Doping In Athletics

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Anyone can express their opinion.

What I do have a problem with is people who have latched themselves on to a sport they have no/little interest in.

Will they watch the Diamond League meetings or the recent European cross country Championships like I did where I saw the Irish womens team getting bronze.

This new found love among particularly cycling fans shows them up for nothing more than a bunch of scandal lovers.

I couldn't care less about what doping other sports get up to in sports I have no interest in.
 
Re:

gooner said:
Anyone can express their opinion.

What I do have a problem with is people who have latched themselves on to a sport they have no/little interest in.

Will they watch the Diamond League meetings or the recent European cross country Championships like I did where I saw the Irish womens team getting bronze.

This new found love among particularly cycling fans shows them up for nothing more than a bunch of scandal lovers.

I couldn't care less about what doping other sports get up to in sports I have no interest in.
Good to Radcliffe back to being vehemently anti-doping :rolleyes:

 
I'm not sure I really expected Pound to decapitate the IAAF ... I would have preferred he did, but then that's my antipathy towards and mistrust of Coe. On reflection, maybe Pound has been canny for the long term. Rather than leave a power vacuum at the top of the IAAF, he has effectively said to Coe...right, it's your ball now, you are clear about what we know and what we all think... you have a chance to re-build your personal (cesspit) reputation by putting the IAAF house in order. Don't feck it up.
In a way that is better.

If Coe had been more or less forced to resign by Pound .... and Pound clearly held that card, Coe could have skulked off into the shadows and abdicated all responsibility ... muttering "I've been made a scapegoat" etc. Now, he has to go and swim in the tide of sewerage and take responsibility and ownership of the whole mess. Yep, I definitely like that better. Especially as he really will have to affect change .... he has no choice.

You can bet that there'll be a lot of people queuing up to endorse him, hoping that he doesn't throw them under the bus.

I'm now just counting down to the moment when he thinks that putting PR in charge of anti-doping at the IAAF is cracking idea :)
 
Jun 4, 2015
285
0
0
People have taken a keen interest in this because the behaviour exhibited in the IAFF is echoed in so many 'professional' sporting organisation.

Watched BBC breakfast today, and the story is being gradually weighted around Pound's endorsement of Coe. My guess is Coe will throw some people under the bus and be hailed (by the BBC at least) as the saviour of athletics. More Baronships inbound.
 
Dec 21, 2015
110
1
2,835
Re:

armchairclimber said:
I'm not sure I really expected Pound to decapitate the IAAF ... I would have preferred he did, but then that's my antipathy towards and mistrust of Coe. On reflection, maybe Pound has been canny for the long term. Rather than leave a power vacuum at the top of the IAAF, he has effectively said to Coe...right, it's your ball now, you are clear about what we know and what we all think... you have a chance to re-build your personal (cesspit) reputation by putting the IAAF house in order. Don't feck it up.
In a way that is better.
In a way, yes. Better the devil you know, as well, I suppose...and I'd like to give Pound the benefit of the doubt and believe that he is acting in the best interests of sport.

But my issue is that, IF that is the case, Pound has done it in such a way that has undermined trust in the leadership of WADA. Pound and WADA are the wactchmen; the wardens. If trust in him and his organisation is lost, then the entire anti-doping effort is significantly impaired.
 
Well maybe. But I think a lot of the shock/disappointment that journalists are expressing is down to the fact that A) Coe is still there and they don't like him B) they were hoping for Coe's head because that would have been a much juicier story, especially in the UK. I may be wrong, but I think some will think on it a little harder and understand that Pound isn't stupid....and perhaps they'll read between the lines a little more.

I don't buy the notion that Pound is in some sort of Nike funded club. Not yet anyway. If he was, we wouldn't be seeing such carnage and he wouldn't be recommending that the corruption regarding the awarding of World games be investigated.

I'm prepared to wait a little and see whether he has actually been politically astute.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re:

Zebadeedee said:
If you regard Pound as a chicken, the present incumbent, Reedie, is virtually an enabler. Moreover, WADA itself had long been compromised by the malign influence of mafiosi like Verbruggen and Blatter. While they sat on WADA committees and moved in political circles, did they have placemen too, who pulled more technical strings behind the scenes as we see in the IAAF?
Reedie and Coe arranged the London Games together, did all the lobbying together.
Pound is IOC, just like Reedie and Coe.
insert Ulrich quote.
It's like August 2015 Froome testing all over: you just gotta wonder where's the alleged independence?
 
Dec 21, 2015
110
1
2,835
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Well maybe. But I think a lot of the shock/disappointment that journalists are expressing is down to the fact that A) Coe is still there and they don't like him B) they were hoping for Coe's head because that would have been a much juicier story, especially in the UK. I may be wrong, but I think some will think on it a little harder and understand that Pound isn't stupid....and perhaps they'll read between the lines a little more.

I don't buy the notion that Pound is in some sort of Nike funded club. Not yet anyway. If he was, we wouldn't be seeing such carnage and he wouldn't be recommending that the corruption regarding the awarding of World games be investigated.

I'm prepared to wait a little and see whether he has actually been politically astute.
Perhaps - I'm sure there was an element of both of those things.
And I agree on your point about the Nike-club.

But it certainly makes it hard to fully trust in WADA when they're publicly selling the narrative of "the corruption was rife across the whole institution, except for the incumbent vice-president/new president; he's fine", even if that narrative is just political manoeuvring...
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Benotti69 said:
**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............
Another.......................... :rolleyes:
Interpol are investigating high level officials in the IAAF over money laundering and bribes! It aint hard to form an opinion, especially as we know there is money there to buy off positives, that Coe is part of the corruption. He has been working as IAAF Vice Pres for 8 years. His Aide, Nick Davies, knew about it. It was reported in 2009 in the media and Coe did nothing. Did not step away and say there are things happening that he wanted no part off.

So Coe attacked the media, attacked the whistleblowers and has done little to show he is the man to clean up the sport and there he is sitting in front of Pound, who most expected would blow Coe out of the water with WADA report PtII but nope, gives Coe the nod as the man to clean up athletics?

Now you tell me how Pound came to that conclusion when THE FACTS show that Coe is deeply engrained in the corruption and if not turned a blind eye while being at the next to centre of it all!
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
brown bags?
how ludicrous.
Ed Warner, chairman of the organising committee for London 2017, told Standard Sport: “It was completely above board. We’re London and we’re Britain and we simply don’t deal with brown envelopes. So for us, it was very much a front-door approach.
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/athletics/we-have-nothing-to-hide-over-bid-for-london-2017-insists-uk-athletics-chief-ed-warner-a3157431.html
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
RobbieCanuck said:
Benotti69 said:
**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............
Another.......................... :rolleyes:
Interpol are investigating high level officials in the IAAF over money laundering and bribes! It aint hard to form an opinion, especially as we know there is money there to buy off positives, that Coe is part of the corruption. He has been working as IAAF Vice Pres for 8 years. His Aide, Nick Davies, knew about it. It was reported in 2009 in the media and Coe did nothing. Did not step away and say there are things happening that he wanted no part off.

So Coe attacked the media, attacked the whistleblowers and has done little to show he is the man to clean up the sport and there he is sitting in front of Pound, who most expected would blow Coe out of the water with WADA report PtII but nope, gives Coe the nod as the man to clean up athletics?

Now you tell me how Pound came to that conclusion when THE FACTS show that Coe is deeply engrained in the corruption and if not turned a blind eye while being at the next to centre of it all!
I don't think Pound actually has come to that conclusion at all. I think he is being political/shrewd. It might not be the way you or I would have handled it but, the more I think about it, the more I think it's quite sharp. Of course, he has to say all the "he's the right man for the job" stuff ...if he said otherwise it wouldn't work. "Here Seb you corrupt worm, catch this hospital pass".
 
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
Benotti69 said:
RobbieCanuck said:
Benotti69 said:
**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............
Another.......................... :rolleyes:
Interpol are investigating high level officials in the IAAF over money laundering and bribes! It aint hard to form an opinion, especially as we know there is money there to buy off positives, that Coe is part of the corruption. He has been working as IAAF Vice Pres for 8 years. His Aide, Nick Davies, knew about it. It was reported in 2009 in the media and Coe did nothing. Did not step away and say there are things happening that he wanted no part off.

So Coe attacked the media, attacked the whistleblowers and has done little to show he is the man to clean up the sport and there he is sitting in front of Pound, who most expected would blow Coe out of the water with WADA report PtII but nope, gives Coe the nod as the man to clean up athletics?

Now you tell me how Pound came to that conclusion when THE FACTS show that Coe is deeply engrained in the corruption and if not turned a blind eye while being at the next to centre of it all!
I don't think Pound actually has come to that conclusion at all. I think he is being political/shrewd. It might not be the way you or I would have handled it but, the more I think about it, the more I think it's quite sharp. Of course, he has to say all the "he's the right man for the job" stuff ...if he said otherwise it wouldn't work. "Here Seb you corrupt worm, catch this hospital pass".
Its also not for Pound to ask Coe to step down or remove him. WADA does not have that power, only on athletes and coaches.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
RobbieCanuck said:
Benotti69 said:
**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............
Another.......................... :rolleyes:
Interpol are investigating high level officials in the IAAF over money laundering and bribes! It aint hard to form an opinion, especially as we know there is money there to buy off positives, that Coe is part of the corruption. He has been working as IAAF Vice Pres for 8 years. His Aide, Nick Davies, knew about it. It was reported in 2009 in the media and Coe did nothing. Did not step away and say there are things happening that he wanted no part off.

So Coe attacked the media, attacked the whistleblowers and has done little to show he is the man to clean up the sport and there he is sitting in front of Pound, who most expected would blow Coe out of the water with WADA report PtII but nope, gives Coe the nod as the man to clean up athletics?

Now you tell me how Pound came to that conclusion when THE FACTS show that Coe is deeply engrained in the corruption and if not turned a blind eye while being at the next to centre of it all!
Like most of your posts you have no facts re: Coe. You are simply making up a brown bag conspiracy without one iota of evidence one exists. Your only "fact" is that Coe has been there 8 years and therefore "must have been involved in the corruption" This is a figment of your very active imagination.

What the ARD documentary focused on (and the IC investigated) were essentially three things, firstly that doping in Russia was endemic.

The Independent Commission, the IC, thoroughly investigated this issue and found Lamine Diack, Papa Masada Diack, Khalil Diack, Lamine's "legal advisor" Habib Cisse, Dr. Gabrielle Dolle, Dr. Pierre Yves Garnier, Nick Davies, Cheikh Thiare, Ian Tan Tong Han, Valentin Balakhinchev, Huw Roberts, Thomas Capdevielle either directly or indirectly involved in delaying and hiding the positive tests or ABP violations of Russian athletes.

There is no suggestion or evidence uncovered by very experienced lawyers (Pound and McLaren) and a first rate investigator (Robertson) that Coe played any part in this cabal. Now I don't like Coe as head of the IAAF any more than the next person. Nor can it be ruled out that Coe was woefully naïve or wilfully blind to this corruption but as to direct or indirect complicity, there is no evidence.

Secondly the ARD examined a leaked IAAF "data base" of blood results from 2001 to 2012. The IC thoroughly examined the data base and its ramifications. They essentially found the data base was not really a data base and could not support the findings of ARD and the Daily Times but could support sanctions against a large number of athletes using ABP protocols. Coe was not involved in any way in the data base issue.

Thirdly the IC looked at the general operation of the IAAF. They pulled no punches in their assessment of the structural deficits of the IAAF and made numerous recommendations to improve that. The IC has no jurisdiction to impose change. That has to come from within the IAAF. Coe was simply a cog in a poorly organized organization. Coe has publicly acknowledged the problem. As President of the IAAF he would naturally be present at the IC press conference. To suggest his presence was as a result of a "brown bag" agreement with the IC is ludicrous.

Now is Coe the best person to lead the IAAF? IMO no! The IAAF should have an outside independent person of credibility (Pound or someone like him) to create a re-organization plan that can be voted on by their Council. Going forward there should be a new election for President and Coe should not run.
 
Jun 21, 2015
214
0
0
My problems with Coe are that (best case scenario from his stand-point), 1] he failed to practice due diligence while on the IAAF council (and as VP) and sufficiently insinuate himself into organizational matters to identify and try to correct problems, 2] he didn't feel that his Nike salary represented a serious conflict of interest (which it clearly did), 3] he made no effort whatsoever to support the Stepanovs (publicly or materially), and 4] he vilified the people exposing a scandal that we now know was one of the worst in sports history.

Best person for the job? No.
 
Jun 4, 2015
285
0
0
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Re:

arcus said:
My problems with Coe are that (best case scenario from his stand-point), 1] he failed to practice due diligence while on the IAAF council (and as VP) and sufficiently insinuate himself into organizational matters to identify and try to correct problems, 2] he didn't feel that his Nike salary represented a serious conflict of interest (which it clearly did), 3] he made no effort whatsoever to support the Stepanovs (publicly or materially), and 4] he vilified the people exposing a scandal that we now know was one of the worst in sports history.

Best person for the job? No.
You raise really good points. To throw fuel on the fire Juliet Macur who excoriated Lance Armstrong wrote a column in the NY Times today stating the following:

Coe should get a chance to do the right thing. He should consider stepping aside temporarily to let an independent reform committee take over the I.A.A.F. and rebuild its shoddy governance structure. Then Coe could return to run the federation like a public company. Let transparency reign. Disclose financial results. Rid itself of nepotism.


This addresses my earlier suggestion that the IAAF needs an outside entity to implement substantive organisational change at the IAAF incorporating the WADA's Independent Committee recommendations at a minimum. But to allow Coe to continue, IMO that would be a huge mistake! It is not clear why Macur supports Coe.

The problem seems to be there is no other obvious person on the horizon. The last thing the IAAF needs is another Lamine Diack or a FIFA like disaster of the Blatter ilk replete with nepotism and cronyism.

I am just so damn tired of watching sports I love, knowing they are so dirty!
 
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
arcus said:
My problems with Coe are that (best case scenario from his stand-point), 1] he failed to practice due diligence while on the IAAF council (and as VP) and sufficiently insinuate himself into organizational matters to identify and try to correct problems, 2] he didn't feel that his Nike salary represented a serious conflict of interest (which it clearly did), 3] he made no effort whatsoever to support the Stepanovs (publicly or materially), and 4] he vilified the people exposing a scandal that we now know was one of the worst in sports history.

Best person for the job? No.
You raise really good points. To throw fuel on the fire Juliet Macur who excoriated Lance Armstrong wrote a column in the NY Times today stating the following:

Coe should get a chance to do the right thing. He should consider stepping aside temporarily to let an independent reform committee take over the I.A.A.F. and rebuild its shoddy governance structure. Then Coe could return to run the federation like a public company. Let transparency reign. Disclose financial results. Rid itself of nepotism.


This addresses my earlier suggestion that the IAAF needs an outside entity to implement substantive organisational change at the IAAF incorporating the WADA's Independent Committee recommendations at a minimum. But to allow Coe to continue, IMO that would be a huge mistake! It is not clear why Macur supports Coe.

The problem seems to be there is no other obvious person on the horizon. The last thing the IAAF needs is another Lamine Diack or a FIFA like disaster of the Blatter ilk replete with nepotism and cronyism.

I am just so damn tired of watching sports I love, knowing they are so dirty!
Yes, the IAAF need to get the independent UCI in to show them how to do it properly with no leaks :rolleyes:
 
Jun 21, 2015
214
0
0
Tygart questions IAAF code-compliance in light of IC report.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is baffled over how a report about the Russian track scandal could stop short of declaring track's governing body non-compliant with the world's anti-doping code.

"No entity can possibly be code-compliant if your sport leaders extort athletes to cover up doping," U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart told The Associated Press on Thursday, hours after the report was made public.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/travis-tygart-puzzled-by-refusal-to-declare-non-compliant-1.3404611
 
Re:

arcus said:
Tygart questions IAAF code-compliance in light of IC report.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is baffled over how a report about the Russian track scandal could stop short of declaring track's governing body non-compliant with the world's anti-doping code.

"No entity can possibly be code-compliant if your sport leaders extort athletes to cover up doping," U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart told The Associated Press on Thursday, hours after the report was made public.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/travis-tygart-puzzled-by-refusal-to-declare-non-compliant-1.3404611
Perhaps Tygart could sort out the Salazar situation before mouthing off about Russia and WADA. He really does love the sound of his non-natural white teeth.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Re: Re:

Yes, the IAAF need to get the independent UCI in to show them how to do it properly with no leaks :rolleyes:
Hog - I understand your cynicism, but each international Olympic sport needs some kind of organisation to over see their affairs and run an anti-doping program! What would you recommend as opposed to merely being sarcastic? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Yes, the IAAF need to get the independent UCI in to show them how to do it properly with no leaks :rolleyes:
Hog - I understand your cynicism, but each international Olympic sport needs some kind of organisation to over see their affairs and run an anti-doping program! What would you recommend as opposed to merely being sarcastic? :rolleyes:
What does a regular company do when it's directors/board has steered the company into bankruptcy or disrepute? They send in a group of administrators to break, revive, sell off, re-structure the company.

Same applies here as mentioned up thread. Coe and Co. to step aside, hand over the books and access to internal documents. Administrators 6 month to audit, set up new process, procedures and structure for the IAAF govern the sport with a comms and oversight committee in place. Coe and Co. come back in, given 6 more months to follow the new structure and report to the administrators.

Simple. Really. It's not hard to do. Sadly the IAAF is an entity unto itself, WADA has little control over it. The IAAF are not publicly elected so they as the UCI will do as they please with the veneer of anti-doping.

You see, no sarcasm.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY