Doping In Athletics

[armchairclimber]

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.

 

[beatthatrat]

Re: Re:

**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............

Another comment big on rhetoric and bereft of facts!

Personally, I believe Nationalism can be more dangerous than those two things.

 

[sniper]

Re:

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?

 

[Davesta]

Re:

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...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............

Another..........................

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!

 

[sniper]

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

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............

Another..........................

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".

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............

Another..........................

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.

 

[armchairclimber]

Indeed, though he could easily have made his position untenable, forcing resignation. If I were Coe, I'd be wishing he had.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re: Re:

**** Pound backs Coe. Wonder how big that brown bag was.............

Another..........................

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.

 

[arcus]

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.

 

[The Carrot]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/12102594/IAAF-president-Lord-Coe-is-pathologically-committed-to-athletics-and-will-do-all-in-his-power-to-reform-it.html

Another piece browning its nose on Coe's arse. This is incredible, he's gonna ride this out good and proper. To reiterate, some PR positives around the world's top 20 will be found and he will be hailed as the messiah. Blackcat will know what you get awarded next after a Baronhoodship.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re:

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!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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

 

[arcus]

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

 

[thehog]

Re:

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.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re: Re:

Yes, the IAAF need to get the independent UCI in to show them how to do it properly with no leaks

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?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Yes, the IAAF need to get the independent UCI in to show them how to do it properly with no leaks

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?

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.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Yes, the IAAF need to get the independent UCI in to show them how to do it properly with no leaks

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?

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.

Good post, Hog.

 

[blackcat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/12102594/IAAF-president-Lord-Coe-is-pathologically-committed-to-athletics-and-will-do-all-in-his-power-to-reform-it.html

Another piece browning its nose on Coe's arse. This is incredible, he's gonna ride this out good and proper. To reiterate, some PR positives around the world's top 20 will be found and he will be hailed as the messiah. Blackcat will know what you get awarded next after a Baronhoodship.

Coe might be able to herald muscular christianity 3.0


Muscular christianity really needs a reformation, and I just think Coe might be the person to do it.

I just found out that the public school Rugby was one of the forerunners of muscular christianity.

Harrow #ftw
Muscular Christianity #ftw
Lord Coe Sir Coe #ftw

his name is sebastian for chrissakes

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

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".

Whilst warming to think of this scenario it is not a realistic thought process given the facts.

Pound bigged this up. He also designed in two stages for release. These are facts. As others are saying the only "wow" factor in the report/release is the total contradiction in the content of parts of the report and Pound's unequivocal recommendation of Coe. Again these contradictory elements are facts.

Speculation can take place with three options -
1) the report and what Pound said about Coe are exactly what he wanted to say and there was no coercion by Readdie.
2) There was coercion and Pound did not say and report in the manner he wanted to and he was forced to give a false support for Coe.
3) There was coercion and Pound did not say and report in the manner he wanted to and he decided one of the smartest moves was to give false support for Coe in reasoned view that it would all turn sour for Coe later on.

What we can be sure of is that Coe's stance that he had no idea about the doping and corruption is false. The guy has lived his whole life around atheltics. He would have known about Jimmy Ledingham and the three centres set up so support British athletes in the early 80's as reported in the Dubin inquiry. He would have been in on all the gossip that would have surrounded the Ben Johnson disqualification and would have known Christie also tested positive but was let off when one of the voting panellists who was anti Christie being let off, fell asleep. He would have know all about C J Hunter, Marion Jones' husband, being positive, the IAAF changing the Olympic schedule for her and then the later Balco exposure. He knows that the IOC and IAAF facilitated the con - pretend that anti-doping works but keep selling "faster" and "higher" regardless of a thick pall of smoke rising from athlete after athlete. FFS Marion Jones, when at High School employed the same attorneyO J Simpson used to get him off his wife's murder, to get herself off PED charges. At High School. Seb never smelled a rat at that IAAF ? Taking the p****.

The right man to change the direction of the IAAF would have observed this and be would have been using his public profile to get articles out there expressing his fury and indignation not spouting that some very effective "messengers" had declared war on his sport as the jaws of the scandal closed around his organisation. The right man would have run a mile from Davies a man so obbviously corrupt and so obviously stupid to write that email to Pappa Diaick, not promoted him to be his right hand man and advisor. The right man would have made it his business to find out that Jamaican and Kenyan anti-doping was not just ineffective but actually by is signalled lack of testing gave a green light to doping. The right man would have found out about the German medic set up in Kenya with a shop for of PEDs and advice and found out why so many high profile Brits went "training" there.

Given the historical facts, Seb isn't cleaning up anything. Under him corruption my become smarter, Tom Weisel smart - no cheques to "Earthquake aid" that never get there but rather investments and remote bodies at least 3 fire-breaks away from the recipient. Anti doping will detect more Ruskies and anyone who is out of favour. But bringing Bolt down, which is only ever going to happen by determined and deliberate detective work by persons not open to corruption is not going to take place. FFS Davies was writing to Diaick saying that they were going to use Seb's PR company to create a smoke screen of good will behind which they were going to hide the Russian positives. How much historic factual conflict of interests can be overcome ?

I have no doubt that Seb will take actions to make sure he remains fastidiously ignorant of such nefarious goings on, much in the style of Cookson at the BCF. But in terms of changing the direction of the sport or actually employing some very capable individuals who are going to bring down idols of the sport like Bolt and do some proper testing to model PR's BP anomalies rather than let Dolle ask Suagay for "expert advice" to exonerate an athlete who is in a bit of a spot, I don't think there is a scrap of evidence to support the concept that Coe is now in a corner where he has to act.

Coe is in a corner where, to keep the fans happy, he has to be seen to act. The only thing we can be sure of is he will make sure he is seen to act. As all the fanboys stated, when did Lance ever test positive ? Most tested athlete on the planet. Seb will make sure the fanboys get enough pap to keep them happy and confident of cheering on the saviour of clean sport - Bolt in the manner they did this summer.

The factual counter position that the testing was so easily defeated and, in places, corruptly executed, was an argument that never gained traction anywhere other than this site and a few others like it. Why did that counter not gain wider acceptance ? The principle problem was the smoke screen put out by WADA and the various IFs committed to "preserving the integrity of their sports" . Sod the clean athletes - nobody gives a **** n about them.

Pound dropped the ball.

Nobdy gives a **** about the clean athletes.

 

[sniper]

^^ that's a nice to the point summary of why this saga continues to stink to high heaven, why Coe must have known about corruption, and why not much will change, except corruption and 'anti'doping getting smarter as you say. More discretion, more prudence, more talking the talk, more targeted blacksheeping, larger carpets and rugs.

The coercion could have been applied also by Bach, I assume?
Btw, what do we know about Pound? If not a genuine brown bag, or some sort of blackmail, what else could be in it for him? Does he still have ambitions within IOC?

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

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".

Whilst warming to think of this scenario it is not a realistic thought process given the facts.

Pound bigged this up. He also designed in two stages for release. These are facts. As others are saying the only "wow" factor in the report/release is the total contradiction in the content of parts of the report and Pound's unequivocal recommendation of Coe. Again these contradictory elements are facts.

Speculation can take place with three options -
1) the report and what Pound said about Coe are exactly what he wanted to say and there was no coercion by Readdie.
2) There was coercion and Pound did not say and report in the manner he wanted to and he was forced to give a false support for Coe.
3) There was coercion and Pound did not say and report in the manner he wanted to and he decided one of the smartest moves was to give false support for Coe in reasoned view that it would all turn sour for Coe later on.

What we can be sure of is that Coe's stance that he had no idea about the doping and corruption is false. The guy has lived his whole life around atheltics. He would have known about Jimmy Ledingham and the three centres set up so support British athletes in the early 80's as reported in the Dubin inquiry. He would have been in on all the gossip that would have surrounded the Ben Johnson disqualification and would have known Christie also tested positive but was let off when one of the voting panellists who was anti Christie being let off, fell asleep. He would have know all about C J Hunter, Marion Jones' husband, being positive, the IAAF changing the Olympic schedule for her and then the later Balco exposure. He knows that the IOC and IAAF facilitated the con - pretend that anti-doping works but keep selling "faster" and "higher" regardless of a thick pall of smoke rising from athlete after athlete. FFS Marion Jones, when at High School employed the same attorneyO J Simpson used to get him off his wife's murder, to get herself off PED charges. At High School. Seb never smelled a rat at that IAAF ? Taking the p****.

The right man to change the direction of the IAAF would have observed this and be would have been using his public profile to get articles out there expressing his fury and indignation not spouting that some very effective "messengers" had declared war on his sport as the jaws of the scandal closed around his organisation. The right man would have run a mile from Davies a man so obbviously corrupt and so obviously stupid to write that email to Pappa Diaick, not promoted him to be his right hand man and advisor. The right man would have made it his business to find out that Jamaican and Kenyan anti-doping was not just ineffective but actually by is signalled lack of testing gave a green light to doping. The right man would have found out about the German medic set up in Kenya with a shop for of PEDs and advice and found out why so many high profile Brits went "training" there.

Given the historical facts, Seb isn't cleaning up anything. Under him corruption my become smarter, Tom Weisel smart - no cheques to "Earthquake aid" that never get there but rather investments and remote bodies at least 3 fire-breaks away from the recipient. Anti doping will detect more Ruskies and anyone who is out of favour. But bringing Bolt down, which is only ever going to happen by determined and deliberate detective work by persons not open to corruption is not going to take place. FFS Davies was writing to Diaick saying that they were going to use Seb's PR company to create a smoke screen of good will behind which they were going to hide the Russian positives. How much historic factual conflict of interests can be overcome ?

I have no doubt that Seb will take actions to make sure he remains fastidiously ignorant of such nefarious goings on, much in the style of Cookson at the BCF. But in terms of changing the direction of the sport or actually employing some very capable individuals who are going to bring down idols of the sport like Bolt and do some proper testing to model PR's BP anomalies rather than let Dolle ask Suagay for "expert advice" to exonerate an athlete who is in a bit of a spot, I don't think there is a scrap of evidence to support the concept that Coe is now in a corner where he has to act.

Coe is in a corner where, to keep the fans happy, he has to be seen to act. The only thing we can be sure of is he will make sure he is seen to act. As all the fanboys stated, when did Lance ever test positive ? Most tested athlete on the planet. Seb will make sure the fanboys get enough pap to keep them happy and confident of cheering on the saviour of clean sport - Bolt in the manner they did this summer.

The factual counter position that the testing was so easily defeated and, in places, corruptly executed, was an argument that never gained traction anywhere other than this site and a few others like it. Why did that counter not gain wider acceptance ? The principle problem was the smoke screen put out by WADA and the various IFs committed to "preserving the integrity of their sports" . Sod the clean athletes - nobody gives a **** n about them.

Pound dropped the ball.

Nobdy gives a **** about the clean athletes.

Pound didn't drop the ball. He is a part of the problem. I am sure he's gotten a nice couple of paydays. Probably a lot more than that as well. Clean athletes? Who are those? Do they even exist anymore?

 

[thehog]

Re:

^^ that's a nice to the point summary of why this saga continues to stink to high heaven, why Coe must have known about corruption, and why not much will change, except corruption and 'anti'doping getting smarter as you say. More discretion, more prudence, more talking the talk, more targeted blacksheeping, larger carpets and rugs.

The coercion could have been applied also by Bach, I assume?
Btw, what do we know about Pound? If not a genuine brown bag, or some sort of blackmail, what else could be in it for him? Does he still have ambitions within IOC?

Pound has already been in the IOC as a VP and Presidential candidate. Pound is freelance now, he's not WADA. He is adept in tax law and his consultancy rates would be in the $100,000 per month region, probably more.

Pound swings by now and then, gets paid then leaves. He's doesn't need anything else. He will say what you want him to say and give it the authority and independence required.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

^^ that's a nice to the point summary of why this saga continues to stink to high heaven, why Coe must have known about corruption, and why not much will change, except corruption and 'anti'doping getting smarter as you say. More discretion, more prudence, more talking the talk, more targeted blacksheeping, larger carpets and rugs.

The coercion could have been applied also by Bach, I assume?
Btw, what do we know about Pound? If not a genuine brown bag, or some sort of blackmail, what else could be in it for him? Does he still have ambitions within IOC?

Pound has already been in the IOC as a VP and Presidential candidate. Pound is freelance now, he's not WADA. He is adept in tax law and his consultancy rates would be in the $100,000 per month region, probably more.

Pound swings by now and then, gets paid then leaves. He's doesn't need anything else. He will say what you want him to say and give it the authority and independence required.

The problem with all sports is that the ones at the top have come through the ranks. In reality that isn't that different from business, apart from the fact that it seems to be bad practice to go outside the gene pool when recruiting in sports.

Who do you want at the top? Someone who is experienced of course, where do you get that experience from ...

Where it differs is that the federations don't have shareholders to pay (unlike Corporations), therefore there is no-one to remove them if things go wrong. To be honest I cant see the alternative. Do we want the UCI to be a quoted PLC company? Beholden to shareholders? Profit before bad news???

I guess it is a case of being careful of what you wish for ...