Much will depend on how they apply this clause. One reading of it, as per Jon below, is that TW will have to provide evidence of NO advantage, which, *if* the scientific evidence is applied honestly, would not be possible, so it would achieve the appropriate protection of F sport
https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1488641166400794629
An alternative approach will be if the scientific evidence showing retained advantages is relegated to “part of a bigger picture”, which also ignores fundamental biology, & instead they try to use a case by case approach, which would be murky and likely NOT achieve fairness.
That’s because cases would be torn between “championing…inclusivity while…also fervently supporting…equity” (this quote is in the statement). The next step from there is to weight the results & outcomes ahead of process and science, which is poor misleading thinking, and would
…quickly open the door to arguments like “athlete X not winning, is just training harder, the advantage is so small that it still allows meaningful competition”. Plus burden of proof issues under challenge. So I think it has POTENTIAL, and time will tell what it achieves
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
