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

The UCI = IAAF logic is flawed, as much as Lance = Mr/Mrs A Athlete. Yes, they are both governing bodies with incidents of cover ups / corruption, but that's as far as it goes.

UCI was in charge of a sport that had doping at its heart from the early days of competition - alcohol, pain killers, amphetamines etc, all used openly in the early days of cycling.

IAAF is in charge of a sport which at its heart has always championed amateur endeavour and fair play.

To lose sight of this history (even through darker times where both sports were badly tarnished with outright cheating) is narrow-minded.

Diack and his cronies suffered the historic flaw of "power corrupts" etc, and the IAAF was guilty as hell of not having good enough structures and governance to prevent it from happening. But beyond that even WADA agree that the IAAF has been at the forefront of trying to create methods which highlight and stop cheating.

UCI never had such a reputation, and was led by weak individuals who let themselves be carried on a wave of sporting narrative and success which captured the public imagination.

The comparisons are ultimately unhelpful.

Athletics, currently led by IAAF with Coe at the helm, have many, many issues to sort, no doubt. Concentrate on finding solutions to those problems rather than tired and lazy comparisons with other cases and sports.

Maybe so wrote:

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.

Yes, he is a celebrity commentator. This programme was never meant to be a piece of investigative journalism. People are reading into it far too much. The IAAF would never have agreed to an interview that grilled Coe on prime time TV just before their World HM Champs, nothing to do with Cram or the BBC.

You have to live in the real world. If you want to ask Coe some difficult and probing questions, please go ahead and get an interview with him or send the IAAF some emails.

larkimm wrote:

The UCI = IAAF logic is flawed, as much as Lance = Mr/Mrs A Athlete. Yes, they are both governing bodies with incidents of cover ups / corruption, but that's as far as it goes....

Incidents? I'd call that decades.

The history you are referring too changed for the worse in the 70s, or even earlier. That has no meaning today.

And one has to be very cynical to put Lord Conflict-of-Interest-Cover-up in charge, or support him being in charge. I call that "ultimately unhelpful".

Clerk,Did we ever "hash" the IAAF Ethics Commission?With respect to the IAAF anti-doping, it makes sense to distinguish between:1) The Russian (and other) briberies organized by a handful of handpicked associates outside the normal structure2) The rest of the anti-doping organizationThere were clearly problems with 1) casting a dark shadow on 2), but the rest of the anti-doping organization, beneath Dolle, timely recommended Russian sanctions, and repeatedly pressed to have sanctions imposed when there were long delays. Most of the anti-doping IAAF did their job, and kept doing their job, only to be undermined and let down by their leadership (Dolle and Diack).With respect two 2), the IAAF was all the things Coe says they were, and you say they weren't. This is not only my opinion. The WADA IC supports Coe when finding the IAAF anti-doping effort was "thorough and reasonable" and "extremely active". From the Daily Mail:"The independent commission's (IC) report did clear the IAAF over its handling of suspicious blood tests, ...'Follow-up activities in the face of suspicious values have generally been thorough and reasonable in the circumstances.'The IC does not endorse suggestions that the IAAF has not been sufficiently active in relation to EPO testing from the outset of a reliable test for EPO. While nothing is perfect, the IAAF has been extremely active in this aspect of the fight against doping in sport.'"So if we assume Coe was unaware of 1), (which I'm well aware many of you don't) then his comments are correct regarding the longtime efforts of 2).I don't want to argue this point further, as recent history suggests the difference is irreconcilable from the start, but would rather ask a question: If you think, that the IAAF was not the leader, or not in the top 2, in advancing the fight against doping (i.e. aggressive detection, enforcement, and new research), which anti-doping organizations have done more than the IAAF? How? I see both the UCI and the IAAF as both leaders in anti-doping, while both having recent checkered histories.With respect to the pre-ABP blood data, another brief recap:1) The primary goal was to serve as a cheap marker for doping, to achieve effective urine testing with lower costs2) The large blood database also served as a valuable resource for the ABP. It is precisely the errors observed "in the field" with 2001-2008 data, that make it both "just don't count", and provided the lessons learned that led to the 2007 and 2009 rule changes that enable a more "robust" ABP program. This robustness doesn't happen without the IAAF's blood data.3) It is misleading to call it "old" BioPassport data -- or to treat this data at all as part of an ABP program that did not exist. It was not collected for that purpose, and was not suitable for an ABP type profile analysis.Regarding your "rehash":- Maybe you are mixing up the Stepanovs with the Shobukhovas (you spelled it correctly). Quite the opposite, the Shobukhovas had complete and immediate and direct access to the official platform of the IAAF. They were the chief whistleblowers for the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation, an 18 month investigation that preceded the airing of the ARD documentary (featuring the Stepanovs) by 8 months. It was the Shobukhova's full cooperation which led to the reduction of her ban, and the lifetime bans of Papa Massata Diack, Valentin Balakhnichev, Alexei Melnikov, and a 5 year ban for Gabriel Dolle. Note that three of these four are "non-IAAF" bad guys. The Stepanovs actually went to WADA, and WADA redirected them to the ARD/Hajo Seppelt.- I'm extremely unimpressed with the media's role, especially the UK media. It's not that I generally object to the role of the media, but specifically they did a poor job here. The UK seem to harshly criticize their own for its own sake. They've sensationalized, and misled the public in several ways. After a thorough investigation by the WADA IC, many of the accusations and implications were simply found wrong.- The scientists were also wrong about a few things. They accused the IAAF of complacency. The WADA IC did not "endorse (these) suggestions". They wanted the IAAF to ban athletes, not according to ABP type profile anomalies, but on the strength of extreme values alone, as "compelling evidence", if I'm not mistaken. Either way, this ideal stance would have been unenforceable, and an ineffective use of limited anti-doping funds, setting back the anti-doping effort even further.- Coe decreased the testing?- Which members of the Ethics Commission are ethically dubious? Here is the initial list from Jan 2014: Michael BELOFF (GBR) – Chairperson, Kevan GOSPER, (AUS),Akira KAWAMURA (JPN), Thomas MURRAY (USA), Tafsir Malick NDIAYE (SEN), Carlos NUZMAN (BRA), Lauri TARASTI (FIN)Again, contrary to your assertion of no action, one of their first actions was the investigation of a complaint from Sean Wallace on behalf of Andrey Baranov (Shobukhova's agent), that led to the previously mentioned sanctions. After a rule change that loosened restrictions on triggering new investigations, they have initiated a followup investigation of Lamine Diack (who wasn't named in the original complaint). None of this was triggered by ARD or Seppelt or the Sunday Times or the French criminal investigations. Another "not nothing" action taken is that they have provisionally suspended Kenyan officials Mr Isaiah Kiplagat, Mr David Okeyo and Mr Joseph Kinyua pending investigations.- What do you mean by "chose to willfully ignore the "old" BioPassport data as part of the panel's consideration"? Consideration of what? The pre-ABP blood samples are not bio-passport data, and not suitable or enforceable as such. It would be correct to ignore it for that purpose. And the data was not ignored, let alone willfully. The IAAF have used the data to lengthen sanctions found from enforceable data, and to optimize target testing of "problem" countries.- Corruption? The Lausanne lab has not been found, or not even been accused, of corruption. In any case it would be up to WADA to discipline the lab and it hasn't done so and doesn't seem about to. So long as the lab retains its WADA certification, the IAAF should be able to send samples to WADA certified labs.

Thanks for the reply, I'll respond in full later. I just wanted to link this first, the thread on the Ethics Comission:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6858887

Good thread. I think "polevaultpower" best sums it up:"This is interesting, thanks for putting it all together! I don't know if all of the criticisms are fair, but it's good to raise the questions..."

Clerk wrote:

Thanks for the reply, I'll respond in full later. I just wanted to link this first, the thread on the Ethics Comission:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6858887

rekrunner wrote:

- Which members of the Ethics Commission are ethically dubious? Here is the initial list from Jan 2014: Michael BELOFF (GBR) – Chairperson, Kevan GOSPER, (AUS),Akira KAWAMURA (JPN), Thomas MURRAY (USA), Tafsir Malick NDIAYE (SEN), Carlos NUZMAN (BRA), Lauri TARASTI (FIN)

POD. I should have known that you were being sarcastic since the first time you "supported" Paula's new-found anti-transparency stand. Well played, sir, well played.

For clarity, casual observer only thinks Gosper and Nuzman are ethically dubious. So that's 2 out of 7. Even if your black and white facts are accurate (and I don't know either way), 2 / 7 doesn't make up a majority does it?

And I suspect the stories of all 7 are more subtle than are capable of being presented in this forum.

Read up on Armstrong, while active, "donating" to the UCI and their anti doping efforts. And similar stories

Unfortunately it is not all that different from IAAF/Diack&cronies. With all we know claiming IAAF being about fair play is being delusional, and harming actually clean athletes.

I'm not saying there aren't parallels, and strong similarities between UCI and IAAF. What I'm saying is that its lazy to simply say UCI = IAAF, it risks missing the point by applying a set of blinkers that might miss other failings.

Things that went wrong with UCI haven't gone wrong with IAAF. And things that the IAAF have got disastrously wrong didn't go wrong at UCI. They are different, and therefore the same solutions and resolutions which are designed to fix one body won't fix another.

It's the same with comparing Lance to just about every other doper (or alleged doper) from a major, well developed country (or even less well developed ones). You simply can't say that the way that Lance was such a primary figure for the UCI means that the same must apply for (say) Bolt, Radcliffe, Rudisha, etc, any other "poster boy/girl" for the IAAF.

Just because Lance did or didn't do something, doesn't mean that that same act or omission from a different athlete means they therefore must be a doper of the same rank as Armstrong.

Start from a blank page, use lessons from history by all means, but don't expect the story to pan out the same way.

you're the British Nazi symp, right?

Passing over that, I'll comment simply that Steve Cram is a terrific guy, a great champion, loved by all his competitors in the 1980s, and as clean as it gets. Maybe that makes him naive about what even his British competitor was up to back then and what the latter has been up to since joining the IAAF as Diack's right hand man.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

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.

larkimm wrote:

It's the same with comparing Lance to just about every other doper (or alleged doper) from a major, well developed country (or even less well developed ones). You simply can't say that the way that Lance was such a primary figure for the UCI means that the same must apply for (say) Bolt, Radcliffe, Rudisha, etc, any other "poster boy/girl" for the IAAF.

Well, there are quite a few more parallels between Paula and Lance than you want to realize.

In addition to being such a dominant successful athlete, both:

- were talented, but not overly so in their earlier careers

- later consistently outperformed the best dopers in their field

- had to deal with doping rumors since over a decade ago

- had very suspicious blood passport values

- had said values covered up by IAAF/UCI

- then after the uncovery, had IAAF/UCI investigate itself, finding no wrongdoing

- had the IAAF/UCI president declare them innocent before said investigation

- had Dr. Saugy - who infamously destroyed the Russian samples - come to their aid

- threatened lawsuits against people wanting to reveal the truth.

Admittedly, most of the above is not the case for Bolt or Rudisha. But Paula's case is just plainly shocking.

done nothing ,doping is worse.

wada ban stupid drugs to get at russians ,so far propagandist.

still do zip about igf-1

The problem with this programme is that the BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster and any programme with a title like 'can Seb Coe Save athletics' needs to be objective. You can't have a bunch if friends with mutual interests sitting round a table chatting. Cram works for Nike, as does Paula, Paula also works for the IAAF, nothing about this interview was independent.

The problem in the UK is that there are a handful of people who control the sport and they protect each other all the way, the BBC is too close to those people. We have Brendan Foster promoting his multi million dollar race series through his commentary on the BBC, backed up by his close friend Cram. We have Radcliffe working for Foster as an ambassador to his events, whilst commenting with Foster and Cram. We have Radcliffe and Cram working for Nike, we even have Radcliffes husband now working as a UK team manager, we have the UK team under a large NIKE contract. We have Coe with a connection to Nike, it's all too close and there are too many mutual interests.

I always record the BBC coverage of athletics, later, whizzing through the rubbish the current line-up of ex-international athletic commentators and presenters come out with.

I end up watching about a quarter of the output of that once I also whizz through most of the field events.

Who earth want to listen to Colin Jackson and Denise Lewis observations on the middle and long distance events?

And at times, one had to pinch oneself to remember Foster was once a great distance runner, the idiotic comments he often makes during a race.

And as much of an admirer I am of Paula, I’m afraid she’s a real pain in the butt since the BBC thought it would be a great idea for her join Cram in the commentary team.

The only one worth listening, who makes sense, is ironically, an American - Michael Johnson.

In contrast, both Moorhouse and Jameson who commentate on swimming at the BBC are a joy to listen to.

About as irreverent and non-PC as they dare get on the BBC, one gets the impression the level of intelligence of these two ex-swimmers is a few points above that of our ex-athletes.

Get out much? wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

What are you going on about.

http://bfy.tw/55sC

I don't think googling that stream of nonsense would help

This is exactly what's wrong in the sport!

World junior XC champion?

English Schools 1500m champion?

Nah, no history of youth excellence. And of course, only those who are world champions aged 16 are allowed to be world champions aged 29. I forgot that rule...

If I doped, I still wouldn't be faster that Radcliffe. Not all dopers are the best of the best, many of them are otherwise also-rans who dope to get themselves onto the same page as clean athletes who are supremely talented.

What a damning indictment. Rumours of doping are now evidence of doping are they? Laughable.

"Very" suspicious? Your hyperbole, not mine. And suspicious isn't the same as guilt. It needs testing, verifying, validating. We might disagree as to whether we think this has happened or not. I believe it has based on the public evidence out there.

I reject this for Paula's case - IAAF has not covered up anything in relation to Paula to my knowledge.

See above

I'll let you have that one.

Dr Saugy who WADA still recognise as head of an accredited lab?

Yes, of course, public figures should never threaten libel. After all, it is only there to ensure that people's reputations can't be besmirched without redress through the courts. And you phrase your point well - "people wanting to reveal the truth" - well, if it is the truth, then that is a 100% defence to libel, whether that be in the UK or elsewhere. Libel suits are threatened by people who believe an UNTRUTH is about to be told about them. (Yes, sometimes individuals misuse this to call a bluff, but you cannot argue that every time a libel suit is threatened it must be because they are trying to suppress the truth.)