Search

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

Elite-level rugby union (RU) is a high-intensity contact sport that involves large training and match volumes across a season, which can lead to postmatch fatigue. Autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation and perceived fatigue have been suggested to relate to measures of training and match load in RU. However, there have been no studies to assess specific ANS variables in elite RU during in-season microcycles. Player readiness during game-week microcycles was measured via heart rate variability (HRV) indices, direct current potential and self-reported well-being among 13, elite, male RU players. To enable comparison, data collection days were categorized in relation to their proximity to match day, ranging from match day minus 3 (MD - 3), to match day plus 3 (MD + 3). Differences between match days were evaluated using general linear models and Cohen's d effect sizes. There were significant differences between MD and MD + 1 for ANS indices (RMSSD p = 0.04, d = -0.66, 95% CI 0.11-1.20; the standard deviation of NN intervals p = 0.04, d = -0.66, 95% CI 0.12-1.20; total power p = 0.05, d = -0.65, 95% CI 0.11-1.20) and wellness measures (readiness p = 0.18; d = -2.33, 95% CI, 1.54-3.13; energy p = 0.02; d = -2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.03; soreness p = 0.00; d = -2.42, 95% CI 1.63-3.23). Match day plus 3 effects were significantly greater than MD + 1 in several ANS responses, with wellness recovering at a slower time-course than ANS responses. Measures of HRV are dysregulated postmatch, but based on their rapid recovery thereafter, using HRV to assess readiness of elite-level players in RU across a weekly microcycle could be limited and requires further investigation.

Chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are effective treatments for most Hodgkin lymphoma patients, however there remains a need for better tumor-specific target therapy in Hodgkin lymphoma patients with refractory or relapsed disease. Herein, we demonstrate that membrane CD83 is a diagnostic and therapeutic target, highly expressed in Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells in 29/35 (82.9%) Hodgkin lymphoma patient lymph node biopsies. CD83 from Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cells was able to trogocytose to surrounding T cells and, interestingly, the trogocytosing CD83+T cells expressed significantly more programmed death-1 compared to CD83-T cells. Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cells secreted soluble CD83 that inhibited T-cell proliferation, and anti-CD83 antibody partially reversed the inhibitory effect. High levels of soluble CD83 were detected in Hodgkin lymphoma patient sera, which returned to normal in patients who had good clinical responses to chemotherapy confirmed by positron emission tomography scans. We generated a human anti-human CD83 antibody, 3C12C, and its toxin monomethyl auristatin E conjugate, that killed CD83 positive Hodgkin lymphoma cells but not CD83 negative cells. The 3C12C antibody was tested in dose escalation studies in non-human primates. No toxicity was observed, but there was evidence of CD83 positive target cell depletion. These data establish CD83 as a potential biomarker and therapeutic target in Hodgkin lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating associations between ACTN3 R577X and ACE I/D genotypes and endurance athletic status have been limited by small sample sizes from mixed sport disciplines and lack quantitative measures of performance. AIM: To examine the association between ACTN3 R577X and ACE I/D genotypes and best personal running times in a large homogeneous cohort of endurance runners. METHODS: We collected a total of 1064 personal best 1500, 3000, 5000 m and marathon running times of 698 male and female Caucasian endurance athletes from six countries (Australia, Greece, Italy, Poland, Russia and UK). Athletes were genotyped for ACTN3 R577X and ACE ID variants. RESULTS: There was no association between ACTN3 R577X or ACE I/D genotype and running performance at any distance in men or women. Mean (SD) marathon times (in s) were for men: ACTN3 RR 9149 (593), RX 9221 (582), XX 9129 (582) p = 0.94; ACE DD 9182 (665), ID 9214 (549), II 9155 (492) p = 0.85; for women: ACTN3 RR 10796 (818), RX 10667 (695), XX 10675 (553) p = 0.36; ACE DD 10604 (561), ID 10766 (740), II 10771 (708) p = 0.21. Furthermore, there were no associations between these variants and running time for any distance in a sub-analysis of athletes with personal records within 20% of world records. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, consistent with most case-control studies, this multi-cohort quantitative analysis demonstrates it is unlikely that ACTN3 XX genotype provides an advantage in competitive endurance running performance. For ACE II genotype, some prior studies show an association but others do not. Our data indicate it is also unlikely that ACE II genotype provides an advantage in endurance running.

OBJECTIVES: To profile the distances covered during international women's rugby union match-play and assess the duration-specific worst-case scenario locomotor demands over 60-s to 600-s epochs, whilst comparing the values determined by fixed epoch (FIXED) versus rolling average (ROLL) methods of worst-case scenario estimation and assessing positional influences. DESIGN: Descriptive, observational. METHODS: Twenty-nine international women's rugby union players wore 10Hz microelectromechanical systems during eight international matches (110 observations). Total, and per-half, distances were recorded, whilst relative total and high-speed (>4.4ms-1) distances were averaged using FIXED and ROLL methods over 60-600-s. Linear mixed models compared distances covered between match halves, assessed FIXED versus ROLL, and examined the influence of playing position. RESULTS: Players covered ∼5.8kmmatch-1, with reduced distances in the second- versus first-half (p<0.001). For worst-case scenario total (∼8-25%) and high-speed (∼10-26%) distance, FIXED underestimated ROLL. In ROLL, worst-case scenario relative total and high-speed distances reduced from ∼144-161mmin-1 and ∼30-69mmin-1 over 60-s, to ∼8089mmin-1 and ∼516mmin-1 in the 600-s epoch, respectively. Forwards performed less high-speed running over all epochs and covered less total distance during epochs of 60-s, 180-s, 420-s and 480-s, compared with backs. Front row players typically returned the lowest locomotor demands. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study reporting the positional and worst-case scenario demands of international women's rugby union, and indicates an underestimation in FIXED versus ROLL over 60-s to 600-s epochs. Knowledge of the most demanding periods of women's rugby union match-play facilitates training specificity by enabling sessions to be tailored to such demands.