Namibia scratched world number 1 and 3 female 400m runners for having high testosterone, but were not DSD

From what I read, I don't think there was a dismissal of the "information" that we have been told. The poster seems to be questioning the credibility of the "information."

I read your back and forth with an open mind like I am judging a debate compettion. I keep cominng back to the same question when I analyze your argument. If WA is creating a new rule or enforcing a rule that does not exist, why wouldn't a legal challenge in stead of a press release be the proper response. I am sure that WA has some sort of detailed, written policy concerning the adoption, creation and implentation of rules prior to the enforcement of said rules. Otherwise, WA can create a rule today that makesany athletes ineligle for the Olympics. This would seem to make the issue as you framed it ripe for CAS and Swiss Supreme Court challenges. If you did consider the legal route, what "information" did you use to dismiss this route as an option?

- If you believe that WA was somehow trying to pull the wool over the eyes of CAS, by not admitting that one of the conditions in the rules pertain to XX individuals, why would it wish to do that, when the rules don't depend on chromosomal definition?

- Are you seeking to argue that because you think there are more African women who are XX who will be affected by the rules than are XY that WA didn't wish to bring this to CAS's attention because you think CAS might have seen the rules as unfairly discriminatory against African women and therefore might have decided against WA? This is even when CAS acknowledged the rules are discriminatory but justifiable to protect women's sport. What evidence is there that its judgment was in any way founded upon either a statistical or geographical prevalence of the DSD's that were subject to its decision? What is there in the decision that indicates that CAS also saw the issue of chromosomal identity as crucial to its determinations?

- On the substantive point of whether the rules are fair or not, when they don't specify DSD's based on chromosomes but only on features that produce levels of testosterone that either exceed the prescribed limit of 5nml or have a significantly androgenising effect, what difference does it make that one of these DSD'S can be found in XX individuals?

What the rules say is explicit and unambiguous. What WA said to the court on one narrow point and how CAS might have responded with different information on that point remains speculative. It doesn't address the situation facing the Namibian athletes - and possibly other African women - who are either being treated unfairly or not under the rules, which is the subject of the thread.

I can believe WA may have omitted information in its submissions before the court but I see this as more likely to be in error than the intent to misrepresent, and I also don't believe it was crucial as it doesn't affect a reading of the rules. In a substantive sense, it was irrelevant.

"I'm not trying to get 46XX DSD individuals into women's sport, I have nothing to do with that. I am however an expert in the field of endocrinology and if I see something that doesn't make sense, I point it out. And if someone (IAAF/WA) presented false information to CAS, someone should say something about it." (quote)

I accept that you are what you say you are and you have identified what you say you have. You are now "saying something about it". Fair enough. Have you confined your views to social media such as this or have you communicated in a formal way to the relevant authorities? Who, of any similar recognized expertise to yourself, has done the same? If they have, what has been the IAAF/WA response?

Aside from a justifiable concern about the integrity of the legal process and decisions being made on correct information, why does the point you have concerned yourself with matter unless it suggests the rules are wrong or unfair?