Le Monde and ARD Detail How IAAF Heads Blackmailed Russians for Millions of $ to Coverup Positives

Did I miss something -- are you just talking about the video?They didn't talk about the Lausanne lab, nor talk about Coe, accept to say Coe agreed to a meeting, then cancelled it.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Here's a summary of the latest Seppelt story.

IAAF is fixing events.

IAAF is blackmailing positive test results.

Russia/Russian athletes did not pay "enough" to the IAAF.

IAAF is not sanctioning some positive test results.

Lausanne lab a kind of doping disaster containment unit.

Coe knows nothing, despite emails plainly stating otherwise.

What does this video bring? What has changed that makes Seppelt's "film" relevant now? The French criminal investigation is just reviewing detailed documents about something we already knew. Most of these details were already made public in the IAAF Ethics Commission report that handed out three lifetime bans and a 5 year ban.The only thing that I see that is new is:- Details of payments of five other Russians (but again, we already knew that they were on a list of athletes not sanctioned)- The claim that Shobukhova was allowed to compete under the condition that she didn't compete for the medals (by ARAF? by IAAF?)This "reportage" would have been relevant one year ago, and even more relevant two years ago. But not after the IAAF Ethics Commission report.The fact that other Russians were extorted, that a list of 23 athletes existed, and was known by the IAAF, by WADA, by the IAAF Ethics Commission, by The WADA IC, by Balakhnichev, was made public one year ago.Seppelt is just giving us the same names and relations of players that was already public information.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Video shown on ARD(?) in English:

http://www.sportschau.de/doping/video-doping---top-secret-the-protection-racket-100.html

it's a good thing rekrunner is here, or somebody might be under the impression that the IAAF has a corruption problem.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

it's a good thing rekrunner is here, or somebody might be under the impression that the IAAF has a corruption problem.

Indeed. Or that many athletes still dope in this millennium. Fortunately all is well.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

it's a good thing rekrunner is here, or somebody might be under the impression that the IAAF has a corruption problem.

Spot on. What kind of person wouldn't want the sport cleaned up?

Of course the IAAF extortion attempts are a huge problem, and the French criminal investigation might uncover more names, acts, and evidence of wrong-doing.I'm just trying to figure out what Seppelt is telling us now that we didn't already know 1 year ago. I found two things.Why go to the trouble to make yet another documentary, if 98% of it is recycling information already in the public domain?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

it's a good thing rekrunner is here, or somebody might be under the impression that the IAAF has a corruption problem.

Strange things afoot wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

it's a good thing rekrunner is here, or somebody might be under the impression that the IAAF has a corruption problem.

Spot on. What kind of person wouldn't want the sport cleaned up?

The IAAF. The money is too good!

Seb Coe must have made ridiculous amounts of money from bribes if the lawyer's email is even a little true.

Let's revue Seb Coe's IAAF-related income:

Qatari bribes

A part of the IAAF hiding positives action

Nike "brand ambassador" fees.

He knows nothing though.

Yes, because you've always said the IAAF had problems with corruption and always forceably argued for such claims to be followed up vigorously...https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=6669977&id=6673165#6673165https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=7467873&id=7468292#7468292

rekrunner wrote:

Of course the IAAF extortion attempts are a huge problem, and the French criminal investigation might uncover more names, acts, and evidence of wrong-doing.

I'm just trying to figure out what Seppelt is telling us now that we didn't already know 1 year ago. I found two things.

Why go to the trouble to make yet another documentary, if 98% of it is recycling information already in the public domain?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

it's a good thing rekrunner is here, or somebody might be under the impression that the IAAF has a corruption problem.

I've argued vigorously that corruption is NOT where it is NOT found. Go back to page 1 where I said "The IAAF corruption and the extortion of Russian athletes is something that has mountains of evidence..." For years I only ask for evidence -- I cannot deny a 200 page report chock full of it.If you talk about a handful of people, Diack Sr., Diack Jr., Dolle, Cisse, and Russian counterparts, including Balakhnichev and a few other high ranking Russian Sports officials, and maybe up to a couple dozen Russian athletes, this corruption has been thoroughly investigated, by the IAAF, and detailed in a detailed 200 page report. My observation now is NOT that corruption didn't exist within the IAAF, but that Seppelt's latest documentary adds very little to what we know about it.Now if you try, like the Sunday Times, to extrapolate the corruption of this unofficial IAAF structure onto the official IAAF anti-doping organization (the staff and scientists under Dolle, but excluding Dolle), and allege that the corruption dates back to 2001, and involves the IAAF turning a blind eye towards 800 suspicious athletes, then someone has some homework to do to get us beyond these sensational allegations. This is something I vigorously argued against, arguing that the data didn't support the general allegations of complacency. The WADA IC largely rejected ALL of these sweeping allegations, and had some serious concerns about the behavior and statements of the scientists, seemingly contradicting their own papers on the subject.Such claims of inactiveness can be rightly applied to the specific cases of the attempted extortion for a handful of Russian athletes, in the timeframe of 2011-2013, but cannot generally be extrapolated to the whole of the IAAF anti-doping organization, and to 800 athletes since 2001.Note that even in the case of the Russian extortions, the IAAF anti-doping staff (but not their leader) did their job properly, and IAAF staff like Thomas Capdeveille, after lengthy delays, repeatedly pushed for immediate suspensions and implementations of sanctions.Regarding Seppelt, and a challenge to his journalistic integrity, read the second link you provided to the end -- specifically Andrew Arnold's detailed post (page 7) alleging Seppelt's "investigation" at HATC was purely fabricated.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yes, because you've always said the IAAF had problems with corruption and always forceably argued for such claims to be followed up vigorously...

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=6669977&id=6673165#6673165http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=7467873&id=7468292#7468292

rekrunner wrote:

Of course the IAAF extortion attempts are a huge problem, and the French criminal investigation might uncover more names, acts, and evidence of wrong-doing.

I'm just trying to figure out what Seppelt is telling us now that we didn't already know 1 year ago. I found two things.

Why go to the trouble to make yet another documentary, if 98% of it is recycling information already in the public domain?

rekrunner wrote:

For years I only ask for evidence

No you don't. You have a history of downplaying or ignoring the evidence, making up absurd excuses, defending dopers and corrupt functionaries.

You are like Herman in this joke (and I still think/hope you are just trolling here):

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on 280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

I still ask for it, even if I downplay it or ignore it.We don't agree on what constitutes evidence, or how to weigh evidence, and therefore draw very different conclusions.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

For years I only ask for evidence

No you don't. You have a history of downplaying or ignoring the evidence, making up absurd excuses, defending dopers and corrupt functionaries.

You are like Herman in this joke (and I still think/hope you are just trolling here):

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on 280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

rekrunner wrote:

I still ask for it, even if I downplay it or ignore it.

You may ask for it, but you do not really want it.

Your only purpose here is to obfuscate.

rekrunner wrote:

I still ask for it, even if I downplay it or ignore it.

We don't agree on what constitutes evidence, or how to weigh evidence, and therefore draw very different conclusions.

casual obsever wrote:

No you don't. You have a history of downplaying or ignoring the evidence, making up absurd excuses, defending dopers and corrupt functionaries.

You are like Herman in this joke (and I still think/hope you are just trolling here):

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on 280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

You are just unreasonable in what you think consitutes evidence. For example for you the only evidence of a bribe being paid (to someone in the IAAF for example), is the word "bribe" on the payslip of the accused next to the amount of money paid to the accused. And even then you would probably be asking to see the bank balance details of the accused with the word "bribe" written in their bank statement.

My stated purpose here was to get people to answer what new information Seppelt brings us with his new documentary, that was not already public one year ago.I think it's a fair question to ask, in the scope of discussing and reviewing the merits of the documentary, but no one seems willing, or able, to answer, apart from "casual obsever", to his credit, looked like he made an honest attempt.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I still ask for it, even if I downplay it or ignore it.

You may ask for it, but you do not really want it.

Your only purpose here is to obfuscate.

I often suffer from people projecting things onto me that I did not actually say.Regarding the alleged bribe (I assume you mean the recent Nick Davies story in the Daily Mail), I refused to address the question of whether it truly is a bribe. It did not seem relevant to the topic of what "Nick Davies admits". I did not agree or disagree the payment was a bribe, but will withhold my judgement.I would reasonably accept any authoritative finding of the intention of the payment as a bribe, even if the word bribe never appears on a document.I did not call it a bonus, Nick Davies did (according to the Daily Mail).I did not not deny the alleged intentions of the payment, Nick Davies did (according to the Daily Mail).These Nick Davies' quotes, in the Daily Mail article, seem a fair and just and unbiased characterization of what Nick Davies "admitted".Note, from the WADA IC report, investigating the leaked Nick Davies email, "there were no new bans to be announced at that stage", therefore no delay of Russian doping announcements occurred, and no cover-ups of doped Russian athletes occurred, "so it (is) a moot point".I know some will consider that the words of a Daily Mail reporter constitutes evidence in and of itself -- I do not find that reasonable without corroborative evidence. Can you provide an example of corroborative evidence, to support the Daily Mail reporter's characterization as "a bribe to bury news of positive Russian doping tests" that you think I would find unreasonable?As a side note -- a Google News search for Nick Davies shows that the Daily Mail is the only one who felt there was a story here.

Biomecanic wrote:

You are just unreasonable in what you think consitutes evidence. For example for you the only evidence of a bribe being paid (to someone in the IAAF for example), is the word "bribe" on the payslip of the accused next to the amount of money paid to the accused. And even then you would probably be asking to see the bank balance details of the accused with the word "bribe" written in their bank statement.

The WADA IC report has extensive findings about the Davies e-mail. I will quote a small portion of them at the end of this post. It specifically found that Davies explanation of his email was not credible.

There is email evidence that Papa Massate Diack paid them the cash to withhold details of the coverup of Russian Doping positives. This has been reported in Le Monde.

Reading the Daily Mail story in context (which you refuse to do), the only logical and clear conclusion is that Davies is now admitting that the money was intended as a bribe, but that he is denying he knew that at the time.

You apparently find Davies explanation that he received a large cash bonus from a "Marketing Consultant" as a bonus for work to be credible. You are welcome to continue in your delusion, but it is time to stop pretending that you are only following the evidence where it leads you. It is not a credible explanation.

1. The reply is not a reply from Davies. It is a carefully crafted reply and

explanation from the IAAF, delivered through its attorneys. While obviously

prepared by the IAAF attorneys, it is assumed that they were instructed to

provide the reply and also assumed that the IAAF is in agreement with the

contents.

2. The explanation given does not, in the IC's opinion, accord with the content of

the email. "Strict confidence and control," "very secret," "small circle of senior

IAAF staff only" are not compatible with the benign explanations given

rekrunner = paid shill

And if you're not getting paid, you should probably look into it

Regardless of the contents of Davies' email, the contents of the explanation of Davies' email, and the WADA IC's findings regarding the source and credibility of the explanation, the WADA IC told us that "there were no new bans to be announced at that stage", "so it (is) a moot point".So, you propose the only logical conclusion is that Papa Massata Diack paid Nick Davies cash to cover-up or delay announcements at a time when there was nothing to uncover and no announcements pending. OK. That sounds logical.The email from Papa Massata Diack (if I'm reading the right one -- you didn't give me any specific reference or quote) doesn't talk about withholding details of the coverup of Russian Doping positives. The email describes the intention of the cash payments for "lobbying" and for "providing explanations". That can mean a hundred things, both legal and illegal.The intention of the cash payments, and any intended inappropriate or real influence, are still under investigation. All this talk of bribery and cover-ups can not be found in Nick Davies or Papa Massata Diack's emails, but only in sensational newspaper coverage. It's like we are playing the telephone game (or Chinese Whispers) and no one sees the evolution of the message.I didn't express any beliefs that Nick Davies claims were credible, but only that he admitted to receiving a cash bonus, and denied (the exact opposite of admitted) it was intended as a bribe for covering up doping.When you read the Daily Mail article, you don't get your nuanced "well clearly he admits it's a bribe now, but didn't think it was a bribe at the time" logical conclusion. You get the highly misleading, especially when read out of context -- "Woah! Stop the presses! Coe's aide admitted under penalty of perjury to taking a cash bribe to cover-up Russian doping!" Looking at this story with all the facts and evidence and emails and findings IN CONTEXT, both interpretations are wrong, as all this talk of bribery and intentions of covering up Russian doping is unsupported by Davies' email, Diack Jr.'s email, or any other finding.

Given my claims of lack of evidence for Davies, Coe, Radcliffe, Salazar, Aden, Rosa, Hermens, Bekele, Geb, Mo, East Africans in general, EPO effectiveness for sub-VO2max events, EPO effectiveness at altitude, IAAF anti-doping complacency, etc., who do you think is paying me?

Blood dEPOr wrote:

rekrunner = paid shill

And if you're not getting paid, you should probably look into it