[The Weeping Angel]

You can read the article here

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... if/679410/

I even copied and pasted the entire article here in case people were unable to access The Atlantic.

[MisterMuncher]

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.

[Crabcakes]

As well as straightforward bigotry from the IBA, Putin really does have his fingerprints all over this too - both as revenge for the IOC’s action against Russia, and his general sowing chaos routine.

https://apnews.com/article/olympics-202 ... d35ca440e6

https://apnews.com/article/olympics-202 ... 96f97dd634

[Bones McCoy]

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

We were never offered Robert Galbraith's DNA test results.
I get the feeling they'd have been identical to Enoch Blyton's.

[davidjay]

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]

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.

As Helen Lewis points out

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.

[MisterMuncher]

It's an amazing bit of passive voice-esque bullshit. The questions aren't just arising spontaneously from the ether, those asterisks aren't suddenly appearing through some quirk of the printing press. Someone is asking them, they've got agendas of their own, and I'm at a loss to know by what authority or right they dare to call others to defend their innocence.

[kreuzberger]

Yes. These people are quite preposterous. Have they nothing better to do with their lives other than worry about hidden winkles and false bosoms, (it sure as fuck has nothing to do with boxing)? This is all part of "first they came for" drama, and they are a threat to all of us. I hope that they drown in their own bile.

[The Weeping Angel]

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.

[Bones McCoy]

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.

It's identical energy to

"Enough is enough! Why aren't we being told."

[Crabcakes]

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.

[MisterMuncher]

Even without DNA testing, no one seems to have a reason why regular ol' dope testing hasn't shown Kheilif glowing like a Chernobyl searchlight with her alleged male hormone complement, or the masking agents for same.

Did they just skip her in testing?

[The Weeping Angel]

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.

[Andy McDandy]

Maybe because life's too fucking short.

If so, I sympathise.

[Crabcakes]

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/

[Crabcakes]

Bonus round: see if you can guess the nationality of the boxer Khelif beat immediately before being booted out of the IBA contest (thus reinstating that boxer’s undefeated status).

[davidjay]

Boxing News, the trade paper of the sport, has supported her from the start and Steve Bunce, the blokiest bloke in blokedom, has been solidly behind her.

[The Weeping Angel]

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/

She wouldn't have appealed to the IBA her appeal would have been heard by the court of arbitration for sport an independent body based in Switzerland. Look I know you're pushing the IBA is corrupt and run by the Russian line. But it's perfectly possible to recognise the IBA is corrupt and dubious* but also to recognise that the IOC's procedures and flawed and it is they who are largely to blame for this whole situation.

* It's also not like the IOC are squeaky clean in this area either.

[Crabcakes]

Her appeal? What, you mean this appeal, champ?

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.

From Wikipedia (my emphasis)

[The Weeping Angel]

Yes that appeal the appeal that isn't with the IBA as you seemed to think.