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.

  • 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.