ooh I like the concept of the gatkeeper's job

I mean that's good enough for me but if it isn't for WTA, then it isn't. And yes, we're really gonna do this. Even if they weren't trying to cover it up, the news reached the media before the WHO was informed by the ccp, and the WHO requested the information from the ccp (due to a statement from the provicial government(?)) rather than it being the ccp informing them immediately after realizing a cover up. Independent inquiries on the origin of COVID 19 have been actively blocked by the Chinese government and they have also tried to shift the blame to Italy for the virus' origin. Not really what I was here for (I was just gonna say that receiving confirmation from a third party doesnt mean you have to believe in such confirmation), but hey if you wanna I guess.

Oh the IOC is corruption at it's finiest, just like FIFA and the NBA. If the confirmation came from them then yea I wouldn't trust them either. Im not here to argue about or comment on about what happened though, I don't know enough. Im just here to say that the WTA did not contradict themselves.

As you said, the WTA did not even get a video call from her let alone a meeting, I can definitely see how they can be suspicious of the confirmation they were sent.

As to why the ccp might want to silence her, the ccp tried to silence the news of COVID within China for quite a while before the global outbreak. I don't see why they would want to do that instead of getting global help to contain the virus, but yet here we are.

PS: if you don't mind, could you send me some of the sources? I understand Chinese so Chinese sources would be fine too. I'm kinda busy but would like to look a bit more into this maybe during the weekend.

Yes I heard nothing to indicate that she's been detained. However, she has disappeared for a period of time and the WTA isn't able to meet her. Sure the WTA ain't a big organization, but it's big enough that meeting her shouldn't be a problem, so when they have a problem with arranging a meeting right after her brief dissappearance, there's enough to indicate there might be something going on behing the scenes. I mean yes they got a video call but it was a controlled one, and as I raised before, videos are often unreliable as confirmations.

Yet again, a bank can send you confirmation that your money is with them, but if you can't access the money and you heard that a theft has occured, you could reasonably doubt that the given confirmation is correct.

Yes I've clarified that stuff can happen after the meeting, but I could care less about that. That has nothing to do with my bar. My bar (and the WTA's bar) is for them to meet, which for one reason or another, is not possible. (Also people who got arrested after public appearances has nothing to do with this, all I listed were people who dissappeared and then reappeared in China without the required legal documents to pass through immigration. Such cases has no correlation to my bar, but were rather used to show you that they have resonable reason to suspect that there is foul play.)

All of my points here are just to tell you that the presentation of confirmation does not mean that you have to believe such confirmation. There is no contradiction by WTA. I am not commenting on the case since I have no clue what actually happened.

No, my bar is that if they can meet Peng Shuai without the monitoring of Chinese authorities, they can resonably believe that she is safe. I have given you examples of video confirmation of safety being unrealiable, and examples of instances that are more likely to be Chinese abductions than not. Both are reasons to be suspicious. Since all attempts for them to meet her have been unsuccessful, there are reasons to remain doubtful of the confirmation video.

​

Edit: as before, I am not tyring to comment on the case, but rather I'm trying to show that the presentation of confirmation to a party does not mean that they have to believe it. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the article. If the WTA produced such confirmation, what you are saying makes sense, but they were just shown confirmation produced by a third party.

No, the bank has given me a video call to show me my supposed money. I however, am still unable to access it. I fully understand that in my case the bank cannot and will not arrange a private visit to the vault for me, and therefore, I can still be skeptical that the confirmation is legitimate.

As for WTA's case, there have been cases where prisoners were able to video call the outside world, and in one case, they verbally communicated that they were not being tortured, but using morse code in their blinks, told the world that they were in fact, tortured. This acts as an example to show that video evidence alone is not enough to ensure the safety of anyone or anything.

True, it may be that she is ashamed of her actions, and therefore has disappeared from the public eye. On the other hand, China is also known to have people appearing in their courts claiming that they commited atrocious crimes, yet in multiple cases, those people have disappeared from other countries, with no immigration record of them leaving the country at all. Why would one leave a country illegally just to go to China and turn themselves in? It's more likely that they were kidnapped and brought into the courts with a false crime attributed to them, so their disapperances could be easily explained.

To clarify, I have no clue what happened. I'm just saying WTA has enough information in front of them to be skeptical of the confirmation.

Well as I said, they weren't even able to meet up with her. If she didn't disappear in the first place I wouldn't doubt that she's fine, but she has and no one from WTA has been able to meet up with her until now. Using my example, if I didn't hear about a theft on the news, and was unable to withdraw my money, sure I would still trust the bank on their guarantee. But now that I know money has been stolen and that I am unable to get my money, I need to see my money physically to trust that the bank still has it.

Well no one from WTA has been able to meet her up to this day, and all they have is the confirmation. Same as in my analogy, if you then asked your bank whether your money is safe, and they send you another confirmation, but you are unable to withraw your money or to see it at all, would you still be convinced that the bank has your money? The confirmation from the bank can be offered at anytime irregardless of when the hypothetical theft occured, so the time component isn't really required.

The bank can send you confirmation that your money is with them. If a theif then proceeds to steal your money, you still have the confirmation, it doesn't mean that the bank still has your money. In this case you have received confirmation, but you can still doubt that the bank has your money after you read about a heist on the news.

Are you sure the WTA has received that information from her then?

Well what are the requirements for me to be in a position to send you proof?

Article says WTA received confirmation, not that they confirmed it. I can send you confirmation that I am XiJinping, it's up to you to confirm it.

They haven't confirmed that, they were just told that she was. I can tell you Im XiJinping but unless I prove it it's not confirmed that Im the man himself.

W move unlike most other pro sports leagues.