Coe blood doped

doo doo wrote:

Toby dammit wrote:

Coe definitely used blood transfusions to oxygenate his blood. A friend went to his uni and swears he used to go off for his transfusions periodically. Its a well known fact.

While I don't tend to believe rumors like this, I think there is a reason British white men ran 1:41-1:43 and 3:29 for a very short amount of time and has not been repeated since.

Well, there were countrymen Steve Cram and very nearly Steve Ovett.

I wouldn't call his string of strong performances short-lived. His best 800m was in 1981 and his best 1500m was in 1986.

been around 'ya know wrote:

doo doo wrote:

While I don't tend to believe rumors like this, I think there is a reason British white men ran 1:41-1:43 and 3:29 for a very short amount of time and has not been repeated since.

Well, there were countrymen Steve Cram and very nearly Steve Ovett.

I wouldn't call his string of strong performances short-lived. His best 800m was in 1981 and his best 1500m was in 1986.

The whole era though was what? 10 years? 1976-1986?

That's not exactly a long time.

But it could be total coincidence that those performances came from that time period and they were clean. I don't know.

I have actually discussed this issue with Steve Cram, and he told me that he doesn't believe that Ovett and Coe doped.

I don't believe Cram doped either. He ran 3.57 for the Mile and 3.40 for 1500 aged 17. He wasn't surrounded by suspicious characters either then, or at any time.

It was: "wheres seb?", "oh, hes in scandanavia(sweden?) having his blood done". loughborough uni. She told me in the 90s and coe was a hero of mine so i was shocked; but i could tell she wasnt lying plus id vaguely heard it before in athletic circles.

The psychology is fascinating: as it was before ben johnson, cheating wasnt somehow registering in our consciousness. And as it was Coe, a hero to us aspiring athletes, with a glorious 'kick', we disavowed the notion:cheat.

But deep down everyone knew it was cheating -back then, at least an unfair advantage, and dangerous (we thought about that aspect more!), even if it was pre-blood transfusion ban days. Im surprised it hasnt come out yet. People know stuff. It was put down to his driven dad at the time, who made him. Whos gonna call it? Its lance armstrong all over.

"Having his blood done" Could mean anything.

Why don't you ask him? Just writing stories on the internet is pretty pointless isn't it? There are millions of stories about famous people, some true some with a grain of truth and some completly fabricated. You know that.

doo doo wrote:

been around 'ya know wrote:

Well, there were countrymen Steve Cram and very nearly Steve Ovett.

I wouldn't call his string of strong performances short-lived. His best 800m was in 1981 and his best 1500m was in 1986.

The whole era though was what? 10 years? 1976-1986?

That's not exactly a long time.

But it could be total coincidence that those performances came from that time period and they were clean. I don't know.

You also had American Steve Scott who was just steps behind in the 1500/mile who set three American records in the mile and has a best of 3:47.69. The guy was Mr. consistency for a long time.

It was a blood transfusion - this was well known. The vernacular "done" was used sometimes as it happened so much. Ask him? He wont admit it and will sue- he made millions from the olympics... interestingly. (When i competed athletics was non-profit, an amateur sport you took to unbridled levels for the ideal). Hes a powerful, rich man - glorious, no.

Lets see his passport from his uni days. Start with his insanely driven Dad's activities, its well known he made his son. Besides, its not for little me or my idealist friend to out him. If we know, the top knows. Dont shoot the messenger who tells you your hero is a villian.

Then confront him. But you won't will you?

I don't believe your story anyway. Where is the real evidence besides an old rumour at Loughborough?

You posts will be censored. Try Reddit/Twitter.

Metric Miler wrote:

I think it is quite difficult to get toxoplasmosis from your own blood.

I agree the feral cats argument feels a bit far fetched though.

Also comes from undercooked meat, which is probably how he really got it -- extremely common in continental Europe. I don't know why people claim Toxoplasmosis means he was blood doping, they have nothing in common. Although he certainly could have had something else and called it Toxoplasmosis to cover up.

Coejones wrote:

Tyler Hamilton wrote:

Oh, but it does happen.

Yes, by manipulation. Which is pure pseudoscience.

The earth is flat and the manned moon flights were faked. Right.

It is just that public figures and heroes who embody the virtues that we all aspire to are held up to scrutiny. Powerful, corrupt men give only rumours to ordinary folk. That is why they are powerful. The passport and dads activities are beyond gossip. Dont you want to know for sure if he was clean?

Is that before the gulag or guantanemo? True athletics fans want the truth.

Amazing how many are defending Coe, even now when this mega scandal breaks and he's right smack dab in the middle of it. If you were truly honest you would have blown the whistle, or at least not praised Diack. Coe will go down with the rest, and I bet his cheating will be made public. He and his dad were such liars, ruined a generation of runners with their 20 miles a week bs

Toby dammit wrote:

It was a blood transfusion - this was well known. The vernacular "done" was used sometimes as it happened so much. Ask him? He wont admit it and will sue- he made millions from the olympics... interestingly. (When i competed athletics was non-profit, an amateur sport you took to unbridled levels for the ideal). Hes a powerful, rich man - glorious, no.

Lets see his passport from his uni days. Start with his insanely driven Dad's activities, its well known he made his son. Besides, its not for little me or my idealist friend to out him. If we know, the top knows. Dont shoot the messenger who tells you your hero is a villian.

It's true I tells ya wrote:

What aboutery wrote:

That's not how he did it.

Oh yes it is! Growth hormone was not available as a medication until the mid 80s. Before that it had to be extracted from cadavers.

I have photographic evidence (taken by a friend of a friend of mine's sister's boyfriend was at the same uni), of Coe's friend sneaking through the graveyard late at night and digging up graves by moonlight.

Oh. I get it. Since Coe was not grave robber, he must not have doped. Makes sense.

What aboutery wrote:

It's true I tells ya wrote:

Oh yes it is! Growth hormone was not available as a medication until the mid 80s. Before that it had to be extracted from cadavers.

I have photographic evidence (taken by a friend of a friend of mine's sister's boyfriend was at the same uni), of Coe's friend sneaking through the graveyard late at night and digging up graves by moonlight.

Oh. I get it. Since Coe was not grave robber, he must not have doped. Makes sense.

Congratulations, you totally missed his point.

He's suggesting that "I heard from someone" doesn't exactly stand as solid evidence.

In the absence of blood data as it was the wild west of athletics back then (and as with armstrong), what would count as indubitable evidence for you? Eyewitness accounts? Passport checks? All circumstantial, right? Armstrong was essentially convicted by usada by an avalanche of eye witness accounts. Would you say hes innocent? Hes admitted hes guilty. Its Coe's turn - its only right the head of the iaaf is properly investigated. Why arent they vetted before appointment??? Episodic, systemtatic corruption. His guilt would be revealed so they dont do it. It takes panorama to check them out!!! And so many in denial.

Waaay over your head wrote:

He's suggesting that "I heard from someone" doesn't exactly stand as solid evidence.

We are left with you determining what qualifies as valid evidence or, another crackpot claiming transfusions aren't useful.

Here:

"From ‘80-84, was the Italian Conconi, that won using this system. That was not doping at that time. "

Again Conconi running a now well-documented doping operation and who was associated with Conconi? Coe.

Again, too many suspicious associations. The guy then went on to administrate sports at FIFA where he saw no corruption, and vice-president at IAAF where he again saw nothing.

Another athlete with a lifetime pattern of behaviour that suggests doping would have been no problem.

I know, I know, those aren't facts. Am I right?