Hilarious the way RMW describes Fina’s process involving a “science group” in scare quotes. Presumably if RMW is involved in taking this to court we can call it a “law group” doing it for the same reasons?
And good luck using the IOC “no assumption of male advantage” document as a legal footing, something everyone with any knowledge of anything said was complete nonsense.
And the paragraph soon after, RMW demonstrates why it always amazes me that RMW gets paid to be a barrister. RMW thinks the IOC “no assumption of male advantage” is a basis of legal argument. Then RMW writes about how Emily Bridges talked about how Bridges, be reducing testosterone, only had “female-level cardiovascular and respiratory performance – thereby putting them at a disadvantage.“
So RMW seems to be saying that Bridges was on a level playing field with women before having to lower testosterone and is now at a disadvantage. I would LOVE to see RMW argue that it court as part of a “legal argument”. It’s either that, or RMW is assuming male advantage existed, and has been lost due to testosterone suppression. I would also LOVE to see RMW argue that it is correct to say there is “no assumption of male advantage” while at the same time arguing that an athlete has lost male advantage and is now at female level.
Given RMW can’t even put together a coherent article in the Guardian, a “legal bundle” on such a case would be most entertaining.