Baron Coe, cleans?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

MagnificentMerckx said:
sniper said:
exactly, it wasn't illegal and his competitors were doing it, so no way the Lord wasn't doing it as well.

I fully respect your opinion. Suspicion does indeed abound. But personally, I would not be willing to make such a leap of faith, unless there were of course solid evidence. That is the way that things work in the real world. Suspicion alone is not enough. Things like these require proof. Opinions of suspicion are just that. Opinions do not constitute proof. Unless clear and solid evidence can be provided, Baron Coe remains clean.
good Lord.
we've gone through this "proof", "evidence", "opinion" thing so many times before.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
MagnificentMerckx said:
sniper said:
exactly, it wasn't illegal and his competitors were doing it, so no way the Lord wasn't doing it as well.

I fully respect your opinion. Suspicion does indeed abound. But personally, I would not be willing to make such a leap of faith, unless there were of course solid evidence. That is the way that things work in the real world. Suspicion alone is not enough. Things like these require proof. Opinions of suspicion are just that. Opinions do not constitute proof. Unless clear and solid evidence can be provided, Baron Coe remains clean.
good Lord.
we've gone through this "proof", "evidence", "opinion" thing so many times before.

That is of course true, but that type of philosophical thinking still does not 'always' constitute proof. But without suspicion everyone and everything will fall under the radar undetected. We are all of course aware of the depth of doping within sport. Doping tests exist for a reason, so that athletes can be caught cheating. We cannot look into a crystal ball and claim 'ah' this guy and that guy maybe doping. You could very well be right, but your argument would be strengthened by evidence. If you can provide that, then your suspicion/knowledge will be justified. ;)
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
I agree probably.
But you bumped this thread with an unsubstantiated statement that you think our good Lord wouldn't touch the juice.
Do you have any evidence for that at all?
My evidence is thin, but I have some:
1. Coe established some jawdropping records in a period when blood transfusions were widely used by athletes.
2. Coe remains completely passive and indulging in the face of some hardcore doping scandals and seems to prefer to cover up said scandals rather then shed light on them.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
I agree probably.
But you bumped this thread with an unsubstantiated statement that you think our good Lord wouldn't touch the juice.
Do you have any evidence for that at all?
My evidence is thin, but I have some:
1. Coe established some jawdropping records in a period when blood transfusions were widely used by athletes.
2. Coe remains completely passive and indulging in the face of some hardcore doping scandals and seems to prefer to cover up said scandals rather then shed light on them.


Agreed, it is unsubstantiated, from the perspective that no athlete, even the Baron, is above suspicion. Yes, that is indeed true.

There is no question the Coe did produce some remarkable records during an era when blood doping was legal. And we have one such example, the Finnish athlete which I named in a previous post. Have we names, evidence of other athletes who are known to have blood doped during the Coe era ?.

Also agree that Coe's public stance is not what you would expect from an anti-doping perspective.
 
Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Re:

MagnificentMerckx said:
I know that you can never rule out any possibilities in sport when it comes doping, but Sebastian Coe. ??
A claim like that requires extraordinary proof. I really doubt that Coe ever touched the sauce. After all the guy was an absolutely huge talent and his training work ethic was second to none. I would have to say that Coe was cleans. Give credit where credit is due.[/quote

viewtopic.php?p=1614326#p1614326

Not only Race Radio, but some running coach by the name of Canova associates Conconi (doper) with Coe.

To be clear, it was not "doping" at the time. If Coe did PEDs for those performances, then he is 100% cleans.

Just like cycling, the IAAF hides positives, and is hopelessly corrupt. There's no way to know who is clean.]
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
2. Coe remains completely passive and indulging in the face of some hardcore doping scandals and seems to prefer to cover up said scandals rather then shed light on them.



The Last Word: Candidate Sebastian Coe must demand that doping is a criminal offence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 08241.html

Type Sebastian Coe’s name and the word “drugs” into an internet search engine, and the first post features a seven-year-old thread from an obscure forum which poses the question “Seb Coe: blood doper?” The second involves unsubstantiated allegations that his final race was fixed.

For the record, as someone who covered his career from the Moscow Olympics onwards, I’m convinced such claims are scurrilous nonsense. Coe was a wonderfully natural athlete, blessed with balletic grace and fluidity. He developed into a cogent campaigner for clean sport and delivered an unforgettable Olympic Games, which briefly rekindled a spirit of national optimism.

The institutionalised cynicism and all-pervading paranoia associated with track and field generates instinctive suspicion. Coe’s attempt to assume control of athletics through the presidency of its global governing body, the IAAF, is likely to develop into a dirty war.

The game changed irrevocably on Wednesday when a German TV documentary alleged Russia operates a state-sponsored doping programme in collusion with corrupt coaches and administrators, including one within the IAAF who is purported to have accepted up to $50,000 (£32,000) to cover up a positive drug test.

If assertions that 99 per cent of the Russian Olympic team are involved in doping, with the active assistance of Vladimir Putin’s government, are true – and the air of resignation which laced the anger of athletes beaten by Russian rivals was telling – we have reached the point of no return.The official response has been bleakly predictable. Rusada, the Russian anti-doping organisation accused of suppressing positive tests in a range of sports, including athletics, cycling, swimming, weightlifting and Nordic skiing, have promised to investigate themselves. The IOC have insisted on “due process” being followed. The IAAF have referred the matter to their independent Ethics Commission, a concept challenged by the nauseating impotence of a similar body in world football, at Fifa. It remains to be seen if threats of legal action by Russian officials are acted upon.

Coe launched his campaign by insisting: “I don’t want people thinking there is a better set of chemists in lane five than in lane six.” I have news for him. They already do so. It is no longer possible to suspend disbelief. Track and field is dying, and the post-mortem will suggest suicide.

The spin doctors and quasi-politicians who surround Coe are part of the problem. His greatest opportunity lies in being himself, not as a figurehead seen through the prism of a presidential persona but as an individual prepared to fight for the ideals which have sustained him for 46 years in what, in principle, should be the purest sport.

Sports politics may be conducted in seven-star hotels, but it carries the stench of the sewers. Pragmatists will whisper that Russia’s political and commercial influence gives their acolytes immunity from prosecution. They will warn of the dangers of alienating sponsors, and the corrosive power of the truth.

In that context, Coe’s immediate reticence on the subject of the Russian allegations – he insists it would be “inappropriate” for him to comment while investigations continue – is profoundly depressing. He has the moral authority to make a strong statement without being seen to prejudice the case.

He is hardly naïve, because he competed in the shadow of the syringe. He is so politically dextrous he survived a brief flirtation with Fifa’s president, Sepp Blatter, and retained credibility despite fostering the fantasy that the London Games have a viable legacy.

He must recognise we are faced with the ultimate obscenity – doped athletes bribing officials in order to compete, and cheat those whose pursuit of excellence is rigorous without being artificially aided.

Coe’s manifesto is improbably entitled Growing Athletics in a New Age. Unless he demands the criminalisation of the production, supply and application of drugs in sport, and makes an election promise to expel nations who systematically abuse individual ambition in pursuit of global prestige, he will be just another pall-bearer at the funeral.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, Baron Coe was clean, believe me. The jury has reached its verdict. There is simply no evidence. But the conspiracy folks will cling to innuendo and speculation to suit their own agenda, and will continue for the rest of their lives to insist otherwise even when the bottom of the barrel is empty. We cannot allow Sebastian Coe's legacy to be tainted by unfounded, and defamatory allegations that have no basis neither in fact or law.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Are you trolling? This isn't your faux little court and there is no jury. We don't have the power to punish Coe. If we did, we should indeed stick to principles of law that put much stock into avoiding false convictions, at the expense of allowing offenders to go free.

So because nothing other than getting it right is at stake, we don't falsely presume innocence but instead take the most likely option as our initial guess, like the average doping incidence in that period. And we don't exclude any relevant information like a court would, such as the fact that he sets records and was extremely quick even for the EPO age. Or the state of testing.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
SeriousSam said:
Are you trolling?
seems we got ourselves a Lord Coe-bot, who'd have guessed.
SeriousSam said:
This isn't your faux little court and there is no jury. We don't have the power to punish Coe. If we did, we should indeed stick to principles of law that put much stock into avoiding false convictions, at the expense of allowing offenders to go free.

So because nothing other than getting it right is at stake, we don't falsely presume innocence but instead take the most likely option as our initial guess, like the average doping incidence in that period. And we don't exclude any relevant information like a court would, such as the fact that he sets records and was extremely quick even for the EPO age. Or the state of testing.
+Juan to this post.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
SeriousSam said:
Are you trolling? This isn't your faux little court and there is no jury. We don't have the power to punish Coe. If we did, we should indeed stick to principles of law that put much stock into avoiding false convictions, at the expense of allowing offenders to go free.

So because nothing other than getting it right is at stake, we don't falsely presume innocence but instead take the most likely option as our initial guess, like the average doping incidence in that period. And we don't exclude any relevant information like a court would, such as the fact that he sets records and was extremely quick even for the EPO age. Or the state of testing.

Sebastian Coe was a clean athlete. That I can guarantee. Coe and Lemond go hand in hand.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
sniper said:
SeriousSam said:
Are you trolling?
seems we got ourselves a Lord Coe-bot, who'd have guessed.
SeriousSam said:
This isn't your faux little court and there is no jury. We don't have the power to punish Coe. If we did, we should indeed stick to principles of law that put much stock into avoiding false convictions, at the expense of allowing offenders to go free.

So because nothing other than getting it right is at stake, we don't falsely presume innocence but instead take the most likely option as our initial guess, like the average doping incidence in that period. And we don't exclude any relevant information like a court would, such as the fact that he sets records and was extremely quick even for the EPO age. Or the state of testing.
+Juan to this post.

I don't play games. Now move along please.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Re: Re:

MagnificentMerckx said:
The Last Word: Candidate Sebastian Coe must demand that doping is a criminal offence.

like Paula Radcliffe, diversion.

you need to look to the times, do a statistical regression on how many standard deviations this is, and compare the times across the EPO epoch.

look at Yesalis and Hoberman talking about the mentality of these athletes, the competitive zeal, look to Goldman experiment, look to Prof Catlin speaking of giving athletes a "wide berth" to prepare for international meets (quote from 80s). Look at how the different bodied athletes now sweep the middle distance events, when shaving a few lbs lighter weight, as an ethiopian or kenyan natural physique, will have material effect on time and performance.

_61808558_radcliffe_epo2_640.jpg
 
Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Black cat,

I defer to anyone else when it comes to the biology of doping.

This Canova guy states Coe was a Conconi product, and whatever they did wasn't doping. The 'not doping' part there is nothing to do about. Today, this same Canova guy is still claiming EPO doesn't work for elite athletes. Today! He's defending the whole Kenyan doping controversy that is finally blowing up at letsrun.com.

Bottom line, Coe wasn't 'doping' but he very likely wasn't on bread and water either. Do I 'know'? No. No way. Circumstances and my own pessimism lead me to believe he was doped.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Re:

DirtyWorks said:
Black cat,

I defer to anyone else when it comes to the biology of doping.

This Canova guy states Coe was a Conconi product, and whatever they did wasn't doping. The 'not doping' part there is nothing to do about. Today, this same Canova guy is still claiming EPO doesn't work for elite athletes. Today! He's defending the whole Kenyan doping controversy that is finally blowing up at letsrun.com.

Bottom line, Coe wasn't 'doping' but he very likely wasn't on bread and water either. Do I 'know'? No. No way. Circumstances and my own pessimism lead me to believe he was doped.

yeah,i agree with this.

I think it is pretty murky about blood transufsions before it was outlawed. imo, cheating is cheating, except in professional sport and the olympics, where the ends justify the means.

i will not legitimize blood transfusions before they were illegal.

and I concede, you may ascertain some schizophrenic pov on doping. In this era, and the last two decades, doping was the norm for the pro sphere, and olympic competition. I recognise this. But when they start doing epo and blood transfusions, and fundamentally shift the competitive field, tilt it overwhelmingly in their favour, j'accuse these early adopters. "legal" or illegal.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
British athletics in the late 70's and early 80's is an interesting case study of 'if you can't beat them, join them'. A little bit like Sky a couple decades later.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
Sebastian Coe has never taken performance enhancing drugs either banned or unbanned. He has never resorted to any illegal methods 'Whatsoever' to enhance his performance. He was a highly gifted and dedicated athlete, genetically gifted, high vo2max, super ATP replenishment, superb lactic metabolism, high mitochondrial density, a great competitor, and a possessed a huge hunger for success.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
Re:

Lyon said:
British athletics in the late 70's and early 80's is an interesting case study of 'if you can't beat them, join them'. A little bit like Sky a couple decades later.

I don't know about the can't beat them join them philosophy. But one thing is for sure, it was a rich time for British athletics with Cram, Ovett and Coe. Three prestigious talents.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
How do you know this? There's no more evidence he was clean than for any athlete that was never caught. Less, because he set records that competitive into the EPO era. Seems like you must be Seb Coe. Hi Seb, welcome to the forums!

I'm sure you understand that we can't just take your word for it. After all, that's what they all say. :)

PS: I don't support your IAAF candidacy
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
SeriousSam said:
How do you know this? There's no more evidence he was clean than for any athlete that was never caught. Less, because he set records that competitive into the EPO era. Seems like you must be Seb Coe. Hi Seb, welcome to the forums!

I'm sure you understand that we can't just take your word for it. After all, that's what they all say. :)

PS: I don't support your IAAF candidacy

Ha, ha, ha, that's really funny. :D
 
Sep 7, 2014
1,134
0
10,480
Re:

MagnificentMerckx said:
Sebastian Coe has never taken performance enhancing drugs either banned or unbanned. He has never resorted to any illegal methods 'Whatsoever' to enhance his performance. He was a highly gifted and dedicated athlete, genetically gifted, high vo2max, super ATP replenishment, superb lactic metabolism, high mitochondrial density, a great competitor, and a possessed a huge hunger for success.

There is only one person who could possibly know that and that is Sebastian Coe.
Are you Sebastian Coe?
If not, you cannot make this statement.
Even if you are Sebastian Coe, then we can chose to believe you or not, people do lie.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Re:

MagnificentMerckx said:
Sebastian Coe has never taken performance enhancing drugs either banned or unbanned. He has never resorted to any illegal methods 'Whatsoever' to enhance his performance. He was a highly gifted and dedicated athlete, genetically gifted, high vo2max, super ATP replenishment, superb lactic metabolism, high mitochondrial density, a great competitor, and a possessed a huge hunger for success.
they were all talented. all off the bell curve. dont get to olympics without some one in 50 thousand talent. they all have those characteristics you have invoked
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
MagnificentMerckx said:
Sebastian Coe has never taken performance enhancing drugs either banned or unbanned. He has never resorted to any illegal methods 'Whatsoever' to enhance his performance. He was a highly gifted and dedicated athlete, genetically gifted, high vo2max, super ATP replenishment, superb lactic metabolism, high mitochondrial density, a great competitor, and a possessed a huge hunger for success.
they were all talented. all off the bell curve. dont get to olympics without some one in 50 thousand talent. they all have those characteristics you have invoked


How very true, you are correct of course. There is very little between athletes at this level from a physiological perspective. The variances are small. I don't disagree with that. But there can only be one winner !!.
 
Apr 6, 2015
119
0
0
So here is a teaser for the skeptics, and by all means skepticism abounds when it comes to sporting performance, I cannot deny that. But.........

Why is Kaarlo Maaninka the only athlete, to my knowledge, to later admit to blood doping, during the 1980 Olympics ?
As far as I know he is the only track athlete to admit to blood doping during a period when it was not outlawed ?
Why did he not point the finger at other athletes and say "we were all doing it" ?

We need to know for certain to what extend, the numbers, either small or large who may have been blood doping.

Athletes such as John Tracey, Steve Cram, Ray Flynn, Eamon Coghlan, and Steve Ovett, all competed successfully during this period, and I know for certain that none of them doped, and neither did Sebastian Coe.