IAAF World Champs: 800m women, questions but few answers

Women's 800m: Savinova pips Semenya

The women's 800m event deserves a post all of its own.  I'll post on the rest of the day's action a little later, but the women's 800m gold has just been won, and it wasn't Caster Semenya winning it.  Instead, it was Mariya Savinova of Russia who won in a very quick 1:55.87, edging Semenya in the final 50m.  Semenya ran 1:56.35, easily the fastest time she has done since her Berlin triumph two years ago, when the controversy began, and Janeth Jepkosgei took bronze, reward for her efforts in setting the race up with a very fast first lap.

The race was an intriguing tactical one - Janeth Jepkosgei took the pace out hard (26.61s first 200m), and led through the bell in 55.86s, with Semenya in fifth and Savinova sixth, about 5m behind.  Savinova had clearly decided that she would mark Semenya the whole way, and as Semenya made her move down the backstraight, she followed.  600m was reached in 1:26.07, a 30-second interval for Jepkosgei, probably half a second quicker for Semenya, who was on the shoulder of the leaders and poised to move clear.

Coming off the final bend, Semenya had taken the lead, and it looked like a dead certainty that she would run away from the field.  Given the fast pace up to 600m, a repeat or even an improvement of the 1:55.45 of Berlin looked on the cards.  But Savinova held her, and with 50m to go, began to close the 3m gap that she'd held her at down the back straight.  In the final, 20m, Semenya faded and Savinova come through to win gold.

Caster Semenya - the questions will continue

Semenya again looked very relaxed, casual even, when being passed for gold in the final 20m, and I am sure that there will once again be suspicions that she "lost deliberately".  In the aftermath of her semi-final, where she looked completely dominant, that theme began to reappear, with chat forums resonating with the theory that Semenya had been losing races on purpose this season to keep the attention off her.

I am sure that the questions will continue, and Semenya will again be labeled as either a cheat (if she wins), or a 'fixer' (when she loses, as people suggest, on purpose).  I think both are slightly unfair accusations, and require some clarification and context.  Certainly, she is not a cheat - she may well have had an advantage as a result of whatever intersex condition may have led to increased testosterone levels, but that's not the same as cheating.  So again, I'd caution against "personalizing" the debate, making it about Semenya.  It's not too different from Pistorius case, actually - it's not a question of cheating, but is a question of unfair advantage.  And that's certainly a valid concern, which is why the post-Berlin process happened.

In Semenya's case, and I've written this before, I am fairly certain that in the aftermath of Berlin, she did receive some medical treatment.  There is no other explanation for the length of time that it took to clear her to run.  A legal issue would have taken weeks, maybe a few months, but to miss nearly a year can only be explained if there was medical intervention that required observation.  Also, if you look at the IAAF's latest position stand on intersex conditions, they have clearly learned from the Semenya experience, and it's no co-incidence that the statement includes mention of correcting testosterone to normal female levels.  The IAAF, I think, knew that they had to intervene, and I believe they did, setting a precedent that they then wrote into future policy.

So I'm confident in saying that there was chemical treatment to reduce the testosterone levels.  That would also explain the injury problems, the inconsistencies, and the relatively poorer performances in the last twelve months.  If that is the case, then people can of course still object to Semenya's participation on the grounds that she has "historical" advantage because of the shape of the skeleton etc.  But I believe that most advantages would diminish soon, and certainly will over more time.

My opinion is that if her testosterone levels have been within the normal range for six months, and continue to stay there, then I'd be satisfied that the advantage is no longer of concern for competition.  She would be at the extreme in certain respects, but not threatening to cross the 'line' we draw to make the distinction between male and female competition.  Of course, when she runs 1:56.35, less than a second slower than the Berlin time, people will question the effectiveness of the treatment, and that will be an interesting debate to follow in coming weeks.

Monitoring of an intervention?

The big question, however, is monitoring of those levels.  The irony is that if Semenya has received chemical treatment, then she may be one of the only athletes in the world who is required to use drugs.  And failure to use the drugs (dope) would be the problem.  If Semenya's participation is dependent on lowering the testosterone levels, then ensuring the effectiveness is crucial.

Now I don't know how this has been monitored.  Is it possible that Semenya can stop medication and return to the Berlin situation?  I don't know enough about the process, how long the treatment would last or how effective it might be (will make some enquiries with endocrinologists) and so I'll steer clear of speculating on that detail. But I believe that if the testosterone levels were raised (which is a near certainty), then the right thing was done in reducing them, and I have no objections to Semenya's participation, providing it is monitored regularly.

Semenya's racing strategy

As for the theory that Semenya is running slowly on purpose, I can appreciate why people think that, because certainly, I can't think of many athletes who look as casual as Semenya in any race situation - it is so startling how she seems to "jog" when others are failing.  But I see it differently.  There are far better ways to win a silver medal, lose a race and divert attention of yourself than what Semenya did today.  If she was deliberately trying NOT to win, then it would be far easier to come through late, especially in a race like today's where early pace is fast and the gaps are large.   Would a late charge from sixth to second (possible if you watch the race) not divert attention more than a fade into silver?  But instead, Semenya attacked the race with 250m to go, assumed the lead, ran in front for the world to see, and looked to be going away before losing gold.

That's a sure way to attract attention, not to deflect it, (for proof of this, see the forums which are already buzzing with allegations of "tanking on purpose").  I remain unconvinced about this deliberate loss argument.  I think it more likely that Semenya is just a runner who always looks casual, regardless of race situation or effort.  Back in 2008, at the World Junior Championships in Poland, Semenya finished seventh in her heat and looked the same as she did today - she seems not to have it in her style to lose form and look like she is straining.  It may be the shape of her skeleton, the large upper body and that she seems to 'lope', and I think this is more likely than the theory that she hit the front, opened up a lead in the final 50m of the World Champs, and then decided to lose the race on purpose from there.

The lack of transparency

In all this, the biggest issue has been the lack of transparency and the secrecy.  The initial leak was of course wrong, and Semenya should never have been subjected to public speculation about her biological sex.  But once out, once the world knew there was a problem, it was critical to resolve the situation, or at least reassure people that something had been done to ensure fair competition (even if that meant announcing that there was no advantage to begin with - people wouldn't have believed it, but it would be something).

That was, of course, Semenya's prerogative.  The IAAF could not announce that there was a condition and that it had been treated, because the medical information belongs to the patient.  So I felt from the outset that Semenya needed to disclose something.  Not the full details, not a complete description, but something to assure people that her participation had been cleared and perhaps that she would continue to co-operate with the authorities in the future.  Maybe even release testosterone level results today, in the same way that some cyclists have taken to making public their blood data as part of the biological passport system.

The problem we have now is that everyone knows half the story, and in the absence of facts, they will create the other half!  And, whether the result of being misinformed, ignorant or hostile, the blanks that are filled in will almost always be worse than the reality.  The end result is that Semenya loses either way, and the only way I can see this being overcome is to control the information herself.

But instead of truth, what we have is a shroud of secrecy, mostly from Semenya's management.  Her management team have made some extra-ordinary statements, including one that she was going to win the double in Daegu, even though she was not even entered into the 1500m.  They have asked for millions for sponsorship back here in South Africa.  They also hinted recently that she would be asking for money to give interviews to the media, which is astonishing.

You can't blame Semenya for her mistrust of the media, but the moronic press releases made by her PR and management teams defy belief, and only serve to heighten the focus (and negative attention) on her.  She'll find a great deal of sympathy (as she should) for her character in continuing the sport, for her resolve, which has been incredible.  But she'll also face a great deal of hostility because of how little people know about the science and the process involved.

And she can control the flow of that information, including the public perception, by talking about it.  Again, cycling has set the precedent that cyclists sometimes disclose their blood data, and Semenya could do the same.  She'll never win everyone over, but I think many will accept what has happened as the best possible resolution, provided they know it.  As it stands now, few people will because they simply don't know.

On that note, it was very good to see the smiles and interaction with her fellow competitors after this race.  It's easy to be a good sport when you're winning, but even Savinova seemed more amiable than her previous comments might have suggested.  These are good signs, not proof, but hopefully a sign that among fellow athletes, things are returning to normal.

An insoluble problem?

Ultimately, Semenya's situation asks questions for which there may be no answer.  I compared it earlier to the Pistorius case, but in truth, it's even more complex, because a) there is less scientific evidence available to quantify the Semenya advantage than for Pistorius' advantage and b) there seems to have been some treatment to correct the possible advantage.  If that has happened, and the process has been followed, then what next?  Either it didn't work, or it should be accepted.  Key there is simply disclosing it, and if that were to happen, I'd encourage people to accept the treatment and the IAAF decision.   As it stands, we don't know, so how can anyone be asked be blindly accept it?

If there was no treatment, or if the treatment has not been monitored properly, well, that's a different situation, and goes all the way back to 2009 and the debates we had about eligibility at the time.  And so I'd also love for there to be some kind of disclosure so that people at least know that this has happened (if it has, of course).  And finally, I'd hope that Semenya opens up, maybe that someone saves her from her own management team, and maybe even uses this as an opportunity to inform and educate.  Full transparency, testosterone levels, the truth.

Ross

800m: Caster Semenya & Robby Andrews

800 m musings - Caster Semenya, Robby Andrews and contrasting pacing strategies

Thanks all for the huge response to the previous post on barefoot running.  I can think of only one other topic that has produced the kind of discussion we've seen in the last few days, and those were our posts on Caster Semenya, who I discuss a little more below.

Some of the comments and discussion on the barefoot running issue were extremely enlightening and if you're eager to learn even more, then going through that discussion is as enlightening as any article, so thanks again and do take time to browse the discussion if you haven't already - we'll outsource it as a post all by itself!

800m - Caster Semenya's performances under the spotlight

Today though, I wanted to discuss the 800m event, specifically to highlight two really great talking points in the last week or so, beginning with Caster Semenya.

Semenya was always going to be one of the most scrutinized athletes in the world, her return to competition after a gender controversy bringing human interest, athletic interest, and scientific interest angles.

Ours is all three, but primarily the scientific and athletic, and so we've been watching closely to see how she performs now that she's had a full off-season to prepare and build to competitive shape.  Her comeback was actually in 2010, and she even won a few races in Europe, but that season was hampered by sporadic training caused by injury and the doubts over whether she would be able to compete.  The same can't be said now - she's known since this time last year that she would be eligible to run.

So her 2011 performances were always going to be the subject of discussion.  This situation became inevitable when Semenya, her lawyers and the IAAF decided that no public announcement of what happened in the aftermath of Berlin would be made.  The result was that the whole world knew there was a question mark, but it was followed by speculation and assumption, rather than an answer, even a basic one.

Speculation no matter what the result - the catch-22 for Semenya

As a result, every race for Semenya would be followed by one of two responses.  Either she would win convincingly, and the world's athletics followers would say "She has an unfair advantage, they obviously didn't change anything, and now thanks to her lawyers, no other women can even compete".  Or, if she didn't win her races, the world would say "This proves that she must have had surgery or treatment".   A catch-22 for Semenya.

But now a third response has appeared - she doesn't win, and everyone says she is losing on purpose.  And that's been the case after her first two races - the came second in Eugene a week ago, and third in Oslo on Thursday, and the talk on athletics websites is that she is deliberately losing races so as to avoid attention and further discrimination. 

No matter how you look at it, it's an impossible situation to be in.  And from the observer point of view, it's similarly difficult.  It would be great to just leave it alone and let her run, but the way things unfolded, that is basically impossible, because people want to know that they are watching a fair race, a competitive event.

So the current speculation was inevitable and this was exactly the reason we argued many times that she (through her lawyers) needed to make some kind of statement to at least assure people that something had changed.  Not the full medical details, those are hers and should be confidential.  But something along the lines of "I have worked with the IAAF and a team of medical professionals over the last six months, and all parties are satisfied with the resolution and progress, and that I can now compete fairly as a female.  I look forward to running and and competing again".

The IAAF could have made a similar statement, supporting that their experts were confident that she no longer had an unfair advantage, and perhaps some of the speculation would have been dealt with.  It would not have removed doubt or controversy, but at least there wouldn't be a shadow hanging over every performance, doubt that she's cheating by running too SLOWLY when she could dominate the event.  And if you think this is an isolated opinion, it's not, I suspect many people are wondering "why is that athlete wearing red trying NOT to win?"

I don't know the answer to this - I would find it difficult to believe that any athlete would deliberately finish second when they could win by a small margin (in a relatively slow time of 1:58.xx too - it's not as though she'd be running 1:54 to win every race).  And to finish third when they could finish second?  I find it difficult to believe, so I'd almost want to give her the benefit of the doubt.  Also, I'm not sure she or her team is that calculating, but perhaps I'm naive.  She is currently 4 seconds off her best, around 3.5%, which is a big distance off your best.  But that could mean one of three things - training hasn't gone well, she's running slowly on purpose, or she had treatment and the 1:54 from 2009 is now never going to be possible.

Also, I've seen her race BEFORE the controversy, and she looked pretty much the same as she does now, even when losing.  For example, in her World Junior Championships in Poland in 2008, she finished 7th in her heat, and looked much the same as she does now.  It may be that she just looks like that, that she never seems to be straining - short, chopped stride, no major upper body rotation - it would easily look like someone wasn't working hard enough.

But, then I see her race in Eugene and Oslo, and I can appreciate what people are saying - she led for 700m in Oslo and then in the final straight, just seemed to coast through to a third place finish.

But, you can see for yourselves if you haven't already.

First, here is the race in Oslo:




And here is the race in Poland, 2008.  As an aside, note the difference in her physical development from 2008 to when she won the World Title in 2009 in Berlin.  Truth is, if it hadn't been for controversies about gender, there'd have been a lot of people speculation about doping, such is the cynical age of elite sport we live in.



Your thoughts?  No matter what one believe, it's a difficult situation - the more I've written about this, and spoken about it, the more I've realized the problem of intersex conditions in sport is basically insoluble - there's no solution to satisfy everyone.  Of course, Semenya's case was handled so poorly and unfairly for her, and her response to it has been admirable.  But for the sport, the questions have to be asked.

Robby Andrews - great finish, interesting contrast in pacing

On a more racing-specific note, here is a fantastic men's 800m from the NCAA championships over the weekend.  It's fast, and competitive, one of the better finishes you'll see in an 800m race.  Watch the clip before reading on, spoilers to follow!



So the interesting thing for me is the pacing strategy - I'm biased, but I read quite a bit into it!  And the guy who ends up second, Charles Jock, runs a first 400m in 49.85s.  Super quick, and followed by a second lap in 54.90s.

Now that's a huge positive split - 5 seconds, which I don't believe is optimal.  Robby Andrews, who catches him, runs the first lap in a low 51s, which means his second lap is around 53.5 seconds.  That's a far more reasonable balance to the race, much more in line with how the best 800m performances have been recorded.

But the point I'd make is that Robby Andrews' super quick finish (which is amazing, don't get me wrong) only appears that fast because the rest of the field was far too fast early on.  To give you more numbers, Jock was recorded at 1:17.1 at 600m.  That means after a first lap of 49.85s, his next 200m took 27.3s. And his final 200m took 29.65s - he was getting progressively slower.

So was Andrews, to be honest, and it's a safe bet that Andrews was a little quicker than 27s to the 600m mark.  But then Andrews finishes with a final 200m of about 26.5 seconds (assuming he's ± 1 second down on Jock at 600m), compared to Jock's final 200m of around 27.65 seconds.

In other words, Andrews just slowed down the least, and that one second gap which looked so enormous at 200m to go, was overcome as a result of a better overall pacing strategy, combined with a huge slow down for the rest of the field.

Pacing strategy is not a precise science, at least with the knowledge we currently have.  But a + 5 second differential in an 800m suggests to me too fast a first lap, whereas the + 2 for Andrews is a much more controlled, and probably closer to optimal, performance.

But a great race, nevertheless.  Can Andrews go faster?  Probably.  Can Charles Jock?  Definitely, because he should have a big improvement there if he gets the pace right!

But more on pacing in the series coming up when I'll share the video of my presentation on the subject from the recent ACSM!

Enjoy the Diamond League!
Ross

David Rudisha 800m WR and Semenya returns

Video of Rudisha's 800m World Record

As mentioned in yesterday's post, David Rudisha of Kenya has broken the 800m World Record.  And as promised, here is a video for those who might have missed it!



So yesterday I wrote about the importance of that first lap being around 49 seconds, based on the pacing of the event.  I'll look at that in more detail as soon as I can - right now, I'm heading back from Poznan to Munich and then spending a week in the Alps, so bear with me but we'll look at pacing in the 800m in due course!

Caster Semenya returns to Berlin

In other 800m news, Caster Semenya returned to the blue track of Berlin where she first came to prominence last year by winning the world title.  As everyone is by now aware, that win catalysed an inquest into her sex with the IAAF performing sex verification testing on her.  It later transpired that Athletics South Africa had in fact done similar tests before the World Champs, but decided that she should run anyway.

Then, 11 months later, and for any number of reasons, the IAAF eventually reached a decision that she was cleared to compete as a woman.  Did this mean that they'd reviewed those tests from August 2009 and concluded that nothing was wrong?  Did it mean that her legal team and the IAAF had been locked in an arm-wrestle over human rights which ultimately saw the IAAF concede that they could not prevent her from running?  Or did it mean that medical intervention had taken place over the preceding 9 months (in 2010) to clear her to compete, potentially with a reduced advantage?

Of course, no one knows and so we're left speculating, and of course, every performance will add to this speculation.  Yesterday, she won in Berlin, against a relatively weak field, in a time of 1:59.90.

Quite what to make of this time, I'm not sure.  Given the three options above (nothing wrong, a legal battle, or medical treatment), we're none the wiser.  I will say that an elite athlete should be able to approach their best racing form within about 3 months of starting training, even after a very long layoff, as she is alleged to have taken.  On that note, it's worth pointing out that up until about May, her coach was saying that her training was going "very well", that she was close to ready for the European season.  Then in May and June, it changed, and suddenly she'd lost conditioning.

Now she's back and no one really knows whether that time, a full four seconds off her best, is reflective of a lack of training, or some kind of intervention which would, in theory slow her down.  She is getting faster, of course - three outings this year, three seasons bests and so perhaps by October and Commonwealth Games, she'll be back to mid 1:50 performances.

Competitor reactions - public vs non-public views, and human rights

The other sub-plot here is her competition, and their perception of it.  And I read an article this morning with some interesting quotes from Jemma Simpson of England.  Here are some:

Jemma Simpson of Britain, who finished fourth Sunday in 2:00.57, said that although she felt sorry for Semenya because of the scrutiny she had endured in the last year, other competitors had been slighted in the search for justice for Semenya.

“It’s obviously a human rights issue, but human rights affect everyone in the race, not just one person,” Simpson said. “And for the rest of the field, it gets ignored.”

When asked what the fair solution would be, Simpson said: “I think every competitor has got to be considered in this kind of thing, and it’s just like, maybe for the spectators it’s fair, but we spend our whole lives trying to do this. We train hard, and it can just be taken away from you.”

Simpson conceded that the issue was “really tough” and that Semenya had a right to privacy, but she said it would be easier to accept the I.A.A.F.’s decision to allow Semenya to compete if there had been some public explanation for the ruling’s rationale. When the I.A.A.F. cleared Semenya to compete as a woman in July, it did not release test results or provide details of its methodology.

And that last paragraph is the whole point - some transparency, not a violation of medical confidentiality, but just some brief explanation, would have managed much of the speculation and once that first leak occurred, it was always going to come down to this kind of perception.  There are more interesting quotes in this article, expressing much the same view, including some very pointed statements by Diane Cummins.  Where I disagree is Cummins' final contention that Semenya is guaranteed to be dominant - she may well be, but I'll wait a little while longer before confirming that, given the doubt over training versus some kind of medical treatment.  She may find a ceiling at 1:57 this year, 1:58 next and so forth.  Only time will reveal that.

Simpson also says the following: "Publicly, everyone's happy. Non-publicly, people have their own personal issues with it. You're not going to say in the media what you feel deep down."

And therein lies the illusion.  And frankly, I have to agree with the guys at Letsrun.com, who today said "We must say that while we feel bad for Semenya, we feel worse for her competitors."  The debate will rage on, and time will tell, in more ways than one!

Ross

Caster Semenya cleared? Is this finally the verdict?

Caster Semenya to return to competition: Reports from the IAAF

It is being reported that Caster Semenya, South Africa's 800m World Champion, will be given the all clear to return to the track.  Before getting carried away at the conclusion of what seemed a never-ending saga, let's remember that on no fewer than three occasions, the SA government have organized triumphant press conferences only to cancel them at the last minute to delay the announcement further.

However, on this occasion, a reputable source, the Telegraph, are reporting that the IAAF will make the announcement and not the SA government, which gives one more confidence that perhaps, this is the final decision.  The story from the Telegraph can be read here.

If it is indeed the case, then it will bring to an end 10 months of speculation, rumour, accusation, and denial.  We've tried to follow the story, from its beginning in August last year, and there is not too much more to be said about why it has taken this long, and what may have happened over the last 10 months.

In the report by the Telegraph, I feel the most telling paragraph is this one:

"Her coach, Michael Seme, has admitted that she has not been training at 100 per cent due to the uncertainty over her future, while it is also believed that she has been undergoing medical treatment for an inter-sex condition."

That alleged treatment, which I also believe to have taken place, holds the key to why this has taken so long.  The IAAF, you'll recall us discussing before, find themselves in a difficult situation of having to avoid discrimination against ANY athlete (not only Semenya, as the SA sports fraternity wanted to believe).  So their obligation was to ensure equality of competition without discrimination.  And there are a range of issues about this, from social to cultural, even religious, all of which have been had in various forms over the last 10 months.

However, from a sporting point of view (and my bias here is sporting performance), the requirement is to manage the case to ensure that all athletes receive fair competition.  Therefore, treatment, to lower the testosterone levels and attempt to reduce any advantage as a result of high testosterone, would have had to take place, and that may be the reason this has taken so long to resolve.

Legal Tug of War

Because make no mistake, actually diagnosing the condition is a relatively simple procedure.  Knowing what to do about it, not as simple.  So over the last 8 or 9 months, the issue has probably been how to treat (if at all) to ensure competition.  The legal teams on both sides would have had their requirements.  I've no doubt at all that the IAAF would have been pushing for surgical removal of testes, where Semenya's camp would probably have resisted this.  The IAAF will probably have pushed for surgery as a key requirement for Semenya to continue her career in athletics - I'm not sure of the legal issues around this, but that is likely to have been their desire.  Semenya's team may have argued against this as an infringement on her right to decide on her medical treatment, and also to compete without that surgery. 

The eventual compromise may have been medical/hormonal treatment, and the process of the treatment and monitoring the response to that treatment would take time to track.  Hence the delay.

Will the details of the process be announced?  Or does speculation continue?

Of course, this is all speculation, and hopefully, further announcements will clear it up.  Here again, we have another fierce debate - should more detail be disclosed, or does "medical confidentiality" dictate that no announcement is made?  I've felt since the beginning that once the first leak happened, it would be in Semenya's best interests announce as much detail as she could without compromising herself too much.  In fact, if I think about it, the more she discloses the better, even at the risk of giving away too much information.  Better to control the facts than allow them to be made up or to sow mistrust and suspicion that it was a 'technicality' that got her cleared.  Simply returning to competition with no announcement will create mistrust and another round of speculation as the rumour mill begins to spin.  On the other hand, one can appreciate Semenya's desire for privacy, but this will be interesting to follow. 

The impact of reduced testosterone on performance?

The other very interesting thing to observe is whether Semenya's performance levels will remain where they were.  This is what most athletics followers will now be looking at.  If it is true that her testosterone levels have been reduced, even chemically, then it will certainly have an impact on performance, mostly because of the effect it will have on her training adaptation.

Athletes use testosterone as a drug primarily because it enables a higher level of training performance and more rapid recovery post-training.  The combination of the two equals improved performance.  A removal of testosterone would impair both direct responses and recovery capacity, and I feel that the recovery is the more crucial of the two in the larger scheme of things.  The immediate effect of 'testosterone withdrawal', in an athletic sense, is to reduce the level of training the athlete can manage without either running into injury or overtraining.

Therefore, if Semenya is to return, what is more telling will be how she adjusts her training, and not necessarily her race performances, because these are the result of her training performances, and whether her coach is able to manage an athlete who may very well be going through substantial physiological changes.  That will be the first big hurdle to overcome.

The East Germans had previously calculated that a doping programme (primarily with anabolic hormones, of which testosterone is one) could improve performance in shot put by 17% in one season!  That is not an acute effect, mind you.  Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the training that is done while doping and benefiting from higher testosterone levels.  The east Germans also worked out that doping was worth between 5 and 10 seconds in an 800m event for women.  In fact, for those who are interested in this research, you can read that post, based on the secret documents uncovered by Werner Franke, here.

Is the "loss of performance" when reducing anabolic hormone levels the same as the gain from increasing them?  Honestly, I don't know.  I don't think anyone does, and this case has no precedent.  So there are no answers.  Some of the physiological and anatomical changes induced by testosterone during puberty will never be reversed, others will.  How performance, the sum of all these factors, is affected, remains to be seen.

Of course, all of this is speculation, because we still don't know the details.  And so we're back again to the issue of whether anything will be said, other than that "she is clear to compete".

The next steps will be interesting.

Ross

Caster Semenya - Verdict Imminent

No one wins wars, Mr Minister

Later today, it is being reported, Caster Semenya will hold a press conference to announce, in all likelihood, that she will be returning to the sport having been cleared to compete as a woman.  This brings, potentially, to a close, many months of what must have been serious negotiation and behind-the-scenes activity to discuss whether the 800m world champion can compete legally as a female.

My opinion on this has been stated many times, and I believe that the women's 800m event will become the least watched of all events if Semenya is going to compete with the same dominance she showed in Berlin.  It is quite clear that she will be unbeatable, and should in fact knock up to seconds off a drug-heavy world record that has stood for 27 years.  Because TV viewers and followers of the sport know this, her performances are guaranteed to be met with huge skepticism.  People, who are mostly decent, will also acknowledge that she has been through a very trying time, an incredibly unfair scrutiny that no one deserves.  That sympathy will not extend to her IF she continues to dominate the sport with what seems clear is a hormonal 'advantage' as a result of some condition we may never know about, but which seems to push her into the grey area between male and female, if not right across it.

The reason I say "if" she continues to dominate is that I am not convinced that some medical action has in fact not been taken.  I believe it has, and I believe this has been the source of the delay.  If this was simple to dismiss and to allow her to compete, then the IAAF would have done so in October last year, because they'd have known the results of the tests by then, in great detail.  Thinking about it would not take a further 8 months.  Getting expert opinion would not take 8 months.  Even dealing with bombastic and aggressive politicians, and lawyers, would not take 8 months.

So the delay can only be put down to negotiating some kind of compromise between allowing Semenya to compete right away, and wanting surgical intervention to remove testes (allegedly present).  The IAAF wanted the latter, the lawyers the former.  The compromise may have been medical/chemical and I suspect her response to it has been the delay.

I read a very interesting interview with one of the promoters of a massive Diamond League meeting, in which he said that if Semenya was cleared by the IAAF, then it would be because the authority was sure that her participation would be on fair grounds.  The long delay, I believe, represents their efforts to ensure fair grounds. 

What will be very interesting then is to see how she races.  Will she be as untouchable, and how will her level evolve over time?  Depending on what she announces later today, we may not know enough to even understand what is happening - there have been many rumours around other athletes, most notably Pamela Jelimo, who has dropped dramatically down in level since her 2008 dominance.  But no one knows the reason, there is only speculation.

If Semenya slows down a similar amount, then the rumours will be far more targeted and specific.  There will be no doubt among athletics followers about the cause of a poor performance.  She will be scrutinized and questioned for the wrong reasons.  And it will be interesting to see if she reveals anything at all to give some kind of 're-assurance', or whether she will simply say "I'm cleared, now I'm running", without any revelation of the last 9 months of work.

The global reaction - fellow athletes, meeting organizers, sports followers

One other thing that will happen, here in South Africa, is that politicians who had found other meaningless sports to pursue (for example, the Springbok logo) after the initial hype died down will now re-emerge and proclaim "victory".  The Minister of Sport, who very diplomatically declared World War 3 on the IAAF for questioning Semenya, has already said that "we won".

Sadly, Mr Minister, nobody wins in these "wars", and time will show that for Semenya as well, as her career is destined to go one of two ways.  She continues to run, faster than any woman in history, and her success builds and builds resentment among competitors and fans, skepticism among fans, and a career that is forever blighted by the great asterisk alongside performances.  You may believe this to be victory - let's find out in 10 years.

Perhaps it will happen this year - a big question remains:  What will her competitors do?  I've said before, I would stand together and simply refuse to race her unless full explanation of what has transpired is provided to me.  I believe they would be entitled to know this, because their livelihood depends on their success, and the IAAF's management of this issue may be undermining their potential success.  They might reasonably ask for justification, failing which, they refuse to run.  And if they do, what do meeting organizers do?  Does Semenya get the big invitations?  Probably.  Or does everyone bow down to the IAAF and simply accept that they will be running for silvers for the next 8 years?  I don't see this as a victory, I must confess.

Or, on the other hand, she never reaches those same levels, and follows the career path of Pamela Jelimo - unbeatable to unwinning in one season.

No victory there - but congratulations.

Perhaps the diplomatic, humble, professional approach (not three words typically found in SA Sports management/administration, admittedly) would be to say "We are relieved and satisfied at the conclusion reached by the IAAF.  We fully respect their authority over their sport, and regret the animosity with which this situation was initially handled.  However, now that we have worked with the authorities, we are proud to support the efforts of Caster Semenya as she continues her running career.  She has managed the situation bravely and with dignity, and her wishes to run should be respected by all those in international athletics.  We wish her well, and trust that she'll be fully supported by others, just as she receives our full support".  I really wish that the italicized section above was actually a quote.  Sadly, it's a figment of my imagination...

The positive - social, human and gender rights

Finally, I must point out that there are social, human rights and other issues in play here, as Prof Tim Noakes alluded to when he was interviewed on the matter.  And from those points of view, allowing Semenya to compete is a step forward.  Those people, I have found over the last 9 months, usually have zero interest in the sport, and view it only as a platform for other matters.  This is of course acceptable - each to their own.  However, my thoughts in this post are performance related, and I speak from within the sport of athletics on performance.  I realize many are addressing this from another point of view.

Time will tell what comes of this.  I look forward to seeing Semenya run again this year, out of interest in what she will achieve.  I look forward to watching her break a 27 year old world record, slowing down over the final 100m as she does so.  I do not look forward to the global reaction that awaits from within the sport's athletes and ultimately, its followers.

Football continues

Football fever continues later.  I gave a presentation last night in Cape Town and later today, I will start deconstructing that talk and continue with our series on The Science of Football!

Join us then!

Sports news and sports science in the news

Sports variety – tennis insights, athletics anticipation and Caster Semenya viewpoints

It’s been a frantic few weeks in the world of sport. Sadly, our schedules have prevented us from doing it justice! I am now in the UK for two weeks, and likely to have as little time, but while I had a moment on a flight, I thought I’d recap on some of the bigger sports events of late, and some sports science/management issues that struck me.

Tennis – the red clay and Nadal back on top and finally, some analysis using technology

The clay-court tennis season is building to its usual Roland Garros climax, and it has been a return to 2008 in the men’s game. Rafael Nadal had a relatively poor season in 2009. His year began unraveling in Madrid last year, where he lost convincingly to Roger Federer before going on to lose for the first time ever in Paris. This year, there was to be no repeat, as he beat Federer in straight sets to win in Madrid, becoming the first man to win three consecutive Masters Series events (having won Monte Carlo and Rome earlier this year).

What I found most interesting was an analysis shown during the final using tennis’ Hawkeye system. It showed where Nadal’s groundstrokes were landing in Federer’s half of the court, and where Federer was standing when hitting his strokes in return. This is data that is obtained from the Hawkeye system, and it is an illustration of just how powerful this technology could be if it was used to enhance the viewing experience.

Alas, this was the only time I’ve seen such an analysis, and what it showed was a comparison of Nadal’s shot depth in 2009, when he was beaten by Federer, and 2010, when he won at the same event. To sum up, in 2009, 32% of Nadal’s shots were landing inside the service box. As a result of this lack of depth to Nadal’s shots, Federer was hitting most of his shots from on or inside the baseline. Jump to 2010, and only 18% of Nadal’s shots were landing inside the service area, and Federer was playing from 1m behind the baseline, and up to 3 m behind the baseline at least a third of the time.

Was this a difference caused by Nadal’s relative fitness levels (last year his knee problem was hampering his mobility and power), or was it that Federer was either more negative or off his game on the day? Nadal has certainly worked on his game – I often felt (guided by good commentary, I must admit) that Nadal had a problem of going for too much topspin, which tended to drag the ball down short. He also fell into defensive play easily, especially in pressure situations. This year, there has been a clear effort to play more directly and maintain the depth, and perhaps this is responsible for the shift in Sunday’s final.

You’d need more data to investigate this fully, but I found the analysis fascinating. I wish it were done more. I actually emailed the company Hawkeye last year to ask whether I could obtain some of the data, I offered to analyze it for them. They wrote back to say they don’t keep it. Which is clearly not true, given what they showed on Sunday. Their lack of vision of their own potential is tennis fans’ loss.

Athletics – Diamond league kicks off

On a more positive note regarding broadcast and sport, the Diamond League began in Doha last week, and the TV package was definitely improved. Shorter, fewer breaks, and very helpfully, real-time graphics showing who was in the groups of the middle-distance races made watching it more interesting. Particularly for those who don’t follow the sport, watching middle and long-distance events can be daunting, but to “personalize” the athletes, simply by flashing up graphics of where they are in the race at say 1,000m helps a great deal. It’s a simple thing, but hopefully a sign of more to come.

On the track, the action was hot. So were conditions – up above 30 degrees, but the performances didn’t seem too affected. Eliud Kipchoge produced a 12:51.21 over 5,000m, maybe the most impressive performance, given the heat. David Rudisha of Kenya continued to show impressive form, running a 1:43.00 in the 800m for men. On the other end of the distance spectrum, Asafa Powell was impressive in his heat (9.75s) and the final (9.81s with a very poor start) to win the men’s 100m. Powell was impressive, but I was struck by what I felt was a peculiar running style. He seemed to really be reaching out for the landing in front of him. Imagine a horse doing dressage and kicking out in front and you have the idea. Maybe Powell has analyzed Bolt’s 100m races, and noted that Bolt takes 41 steps while everyone else was taking 44, and he has developed a plan to increase his stride length! I’m being partly facetious here, but certainly Powell does seem to have changed something mechanically. His hamstring contraction at the end of the float phase and during the first moments of ground contact must be enormously powerful to the leg back before toe-off. Or am I alone in noticing this?

Powell’s performance was followed only 2 days later by a Tyson Gay 19.41 s world record in the rarely run 200m straight race in Manchester. Reports are that Gay ran the 100m from 50m to 150m of the race in 8.72 seconds, which is about as fast as Bolt when he broke the 150m record last year. Gay also broke 45 seconds for 400m recently, becoming the first man in history to crack 10 seconds for the 100m, 20 seconds for the 200m and 45 seconds over 400m, and he is clearly in great shape at the start of 2010.

The third member, and the most illustrious of this sprinting triumvirate, Usain Bolt, is in action tomorrow. He has already reportedly run a 8.79 s relay leg (reportedly) and so all three big guns seem ready to fire this year! Already, only a few weeks in, and 2010 is looking like a magnificent year for sprinting!

Caster Semenya – Tim Noakes’ view

On another athletics note, the Caster Semenya story is drifting slowly and mercilessly towards its own climax. First, Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, announced that results were certain to be released by the end of June (this was not news as much as it was confirmation of what has been said for a while now).

And then just this last weekend, Prof Tim Noakes, who I have the highest respect for as my PhD supervisor and now employer, was reported to have said that Semenya was the victim of an “image management campaign”, and that she should be allowed to compete since her advantage did not make her as fast as men.

He was quoted as saying “As many as eight intersex women may have been expelled from athletics in the past and I gather that they were warned that if they made a fuss, they would be exposed. So it seems it's not about athletic advantage, it's about keeping the Olympics free of unwanted complications. It sends the message that women must do what men say and if the eight athletes had to be sacrificed, so be it, which I find very disturbing,"

He goes on to say “My view is that Caster Semenya should be allowed to run. She is not running as fast as men nor is she running as fast as some other women. If she was running 1:41, then we would have a problem. There are some genetic variants allowed in sport. I would argue, for example, that Usain Bolt is genetically different. If these genetic variants are linked to gender, then so be it”.

I agree with Noakes on the image management issue and that athletes may have been threatened before. The management of the whole intersex issue has been an absolute disaster for sports authorities. There is without doubt an agenda to keep the image of the sport “clean” (whatever that means – it’s open to interpretation). Whether it is driven by male chauvinism, financial pressure, archaic thinking, I don’t know. I would say, somewhat in defence of the IAAF and IOC, that if they did not act, then they would undoubtedly face objections to Semenya’s participation, and many (possibly most) would come from women. So the IAAF, as the custodian of the sport, is in a difficult situation, where they have to act on behalf all parties, and from this perspective, it is very much about athletic advantage because that would be the basis for the challenges and complaints by others. As many would be unhappy with inaction as are currently unhappy, though for different reasons, which some will disregard as trivial.

As for the second issue, Semenya’s eligibility to compete, I have already written a great deal on this topic, in particular the argument that any genetic advantage that Semenya possesses is analogous to that possessed by an Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. To read that post, click here. My position is that the two are dissimilar because we don’t compete in categories of fast-twitch fiber or enzyme type or lung volume or foot size (or whatever you believe makes Bolt and Phelps the world record holders). We do however compete as males and females, and thus the distinction between the two should be defended. A genetic advantage that pushes an individual from one category into another is not the same as one which moves an individual up or down within the same category.

Consider basketball. People are largely born to play it, because if you’re 1.70m tall, your chances are slim. But we don’t compete in categories of height, and so within the “open population”, we accept that height is advantageous. If we had a category for under 1.70m, then the line would have be enforced, and a genetic “abnormality” causing someone to be tall would exclude them from competing at the lower level. The same goes for male and female.

So I respectfully disagree with the assertion that gender variants linked to gender are acceptable. And this is fine, because everyone is entitled to a position and I certainly don’t think that Prof Noakes is wrong. This is not a matter for which there is overwhelming proof (even the PIstorius controversy has mountains of proof compared to this). Nor is his opinion an isolated one – many will agree with it. I just don’t see the issue that way.

I also would not agree that there is no problem with her participating, just because she is running slower than 1:41 (which is the men’s record, by the way). My position here is that she runs against women, and so whether an advantage pushes her into the men’s range is irrelevant. The issue is that it pushes her out of the women’s range, and well into a higher percentile of men’s performance than women can achieve, without suspicious circumstances.

As for not running faster than some other women, if you look at the history of women’s 800m running, and you see some of the women who have run 1:54 or faster, you’ll appreciate that only women with massive amounts of testosterone (that is, dopers) get to those levels. I am sure Prof Noakes and I will debate this one in due course, and I look forward to it! We’ve discussed it before, and so I wasn’t surprised by the quotes, just as I’m sure he knows my views. This kind of debate is the fuel of research, after all. I suspect the difference in opinion is because I am coming from an athletics paradigm, where he is speaking from outside it. Nevertheless, an intriguing viewpoint.

Upcoming events

As I said upfront, I’m in London, with the SA Sevens team for the last two events of the International Rugby Board Sevens Series. At some point, when the science and sports world is a little quiet, I will look at the commercial failures of rugby to capitalize on the Sevens product, and what a shame it is that the Unions and the International body have failed to recognize that they posses rugby’s equivalent of 20-over cricket. It would revolutionize the game, but for the lack of desire and vision of those driving it forward commercially. Meanwhile, the 15-man version of rugby is suffering through a recession of interest and money, based on TV figures and financial reports, as clutter and competition detract from rugby’s following everywhere but in the UK and South Africa.

Failure to act may bring to those exactly what is deserved for inaction, but that is for another day, another post, on the management of sport.

There’s the FIFA 2010 World Cup to look forward to – 24 days to go, and much science to be discussed there. Plus, with the Diamond League now on the go, athletics will take centre stage!

Apologies again for the snippets today, but hopefully one of the three stones hits a bird!

Chat soon!

Ross

Let male and female compete together

The abolition of gender categories in sport:  a sound argument?

As a follow up to my earlier post (see below), I am currently reading a book called "Genetic technology and sport: ethical questions".  And Chapter 15 of this book is titled "The genetic design of a new Amazon".

Below is an excerpt from that chapter.  I'm rewriting it, word for word, to build on what I wrote about in my earlier post regarding Caster Semenya.  I'd love some debate, and I know you would too!

"We have argued that it (gender categories in sport) should be abolished.  Women and men should compete against one another on equal terms on sports arenas.  The reasons for giving up sexual discrimination within sports, and for allowing individuals of both sexes to compete with each other is simple.  In sports it is crucial that the best person wins.  The sexual differences are simply irrelevant.  If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete, this female athlete should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete.  If she cannot beat a certain male athlete, so be it.  If the competition was fair, she should be able to face the fact that he was more talented.  It is really as simple as that.  Sexual discrimination within sports does not have any better rationale than sexual discrimination in any other fields of our lives". - Tamburrin and Tannsjo, Genetic technology and sport

Your thoughts?  Let's throw that open to women everywhere and get their take on it, I'd love to hear.  One thing that strikes me is that we spend a lot of time "telling" and not enough "listening", so I'd love to hear an objective view on the above paragraph.

The debate - can women compete against men in athletic events?

The reason I make this point again, is that this scenario is invited by allowing Caster Semenya to compete as a female on the grounds that she may have a "natural" physiological advantage as a result of an intersex condition.  I'd love your thoughts - mine are expressed at the end of my previous post.

But, I would hope that the implications of this on the results from the next hundred years of competition would be obvious to everyone - no female athlete makes the top 500 of any athletic, swimming event each year, and so the chance that "a female athlete will perform better than a male athlete" at the top level of competition (Olympic Games) is basically zero.

The counter-points debated

But there's more to say on this.  The chapter continues to say the following, and this time, I've put my immediate thought in maroon alongside each argument, which I've put in italics:

"Many arguments have been readily called forth in objection to our proposal. Here are some of them:

1. Sexual discrimination within sports is no different that the use of, say, different weight classes in certain sports, intended to make the result less predictable. We use sexual discrimination because we seek, to use Warren Fraleigh's term, "the sweet tension of uncertainty of outcome". Comments on this one below... 
2. If women and men compete, and women defeat men, then this will cause violent responses from men. So we had better retain the discrimination. This point is, sadly, a possibility. But it's not grounds for eliminating discrimination. Fortunately, perhaps, it would never happen in athletics at the top level. 
3. If we give up sexual discrimination in sports, then probably all women will find, because on average they perform poorly in comparison with men, that they are always defeated by some men. This will be discouraging for women in general and female athletes in particular.   This is exactly the point, except the authors of this piece haven't recognized that it's not a question of "average", but rather that the best female is more than 10% behind the best male - 12 minutes in a marathon (and 20 for most of the top women at the moment), more than 1 second in a 100m race, more than 1 meter in the long jump. These are massive differences, but more on this below.

"The first argument is mistaken. When we discriminate in some sports such as wrestling between different weight-classes, this has to do with the fact that weight is a decisive factor in wrestling, that directly affects the outcome of the competition. But there exist no sports where sex is a decisive factor in that sense: sex is only indirectly related to the outcome of a sports contest."

This is only partly true. Yes, sex is only "indirectly" responsible for the outcome. But it's influence is so large, according to my analysis, that the outcome would all but be decided by it. To repeat (apologies for repetition), the very best women in history do not make the top 500 performances in track and field athletics PER YEAR. In swimming, it may be narrower, but consider that Michael Phelps is a full 26 seconds ahead of the women's world record holder in a 400m medley and you get the idea.   

The result in athletics and swimming is too strongly influenced by sex for the ethical position argued here to hold. I would argue, for example, that a wrestler in the lighter weight division is MORE likely to have a chance of beating a heavyweight than the very best woman has of beating the very best man. Some may disagree.


Perhaps freed of "discrimination", women would narrow this gap.  This is what Tamburrini and Tannsjo argue.  But to leap up from outside the top 500 to challenging even the top 100 - physiologically, that's a stretch of the imagination.  

Tamburrini and Tannsjo, incidentally, continue to argue that in the face of the statistical evidence that no woman will outperform the best men (which they do eventually acknowledge), there should be genetic engineering to help women catch up with men, and that where possible, this should be desirable.  In otherwords, women should seek out genetic engineering to be able to remain competitive in sport!  I'm not sure what to make of this...

Conclusion

I'm going to leave it at that, and invite debate.  I can imagine I may face some hostile emails, and that's OK.  I believe the evidence speaks loudly enough, and I'd encourage people to look into it - look back at historical performances and ask where the women champions would finish in the men's events, and it should become clear.

The reality is that separation of male and female categories, while termed "sexual discrimination" by these ethicists, is actually fundamental to equality of sport.  To apply this to the case of Caster Semenya, what it means is that our categorization of males and females, as flawed and suspect as it may be, demands that the line be defended.  Or removed altogether, and then above is the situation.  But to commit only halfway and permit participation when the gender line is blurred (and seriously, how often does this happen?) is neither here nor there, and damaging for the sport, and the other female athletes in the event.

Physiologically, there is simply too much to overcome.  And I don't believe that's a bad thing.

Ross

Semenya: Will announce her results

Caster Semenya: Will announce her results, and thoughts on natural vs unfair advantages 

It should come as no surprise that latest reports are indicating that Caster Semenya will release the results of her sex verification tests herself.  This was reported in local news yesterday, according to an Athletics South Africa (ASA) administrator.

This was an inevitable step, something that we've been suggesting all along - Semenya, assuming she is cleared to compete by the IAAF (on certain conditions, perhaps) has little choice, because her position will untenable unless she is able to convince meeting promoters, sponsors, other athletes, and the athletics world that her participation is reasonable.

All of this is pointing more and more to the likelihood that Semenya will be cleared to compete as a female by the IAAF.  There would be no reason to release these results if the IAAF prevents her from competing, unless of course she wishes to appeal a ban.  However, the results would then be announced only later as part of the appeal process.  And since it was announced a few days ago that ASA already had the results, I believe their latest statements support more and more the likelihood that Semenya will in fact be cleared to compete as a female.

So this is how it is likely to play out, if I am as cynical as possible about the global reaction to that possibility:

Semenya's lawyers and the IAAF release some "legalese" statement that hails the co-operation between the parties in a "difficult and complex situation", and then announces that exhaustive testing has "provided no evidence to prevent Semenya from competing as a female".  She will thus be permitted to compete, because an understanding/co-operation regarding her condition has been reached.

That "understanding" is likely to involve some form of medical intervention, ranging all the way from surgical removal of testes (I'm assuming they are present, as this was all but confirmed by the Minister of Sport in a speech last year), to nothing at all.  I highly doubt that surgery has happened, but my belief is that Semenya is likely to look at chemical options to reduce testosterone levels.  That should, I believe, have been the bare minimum insisted on by the IAAF, unless the lawyers who so deftly managed to get Oscar Pistorius cleared to compete have worked the same template again.  Assuming she does seek some form of medical intervention, what that will do to her performance, I don't know, and nor do I know where on the medical spectrum this "understanding" is likely to lie.

The global reaction

This is what Semenya releasing her results will hopefully reveal.  And at this point, we should get a clearer idea of what is likely to happen next, but it is perhaps the most crucial variable in determining how the global reaction will develop.

In a worst-case scenario, where nothing is done, most of the athletics world will shake their heads in disbelief as all this goes down, making a mental note that for the forseeable future, the women's 800m is one not worth watching.  It's clear that most athletics followers (athletes, coaches and fans) don't believe she should compete as a woman.  Her first few races will of course produce massive interest, to see whether she is able to maintain the same dominance as last year.  If she is, and it's clear that she is running 1:55 with minimal effort, most people will conclude (understandably) that a grave mistake has been made, and they'll completely ignore the women's 800m procession when she runs, out of protest against what is viewed as a farcical state of affairs.

The rest of the worlds's female athletes will have little choice but to shut up and compete, regardless of their position on the matter.  Some may refuse to compete against Semenya, regardless of her statement of her results, putting meeting promoters into the difficult situation of having to choose whether to invite Semenya or risk seeing their field thinned down by protests.

Meanwhile, the lawyers and politicians of SA sport will celebrate a "victory" for Semenya, either ignorant or willfully oblivious to the fall-out they have created for the sport.  Semenya, meanwhile, will do her best to compete as openly as possible, carrying herself, I am sure, with the same pride and  strength that she has since arriving back in South Africa.  Hopefully, she does not adopt a defiantly aggressive attitude to everyone, as she did immediately after the final in Berlin, where she said that those who questioned her should "go to hell" (though it is understandable, I'd be surprised if anyone didn't do this).

Chuckling over seeing the top woman beat the top man in a 100m sprint

Anyway, the point is that this whole affair is highly unlikely to end well, for anyone.  I cannot even see where the best compromise will be reached.  One thing I am certain of is that Semenya competing as a woman without any intervention is not the best compromise for the sport, for fellow athletes, and for the athletics following public.  It is in fact the worst situation, but all this will be revealed if and when the results are eventually released.

The deft legal firm will have done their bit though.  I might add that this past weekend here in South Africa, the Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) and the SA Sports Medicine Association (SASMA) jointly held a workshop to craft a position stand on sport and gender.

At this meeting, a representative of Semenya's legal team gave a presentation in which he chuckled over his dream of one day seeing "the top woman beat the top man in a 100m sprint."

This is the perverse understanding and level of insight that has been introduced to this debate from the very beginning.  From day 1, when esteemed politicians danced at the airport, insisted that the public "look under her skirt", and refused to acknowledge medical science and sports performance, this affair has been overshadowed by idiocy.  Now, the lawyers are added to this list of stupid remarks, for their complete lack of understanding of the complexities of male and female performance, and their disregard for the sensitivities of high performance sports.

Having testes as a female is the same type of advantage as having fast twitch muscle fibers as a sprinter - inside the argument

Just so you know, the key argument in this whole debate is that of what constitutes a fair adavantage as opposed to a unnatural one?  A dangerous idea that we've discussed before on this site, and which was proposed at the SRSA meeting this last weekend (I wasn't invited, by the way, I just have this on good authority), is that that any unintentional advantage through whatever disorder be allowed participation since it represented no intent to cheat, and is similar in nature to the athletic "advantage" enjoyed by all athletes.

In other words, any 'natural' advantage is just that, and our politicians, lawyers, and I assume some scientists, are now suggesting that all these advantages are equal to one other, and should thus be allowed.

Under this logic, stature (an advantage for basketball), strength (advantage for shot put athletes), percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers (advantage for sprinters) and the presence of testes in females are considered equal advantages, the same physical or physiological advantages that 'normal' top athletes enjoy over the less-good ones. In the absence of any health concerns, a fair group of the audience at the recent conference also suggested no treatment or sex reassignment should be requested.

Winning the genetic lottery

So, what we are now working towards is a position that says that anyone with a genetic advantage, who is born with some physiology that gives them a greater chance of success than another athlete, should be allowed to compete.  And of course, this happens all the time.  Usain Bolt undoubetdly has physiological (as a result of genes and training) advantages over me.  I have no claim that his advantages should disqualify him from competing.

The position that is emerging says the same about Semenya - because she was born with whatever condition it may be, one which produces testes and high levels of testosterone in a female, she should be allowed to compete against women.  I hope the problems with this idea are obvious to everyone...

First, we don't compete in categories of height for basketball, strength for shot put, or muscle fibre composition for sprinters.  We have never categorized people using those variables.  We have however categorized them by gender/sex.  Therefore, a physiological difference that also happens to shift an athlete from one category to another (as happens when a female has testes) simply cannot be dismissed as equal to those other advantages!

Imagine for example that you introduce height categories into basketball - everyone shorter than 1.75m plays in one tournament, those taller play in the "open" division (analogous to female for the shorter, and male for the open category, by the way).  Now, if you have these categories, then you absolutely must defend them.  You cannot allow John, who is 1.80m tall, to compete in the shorter division, with  the justification that "he was born that way, it is not his fault and he has no intention of cheating".  The categorizations are there for a reason, and once you start blurring the lines, then you may as well erase them altogether.

One race - the open division in the genetic lottery

Let me illustrate how ludicrous this becomes.  Start from the position that athletes are "born", as a result of some physiological advantage - they are taller, stronger, heavier (or lighter), with greater endurance or speed capabilities.  Then, consider that those without these advantages are "discriminated against" by the very nature of sport, which recognizes and rewards the exceptional few.

Now, let's call the "advantaged" athletes "MALES" and those without the physiological advantages "FEMALES".  The very best females are not as strong, not as fast, and lack the speed and endurance capacity of the top males.  This is a physiological fact, provided you are comparing the very best to the very best, one which the lawyer clearly didn't know.

But, let's apply their own logic and say that all these athletes, males and females, should be allowed to compete against one another, since men did not choose to cheat when they were born with these potential performance advantages.  One division, the "open" race, no discrimination.  Because after all, when it comes to who can run the fastest over a certain distance, being male is just another "natural" advantage...

Not surprisingly, those advocating for Semenya do not themselves support this.  But the reality is that if Semenya competes as female, we may as well get rid of the categories and let everyone take their chances in the "genetic lottery".

Ross

Just a final word, since I realise I've said in this post that females cannot outperform males - the VERY BEST female performance in the history of the sport does not even make the top 500 male performances each year.  In other words, the world record for women in the marathon does not make it onto the list of the 500 best men's performances in 2009 alone.  The same is true in all other events.

The reality is that we have female and male divisions to allow women to compete on an equal 'playing field' against competitors of similar physiologically determined ability.  To quote Giordano and Harris in the book "Genetic technology and sport: ethical questions, "the fact that there are male and female sports activities is in no way discriminatory or an offence to equality".

Within each group (male and female), of course, there are differences (we can't all be Olympic champions), but the concept is to ensure equality at the very top level.  Hundreds of years of competition have shown this to be true - look at the margins between victory and defeat to see just how narrow gaps are and how well the system works at maintaining equal competition at the very top.

Again, to repeat, this should in no way be seen as discriminatory or an offence to equality - watching Paula Radcliffe run a 2:16 marathon, or Tirunesh Dibaba kick a 60 second lap at the end of a 5,000m race is as impressive as anything a male athlete has ever done.  They're absolutely on par, but in a direct comparison, at a different level according to the clock.  The quality is often in the race, and some of the greatest sporting moments I can remember (Tulu vs Meyer, Dibaba vs Defar, Hingis vs Williams, Henin vs Clijsters) are no less impressive because of the clock. 

The whole drama of Semenya, her treatment at the hands of all the sports authorities has been deplorable.  But one cannot allow that to blur the line between male and female participation, and to obscure the necessity for equal and fair competition for ALL female 800m runners, not just the one who we are interested in here in South Africa.

On the horizon - the marathon season

The marathon season begins.  And some random musings on Semenya, TV production, and Boat race

The week has flown by, and the first big marathons of 2010 are nearly upon us.  It kicks off in Europe in Rotterdam and Paris this weekend, and then jumps across the Atlantic for Boston next week, before returning to London for what is an outrageous field on April 25th.

Last year, Rotterdam produced the fastest times of all the marathons, right the way to the end of 2010.  Duncan Kibet and James Kwambai raced their way to a 2:04:27 sprint finish.

I'd be surprised if the same happened this year (though wouldn't rule it out, given the way marathon running has gone recently).  Rather, London promises to produce the fastest and most competitive marathon, at least until later this year when Berlin should provide a challenge to the time, if not the competitiveness of London.

Consider London's field so far:  Martin Lel (my personal favourite a few years ago when he was unbeatable), Sammy Wanjiru (the current number 1, and last year's champion), Tsegay Kebede (last year's number 2 to Wanjiru, and a fast winner in Fukuoka), Duncan Kibet (he of the 2:04:27 time last year, but disappointing since), Jaouad Gharib (perennial podium finisher in major marathons), and Abel Kirui (2:05:04 marathon best).

All told, there are six men with times under 2:06, multiple Major marathon winners, the fastest man from 2009, the best racers from 2009.  Oh, and not to mention, perhaps the name with the most intrigue of all - Zersenay Tadese.  He debuted in London last year, but failed to finish.  He recently ran a 58:23 half marathon world record, and his credentials point to a fearsome marathon.  Whether that 58:23 is too close to London is the big question - we've seen other top marathon performances follow on after 61 minute half-marathons, and so has Tadese done the necessary marathon specific training on route to the 58:23?  The answer will be known on April 25th

It's an incredible field, and makes London the much-anticipated finale of the Spring season.   The other races should be equally intriguing!  We haven't forgotten them, and we'll be bringing the usual analysis of the televised races to you as soon as possible after the race (or live, during them, in some cases).  Sadly, Rotterdam is not shown on SA TV, but you can check out the elite men's preview courtesy LetsRun.com.

Paris to follow!

Semenya announces her return

The other big news this week is the continuing drama of Caster Semenya, who, having held a press conference which was basically to force the IAAF's hand last week, this week gave them a good reason not to delay any further - she announced that she will return to competition on June 24th in a relatively small race in Spain.  The IAAF are now compelled to make a call when they promised to (at last).

Semenya has certainly gone on the "offensive" recently, driven along by the legal firm that is backing her.  She (or rather, they) have made numerous statements, the latest being one in which they have told a South African news channel that her medical team has looked at her results and their own tests and concluded that "she was clear to compete".

I think we can safely say that this is not the case - it's the same spin the same lawfirm used for Pistorius two years ago.  If it were a "clear" case, the IAAF would have rushed to make this announcement and allow her to run.  Let's be clear here - the IAAF want this issue to disappear, to be resolved.  It has caused them enormous problems, and they would love nothing more than to reach a verdict and get on with things.  If those tests did show she was "clear", then the IAAF would have celebrated back in August.

They didn't.  The tests clearly showed some major issues, and those need to be resolved.  The reality is that the IAAF are not exclusively Semenya-oriented, as much as we seem to believe this here in SA.  Every other 800m athlete also deserves their consideration and so their decision has to factor in equality and fairness of competition for ALL women 800m runners (not to mention the precedents set by the case).  The implications of a "clear case" for Semenya, without any medical intervention, will be profound for the sport.  It will turn the women's 800m event into a procession for the next ten years, unless some medical resolution is also found. Whereas one athlete is now disgruntled, hundreds will be (with reasonable grounds, it must be said).  If that is to be the case, then so be it, but the lawyers are doing no favours to the sport with their PR campaign that oversimplifies the issue.

Many outsiders involved in the sport are of the opinion that she should not be running against women.  And while their opinion may be "under-informed" in terms of their medical knowledge of the complexity of intersex conditions, their intuition should not simply be dismissed.  Sometimes, as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in his book Blink, those who are experts and know the most have the least chance of reaching an accurate decision.

One thing that is certain is that the lawyers are introducing a complexity that has not been seen in cases like this.  That's not necessarily all bad - the rights of the individual can't be walked all over.  But this is the same law firm that got Oscar Pistorius cleared despite no evidence that didn't suggest he had a large advantage.  And the latest statement smacks of the same PR spin as we saw when Pistorius went on the public relations offensive.  That ultimately resulted in him being cleared, and it does seem that Semenya will run again.  The IAAF are extremely unlikely to ban her completely.

The issue then is whether she has some kind of medical treatment, either surgical or chemical, to attempt to reduce the levels of testosterone that may be providing an advantage.  We may not know that answer, but will have her performances as a barometer to speculate.

University Boat Race - SABC, Supersport, were you watching?

And then finally, last Saturday saw the 156th Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race.  It was the light blues of Cambridge who triumphed this year, after two consecutive losses to Oxford.

But what I wanted to comment on is the outstanding package put together for television.  It's polished, professional, knowledgeable, understated, and world-class, and makes the Boat Race one of the best sports events to watch on television.

There is a SMALL team of EXPERT commentators, who are also well trained and led by a professional media anchor (please note, SABC, that you don't need to have nine commentators on rotation, and you also don't need to talk all the time.  Viewers are not complete imbeciles who need meaningless waffle thrown their way to pass the time.  Sometimes, the pictures tell the story just fine).

The use of graphics is also intelligent and meaningful, and data (which need not require an advanced degree to understand) can actually enhance the package.  And most importantly, the commentators are experts.  There is a difference between knowing the sport and understanding the sport, and too often, commentary is done by those who merely know things.  The Boat race has insight, and it raises the package to a level that is suddenly compelling, even for people who haven't rowed or watched it before.

It should provide a model for the preparation and packaging of all endurance sports on television.  Hopefully the SABC in particular were paying attention - you'll have similar opportunities to learn when the London Marathon is shown on April 25.

The reason I raise this is that poor TV quality of sport is a major issue of mine, because it undermines endurance sport and kills off its chances of growth (sponsors and viewers are not attracted to mediocrity, it turns out).  If the sport of running, for example, is to survive in what is now an entertainment industry, then the standard has to be perfection, not mediocrity.

Below is a clip from the 2003 Boat Race - one of the great finishes and one of the great sporting events that I have seen!  If I had to compile a top ten list, this event would be in it!

Enjoy!
Ross

Caster Semenya set for return

"I hereby publicly announce my return to athletics competitions" - Caster Semenya

The above quote is attributed to Caster Semenya, South Africa's 800m world champion from Berlin last year, and the athlete who, for all the wrong reasons, dominated the world scene towards the end of 2009.  Her story, and the web of lying, corruption, cover-ups, leaks and gender verification tests were perhaps the big story in athletics, if not sport, in 2009.

And for the IAAF, the story seems set to continue, as she has announced her intention to compete again.  Reading a statement prepared by her legal team, Semenya declared that she would be working with her coach and agent to select and compete in a limited number of races over the coming season.

This follows only a day after the IAAF requested that she NOT run in a local meeting in Stellenbosch, South Africa, after it was reported that she would be returning for the first time since her Berlin victory last year.  That was blocked only by a late request, but the ball has still found its way firmly into the IAAF's court, as they must now surely make some kind of decision on her eligibility to compete as a woman.

Policy, performance and proof

It's a difficult subject to discuss, because the boundary between speculation, fact and violation of a person's privacy rights is non-existent.  However, I think it's pretty safe to say that the testing conducted on Semenya revealed significant questions over whether she should compete as a woman.   This was all but confirmed when the South African Minister of Sport said publicly that he would support Semenya despite her condition.  This was confirmation of the leaks and allegations which had suggested that Semenya had internal testes.

However, physiologically, proving that having an intersex condition confers an advantage is a difficult proposition.  And there is no policy, at least that I am aware of, that states when an athlete should be barred from competing.  The only IAAF policy that I have been able to find states that certain conditions are allowable.  However, in the frenzy last year, it was revealed that eight athletes had been asked to either seek medical treatment of discontinue running as a result of such conditions.  So clearly, there are precedents and some means to determine whether an athlete should not run.

So is this the sticking point?  Why has it taken this long to announce a decision, when the test results would have been known many months ago?  We have to be clear - the actual testing produces a pretty obvious answer.  A person either has internal testes or they don't.  They either have a Y-chromosome or they don't.  Once you get beyond that surface assessment, things become complex, because there are varying degrees or grades of conditions, for example.  However, even this would have been resolved by now, and the medical diagnosis and picture of Caster Semenya will be very clear and obvious to all concerned.

The stumbling block.  And is Semenya undergoing any medical interventions?

However, the policy regarding performance is the stumbling block.  High powered lawyers (they got Pistorius off, after all, despite a massive advantage), lawsuits, media glare and a political backlash last year all factor in, but the bottom line is that the IAAF must now commit to a decision.  This has taken much too long.  Is she allowed to participate without medical treatment to remove the internal testes?  Or is that to be enforced?  Can it be enforced?

And most interestingly, would that medical treatment affect her performance?  No follower of athletics failed to notice that in 2009, Semenya, still a teenager and following a structured programme for only a few months, managed to run 1:55 looking like she was jogging in the Berlin final.  There was little doubt among athletic followers that had she desired, she could have increased her pace even more, and run close to 1:53 in that race.  For a first year teenager, that is remarkable, and suggests that with maturity, more training and the right race, she would be capable of 1:51.

Those who know the history of the event are also aware that of the top 20 women in history in the 800m event, at least 16 are known to have doped, and few athletes get down to 1:55 without doping.  So a 1:51?  I have stated this before, and believe that a 1:50-something would be a very real possibility.  That is a fact many dismiss as irrelevant, but the fact is, if Semenya does compete and does run unaffected by last year (either training or medically), we will see processions, not races.

So would the medical treatment prevent this?  Certainly, removal of the testes would have far-reaching consequences, not only for performance, but for her health, since she'd be obliged to seek hormone replacement for the rest of her life.  It's thus not a decision to be taken lightly.

There are other options.  If not surgical, then there are means to reduce the testosterone levels, which may be a compromise of sorts.  Is that being done?  These options will have been discussed, and Semenya may well be on a course to reduce testosterone levels non-surgically.  In fact, I strongly suspect she is, for that would have been part of the "negotiations" and compromises reached last year when the IAAF, ASA, SA government and legal team were discussing Semenya's future.  So I suspect that something is being done, if not surgically, then medically.  It's anyone's guess how the IAAF will enforce this, because all the athlete needs to do is miss a week of treatment and they're effectively benefiting from the same effect as doping.

Of course, none of these details should ever be announced, for they infringe on patient rights.  However, what does need to be announced is whether Semenya's statement is rhetoric, or whether the IAAF are going to allow her to run.  If she is cleared, will any of the meetings invite her, and if they do, will any of the competitors she races against object, or even withdraw?  That will depend on how well she performs - if she runs 1:55 while jogging, the fall-out may be difficult to contain.

That verdict, provoked by Semenya's statement, should come soon.  Semenya herself stated that "these processes have dragged on for far too long with no reasonable certainty as to their end".  Let's hope that her statement inspires action, so that the issue can move beyond this big question mark, and onto the next one - performance.

Ross

IOC calls for treatment in sex ambiguity cases

The complexities of gender verification:  Legal, medical and performance dilemmas

I thought I'd interrupt the weight management series for a day to cover very briefly the news being reported out of Miami, where a panel of medical experts met to discuss the complexities around gender verification.  The meeting, convened by the IOC in response to the huge controversy over Caster Semenya's win in the IAAF World Championships last year, addressed how authorities manage the minefield of equality of competition vs the rights of individuals and the medical concerns over such conditions.

It turns out, however, that fairness of competition didn't feature.  That's according to one delegate, Joe Leigh Simpson.  His words:  “We did not address fairness.  The entire concept was that these individuals should be allowed to compete.”

And the means to compete, according to news reports, is to treat the condition medically and not from the point of view of performance.  That is, if they wish to compete as females, but have a condition which gives them masculine characteristics, they should seek a diagnosis and treatment.  “Those who agree to be treated will be permitted to participate,” said Dr. Maria New, a panel participant and an expert on sexual development disorders. “Those who do not agree to be treated on a case-by-case basis will not be permitted.”

If this is the agreed upon approach, then fairness is very definitely an issue.  One cannot be forced into medical treatment as a condition for participation, surely?  The only reason to make medical treatment compulsory is to ensure fairness of competition, and so while delegates may say fairness was not an issue, it has to have been.

Other delegates have challenged this on the basis of fairness.  The previously mentioned Dr Simpson admitted that the guidelines would be deemed unfair by some female athletes, but that “we have to balance fairness to female athletes to fairness to other competitors."

The question is, does the right to compete with a possible advantage as a result of masculinization trump the right to fair competition for those without it?   Whose rights are more important, because balancing fairness requires that somebody assign a value to each side's arguments.

And legally, if an athlete decides not to seek medical treatment, can they be excluded from competing, unless some very clear guidelines are developed for how potential performance advantages can be evaluated.  Can medical treatment be bartered against competing?  As I see it, the only way this would be feasible is if athletic competition with such a sex ambiguity poses a risk - then authorities could say that they do not wish to be party to the increased risk and deny the athlete the right to participate.  The risk of having such a condition alone would not entitle the IOC to ban an athlete, surely?

This discussion may in fact be happening as we speak, with Caster Semenya's lawyers and the IAAF locked in negotiations.  Part of that discussion may involve terms for return to competition, and whether medical treatment is a pre-requisite.

As we've learned over the last few months, this is an incredibly difficult issue, with no obvious solution.  Regardless of which way you swing, there are going to be winners and losers in the debate - someone is either excluded, or large numbers of athletes are possibly disadvantaged.

My personal opinion agrees with that of Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University, and a former elite 800-meter runner. “If you start to do this you are making a joke of the fact that there are two classifications — male and female.  They might as well open it up and have women competing with men.”

But that's because my paradigm is performance, advantage and fairness.  Unfortunately, it's never quite that simple.

I'll get back to other "weighty" issues next week - feeling rather burned out at this stage, I must confess.  Luckily the year is nearly over...

Ross