Because they cannot release the tests dude. Its medical confidentiality. Theyve told you everything they could about the tests- which labs in which countries on which dates, serial numbers included and they literally said male karyotypes. They cannot make it more clear without violating medical ethics. Khelif and Ting could waive confidentiality- then wed know exactly whats what. Why do you think theyre not doing that? Why dont they do a cheek swab right now and put the whole controversy to bed? Theyre so tired of being bullied- why dont they just prove all the haters wrong?

Look at all those unpublished comments on this thread. Moderators keep putting their thumb on the scale in these arguments. I suggest you stop letting these topics be posted altogether. Dont let people put it up because youll get clicks, and then censor one side selectively. This forum will be alive enough on its own with discussing the olympics or gender or israel. If you do want people to discuss those things- adopt a free speech standard rather than anything else that would be incredibly biasing.

Yes. When a bug hits my windshield I dont bother getting out of my car and suing the bug. But when someone throws a rock at my windshield I might complain. Its not in human nature to go out of your way to complain about things that dont actually affect you. The problem isnt one of aesthetics. If Khelif and Ting werent punching as hard as they could and were throwing those matches- women arent crazy to still go and complain. They dont want to be mean for the sake of being mean. Its only when women realised how vast the difference is between males and females in punching power and in sporting performance that people complained that it was unfair to xx.

FWIW-- some women complained even in 2022 and 2023- thats why the IBA carried out sex tests and disqualified Khelif and Ting. Women were complaining. You werent listening. And the IOC refused to look into that history.

Which law have you cited? Which law? What are the standards for the IOC? You said that since other women didnt complain the ones who did shouldnt be believed. They must be doing so with an agenda. Thats not a law. Thats just misogyny.

What is the IOC standard for sex eligibility? They made it plenty clear in their presser- they did no testing, no cheek swab, did not look into past controversies, and went by the sexes on the passport. I can accept that that is what the IOC did while calling that unfair and a dereliction of the IOCs duty to ensure fairness and safety and equality for women. Just because something is legal doesnt make it just.

Your argument is that the IOC cannot do wrong. The IOC has done something- therefore it is not wrong. Its completely circular. The IOC did NO testing of their own, they did not consider the IBA testing at all- they said this during the presser- the only proof they looked for was what was on the passport. I can go get my passport changed today to say im a man- would that make me XY?

They did ! They did! The IBA has now confirmed in the presser that other females did complain about Imane and Lin Yu Ting being male thats why the sex tests were conducted and thats why these males were disqualified from the world boxing championships in 2023. Why on earth would you assume that women have no problem being beaten up by a male? Could you consider that losing sponsorships and being labelled a bigot and being ripped apart online and in person might dissuade women from complaining?

The IBA just did. They just did a presser, they had previously told you the labs - theres one in Istanbul and one in India, in new delhi. They have released the serial numbers of the labs. They cannot do more than that by revealing the tests themselves. They have made clear that these were blood tests and a sex test that revealed a male karyotype - xy chromosomes. No one can make you see something that you refuse to because of your prior biases about right and wrong, good and bad.

Some of them have. Others did not. Some of those supporting this have been bullied into it by their sponsors. Even Carini and Hamori were made to issue public apologies which they clearly did not mean.

It cannot be a principle that as long as women are okay with men beating them, men can continue to beat up women.

I have spent a lot of time looking up this stuff. I will say again: NO ONE is arguing that a female will never beat a male in boxing. We are arguing that there are biological differences because of genetics and hormones. I dont know how you can be so thick as to keep missing the point.

The IBA just did a presser where they revealed that the sex tests in 2022 in Istanbul and 2023 in India were conducted in response to female athletes complaining about Ting and Khelif being Male. Women have been complaining- youre only choosing to listen to those women who do not complain. Imagine if we decided that we did not need domestic violence law tomorrow because some wives are happy with their husbands even if their husbands beat them.

The IBA folks just did a presser where they disclosed that the two tests administered- one in 2022 and one in 2023, both after complaints from other female competitors showed a male karyotype- an XY chromosomal make up.

We dont ask people to prove a negative. Prove that imane is not a man and oh we wont let you test imane because of medical reasons. Im tired of repeating myself. Please educate yourself on this case.

1) There are two different tests conducted by the international boxing association in 2022 and 2023- one in istanbul and one in india- after female boxing competitors complained that shows that Imane and the Taiwanese Lin Yu Ting had male chromosomal makeup.
2) Both Imane and Lin Yu Ting were disqualified from word boxing championships as a result of failing the sex test in 2023.
3) Imane and Lin Yu Ting could have appealed the IBAs decision to disqualify them to the court of arbitration for sport but did not. This would have made the sex test public and verifiable
4) Imane and Lin Yu Ting could have taken a cheek swab test to prove they were female but they did not.

5) Both Algeria and Taiwan have requested the IOC to not share the medical test results conducted by the IBA on grounds of medical controversy.
6) The IOC could have asked all athletes to take a once in a life time cheek swab test but did not. Literally the only proof they have is Imane's passport- which was likely based on his birth certificate which again- is dated 2018. Right around the time Imane started his career of boxing against women.
7) We do not have a womens category if we allow every male into it by giving them the benefit of the doubt and put the onus on females to prove that the males do not belong. That means youre asking female athletes to do the job of the IOC in safeguarding women and in upholding fair play.

8) I have eyes.

Here is an article by quillette to summarise it all: https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/
Here is a link to the IBA presser snippet : https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1820437532850495961

Good news for the kids who got the offers, but why should we hail them exactly? I mean, they are all good kids, who study at a top NLU and have put in the hard work for four years to reach here. Why is this incredible? The number of PPOs and jobs at GNLU has been increasing every year, so it's not exactly a surprise.

This is not a PR post. This is an incredible achievement. All hail GNLU!

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gnlucra_we-are-pleased-to-announce-that-the-batch-activity-7226181000827965440-109w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android

The firm lost two practice areas in a single day and the management has not even called Partners meeting. What an amazing lesson in leadership from the owners and the hired mangers. Leadership gyan delivered in faux and putOn American accent doesn’t make the ruin brought about by it any less disastrous.

If you have not interned there at least twice unfortunately there is practically no chance unless you happen to have a rockstar CV.

NDA is extremely selective and best bet is via Campus for freshers as even PPO is rare, Interning there rn and just going off what I have heard.

The honest answer is that NLUs just want to extract more money from students. Since there's a limit on the intake of 5-year students, introducing a 3-year program was the natural and obvious next step. And as much as I want to be optimistic about job prospects for 3-year program students, the reality is that law firms will prefer students who have completed the 5-year program over those who have completed the 3-year program. Let's see what happens.

Trg to understand, before jumping on to the wagon. NLUs are neither central universities like IITs, IIMs or AIIMS, and they aren't IOEs like Jindal or NFSU, they are state university. Therefore the funds they will receive will always be way less than required. Also, NLUs don't have alumni that will give crores. They will have to find ways to broaden the budget without external help. This is the only way for a specialised university to get funds. Diversify the courses. This should have been done way before. Look at DU, from the famed 3 years, now they have started 5 year course. NLUs are doing the opposite. In the end it's about the money. And as a state university it will be difficult to get the funds without extra people coming in. Also atleast with NALSAR, they have enough campus area to take in people. Can't say the same about smaller campus like NLUD and NUJS.

Yes, 3yrs were the logical way to do law. 5yrs just involves stretching the course too much with misplaced emphasis on both the components. Eg ipc will rushed in 50 classes but history gets 100. In the senior years when there are no ba subjects things like public interest litigation and scam courses like dpc get 50 classes each which does not really make any sense. Dpc and pil are both important but 1 they are not taught by people with the right competence and 2 teaching conventionally isnt really the way to go about these.

yeap. spot on. Im so tired of assuming everyone who disagrees with me must be fundamentally evil. I can disagree with much of the racism and I can diagnose the problem differently. But Im not gonna do ordinary working class people the disservice of assuming it all comes from hate when there are legitimate grievances. And I'm certainly not going to blame the only jewish country in the world for no damn reason.

Moderators, please don't mark this as trollish, you know I'm right here.

I am very pleased indeed that the quality of people who haunt this website doesn't reflect the quality of people in the Indian legal community in general. On the one hand, we have this anti-Muslim + 'Indians only are victims' mentality (see 'poor Indians'), while, on the other, we have antisemitic conspiracy theorists. We can somehow never get it right, can we!?

Two theories floating around —- not just on social media but on proper mainstream media channels:

1. China and Pakistan did this to encircle India. They will now checkmate India militarily, flood India with terrorists and hurt Indian trade interests and cancel contracts awarded to Adani. We have already lost Maldives and Nepal to unfavourable regimes.

2. The US liberal establishment did this, before Trump takes over and adopts an isolationist foreign policy. They will install Mohammad Yunus as PM. He gets funds from the Big 3 liberal foundations (Ford, Rockefeller and Soros) and is favourably disposed towards the US liberal establishment. The US will cancel Adani contracts and give them to American companies.

Adani is a common link in both theories.

What do you all predict for the legal job market, both Indian and global market for Indian lawyers in the next 1,3,5 and 10 years.

What areas of practice, foreign cities, etc. would pick or die down. Overall what do you all think the market would be like in the next 1-3-5-10 years.

Hi! I am a penultimate-year law student. I usually look for good mentorship and read reviews about the team/partner/mentors in a firm before sending internship applications. However, suddenly, there are a lot of partners/teams that are shifting to other firms. I am confused about how I should change my approach, since if I ultimately get an internship and it doesn't give me the exposure I want then what is the point. Please guide.

3. Sorry, hit send by mistake :). Difficult to say about chances with average grades. Some firms might dunk you in the bin even if you are superb in every other respect, while some firms might still look at you. Slaughters, from what I have seen of them, can be rather orthodox in these matters.

1. Moots point: My response to this would be "not necessarily". Mostly I would agree, though, they aren't all that important, unless it’s something big, and you can spin it out well enough in your application to demonstrate how it has helped you achieve the qualities and attributes your chosen firm is looking for.

2. Prep: In the UK, they always talk of this skill called 'commercial awareness' (an understanding of a market, and how a law firm, as a business, operates within a market, and how it is impacted by various things—local and international events). Law Careers Net have this excellent thing they call the PESTLE analysis technique - look it up if you don't know it already. Read newspapers like the FT and more generalist newspapers like The London Times which has a specific section reporting on law-related matters. There's this guy at Bakers who's got a good list of commercial awareness podcasts:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/commercial-awareness-podcasts-oliver-chinyere/

That LinkedIn post/article also contains advice for one good approach to developing commercial awareness. Might be worth looking into emulating that.

Naturally, make sure you can talk about your chosen firm's work in your sleep.

If you want a book to read, this is a good option: All You Need to Know About The City - Christopher Stokes.

Hope this is somewhat helpful.

Another completely baseless list drawn up by someone who is not good in doing even basic research.

1. NLSIU has not got the Rhodes in the last decade. NUJS, GNLU and NLUD and even NUALS got those. They do have the best alumni base though including range and dedication of alum. Sheer absolute number-wise, they will rank ahead of all other NLUs in every career choice, though a chunk of that is because of their head start. As on date, they are not 'ahead' of NALSAR, NUJS etc. in any career option.

2. NALSAR's corp placements are quite decent. There is no distinct advantage that they have enjoyed in the last 10 years about TCs.

3. NUJS corp placements are great. However, as per the stats of the last 5 years, plenty of students (at least 1/3 of every batch) from there have chosen alternate career options. For example, NUJS alumni account for the highest number of domestic law teachers in India of all NLUs. NUJS has also steadily produced a trickle of enterpreneurs throughout the years. However, the strength remains corp placements, you got that right, with a regular number of TCs too.

4. NLIU Bhopal career options include government jobs too. The number of NLIU alumni who are in house counsels in India is also substantial.

5. NLUJ has had comparable domestic placements with NLIU and on its good years, even NALSAR. They do produce regular TCs, but not in any high number for it to be considered their 'strength'. No NLU can boast of that, since less than 3% of a batch ends up getting those.

6. NLUD alumni also engage in litigation extensively and are doing rather well, with quite a few having opted for domestic academia too.

7. GNLU's placements have lately been great and in this year, it is as good as if not better than NUJS'. However, they have also won several Rhodes in the last few years and their litigation fellowship is a very nice opportunity for recent grads. They also have in-house entry via Adani etc. and the Gujarat connection.

Who said anything about being upset? You are really good at putting words in peoples' mouths, aren't you? That habit will get you into trouble one of these days, my friend.

PS: A quick hint. Sometimes people use words for persuasive effect, rather than because they reflect the exact feelings within a person's inner self at that precise moment. You should know this by now. If I were your parent or guardian, I'd be very concerned indeed about the potential ROI for your education, even if you were at Harvard or Yale Law for the JD.

I wonder how long before Nishant locks up that corner office of his. He’s never been at a place too long and a rainmaker of that level would be highly sought after. Plus if we ever see foreign firms coming in, he’ll be one of the first ones to be picked up given his international book.

NIRF data is not verified and hence lacks any credibility. 163 students couldn't have had median salary of 16 LPA in that year from GNLU. The market doesn't support that. It's clear that data have been fudged. Of course, I don't blame GNLU for that. If NLUD could do that to climb the ranks and the authority would turn a blind eye, then so can GNLU.