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
      1·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          1·
          5 months ago

          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?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              1·
              5 months ago

              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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  5 months ago

                  Again, I read the document. You clearly did not. Saying I’m wrong without showing the rule which only excludes people from competing with women is just more dishonesty because there is no rule.

                  I have no idea why you’re trying to gaslight me into this, but it won’t work because, yet again, I read the document you gave me to read.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      1·
      5 months ago

      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:

      It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.

      2.2: Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

      Clarifying subsection:

      It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

      …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.