Subsequently, due to the beneficial physical characteristics bought about by such levels including increased muscle size and strength, she has a biological advantage over her competitors, especially in middle distance running events. However, this is also a physical characteristic that many organisations within the sport of athletics deem unfair which has led to an ongoing legal battle between Semenya and those organisations.
CASTER SEMENYA’S ONGOING LEGAL BATTLE TO COMPETE Maya Brockie
Gasping for air, you heave yourself over the finish line after a gruelling 800 metre race in the sweltering city of Rio, and that’s the moment it hits you. At last, your years and years of exhausting training and countless sacrifices have paid off; a smile of complete ecstasy takes over your face and your elation is enough to make you completely forget about your lactate-filled legs because you’ve done it. You’ve finally fulfilled your lifelong dream of becoming an Olympic champion! Yet suddenly, a startling feeling of unease washes over you and you sense that something is wrong. Is it the crowd? Why are they glaring? Is it directed at you? You ask yourself - are those hushed whispers real or just figments of your imagination? This certainly isn’t how you imagined the best moment of your life. There are no congratulations. No recognition of your achievement. No sportsmanship. Nothing. The only evidence of your victory is the angry tears streaming down the faces of your competitors feeling robbed of a triumph that clearly isn’t theirs. This is the situation middle-distance track athlete Caster Semenya found herself in when she controversially won the gold medal in the women's 800 metre race at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Whilst Semenya finished in a remarkably fast time that has only been achieved by a handful of athletes throughout the entirety of history, the outcome of Semenya’s win was unfortunately not a celebration of her talent and inspiring determination, but instead reignited controversy over the laws on acceptable testosterone levels for athletes. This is because Semenya has a gift, a highly contentious physiological gift whereby she produces levels of the hormone testosterone that greatly exceed that of a typical female.
In April 2018, in an attempt to eradicate this perceived inequity, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) took a stand against Semenya by announcing new ‘differences of sex development’ laws. These new laws stated that athletes with testosterone levels of 5 nmol/L and above, who wanted to compete in the 400m, 800m, and/or 1500m races had to lower their testosterone levels. Whilst on the surface it may appear that this was simply a general change in legislation, due to the fact that Semenya became the first person to win these three exact events at the South African National Championships just the season beforehand, and the increased media attention that she received for her unusually muscular physique following her win in Rio, it was quite clear that these new laws were designed expressly to target her. Leaving her with the challenging decision of either: lowering her natural levels of testosterone (by undergoing potentially dangerous surgery) merely to have the legal right compete; or abandoning the sport that she had dedicated the entirety of her life to participating in behind forever, Semenya was beyond devastated. Consequently, in June 2018, Semenya revealed that she would legally challenge the IAAF rules in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an arbitral tribunal that adjudicates disputes in sport on an international level. Before detailing into her legal challenge, it is important to understand the nature of the CAS. The CAS is a private tribunal which essentially means that it creates and follows its own procedures and rules (rather than formally implementing all the rules of a particular jurisdiction). This is significant because it allows CAS panels to make their own rules backed by specific evidence on a case-by-case basis and means that they are not bound by other international laws governing evidential issues or executing all of the rules of a particular jurisdiction. What the above all leads to is the fact that the nature of the CAS gives it the
14
