Is there prejudice within the IAAF on Semenya ruling?
A COURT ruling against South Africa’s “golden girl” Caster Semenya and some other female runners prompts the question of whether the international track and field association is prejudiced against athletes from the global south and women.
In a landmark decision, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled last week that female track athletes with naturally elevated levels of testosterone must reduce them to participate in certain races at major competitions.
The decision effectively bars Semenya, a two-time Olympic champion in the 800m, from competing in that race unless she represses her body’s production of testosterone, which is much higher than that of a typical female.
The CAS admitted to a “paucity of evidence” to back up some of the International Association of Athletics Federations’ (IAAF) new regulations, but it approved them anyway.
The ANC came out in support of Semenya after the court decision, stating that the IAAF had acted in a “prejudicial manner that divides rather than unites athletes”.
Indeed, the new regulations stipulate that females must have testosterone within certain predefined levels, but they say nothing about men who have higher than normal quantities of the hormone.
What is more, professional athletes by nature are abnormal. The vast majority of the world’s population is unable to pull off the feats of these extraordinary humans and often there is good reason for that. Biological advantages among athletes are widespread.
Nordic skier Eero Mäntyranta had a genetic condition that caused the excessive production of red blood cells, which gave him an advantage in endurance events.
Michael Phelps, the most successful Olympian of all time with 28 gold medals, has preternaturally low lactic acid production and joint hyperextension that allows him to swim longer and faster than many others.
Even if Semenya’s higher-than-normal testosterone levels were an advantage, would they be any more useful to her than the biological assets of so many other athletes?
It is the different approach to different advantages that creates the impression that this case is about much more than fairness in sport. What is it about the sight of a black female, who comes from the global south, being successful that concerns the IAAF?
It is hard to see why the athletics body would have a specific vendetta against Semenya, yet one could be excused for seeing it as discrimination against both her gender and her background.
Not least because Semenya is not the first female athlete from the global south to be targeted by such regulations. Indian sprinter Dutee Chand battled with the IAAF in 2014-2015 over testosterone regulations.
An IAAF official’s remarks in 2012 underscored geographical bias in the initiatives against intersex athletes. “Athletics is a whole world sport, it is not purely the Caucasian sports,” the official said. “We have a lot of people coming from Africa, Asia, and we have a lot of these (intersex) cases coming from these countries.”
Perhaps the ANC’S assertion last year that attempts to eliminate Semenya from her best races were indicative of “blatant racism” within the IAAF were not that far off the mark.
The CAS should defend the anomalies in its decision-making and explain why it has come down against such an impressive athlete, humiliating her and undermining the integrity of the sport it should defend. |