Thank you for your knowledgeable input.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
Thank you for your knowledgeable input.
Possibly, the lure of the almighty dollar?
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
A new rule in 2019 eliminated D and F categories. That still leaves the all-encompassing G. But no XX athlete is subject to the rule according to their press release.
Yes sorry, this is indeed the most recent document I intended to quote from which does not mention XY, apologies.
Not concerned with press conferences or hearsay, only with the actual rules, which do not exclude XX conditions other than PCOS and CAH.
WA won’t do a press conference each time a new DSD athlete is assessed just to report that ‘by the way, these athletes are XY and we confirm that we’re still applying the rules the exact same way.’ The application of these rules can easily change at any point in time with the emergence of new athletes. If WA's eligibility criteria permits the restriction of certain XX athletes, then to me those stand as official rules.
But I still find it disturbing that - and correct me if I’m wrong – elevated endogenous testosterone is acceptable in non-DSD athletes, and the only way it is determined that an athlete has a DSD is through assessment. If the athlete does not voluntarily submit for assessment, we’re relying on WA’s cherry-picking skills. Hypothetically, some athletes could get a free pass under the rules. This does not instill much confidence that the rules are applied fairly and evenly.
RunRagged wrote:
Persons with OT DSD might have one ovary and one testis, only one of which which will be functionally predominant. Or they might have one ovary OR one testes and a second gonad of mixed ovarian and testicular tissue; or two gonads that both contain a combination of ovarian and testicular tissue.
That’s the point anyway. Ovotestis contain both ovarian and testicular tissues, or as you said, a formation of one ovary, one testis etc. So saying she has 'testes, not ovaries' as a ruling guideline from WA is too reductive when dealing with intersex athletes. That’s probably why this wording can’t be found in the actual document in question though, only in press releases.
But looking at the bigger picture, there are other issues with the rules.
Why the explicit exclusion of PCOS and CAH from the restricted conditions? WA contradict the very suggestion that testosterone above 5nmol/L is a huge competitive advantage by permitting it in some XX women. I imagine many field athletes fit the PCOS phenotype.
Whether from PCOS, CAH or gonads, is it not still endogenous testosterone that an athlete's body can benefit from in competition? Are they protecting certain athletes? And why is the assessment not mandatory for all athletes? Elevated testosterone should result in an automatic assessment, but in reality, as far as I can see it only applies explicitly to athletes who WA cherry picks for formal assessment e.g. ones who are too controversial in appearance, and always from developing countries (for a combination of reasons, some discussed earlier in this thread).
This post was removed.
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Sometimes it seems like Cooper Teare is not that good BUT…
Ingebrigtsen brothers release incredibly catchy Olympic music video (listen here + full lyrics)
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach