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