Steve Cram wins the gold medal for self-serving, nauseating sycophancy

rekrunner wrote:

- Helped develop a robust ABP

- Most ABP sanctions by far of any sport

- Creation of an independent Ethics Commision

- 3 lifetime bans, and a 5 year ban, for the officials involved in the briberies, resulting from an ethics investigation in progress before the ARD documentary aired, and before the French investigations

- changes in their rules to allow more ethics investigations (eg Lamine Diacke), without requiring an initial complaint

[quote]Clerk wrote:

...

How have they developed a more robust ABP? There is a 60+ page thread you are involved in that is a moot point because the timing of some tests, the IAAF decided "just don't count".

Yes, they caught the bad guys. Does it really count as the IAAF cleaning up the sport when the IAAF were those very bad guys to begin with?

And finally, do we have to rehash the ethics comission? With two members facing or having faced corruption charges? Its clear Coe learned about all he knows about ethics from his position at FIFA.

Nothing? And the second poster who replied to me, you are not citing concrete examples, and ignored mine while saying I spoke out of my ass. Lets rehash. Coe has:

-denied the whistleblowing Shobukhovas (spelled that wrong I'm sure) an official platform to report their concerns

- criticized the media which did give them a forum, as an "attack on the sport"

-bullied the scientists who saw the biopassport data showing a third of medalists with suspicious values; gave them no consideration to weigh in on cleaning the sport

- decreased the number of tests at the world championships. Every athlete was tested in the edition prior to Beijing, about one third tested at Beijing

- set up an ethics commision with ethically dubious memebers, which has taken no action except criticizing Russia.

- chosen to willfully ignore the "old" BioPassport data as even part of the panel's consideration, even though the ABP process was designed to be subjective and analytical.

- continuing to send samples to the Lausanne lab despite evidence of corruption revealed in the Russia case.

What could they do more? They don't need to be innovative, just borrow from other sports who have made progress like:

- a no needle policy

- a >50% hematocrit non-starter rule

- not allowing prize money to be given to past dopers at IAAF events, or encouraging independant races to do the same

I'm not going to ignore the positive actions, like

-pledging to double the anti-doping budget,

-banning Russia (again, after ignoring evidence in the first place).

-They have dealt with the corrupt officials, but was the investigation on their own initiative, or the French authorities?

-Coe did finally rescund his connections to Nike, after several months of being on the record not understanding the conflict of interest.

-They have put on superb events since Coe took over. Good on them.

But their stance and rhetoric on anti doping is useless. Actually, worse than useless. Because when Coe calls the IAAF leaders in the fight against doping, not only is he wrong, but he is throwing a veil over all of their shortcomings, discussed above. Their actions speak for themselves, and their words do even more damage.

Coe would still be on the Nike payroll if public / media pressure hadn't embarrased him. It's all (sadly) looking like a sick joke at the moment.

barry scheck wrote:

Coe would still be on the Nike payroll if public / media pressure hadn't embarrased him. It's all (sadly) looking like a sick joke at the moment.

As was made clear in the programme, which I doubt you bothered to watch, Coe had a position with Nike from the time he led the London Olympic Committee in 2005, up to and including the Olympics themselves in 2012. Nothing was made of that fact then, and it was common knowledge and in the public domain, perhaps because nothing untoward took place.

Who were the official providers of kit for the Olympics? Addidas.

Runs 800 wrote:

I don't get why so many people hate Coe.

It reminds me of "what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Coe became President about 2 days before the Beijing World Champs started. Any decision on numbers tested there would have been made by his predecessor, Diack, who seems to be ignored from any criticism on these pages. The idea Coe decided on his 2nd day in office to cut the number of athletes being tested is absurd.

They have tried to withhold money from dopers, but the IAAF were taken to the European courts by those who they tried to ban for 4 years, and they lost the case on the grounds that it is against an athlete's human rights to make a living from their job by banning them for more than 2 years and preventing them from receiving future prize money. It's not Coe's fault. You should be petitioning the European Court of Human Rights.

You're right, but that is not relevent to my post, which was part of this conversation:

But let's be clear, that was the second day for coe in the President's office. He spent years as vice president before hand. What does he have to show for it?

You are confusing several different things together.

There are two cases worth discussing here. The "Osaka Rule", and the Katrin Krabbe German Court of Appeals case.

The Osaka rule was the proposed rule denying previously sanctioned athletes from the olympics: LaShawn Merrit, Dwain Chaimbers, etc. This rule was decided to be illegal because it was an extra punishment for offense which already had its own punishments; an extra punishment cannot be added for the same offense.

The Katrin Krabbe case was an appeal to a lower court decision which allowed the IAAF to impose its own sanction in addition to the German federation's. The German federation decided, in accordance with theirs and the IAAFs rules, on a 12-month suspension. The IAAF tried to impose a 3-year 9-month sanction. The Court of Appeals ruled that because the German federation's decision was fully compliant with the rules set out by the IAAF, the legal justification for the IAAF's sanction did not hold. First, the IAAF justified its sanction according to a rule that only takes effect if a national organization improperly sanctions an athlete, which was not the case with the DLV. Second, The IAAF's justified their sanction that it was punishing "unsporting behavior", a lesser offense than doping. That the IAAF tried to impose a longer sanction for a lesser offense was ruled illegal. Krabbe's claim to damages of lost sponsorship were unfounded because she damaged her own image by doping. Her claim to damages because of the extra punishment were founded, and awarded £378,850; her positive came in 1992, and her appeal was only granted in 2002.

None of that has to do with living wages, or a human's right to compete as an athlete. It is a violation of human rights to be punished twice for one offense, which is why there is no "Osaka rule", and WADA now has a single sanction of 4 years for the first offense,

As other posters have put:

1. Cram is not a journalist and never claimed to be, the TV programme was simply designed to give Coe a platform on which to try and tell the public what he intends to do to improve the sport, and tackle doping. Cram is a familiar sports personality to the British public and does the BBC athletics coverage, that's all.

2. I am completely neutral towards Coe as IAAF president as it stands right now. However, unless you accuse him of prior corruption during his position as VP there really isn't much to criticise him on right now. He hasn't had time to make any real changes; he hasn't even had one athletics season. Things won't change overnight and it is easy to sit at home and shout baseless or hasty criticisms. Hopefully, he can bring in longer bans and toughter sanctions on athletes that have been caught. We will see in time if the sport has been improved. It is unhelpful to complain about the state of the sport right now and blame it on Coe.

On another note, things I would like to see brought into the sport with regards to anti-doping:

Longer drug bans say 8 years from all competition and organised training.

Random drug testing on athletes entered to IAAF events before they compete.

Lifetime bans from IAAF events.

Sanctions on coaches who have more than one athlete caught doping.

Make it a criminal offense to supply athletes with PEDs (difficult to do).

Athletes must pay back all prize money.

And a minor detail, but the IOC's "Osaka rule" is separate from the British Olympic Association's bye-law 25. The IOC's rule barred 6-month+ sanctioned athletes from the next Olympics, the BOA's rule barred sanctioned athletes from all Olympics.

Another minor detail, Michael Beloof, current member of the IAAF Ethics Comission, was a lawyer representing Dwain Chambers in challenging bye-law 25.

(I am not trying to use this to deride Beloof's seat on the commission. Personally, I agree with the legal situation and Beloff's argument: an extra punishment should be illegal. But I believe that a lifetime ban should take the place of the current 4-year sanction, making team selection a moot point to begin with...)

Metric Miler wrote:

2. I am completely neutral towards Coe as IAAF president as it stands right now. However, unless you accuse him of prior corruption during his position as VP there really isn't much to criticise him on right now. He hasn't had time to make any real changes; he hasn't even had one athletics season. Things won't change overnight and it is easy to sit at home and shout baseless or hasty criticisms. Hopefully, he can bring in longer bans and toughter sanctions on athletes that have been caught. We will see in time if the sport has been improved. It is unhelpful to complain about the state of the sport right now and blame it on Coe.

He's only had one season, sure, but there is still enough to criticize. My post above is a lot to do with the IAAF as a whole, but Coe specifically rejected the Russian case until after its media attention. Coe specifically criticized the scientists who gave their opinion on the raw data provided. Coe specifically is the one to reacts with hostility to any criticism to "his" sport, even when we all agree such criticism is valid to some degree. His rhetoric says "there are problems to solve" but at the same time he has not acknowledged any specific issues, and more importantly emphatically denied when specific issues were brought to his attention. Each one of them. Russia, Nike conflict of interest, bio passport data, and WADA IC criticisms.

This is not a case of "his hands are tied". I am judging him on the slow churning of his bureaucracy, I am judging him on his words and his stances.

Nothing? wrote:

Imagine for a moment if it were known today that Usain Bolt had 'doped' in the past. The fact alone would set into motion a whole host of nasty lawsuits and financial arrangement crises with people getting fired all over the place - meets cancelled - sponsorship deals crashing, etc... ...If Armstrong can fall, so can others!

I forgot that I also wanted to address this.

The idea of the sport relying on one personality is one of the biggest misconceptions among fans, journalists, officials and marketers in this sport. You even say yourself, Armstrong fell. He was protected by the UCI, probably on behalf of "popularity in the sport" but cycling was still around after he retired and sanctioned. Same with Contador: he was protected by the UCI, probably out of the same idea that the sport "needed" him, but nothing changed during his ban. Rider rode, dopers doped, and the money flowed as it always did.

Bolt hardly competes as it is. Which meets would be cancelled? None. What lawsuits would be filed, and who would fail financially, besides possibly Bolt himself? Nissan? Gatorade? They've survived worse than a sports endorsement embarrassing himself. Gatorade survived Brominated vegetable oil compalints (a petition got 200,000 signatures), and they changed their ingredients as a result. And Nissan's defective radiators and transmissions? Bet you didn't even know about them. Bolt gets caught doping, and... they don't have to spend money on him anymore? They lose faith in TnF and stop investing in athletes? Well, no one else is getting their money.

The sport would keep going.

Runs 800 wrote:

I don't get why so many people hate Coe. In the months since he came to charge, more has been done to get rid of doping and corruptness within the sport than has been achieved in over a decade. Of course there is still a long way to go, but atleast now something is being done.

Wait, could it be Coe's decades of cashing his Nike payroll checks?

Binks wrote:

“Whatever else comes along in 2016, nothing is going to beat Cram’s doe-eyed, sycophantic...

What did you expect? Did you want them to discuss how they doped back-in-the-day?

thanks goodness for our own inscrutable Larry Rawson and the difficult to hear Carol Lewis.

Binks wrote:

“Whatever else comes along in 2016, nothing is going to beat Cram’s doe-eyed, sycophantic, self-serving, anodyne, unoriginal, unchallenging, buddy-buddy, head-nodding, nausea-inducing, dolly-drop apology for journalism that was his interview with the new IAAF president.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3520652/Steve-Cram-wins-gold-medal-self-serving-nauseating-sycophancy.html

First off, Cram has zero journalistic training. He is the classic Brits love an ex elite and put them into a celebrity commentators role. Maybe next time hire a professional not a backside kissing contemporary.

I'm pretty sure lifetime bans, certainly for 1st time offenders, is a no go. It simply cannot be enforced legally in the big wide world of law suits and blame culture. The IAAF would go bankrupt within weeks, trying to pay for all the appeals and law suits that would be taken out by the athletes concerned.

Secondly, I was under the impression that first time offenders currently got banned for 2 years! I know Coe wanted 4 year bans and has been advocating such for many years, but this was not yet in practice! When did this change?

Thirdly, the role of Vice President was very much a figure head or token name.

A bit like the Queen, sounds important but doesn't really have much teeth or get involved in the political dealings of the federation. If this isn't the case, where is all the criticism and vitriol towards Bubka and all the other officials that sit on the executive board?

Binks wrote:

“Whatever else comes along in 2016, nothing is going to beat Cram’s doe-eyed, sycophantic, self-serving, anodyne, unoriginal, unchallenging, buddy-buddy, head-nodding, nausea-inducing, dolly-drop apology for journalism that was his interview with the new IAAF president.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3520652/Steve-Cram-wins-gold-medal-self-serving-nauseating-sycophancy.html

i wanted to say that, exactly that.

Jumbo Kid wrote:

[quote]Binks wrote:

“Whatever else comes along in 2016, nothing is going to beat Cram’s doe-eyed, sycophantic, self-serving, anodyne, unoriginal, unchallenging, buddy-buddy, head-nodding, nausea-inducing, dolly-drop apology for journalism that was his interview with the new IAAF president.”

This clown needs to learn that less is more when it comes to using ad hominems to attack someone.

"...doe-eyed, sycophantic, self-serving, anodyne, unoriginal, unchallenging, buddy-buddy, head-nodding, nausea-inducing, dolly-drop apology."

Ugh!

your opinion only..

i will use this example. once in a while.

cram has great wit for navigating his way round the track, but for little else.

malmo wrote:

I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics. Ive had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians. No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocketful of hope. Money for dope. I'm sick to death of seeing things from tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists I've had enough of watching scenes of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas. With just a pocketful of soap, Nike's money for dope. Money for NOP All I want is the truth now. Just gimme some truth now. Just gimme some truth. All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth

What are you going on about.

Because it was aired on "the most watched" BBC channel it should either have been more investigative/critical/hard nosed OR billed as a piece of entertainment featuring Seb Coe and some of his mates - Crammie and (inevitably) our Paula.

To the "average" viewer, one with only a passing interest in the sport or knowledge of the doping issue the programme would have come across as a detailed look at the enormous steps Coe is taking to clean up the sport. This was undoubtedly the intention behind the broadcast.

If Bubka had won the IAAF election would Cram have made this programme, asking him exactly the same questions as he asked Coe, refusing to challenge or follow up on any of his anodyne answers?