I think this decision is shady, given that the “victim” has said there’s nothing to see. I know, often an abused person is so traumatised that they can’t complain. That could be the case, but on the
BBC the WTA say that:
Looking at the NYT article you posted, “Increasing evidence, the two are in a 'romantic relationship, after staying in the same hotel room in Melbourne.”
Sorry, but this is Victorian morality. They’re not children. Consenting adults sharing a room is their own private business. It’s not evidence of anything sinister.
Now I know, the WTA have made a conclusion based upon what they feel they know is true, but without her assent, they’ve decided she was abused. They’ve violated her autonomy and without proper examination decided she’s not fit as a witness to her own life.
They may be correct, but they may also be wrong, this is why it’s shady.