NeedSomeCake

OK, amid the chaos that most journalists are using as misdirection, what *did* we learn at the IBA conference yesterday? The two boxers were tested twice. (This is a good thing. Duplication of tests is necessary to ensure reliable data.) The testing was done by reliable lab facility. (The IBA saying they are WADA-certified labs is their way of saying the tests were not done with an Internet kit in someone’s kitchen. BBC @SeanPaulKearns might note that they weren’t saying testing was done by WADA 😉) The testing was genetic, and the results mean that both boxers were ineligible for the female category. -and- The IBA define their female category as XX. The IBA will not reveal individual results. (This is ethically correct, in the absence of consent from the athletes. They are upholding privacy and medical confidentiality.) The IBA tell us explicitly that in the absence of actual results, we should “read between the lines”. (Reading between the lines, the athletes are XY. There is no reasonable alternative reading.) The IBA mentioned a “male karyotype”. (As well as confirming XY, this tells me the test process involved direct visualisation of chromosomes from cellular material. This is an entirely rational “first step” in the context of a sex screen. I would argue for a different method, but let’s wait until I get asked…) The IBA mentioned high testosterone, yet their statement in the test procedure say that testosterone testing was not undertaken. (An entirely reasonable interpretation is that T testing wasn’t part of the sex screen, but T levels in these athletes is known via other screens like anti-doping. Someone - a journalist maybe - should ask them. Rushing to a formal endocrine profile as part of a sex screen is not a particularly obvious thing to do, and it may be that this is what the IBA meant.) With an XY karyotype and high testosterone (from which the presence of testes can be strongly - and I mean strongly - inferred), these athletes have, so far, the male-typical biology that is relevant in sport. That’s what we know, if we don’t pretend we can’t detect the signal through the noise^ What can we think about moving forward? If both athletes were observed as female at birth, and have XY chromosomes, medical follow up must be made available to them. The typical medical flowcharts for follow up testing would elucidate, if present, an XY DSD. This is, I think, important health information for them, whatever happens in sport. Understanding the precise DSD would permit rational categorisation according to the possibility of male advantage. All this should have been done years ago. —— I’ve just taken quite a narrow view, not trying to capture the whole picture.

Appalling bullying here. Female athletes are allowed to speak about their sports category (with male allies in support!).