Zimbabwe vs Ireland | Only Test | 25-29 July 2024

[Andybligzz]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/DLTaro ... tid=oKfgLb

Am I the only one curious about the adjustment here?
Been around women my whole life, never seen one of them do this.

Wow, that’s a man

[Crastle_cog]

I don’t think her being a trans bloke or whatever would fly in an Islamic country tbh. They’d nip that in the bud early on, not flaunt it on the world stage.

Thats actually kinda true. Ironically, ZCFers for all whining about Afghanistan losing their Full Member status...most of ya'll would actually fit in pretty well since you guys have so many of the same social values as their government. No gays, no trans, limited women's and minority rights, a hatred of communism. Only point of difference is on alcohol and you'd have to get that foreskin snipped for good hygiene

Don't you act like amar shonar bangla land doesn't criminalise same sex relationships

[Kriterion_BD]

MSM is jumping to the boxer's defence. An immediate red flag.
IOC have set an upper testosterone limit for competing in women's sport. Just announce the result of the test, if there was one.
Test her chromosomes and announce the result. If there's no Y in there and the testosterone levels are within limits she's in the clear, otherwise he isn't.
He/she and another boxer supposedly failed the chromosome test administered by IBA, but there's murkiness there, just do another test.

Nobody owes either of these two boxers an apology if they're found to be eligible after proper testing.
If you're going to compete in a high profile event and your sex is queried then prove it once and for all. Everybody involved has a right to know. Fuck invasion of privacy and all that bullshit.
First test- drop your pants!
They longer they shout about this phobia and that one the more suspicious it looks.

The glance test is always a good starting point.
At a glance I think they should test for nuts and chromosomes, way more reliable than the passport and birth certificate test.

Your reaction is golden!

[andrea lanzoni]

Much more scrutiny should be given to that Dutch Volleyball player who raped a 12 year old in the UK after targeting the girl online and traveling overseas to meet her, was deported back to the Netherlands, served 1 year in prison, and is now out and about playing beach volleyball a mere 10 years after the offence. Surprisingly enough he is now married and has a child - his wife is police officer!

No scrutiny at all, instead. The Dutch served 4 years not 1.

Too much? Too little? This is what the tribunal stated after a fair trial. Sorry, we got to respect it, otherwise:
- we are woke who impose mercyless ethical standards
- we are antichristian: the Dutch served his term, he has repented for his deed (commited when he was a teen ager), he knows he can't put clock hands back. He just wants to have a new life.

Whoever is sinless may throw the first stone...

[eugene]

He was in prison for 1 year, with a suspended sentence the other 3. Yes, he was 19 when the offence was committed. I know 19 is young, but what 19 year old doesn't know having sex with a 12 year old is wrong? What 19 year old even wants to have sex with any 12 year old? And it wasn't a crime of convenience, misunderstanding, or a drunken night gone wrong. He sought out an underage girl online, lied about his own age to her, and traveled to another country to rape her. It was premeditated and well planned. He should have gone away for 15 years, not 1. And he has apparently never expressed remorse for the harm his actions caused the victim.

[andrea lanzoni]

He was in prison for 1 year, with a suspended sentence the other 3. Yes, he was 19 when the offence was committed. I know 19 is young, but what 19 year old doesn't know having sex with a 12 year old is wrong? What 19 year old even wants to have sex with any 12 year old? And it wasn't a crime of convenience, misunderstanding, or a drunken night gone wrong. He sought out an underage girl online, lied about his own age to her, and traveled to another country to rape her. It was premeditated and well planned. He should have gone away for 15 years, not 1. And he has apparently never expressed remorse for the harm his actions caused the victim.

You are not adding anything to what I wrote:
- he committed the crime as a teen ager;
- he had a fair trial;
- he served what was condemned to.

You want him away for 15 years? Some woke would have him life sentenced...

"And he has apparently never expressed remorse for the harm his actions caused the victim." Wrong: get better info. Secondly to whom had he to express remorse: the victim? the family of the victim? The entire world?

Finally, since it's not his crime to be judged, since a tribunal has already stated on it, what is frightening is whenever there is somebody that claims to be above the law, being it secular or divine law.

As a civil citizen I respect the States laws, as a Christian I follow the divine teaching.
As a a civil citizen and a christian I reject any imposition of "ethical standards" who may stem from other self-proclaimed sources.

Consistently the Dutch could freely participate to the Olympics, without having to be submitted by any further scrutiny.
Incidentally: who would be the "scrutinizers"? Based on what they proclaim themselves "scrutinizers"?

As I wrote, 2000 years ago Jesus clearly expressed how to behave in such cases.
You are free not to follow Jesus. You are less free not to abide to State law. You are not free at all to impose do-it-yourself ethical standards.

[eugene]

Maybe he could play in a tape ball league somewhere instead of the Olympics?

[Pat_Bee]

An un sanctioned tapeball league without morals.

[andrea lanzoni]

Maybe he could play in a tape ball league somewhere instead of the Olympics?

Maybe, as I extensively explained, he could play WHEREVER he wants as he is a free man not to be scrutinized by last-minute moral pundits.

[andrea lanzoni]

An un sanctioned tapeball league without morals.

Interesting: "tapeball leagues without morals"......

Truly UNPRECEDENTED and, indeed a funny argument....hahahahahahha.

Just to complete the fun: are you (maybe) a qualified moral pundit who travels around the world to judge ethics in tapeball leagues?
Being the case satisfy my curiosity: on which grounds you sanction, from the height of your authority, leagues "with morals" from "leagues without morals"?
Secular local traditions, religious beliefs or, being without clue, you simply toss a coin?