Even weirder that the IAB disqualified them for having an innate advantage and they either appealed but withdrew it, or didn’t appeal at all as if they themselves believe the veracity of the claim.

It does strike me as odd, but not as odd as not going through with an appeal. At least with an appeal you have the dignity of refuting the, likely false, allegation and also have a chance to reveal what the ‘evidence’ is. Surrendering without a fight is not a good look imo.

Edit: while MY end of the following argument is cogent, out of respect for the accused I will point to new evidence that significantly discredits the IBA’s decision and competence. Their citing of an XY karyotype and/or excessive testosterone levels despite clearly stating testosterone and chromosome tests were NOT the initial reason for the DQs is simply baffling.

And suggesting they were invalid because they weren’t challenged is?

So why are you arguing then? You have no reason not to believe the accusations are true if you aren’t suggesting that.

Tested, found to have an advantage, disqualified, refused to go through with an appeal. This is all evidence she has an unfair advantage and that neither party wants her personal information revealed to the public, which imo is fine. Not being sufficient evidence for you is not my problem. Bottom line this evidence is far more than the opposing viewpoint provides.

… You’ve already made it clear you don’t think the evidence is sufficient for you but it was for both her and the IAB so…

Please tell me exactly what they would have had to do in order to make an appeal. Do you even know?

Irrelevant. She agreed to that process whatever it is when she signed on to compete.

Setting aside that a) I already mentioned 1 of the 2 appealed and withdrew it which obviates the existence of an appeals process, and b) that every child and parent of that has participated in an organized competition agrees to rules as far back as grade school, here is the actual IBA TECHNICAL & COMPETITION RULES. You’ll want to pay particular attention to Appendix 6 where the participant both agrees to testing and the appeals process.

I’m not being dishonest, and I’d appreciate you avoiding personal attacks. I’m assuming you’d take the provided information and do your own due diligence because you’re so passionate about it. Obviously I was wrong.

How they were tested ofc matters. I just presume that if the participants agree to the testing before competing they felt it was appropriate and sufficient for the purpose which is why I don’t concern myself with absurd hypothetical testing procedures like “I know a woman when I see one”.

Again, you’re calling me dishonest when I have done nothing but provide the information and guided you to key points within it to make your own due diligence easier. A lack of which is becoming more and more obvious the more you ad hominem instead of reading. Testosterone is not the only thing checked in the doping guidelines if you follow the chain of references.

And based on all of that, you have decided that she is a man.

I also have clearly not decided she is a man, hence my use of ‘she’ as pronoun many times in the past comments. Please improve your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills as your hostility is patently unfounded when all I’ve argued is that both of them did not full heartedly appeal which strongly suggests the disqualification is on solid grounds they agreed to beforehand.

Not if she isn’t competing fairly.