These regulations are fatally flawed
Here is the 800m final at the 2009 IAAF World Championships in Berlin
This is when Caster Semenya first came to broad international recognition:
Chand CAS decision: tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user…
On stare decisis & CAS see:
CAS pointed to the Olympic Charter, which sets a high bar for discriminating against athletes. olympic.org/news/the-olymp…
Easy: Because it is the only data on differences in performance between high T females and others cited in the IAAF T2 regulations iaaf.org/news/press-rel…
I was struck by the fact that of the 24 female athletes it identified as having high T, almost 40% (9) were known dopers.
For a paper purporting to identify the effects of naturally occurring high T ... this seemed... odd.
We could not make sense of the BG17 summary stats so we requested their performance data.
After no reply & involving BJSM editor we went public: blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2018/05/1…
As you will see, BG17 was based on deeply flawed data, so bad that IAAF had no choice but to perform a "do over" analysis
We notified Dr. Berman & @BJSM_BMJ expecting the paper would be retracted. Errors happen & science is strong because it is self-correcting.
Oddly, BJSM refused to retract the flawed paper or to even require Bermon to share further data.
This is just wrong, as we have shown.
Differences between BG17 & BHKE18 results below
The dispute over IAAF T2 regulations is not about testosterone or gender.
It is now about scientific integrity.
In the Chand arbitration CAS forcefully argued that evidence matters.
We will find out in the Semenya/ASA arbitration if it still matters.