## Facts

- Dutee Chand, an Indian elite sprinter, was subject to eligibility screening under the IAAF Regulations Governing Eligibility of Female Athletes with Hyperandrogenism (the “Hyperandrogenism Regulations”).
- Chand had naturally occurring hyperandrogenism, resulting in higher-than-typical endogenous androgen/testosterone levels for the female category.
- The Hyperandrogenism Regulations set a presumptive ineligibility threshold for women’s competition at a serum total testosterone level of 10 nmol/L or higher, subject to limited exceptions (including showing no performance advantage or androgen resistance).
- The Regulations contemplated investigation of suspected athletes, including medical assessment at approved facilities, and required an athlete found ineligible to lower testosterone below the threshold (including by medical treatment) to regain eligibility.
- Chand was suspended from female competition based on her endogenous hormone levels under the applicable IAAF/Indian federation process.
- Chand appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging both her suspension and the validity of the Hyperandrogenism Regulations.
- Chand argued that the Regulations (1) unlawfully discriminated against female athletes and those with a particular natural physical characteristic, (2) rested on flawed assumptions about testosterone and performance, (3) were disproportionate to any legitimate objective of category fairness, and (4) operated as an unauthorized form of doping control by penalizing natural hormone levels.
- A CAS panel heard the matter in Lausanne and issued an award (dated July 24, 2015, later made public in 2017) addressing whether the Regulations could be enforced on the existing evidentiary record.

## Issues

1. Do the Hyperandrogenism Regulations discriminate against certain female athletes based on a sex-linked biological trait, and if so, can that discrimination be justified by a legitimate sporting objective?
2. Did the IAAF meet its burden to show, with sufficient scientific evidence, that endogenous testosterone above the 10 nmol/L threshold confers a material performance advantage in women’s athletics that warrants exclusion absent hormone reduction?
3. Are the Regulations a necessary and proportionate means of protecting fairness in the female category given their consequences (testing, potential medical intervention, and exclusion from competition)?
4. Do the Regulations function as an unauthorized form of doping control by treating naturally occurring hormone levels as a basis for ineligibility?

## Decision

- The CAS panel held that the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are discriminatory because they single out a subset of women for adverse eligibility consequences based on naturally occurring testosterone levels linked to sex characteristics.
- The panel accepted that ensuring fair competition in a separate female category is a legitimate objective in athletics.
- On the evidentiary record presented, the panel found that the IAAF had not discharged its burden of proving that the 10 nmol/L threshold (and the regulatory scheme built around it) was justified by adequate scientific evidence demonstrating a material competitive advantage.
- The panel concluded that, without stronger scientific support, enforcing the Regulations would not be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving the stated objective.
- The panel suspended the operation of the Hyperandrogenism Regulations for a defined period (two years), giving the IAAF an opportunity to submit new, sufficient scientific evidence capable of justifying reinstatement.
- During the suspension, Chand was permitted to compete in women’s events without being required to alter her natural testosterone levels under the suspended Regulations, unless and until the IAAF established a sufficient evidentiary basis for enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- A sport governing body may use sex-category eligibility rules, but rules that treat a class of female athletes differently based on sex-linked biology are discriminatory and require strong justification.
- Discriminatory eligibility rules may be permissible only if they pursue a legitimate objective (such as fair competition in the female category) and are necessary and proportionate to that objective.
- The regulator bears the burden of proof to justify the differential treatment with reliable scientific evidence showing that the targeted trait confers a material performance advantage in the relevant events.
- Where eligibility rules pressure athletes toward invasive testing or medical treatment as a condition of participation, proportionality review must account for the seriousness of the interference with bodily integrity and personal autonomy.
- A tribunal may suspend (rather than annul) a contested regulatory regime to allow the governing body time to supply adequate evidence or reformulate the rules, while preventing enforcement that is not justified on the existing record.

## Conclusion

In Chand v. IAAF, CAS found the Hyperandrogenism Regulations discriminatory but potentially defensible in principle if supported by convincing science and a proportionate design. Because the IAAF had not shown, on the record before the panel, that endogenous testosterone above 10 nmol/L yields a material competitive advantage warranting exclusion or compelled hormone reduction, CAS suspended the Regulations for two years and allowed Chand to compete while leaving open the possibility of reinstatement upon submission of sufficient evidence.


Chand v. International Association of Athletics Federations, CAS 2014/A/3759 (2017)