Cheek swabs for World Athletics

[murasaki]

The Guardian has just released this.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/mar/25/world-athletics-mandates-cheek-swabs-to-doggedly-protect-female-category

Good news, although I still expect challenges. I do wonder if the timing is in response to Kirsty Coventry's win over Coe...

Fantastic. The mood is shifting.

ETA, I think this is very welcome pressure on Coventry. It's going to be hard to argue that cheek swabs are a gross infringement

On people's rights if it's happening without incident in athletics

Exactly.

Thank you for link.

This looks to be good news. I look forward to seeing more details come out.

Well yes, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves but it's a good start.

Indeed when all the participants are subjected to random drug tests.

I'd certainly find pissing in front if someone post race much more intrusive than a one off cheek swab.

Right - the post-competition urine test is far more invasive - the technician has to "observe ther stream of urine leaving the body" i.e. have full sight of your genitalia while you are urinating. And of course out of competition blood tests involve venepuncture.

https://athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/world-athletics-to-introduce-pre-clearance-tests-for-women-1039998430/

Here is the news from Athletics Weekly

"Just days after losing the battle to become president of the International Olympic Committee, Seb Coe is back in action as president of World Athletics and, speaking at the close of the governing body’s latest council meeting, he said “pre-clearance tests” will be introduced soon for female athletes."

"These will include cheek-swab tests and will be non-invasive. They will only be necessary once in an athlete’s career, too. New regulations, he added, will be drafted in coming weeks with the chance the tests could be introduced ahead of the World Championships in Tokyo in September."

and this is also really interesting and something that we have been discussing for the past few years despite many parents opinion that before puberty girls should have no issue competing with boys. Despite what the evidence from the school children's sports events shows. It seems the WA is watching more closely and maybe this will start being taken on by those parents who double down and say 'this is a non-issue'.

"Under its existing rules, World Athletics excludes anyone from the female category who has undergone male puberty, based on research that says trans women retain a significant physical advantage even after undergoing testosterone suppression therapy."

"But the governing body is now citing new evidence which shows there is already an athletically significant performance gap before the onset of puberty and is consequently looking to strengthen its rules in this area."

I've just googled as I'm sure when Princess Anne was in the Olympics that she was the only female not to be tested, as there were so many people at her birth. Anyway - the Olympics did test women from 1968 to 1999.
Which begs the question - why did they stop ?

I sincerely hope this is used in all sports.

I think the testing they did was just genital inspection which is humiliating and not as accurate as a cheek swab.

In the 80s it was a cheek swab. Sharon Davies was talking about it at one point.

According to Google it was a chromosome test, but I've no idea if that is true.

"New regulations, he added, will be drafted in coming weeks with the chance the tests could be introduced ahead of the World Championships in Tokyo in September."

I wonder what these will be in regards to males with DSDs.

Because Coe also said this:

“We’ve been to the court of arbitration [for sport] on our DSD [difference of sexual development] regulations. They have been upheld and they have again been upheld after appeal.”

So.... does this indicate that they will double down on the testosterone reduction as per the Arbitration court or what?

I believe this current (Version 3.0, approved by Council on 23 March 2023, and coming into effect on 31 March 2023:

3* *Eligibility Conditions for Relevant Athletes

3.1 A "Relevant Athlete" is an Athlete who meets each of the following three criteria:

3.1.1 they have one of the following DSDs:
2.7.1.1 ensure that the information is accurate and complete; and
2.7.1.2 not provide any information in bad faith, to harass, stigmatise or otherwise injure an athlete, or for any other improper purpose.
3.1.1.1 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;
3.1.1.2 partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (aka PAIS);
3.1.1.3 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β-HSD3) deficiency;
3.1.1.5 any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis; and
3.2 3.3 3.1.1.4 ovotesticular DSD; or
3.1.2 as a result, they have a concentration of testosterone of 2.5 nmol/L or more in their serum; and
3.1.3 they have sufficient androgen sensitivity for that testosterone to have a material androgenising effect.

3.2 To be eligible to compete in the female classification at a World Rankings Competition, and/or to have recognised any World Record performance in a competition that is not a World Rankings Competition, a Relevant Athlete must meet each of the following conditions (the "DSD Eligibility Conditions"):

3.2.1 they must be recognised at law (for example, in a birth certificate or passport) either as female or as intersex;
3.2.2 they must have continuously maintained the concentration of testosterone in their serum below 2.5 nmol/L3 for a period of at least 24 months; and
3.2.3 they must continue to maintain the concentration of testosterone in their serum below 2.5 nmol/L at all times (i.e., whether they are in competition or out of competition) for so long as they wish to retain eligibility to compete in the female classification at World Rankings Competitions and/or to have recognised any World Record performance in the female classification at a competition that is not a World Rankings Competition.

It was cheek swabs from the late 60s onwards

Its not just after a race

From memory they need to keep the body updated on their location as a team can be sent out at any stage to agreed location to do a randon test. They have to be there or get there within a fixed period to take a test. Failure to provide samples for the second (or third time) is seen as avoidance (due to assumed positive use) and an automatic fail and fixed ban. And although they can appeal I dont think they can event during the appeal.

This is welcome news. i hope it extends to all women's sport.

Enough with the male cheats.

I believe that was back before DNA testing was possible.

Maybe this will help:

Just to recap how we got here

1999 - From what I gather, from the Nature article posted up thread, is that a campaign group successfully convinced the IOC in the late 90s to prioritise inclusion. Because of what they position was the human rights violation of these male athletes with DSDs suffering indignities during testing and the outcomes of that testing.

So in the 1999 the OIC removed testing. 82% of female athletes wanted testing to remain.

Ie. My understanding is that the group campaigned that any male with a Difference of Sex Development that had been incorrectly registered as 'female' on their passport was to never be sex tested by the IOC again and allowed to compete as if they were female, regardless of whether they had gone through male puberty.

www.nature.com/articles/gim2000258.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=f4d4c8630a0411ed831b01a80a1c0e11

2004 - Then in 2004 they allowed male people who surgically removed their testes to compete in female competition. Because once you allow one group of male people in, you must equally allow the other in or you are discriminating against transgender people.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1

2015 -Then in 2015, a campaign group including Harper, using Harper’s flawed study (see nequals8.com web site) convinces the IOC that it is unfair discrimination to exclude any male with a transgender identity describing themselves as a woman. The IOC changes the policy to allow them.

https://nequals8.com

stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

2016 -Then came the Rio trio in the female 800m and we start to see the testosterone suppression of the male people with DSDs come in. Semenya takes this to court in 2019. Appealed 2020. The evidence presented confirmed 5ARD and testosterone of 21 nmol/L.

2021 - 2020 Tokyo games held in 2021 was the testosterone suppressed games. Hubbard, a late 40 something male in female event where next youngest was probably a decade and a half younger, shines light on the issue.

The IOC reacts by announcing a review.

The new guidelines released Nov 2021 devolve responsibility for policy to each discipline’s international federation. ie. They force the sporting federations to make the hard decisions that the IOC refuse to make.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf#_ga=2.219716894.621299853.1686571450-594927581.1678187184

They also reaffirm that 'inclusivity' is their over all priority. They say that safety is as well, but this is clearly contradictory when you consider boxing as an example.

The IOC is clear that they RECOGNISE that the inclusion of male athletes will be UNFAIR but their priority is inclusion. Richard Budgett said this.
The federations then develop their own policies. that have done this are : FINA, WA, UCI, IBA and WR. FIFA for instance announced a review years ago and done nothing. IBA announced their new policy in 22/23.

The WA have even stated that their new guidelines for the Olympics immediately excluded 13 males with DSDs with testosterone advantage from the competitions until those 13 male athletes chose to reduce their testosterone to 2.5 nmol/L for 2 years. 13 just in athletics competitions alone! (By the way, this reduction has already been shown to not eliminate unfair male advantage, but this is where we are at the moment.)

By the IOC removing the IBA from organising the boxing, the IOC left boxing only with the IOC inclusive guidelines.

So, we know from the announcement by Budgett from IOC in November 2021 that fairness was a lower priority to inclusion. It was along the lines of ‘we know it is unfair to include male people with pubertal advantage, but inclusion is our aim.’

And the IOC and other organisations still claim that Semenya is a 'female with naturally high testosterone' to this day. Despite the world being easily able to find the evidence presented to the CAS that Semenya is MALE with 5-ARD and had tested with a testosterone level of 21nmol/L. NO female has that level and is healthy. They are likely to be gravely ill.

I'm sure I remember Sharron Davies saying they'd polled the female athletes as to how they felt about the cheek swab test and 80%+ were in favour of it, but then that was misrepresented to say most female athletes didn't want to keep it. And I wonder now about those women who didn't want to be tested - did they suspect all was not as they'd thought?

Early on women athletes did have to parade naked in front of a committee (not sure what that involved) but then swabbing came in. There could be no real justification for making women het naked if they could just be swabbed.

This is what the Nature link said about the questionnaire that the female athletes undertook:

"At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not
they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events.
No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed"

And this weak reasoning

"Of importance to the IOC in future policy making was the expense and volunteer effort required to accomplish this program. The laboratory testing alone cost over $150,000 and this cost did not include the time given voluntarily by 58 professionals who donated from 18 to 90 days of their time. Given the absence of masquerading males; the normal distribution of sports relevant physical differences in XX women athletes; and the cost and complexity of the testing program, there remained a consistent resolve among the professionals involved that screening of female athletes should be abandoned in the future."

The authors then position the tests as verification of 'femininity' and as you can see, they had framed the sex testing as 'males masquerading as female'. They did not discuss the advantages that male people with DSDs had over female people. If I remember correctly, it was all about the indignity of those male people having to suffer sex testing.

Here is one of the papers that they mention was used to remove the sex testing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8272686/

Simpson TL, Ljungqvist A, de la Chapelle A, Ferguson-Smith MA, Genel M, Carlson A, Ehrhardt A, Ferris E. Gender verification in competitive sports. Sports Med 1993; 16:305-315.

"However, an even greater problem is that there exist phenotypic females with male sex chromatin patterns (e.g. androgen insensitivity, XY gonadal dysgenesis). These individuals have no athletic advantage as a result of their congenital abnormality and reasonably should not be excluded from competition. That is, only the chromosomal (genetic) sex is analysed by sex chromatin testing, not the anatomical or psychosocial status. For all the above reasons sex chromatin testing unfairly excludes many athletes. Although the IOC offered follow-up physical examinations that could have restored eligibility for those 'failing' sex chromatin tests, most affected athletes seemed to prefer to 'retire'. All these problems remain with the current laboratory based gender verification test, polymerase chain reaction based testing of the SRY gene, the main candidate for male sex determination. Thus, this 'advance' in fact still fails to address the fundamental inequities of laboratory based gender verification tests. "

So, in 1993 it was argued that these male people held no advantage and were being targeted unfairly because of their masculine appearance. And that sex testing them was unfair.

And over 20 years later, and despite evidence to show that they do indeed have advantage and that female athletes have now been significantly disadvantaged for over 20 years... the IOC still has not changed to protect female athletes.

It really is all about centring a group of male people.