This is a great question! I’d say that the reason is to actually protect the athletes, rather than protect the “purity” of the olympics. If they changed the rules so that people could do all the drugs they wanted to, then it would basically mean that you’re required to do drugs to effectively compete - those without the drugs would have a big disadvantage against those who use them.
We know that many performance enhancing drugs can have very harmful side-effects, so that would ultimately lead to athletes harming themselves to be able to compete.
That would not be a good outcome for anyone, I don’t think.
Totally unrelated to the OP but damn I’m impressed that DDG is such a large percentage of the market. 1.28% sounds like nothing but I can’t even guess how many millions of searches that is, that’s absolutely wild. well done duckfriends.
My guess? This is just PR from their politicians to say “they are saving the country” or whatever bullshit without actually doing anything useful
This is just some of BS public stunts, they are trying to hide and create misinformation to deceive people. The mastermind of the online gambling issue here, is one of their cronies. A businessman, this guy being protected by top military brass and former general including a new elected president.
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
A judge can rule that a case was unfair due to procedural issues, like that a jury arrived at its decision by evidence that shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place. There are terms in this I’m not familiar with (I only know “runaway jury” from the John Grisham novel…), but that seems to be the basis of throwing this out. I’m sure Legal Eagle will cover something as big and weird as this in the next two weeks or so if you want well-explained legal analysis of the finer points.
This happens on occasion. Essentially, the plaintiff’s expert witnesses had flawed testimony about the actual financial damage done. The judge didn’t know this would happen until after they testified. The judge also said that the only issue was the dollar figure. In other words, the evidence of price fixing was conclusive enough.
I suppose this will go to new other jury trial, and the plaintiff’s will present better expert witness testimony. What will the new dollar amount end up at? We have no idea.
“I don’t like the result of your deliberations, jury. You’re all unreasonable and the giant corporation can keep on price gouging, I mean, uh, charging for its services at a competitive price…”
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
reuters.com
Hot