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.
They were tested and found to violate the rules they agreed to which in my book means to compete unfairly.
Which rules did they violate? How do you know the test was fair?
The rules stipulated in the contract. It was fair because they both agreed to them like everyone else does.
And those rules were?
They are in the link I provided which you’ve read so you should already know.
The link where you claimed Appendix 6 showed the appeal process when it didn’t and haven’t shown where it would show the appeals process?
Sounds like you don’t know either. Which makes me wonder why you think any test at all would invalidate it apart from just taking the league at their word. A league the IOC has found to be completely corrupt.
Oh, I know. I know the entire document is literally all the rules and that the appeals process is clearly specified in the bold text you literally pasted a photo of in here.
You clearly aren’t looking to argue in good faith or do the bare minimum of effort to verify information literally being spoonfed to you. Please: Do better.
That was the appeals process regarding doping. Which you know. It has nothing to do with gender. If you don’t want me to call you dishonest, don’t be dishonest. Don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith when you’re pretending the doping appeals process which applies specifically to charges of doping has anything to do with this.
You claim you know which rules they broke. Name them. Or is that more dishonesty?
IBA disqualified athletes Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif from the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships New Delhi 2023. This disqualification was a result of their failure to meet the eligibility criteria for participating in the women’s competition, as set and laid out in the IBA Regulations. Point to note, the athletes did not undergo a testosterone examination but were subject to a separate and recognized test. This test conclusively indicated that both athletes did not meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.
You are arguing in bad faith. The decision was not regarding gender but due to the detection of “competitive advantages” which obviously falls under the doping rules.
Edit: link break repair.