The case of Dutee Chand v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) centered on the validity of the IAAF's Hyperandrogenism Regulations, which imposed restrictions on female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels competing in women's events. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the legal, scientific, and ethical dimensions of these regulations, ultimately determining their prima facie discriminatory nature since they required female athletes to undergo testosterone testing while male athletes did not. The burden of proof rested on Dutee Chand to demonstrate the regulations were discriminatory, and if successful, the IAAF had to justify them as reasonable and proportionate.
Dutee Chand, an Indian sprinter, challenged the regulations on grounds of discrimination, flawed assumptions about testosterone's role in performance, disproportionality, and unauthorized doping control. The IAAF defended the regulations, arguing that testosterone levels significantly impact athletic performance, justifying the differentiation between male and female athletes. However, the panel noted a lack of direct evidence correlating endogenous testosterone levels in hyperandrogenic females with a proportional competitive advantage over other female athletes. Without such evidence, the regulations could not be deemed necessary or proportionate.
The case highlighted broader ethical and fairness concerns in sports governance, particularly regarding natural variations in athletes' physiology. The panel's decision underscored the need for evidence-based policies that respect athletes' rights while maintaining competitive integrity. Expert testimonies revealed a divide: some argued testosterone is the primary factor differentiating male and female athletic performance, while others contended performance is influenced by multiple biological, psychological, and social factors, making it impossible to isolate testosterone as the sole determinant. The IAAF maintained that the regulations were necessary to preserve fair competition, while critics like Dr. Katrina Karkazis argued they stigmatized and harmed female athletes, particularly those from developing countries.
The CAS suspended the Hyperandrogenism Regulations for two years, requiring the IAAF to provide further scientific justification or face their invalidation. The ruling emphasized the importance of proportionality and non-discrimination in sports regulations, leaving open the possibility for future revisions if sufficient evidence emerges. The case underscored the tension between ensuring competitive fairness and respecting the rights of athletes with natural biological variations, reflecting broader debates about gender, biology, and equity in sports. The panel's decision balanced the IAAF's legitimate interest in fair competition with the need for robust scientific evidence to justify restrictive policies.
Ultimately, the case highlighted the complexities of regulating intersex and hyperandrogenic conditions in sports, emphasizing the need for transparent, evidence-based approaches that uphold both competitive integrity and athletes' rights. The CAS's ruling temporarily lifted restrictions on athletes like Dutee Chand, pending further scientific validation from the IAAF, and set a precedent for future cases involving natural physiological variations in athletics.