LOL. You are just rumour mongering. There is no more evidence that Coe blood doped than anyone else during that or any other era. Not sure what your nationality is, but anyone in the UK would know that the likelihood of someone like Coe, an ex MP (not exactly known for their popularity) with a high public profile, being able to get to where he has, supported by many of his peers, without a shred of evidence or any individual coming forward with evidence he doped, is highly unlikely. No, not impossible, but very unlikely after almost 40 years.
It makes me laugh when anonymous posters on here state as facts that it was well known his steroid of choice at Loughborough was 'this' or he went to this country for' that'. For a start, no one taking illegal steroids is going to engage in a discussion with Uni pals about why they prefer one steroid over another! Secondly, the lure of big money for selling such stories to newspapers would surely have enticed at least one person to come forward!
If he doped, there must be influential people in the sport who know about it. After all the corruption with Diack, does anyone really think that the IAAF would allow someone to stay in place and lead an organisation plagued with problems involving doping, if there was even the slightest chance he could be outed as a doper himself? Before 2015 maybe, but now in this current climate? It would be far too risky for the future of a sport already on its knees.
The likes of Foster, Bedford, Dick Pound at WADA and many others have all gone on record to state he is the right man for the job; i.e. tackling the drug problem in T&F. And thus far, he has been true to his word and has already gone a long way to put things in place which will help the sport. Do you think Kiprop would have been busted under Diack? Of course not. Has anyone on this thread or any similar ones mentioned that the IAAF under Coe is making progress with rooting out dopers? No, of course not! Why not? Because by and large people are biased, prefer to criticise and find fault with others rather than praise, and also due to political persuasion.
I'm not saying Coe is an angel. Yes, he had an extra marital affair, which was uncovered by the press. But so too did Cram, and I would think the vast majority of elite athletes have cheated on a partner at some point. Does that make Cram equally as likely to have doped? I don't think so, but too many on here are happy to be hypocritical.
Yes, Coe may have had some conflicts of interests in the past, e.g with Nike, which he declared, and yes, he may well have known something of the claims that Russian athletes were being bribed. But it seems obvious to me that had he gone public with such information when merely VP, not only would it be denied, attempted to be covered up, but it would probably end any hope of him becoming President. That would likely result in someone else taking over who could easily maintain the status quo. Better to play the long game and do something about it when in a position (IAAF President) to do so. Sometimes the ends justifies the means.
I really don't believe that there was a tradition of middle distance male athletes doping in the 70's and 80's. If that were the case, it does not explain why the Eastern block male sprinters and throwers, and all their women, were able to dominate, but their middle distance men were not.
We had East European women running 800's regularly in the 1:53- 1:57 range, and the 3:52 - 3:58 range for 1500m. The UK and US women were not able to approach those sort of times. 2:00 and 4:02, were about the limit. There was a vast difference between East European and West European women. The most obvious reason for this was the state doping programmes in place behind the Iron Curtain. Interestingly, the only athletes that could compete on a level playing field was the likes of Ashford in the sprints. I'd like to think that this was because she had a superior natural ability, and it was enough to compete and sometimes beat the likes of Gohr, Koch and Wockel. If Western women were also doping, then why were they so far inferior across the board? It is much more likely that the majority of western women weren't doping, which would also imply the men, at least in middle distances, weren't either.
The GDR and USSR knew the effects of steroids on women were beneficial in all events. But even then, the effects were more noticeable in power events, e.g sprints and throws. No doubt they experimented with drug use in all the men's events, but it seems to me that the conclusion was, the benefits for middle distance were minimal.
If Russian men were taking steroids and blood doping, why did not a single Russian man break 1:45.0 for 800m between 1971 and 1983, this so called period of widespread doping? During that same period only 7 Russian men broke 1:46.0! It wasn't until 1984 that they had the first man to break 1:45, Matveyev- 1:44.25, and that year they had 3 others break 1:46.0. In 1985 they had 6 men under 1:46, the fastest only 1:44.93 (Zemlyanski) however.
Are we to believe that the world's biggest nation, with state sponsored doping and probably the most powerful athletic nation, could only produce at best, a 1:45 runner? Does that suggest that these doped up 1/2 milers were actually only capable of 1:47/1:48 clean? The situation is very similar over 1500m too.
The only other possible reasons behind such lack of ability and depth, are: -
1) The Russians doped in all events apart from the 800m, hence this was the only area where they were weak. While the Brits and others doped only in the 800m, making them superior to the non-doped Russians, and not in all other events where they were inferior to the Russians.
2) They (the USSR) realised that steroids and blood doping had negligible impact on men's 800m running. If these were the findings and reality for the sophisticated, state sponsored doping machine that was the USSR in the 70's and early 80's, then it would have been the finding and the reality elsewhere in the world. Hence those running 1:41 - 1:43 were clearly superior athletes to the Russians. Which supports the idea at the time that the 800m was the one of the events where drugs were not an issue.