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.
That is simply a lie. You did not show me the rule. You showed me an appendix which specifically did not say what you said it did, then claimed you were wrong, then went back to claiming it said what it didn’t say.
Then you showed me a press release which did not show me which rule she broke.
I have no idea why you’re just outright lying now.
You are lying. Period. I linked you the ENTIRE RULESET and merely pointed you to Appendix 6 for evidence of the testing and appeals process. Read the entire thing if you care about all the rules.
You pointed me to something about doping.
You did not point me to the rule that excluded women from women’s competition but not all competition.
You can do the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” thing all you like, but you did not show me that rule.
I’m not going to. Read the entire document, and follow up on the ADR once you know what that is (hint: it is linked in the rules I already gave you), and then the Prohibited List if you really want a comprehensive list of everything not-testosterone that can get you banned from women’s competition. Until then, you being uninformed only weakens your argument, not mine.
I’m going to ban you for misinformation, gaslighting, and trolling.
Before I do, I wanted to explain why you’re so completely wrong.
ADR Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 - the rules, state, in short,
2.1: Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s sample
When trying to understand if the rule was breeched:
2.2: Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
Clarifying subsection:
…and that’s it. There’s more, but nothing else defines what constitutes doping.
If someone produces the chemical, they are not introducing it to their system willingly or knowingly, therefore not doping.
Nope. It’s a list of things that can get you banned from all competition. Not just competing with women. She was not banned from all competition.
Once again, dishonest.
Nope, misinformed.
Edit: And to make how evident this is, I’ll give an example that is both obvious and won’t support your unwillingness to read and consider the information given.
Testosterone is one of he prohibited agents on the list. If its presence bans all from participating in all competitions, and not just women’s, how is there even a male category? The answer is clear and when applied to the entire list as appropriate for each substance and competition class you should be able to realize how wrong you are.
And more dishonesty. I told you multiple times and you pasted from the press release that they did not test for testosterone. They also never claimed that she was doping.
You know this and I know this. So why are you trying to lie about it?
Seriously, I’m starting to think you are confusing ‘dishonesty’ for ‘speak words too good’. I expressly used the example that didn’t apply so you would have to apply it once you actually read the data.
The thing is that, unlike you obviously, I read the document you provided which is why I know that there is nothing in there about only disallowing someone to compete in the women’s division.
Which is why I know you’re being dishonest.
But hey, feel free to prove me wrong and show me the rule that is not there. I’m sure it will be like the appendix regarding doping which has nothing to do with the discussion, which you admitted you were wrong about, then went back to claiming it’s relevant.