,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I have some questions.
"98% of women have under 2 nmol of testosterone," Australian Institute of Sport chief medical officer David Hughes said.
"For men, the amount averages between 7.7 and 29 nmol. In sports that involve power and endurance testosterone gives players an 8-12% advantage."
"For men, the amount averages between 7.7 and 29 nmol. In sports that involve power and endurance testosterone gives players an 8-12% advantage."
What exactly do you intend to convey by stating these three facts*?
*8-12% male advantage is the low end of the scale, for sports that involve moving forward using your feet. Sports with throwing/hitting elements have a wider performance gap. For example, fast bowling is +20%.
*8-12% male advantage is the low end of the scale, for sports that involve moving forward using your feet. Sports with throwing/hitting elements have a wider performance gap. For example, fast bowling is +20%.
Are you asserting that current T levels are the sole predictor of sporting advantage? How does that tally with the observation that males can quite happily sit naturally below the 10nM threshold and still be competitive at elite male level?
Are you acknowledging that some males will not have to lower T to qualify for female sports categories? That indeed, there is no physical barrier for a world class male cricketer to join a female team if he happens to be low-average T?
How would you sanction a female who you discovered had been systematically doping with T for 15 years but who appeared to be clean for the previous 12 months? Surely, if her current T is all that counts, she has gained nothing from her doped history?
Do you understand the divergence between male and female forms achieved during puberty? Do you think all male advantage gained during puberty can be undone by T reduction in adulthood (if that’s even required)?
End.
End.
Absolutely tumbleweed.
