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.

  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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.

      • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 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?

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 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.

              • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                See there you go again. I asked you previously to improve your critical thinking skills but it is clearly beyond you. Being hostile just because you refuse to put the smallest of efforts into seeing how reality works isn’t working though it is clearly your default MO. Don’t get angry at others just because you’re wrong and you know it, or don’t know it but can’t figure out why. It isn’t going to help you in the long run.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 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.

                  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    If read, did not understand (a continuing theme with you). I led the horse to water. I’m not going to try forcing it to drink. The answer to your incomprehension is obvious if you literally listen to what I’ve already told you a few posts back. At this point you don’t want to think about it and that isn’t my problem no matter how hard you try to make that the case.