Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A question of ‘fairness’: Why ethics should factor in the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s decision on the IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations
  1. Silvia Camporesi
  1. Correspondence to Dr Silvia Camporesi, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; silvia.camporesi{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, is an international court tasked with settling legal disputes related to sport. This editorial comments on the ongoing Dutee Chand vs Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) case1 (see box 1) which pertains to whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a correlation between levels of endogenous testosterone and a competitive advantage in track and field.

Box 1

Background on Dutee Chand vs AFI & IAAF case

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Hyperandrogenism Regulations were in place from 1 May 2011 to 24 July 2015, when they were suspended by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The regulations stated that female athletes who naturally produce levels of testosterone higher than 10 nmol/L were not eligible to compete in the female category and would need to take androgen suppressive drugs to resume competition. Dutee Chand, an Indian sprinter, was asked to abide by these Regulations in July 2014 and appealed to the CAS on grounds that the Regulations unfairly discriminated against women who naturally produced higher levels of testosterone. The CAS was not satisfied with the evidence the IAAF provided and …

View Full Text


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles