So why is it not accurate for your situation? You couldn't have exercised sport privileges while suffering from a condition that would make you unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner, but that's true even if you have a medical certificate. And you've repeatedly stated that you have no such condition.
What are you talking about here? I have no idea what point you're trying to make. First you said I could fly under sports, then I can't because I was denied a class 3, thus making both PPL and SPL unavailable. The point I'm making is the SPL allows individuals who may or may not actually be approved to fly by the FAA to "skirt" the rules (as many put it here) and otherwise fly under the SPL.
And I never said I didn't have a condition. Thankfully I have treatable conditions, so I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
You can fly under SPL without a medical, correct? The answer is yes.
Thus you could fly with diabetes, ADHD, anxiety, etc as long as you have a drivers license because it's not required to report it to the FAA, correct? The answer is yes.
Will people withhold information or believe that certain conditions would not make it unsafe to operate a LSA aircraft? The answer is yes, because if the instructor feels the individual has demonstrated they are a safe pilot to operate under LSA/sports pilot (i.e. Jessica Cox), they don't ask about any medical conditions and the pilot is issued the sports pilot license.
If you apply for a class 3 and are denied for any reason, you cannot then operate under sports pilot either, correct? The answer is yes.
I've met some incredibly unsafe LSA pilots...one bought my Rans S-20 and flew it 15 hours straight including between the hours of sunset and 4am. Said LSA pilot has also already crashed an aircraft during takeoff but somehow continues to fly under sports pilot rules.
So the fact that someone can fly under a SPL doesn't mean they should be flying, yet the FAA allows that under current rules when they would not otherwise qualify for a PPL.