Evaluate Evidence Before Enacting Rules

Regulations in sports are often influenced by perceived biological advantages linked to sex, as opposed to other physical attributes, such as blood oxygen levels or muscle types. The case from 2015 highlights a significant challenge: the need for substantial evidence to prove the extent of any advantage before implementing rules. The Court of Arbitration for Sport recognized that while advantages tied to sex could necessitate regulation, they required concrete proof of magnitude—distinguishing between impactful advantages (like 10-12 percent) versus negligible ones (2-3 percent). The lack of evidence led to the suspension of testosterone regulations, illuminating the dangers in policy-making without rigorous research, as seen in the analogy comparing sports regulations to a hypothetical scenario involving a tobacco company manipulating research outcomes.