Sebastian Coe vs Said Aouita - 1500/mile race - Who would win?

Can someone provide data for the following "Coe has done more in the anti-doping struggle in his 4 or 5 years in charge of the IAAF than the previous 100 years."

kj wrote:

Can someone provide data for the following "Coe has done more in the anti-doping struggle in his 4 or 5 years in charge of the IAAF than the previous 100 years."

For a start he has established an independent testing body, the Integrity Unit, which means that countries can’t cover up any positive results or corruption. He has imposed a ban on Russian athletes after RUSADA failed to abide by sanctions and follow the Road map laid down for their reinstatement; something Bach at the IOC and WADA didn’t have the balls to do.

He has also put pressure on Kenya, Jamaica and others to ensure their athletes are robustly tested OOC like the majority of other nations.

Hence the vast increase in numbers of Kenyan athletes that have tested positive and the dramatic decline in the depth of Jamaican sprinting the last few years.

Of course there is more to be done.

Doesn't sound like more than his predecessors.

I'll be impressed when he enacts the pre-2005 record book wipe-out that he shelved because it would impact his British national record. He needs to not be biased and cave into other "friends" and wipe them clean.

He knows very well he competed in the steroid and blood transfusion era with little testing.

kkkes wrote:

I'll be impressed when he enacts the pre-2005 record book wipe-out that he shelved because it would impact his British national record. He needs to not be biased and cave into other "friends" and wipe them clean.

Exactly! If an East African or Russian had set the WR - everything pre-2005 would have been wiped-out a long time ago.

kkkes wrote:

He knows very well he competed in the steroid and blood transfusion era with little testing.

I don't think his loyal fan base understands this. ?

Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:

kkkes wrote:

I'll be impressed when he enacts the pre-2005 record book wipe-out that he shelved because it would impact his British national record. He needs to not be biased and cave into other "friends" and wipe them clean.

Exactly! If an East African or Russian had set the WR - everything pre-2005 would have been wiped-out a long time ago.

kkkes wrote:

He knows very well he competed in the steroid and blood transfusion era with little testing.

I don't think his loyal fan base understands this. ?

As far as I know the wipe-out would only have affected world records before 2005. I'm pretty sure if he was motivated by preserving his personal records he could have argued for wiping records from the start of the EPO era, and/or for certain countries that hadn't even had a WADA lab until this year (for example Kenya), which would result in him still being the 800m WR holder.

What you seem to be saying in your infinite stupidity is that a proposal to wipe WRs before a minimum standard of testing was introduced (2005) was made by Coe but was voted down or otherwise met with too much resistance by his colleagues and certain national AAF heads (no doubt the likes of Morocco), and the fact that the IAAF was therefore forced to drop the plan proves that Coe was a doper?

The only thing I would knock Coe slightly for in his fight to clean up the sport is that he pulled back from actually banning Kenya, which I feel they should have been before Rio. The fact that Rudisha, a friend of his, was going for history at Rio and making a case for being the all-time GOAT at 800m, and it would have been pretty awkward if Coe had had to deny him this, might have played a part in saving Kenya from a ban. Having said that, as Deano pointed out, the threat of the ban and the pressure Coe and the IAAF has put on Kenya has achieved a remarkable transformation in the attitudes of the government and the Kenyan federation there, and a consequent steady improvement in testing (and hence busts).

JRinaldi wrote:

Nick Symmonds

400 47.40

800 1:42.95

1500 3:34.55

Said Aouita

400 ??

800 1:43.86

1500 3:29.46

If you think the Aoutia is .5 quicker than Symmonds over 400 and 5 sec quicker over 1500m, then Aoutia really failed over 800m !

Personally I think Aouita would have failed to break 48.5 out of blocks. Watch the first 100m of the Soul Olympics and see how hard he was working in the first 100m compared to Ereng who was jogging right next to him.

And getting back to the title of the thread Coe over Aouita head to head in their primes.

Barely sub 49, just so strong.

I don't follow you: Are you saying the Soviet block nations rarely ran on the European track circuit because of effective drug testing? (Who primarily ran on circuit then? Just Europeans & Americans?).

The Soviet block nations participated in the 80 & 88 games with a full contingent of mid-d & distance runners and didn't test positive for anything for the most part (in fact, in the 88 games the women cleaned house in just about everything from tbe 400 on up to the marathon). So, like you said we know the Soviet block nations were doping (imagine that. Lol). And if the testing was good (assuming the best testing would be at the Olympics), how did the Soviet block nations so effectively beat the testing? ?

I think the Soviets hold the key here concerning PED use of the 80s. Do you think that whatever they were using (i.e., androgens, blood transfusions, stimulants), and how they were beating the tests might give some idea of how widespread PED use was back then?

And the final tally from this thread to answer the OP question appears to be Said Aouita would more than likely win a 1500/mile race over the 800m specialist Seb Coe-

Aouita- 11

Coe -6

lwoo wrote:

And the final tally from this thread to answer the OP question appears to be Said Aouita would more than likely win a 1500/mile race over the 800m specialist Seb Coe-

Aouita- 11

Coe -6

Except that the 11 who voted for Aouita were at most two people.

Subway Surfers wrote:

JRinaldi wrote:

Nick Symmonds

400 47.40

800 1:42.95

1500 3:34.55

Said Aouita

400 ??

800 1:43.86

1500 3:29.46

If you think the Aoutia is .5 quicker than Symmonds over 400 and 5 sec quicker over 1500m, then Aoutia really failed over 800m !

Personally I think Aouita would have failed to break 48.5 out of blocks. Watch the first 100m of the Soul Olympics and see how hard he was working in the first 100m compared to Ereng who was jogging right next to him.

And getting back to the title of the thread Coe over Aouita head to head in their primes.

Barely sub 49, just so strong.

You can't always read too much into different event pbs. May never got into the right race, ran to win, didn't race event when at best, ran too early in season. Rarely contested the event. For 400 a slow starter. Or simply did not focus on it. Just a general statement not aimed at these two runners. Most can say this about themselves too.

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

I think the Soviets hold the key here concerning PED use of the 80s. Do you think that whatever they were using (i.e., androgens, blood transfusions, stimulants), and how they were beating the tests might give some idea of how widespread PED use was back then?

Naturally. See also Helsinki 1983.

As for Coe's actions: yes, he added another layer of smoke and mirrors to the system with the AIU a la old boys network, led by Howman, long time WADA functionary. Same old, same old.

And no, having an AIU does not prevent corruption at the national level. How could it? It makes no difference if a NADO hides its testing results from the IAAF or from the AIU.

Plus, his fights against publishing the Tübingen/Harvard study, against transparency, and against criminalization of doping shine a different light on his "anti-doping" actions, along with his populistic attack on reporters and scientists who dared to uncover the truth (declaration of war/these so-called scientists...).

If he were truly in favor of independence, and anti-doping, he should have welcomed an open-ended, independent investigation into the Radcliffe case, instead of - as IAAF President - publicly declaring her innocent before the investigation, and then leaving the investigation to his hand-picked IAAF "employees". That investigation then should have also (re-)investigated her frozen samples...

Last but not least, I cannot overlook his questionable Chime/CSM dealings that made him millions, his lying about lobbying for Nike as IAAF VP, his ignoring of the IAAF corruption with varying excuses (I didn't read the email/I didn't read the text messages/I didn't listen during the phone call).

For starters,

Coevett wrote:

I'm pretty sure if he was motivated by preserving his personal records he could have argued for wiping records from the start of the EPO era, and/or for certain countries that hadn't even had a WADA lab until this year (for example Kenya), which would result in him still being the 800m WR holder.

Same for Denmark? No lab there?

kkkes wrote:

Doesn't sound like more than his predecessors.

How can the CREATION of a new independent drug testing agency be NO MORE than what his predecessors did?

Many African and poorer nations were not compelled to carry out of out of season testing in Diack’s era or before. That is something Coe has introduced.

Corruption and the bribes from Russia to cover up positive tests happened under Diack; while Coe has maintained a ban of RUSADA until they can prove they are compliant with the points laid down on the Road map set out by WADA.

So basically you don’t know what your talking about

Please inform us of the new initiatives and ground breaking reforms carried out by Diack and Nebiolo during their tenure that led to increased numbers of positive drug tests?

Different testing bodies. Drug tests in T&F in Olympic competition is carried out by the IOC. Testing in European permit/ Grand Prix meets would be carried out by the IAAF or European Athletics.

Remember that the 1980 Olympics were held in Russia, and we know what the Russians did in Sochi!?

By Seoul 88, I think there is enough evidence that everyone was doing it and getting away with it. I t was at this point that the IAAF introduced random out of competition testing for the world’s elite from the beginning of 1989.

The general practice for East European (in particular GDR and Russian) athletes from the late 70’s to late 80’s was for them to run their best times (e.g Koch, Gohr) in local/ small meets in their home countries (or at least behind the Iron Curtain), where they were either not tested or could have any embarrassing test results hidden, rarely run in the larger meets in Western Europe, and then turn up for the major Champs, (having had their drug cycle closely monitored at home to ensure their drug use wouldn’t show at the Champs) and run exceptionally well.

Kazankina is a case in point. She won several gold medals in 76 and 80 Olympics, but was banned in 84 after refusing to submit to a drug test when asked to provide one in Zurich.

Of course others in the West could have been doping, but there was certainly an increased possibility of being caught through testing OOC by their various national federations or at one of the many meets they competed in on circuit. Also, their drug routines would not have been anywhere near as methodically and robustly overseen as those in Eastern state sponsored countries.

Again, the 1983 World Championships in Athletics took place in Helsinki, which is evidently in Europe, and carried out by the IAAF, as pointed out to you several times now. GDR was the top nation there, despite its small size. Stop making stuff up. Doping was like stealing candy from a baby in the early 80s, and blood transfusions were legal.

When did Coe run his 1:41 again? Do you really think it is a coincidence that no Caucasian came close in 38 years? And that only two Africans beat that time in 38 years, one during the EPO era, and one during the height of the IAAF corruption?

And here you provide an example what the IAAF did before Coe became its president. The ABP is another one. All good on paper, but not exactly strong in reality. Like the AIU. And like WADA, who was completely blind to both the UCI and the IAAF scandals, among other things.

Remember that because "their various national federations" couldn't be trusted, the formally independent NADOs were created to oversee the testing. And now we know that the NADOs can't be trusted...

To change this, we add one more body, the AIU, created by the IAAF, which was proven to be corrupt at its very top. Lolz. As if that would change anything.

Interesting discussion here. Yes...the 80 games were in Moscow - so there could have easily been cover-ups. Russia boycotted the 84 games and 88 was in Seoul. The women from the Soviet block nations were dominate in events from the 400 on up to the marathon in those games. I don't believe there was one doping positive that came out of that group. Of course, the Ben Johnson positive was the shockwave that hit the games. On the OOC testing - no random OOC testing prior to 1989? Was it just IC testing with medal winners at major competions? Any in-competition (IC) target testing based on tips or suspicion?

Still a little confused: The Soviet block nations only ran their seasonal circuit/races at venues behind the Iron Curtain? Is it accurate to conclude that their strategy would have be to focus on the Olympic & world championship years and hopefully show up not glowing from their seasonal drug cycles?

Tatyana Kazankina? Looked her up and you're right: According to her Wikipedia page; in September 1984 she was suspended for 18 months for refusing to undertake a drug test after winning a 1,500m race in 3:58.63 in Paris. She also set the 1500 WR in 1980 in 3:52.47. Is this the example that if she ran time at a venue behind the Iron Curtain she may have not even been tested in the first place?

You have point there with the expertise & resources that the Soviet block nations put into PED programs. But weren't the substances pretty basic back then? (i.e. androgens, blood transfusions, stimulants). Blood doping was completely undetectable with obviously no ABP back then. Would some Western countries have the resources to implement blood transfusions with any of their athletes or would it be pushed underground and individualized? How about androgens - what was the washout period for the popular steroids of that day? On testosterone - they didn't have the CIR isotope test they have now, so I believe it was detected strictly off of the T/E ratio, which I think was 6/1 back then? (Anybody here well-researched in anti-doping of the 80s? casual observer? Subway?). And I believe there was a fairly effective test for stimulants? The legendary cyclist Eddy Merckx tested positive twice for stimulants back in the 70s.

No, I haven’t made anything up!

You haven’t repeatedly told me about Helsinki! You mentioned it once, in response to another poster. And in any case, you miss the point entirely. The poster I responded to was asking about another poster’s point that Communist East Europeans avoided the EUROPEAN CIRCUIT MEETS, nothing to do with major Champs in Europe, which I explained later in my post. I explained why they avoided the likes of Oslo, Zurich, etc. Let me spell it out to you.... if an athlete who is on a monitored drug programme run by their own national doctors, then competing on a weekly or semi regular basis around Europe, where we know there was some testing, then the likelihood of being caught increases. Hence they avoided a lot of European circuit meets, especially prior to any championships that may occur in any specific year.

I then stated, as the poster I was responding to cited 1980, that of course it would be easy for Russian (and East Europeans) athletes to dope to their eyeballs at home games. I also stated that their methodical, highly monitored testing support team could also get them to a position where they wouldn’t test positive at a championship outside of the Iron Curtain. That is the only time where any mention of Helsinki would be relevant to the point I was making.

Avoiding detection during a week’s window during a championship (whether it’s in Helsinki, Paris or Timbuktu), while spending the previous 4 months training and competing in one’s home country while participating in an intensely monitored drug programme, is far easier than avoiding detection and trying to stay on same drug programme while spending June, July and early August running on the circuit around Europe!

Blood doping was banned in 1985, based on a UK government white paper published by Coe and the then UK Sports minister called for its ban. It was adopted by the UK Sports Council and then by IAAF.

Random OOC test was introduced in UK in 1983, and was being carried out for 6 years before the IAAF adopted it.

Prior to Co’s tenure as IAAF President there was an expectation of the current world’s top 10 being tested randomly by the IAAF itself. The other expectation was for National Athletic Drug Organisations to carry out more in depth testing of their own nation’s athletes. Some did this robustly, with registers compiled of athletes’ whereabouts on a daily basis. Other countries claimed they were too poor to do this and were left exempt. This inequality is where most of our current problems stem from.

With the Sochi and RUSADA case, it has been shown that corruption and cover up of one’s own athletes’ samples has been organised by the NADO. But this is just Russia. Hard evidence about state sponsored doping and its cover up by 1 country. That’s not to claim it hasn’t happened elsewhere, but we can’t just start claiming all countries do it without the evidence.

On the basis of this, Coe has created the AIU, comprised of independent/ neutral members, to do the job that some NADOs were unable to do legally.

So far the AIU has uncovered various drug rings and uncovered widespread corruption in Kenya.

These are far more positive developments than occurred under Diack or Nebiolo.

Deanouk wrote:

The general practice for East European (in particular GDR and Russian) athletes from the late 70’s to late 80’s was for them to run their best times (e.g Koch, Gohr) in local/ small meets in their home countries (or at least behind the Iron Curtain), where they were either not tested or could have any embarrassing test results hidden, rarely run in the larger meets in Western Europe, and then turn up for the major Champs, (having had their drug cycle closely monitored at home to ensure their drug use wouldn’t show at the Champs) and run exceptionally well.

1974 European Champs Rome 4x100mW 1. GDR WR

1976 Olympic Games Montreal 400mW 1. Szewinska WR

1976 Olympic Games Montreal 4x400mW 1. GDR WR

1978 European Champs Prague 400mW 1. Koch WR

1980 Olympic Games Moscow 4x100mW 1. GDR WR

1982 European Champs Athens 400mW 1. Koch WR

1983 World Champs Helsinki 400mW 1. Kratochvilova WR

1985 World Cup Canberra 400mW 1. Koch WR

1988 Olympic Games Seoul 4x400mW 1. USSR WR

Those locals with the exception of Moscow aren't exactly located behind the Iron Curtain. Doesn't Deanouk know his geography? Lol.