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

wrstan

youngrun wrote: »

Do you think everyone in athletics is cheating and corrupt ? I dont

I don't either - that's one of the reasons why it is so tragic!

youngrun wrote: »

I think that sponsorship is essential for the sport . I can understand why Adidas are pulling out but I think its a shame that the powers that be in Athletics dont stand up for the sport and the blanket media denigration of its reputation which is not fair.

I agree, but I also believe that the IAAF have created that reputation through their own corruption and refusal to address those who cheat.

ThisRegard

Chivito550 wrote: »

Guys, if you are all such advocates of anti-doping, then what small part are you doing to help the sport overcome this problem. Posting rants on message boards does nothing to help anyone really.

An example of positive action: At nationals last year they were doing anti-doping interactive awareness questionnaire, and every participant got a "Say no to doping" tshirt. I wore this in Beijing certain nights, and at press conferences. It's very tiny, but if everybody did something tiny, then a lot of good can come from it.

So just to turn this discussion in a different direction, what are you doing about this, to try help your sport, other than ranting on message boards?

Because an opinion may be different to yours, it does not make it a rant. It's just a different view point on the same discussion.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because an opinion may be different to yours, it does not make it a rant. It's just a different view point on the same discussion.

No, I agree with some of what you guys say (disagree on certain aspects). That's not the point. What are you guys actually doing to try play a part in improving our sport? If you are so passionate, why not volunteer some of your time educating youngsters about the dangers of doping? Why not join up with the guys who were at nationals last year increasing awareness. I'm sure they could do with more people. You obviously are very passionate about the topic, so this passion is going to waste, just posting rants here, if you aren't doing anything else about it.

Beasty

Chivito550 wrote: »

Guys, if you are all such advocates of anti-doping, then what small part are you doing to help the sport overcome this problem. Posting rants on message boards does nothing to help anyone really.

It was one or two "rants" on Boards that got me interested in the Armstrong situation, and that led to Pat McQuaid. Another Boardsie spoke to me one evening, and the rest, as they say, is history (well McQuaid is certainly). These discussions help inform others. the more that are informed the more pressure can be brought to bear. Yes Ireland is a relatively small cog in this particular wheel, but sentiment is growing. It took a long time in Cycling, and no-one is claiming the job is anywhere near done, but the efforts of a few individuals around this site (and brought together by this site) certainly helped push it along.

shels4ever

youngrun wrote: »

My view is that athletics needs to fight its corner and state what its doing as well as addressing issues.
And not just let the gutter press and media carte blance accuse athletes of doping across the board . There was an SBP article last week which did exactly that with loads of allegations and damn all specifics .

i guess that where we differ, I think the fight has already been lost and they need to re-build rather than fight its corner, but that my personal opinion. They way things have been handled so far don't fill me with hope that the people involved will be capable of doing that and have eh trust of people in the sport.

Chivito550

Beasty wrote: »

It was one or two "rants" on Boards that got me interested in the Armstrong situation, and that led to Pat McQuaid. Another Boardsie spoke to me one evening, and the rest, as they say, is history (well McQuaid is certainly). These discussions help inform others. the more that are informed the more pressure can be brought to bear. Yes Ireland is a relatively small cog in this particular wheel, but sentiment is growing. It took a long time in Cycling, and no-one is claiming the job is anywhere near done, but the efforts of a few individuals around this site (and brought together by this site) certainly helped push it along.

Yeh I'm not saying that the discussion shouldn't take place. I just think people who come across as major advocates for anti-doping could be doing more. Boards.ie has a tiny impact in the athletics community here. Most athletes in Ireland don't read this forum as it is perceived as a recreational running forum.

I plan to wear my Say No to Doping tshirt at every meet I attend this year in Ireland (obviously will take it off when warning up and competing) and also in Rio on certain days, and in some press conferences.

shels4ever

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh I'm not saying that the discussion shouldn't take place. I just think people who come across as major advocates for anti-doping could be doing more. Boards.ie has a tiny impact in the athletics community here. Most athletes in Ireland don't read this forum as it is perceived as a recreational running forum.

I plan to wear my Say No to Doping tshirt at every meet I attend this year in Ireland (obviously will take it off when warning up and competing) and also in Rio on certain days, and in some press conferences.

Why only some? any direction on what you can and can not wear at time?

Beasty

shels4ever wrote: »

i guess that where we differ, I think the fight has already been lost and they need to re-build rather than fight its corner, but that my personal opinion. They way things have been handled so far don't fill me with hope that the people involved will be capable of doing that and have eh trust of people in the sport.

This is an interesting angle when sponsors do start pulling out. It potentially facilitates some of that money going into a new "venture" where the organisation, it's rules and principles are set out from day 1. Getting trustworthy people on board is clearly critical, but the threat that the rug will be pulled from under their feet (by the sponsors) should they do anything "inappropriate" would be an incentive for everyone to keep in line.

So one possibility is the IAAF goes into decline while a new organisation, perhaps only allowing athletes and/or countries with "suitably" clean records who agree to whatever conditions are considered appropriate grows. It may take a few years, but maybe that's what Athletics requires?

Beasty

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh I'm not saying that the discussion shouldn't take place. I just think people who come across as major advocates for anti-doping could be doing more. Boards.ie has a tiny impact in the athletics community here. Most athletes in Ireland don't read this forum as it is perceived as a recreational running forum.

Not really much different from the Cycling forum then. We had and continue to have plenty of club members, who may be on the leisure side, or perhaps get involved in local or open races. We had the debate on Boards. The turnout for the resultant Cycling Ireland EGM was a lot higher than normal and the vote against McQuaid was won, on the back of the "informed" views and information that had been circulated around here. You would probably be surprised how many people in Irish Cycling circles who rarely go anywhere near Boards now know me by my username around here .....

Chivito550

shels4ever wrote: »

Why only some? any direction on what you can and can not wear at time?

Because if I wear it every day in the warm Rio weather it will start to stink! I don't plan on doing laundry over there. Big suitcase with enough clothes to last me the entire trip. I'm on holiday after all!

Also, I'd like to wear my Ireland tshirt to support our athletes too, rather than focusing solely on negative aspects of what is still overall a great sport.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Because if I wear it every day in the warm Rio weather it will start to stink! I don't plan on doing laundry over there. Big suitcase with enough clothes to last me the entire trip. I'm on holiday after all!

Also, I'd like to wear my Ireland tshirt to support our athletes too, rather than focusing solely on negative aspects of what is still overall a great sport.

Hope you have your speedos for the beach

ThisRegard

More corruption stories appearing, in Kenya this time.

Plus Nestlé are pulling their sponsorship. It must be bad if Nestlé don't want anything to do with you.

average_runner

ThisRegard wrote: »

More corruption stories appearing, in Kenya this time.

Plus Nestlé are pulling their sponsorship. It must be bad if Nestlé don't want anything to do with you.

That's two big sponsors gone. Wonder what McDonald's and Coca-Cola position is.

Murph_D

Surely these brands should be shown the door anyway. Fat, sugar and lead-pedlars.

ThisRegard

You missed out baby poisoners!

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

Surely these brands should be shown the door anyway. Fat, sugar and lead-pedlars.

Sure a big Mac and litre of coke is the snack of champions

Murph_D

ThisRegard wrote: »

You missed out baby poisoners!

No I didn't. Granted Nestlé don't put the lead in the Flint water, but they take all the good stuff!

Birdie Num Num

ThisRegard wrote: »

Plus Nestlé are pulling their sponsorship. It must be bad if Nestlé don't want anything to do with you.

I actually think this is bad form by Nestle. We are talking about 7-12 year olds here. I'd say they reckoned the publicity around the announcement was worth their while.

ThisRegard

Didn't realise it was just the kids program they sponsored, that's bad form considering they could have worked that they're working with the new clean generation or something like that.

Plus their justification is pathetic, they didn't want their reputation tarnished through being associated with the IAAF, the irony.

Birdie Num Num

ThisRegard wrote: »

Didn't realise it was just the kids program they sponsored, that's bad form considering they could have worked that they're working with the new clean generation or something like that.

Plus their justification is pathetic, they didn't want their reputation tarnished through being associated with the IAAF, the irony.

Quite happy to remain a sponsor of youth soccer after it's controversy over corruption.

On another note or should I say, your other note. I see Kenya announced it may pull its team from the Rio games because of the threat of Zika. I wonder if they are thinking ahead. I haven't actually heard of any very recent news on Kenya and doping. I shall go google.

average_runner

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Quite happy to remain a sponsor of youth soccer after it's controversy over corruption.

On another note or should I say, your other note. I see Kenya announced it may pull its team from the Rio games because of the threat of Zika. I wonder if they are thinking ahead. I haven't actually heard of any very recent news on Kenya and doping. I shall go google.

In fairness Corruption is one thing, drugs is totally different

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness Corruption is one thing, drugs is totally different

What are you talking about? They are as bad as each other. And it's not the drug issue which is forcing all these sponsors away, it's the corruption regarding the doping issue. Corruption is corruption regardless of what the corruption relates to. FIFA and the IAAF are as bad as each other.

Truly shameful of Nestle to punish children's athletics over this.

average_runner

There is financial corruption which is totally different, that goes on in all sports, Olympics bidding process and soccer world cup bidding process. Financial corruption goes on in every major organisation.

But IAAF have got caught on the drug issue of hiding it in regards to Russia, this is giving sponsors a chance to jump ship early and making the sponsors look good to the public which is important to them


If IAAF had their house in order the sponsors couldn't do this, so you get what you sow!

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

There is financial corruption which is totally different, that goes on in all sports, Olympics bidding process and soccer world cup bidding process. Financial corruption goes on in every major organisation.

But IAAF have got caught on the drug issue of hiding it in regards to Russia, this is giving sponsors a chance to jump ship early and making the sponsors look good to the public which is important to them


If IAAF had their house in order the sponsors couldn't do this, so you get what you sow!

Utterly ridiculous argument. You seem to think financial corruption is to be expected, and is so less of a crime. Corruption is corruption no matter what way you spin it. Simply put you won’t get the likes of Nestle leaving football sponsorships because there is too much money to be made out of it. Whatever goodwill they get from leaving won’t be compensated by what they lose out on by no longer being associated with the biggest sport in the world. Athletics on the other hand is significantly smaller, so they can act all holier than thou, without losing as much in the process. I hope it backfires on them, as punishing children for the acts of corrupt 50-70 year old fat cats is quite disgraceful.

Also, Nestle have no right to be making such an ethical standpoint given their well-publicized child labour practices.

Murph_D

Chivito550 wrote: »

Also, Nestle have no right to be making such an ethical standpoint given their well-publicized child labour practices.

Why would anybody want to be sponsored by this company then? Surely it's good riddance? If junior athletics represents a good sponsorship opportunity then let Nestlé keep their $1m and bring in someone with a better record corporate citizenship.

Providing advertising and sponsorship "opportunities" for these companies is part of the IAAF's problems. A McDonalds in the Olympic Village? FFS.

ultrapercy

Chivito550 wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous argument. You seem to think financial corruption is to be expected, and is so less of a crime. Corruption is corruption no matter what way you spin it. Simply put you won’t get the likes of Nestle leaving football sponsorships because there is too much money to be made out of it. Whatever goodwill they get from leaving won’t be compensated by what they lose out on by no longer being associated with the biggest sport in the world. Athletics on the other hand is significantly smaller, so they can act all holier than thou, without losing as much in the process. I hope it backfires on them, as punishing children for the acts of corrupt 50-70 year old fat cats is quite disgraceful.

Also, Nestle have no right to be making such an ethical standpoint given their well-publicized child labour practices.

Ridiculous argument it may be, but for sponsors it is all about public perception. Most armchair fans (most fans) see financial corruption as part of the game. Drugs in sport is more unpalatable to the public so more harmfull to the sponsor. The ironic thing is that both are equally harmful and the one probably drives the other. I can't watch football anymore because it is so fake but I'm in a minority and I really have no faith in any top level sport. The outcry by top GAA players over testing sent some alarm bells ringing in my head recently too. If truth were known athletics is certainly no worse than any other sport in terms of drugs and is probably better, but it's all about image for sponsors.

Chivito550

Murph_D wrote: »

Why would anybody want to be sponsored by this company then? Surely it's good riddance? If junior athletics represents a good sponsorship opportunity then let Nestlé keep their $1m and bring in someone with a better record corporate citizenship.

Providing advertising and sponsorship "opportunities" for these companies is part of the IAAF's problems. A McDonalds in the Olympic Village? FFS.

I agree. These companies are a clear contradiction to what sport is about - health and fitness. But there's too much money to be made from these corporate monsters. It won't change.

I just find it funny that Nestle are trying to act all ethical by terminating a contract with the IAAF, when it is quite apparent they have absolutely no ethics or moral conscience themselves.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous argument. You seem to think financial corruption is to be expected, and is so less of a crime. Corruption is corruption no matter what way you spin it. Simply put you won’t get the likes of Nestle leaving football sponsorships because there is too much money to be made out of it. Whatever goodwill they get from leaving won’t be compensated by what they lose out on by no longer being associated with the biggest sport in the world. Athletics on the other hand is significantly smaller, so they can act all holier than thou, without losing as much in the process. I hope it backfires on them, as punishing children for the acts of corrupt 50-70 year old fat cats is quite disgraceful.

Also, Nestle have no right to be making such an ethical standpoint given their well-publicized child labour practices.

If nestle are so bad with their child labour practices, why the hell are the IAAF allowing them be sponsors. Oh wait they don't care once they get their money to help hide the drugs :eek:

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

I agree. These companies are a clear contradiction to what sport is about - health and fitness. But there's too much money to be made from these corporate monsters. It won't change.

I just find it funny that Nestle are trying to act all ethical by terminating a contract with the IAAF, when it is quite apparent they have absolutely no ethics or moral conscience themselves.

They are just doing the same thing the IAAF would do!! Its all about the $$$$

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

If nestle are so bad with their child labour practices, why the hell are the IAAF allowing them be sponsors. Oh wait they don't care once they get their money to help hide the drugs :eek:

Money from Nestle to help hide drugs? Whatever are you talking about. I didn't realise Nestle were paying off the IAAF to cover up positive test results. News to me. You should break this story to the Times or Guardian. Big money to be made.

Chivito550

Murph_D wrote: »

Why would anybody want to be sponsored by this company then? Surely it's good riddance? If junior athletics represents a good sponsorship opportunity then let Nestlé keep their $1m and bring in someone with a better record corporate citizenship.

Providing advertising and sponsorship "opportunities" for these companies is part of the IAAF's problems. A McDonalds in the Olympic Village? FFS.

Also you can't really blame the IAAF for a McDonalds in the Olympic Village. That's the IOC who organised that. While the IAAF have engaged in awful practices, many people seem to think they are responsible for things which is not in their control. They don't control the Olympic Games. That's the IOC. And they don't control the length of drug bans. That's WADA. Some posters just can't seem to grasp this.

McDonalds sponsor lots of sports including football.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Money from Nestle to help hide drugs? Whatever are you talking about. I didn't realise Nestle were paying off the IAAF to cover up positive test results. News to me. You should break this story to the Times or Guardian. Big money to be made.

Will you ever stop trying to twist things around. I never said Nestle gave the IAAF money to hide drugs, I said the IAAF used money to hide the drugs issue.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Also you can't really blame the IAAF for a McDonalds in the Olympic Village. That's the IOC who organised that. While the IAAF have engaged in awful practices, many people seem to think they are responsible for things which is not in their control. They don't control the Olympic Games. That's the IOC. And they don't control the length of drug bans. That's WADA. Some posters just can't seem to grasp this.

McDonalds sponsor lots of sports including football.

And what about the in stadium food for the IAAF World Championships? Who is present there?

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

And what about the in stadium food for the IAAF World Championships? Who is present there?

I've been to the last 3 World Championships and there has been no McDonalds at any of them. In fact it was all mainly local produce at each of them.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

I've been to the last 3 World Championships and there has been no McDonalds at any of them. In fact it was all mainly local produce at each of them.

Thats really good to hear, the last thing you want to see at these things is fizzy drinks, greasy food etc getting pushed on people.

Hopefully London will keep it that way.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

Thats really good to hear, the last thing you want to see at these things is fizzy drinks, greasy food etc getting pushed on people.

Hopefully London will keep it that way.

In Daegu, they had some sort of Korean convenience store in each block around the stadium which sold Korean snacks, Korean beer, and the obvious things like Coke, Fanta etc. I recall not enjoying the food in there. Outside the stadium there was an area with various different kinds of food, all small businesses. Turkish Kebabs, burgers, local style food. There was no big conglomerate with a stall there let me assure you of that.

In Moscow, there wasn’t an awful lot inside the stadium. Snacks and that kind of thing. No beer that I can recall. Outside the stadium there were food vendors again, but in general the food options weren’t all that extensive, but the interactive stuff for fans outside the stadium was top notch.

In Beijing, it was much of the same. Crappy local snacks inside the stadium, and very little outside of it. All local type stuff again.

The media restaurant at each of these was local food from local chefs (dreadful food to be honest).

wrstan

Chivito550 wrote: »

I hope it backfires on them, as punishing children for the acts of corrupt 50-70 year old fat cats is quite disgraceful.

It would be good to see the corrupt 50 - 70 year olds see a bit of punishment too - heck why restrict to any age!

Chivito550

wrstan wrote: »

It would be good to see the corrupt 50 - 70 year olds see a bit of punishment too - heck why restrict to any age!

Of course. It's just that nothing more gets on my goat than fat cats in these businesses trying to pretend they are ethical, when they are the complete opposite.

An organisation engaging in child labour practices cutting ties with the IAAF because it breaches their ethical and moral standards. The irony is not lost.

Murph_D

Chivito550 wrote: »

Also you can't really blame the IAAF for a McDonalds in the Olympic Village. That's the IOC who organised that. While the IAAF have engaged in awful practices, many people seem to think they are responsible for things which is not in their control. They don't control the Olympic Games. That's the IOC. And they don't control the length of drug bans. That's WADA. Some posters just can't seem to grasp this.

McDonalds sponsor lots of sports including football.

My mistake - misread one of those sponsorship articles and took it that McDonalds was an IAAF sponsor, which it does not seem to be (and yes, IOC sponsorship is indeed a separate deal, although you could maybe say one legitimises the other). Coca Cola does sponsor some IAAF events, even though it's not an "official partner".

Birdie Num Num

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness Corruption is one thing, drugs is totally different

So why did say it was because of 'corruption' and doping?

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Of course. It's just that nothing more gets on my goat than fat cats in these businesses trying to pretend they are ethical, when they are the complete opposite.

An organisation engaging in child labour practices cutting ties with the IAAF because it breaches their ethical and moral standards. The irony is not lost.

But there is also an irony with the IAAF having them as a sponsor!!

average_runner

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

So why did say it was because of 'corruption' and doping?

Was talking about the corruption within the organisation hiding the doping, it didn't mention financial corruption

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

But there is also an irony with the IAAF having them as a sponsor!!

Of course, but the IAAF aren't the ones ending this partnership.

Birdie Num Num

average_runner wrote: »

Was talking about the corruption within the organisation hiding the doping, it didn't mention financial corruption

Not sure I get you on this. Corruption is generally linked to finance as it is in this case. Their reasoning: "...This decision was taken in light of negative publicity associated with allegations of corruption and doping...". There have also been allegations of corruption and doping in soccer. They are still involved in kids soccer. I don't think kids in either athletics or soccer are doping. I doubt Nestle are overly concerned about either doping or corruption. They possibly fear that perhaps their own nutrition products, linked to sports sponsorship, might get a dubious reputation. I do think they see this as a great publicity opportunity, which they probably view more valuable than continuing with their sponsorship commitments to kids athletics. A handy get out clause perhaps.

Chivito550

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Not sure I get you on this. Corruption is generally linked to finance as it is in this case. Their reasoning: "...This decision was taken in light of negative publicity associated with allegations of corruption and doping...". There have also been allegations of corruption and doping in soccer. They are still involved in kids soccer. I don't think kids in either athletics or soccer are doping. I doubt Nestle are overly concerned about either doping or corruption. They possibly fear that perhaps their own nutrition products, linked to sports sponsorship, might get a dubious reputation. I do think they see this as a great publicity opportunity, which they probably view more valuable than continuing with their sponsorship commitments to kids athletics. A handy get out clause perhaps.

Great post. Folks, don't be fooled into thinking Nestle give a rats about clean sport. They don't. It's all about the bottom line. They don't have a soul. Child slave labour in the Ivory Coast helps this, sponsoring the IAAF no longer does. That is the length and breath of it.

average_runner

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Not sure I get you on this. Corruption is generally linked to finance as it is in this case. Their reasoning: "...This decision was taken in light of negative publicity associated with allegations of corruption and doping...". There have also been allegations of corruption and doping in soccer. They are still involved in kids soccer. I don't think kids in either athletics or soccer are doping. I doubt Nestle are overly concerned about either doping or corruption. They possibly fear that perhaps their own nutrition products, linked to sports sponsorship, might get a dubious reputation. I do think they see this as a great publicity opportunity, which they probably view more valuable than continuing with their sponsorship commitments to kids athletics. A handy get out clause perhaps.

Definition of Corruption: Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit

In the statement from Nestle there is no mention of Financial Corruption, anything else you say is speculation unless you got proof?


Yes there is financial corruption in soccer and if i remembered right some sponsors did jump. Now there is no proof of doping in soccer at the same scale at the moment and I am sure when the proof does happen alot of sponsors will jump, like Nike dropping Armstrong.

IAAF have only themselves to blame for giving Nestle this opportunity. As someone pointed out something about nestle, its actually good they are gone to be honest.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Great post. Folks, don't be fooled into thinking Nestle give a rats about clean sport. They don't. It's all about the bottom line. They don't have a soul. Child slave labour in the Ivory Coast helps this, sponsoring the IAAF no longer does. That is the length and breath of it.

To be honest I don't think the IAAF cares about child labour issues with its sponsors!

Lord Coe responded strongly, simply saying he was "angered and dismayed by today's kids' athletics announcement.

"We will not accept it. It's the kids who will suffer."

In a wider statement, the IAAF also emphasised the number of children that would be affected by Nestle's decision.

"In 2016, IAAF Kids' Athletics plans to reach a further 15 countries, training 360 lecturers, instructing 8,640 physical education teachers, with three million children participating by the end of the activation," the governing body said.

Birdie Num Num

average_runner wrote: »

alot of sponsors will jump, like Nike dropping Armstrong.

Nike dropped Armstrong when Armstrong was finished. Nike are very much still sponsoring Justin Gatlin.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

To be honest I don't think the IAAF cares about child labour issues with its sponsors!

Lord Coe responded strongly, simply saying he was "angered and dismayed by today's kids' athletics announcement.

"We will not accept it. It's the kids who will suffer."

In a wider statement, the IAAF also emphasised the number of children that would be affected by Nestle's decision.

"In 2016, IAAF Kids' Athletics plans to reach a further 15 countries, training 360 lecturers, instructing 8,640 physical education teachers, with three million children participating by the end of the activation," the governing body said.

They are both as bad as each other. But Nestle is using this opportunity as a PR exercise. The amount they give the IAAF is tiny, and their involvement in elite senior athletics is non-existent. Nobody would make the association that they are funding cheats. They looked at this as an easy chance to make themselves look ethical in the eyes of the public. They are just a heartless, corporate machine. I guarantee they wouldn't walk away from an opportunity to sponsor the World Cup in Qatar, if such a chance arose, and if it enabled them to pack lots onto the bottom line.

average_runner

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Nike dropped Armstrong when Armstrong was finished. Nike are very much still sponsoring Justin Gatlin.

Nike were sponsoring his charity till he was caught. But Nike is a bad example to use by me though. Not the biggest fan of theirs