Tag Archive for 'IAAF'

CFRB 1010 – Canada’s Talk Radio – Ladies Professional Golf Association LPGA – Gender Controversy

CFRB 1010 – Canada’s Talk Radio – Jim Richard’s Showgram

Ladies Professional Golf Association LPGA – Gender Controversy

October 14, 2010

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Ladies Professional Golf Association LPGA – Gender  Controversy
Kristen discusses with Jim in studio.

Relevant to ongoing discussions High Performance and International/Olympic Sport today.

LISTEN to Full Interview - “Click Here”

Republished April 27th, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Reuters – Semenya qualifies for London Olympics

Semenya qualifies for London Olympics

Reuters – Semenya qualifies for London Olympics

PRETORIA (Reuters) – Former world 800 metres champion Caster Semenya qualified for the London Olympics on Friday when she eased to victory in one minute 59.58 seconds at a Yellow Pages Series meeting.

Semenya, 21, underwent gender tests at the 2009 Berlin world championships where she won the 800 gold medal.

She did not compete for almost a year until the International Association of Athletics Federations cleared her to run again after accepting the conclusions of an expert medical panel.

The South African Olympic committee requires athletes to meet the qualifying time twice, one at a local meeting and once in an international competition.

Semenya reached her first qualifying mark when she finished second in last year’s world championships in Daegu, South Korea.

“It’s a weight off my shoulders and I’m very happy with my time,” Semenya told reporters. “I just ran my own race and it went okay, it’s best that way and I enjoyed it, that’s why I qualified.”

Semenya failed to reach the qualifying standard in last weekend’s national championships in the coastal city of Port Elizabeth, clocking 2:02.68 in windy conditions. On Friday she became the first woman in 21 years to run under two minutes on South African soil.

READ Full Article: “Click Here”

Published April 21, 2012

Chasing the world’s fastest man/Chasing world’s fastest women are “Gender Tested”

Chasing the world’s fastest man/Chasing world’s fastest women are “Gender Tested

The ChronicleChasing the world’s fastest man” written by journalist Steve Connor writes today:

“HE IS the fastest man on two legs, the greatest sprinter of all time – and Usain Bolt can also claim another superlative. He alone has caused the other top athletes in the world to run faster.USAIN Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time but he can also claim another superlative - he has caused the other top athletes in the world to run faster.

Scientists are calling it the “Usain Bolt Effect” because he has significantly improved the average performance of the world’s top sprinters, who are now suddenly running about 1 per cent faster than they did prior to Bolt’s explosive appearance in 2008 – a significant margin at this distance.”

But when a woman does it, we don’t rejoice in her athleticism and call her the “worlds fastest woman on two legs” or “explosive” as Connor’s writes about Bolt- we instead, have policy specifically designed by the International Olympic Committee [IOC] in development partnership with the International Association of Athletics Federation [IAAF], to oppress women’s athletic performances, and going as far as history has shown over and over again, not based on science, but a social ideology, putting women in a box, their place in society literally dis-empowering and humiliating them. Going even as far to create policy to physically gain access and violate their bodies and feeling one they can do this, but in-fact have a right to do it, questioning their performances as being “unwomanly”. Men are rejoiced and brought to a hirer status amongst their peers within sport and fellow countrymen, endorsements, media and business opportunities fall literally out the sky overnight. But when a woman does as history has shown are and women are punished when performing well. As history has shown, physically and publicly violated, humiliated, isolated, left in poverty and in some cases attempted suicide.

This is the direct impact of gender verification testing of women.

This is a direct problem of policy created by the IOC, that is not reflective of society and of women, whom which the sport community  is to afraid to upset the apple cart, knowing what is going on, as everyone has their hands in the cookie jar.  If a person and or media takes the IOC to task, as has happened to several media outlets, the IOC’s lawyers send letters threatening access to future games for either the journalist of news outlet.  This  has happened on several occasions, afraid of the truth of the impact of gender verification of women getting into the public realm and the oppression and human rights violations it has created.

The athletes are not the problem, the IOC is!

Watching  journalists like Steve Connor has just written, calling it the “Usain Bolt Effect”, there are many women in many sports capable of the creating the same effect and even have done so on many occasions and growing, as greater opportunity for women in sport to participate.

Using Athletics as an example in par with Bolt, young Caster Semenya a brilliant and talented young woman was physically violated for being a talented female athlete.  The IOC and IAAF, with all their wisdom (NOT), in parallel to Bolt instead of celebrating her excellence as an athlete, as they do for Bolt the man, cast a cloud of judgement over her, because of her success.  Going as far, to question her very identity – As they found out, her gender was never in question, and in-fact the they had raped her for running fast, yes as a woman.  Suggesting, women cannot run this fast, where in-fact until Caster’s performance in Berlin, 13 athletes had run faster then her since 1983, over a 27 year period.  Important to note, were never gender tested.

ConnCaster Semenya Mariya Savinova of Russia crosses the finish line ahead of Caster Semenya of South Africa to claim victory in the women's 800 metres final during day nine of 13th IAAF World Athletics Championships at Daegu Stadium on September 4, 2011 in Daegu, South Korea.or’s speaks of the effect Bolt has had on the men and their performance, stating; “…he has significantly improved the average performance of the world’s top sprinters, who are now suddenly running about 1 per cent faster than they did prior to Bolt’s explosive appearance in 2008″.

Caster has done the very same thing if not even higher level of improvement the women’s 800m event.  In Daegu, Korea this past September at the IAAF World Championships, won by Russian 800m specialists Mariya Savinova with a winning time of 1:55.87, who dominated the Diamond League all season long.  Young Caster placing second, almost a full second behind, with a time of 1:56.35, well behind Savinova.

Important to note, Savinova with the “Caster Semenya Effect” was 3/100′s of a second off of Caster’s time of Berlin 1:55.45. Savinova was not subjected to gender verification testing after her conclusive win in Daegu, as Caster was for her equal performance in Berlin two years prior.  The qualifications for the women’s 800m final was set 1:59:00, where just two years prior the majority of the women could not break 2:00.00.

Caster’s effect, far out ways Bolt’s, but yet as history has shown and noted by Canadian Olympian Dr. Bruce Kidd in a recent article in Canadian Running magazine this wanting to ban gender verification testing of women, led by Canada before the London games in July, Kidd states;

“But Kidd said women’s success in sports is too often seen as unnatural and a threat to male dominance.

“When women get really, really good, their femaleness has tended to be challenged: they’re not really women, they’re dykes, they’re men pretending to be women. Something’s gotta be wrong because real women can’t be that good,” he said.

Instead, Kidd suggests sport stop separating women and men as two separate groups. He said “we need to think of humans as a spectrum of variation.”

Clearly working with experts in Canada and around the world, this is a social conditioning, and are waking up to the effect, we are not allowing women to be women, and or be strong bodied.  And that, the IOC through regressive and oppressive gender policy targeting women, unsupported by facts and or science, are illegally designing and using policy to oppress women and women’s gender.  Moreover, creating a two tier system for women and men sport, creating barriers that are socially driven NOT scientifically supported, creating barriers to not allow women to perform at their very best as top high performances athletes, and if you fall outside of the IOC’s “woman criteria”, solely based on the woman’s appearance, “we are going to get you…”.

We have no criteria for men (we don’t test for men’s high excessive serum testosterone levels – its a free ride…), moreover we do not gender test men and discuss (competitive performance advantage amongst men, that Bolt, Phelps and other distinctly have. As Connor’s article suggest, we in-fact celebrate it and relish in the fact, that such a fine specimen exists. In-fact we have a system in many sports searching for that next genetic anomaly to supersede in their sport), though it is men creating the criteria for women and how women should be and appear in sport. Gender verification testing and the IOC gender policies are clear violations of “Human Rights and of Women and Women’s Bodies”.

As a social science exercise, as the evidence and experts are showing, this is not an issue of athleticism, but a social one and determining in the “vision of men” how women should and will be perceived and acceptable visually in sport. Thus as science is showing and the evolution of women in sport and having greater opportunity, more and more women, are rapidly closing the gap between the sexes.  It is not so much physiology, as it about access and opportunity to participate and develop.

The IOC historically has royally screwed this up, as indicated by experts because of their complete and verified by experts, “incompetence” has led to the most catastrophic circumstances on female athletes over the last five decades, until now with very little accountability.  Georg Facius (Denmark) of the EAA spoke directly to the media and  international sport leaders, at the Playthegame conference in Cologne Germany, asking for the immediate resignation of Professor Anre Ljungqvist, IOC Medical Chair while reflecting as Georg stated to Ljungqvist “for 50 years of his incompetence”.  Further stating; “the medical blunder of the 20th century”.  Ljungqvist the father of gender testing with Dr. Myron Genel, Pediatrics at Yale University.

The incompetence is at the very top of the sports system, unfortunately women are the ones paying a dear price for it!

Let’s rejoice in the “Caster Semenya Effect” and women’s bodies and athleticism as we do men! Truly Awesome! Bolt, though a great athlete, Caster impact in the women’s 800m, far more impressive then the mens 100m by far, and she had to break through so many barriers to do it! That is a woman with great courage and internal strength, someone who is super human –  Something Usain Bolt never had to think about to do it and or experience being assumed Atypical male, which of course he is not as he is so exceptional physiologically, and treated as such.

Published March 28th, 2012

Canadian Running | Former Canadian Olympian Bruce Kidd wants gender testing banned

Canadian Running | Former Canadian Olympian Bruce Kidd wants gender testing banned


February 2, 2012

Former Canadian Olympian Bruce Kidd says Canada should publicly declare its opposition to gender testing in sport before the London Games this summer.

Kidd, a professor in the faculty of physical education and health at the University of Toronto, competed in the men’s 5,000m race in the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. According to an article on Winnipeg’s Uptown Magazine website, Kidd recently gave a lecture calling for a ban on gender testing in sport.

His talk, titled “The case for gender self-determination: a defense of Caster Semenya against the International Olympic Committee’s gender testing,” argued that gender testing was created in response to a “moral panic around strong women.”

South African runner Caster Semenya created controversy in 2009 after winning the 800m at the World Track and Field Championships. The IAAF ordered her to undergo a gender verification test in response to concerns over her muscular build, deep voice and improved race times. In 2010, the organization cleared Semenya to race.

But Kidd said women’s success in sports is too often seen as unnatural and a threat to male dominance.

“When women get really, really good, their femaleness has tended to be challenged: they’re not really women, they’re dykes, they’re men pretending to be women. Something’s gotta be wrong because real women can’t be that good,” he said.

Instead, Kidd suggests sport stop separating women and men as two separate groups. He said “we need to think of humans as a spectrum of variation.”

Sports should be re-organized such that athletes would compete solely on the basis of ability, he added.

The IOC banned mandatory gender testing in 1999, but Kidd also said he is worried the media frenzy surrounding Semenya could mean the IOC might reinstate compulsory testing before the 2012 games in London.

Goto Article Published - “Click Here”

Published March 20th, 2012

2011 IAAF’s – Published Piece “HOW TO” manuel to commit your very own “Human Rights Violations Against Women” in your country. “Human Rights Violations Against Women” in your country.

2011 IAAF’s – Published Piece “HOW TO” manuel to commit your very own “Human Rights Violations Against Women” in your country.

“Download HERE” your very own FREE hard copy on “HOW TO” commit “Human Rights Violations” in your country against female athletes.

Disclaimer not included but should read;

“USE AT YOUR OWN RISK – If used, you could be subjected to litigation and prosecuted for Human Rights Violations, thus criminal charges and incarceration will ensue.

We the IAAF/IOC do not take any accountability and or liability for how the policy is used and the direct impact on the female athleteWe do not take any accountability for how the policy is used, but these are our recommendations.”

Important To Note -

The IOC and IAAF never did the actual science  on ONE SINGLE ATHLETE – all policy creation has been hypothetical – Submitted to the Canadian Centre of Ethics in Sport (CCES) (Canada’s  regulated anti-doping body) in recent days, reported results of the actual “bio-logical science”that the “science does not match the polices”. Thus anyone imposing these standards as a noted in this document by the IAAF and IOC, are in-fact committing “CRIMINAL” acts and “HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS” towards women in their given country against the athlete.
*They have absolutely NO idea what they are looking at or for.  Other than to out the athlete and suppress the athletes endocrine system into oblivion so that they are unable to compete. The idea is not inclusion as they suggest, but to ensure the athlete is disabled enough they are unable to compete.

It is bad science, combined with medically and socially unethical practices.

International experts now proving, the science does not support the policy created hypothetically by the IOC and IAAF, but speaks to the greater problems of designing “Tools of Oppression” to further oppress women’s gender through gender verification in International and Olympic sport.

These are mechanism of designed control by men towards women and women’s gender.  By ALL accounts, this is a fraudulent document and is a complete mis-representation of the facts/science and truth, putting women at enormous social risk. It is incredibly threatening what the IOC and IAAF have done, and history has shown the impact solely falls onto the athlete and having only catastrophic impact.

“It is out of control! Way to many women have been hurt  and must be finally stopped!”

Download Your Very Own FREE “HOW TO ” Manuel – “Click Here”

Published March 12, 2012

Dr. Claire Sullivan – Nov. 2011 – Gender Verification and Gender Policies in Elite Sport : Eligibility and ”Fair Play”.


__________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Claire Sullivan – Nov. 2011 – Gender Verification and Gender Policies in Elite Sport : Eligibility and ”Fair Play”.
November 2011
Journal of Sport and Social Issues 2011 35: 400 originally published online 15
Claire F. Sullivan

Abstract
Sex-segregated sports require governing bodies to clearly and accurately place
athletes in two categories, one labeled “men” and the other labeled “women.”
Sports governing bodies such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and
International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) used sex testing procedures
to attempt to verify the sex of athletes competing in women’s events. In 2004, the IOC introduced the Stockholm Consensus to regulate the inclusion of, primarily, male-to-female transsexual athletes, to compete at the Olympic Games. These governing bodies, and others, are dealing with society’s basic categorization of humans and thus are entangled in attempts to scientifically and medically define sex. This article will focus on the history and implications of gender-verification testing and gender policy on notions of “fair play” and athlete eligibility.

Download Complete Document – “Click Here”

Published February 12, 2012

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

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

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 20th 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!

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

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 – Today’s results illustrates the IOC’s historic threat to women’s sports…

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

Times Live South Africa 09 July, 2011 – Caster reveals her agony over sex test

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] approves jurisdiction – to file legal case: “Human Rights and the Oppression of Women’s Gender in International Sport”

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

World Sports Law Report(UK) – Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination

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