296
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
296 points (95.1% liked)
News
37250 readers
524 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Someone in reply to me above inadvertently showed a very simple reason why they're suspect by trying to prove they had accurate testing by sending me to the IBA's own press release, which stated:
They won't even say how they tested her or who they administered the test. Just "we tested them, but not for testosterone, and believe us when we say the test results of the type of test we won't tell you they took say they're women."
And people keep telling me this is about testosterone. So if they weren't tested by the IBA for testosterone, why does testosterone matter?
The simplest explanation is that they didn't do any tests, and this whole kerfuffle is a very successful act of revenge on the IOC, Khelif, and the rest of the sports world.
The AP article linked above even points out that it was three days after she beat a previously undefeated Russian newcomer. By disqualifying Khelif after the fact they retroactively made the Russian boxers record “perfect” again. Now they’re just trying to cause more issues after being stripped of their international recognition a few years ago.
Honestly, these ex post facto disqualifications seem pretty fishy to me to begin with. Shouldn't qualification happen before a match, not after the results have already been decided?
Totally, especially for something that the boxer has no control over. It’s clearly just a way for them to invalidate the results they don’t like.
I don't think it matters either way. Until we're told at the very least what the tests were or who administered them, any testing is irrelevant. They don't even need to say what the results were. All they have to say is, "we did X test on them and Y doctor administered it and Z lab did the analysis."
Did they test them? Who knows? Who cares until they give us the details?
There's so many people starting up discussions that aren't factually relevant, like the testosterone discussion. Just wondering, why did you refer to the boxer as him? Maybe a typo?
Yes. A typo. Fixing now. My apologies.