Was the Ovett-Coe era manipulated by Andy Norman?

Andy Norman was quite simply a ruthless bully who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. I'm not exaggerating one bit here when I say he played a huge role in the downfall and ultimately suicide of Cliff Temple

Meant Coe in the same race!

Interestingly, it was Ian Stewart who was with Norman when he dropped dead of a heart attack

Given that was the finding of the jury hearing the details of the inquest after his suicide, no, I'd say you're not exaggerating.

horrendous man wrote:

Andy Norman was quite simply a ruthless bully who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. I'm not exaggerating one bit here when I say he played a huge role in the downfall and ultimately suicide of Cliff Temple

Andy Norman sounds as bad as John Chaplin. I'd kick both of their asses in their prime if they ever crossed me and gladly spend the weekend in the clink for it.

If that's what you choose, I will support it.

Andy Norman had a heart. That's a news flash.

He was involved in Cliff's suicide but I don't remember the details. Cliff was a great guy brillant journalsit and did a lot for athletics.

He ruled. He controlled just about everything except Coe. People have no idea how bad it was. He even got athletes special treatment in the court system.

I lived through the Covett era and do not think there was ever a race where both met at their peaks. Ovett seemed to dominate about '77. If you ignore Olaf Bayer, the Euro'78 800 came close but Seb was still up-and-coming. Neither Moscow race was the hoped-for showdown and since then there was always an excuse for one or the other to be sub-par. I suppose that's why it's endless chatroom fodder now.

He did bring a lot of athletes into European meets on the back of an athlete like Ovett

You look at one of those meetings nowadays and there are hardly any Brits there. Even if you have a top UK name running there I don't think anyone in management has his influence to bring in other athletes like Norman did

Missed Opp wrote:

I lived through the Covett era and do not think there was ever a race where both met at their peaks. Ovett seemed to dominate about '77. If you ignore Olaf Bayer, the Euro'78 800 came close but Seb was still up-and-coming. Neither Moscow race was the hoped-for showdown and since then there was always an excuse for one or the other to be sub-par. I suppose that's why it's endless chatroom fodder now.

They were both pretty near peak form in Moscow. I don't think their races there were a let down at all; that's why they're always shown on tv every time an Olympics come round. They are amongst some of the most iconic races at the games. The fact that the results didn't go the way most pundits expected is besides the point. They were total theatre.

As for not racing each other more, they raced as often as Cram v Aouita. How many times did they face each other after Nice 85, when they said they were going to race each other regularly, unlike Coe v Ovett?

There were 4 further opportunities for Coe and Ovett to meet in their peak years. Ovett could have run in the 79 Dream mile but didn't, citing something about it should be in London as he was the then "world champion".

Later that season Ovett tried to get into the Zurich 1500, where Coe was going for the WR. Coe said fine, but he wouldn't then go for the WR, as his priority would then be to beat Ovett. Brugger, the meet director decided he wanted a WR more, so Ovett didn't run.

In 81 Coe tried to get into the Dream mile in Oslo against Ovett, but Ovett, according to Norman (so who knows how reliable his word was?) didn't want him running. Norman told Coe that Ovett had always planned to run the Golden Mile in Brussels later that season and that the clash would happen there. A few days before the meet, Ovett pulled out and ran an 800 in 1.47 at some obscure Norwegian meet the day after. So clearly he wasn't injured.

They also signed up to do a 3 race series in 1982 but due to illness and injury it did not happen. Ovett ran the 3,000m but was out of shape

So just how big and bad was Andy Normal? Like a 6-4 250 monster that everyone was terrified of? Or was he like a little psychotic Napoleon?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

They also signed up to do a 3 race series in 1982 but due to illness and injury it did not happen. Ovett ran the 3,000m but was out of shape

A real man wrote:

So just how big and bad was Andy Normal? Like a 6-4 250 monster that everyone was terrified of? Or was he like a little psychotic Napoleon?

Dunno, but he was bigger and badder than God:

"When his client the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards struggled with his Christian conscience over whether or not he should compete on Sundays, it was Norman, and not God, who won the argument – with Edwards going on to become world record-holder in 1995 and Olympic gold medallist in 2000."

As is the norm the point has been missed.

It is not what Ikem Billy wrote in the detail of the article, never alone why he waited so long, but whether Norman did offer him extra money just in case he won. Was Norman the kind of man that would have done that?

So endless discusssion into what shape who was in does not bear enough relevance to the question I have posed.

If Coe had not won that night then the whole affair would have been on a downer.

Also, what no one has mentioned is a few weeks earlier was the trial at Bham when Ovett broke down in tears. I don't know what was wrong there but something was seriously amiss - my guess is Norman was invloved in some way.

It seems to me that Norman was a vile and bullying man.

How can Coe claim he was "joint 7th" (which means last) coming into the straight in the Moscow 800? A race he must know so well. He was 4th just off second. Claims he did well just to get a medal.

The period 1980-1992 was a very successful one for British athletics. Norman deserves some credit for that. It was also a very nasty period with a great deal of financial/ethical wrong doing. Norman deserves "credit" for that too.

His approach was to take the talented athletes GB had at the time and sell them - to European promoters, TV companies etc. Norman and the athletes did very well financially out of this - the sport less so. Also, the individuals themselves were promoted by Norman not the sport so when they lost form/retired there was suddenly a great big void in British athletics that has never been filled. Also Norman was not going to allow anything/anyone reduce the value of those stars and this is what led to all the,accurate, stories about fixing the fields so defeat was very unlikely and (much more heinous) the manipulation of drug testing so that the sport's biggest names would agree to appear in his meetings secure in the knowledge that they would not run into "problems" in that area. It was a very heady time - if you put spectacle above pure sport - but like all such times there is an inevitable comedown that leaves you with a nasty headache!

So are you saying western athletes took drugs or not. I reckon it was rife - east germans and the west.