Testo is testo at the end of the day, you recover better the more testo you have in your body, you develop better the more testo you have, your body reacts better.
But atleast it's natural testo.
You can see it on her times what it does, you can just look at her and see she's more muscular than the rest.
I'm not disputing the benefits and and biological effects of testosterone, inherently, it provides an advantage for and whilst competing in athletic activity. But as
loudi94, are we going to apply the same standard to male athletes who display abnormally high variances of testosterone levels compared to their fellow competitors as well?
I also think we should be careful in brandishing those with different body types as having an automatic advantage or benefiting from inherent biological circumstances. Serena Williams in tennis is a good example of a female athlete with a body type and muscle mass that is clearly female but looks more physically imposing than some of her competitors. Other girls (and this exists in all female sports) who may have the exact same body type have instead made it clear they're more interested in cashing in on lucrative endorsements by appearing extra feminine instead of pushing themselves to their physical peaks.
How do you explain her drop in times when her testosterone was lowered?
Just saying
I think this is a fair point to raise and certainly don't have a problem with it being presented as evidence that she may have biologically inherent advantage.
It is important to take in to account and factor in outside circumstances like the personal and physical ones
KaylaJ referenced as well, though.
Unless I'm mistaken, there just hasn't been enough testing done on that, due to there being no reason to test for it until recently. It has just been a logical assumption. If testosterone helps you run faster, then having 3x as much as your competitors will help you, be you man or woman.
And we've seen that assumption proven true when Castor was asked to take pills that reduced her testosterone.
Now, the powers upstairs decided that they needed more scientific proof, and frankly...fair enough. The timing just sucks for Bishop.
You're right, the ban was instituted by the IIAF based on supposition and hypothesis that piggybacked off of the factual assumption that higher levels of testosterone do provide an inherent advantage.
I don't have a problem with that. But in the case of hyperandrogenic athletes, in order to avoid repeating the same ethical, reliability and validity mistakes the IIAF made in the 70's and 80's with their systemic chromosomal testing, it's important that any future guidelines that are instituted are completely transparent and fair to all involved. If that results in athletes like Caster Semenya having to suppress their hormones, then so be it.
It is interesting that such a double standard exists for men though. There is no upper limit to the amount of natural testosterone that is allowed to occur in a male body. Furthermore, the therapeutic use exemption exists for those with low testosterone levels and enables them to use medically prescribed steroids to augment their androgen levels.
I'm not going to have this debate on here either, but didn't they say multiple times today and yesterday that the policy was removed because of an human rights appeal?
That's to say they didn't get rid of it because they didn't think it was an advantage but because somebody in power ruled it was wrong to force the inhibition of testosterone in her body?
I believe it's an advantage and can't prove it but it's a very touchy subject because no matter what they want to do it's unfair to somebody.
KaylaJ posted the reference, but basically the IIAF was unable to produce evidence of any sort (that'd hold up in a court) proving how much of an advantage hyperandrogenic runners had over everyone else when Duttee Chand decided to take her case to them. The CAS then determined that the guideline would be suspended, pending scientific evidence brought forward over the next two years, before a decision would be made on re-instituting the policy or upholding their original decision to suspend it.
Err on the side of lack of data and political correctness.
The argument and (so far) lack of data does not mean you are correct either.
I don't think it makes me correct, what bothers me is the automatic jumping to definitive conclusions before anything can be reliably proven beyond reasonable doubt. I honestly think it's put everybody in a tough position, and can understand why the unfair complaints are being espoused on both sides, however.
As for "political correctness" factoring into any argument of this, one of the campaigns for President of the United States is not politically correct either... and look at the type of people who support him/it. I'd rather be "politically correct" than the alternative.