Khelif of Algeria and Lin of Taiwan have been the focus of intense attention — and often inaccurate commentary — because both were disqualified at the 2023 world championships

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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    72·
    3 months ago

    Suggesting tests are valid just because the results weren’t challenged in public is not how testing works.

        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
          34·
          3 months ago

          So why are you arguing then? You have no reason not to believe the accusations are true if you aren’t suggesting that.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            52·
            3 months ago

            I’m asking for evidence. They, and you, are making a claim. It is up to both of you to back up that claim.

            You may accept evidence-free claims, I try not to.

            And no, “they did not publicly challenge it” is not evidence of a valid test or valid results if the test is valid. Literally the only thing we know, because it’s all they told us, is that they did not test for testosterone.

            • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
              32·
              3 months ago

              Tested, found to have an advantage, disqualified, refused to go through with an appeal. This is all evidence she has an unfair advantage and that neither party wants her personal information revealed to the public, which imo is fine. Not being sufficient evidence for you is not my problem. Bottom line this evidence is far more than the opposing viewpoint provides.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                52·
                3 months ago

                Tested,

                Again, we have no idea what test or who administered it. Not evidence of test results.

                found to have an advantage,

                Since we don’t know what the test was, we have no idea what that advantage was. Again, not evidence.

                disqualified,

                Once again, we do not know what they were disqualified for.

                refused to go through with an appeal.

                Please tell me exactly what they would have had to do in order to make an appeal. Do you even know?

                • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
                  33·
                  3 months ago

                  … 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…

                  Please tell me exactly what they would have had to do in order to make an appeal. Do you even know?

                  Irrelevant. She agreed to that process whatever it is when she signed on to compete.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    32·
                    3 months ago

                    She agreed to that process

                    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.