What’s your opinion on Sebastian Coe?

Loughborough university, where in 1978 professor clyde williams, doctor in biochemistry and physiology, and expert in Erythropoietin (have a look at his publications...) established a Sports Science Research Group ...

My opinion of Coe is he was a 1:41 and 3:29 guy.

Are you a comedian!? The idea that the UK alone was at the forefront of research and producing EPO in a lab for more than a decade before the rest of the world got it is risible.
It is clearly stated on various websites that it was not available in Europe for medical purposes until 1987.
Coe was not an ‘average runner until 1977/78’. He was the European Junior 1500m bronze medalist in 1975 (aged 18), beating Abascal and Ray Flynn.
He was also English Schools 3000m champion in 1973, aged 16.
I don’t call being the best in your country for an age group over 3000m and the 3rd best in the continent over a different distance for another age group, the CV of an ‘average runner’.
He was also European senior indoor champion over another distance in early 77.

welcome to letsrun LMAO the delusion of these posters is on another level. Like anything other than winning foot locker xc / going to stanford / continuing to dominate college / winning world titles / working for goldman means you're a failure. sorry. he was a mediocre athlete bc he was only 3rd best on his continent (lol. barely on the podium)

your opinion offends me.

I recall reading a quote from S Coe in Runner Magazine, 1979 after he set one of the world records. Coe stated in the article, due to his studies, he only had time for one workout a week and one distance run a week.

* S Coe admitted he did not out-train his 400m to 1 mile competitors.

* Is there a long history of great athletes on either side of his family? Is there any history of good to great athletes in his family?

* So we are down to: S Coe must have trained smarter. Training smarter means superior knowledge of authorized vitamins & supplements. Superior knowledge of dietary needs, a superior knowledge of cross-training and a superior knowledge of the proper balance required for 800m, mileage & track workouts. [I am not concerned about his 1500m/one mile performances.]

* Why do Brits rule out the possibility of P.E.D. use? Great Britain has a population close to 70 million. Not all of the pro-Coe types on here can be related to him. On this site, if a U.S. T&F athlete produces suspicious results, posters do not necessarily circle the wagons (some do but only a few deadenders). Look at the Brits on this thread, threatening a law suit. Is that what S Coe wants? Does S Coe want to really be cross-examined under oath?

Definitely crossed the lines with doping. He was working with an Italian doctor at the time. In the first edition of the book his father wrote he spoke about blood doping (which was legal at the time).

Don't get me started on his attitude with women...a very promiscuous man!

If you truly believe that dopers and their doctors wait for drugs to be fully tested, cleared for medical purpose and available to the masses before they prepare it and inject it, you are one very naive individual!

Whenever an American gets busted (happens almost as much as Kenyans now), Americans here claim it confirms the Brits are all dirty. Americans have had more distance running busts in the last couple of years than Britain, Australia, and New Zealand combined have had in 120 years.

If Coe had doped, the combined might of the rabid British press and Vladimir Putin would have unearthed evidence of it by now. After 40 years, and there is not a sniff of it.

This is just made up BS.

Coe was never involved with an Italian doctor. Any idiot can make up a claim like that. What was this doctor’s name then?

There was never any reference to approving blood doping by P Coe in any of his books either. That’s been trotted out a few times by haters, but, shock! Horror! None of the trolls have ever actually been able to offer a link, page reference or quote of this rare and infamous edition that no one seems to have ever owned.
Major trolling.

Coe is a doper, a moron and a predator.

End of story.

Jeff Atkinson accused Coe of blood doping. And I recall speaking with a former 400 meter runner in the late-1980s who was fairly certain Coe's WRs were achieved with some chemical assistance.

I don't know--generally--who thought what about Seb or other top athletes, but I do know that speaking out publicly about doping tended to be frowned upon, even when the criticism was obviously correct, for example--Carl Lewis was bashed relentlessly when he discussed the problem of doping during the 1987 World Championships.

I was born to run too, but was never more than a club hack.

Coe did speak out about doping from fairly early on in his career. He was the athletes' representative (along with Moses) at the IOC Congress in Baden Baden in late 81, where he called for life bans for dopers. (of course since becoming WA President he's now aware that such things are not possible in today's world due to Human Rights to earn a living and the endless litigation costs such a path would entail).

The contemporary consensus in the late 70's/early 80's was that steroids would benefit all power events, namely sprints and throwing. And which events were the GDR and USSR ahead of western Europe? The sprints and field events?

Any testing at the time outside of WRs and major champs would have been down to the procedures in place by the national federations and some promoters on the circuit in western Europe. The latter fact explains why most of the East Europeans best marks occurred in their own countries or at least behind the Iron Curtain. We now know that the Russians have a long, ingrained ethos of covering up and protecting their athletes from testing.
At the same time steroids, namely testosterone, were known to make a massive difference in the performances of female athletes in all events, as it made them more male like. Who dominated practically every women's events? The GDR and USSR! No British or Western European female could compete in any event.

The consensus at the time was also that steroids did not benefit male middle distance and distance runners. Yes, with hindsight we know there are some benefits, but these were not common knowledge at the time. In this area, the middle and long distances, Britain had a long tradition of success going back decades – Hill, Lowe, Bannister, Ibbotson, etc, much greater than any in the USSR or GDR. A group of British athletes started to dominate
Europe, especially in the middle distances in the 1970’s.

Now, if this was down to use of steroids/chemicals, then 2 fundamental
questions need to be addressed.
1) Why were UK women and UK men in power events so far behind
the East Europeans?

The fact they could not compete strongly suggests that UK athletes, in general, were not using steroids and therefore could not keep up with those we now know were using them. The only athlete that springs to mind as being up with the world's best was Capes in the SP, which again is a power event.

Is it therefore a plausible argument that most UK athletes didn't use steroids, but that all our middle distance guys did? I think this is unlikely.

2) If the UK's middle distance guys were using steroids, and we know that the East European men either were (Stasi lists subsequently found, listed Beyer, etc), or would not have been averse to at least experimenting in an area where steroids were not considered particularly beneficial, then why were the Russian and German athletes not equally dominant in the 800 and 1500, as their female contemporaries and bulky throwing brothers were? The most logical answer is that few of them were using steroids. Furthermore, we know that plenty of sprinters and throwers from the era were found guilty at the time or soon after of doping, but how many elite middle distance or distance runners were caught and banned for steroid use in that period? The only few I can recall were East European women; e.g Petrova, Marasescu, Kazankina; in the group known for high response to male testosterone/steroids.

In addition, the likes of Walker, Coghlan, Wessinghage, Scott, etc, are all on record as saying that they did not believe Coe or Ovett doped, or indeed any other of their peers.

As a caveat, there were 2 occasions when GDR middle distance men did run way above what they had seemed capable of before or after. They were Beyer in the European Champs 800 of 78 and Straub in the 1980 Olympic final. In both those races, they beat one or other of the 2 Brits, whose record of superiority had been previously and latterly established. What both races also had in common, were that they were held in communist, East European countries behind the Iron Curtain. Strange that the likes of Beyer and Straub ran their best times and best performances in their home country or other East European nations, but could never replicate the same level on the circuit, which admittedly they didn't run often. You can also guarantee that the Russian and Czech testers at those champs would have scrutinised the samples of Coe and Ovett like no others, and probably kept them in storage for posterity.

Apart from the obvious physical signs of HGH use, namely increased jaw, movement of teeth, none of which can be attributed to Coe, Ovett or Cram, it was only developed as a recombinant HGH injection in late 1981, after Coe's best years had already occurred. Moreover, Wikipedia states, "The first description of the use of GH as a doping agent was Dan Duchaine’s “Underground Steroid handbook” which emerged from California in 1982"

With regards to blood doping. The only athlete to have been caught doing so (IIRC), and only because he had traces of steroids in his blood when taken from his body, was Vainio in 84. This came after there had already been long standing whispering that it was a technique used by many of the Finnish DISTANCE runners. IIRC one other has subsequently admitted to its practice. We also have had a few Italian DISTANCE runners come forward and admit to using autologous blood doping during the 80's. These were all 5 and 10k guys. What’s more, Renato Canova has mentioned this in some of his own posts, stating that there appeared to be no benefits for some and only marginal gains for others. Indeed, one or two actually became slower.

Whatever the benefits of blood doping, and I'm sure there are for endurance events, it was a somewhat risky and dangerous procedure, and one thats use has evidence from just 2 countries; Italy and Finland. There is no other evidence, claim or story of any athlete outside of these countries using, and there are certainly no confirmed cases of 800 or 1500m runners using blood doping. Therefore, there is no evidence of whether or not it would even benefit an event like 800m, which is as much anaerobic as aerobic. Coe led the way for blood doping to be made illegal in 1985. His fastest 1500m time, more endurance based than 800, came after, in 1986.

To summarise, Coe:

- showed no physical evidence of steroid use, (in fact losing racing weight over the duration of his career),

- was tested more often than any other athlete from the period, (at Champs, for WR runs to be ratified, and at various European circuit meets) much of which was overseen (especially at UK meets) by the agent of his main rival (Ovett), Andy Norman, who would have had a field day had Coe tested positive and would have no cause to cover it up.

- would have been part of the worldwide IAAF testing programme introduced at the beginning of 89, a year in which he was still running 1:43.3 (#2 in World) and winning a silver medal in the 1500 World Cup.
- ran most of his best times before HGH first arrived as a PED (the end of 81).

Moreover, blood doping has no historical record of being used by 800/1500 runners during this era; the only evidence of its use is with a few Italian and Finnish distance runners.

As a former British MP, a high-profile politician and head of the IAAF, there would have been more scrutiny of Coe's record as an athlete by the British and world press than perhaps any other figure in sport. If he had taken steroids, HGH or blood doped, there would have been many people privy to this information, and no shortage of people willing to expose him in the press, yet not a singl shred of evidence has emerged in almost 40 years since his racing heyday.

After the corruption of the Diak era at the IAAF, there is not a chance that the delegates there would return/support a candidate with a known doping past.

He is almost certainly reviled by the likes of Putin, for sticking to his guns and keeping Russia out of world athletics and the European circuit for several years now. Again, if there was even a whiff of evidence Coe doped, Putin would have found it and used it against him by now.

The logical conclusion to all the above evidence is that it is highly unlikely he took any PEDS or indulged in blood doping.

Coe speaking at 22 sounds completely different to Coe as an older gentleman.

He needs a haircut!

Coe was a legendary, almost mythical runner. I remember hearing about him from coaches when I was falling in love with track in high school in the late 90’s/early 2000’s. Then, I watched videos of him and cram when I was running in college. I ran the same events, so it was more interesting, but he was one of the all-times in my mind.

when he got involved with politics and world athletics , I think it has taken away some of that untouchable status and made him come off as more of a doofus.

doping, I hope we never find out either way.

Sprint and 800 times came down (depth wise in the 800) as soon as hgh came on the scene in the USA, and almost entirely by American based runners. Sub 10 second 100m became the new normal overnight, and a stack of US based 800m guys were suddenly running under 1:45.

There is no evidence however that the Brits abused hgh, all of the British 80's middle-distance stars having run their best times or shown their huge talent before HGH (including even Peter Elliott).