The Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) on Wednesday rejected South African athlete Caster Semenya’s appeal against the IAAF – the international athletics body – decision to regulate the testosterone levels in some female athletes.
The decision means Semenya, a two-time Olympics 800-meters gold medal winner, will have to undergo medication/treatment to reduce her testosterone levels if she wishes to compete in the 400-m and/or 800-m races in future. Ironically she can run in races below or beyond the 800-m category as those races are exempt from this rule, the logic being that the evidence whether higher testosterone levels helps in longer race categories is inconclusive.
The reason behind the CAS’ decision is that higher testosterone levels in some female athletes give them an unfair advantage. India’s Dutee Chand, who had successfully challenged the IAAF’s rules on “hyperandrogenism” in 2015, will not be affected as she runs 100-m and 200-m races.
The decision on Semenya has not surprisingly divided opinion. The IAAF has been doggedly pursuing the case against Semenya since 2009 when she first won a gold in the 800-m at the world championships in Berlin. Interestingly the CAS itself admits that making female athletes with “Differences in Sex Development” to reduce their testosterone levels is discriminatory but, “such discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of achieving the IAAF’s aim of preserving the integrity of female athletics”.
But the crucial question here is that should some female athletes with “unnaturally” high levels of testosterone be made to reduce them to conform to a what the IAAF considers a “natural” level? This has been an incredibly complex case touching not just gender in sports but also ethics, science, race and politics. Semenya has vowed to fight back, so the last word on this complex issue has not been said.