The graph above shows data for the entire period covered by the US Drought Monitor. This week marks the first time in the record that >90% of the US has experienced conditions of NO drought. Some further info:
- Since 2000, the linear trend in the data indicates that the overall proportion of the US experiencing no drought conditions increased from about 50% to about 60%.
- According to the Drought Monitor, more than 283 million people currently live in regions experiencing no drought. This is the most people in the history of the US to experience no drought conditions at once.
Climate change is real, and deserving of of aggressive policies for mitigation and adaptation. But the significance of the issue does not subtract from the importance of accurately presenting the science of extremes.
I have transcribed an interview of Stéphane Bermon who is Director of the IAAF Health and Science Department and a chief architect of the IAAF DSD regulations. He is also the lead author of work supporting the regulations that we have critiqued. The interview was conducted just over one year ago, on the release of the IAAF DSD Regulations, with Tracey Holmes of ABC Australia The Ticket and it is archived here. The transcript below is cleaned up a bit from the spoken English, but otherwise I think accurate.
Dr. Bermon says some remarkable things, viewed now with hindsight, and I am posting here for my own future use. They may be useful to others as well.
Continue reading “Looking Back at IAAF Comments on DSD Regulations Made in April, 2018”
This is really well done. If you are interested in this issue, it is well worth a listen.
It the executive summary of its decision on Caster Semenya released yesterday, Court of Arbitration for Sport noted a “paucity of evidence” related to the inclusion of the 1500m and mile under its restricted events.
Based on the lacking evidence base, CAS asked IAAF to reconsider inclusion of these two events.
One would think that a lack of evidence might give pause in policy making justified as evidence based. Ha! Think again.
Less than 24 hours after the CAS ruling was released IAAF has already rejected this recommendation by CAS, telling Andy Brown at the Sports Integrity Initiative that they “have enough evidence.”
What evidence is IAAF relying on?
Evidence that is so flawed that it should have been retracted from the scientific literature, as we have documented in peer-reviewed research. The treatment of the 1500m in this little episode is an apt metaphor for the overall role of evidence through the CAS Semenya proceedings.
UPDATE: CAS has now released an “executive summary” of the judgment, here in PDF. Nothing in that summary alters anything in my analysis below.
In a 2-1 split decision, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled against Caster Semenya and in favor of the IAAF. The decision legitimizes the discriminatory regulations of the IAAF. The characterization of the regulations as “discriminatory” is not mine, it is that of CAS, which finds the regulations to be discriminatory, but nonetheless necessary to protect some women from some other women.
The New York Times characterizes the decision as follows: “The highest court in international sports issued a landmark but nuanced ruling on Wednesday that will force female track athletes with elevated levels of testosterone to take suppressants to compete in certain women’s races at major international events like the Olympics.” [Note: According to the NYT the original quote I used was edited out of its story: “
The decision by the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport provided a resounding victory for track and field’s world governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations, or I.A.A.F.”] While the bottom line result can certainly be interpreted this way, the decision is not without nuance, complexity, confusion and contradictions. Semenya’s legal team has said that they are considering an appeal.
In this post I will comment on the CAS decision — based on its two-page press release today (PDF) – from the standpoint of scientific integrity, a topic which I’ve discussed related to these regulations for several years, long pre-dating this arbitration proceeding.
As you may know, I was a pro bono expert witness in the proceedings for Semenya. My comments here are my personal views alone. I will comment on further issues when the full decision is made available. I am not lawyer or a doctor. I have worked on issues surrounding the use and misuse of science in policy making for more than 25 years. As well, I have published peer-reviewed research on the issue of “sex testing” in sport as well as with colleagues on the issues of scientific integrity at play in this case. So with that throat clearing … Today, I have three main reactions. Continue reading “Pielke Comments on Semenya/ASA vs. IAAF”
In the Twitter thread above I explain that that while biological sex is of course real, the quest for a 100% certain biological “sex test” has never succeeded. Sport regulation of gender categories needs to accept this reality. Have a read through if interested. I’m posting her for future sharing.
In 2012 we initiated an effort to create an academic unit within the athletics department at the University of Colorado Boulder. Four years later we announced the establishment of the Sports Governance Center. Since then, we have achieved a number of notable successes.
Regrettably, leadership at CU Boulder has decided not to take this innovative program forward. Starting fall, 2019 the activities of the Sports Governance Center will cease.
Continue reading “Announcement: CU Boulder Sports Governance Center Shutting Down”