WADA/IAAF corruption report ... mod post #2 and again #1283

Myles Splitz

Chivito550 wrote: »

Oh I agree. Nice guys cheat too, and some d1ckheads dont. I'm not saying he is clean or dirty, just that if he is clean I'd feel sorry for him, and that it is plausible that he could be outside of the Russian system of doping given where he is based.

But why does he get the benefit of the doubt over some random Turk who lives and trains in the mountains? (just as a random example say Halil Akkas)

It's the consistency that for me is an issue as it gives some who probably don't deserve it the benefit of the doubt while creating a witch hunt around some who possibly don't deserve it.

If Turkey was banned in the morning there would probably be no sympathy for any of their athletes.

Regarding the country wide ban I do agree it is not fair on some clean athletes but no more unfair than the clean athletes across the sport who lose out on medals on a yearly basis due to dopers going under the radar so it needs to be looked at objectively for the overall good of the sport.

average_runner

dna_leri wrote: »

Ban includes all athletes, including masters:
http://masterstrack.com/russian-masters-get-word-too-no-international-meets-transfers/



I assume the transfers rule also applies to non-masters.

I also have sympathy for potentially clean Russian elite athletes who earn a living from the sport e.g. Shubenkov, Isinbayeva, Chicherova, Lyuk Adams, Klishina - all of whom may or may not be clean but have added to the sport in recent years.

But according to the first article

"Ugarov is not a member of the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) he is not subject to the ARAF's suspension and there was no problem with him participating"

Was this a mistake by the article?

Myles Splitz

average_runner wrote: »

But according to the first article

"Ugarov is not a member of the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) he is not subject to the ARAF's suspension and there was no problem with him participating"

Was this a mistake by the article?

I think they were feigning ignorance as that statement came from the race organisers (I think he had cancelled his membership to appear to be not affiliated with ARAF if that's possible)

Chivito550

Myles Splitz wrote: »

But why does he get the benefit of the doubt over some random Turk who lives and trains in the mountains? (just as a random example say Halil Akkas)

It's the consistency that for me is an issue as it gives some who probably don't deserve it the benefit of the doubt while creating a witch hunt around some who possibly don't deserve it.

If Turkey was banned in the morning there would probably be no sympathy for any of their athletes.

Regarding the country wide ban I do agree it is not fair on some clean athletes but no more unfair than the clean athletes across the sport who lose out on medals on a yearly basis due to dopers going under the radar so it needs to be looked at objectively for the overall good of the sport.

Fair points. I think his personality and ability to speak very good English does help him. Wrong that may be, but it's just the reality. When he can communicate with the world's media, he becomes a more interesting character, and we can learn so much more about him, his background, training methods etc, than from somebody who is a faceless Russian who blurts out something in Russian into the microphone, and it gets vaguely translated. Again, not saying it is right or fair, but it just seems to be the way it is. The more you know about somebody, the more likelihood you may give the benefit of the doubt. When you know nothing about the person, you subconsciously lump him/her in with the others.

It's no different to the Steven Colvert case. Lots of us, yourself included (correct me if I'm wrong there), thought something had to be wrong with that test result. Why? Because we know him, or know people who know him, see him around, know a good deal about him etc. If it was a Czech or Austrian sprinter, would we have reacted in the same way?

Myles Splitz

Chivito550 wrote: »

It's no different to the Steven Colvert case. Lots of us, yourself included (correct me if I'm wrong there), thought something had to be wrong with that test result. Why? Because we know him, or know people who know him, see him around, know a good deal about him etc. If it was a Czech or Austrian sprinter, would we have reacted in the same way?

Not sure if people actually questioned the results, more the motives behind the results (possibility of inadvertent use) which I suppose can lead to a similar end.

I do get your point though just personally think that the xenophobic nature of that sort of suspicion increasing the chances of cover-ups outside the traditionally suspicious countries.

Myles Splitz

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2015/11/20/ioc-president-proposes-overhaul-of-wada-doping-operations/76123960/

Suppose this would cut down on the amount of bans overturned I guess but I am not hugely sold on the idea given that no organization seems infallible these days (Even the Lausanne WADA lab was implicated in the recent controversies)

shels4ever

http://gu.com/p/4ehkm/stw

Beasty

shels4ever wrote: »

http://gu.com/p/4ehkm/stw

Hopefully sends a message out to all federations. Equally hoping this is a sign that they intend adopting a much more serious position going forward and will rid the country of what appears to be quite endemic practices across a number of sports

Sandwell

I'd say the message it sends out is play nice, don't go taking any of the rest of us down with you, and we'll have you back in time for the Olympics.

clear thinking

Funny how the Russians tune has changed radically. Absolute denial initially and now subservient acceptance.

This plays out badly in domestic nationalistic politics so they are now going cap in hand by accepting the decision and hoping they will have it sorted in time for the Olympics and can have their athletes let in. I hope the ban is not lifted before then. Hopefully more countries and drug rings get caught too and get similar treatment.

My view on this is that, even without doping, big western countries and those with big budgets can pay for the best coaches, facilities, research, altitude etc. so even without drugs any sport is far from a level playing field for athletes.

Clearlier

clear thinking wrote: »

Funny how the Russians tune has changed radically. Absolute denial initially and now subservient acceptance.

This plays out badly in domestic nationalistic politics so they are now going cap in hand by accepting the decision and hoping they will have it sorted in time for the Olympics and can have their athletes let in. I hope the ban is not lifted before then. Hopefully more countries and drug rings get caught too and get similar treatment.

I don't know about subservient. I see their acceptance of it as expedient with a view to increasing the chance of them taking part in Rio which is subject to an approval process that is slated to begin in January but would be delayed if they appealed.

clear thinking wrote: »

My view on this is that, even without doping, big western countries and those with big budgets can pay for the best coaches, facilities, research, altitude etc. so even without drugs any sport is far from a level playing field for athletes.

Absolutely although IMO the more technical the sport and the higher the equipment costs the greater the advantage that wealth confers. It's also a reason not to allow doping by the way as the wealthier countries would have the advantage of being the best dopers too.

clear thinking

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't know about subservient. I see their acceptance of it as expedient with a view to increasing the chance of them taking part in Rio which is subject to an approval process that is slated to begin in January but would be delayed if they appealed.



Absolutely although IMO the more technical the sport and the higher the equipment costs the greater the advantage that wealth confers. It's also a reason not to allow doping by the way as the wealthier countries would have the advantage of being the best dopers too.

I'm not a fan of Russian trolls, so maybe subservient is OTT, but it certainly flies in the face of the denials they were spouting initially.

Beasty

Point is, if they simply pay lip service to get themselves back into the Olympics and then get caught again, that would have the effect of destroying the nation on the international sporting front

I saw the start of all of this with the demise of Armstrong and McQuaid in cycling, with FIFA and Blatter/Platini now hot on their heels (not that I am actually suggesting corruption on the part of McQuaid but he was part of a culture across many major sports, some of which, but certainly not all, are pretty important within the Olympic "family").

The world really has moved on over the past few years and will not put up with the crap that was pretty routine a decade ago. Sport is somewhat at the forefront of this in terms of the publicity it attracts and the money linked to sponsorship deals/TV rights and the like. All major sports need to regain and then retain the trust of the public, or over time they will kill the goose that laid that golden egg.

youngrun

Thought the Russians might fight it .

Next up the Kenya and Jamaica doping probes. Surely these need to be adddressed asap pre Rio . Any issues,bans etc need to be acted upon now.

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/sports-26117-IAAF+probes+Kenya+doping+cover-up/sports.aspx

http://www.nation.co.ke/sports/athletics/doping-probe-Kenya-Jamaica-/-/1100/2957240/-/wcdthc/-/index.html

Interesting piece here from last article -On Friday, a Cabinet meeting at State House agreed to speed up the formal establishment of the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya.

So Kenya have none at present ?????

Jamaicans free..
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/asafa-powell-doping-probe-dropped-1.3213022

What a strange world

Myles Splitz

youngrun wrote: »

Interesting piece here from last article -On Friday, a Cabinet meeting at State House agreed to speed up the formal establishment of the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya.

So Kenya have none at present ?????

AK were pushing it for the past 18 months from what I remember but the government were dragging their heels with regards the funding (given the corruption in politics in Kenya both in athletics and in general I reckon any sort of bureaucracy is a nightmare)

In the absence of an anti doping body in a nation WADA/IAAF conduct testing however nearest approved labs are SA or Doha.

youngrun wrote: »

Jamaicans free..
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/asafa-powell-doping-probe-dropped-1.3213022

What a strange world

I believe that was a criminal investigation with regards drug trafficking by local authorities against the individuals (Simpson, Powell and Xuereb (therapist) as they were busted while in Italy.

youngrun

Surely if WADA/IAAF are scrupulously fair Kenya should be banned also until they get their house in order if that is the case.

Myles Splitz

youngrun wrote: »

Surely if WADA/IAAF are scrupulously fair Kenya should be banned also until they get their house in order if that is the case.

I imagine that is where the second part of the independent report due to come out in Jan comes in.

I would imagine that there is a definite possibility, especially on top of the corruption scandal already brewing between AK and Nike.

dna_leri

Anyone know what is the cost of setting up a WADA accredited lab?
Must be a significant investment in a country such as Kenya for both capital and running costs.
Some information here on running costs but not setup
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-report-working-group-costs-en.pdf

It seems wrong that an African government /agency should be responsible for these costs and then also for sanctioning their athletes. We need to start looking at this from the point of view of these countries. The only way they could justify the costs would be based on the economic benefit brought by success in their sport and the income that brings to their country. But if the net result is that their athletes get banned and stem the flow of sports income then the benefit is lessened. Why would we then be surprised when there is government interference in the running of these labs.

The alternative is that the funding and management of these labs needs to be globally managed i.e. IOC/WADA needs to move into the business of testing. An alternative might be independent labs run for profit. No lab should be dependent on national government funding and all labs should be subject to WADA certification and rigorous oversight and monitoring.

If the developed world wants drug-free sport then we have to pay for it.

Beasty

dna_leri wrote: »

If the developed world wants drug-free sport then we have to pay for it.

Just to give you a personal experience from Cycling. I took part in the European Masters in Newport 2 years ago. Last year's event, which was due to take place in Alkmaar, had to be cancelled when the organiser was informed that if the drug testers turned up (they did not in 2013, but are at the World Masters in Manchester every year) he would have to fund the tests, at around £500 each.

If they did turn up, it was possible they could insist on all medallists being tested. The cost to the organiser in this scenario could be £150k. His whole takings for the event would be less than 20% of that, and even without the drug testing he would not make any profit.

Bottom line is the cost of testing is becoming incredibly prohibitive. Yes the major events can set aside enough to fund it, but the danger is some of the "lesser" events simply will not be affordable unless sport generally moves forward and everyone makes a concerted effort to rid it of this issue. I appreciate you can never completely eliminate cheating, but if the "prospective" cheats see more examples like Armstrong and the Russian Athletics federation more will think twice about it

Itziger

Well, at least Paula's clean. We can breathe easy again.

walshb

Itziger wrote: »

Well, at least Paula's clean. We can breathe easy again.

As if that was ever in doubt!

menoscemo

Itziger wrote: »

Well, at least Paula's clean. We can breathe easy again.

A thumbs up from the IAAF is probably as believable as one from Idi Amin!!

Myles Splitz

Full Report

clear thinking

One suspects one doth protest too much.


As with any report skip to the summary.

Edit pg25

Myles Splitz

Probably Kenya's highest profile drug bust ever

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/251077-News-from-the-Track-and-Field-World/article/37699-World-Champ-Emily-Chebet-and-6-More-Kenyans-Busted-for-Drugs#.VljPHXbhC1s

menoscemo

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Full Report

Hmmmm point 5.5.3 says that Radcliffe came down from a period of high altitude training 3 weeks before vilamoura. Yet this: http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=1341&viewby=dateasc clearly shows that she raced a 10k in Richmond park 4 weeks before vilamoura, another 5k in London the week after and the GNR 2 weeks before vilamoura. Was she going back up to altitude between races?

Notwork Error

menoscemo wrote: »

Hmmmm point 5.5.3 says that Radcliffe came down from a period of high altitude training 3 weeks before vilamoura. Yet this: http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=1341&viewby=dateasc clearly shows that she raced a 10k in Richmond park 4 weeks before vilamoura, another 5k in London the week after and the GNR 2 weeks before vilamoura. Was she going back up to altitude between races?

I know we were talking about this before after more thinking, I'd presume she was going back to altitude between races. Usually, the atletes won't come down from altitude until 3-4 days before a goal race because that's how they get the biggest bang for their buck in haemoglobin. If they come down and stay down for say 2 weeks, their RBC count will start to drop off because they don't need the oxygenated blood anymore. Of course, even a stint of high altitude training weeks before will make a big difference but to get every benefit, coming down only a few days before a race is the way to go because RBC count will still be high on raceday.

The Rape of Lucretia

Cripes, talk about the kiss of death. Paula must be furious with old pal Seb.
Whatever chance she had of maintaining the protestations of innocence are down the drain now.

menoscemo

Notwork Error wrote: »

I know we were talking about this before after more thinking, I'd presume she was going back to altitude between races. Usually, the atletes won't come down from altitude until 3-4 days before a goal race because that's how they get the biggest bang for their buck in haemoglobin. If they come down and stay down for say 2 weeks, their RBC count will start to drop off because they don't need the oxygenated blood anymore. Of course, even a stint of high altitude training weeks before will make a big difference but to get every benefit, coming down only a few days before a race is the way to go because RBC count will still be high on raceday.

The report says she came down 3 weeks before vilamoura and cites this as one of the reasons for the high count. Is Font Romeu even that high? Would it still really have a big effect on her count 3 weeks later?

Notwork Error

menoscemo wrote: »

The report says she came down 3 weeks before vilamoura and cites this as one of the reasons for the high count. Is Font Romeu even that high? Would it still really have a big effect on her count 3 weeks later?

I really need to start reading this stuff more clearly. Font Romeu is pretty high, around 6000ft iirc. I honestly can't answer the last question as I wouldn't have a clue.

Chebet is one hell of a bust though, I've a feeling that only the start of it for the Kenyans.

youngrun

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Probably Kenya's highest profile drug bust ever

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/251077-News-from-the-Track-and-Field-World/article/37699-World-Champ-Emily-Chebet-and-6-More-Kenyans-Busted-for-Drugs#.VljPHXbhC1s

So Kenya have no anti doping testing system
And huge numbers failing dope tests

Where is the WADA report on this issue , is it in progress?
Coe should instigate one immediately

Why are they allowed compete. Given Russia ban and the probably as if not more problems in Kenya.

This is serious.

clear thinking

IAAF effectively ridiculed by the Sunday Times scientists, say that not only were blo0d values obviously pointing to cheating, but also to life threatening health implications.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/28/iaaf-athletics-doping-scandal

“While initially driven for the need to identify potential cheats there was a real underlying concern for athletes who may have been harming themselves (or were being harmed by others). Based on some of the extreme values in the database there were questions that went beyond doping or anti-doping and one that entailed a duty of care.”
“The IAAF pleads that it could not have done more. Faced with the life threatening blood values which they knew existed amongst their athletes, I say they should have tried to push the legal envelope. The IAAF were legally timid when they should have been morally strong.”

Ashenden also had a message for Lord Coe, who is scheduled to face the UK Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport committee this week. “He was particularly vocal about my criticism of the IAAF, and defended its anti-doping department while regarding Lamine Diack as his spiritual president,” he said. “I say the IAAF failed their athletes. Let’s wait and see who is sitting on the right side of history.”

wrstan

menoscemo wrote: »

A thumbs up from the IAAF is probably as believable as one from Idi Amin!!

I dearly hope that Paula is clean. I really want to believe that she always was.

The problem is that when an institution that has zero credibility when it comes to doping, clears you of doping allegations it doesn't count for much alright!

groovyg

Horror in Paris meant I HAD to clear my name on drugs: Paula Radcliffe tells how she feared dying with a tarnished reputation in first interview since being cleared of doping Jesus wept! She's coming across as desperate at this stage!

clear thinking

groovyg wrote: »

Horror in Paris meant I HAD to clear my name on drugs: Paula Radcliffe tells how she feared dying with a tarnished reputation in first interview since being cleared of doping Jesus wept! She's coming across as desperate at this stage!

I was hymning and hawing as to whether to post this. What a fupping toerag.

Ok, maybe she's clean but coming out with crap like that is a disgraceful insult to the victims and anyone with any connection to paris or a who has a bit of humility.

You'd have to question if she has forrest gump levels of IQ if she doesn't realise how stupid that comment is.

Giruilla

‘It made me think that we could not be here tomorrow and I don’t want the last thing people remember about me to be drugs.’

She offered to take a lie detector test to convince doubters, declaring: ‘I am innocent, I swear. I have never taken drugs.’

She's obsessed with saying 'drugs'... and I for do not believe she took drugs. Especially after the EPO cheats out poster... hard to believe anyone could be that much of a hypocrite.

Unfortunately taking pharmaceutical products is not the only way to dope.

Clearlier

groovyg wrote: »

Horror in Paris meant I HAD to clear my name on drugs: Paula Radcliffe tells how she feared dying with a tarnished reputation in first interview since being cleared of doping Jesus wept! She's coming across as desperate at this stage!

I imagine that she is pretty desperate at this stage no matter whether she did take drugs or not. I would point out though that the article is in the Daily Wail who are not exactly unknown for their ability to sensationalise things and put them ever so slightly out of context. It's pretty poor judgement to give them an interview (assuming that she did) - a more considered newspaper might have been a better bet.

youngrun

Have Kenya done enough yet to warrant a WADA report and a provisional suspension?

Myles Splitz

youngrun wrote: »

Have Kenya done enough yet to warrant a WADA report and a provisional suspension?

Would imagine this will come but will probably take a bit of time given AK officials are in the middle of a corruption investigation by the IAAF.

Between the AK scandal with Nike, the scrutiny on Seb Coe's affiliations, the investigation of Liame Diack and the second Russian Report to come out in January and the Radcliffe investigation they have had their plate pretty full over the past few weeks/months.

rom

Giruilla wrote: »

She's obsessed with saying 'drugs'... and I for do not believe she took drugs. Especially after the EPO cheats out poster... hard to believe anyone could be that much of a hypocrite.

Unfortunately taking pharmaceutical products is not the only way to dope.

Her behaviour has always struck me as strange. Anytime there is a conversation about drugs she feels she needs to get involved. It reminds me of that guy that killed his wife who went on the Late Late to try and find the person that really did it. At the end of the day she is a single athlete and probably the single most outspoken person in the media about drugs.

The fact that non functioning org chaired by friend in the middle of a crisis is coming out with a report that clears a single athlete when they should be examining the problem from a macro level says it all.

Somehow IAAF is competent to put any possibility that Paula is on drugs to bed but are shocked by what is going on in Russia and other countries.

youngrun

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Would imagine this will come but will probably take a bit of time given AK officials are in the middle of a corruption investigation by the IAAF.

Between the AK scandal with Nike, the scrutiny on Seb Coe's affiliations, the investigation of Liame Diack and the second Russian Report to come out in January and the Radcliffe investigation they have had their plate pretty full over the past few weeks/months.

One would hope the same attention will be given to this and that if warranted sanctions applied. I just hope the Russia report wasnt political point scoring and bigger issues are left hanging. Surely this is way more important than any of the above for athletics. Coe issue is done and Radcliffe issue is also and its irrelevant to todays competitions.
WADA and IAAF should focus on making sure the sport now is clean and will be for next year this should be Top priority.

Clearlier

youngrun wrote: »

Have Kenya done enough yet to warrant a WADA report and a provisional suspension?

The same documentary team who exposed what was going on in Russia exposed what was going on in Kenya even before they went to Russia. It's bad but they didn't find evidence of organised doping or state involvement as they did in Russia. Some steps were taken to improve/implement testing in Kenya and there has been a definite uptick in doping violations from Kenya since the changes but a lot more needs to be done.

To anticipate the next question - Jamaica had an emergency visit from WADA in 2013 following the slew of positive tests - the entire board of JADCO resigned. Some steps have subsequently been taken to improve the system. More needs to be done - there's no evidence of state involvement or organised doping.

TFBubendorfer

youngrun wrote: »

Have Kenya done enough yet to warrant a WADA report and a provisional suspension?

Dick Pound said the next report out in January will have a wow factor. I (and quite a few others) suspect that this may well refer to Kenya, alright.

We'll find out soon enough.

Myles Splitz

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Dick Pound said the next report out in January will have a wow factor. I (and quite a few others) suspect that this may well refer to Kenya, alright.

We'll find out soon enough.

According to reports it's more to do with the IAAF rather than particular nations so I would imagine corruption and coverups will be the main agenda.

While these may include Kenya I doubt they will be the target of the report judging by Pound's interviews.

ThisRegard

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Dick Pound said the next report out in January will have a wow factor. I (and quite a few others) suspect that this may well refer to Kenya, alright.

We'll find out soon enough.

Myles Splitz wrote: »

While these may include Kenya I doubt they will be the target of the report judging by Pound's interviews.

He said himself that there's issues with Kenya, I reckon 'issues' is a purposeful understatement by him.

youngrun

Clearlier wrote: »

The same documentary team who exposed what was going on in Russia exposed what was going on in Kenya even before they went to Russia. It's bad but they didn't find evidence of organised doping or state involvement as they did in Russia. Some steps were taken to improve/implement testing in Kenya and there has been a definite uptick in doping violations from Kenya since the changes but a lot more needs to be done.

To anticipate the next question - Jamaica had an emergency visit from WADA in 2013 following the slew of positive tests - the entire board of JADCO resigned. Some steps have subsequently been taken to improve the system. More needs to be done - there's no evidence of state involvement or organised doping.

I thought Kenya doesn't have an anti doping agency worth the name?
World champs etc getting done and multiple dopers at the very top end of athletics as well
It warrants a report by Wada and pound at the least as well as I a a f
Plus all this other stuff re bribery at the very top level
Surely a ban is a no brainer for multiple reasons
Or is it just because we don't like the Russians only they get banned

Beasty

youngrun wrote: »

Surely a ban is a no brainer for multiple reasons
Or is it just because we don't like the Russians only they get banned

Dur process was followed and resulted in Russia's ban. In the case of Kenya let due process take its course and see what the conclusions are rather than speculating over what will happen when you cannot be in possession of all the relevant facts.

Clearlier

youngrun wrote: »

I thought Kenya doesn't have an anti doping agency worth the name?
World champs etc getting done and multiple dopers at the very top end of athletics as well
It warrants a report by Wada and pound at the least as well as I a a f
Plus all this other stuff re bribery at the very top level
Surely a ban is a no brainer for multiple reasons
Or is it just because we don't like the Russians only they get banned

The clue as to why Russia were banned was in my post. If you do a compare and contrast between my statements about Russia, Kenya and Jamaica you should be able to work it out.

Besides, didn't you get the memo? The russians are our friends now cos they're anti-ISIS and have been fightin Muslim extremism for a lot longer than the West, they're also anti-Turkey who are anti-Israel and anti-Kurds who we support not least because they're fighting ISIS on the ground. Russia are our new best friends.

I'm all for a debate and discussion about anti-doping successes and failures but the moment that Russia's ban is seen as some kind of political statement is the moment that this thread needs to head off to the conspiracy theory forum.

With respect to doping in Kenya - it appears to be endemic and consideration does appear to being given to banning them from international competition. That's before you get into the corruption in the Kenyan athletics federation which appears to be endemic. A ban from international competition wouldn't be ridiculous but unlike Russia which has the tools a lot of support would need to be given to Kenya to establish a strong anti-doping programme. Russia appeared to deliberately and in an organised fashion subvert the rules. Kenya's transgressions appears to be opportunistic. This all moves into the argument for anti-doping to be done independently of individual nations. I support that in theory but in practice the costs are likely to be prohibitive.

I still can't understand why everybody thinks that Seb Coe is the ethical answer to everyone's prayers. A guy who couldn't see the issue with being a paid ambassador for Nike whilst also being president of the IAAF doesn't seem like someone who has the greatest moral compass.

dna_leri

Clearlier wrote: »

I still can't understand why everybody thinks that Seb Coe is the ethical answer to everyone's prayers. A guy who couldn't see the issue with being a paid ambassador for Nike whilst also being president of the IAAF doesn't seem like someone who has the greatest moral compass.

Can't disagree with that but which alternative would be better - Bubka; Hightower; an outsider who does not know how the system works?
Coe's best chance of success (as I think Renee Anne Shirley suggested) is to separate the board from the executive and have 2 roles as you would in a public company - a chairman/president and a chief executive. Coe as President sets the direction and An Other (e.g. Dick Pound) gets the job of cleaning up the mess.

menoscemo

Clearlier wrote: »

I still can't understand why everybody thinks that Seb Coe is the ethical answer to everyone's prayers.

Honestly I think hardly anyone believes that. I am pretty sure it's only certain parts of the British media that run with that narrative.