling that no such rule has been forthcoming to deem men with excessive androgens as ineligible, nor even to label men who naturally produce higher levels of testosterone as having a medical condition of hyperandrogenism. The IAAF and IOC have failed to explain why atypically high levels of androgens are acceptable within men’s sport and not acceptable within women’s sport. Equality and non-discrimination laws dictate that when distinctions based on sex are made, the burden falls on the regulating body to justify a bona fide rationale for the disparate treatment. Neither the federation nor the IOC has issued any evidence demonstrating why women with high levels of androgens should not be allowed to compete with other women, even though men with high levels of androgens may compete with other men. Merely referencing that androgens have performance enhancing effects and attributing the existence of women’s sport classification to testosterone distribution levels hardly meets this burden of proof.

The HA regulations attempt to redefine what is female
The HA regulations aim to create two classes of women: females with ‘acceptable’ levels of androgens and females with ‘unacceptable’ levels. There is no basis for this classification other than based on sex stereotypes of how many ‘male hormones’ a woman may produce before her ability to participate in sport as a woman is questioned. The rules condition eligibility on a woman possessing ‘androgen levels below the male range (measured by testosterone levels in serum)’, demonstrating that the critical determining factor is to eliminate those women who are deemed to be too much like men. The HA regulations also carve out an exception for women with medical conditions that create androgen insensitivity, because they too meet the criteria the IAAF seeks to impose: a ban on women with too much bio-available testosterone.

Androgens, despite being medically categorised as male sex hormones, are naturally occurring hormones in the female body. There is tremendous diversity in the individual amount of these hormones within the general population. A woman with lower levels of androgens or higher levels of oestrogen (female sex hormones) is not ‘more’ woman than a woman with higher levels of androgens or lower levels of oestrogen. It is rare, but not unheard of, for some women to produce more androgens then some men do.

Elite athletes do not represent the population mean in terms of biology or physiology in many respects, and some of these differences can translate to measurable advantages or disadvantages in sport. There is no such thing as a correct biological amount of androgens for a female to be a woman; there is only data that show the statistical distribution of androgens that can be produced by the female body, just as there is a population distribution of height, VO2 max4, and so forth. Accordingly, a female-bodied athlete cannot produce ‘excessive’ androgens. She can only produce an amount that is a statistical outlier, just as there are statistical outliers in other physiological categories. The federation and IOC, though, do not seek to declare athletes ineligible based on being outliers who are too tall, possess too much muscle tissue of a particular type, or have excessive lung capacity, even if these differences represent significant advantages in sport.

The IAAF’s HA regulations aim to create an artificial baseline at which a woman has too many male sex hormones to be allowed to compete with women. Since other forms of naturally occurring statistical outlier advantages are unregulated, it is clear that the regulations are another attempt to define what is female – and what is not female enough – for inclusion in women’s sport. It relies on the sex stereotype that while it is okay for women to be taller or have greater lung capacity, it is not okay for females to have ‘too much’ testosterone, based on a comparison to the average level of androgens naturally occurring in the male population.

Equality laws do not allow for this back door effort to classify some females as excessively masculine so as to be excluded from opportunities afforded to other women. It is only stereotype, not medical reality, which suggests there is something wrong or improper in a woman who possesses high levels of testosterone; and it is only stereotype, not medical reality, that would aim to define too much testosterone in women by reference to how much a man produces. Just as one may not treat men and women unequally, some jurisdictions have non-discrimination laws prohibiting policies that regulate men and women based on sex stereotypes or that condition opportunity for women based on whether they meet a particular standard of femininity.

The HA regulations may be challenged ‘as applied’
It stands to follow that an individual athlete may have a stronger ‘as applied’ case, in the event that enforcement of the rules are not even-handed and with due process. The new rules require athletes to undergo hyperandrogenism testing as a condition of their participation in sport, and the IAAF suggests that the Athlete Biological Passport system can help ensure privacy through the process. Yet as the IAAF and IOC recognise, the biological passport system is not currently in use and likely will not be for several years. Nor is the WADA testing system set up to accurately detect or sanction naturally occurring hormones.

The HA regulations list multiple routes in which an athlete may be referred as a case to an Expert Medical Panel. However, there is no one test identified which triggers the application of the HA regulations and there are no safeguards or guarantees that the application of these rules will be done in a manner than protects the athlete’s privacy and dignity rights. One method of triggering an HA investigation is ‘confidential information that is received by the IAAF Medical Delegate or IAAF Medical Manager’. In short, there is nothing in the newly issued regulations to prevent the so-called witch-hunt that can occur when a female athlete is challenged by competitors as looking or seeming too masculine. Thus, depending on enforcement, there is a chance that a female athlete could demonstrate discriminatory enforcement of the HA regulations as well.

No legal issue stems from an absence of HA regulations
The IAAF has attempted to justify the HA regulations as a necessary step in preventing legal attack from other female athletes. There is no legitimacy to this claim. It is hard to imagine the basis for a legal challenge that the IAAF or IOC failed to exclude an individual athlete. Such a challenge would have no more chance of success than if female athletes sought to have competition limited to only women under 182cm or with a VO2 max under 55 ml/kg/min.

The fact that the IAAF and IOC were concerned about the complaints of other female athletes actually cuts against these bodies should an athlete challenge the HA regulations. The inclusion of the fear of being legally attacked by other athletes as motivation or justification for the rules serves as evidence that the IAAF and IOC are wilfully complicit in a majoritarian effort to suppress and eliminate an atypical minority – or even an atypical individual – from participation in sport.

HA regulations yet another effort to ‘sex test’ women
It would be incomplete to offer an analysis of the legal landscape surrounding these eligibility rules without placing them in the larger context of IAAF and IOC policies and decision-making. Any judicial body exploring the validity of the HA regulations would also investigate where the rules came from, how female athletes have been regulated by the IAAF and the IOC previously and how the historical context of sex testing and eligibility for women has occurred.

The lex sportiva of the atypical athlete is rife with examples suggesting that the IAAF and the IOC have erred on the side of exclusion. The IAAF and the IOC have a history of running roughshod over basic human rights of athletes, particularly when forced to handle complicated questions of sex, gender or disability. Without touching upon the substance of the rulings, gross violations of procedure marred the handling of the eligibility of both South African track athletes Oscar Pistorius and Caster Semenya.

Accordingly, the IAAF’s promulgation of the HA regulations must be taken in the context of the federation forcing women to undergo the humiliation of sex testing in various forms.

While much of high performance sport separates men and women into separate classifications, the reality is that human biology is not organised quite so neatly. Already struggling with how to treat and categorise athletes who do not fit the sex binary due to intersexual conditions, disorders of sex development (DSD) or gender identity disorders, the IAAF has added fuel to the fire with the new HA regulations. The regulations are a transparent effort to short circuit the difficult process of deciding participation in women’s sport by resorting to endocrinology alone, particularly androgen production, as the determining line for deciding that a female is ‘too manly’ to compete in sport.

The IAAF’s decision to move away from its deeply problematic prior policies, including its Gender Verification Policy and the Stockholm Consensus, is to be commended. The IAAF’s desperation to shoehorn female eligibility into a hormone-based approach is not. The HA regulations seemingly resolve one issue – how to regulate male-to-female transsexual athletes consistent with laws that protect against gender identity discrimination – by trading inclusion on one instance against the exclusion of females with intersexual conditions, DSD or other atypical hormone profiles. Furthermore, the IAAF justifies this newly found reason for exclusion by rooting the very existence of women’s sport classifications in an explanation based on androgen production, a controversial and broadly generalised rhetorical move, one that seemingly grants the IAAF the ability to continue to police and pathologise women’s bodies in the name of ‘protecting’ women’s sport.

The IAAF Council has commented that its regulations should be seen as a ‘living document that will be subject to review’. The IAAF would be wise to rescind the HA regulations as an unprecedented and discriminatory policy before a judge or arbitrator forces the federation to do so. Furthermore, rather than adopting the HA regulations wholesale, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ought to denounce and distance itself from the HA regulations, which history will only view as yet another step in organised sport’s efforts to control women’s bodies and police the femininity of women in sport.

Shawn Crincoli
Associate Professor of Law
Touro College
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Islip, NY
scrincoli@tourolaw.edu

Download Full Article “Click Here”

Published June 2011

Volume 9 Issue 4 April 2011

IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is confident that its rules on the eligibility of females with hyperandrogenism will withstand legal challenge when they are published on 1 May. Hyperandrogenism is a medical condition involving excessive production of hormones (androgens) such as testosterone.

Guidelines published by the International Olympic Committee on 5 April and the IAAF rules allow a female with hyperandrogenism to compete in women’s events ‘provided that she has androgen levels below the male range (measured by testosterone levels in serum)’. “We have received good feedback from lawyers and human rights experts”, said an IAAF spokesperson. “It is the only way to deal with this issue from a medical point of view. If we don’t have rules on this, we will also face legal challenge from other female athletes.”

Kristen Worley, founder of the Coalition of Athletes for Inclusion in Sport, questioned basing eligibility rules on androgen levels. “It flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the tremendous hormonal variability among humans”, she said. “This sets up many other young people for the devastating treatment that Caster Semenya experienced.”

Both the IAAF and IOC also dismissed concerns that by making an athlete who fails a hyperandrogenism test ineligible, they are posing a threat to their privacy. ‘A female athlete who declines, fails or refuses to comply with the eligibility determination process under the regulations shall not be eligible to compete in women’s competition’, read a 14 April IAAF release. Both the IAAF and IOC said there had been similar cases in the past that had been kept private. “Early detection for example under the Athlete Biological Passport will eliminate this issue”, said an IAAF spokesperson.

The IOC’s hyperandrogenism rules are scheduled for approval at the 123rd IOC Session in Durban, 1-9 July. “Once all athletes have their own biological passports, a case would be identified by abnormal hormone levels”, said an IOC spokesperson. “Since it may take some years for biological passports to become fully applicable, we will rely on the following mechanisms to trigger an androgen investigation: (i) the athlete may have symptoms that make her consult her team doctor; (ii) a pre-participation health examination may reveal there is a problem; (iii) a suspicion may arise in the doping control station; or (iv) a doping control analysis may reveal an abnormal hormone pattern”.

Goto Full Publication “Click Here”

Published May 2011

Frost Illustrated
Sports body to reject ‘I know it when I see it’ standard for women
May 4th 2011

“The International Olympic Committee and the International Association of Athletics Federations have a new policy to deal with athletes whose sex development is unusual.

The bad news is that the new policy appears biased and sexist which, critics worry, could trickle down to school-based sports. Players will be tested for testosterone and women with high levels will be excluded from games while men will not.”

Goto to Full Article “Click Here”

Other Reference
NYTimes April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms
Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.
Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Published April 4th, 2011

IAAF – Releases Today HA Regulations – Explanatory Notes re Hyperandrogenism – Continued Aggression, Oppression and Medicalization of Women Athletes.

A tremendous setback for women’s participation in sport, human rights and Olympic Movement.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
“Despite the well documented sorry history of the medicalization of women, it medicalizes the definition of womanhood one more time, taking the expression of embodied gender identity out of the hands of the very humans involved, and setting up many other young people for the devastating treatment that Caster Semenya experienced. Moreover, it flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the tremendous hormonal variability among humans.

What is further shocking, the IAAF and IOC projecting the athletes health is at risk and or see as “abnormal” to purposely publicly mislead to legitimize their policy and unsupported actions.  Where in-fact most high performance female athletes have raised level of androgens for various natural reasons, ad that that they are some of the healthiest women on the planet.  Only to be presumed “unwell” when being ONLY confronted by the IAAF and IOC.

In the elite  mens division, there are are no set limits – in-fact promoted and take advantage of to push the male human performance barriers.

This is a social ethics problem, which in-fact has whatsoever nothing to do with the athletes themselves.  This is an entrenched  and historical problem of sport, IOC and IAAF and how ALL women are perceived as high performance athletes as women in sport.”

Kristen Worley – Canadian High Performance Elite Athlete/Gender Educator

__________________________________________________________________________________________
“The bad news is that the new policy seems sexist in its philosophy. Indeed, it is so sexist that it may even count as a violation of Title IX, which will matter because the international policies will undoubtedly trickle down to school-based sports.

The hormones in question are not naturally exclusive to men. Women and men naturally make androgens — sometimes called strength-building hormones — including testosterone.

Yet despite the fact that testosterone belongs to women, too, the I.O.C. and the I.A.A.F. are basically saying it is really a manly thing: “You can have functional testosterone, but if you make too much, you’re out of the game because you’re not a real woman…”

“…Yet this newly proposed biological reduction of women to a hormonally disadvantaged class of people — one medically made disadvantaged, if necessary — struck many of us as regressive from the standpoint of women’s rights. Indeed, it reminds me of those itty-bitty shorts that college women’s volleyball players must wear. They each sexualize the bodies of female athletes as a requirement of play. They each insist that a woman never be manly.”

NYTimes April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms
Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.
Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

“How can the I.O.C. and I.A.A.F. claim that they support the full inclusion of women when they reimpose a medical test for their very identity? It’s a huge setback for human rights and the integrity of the Olympic movement.”

April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms
Former Canadian Olympian, Dr. Bruce Kidd
University of Toronto.

Download Official IAAF Document PDF Release “Click Here”
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Other Supporting References of the Historical Impact of Gender Testing
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of Human Sport & Exercise
An approach to the biological, historical and psychological repercussions of gender verification in top level competitions

JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE – VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 | 2010 _________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The University of Western Ontario Medical Journal
Gender verification testing: Necessary for the integrity of international athletics, or inexcusable breach of personal privacy?

Volume 79, Number 2 – Endocrinology -Published Spring 2010

Published May 2nd, 2011

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Immediate Response to  IAAF approving the adoption of new rules and regulations governing the eligibility of females with hyperandrogenism to take part in women’s competition:

The Guardian “IAAF approves new rules on hyperandrogenism”
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Press Association

YouTube – Mianne Bagger – Tournament in Spain 2010/Talks about gender challenges in sport

Entrevistas 425 : Mianne Bagger

For Full YouTube Interview “Click Here”

Published March 29th, 2011

An approach to the biological, historical and psychological repercussions of gender verification in top level competitions

Martínez-Patiño et al. / Gender verification in top level competitions JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE – VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 | 2010 |

MARÍA JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ-PATIÑO1, COVADONGA MATEOS-PADORNO2, AURORA MARTÍNEZ-VIDAL3, ANA MARÍA SÁNCHEZ MOSQUERA1, JOSÉ LUIS GARCÍA SOIDÁN1, MARÍA DEL PINO DÍAZ PEREIRA3, CARLOS FRANCISCO TOURIÑO GONZÁLEZ1
1Faculty of Science Education and Sport, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
2Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas, Campus Universitario de Tafira, Spain
3Special Didactics Department. Faculty of Science Education. University of Vigo. Orense, Spain

Download Complete Review “Click Here”

Published March 22nd, 2011