Sports Illustrated on Oscar Pistorius

Sports Illustrated covers Oscar Pistorius, and the latest on Semenya 

Yesterday I did a post looking at the latest research on Oscar Pistorius, which sensationally claimed that his advantage was about 10 seconds in a 400m race.  Nothing new from me today, but I do want to refer you to a great summary on the development by David Epstein of Sports Illustrated.

I had the pleasure of meeting David while in New York recently, and he covers the science, the politics and the personalities in great detail and logical thought in this article, which is well worth a read.

Of particular note is the following quote from Peter Weyand, referring to the fact that the media had, for the last 12 months, portrayed an extra-ordinarily one-sided perspective on the question of Pistorius' advantage:

"It was tough to watch Oscar on the Today Show after the [CAS] hearing saying, 'Hey, the best guys in the world have looked at this and said I don't have an advantage'," he said. "The history and evolution of it led him to believe he doesn't have an advantage, when our conclusion is he has a very clear one."

So what now?  Will the decision be reviewed?

Well, in my opinion, what Weyand has done is effectively introduce new evidence to the debate.  This was evidence which very clearly existed at the time of the CAS hearing, and should have been presented, regardless of hiding behind the technicality that the CAS didn't ask for it.  It was (and is) very much material and crucial to the case.  But the CAS created very narrow requirements of the scientific support, and that was an error (designed by the legal process and lawyers, I suspect), and Weyand and the team went along with it.

But that does not excuse the fact that evidence existed that could well have changed the outcome of the deliberations.  The facts were either buried on purpose on lost in the process.  Either way, they are out now, and the CAS and IAAF need to reconsider the entire process.  It was, to be frank, a farce, and one which now needs to be revisited.  Either Weyand's latest data should be considered as new evidence, which necessitates a new decision, or it must be recognized that evidence was not disclosed to the CAS, which renders that process a failure (and a farce), and the decision should be reviewed.  The IAAF need to act on this information, not allow it to slide.

Caster Semenya occupies more of their time

Unfortunately for the IAAF, it seems they have their hands full with another SA athlete in Caster Semenya.  We haven't covered this story in months, because frankly, it's not worth pursuing right now.

And despite much hype about announcements and press releases in the last two days, it still is not worth reporting on, because nothing has changed, hype or not.  Initially, the SA Minister of Sport's office issued a statement saying that an agreement had been reached between Semenya, the IAAF and SA Sports Minister, which would allow Semenya to keep the medal, the prize money and the performance, and that any decisions on her future would be made by her.

There was only one problem - the IAAF didn't quite agree with "the agreement".  So in the latest of what has become expected from SA sports governance, there was some nifty back-tracking, and a statement later that the initial comments were 'premature', and that agreement was still being pursued.  A matter of timing, they're saying...

Can Semenya run again?  Don't hold your breath, you won't hear it from anyone official for a long time

So, we are no better off than we were 24 hours ago.  Can Semenya run again in the future?  Nobody knows.  There is little doubt that she will keep the medal, I would be astonished if it was taken away.  We have also learned with certainty that no one will be disclosing the results of the medical tests.   This means we will not know whether the IAAF believe she should run in the future or not.  And for reasons for patient confidentiality, this is the best course of action.

However, given what has gone on for three months, and given that so many questions remain, and will remain for as long as Semenya even harbours a tiny thought of running competitively, there will have to come a time when some kind of announcement is made. 

Confidentiality, while crucial, must be weighed against the simple fact that if the facts are not disclosed, then certain sections of the media will find them.  And if they cannot find the facts, they will make them up.  This will be even more damaging to Semenya, and so at some point, in order to move on, somebody has to make an announcement.  Not necessarily of her intricate details and medical conditions, but at the very least, an assurance of the general course that has been followed.  This is fundamental to Semenya even considering competing in the future.

Short term - Semenya's decision, the IAAF waits

For now, she should be allowed to consider all her medical options, away from the political pressures and performance debates that have surrounded her.  She has a few big decisions to make, and I do not believe that the IAAF will  make any decision until Semenya has decided what medical path she wishes to follow. She has a few options:

She can choose surgery, which would remove the testes. If she does this, then the IAAF are effectively absolved of making the call, because any advantage she has would be removed, and she can run as a woman, without any questions being asked.  This would mean that the IAAF never have to cross that sticky bridge about whether she can compete again. They are no doubt praying very hard that this happens!  To repeat the earlier point, if this happens, she absolutely must make an announcement and at least inform people of it.  If she does not, then she will neither receive the support of meeting organizers, spectators, or fellow athletes.

Her other option is to choose not to have surgery, and then the ball will be in the IAAF's court. And dare I say it, we will see a repeat of the Oscar Pistorius CAS trial (or farce, as it were), where it cannot be proved beyond doubt that there is an advantage. This could become very messy indeed.  It would come down to a judgment call, is there an advantage or not, and can it be proved?  I dare say the answer is no, even if the theory is compelling.  You can easily work out the implications if this happens - does she get invited, how do her competitors react and is it sustainable?  This is the lose-lose scenario, at least as far as athletics goes.

But in terms of awarding a second gold, and a whole new set of medals, the IAAF can't do that, because they'd be showing their hand in terms of an advantage they may believe she has. They have to wait. They have to wait until she decides what she is going to do - if she chooses surgery, they may award the medals quietly, and hope this is forgotten.  If she doesn't, then it will all come to a head again next year.

Regardless, failure to make some kind of announcement, even a compromised statement on what process has been followed, will lead us to gridlock, yet again.  But then, we all knew that yesterday.   And today, we are none the wiser.

Ross