Excellent plan.
Sorry I don't read rekrunner's posts, so I can't tell you what he said
Excellent plan.
Sorry I don't read rekrunner's posts, so I can't tell you what he said
"I am not allowed to read his posts under orders from my psychiatrist. I am also not allowed to see any long discussions with long words that begin with the letter h."
He hollered hoh heLL, her hemocrit hardly hit the heavens. His honour Lord Ho
hypothethically hypothesized that her hemoscores in the half were hastened by heat.
fred wrote:
"I am not allowed to read his posts under orders from my psychiatrist. I am also not allowed to see any long discussions with long words that begin with the letter h."
He hollered hoh heLL, her hemocrit hardly hit the heavens. His honour Lord Ho
hypothethically hypothesized that her hemoscores in the half were hastened by heat.
Sorry that should have been hematocrit.
Her hemorrhoids happened to hasten her horrible hematocrit.
I guess you find using all the h words to raise my anxiety levels funny...like spelling a word as hermatocrit instead of hematocrit. Ha Ha Ha.
You are one of those "trolls" that people here at LRC have been warning me about.
You are just a big bully Mr. Smarty Pants!
I cud not of sed it beter my selves frreed. And u r a MoRan!
And by the way, my first pick for the sub 2:00 plan was Tirunesh Dibaba, but when I told Sileshi Sihine about it he said he did not like my plan at all.
Then I remembered that Genzebe Dibaba is not married yet. She is also a really good runner who will have really "elite" mitochondrial DNA to pass on to her children; that she could have with Kenenisa Bekele. She is also a really beautiful runner to watch running, just like her older sister.
The beautiful form of the Dibabas and the beautiful form of Bekele are really quite a contrast to the form of world record holder Paula Radcliffe of Britain, whose form resembles...what?
I have heard that Kenenisa is a really nice guy. Everyone here loves him.
I think Genzebe and Kenenisa might really hit it off together.
What do you think Fred?
larkimm wrote:
Understanding what I do about the arrangements within the IAAF, its clear that it was entirely possible for a Vice President to be unaware of the corrupt dealings of the President. Not only possible, highly likely actually. Corruption tends to be well hidden.
Fact check 1:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-15/corruption-embedded-in-world-athletics-body-iaaf-says-wada/7089830http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/12099794/Lord-Coe-under-intense-pressure-after-damning-WADA-doping-report.html" Coe acknowledged he could have done more to prevent what was branded “imbedded†corruption at the International Association of Athletics Federation and apologised for his “clumsy†response to the crisis following scathing criticism of the beleaguered governing body by a World Anti-Doping Agency independent commission.
The commission found the IAAF president, who served for 12 years on its council before his election last summer, “could not have been unaware†of the scale of the drugs problem in Russia that has brought athletics to its knees and that he and other elected officials showed “no appetite†to tackle it or the “nepotism†that allowed his predecessor, Lamine Diack, to Âorchestrate one of the most corrupt – “criminal†– regimes ever seen in sport. "
Fact check 2:
WADA and IAAF are not independent organizations. They literally collaborate daily.
Fact check 3:
IAAFs chosen committee, supposed to investigate IAAFs dealings with the adverse off score findings, was an IAAF committee.
Fact check 4:
WADAs "IC" was also not an independent committee; WADA chose its founder (!) and president until 2007 (i.e., he was in charge during at least two of Paula's high off scores) to be chair of that committee.
As to which organizations are better than WADA/IAAF/UCI/FIFA: no big ones. One has to be a blind fan to think that WADA or IAAF or the NFL or NBA etc. are seriously fighting doping. The show must go on!
In that context, I cite again, and note that this comes from Pound, who is still defending Ben Johnson (!!):
"the IAAF president, who served for 12 years on its council before his election last summer, “could not have been unaware†of the scale of the drugs problem"
Fact check 5:
WADA is even officially against criminalization of doping.
... although they are officially so vehemently against doping...
Fortunately WADA won't be able to stop progress. Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Kenya... it might come to the US and UK too because of public pressure.
Imagine that an independent court of law instead of selected buddies could judge over Paula. It wouldn't just trust Paula's words (30 degrees, right after the race, sick, at altitude etc.), but look for facts, witnesses and reviewers. Publicly.
Personally I think proven criminals like R. J. and R. S. and L. A. should end up in prison for the millions they stole. Hard to think of other crimes of that magnitude that would always go unpunished.
Great find! This really needs to be transcribed.Q: "Do you believe that whistle blowers are being properly looked after?"Pound: "They're not. And the international federations have been among the worst offenders in dealing with whistle blowers."Q: "Everything you're telling me in this interview suggests to me there is still a profound problem at the top of global sports administration, that those at the top are still not taking this seriously enough."Pound: "That's my conclusion. I mean it's a reluctant conclusion, but it's inescapable."
Hardtalk wrote:
"BBC Hardtalk
Former president, World Anti-Doping Agency - Dick Pound
Stephen Sackur speaks to Dick Pound, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency from 1999 to 2007 and veteran anti-doping campaigner"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rcd8pHaven't been following this thread for a while so I don't know if this has been posted but it's a fairly hard hitting must listen too for you regular PR thread contributors. DP is very protective of SC.
A few pages ago Canova was asked if he had ever suspected one of his athletes of doping, and if so, how he dealt with it.
Canova's silence to that question speaks volumes. Which probably means he is your man to get someone below 2:00.
rjm33 wrote:
Can you please explain to me how can both be true? Again.
Purple Brain wrote:You do realize that your two paragraphs are in direct conflict with each other? How can corruption be "well hidden" if the world is as full of blabber mouths as you believe?
They are not contradictory.
First para relates to how the Vice President didn't know about the dealings of the President in relation to corruption at a high level. That excuses Coe not knowing. However, despite it being well hidden, it came to light through whistleblowing.
The second para deals with long standing reputations of two individuals which have now had long enough for whistle blowing or similar to highlight any wrong doing. With all that has happened recently with the IAAF, even with Diack as a "wounded animal" out there, if there was an adverse finding against either of them it would be out by now.
Dick Pound believes that whistle blowers are NOT bringing everything to light, and thinks the heads of international federations are to blame. Dick is an industry insider, keen to circle the wagons to protect his long time buddies and reward cronies. But yet, even he admits how bad things are.But you, Larkimm The Lithophilous, are certain that all is now well and good through the ranks of IAAF. I envy your omniscience.
larkimm wrote:
They are not contradictory.
First para relates to how the Vice President didn't know about the dealings of the President in relation to corruption at a high level. That excuses Coe not knowing. However, despite it being well hidden, it came to light through whistleblowing.
The second para deals with long standing reputations of two individuals which have now had long enough for whistle blowing or similar to highlight any wrong doing. With all that has happened recently with the IAAF, even with Diack as a "wounded animal" out there, if there was an adverse finding against either of them it would be out by now.
Purple Brain wrote:
Dick Pound believes that whistle blowers are NOT bringing everything to light, and thinks the heads of international federations are to blame.
Dick is an industry insider, keen to circle the wagons to protect his long time buddies and reward cronies. But yet, even he admits how bad things are.
]
We all have our opinions on here, but none of us is close or ever has been close to athletics' inner circles and the day to day running of the sport, in particular drug testing.
Pound on the other hand has been, so we have to take what he says seriously. Unless someone can point to him having an agenda against Coe or others in senior positions?
If he had reported the reverse, I would believe him despite my ongoing cynicism, simply because he is 100 times closer to the workings of the sport than I am.
transfused wrote:
A few pages ago Canova was asked if he had ever suspected one of his athletes of doping, and if so, how he dealt with it.
Canova's silence to that question speaks volumes. Which probably means he is your man to get someone below 2:00.
I'm going to stick up for Renato because he posts here. Perhaps in this day and age it's not a case of suspecting your athletes of doping, you simply know whether they are cleans or not.
You know because they are part of the program. And you know because they are internally blood tested to see how they are responding to training.
So a clean coach will know his clean athletes.
I don't buy into the idea of elite athletes unilaterally popping to the pharmacist to get a few crates of EPO, and then winning marathons. Successful athletes are always part of a program.
Successful doping athletes are also almost always part of a program. The blood testing done within a sophisticated program is more likely being done to monitor their ABP results and how the runners are responding to doping, not just responding to training.
It is also an interesting reminder that Dick Pound was the head of WADA during Paula's suspicious blood test results in 2003 and 2005. I did not remember that important fact until I listened to the Hardtalk interview.
After everything, I think I would be fairly satisfied if Dick Pound was the President of the IAAF instead of Lord Coe.
I would be ecstatic if Stephen Sackur was President of the IAAF.
fred wrote:
Excellent plan.
Sorry I don't read rekrunner's posts, so I can't tell you what he said
Fred. Here is an update on my "sub 2:00" plan involving Genzebe Dibaba and Kenenisa Bekele having children together, "specific" marathon training with Renato, etc.
I now realize that I did not think through my plan very well at all.
I talked to Kenenisa after his fantastic run of 2:06:36 at London on Sunday. He tried to run away from me but he was still pretty sore from the race and I was able to catch up to him on my bike.
Just like Sileshi Sihine did...Kenenisa also told me that he did not like my plan at all.
It turns out that Kenenisa Bekele married the beautiful film actress Dannawit Gebregziabher in 2007, and they already have 3 beautiful children together.
I also found out that Genzebe Dibaba has a current boyfriend now also.
http://ethiograph.com/album/albums/userpics/10133/Bekele_Brautpaar.jpghttp://www.amharictube.com/uploads/thumbs/51349caa9-1.jpghttp://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000mFLaOVgxhRQ/s/650/650/Kenenisa-Bekele-Danawit-Gebregziabher-his-wife.jpgI now think my plan is destined for failure. Back to the drawing board.
This is Kenenisa Bekele:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9SrdbrDcdQlarkimm wrote:
With all that has happened recently with the IAAF, even with Diack as a "wounded animal" out there, if there was an adverse finding against either of them it would be out by now.
Rubbish, the surface has only been skimmed so far. Once the "wounded animal" is fully cornered with the muzzle aimed right between the eyes will the adverse findings come to light and you're a fool if you think otherwise. In the mean time there are criminal charges being formulated and Diack and others are probably squealing and trying to cut a deal right now.
larkimm wrote:
First para relates to how the Vice President didn't know about the dealings of the President in relation to corruption at a high level. That excuses Coe not knowing. However, despite it being well hidden, it came to light through whistleblowing.
How does Coe's longtime assistant informing him of the issue fit into this?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/21/sebastian-coe-aide-leaked-emails-russia-doping-scandalWhere's Nick now?
You can see in the email from Nick Davies in the article that he mentions the head of anti-doping at the IAAF, Gabriel Dolle, confirming that they would use the Lausanne lab as a plan B if there were problems with testing at the Moscow lab.Dr. Martial Saugy runs the Lausanne lab.That is why I refer to him as Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy.I got the term from the Nick Davies email.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
larkimm wrote:First para relates to how the Vice President didn't know about the dealings of the President in relation to corruption at a high level. That excuses Coe not knowing. However, despite it being well hidden, it came to light through whistleblowing.
How does Coe's longtime assistant informing him of the issue fit into this?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/21/sebastian-coe-aide-leaked-emails-russia-doping-scandalWhere's Nick now?
rjm33 wrote:
It is also an interesting reminder that Dick Pound was the head of WADA during Paula's suspicious blood test results in 2003 and 2005. I did not remember that important fact until I listened to the Hardtalk interview.
After everything, I think I would be fairly satisfied if Dick Pound was the President of the IAAF instead of Lord Coe.
Well. Remember this?
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2016/01/25/iaaf-doping-and-the-internal-contradictions-of-wadas-report-250101/The IC report said: “It is not credible that [IAAF] elected officials were unaware of the situation affecting Russian athletes.†The report concluded: “The IAAF council could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in athletics and the non-enforcement of applicable anti-doping rules.†As others have noted, it was bizarre when Pound’s public comments upon delivering the report then almost completely undercut its findings.
Pound’s mixed messages concerned Lord Coe, a member of the IAAF Council since 2003 and thus among those the report said must have been aware of the systemic corruption.
And in conclusion (not mine, but close to it):
The focus of Part III was, like Pound’s behavior at the press conference, focused on exonerating the IAAF against claims rather than focusing on the bigger issue – that there are, according to the IAAF, perhaps more than 150 medal winners out there who have never been publicly identified or sanctioned. Based on recent academic research, this number is surely an underestimate of the actual number.
I only implied Pound would be better than Coe. I do not trust Dick Pound either. He had a lot of trouble giving answers to the tough questions.
I also said I would be ecstatic if Stephen Sackur was President of the IAAF.
"But what we really need is for athletes to act as whistle-blowers,' says Coe. 'If they suspect coaches or training partners, or have been subject to pressure or corruption, they must step forward. It takes me to the crux of this. The clean athlete cannot say any longer that there isn't much they can do."
So why didn't Coe step forward when he suspected the Russian's were doping? Oh that's right, he never suspected, everyone else did except him. "But he stood by for years and turned a blind eye ...".
The Mail On Sunday 24 April 2016
