You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent
deleted by creator
I’m no languageist but I’d call that indirectly.
deleted by creator
You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
deleted by creator
No direct source claims A has d. All direct sourced is Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete
deleted by creator
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent