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.
It does strike me as odd, but not as odd as not going through with an appeal. At least with an appeal you have the dignity of refuting the,
likely false, allegation and also have a chance to reveal what the ‘evidence’ is. Surrendering without a fight is not a good look imo.Edit: while MY end of the following argument is cogent, out of respect for the accused I will point to new evidence that significantly discredits the IBA’s decision and competence. Their citing of an XY karyotype and/or excessive testosterone levels despite clearly stating testosterone and chromosome tests were NOT the initial reason for the DQs is simply baffling.
Suggesting tests are valid just because the results weren’t challenged in public is not how testing works.
And suggesting they were invalid because they weren’t challenged is?
Please quote me suggesting that.
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.