Lance Armstrong admits doping may have caused his testicular canceR

rekrunner wrote:

But, regarding Farah and the IAAF, my agreement was only in small part. The same way you said "a bit like Farah", I only agreed "a bit", adding phrases like "but also big differences" and "not more than (a bit)".

Well, I said "a bit" for a reason, you said "a bit" for a reason, I don't see a disagreement there.

rekrunner wrote:

Lamine Diack was not part of the "the IAAF core anti-doping structure". He setup a secret structure outside of the existing anti-doping core. This is well documented in the WADA IC's reports.

Diack, IAAF's president, was at the IAAF's core. That validates my statement:

"The IAAF failure to enforce rule violations was at its core."

Dollé, IAAF's head of anti-doping, was leading "the IAAF core anti-doping structure". That invalidates your statement:

"the IAAF's failure to enforce was outside the IAAF core anti-doping structure"

As I said, I found your comparisons misleading and not comparable.

If you did not intend to suggest intentional wrong-doing from UKAD or Mo, by holding this example side by side with the example of the UCI accepting a backdated prescription provided by Lance to avoid a sanction, then I guess there is no disagreement. The bit I agree with is that both incidents occurred at the beginning of a long streak of dominating their event. The bit I don't, to the extent it was suggested by comparison, is that one was accepted by the organization against their own rules, while the other one was not.

Dolle was leading the IAAF organization but also was not the "core" of that organization. He was not directing his organization to participate in or support the corruption. One key difference is to look at the anti-doping organization, and see if what was happening within the anti-doping organization was in line with what was happening outside. The anti-doping organization was actively applying pressure to achieve the sanctions that they previously identified. Dolle was also not "core" to the corruption, being found to have committed a crime of negligence by passively accepting the delays.