On Loland’s conception of fair equality of opportunity in sport

Anderson, Lynley; Knox, Taryn

doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106748

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we shall simply accept that such a distinction can be sustained. However, see Anderson and Knox,20 who argue that the distinction fails because high levels of testosterone are not necessarily a product of brute luck as they can be part of hormone therapy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveling (down) the playing field: performance diminishments and fairness in sport

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2018 eligibility regulation for female competitors with differences of sexual development (DSD) issued by World Athletics requires competitors with DSD with blood testosterone levels at or above 5 nmol/L and sufficient androgen sensitivity to be excluded from competition in certain events unless they reduce the level of testosterone in their blood. This paper formalises and then critically assesses the fairness-based argument offered in support of this regulation by the federation. It argues that it is unclear how the biological advantage singled out by the regulation as an appropriate target for diminishment, is relevantly different from other biological advantages that athletes may enjoy, and specifically that Sigmund Loland’s recent attempt to drive a wedge between heightened levels of blood testosterone and other biological advantages fails. The paper also suggests that even if heightened blood testosterone levels do differ relevantly from other types of biological advantage, the regulation is further challenged by studies indicating that athletes with blood testosterone at the high end of the normal range have a competitive advantage over athletes with blood testosterone levels at the low end of it. Finally, the paper contends that the premises of the fairness-based argument do not unequivocally support the conclusion that DSD athletes with heightened levels of testosterone should diminish those levels, since, just as powerfully, they support allowing athletes with normal levels of testosterone to use performance-enhancing drugs in the name of fairness.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveling (down) the playing field: performance diminishments and fairness in sport

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 For example, Adair, 2011;Buzuvis, 2010;Koh et al, 2018;Krech, 2019Krech, , 2017. 12 Anderson and Knox, 2020;Camporesi, 2020Loland, 2020. As private organizations, international sporting federations (ISFs) seem to enjoy a significant degree of legal autonomy 13 yet are subject to relatively little direct democratic accountability when compared with other institutions that wield similar regulatory power. 14 As such, subjecting decisions of organisations like the IAAF to legal, ethical and rational scrutiny seems important as an additional check against the arbitrary use of power.…”

Section: Chapter 1 -Introduction Background and Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Loland, 2020, p. 588 188 i.e. strength, speed, power, stamina and special awareness which can be improved through training.189 For example, seeAnderson &Knox (Anderson and Knox, 2020, p. 595) 190 Camporesi, 2019, p. 702 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Female Eligibility Regulations in Athletics; Rational Necessity or Irrational Reaction?

Cooper¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over recent years the International Association of Athletics Federations (the ‘IAAF’ - now World Athletics) has been seeking a solution to address a difficult problem; how to deal with the possibility that legally female athletes with differences in sexual development might benefit from a performance advantage due to increased levels of endogenous testosterone and consequent physiological and athletic advantages that are typically associated with men. Its current solution is to try and ‘compensate’ for such perceived advantages by excluding some legally female athletes from some events unless they are prepared to take medication to suppress natural testosterone levels below a certain, pre-determined figure. The relevant regulations (the Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification 2018 – or the ‘DSD Regulations’) have been approved by international sport’s highest judicial body, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, yet both the IAAF’s general approach to the problem and the Regulations themselves remain controversial and subject to significant criticism. In particular, there has been criticism of the value of the scientific research that underpins the Regulations (Franklin et al., 2018; Karkazis et al., 2017, 2012; Koh et al., 2018; Pielke et al., 2019; Sonkson, 2015; Tucker, 2017), from those in the ethical and human rights fields seeking to ensure that the rights of individual athletes are protected (Adair, 2011; Buzuvis, 2016, 2010; Koh et al., 2018; Krech, 2019, 2017) and in relation to the normative justification on which they are based (Camporesi, 2019, 2020). This thesis recognizes the controversy and the criticisms and attempts to evaluate the legal and ethical legitimacy of the Regulations and the IAAF’s approach by adopting a rationalist perspective. It thereby seeks to evaluate the validity and strength of the IAAF’s given reasons for introducing the DSD Regulations against fundamental requirements of rationality and the IAAF’s formal constitutional purposes. In doing so the thesis also considers the wider value of legal approval by the Court of Arbitration for Sport and, in this regard, questions the intensity of the legal review that the court undertook.

show abstract

Fair Competition and Inclusion in Sport: Avoiding the Marginalisation of Intersex and Trans Women Athletes

Cooper

2023

Philosophies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the reality of intersex individuals whose biological markers do not necessarily all point towards a traditional binary understanding of either male or female, the vast majority of sports divide competition into categories based on a binary notion of biological sex and develop policies and regulations to police the divide. In so doing, sports governing bodies (SGBs) adopt an imperfect model of biological sex in order to serve their particular purposes, which, typically, will include protecting the fundamental sporting value of fair competition. Yet, one potential consequence of enforcing such an approach would seem to be the exclusion or marginalization of individuals whose biological development does not fit within the binary model, whether due to genetics or through a choice to undergo medical intervention to better represent a chosen gender identity. Any such exclusion or marginalization will inevitably tend to undermine another fundamental value of sport, that of inclusivity. In the context of those with differences of sex development, SGBs appear to be faced with a difficult problem: dealing with a conflict between two fundamental values of sport. Different approaches to this problem have been suggested, with some academics proposing that sports organisations, in general, ought to prioritise fairness above, while others suggest the need to ‘balance’ competing values or even to prioritise inclusion over fairness. However, it is argued that any of these approaches are, in principle, justifiable as any sport should be free to prioritise or balance its own values. What seems more important for any SGB is the need for a rational and transparent justification of regulations that pursue fair competition at the expense of inclusivity. Furthermore, where fair competition and inclusivity are fundamental values, any such justification would seem to demand adherence to some basic norms. First, the regulations should be built on (and articulate) a consistent and principled basis of what ‘fair competition’ means in a particular sport. Second, any regulations should only exclude or restrict participation to the minimum degree necessary to achieve the sense of fair competition so articulated. Third, SGBs should be transparent about what their values are and where their priorities lie so that participants and other stakeholders are able to make an informed choice as to whether they wish to participate in, support, or be associated with a particular sport. With reference to the adoption of the Eligibility Regulations for Athletes with Differences of Sex Development (the ‘DSD Regulations’) by the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF), this article seeks to evaluate whether the approach of the IAAF satisfied these basic requirements.

show abstract

On Loland’s conception of fair equality of opportunity in sport

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Leveling (down) the playing field: performance diminishments and fairness in sport

Leveling (down) the playing field: performance diminishments and fairness in sport

Female Eligibility Regulations in Athletics; Rational Necessity or Irrational Reaction?

Fair Competition and Inclusion in Sport: Avoiding the Marginalisation of Intersex and Trans Women Athletes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About