Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:10 pm This absolute bin fire can fuck off. Even with a DNA test they wouldn’t be happy and they’d find some other arbitrary bar to be met. All because of a mistranslation of an emotional opponent’s withdrawal, and a hugely controversial and likely politically motivated disqualification from a discredited boxing org whose own statements on what tests were done to justify their actions are contradictory.

And guess who chose to retweet this as her first tweet in 2 weeks? Looks like someone is still annoyed her lawyers told her that yes, maybe she should delete a lot of stuff

MisterMuncher wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 10:34 am It revolves around the same thing, though, the notion that the two boxers in question must prove their innocence.

Weird as well that WADA, who would be the sanctioning and testing body ultimately in charge of all this stuff haven't said anything, and that the IOC critics are quite studiously avoiding mentioning them.

Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting have been through hell over the past week, and the determination and discipline they have shown are admirable. But if the questions around their eligibility remain unresolved, the medals they win will always have an asterisk next to them. That isn’t fair to them, or to their opponents.

davidjay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 5:57 pm Why the fuck should she publish, or even take, a DNA test? Calling a woman a man is as puerile and potentially damaging as "confirmed bachelor" used to be. She's a woman. She doesn't have to prove it.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:57 pm How about sporting fairness? One fo those voices that has been asking these questions has been Nicola Adams a woman who won a gold medal at London 2012 in Boxing. But I guess it's easier to ignore what she has to say and focus on JK Rowling instead.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 10:39 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:57 pm How about sporting fairness? One fo those voices that has been asking these questions has been Nicola Adams a woman who won a gold medal at London 2012 in Boxing. But I guess it's easier to ignore what she has to say and focus on JK Rowling instead.

Nicola Adams commented on this directly after the fight where the Italian entrant withdrew and her comments afterwards were mistranslated. Nicola Adams also wrongly claimed that Khelif had been born male, and gone through puberty as a male. She has not fought Khelif at any stage in her career, and has no scientific or professional background.

So it is easy to ignore what she said, because what she said was incorrect.

In terms of ‘sporting fairness’, Khelif has lost 9 times to other fighters. There have been no previous complaints raised by opponents concerning unfairness - including the ones she beat. Two of her previous opponents - Kellie Harrington and Amy Broadhurst - both spoke out after Adams did to say they had absolutely no problem with Khelif competing, and both had beat her soundly in their fights, winning 5-0. The former was at the Tokyo olympics, which Harrington went on to win gold at and whose women’s boxing was held under the *exact same rules* as this year’s contest.

There were zero complaints, news stories or concerns about fairness or unfair advantage raised at those games. Or indeed at any other event she has taken part in since the start of her career in 2018. The only ‘controversy’ around her is the questionable 2023 ban, handed down for questionable reasons from a corrupt organisation.
[/uote]

Khelif had an opportunity to appeal her ban but chose not to.

Khelif had an opportunity to appeal her ban but chose not to.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 8:35 am

Khelif had an opportunity to appeal her ban but chose not to.

Yes, because famously when corrupt organisations arbitrarily disqualify you mid-contest for reasons they are neither clear nor consistent about but are highly likely to be politically motivated in favour of a dictator who likes arranging for officials he doesn’t like to fall out of the window, they’re bound to give you a wholly fair hearing.

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2024/ ... ic-boxers/

The IBA did not reveal the testing methodology, stating the "specifics remain confidential". At the time, Khelif said the ruling meant having "characteristics that mean I can't box with women", but said she was the victim of a "big conspiracy" regarding the disqualification. She initially appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport but the appeal was terminated since Khelif couldn't pay the procedural costs.