Thread by @Scienceofsport

@SUE_K47 Yes I saw it. And it’s important that the research be recognised as flawed (in some respects, faulty) & limited. But I don’t see this as the bombshell Roger is claiming. the DSD policy has two components - the evidence around specific events (which is what the paper did so badly

@SUE_K47 …and second, the principle regarding androgenisation in males, not females, that necessitates a separate competition. I think everyone at CAS already knew this about the research - it was discussed at great length there. From the flaws to the theoretical problems. The IAAF even

@SUE_K47 …conceded, at CAS, that there were issues with the research, and nobody claimed it was “conclusive proof” of advantage. So this correction doesn’t actually change much about what was heard by CAS - both sides debated the paper pretty intensely. So I don’t think it’s a ‘bombshell

@SUE_K47 …for the policy & the CAS decision (which really was made based on a lot more than the Bermon paper, which was in fact a small part of it by the end, even though it contributed to that really clumsy stupid paradox of which events are regulated). It’ll be interesting to see what

@SUE_K47 …they do next, but for sure, anyone claiming that this is a revelation and that WA hid this and nobody knew that their research on these events and T’s effects was weak is actually misleading people. It was one of two or three major issues discussed at CAS already.

@SUE_K47 In fact, you know that old thing they always teach people “Correlation doesn’t imply causation”? That’s what this is. And I can’t believe that’s what they corrected about their paper. It was so obviously a limited study. That’s why WA downplayed it at CAS, and instead argued the

@SUE_K47 …issue from a principle of theory and biology of testosterone. They barely even mentioned the Bermon study, which is itself interesting - they knew how weak it was. Everyone did. Saying it publicly in the journal is good, but I don’t think it’s really new. At least, not to CAS

@SUE_K47 It was really all so messy - CAS asked for specific evidence, which was always going to be impossible to provide. WA tried, badly, and had some super dodgy results, in a now discredited study. But by the time CAS considered the case that evidence was less important to the debate

@SUE_K47 …than the principle, because by that time, WA had managed to reframe it as a biological male issue, rather than one of women with high T. So I suppose it’s possible for CAS to now say “hang on, let’s have another look at the evidence again”, but then WA could also say “But you

@SUE_K47 …already saw it, you had two experts come in and criticise it, we discussed it, and it was all disclosed in the proceeding, this is nothing new, so why must we go back now?”. I don’t know how it will go, but I don’t think it’s an earth-moving development.