IOC President Thomas Bach said the “hate speech” directed at boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting at the Paris Olympics is “totally unacceptable.”
“We will not take part in a politically motivated … cultural war,” Bach said at a news briefing Saturday at the midway point of the Paris Games, where he wanted to draw a line under days of global scrutiny about the female boxers’ gender.
Again, we have no idea what test or who administered it. Not evidence of test results.
Since we don’t know what the test was, we have no idea what that advantage was. Again, not evidence.
Once again, we do not know what they were disqualified for.
Please tell me exactly what they would have had to do in order to make an appeal. Do you even know?
… You’ve already made it clear you don’t think the evidence is sufficient for you but it was for both her and the IAB so…
Irrelevant. She agreed to that process whatever it is when she signed on to compete.
How do you know that? How do you even know there is an appeal process? Let’s see your information.
And you’re right, I don’t think “we gave her a test but we won’t tell you what it is” is sufficient, because it could be anything from genetic testing to inspecting their genitalia to someone deemed official walking in, saying, “I know a woman when I see one,” and leaving.
Setting aside that a) I already mentioned 1 of the 2 appealed and withdrew it which obviates the existence of an appeals process, and b) that every child and parent of that has participated in an organized competition agrees to rules as far back as grade school, here is the actual IBA TECHNICAL & COMPETITION RULES. You’ll want to pay particular attention to Appendix 6 where the participant both agrees to testing and the appeals process.
First of all, appendix 6:
That says nothing about gender at all, nor is it about gender. You’re being very dishonest and I’m not sure why. Did you think I wouldn’t check?
Secondly, you still haven’t explained to me why you don’t think how they were tested matters when the test, again, could be “I know a woman when I see one.”
I’m not being dishonest, and I’d appreciate you avoiding personal attacks. I’m assuming you’d take the provided information and do your own due diligence because you’re so passionate about it. Obviously I was wrong.
How they were tested ofc matters. I just presume that if the participants agree to the testing before competing they felt it was appropriate and sufficient for the purpose which is why I don’t concern myself with absurd hypothetical testing procedures like “I know a woman when I see one”.
You absolutely are being dishonest. It is not a personal attack. You told me to look at appendix 6. Why did you tell me to look at that if you weren’t being dishonest?
Did you mean appendix 7? Appendix 5? Which appendix was I supposed to look at?
What if she agreed to the testing because she was told if she didn’t, they would use their clout to make sure that she never boxed anyone again? What if she agreed to pull out of the appeal for the same reason? That would be in no way unprecedented in sports to threaten an athlete like that.
You don’t know how she was tested. You don’t know why she stopped the appeal. All you know is that she was tested for something and she decided it was worth appealing at some point, but ended that appeal for unknown reasons. And the thing she was tested for was not testosterone.
And based on all of that, you have decided that she is a man.
Again, you’re calling me dishonest when I have done nothing but provide the information and guided you to key points within it to make your own due diligence easier. A lack of which is becoming more and more obvious the more you ad hominem instead of reading. Testosterone is not the only thing checked in the doping guidelines if you follow the chain of references.
I also have clearly not decided she is a man, hence my use of ‘she’ as pronoun many times in the past comments. Please improve your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills as your hostility is patently unfounded when all I’ve argued is that both of them did not full heartedly appeal which strongly suggests the disqualification is on solid grounds they agreed to beforehand.
Cool. So she can compete with other women whatever the test says. We’re in agreement.