Without NCAA Action, the Effects of Lia Thomas Case Are Akin to Doping
The advantages afforded
Kornelia Ender were transformational. The benefits reaped by
Kristin Otto made her a global superstar. The boost enjoyed by
Michelle Smith took her from also-ran status to Olympic champion. It’s simple: Performance-enhancing substances have – at various points in history – altered the dynamic of the sport.
If not for the systematic doping program of East Germany,
Shirley Babashoff would be an individual Olympic gold medalist.
Enith Brigitha would hold that title, too. So would
Sharron Davies. And if not for the obvious doping of Smith, the Irish lass whose career arc is laughable,
Marianne Limpert and
Allison Wagner would be referred to as Olympic titlists.
Who will lose out next?
Photo Courtesy: Swimming World Magazine
The influence of doping occupies no small chapter in the sport’s history. Numerous athletes – through individualized decisions – have tainted competition through their use of illicit drugs. Some countries – notably East Germany and China – have developed national-level programs designed to attain powerhouse status. Either way, wreckage has been left behind, the greatest casualties those clean athletes beaten and knocked down, or off the podium.
The newest predicament facing the sport is not one of rampant doping, but a complex scenario with an outcome that could be as damning. Yes, we’re discussing the
Lia Thomas saga – again. It’s a debate not soon to go away, and with each passing day toward the NCAA Championships in March, the potential of Thomas racing for a Division I crown becomes a more pressing issue.
To review, Thomas is a
transgender senior on the University of Pennsylvania women’s team and has produced several performances through the early portion of the season that suggest she will be an NCAA title contender. Previously, she was a three-year member of the men’s squad at Penn and was talented enough to earn All-Ivy League honors.
Her shift from the men’s team to the women’s team is a result of Thomas’ transition to female, and after fulfilling the NCAA’s requirement of one year of testosterone suppressant use, she is eligible to compete in collegiate competition as a member of a women’s program. The problem: The
NCAA’s one-year suppressant requirement is not nearly stringent enough to create a level playing field between Thomas and the biological females against whom she is racing.
Swimming World staffers have penned several articles on the Lia Thomas debate/controversy, ranging from overviews of the situation to
columns. And as this story continues to unfold, we will continue to report and deliver opinion. In this current piece, there is a need to look at Thomas’ athletic skill set in comparison to the advantages doping has provided certain athletes.
Despite the hormone suppressants she has taken, in accordance with NCAA guidelines, Thomas’ male-puberty advantage has not been rolled back an adequate amount. The fact is, for nearly 20 years, she built muscle and benefited from the testosterone naturally produced by her body. That strength does not disappear overnight, nor with a year’s worth of suppressants. Consequently, Thomas dives into the water with an inherent advantage over those on the surrounding blocks.
Kristin Otto
Flash back to the 1970s and 1980s. When the likes of Ender and Otto powered through the water, en route to Olympic titles, they enjoyed a massive advantage over the competition. Babashoff couldn’t keep up. Neither could Brigitha. Why? They were competing against women who were fed steroids and reaped the rewards – most notably enhanced strength.
As Ender moved through the water, her stroke was more powerful and more efficient than the stroke of her rivals, allowing her to cover more ground with each cycle. Otto could push off the walls with greater force. And Smith, who dominated at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, maintained her top end speed and endurance for a longer period than her foes.
From a mental perspective, doping-fueled athletes also possessed an upper hand. For clean athletes, the knowledge they were headed into a race already playing catchup was a blow to the system. Questions lingered before the starting beep. How can I keep up? Is there anything I can do to negate their advantage? Why has this setting been allowed?
Thomas enjoys similar advantages.
Meanwhile, officials of the past turned a blind eye to the situation. Although positive tests were not typically returned, it didn’t take a genius to recognize that doping was at play. Administrators and referees swallowed their words, afraid of being branded for taking an accusatory stance. The NCAA, it can be argued, has taken that same approach via its lax requirements related to transgender females.
Let’s get this out of the way, because some readers will argue we are calling Lia Thomas a doper – regardless of the information presented and the selected verbiage. That is not the case. There is no intent. What we are stating is this: The
effects of being born a biological male, as they relate to the sport of swimming, offer Thomas a clear-cut edge over the biological females against whom she is competing. She is stronger. It is that simple. And this strength is beneficial to her stroke, on turns and to her endurance. Doping has the same effect.
According to NCAA rules, Thomas has met expectations for participation. But for Thomas to suggest she does not have a significant advantage, as she did in one interview, is preposterous at best, and denial at worst. Sure, it is on the NCAA to adjust its bylaws in the name of fair competition for the thousands of swimmers who compete at the collegiate level. It is also on Thomas to acknowledge her edge. The suppressants she has taken account for an approximate 2% to 3% change. The time difference between male and female swimming records is roughly 11%.
Providing Thomas with an opportunity to exhibition and record times while in peak condition would be a suitable decision by the NCAA. Allowing her to register times against athletes who are at an undeniable disadvantage would not be acceptable.
Last spring, Virginia’s
Paige Madden, who represented Team USA at the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, won the NCAA title in the 500-yard freestyle with a time of 4:33.61. Thomas owns a best time of sub-4:20 and recently went 4:34 during a midseason invitational. Even if Thomas does not get near her best time, she seems likely to go faster later in this season and easily win the NCAA title in the 500 free. How is that scenario – in the slightest way – considered legitimate?
Through anonymous means, due to fear of retribution, members of the Penn women’s team and their
parents have spoken out against the participation of Thomas in women’s competition. Good for them. Good for speaking out against an injustice. Now, the NCAA needs to act, and it needs to act quickly. This scenario – with the effects of doping – cannot linger. For the good of the sport, and for fairness to those competing as biological women, a ruling must come down soon.
If it doesn’t, the NCAA just doesn’t care.
I've been following them too:
