• Home
  • Topics
  • News
  • DSD Regulations: Caster Semenya's appeal against the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed

DSD Regulations: Caster Semenya's appeal against the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed

DSD Regulations

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeals submitted by the South African athlete Caster Semenya and her athletics federation against the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport on the "Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)" (DSD Regulations). The Court of Arbitration for Sport had the right to uphold the conditions of participation issued for female athletes with the genetic variant "46 XY DSD" in order to guarantee fair competition for certain running disciplines in female athletics.

The International Association of Athletics Federation issued the new DSD Regulations in April 2018. These regulate the conditions that an implicated female athlete must meet in order to be able to participate in international running competitions in the "protected class women", over distances of 400m up to 1 mile. The regulations only apply to female athletes with the genetic variant "46 XY DSD". Persons with this gene variation have a testosterone level clearly within the normal reference range for men. The DSD Regulations require that the implicated female athletes lower their testosterone level to below a certain value (5 nmol/L) for six months before a competition and keep it below this value for as long as they wish to compete in equivalent international competitions in the "women" category. 

In June 2018, the South African athlete Caster Semenya appealed against the DSD Regulations before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. The South African Athletics Association ("Athletics South Africa", ASA) also took the case to the CAS. The CAS dismissed both arbitration claims in 2019. The main conclusion was that the admission conditions in accordance with the DSD Regulations would only cover implicated female athletes, but that the differentiation was necessary, reasonable and proportionate in order to preserve the integrity of female athletics ("protected class women") in the relevant running competitions as well as to guarantee fair competition.

Caster Semenya and ASA appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court against the CAS decision. It rejects both appeals.

As an independent court of arbitration, the CAS has comprehensively examined the Caster Semenya case and consulted numerous experts. For its part, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court cannot subject the CAS decision to any free legal control. On the contrary, its examination of the content is limited by law to the question of whether the CAS decision violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order ("ordre public"). That is not the case.

Caster Semenya essentially alleges a violation of the prohibition of discrimination. For the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the CAS has issued a binding decision based on the unanimous opinion of the experts who were consulted that testosterone is the main factor for the different performance levels of the sexes in athletics; according to the CAS, women with the "46 XY DSD" gene variant have a testosterone level comparable to men, which gives them an insurmountable competitive advantage and enables them to beat female athletes without the "46 XY DSD" variant. Based on these findings, the CAS decision cannot be challenged. Fairness in sport is a legitimate concern and forms a central principle of sporting competition. It is one of the pillars on which competition is based. The European Court of Human Rights also attaches particular importance to the aspect of fair competition. In addition to this significant public interest, the CAS rightly considered the other relevant interests, namely the private interests of the female athletes running in the "women" category.

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.

Courses

Legal Advisors


Copyright © LawInSport Limited 2010 - 2021. These pages contain general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. LawInSport is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.