Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

rekrunner wrote:

I think you are starting from distorted facts.

...

When I look at the real report, the WADA IC doesn't ever single out Coe, but found that, collectively, that someone (or someones) of the 27-Member "IAAF Council could not have been unaware...".

...

Everyone, even Ross Tucker, seems to find these statements contradictory, but when you consider the first one isn't exclusively, or necessarily even, about Coe, then it shouldn't be hard to see that they are not contradictory at all.

Funny how that goes. According to you, "Everyone, even Ross Tucker" agrees with me on this contradiction, but you pretend that I am the one using distorted facts (and for that you blame the telegraph...). Other sources:

Guardian with comments:

Independent with comments:

The WADA "I"C didn't write "someone" of the IAAF council, but wrote explicitly "the IAAF Council could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in athletics and the non-enforcement of applicable anti-doping rules", and we all agree, I hope, that Coe was part of the Council.

As for me being a layman when it comes to the word "independent": use a dictionary please. For example, the independent Cambridge dictionary:

:

" independent adjective (NOT INFLUENCED)

B2 not ​influenced or ​controlled in any way by other ​people, ​events, or things: an independent ​enquiry/​organization They all made the same ​comment, ​quite independent of each other (= without ​deciding together to do so).

› An independent ​politician does not ​agree or ​vote with any ​particular ​political ​party."

So to consider WADAs appointed "Independent Commission" not independent, I don't need proof that WADA ordered its previous President to come to certain conclusions. The fact that WADA picked its previous President for that position, who even was President at the time investigated, proves that the IC was always meant to be, say, influenced by WADA.

Hence my comparisons with Obama or Blair: they wouldn't need to receive orders from Clinton or Cameron - everyone would realize their bias.

As for WADA being vehemently against doping, well. I don't think so. Again, read their statement against criminalization of dopers for example, or go back to the many issues with Saugy, who remains as head of WADAs flagship laboratory.

What else? Oh yes, do you really think WADA and IAAF don't have a history of collaboration? That would be quite ridiculous. There is no independence there either. To say it in Ross Tucker's words:

"It is unfortunate that WADA, far from a disinterested party, decided to adjudicate a dispute between the two Australian experts and the IAAF, as played out in the media. The experts that WADA brought together to weigh in on this dispute included Ashenden, and eight scientists and lawyers from the IAAF and WADA. Not a single independent expert was consulted. The involvement of interested parties only, heavily slanted to one side, likely contributed to the IC conclusions lacking in nuance or balance."

So much for WADA (IC) being fair and balanced. Or look at page 55 of their report (with thanks to DHT123 for reminding us of that):

“No one has, to the knowledge of the IC, challenged the scientific credentials of either Ashenden or Parisotto. Ashenden, in particular, has been acknowledged and has appeared as an expert in many doping cases.”

But we all recall that Coe publicly challenged their credentials. Thus, WADA is evidently protecting the IAAF President here.

Another example from the IC report is "IC particular conclusions on the Nick Davies e-mail", who was Coe's right hand. Among other things, "The explanation [from the IAAF] given does not, in the IC's opinion, accord with the content of the email." Wait, what? The IAAF, under Coe's leadership, did not properly explain Davies' email? But yes, let's just continue to trust Coe/IAAF/WADA...

With the "The show must go on" attitude, all of the above makes sense.

Oh boy. Casual observer is really warming up now. That Nick Davies "plan B" email is smoking gun evidence that is pointed at a lot of people including: IAAF, WADA, Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy, Gabriel Dolle, Papa Diack, Lamine Diack, and of course Nick Davies himself. It might also be pointed at Lord Sebastian Coe of Monte Carlo as well.

Go casual observer!

Also, How do you make the type all bold like you just did? That is really cool.

Wait a second. I have given more thought to this idea.

You should not tell me how to do bold type.

rjm33 wrote:

Oh boy. Casual observer is really warming up now. That Nick Davies "plan B" email is smoking gun evidence that is pointed at a lot of people including: IAAF, WADA, Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy, Gabriel Dolle, Papa Diack, Lamine Diack, and of course Nick Davies himself. It might also be pointed at Lord Sebastian Coe of Monte Carlo as well.

Go casual observer!

Merci. Well, you know, Lord Coe couldn't have any idea about the shenanigans of his assistant/right hand. As a reminder what kind of honest straightforward person he is:

Anyway. How about Throwback Thursday (from September 2015), since we all love cover-ups as much as coincidences, and everybody is a fan of Dennis Mitchell?

Highlights, I mean, coincidences:

- Pound with a "45-minute defense" of Ben Johnson

- "At least half of the 9,000 athletes who competed at the Olympics in Seoul used performance-enhancing drugs in training, according to estimates by medical and legal experts as well as traffickers in these substances."

- "as many as 20 other athletes tested positive and were not disqualified, including one American but "mostly Europeans." "

- "the documents confirmed suspicions that the USOC let athletes get away with cheating. Such a cover-up would hardly be unprecedented"

And, in conclusion:

"For that matter, how do we prevent Olympic organizers from manipulating results and punishments for their own purposes? Who can we trust? These questions have dogged the anti-doping movement since its inception, and in the 27 years since The Greatest Race in History, it's hard to say we've gotten closer to any answers."

Seb Coe " 'the issue is going to be a synthesis of the conclusion of the criteria' "

Yeah, I'll bet you it is. That and plan B.

Where's the the counter-arguers. I guess that they don't get paid on weekends.

fred wrote:

Seb Coe " 'the issue is going to be a synthesis of the conclusion of the criteria' ".

I initially had no idea what Coe meant by the above, but after consulting various dictionaries and learned people I have come to understand that it means he will let the Russians go to Rio.

Thwnks for the details. Rekrunner keeps this thread interesting and makes some good point but he does have a way of implying that people, particularly Tucker and Ashenden, agree with him when they did not. For example, see his context post after Tucker (if it was him) posted about 20 pages back.

Anyway, all intereting stuff, thanks.

casual obsever wrote:

The WADA "I"C didn't write "someone" of the IAAF council, but wrote explicitly "the IAAF Council could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in athletics and the non-enforcement of applicable anti-doping rules", and we all agree, I hope, that Coe was part of the Council.

Rekrunner, did you see this? You have a habit of not seeing facts posted that challenge your world view.

casual obsever wrote:

As for WADA being vehemently against doping, well. I don't think so. Again, read their statement against criminalization of dopers for example, or go back to the many issues with Saugy, who remains as head of WADAs flagship laboratory.

Thank Craig Reedie's work protecting the federations. Here' s more of his excellent work, blown to bits by Seppelt.

It's like fishing with hand grenades for Seppelt.

There was no way Pound was going to be re-hired to run WADA after he didn't stop the Armstrong sanction.

rjm33 wrote:

Back in the late 90s, I got to pace Paula Radcliffe in a domestic 1500m here in the UK.

Anyway, I was obviously going too slow and got spiked and tripped out at about 500m.

The weirdest thing was I ended up needing stretchered off as my whole calf was pretty badly injured.

What you get for trying to help out.

I have a similar story from 15 years ago when I worked at a clinic in Albuquerque and was asked to give an injection to Paula. I was having a hard time finding a vein and Paula got mad and grabbed the needle and jabbed it into my thigh.

The good news is that it was filled with ostrich blood. I set a 5k PR that weekend.

From Casual's throwback thursday article:

"As for Lewis, who took home the gold after Johnson's disqualification and was the loudest doping opponent of the group? In 2003, documents released by Wade Exum, former director of drug control for the U.S. Olympic Committee, revealed that Lewis had tested positive for the stimulants ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine at the 1988 Olympic trials. The drugs were present in low enough concentrations that only required "further investigation," according to IOC rules at the time. Lewis's explanation at the time was that he had taken a herbal supplement—"I took all kinds of different herbs," he told the Los Angeles Times—and that he didn't get a boost. After initially disqualifying Lewis from the Olympics, the USOC accepted his excuse on appeal and allowed him to compete."

Does this sound like our heroine?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Thank Craig Reedie's work protecting the federations. Here' s more of his excellent work, blown to bits by Seppelt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3207651/WADA-president-Sir-Craig-Reedie-s-comfort-email-Russia-s-senior-drug-buster-reveals-toothless-clampdown-doping.html

In his email on April 30, Sir Craig wrote: ‘On a personal level I value the relationship I have with Minister Mutko and I shall be grateful if you will inform him that there is no intention in WADA to do anything to affect that relationship.’

Coincidence. And distorted fact; cite WADA directly, not a British newspaper.

She's no better than her filthy half blood son Daniel.

Do explain, please.

You're a wizard wrote:

She's no better than her filthy half blood son Daniel.

Quite a lengthy response... Sorry if my responses aren't timely, I'm not looking all that often anymore.

Let's recall for everyone your recent "Fact Check #1" where you told us:

- "The commission found the IAAF president..." and

- "...and note that this comes from Pound".

My only objection, that I called a distortion, is that "Coe" is not the "IAAF Council".

Being a member of the council does not make you the whole council.

The WADA IC identified a group failure, and not an individual failure.

Keep in mind there are two levels of failure:

- The active corruption, committed by a small group of individuals, who are no longer in the IAAF

- The passive organizational failure of an organization to act on knowledge they must have had

It is reasonable to eliminate the active corruption by firing all involved, and yet attempt to correct organizational failures with existing members.

WADA IC clarified this at the Munich Press Conference. Dick Pound repeatedly answered the same question, with responses like "we don't put the organizational failures at the feet of one individual", "I believe if Seb Coe knew of the corruption, he would have done something", and "I believe that Seb Coe did not lie". If the WADA IC, or Dick Pound made any findings about Coe, it was that he was capable of fixing the identified governance issues. The WADA IC, and Dick Pound, was not "protecting" Coe so much as refusing to participate in the witchhunt.

I note here also that despite the finding of failure to act against the IAAF Council, the WADA IC did not recommend replacement of anyone on the IAAF Council, and specifically recommended against dismantling the IAAF completely and starting over.

Regarding "independent committee" your dictionary definition is too broad for this specific context. See here for a better dictionary definition:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/independent-commission

"The definition of an independent commission is a group free from outside or political control that works towards a specific goal for the country, state, etc."

Even if it was formed by WADA employees, the necessary element is that the "independent commission" can execute it's mandate free from outside control.

Your implication that Dick Pound was previously the WADA president, and therefore inherently influenced, is not enough to create a situation of a dependent committee.

And more importantly, in this case here, the WADA IC would be much less influenced or controlled by the IAAF.

I (honestly) wonder what Ross means by "disinterested party" means? What would WADA's one-sided bias be?

1) either to help the IAAF coverup doping violations, or a failure to follow up?

2) or to ensure that the IAAF reasonably did everything in its power to find and prosecute doping violations according to the WADA agenda

I guess if Dick Pound and WADA has any bias or agenda, it's to strengthen anti-doping efforts, and to make WADA more powerful. It's hard for me to imagine WADA letting the IAAF off the hook, if there was strong evidence that athletes were doping that the IAAF overlooked or failed to pursue. Indeed, the WADA IC found enough reasons to fault the IAAF for extortion attempts.

What is WADA and the IAAF's history of collaboration? They worked hand in hand to improve anti-doping. History shows the IAAF played a leading role in developing tests, and pursuing sanctions. The WADA IC's findings consistency reflect this history.

What about criminalizing doping? How could WADA be against that? Would criminalizing doping set the movement forward or backward? If we look at the example of The Prohibition, making alcohol unconstitutional made the alcohol problem much worse. It's also superfluous. Fraud and Trafficking are already crimes. Criminalizing doping would make it harder, and longer, and more costly, to prosecute, and get a conviction. WADA's position is that cheating at a sport should result in sporting sanctions. WADA has also issued a statement respecting any nation's sovereignty to make and enforce their own laws, in addition to WADA's rules and guidelines.

As I said before, the many issues with Saugy and the Lausanne lab seem to be mostly allegations and insinuations. The Lausanne lab is also a demonstrated leading lab, that helped develop/test EPO tests and the ABP. What exactly was Plan B? At the time, the Russian lab was at risk of losing WADA accreditation. This presents a practical problem with an opcoming Sochi Winter Olympics, and another highly qualified lab would need to be prepared to process the large number of tests. I guess this was the Plan B, to have another lab on standby to perform the large number of tests. Maybe the faith in the Lausanne lab was for anti-doping, and not doping coverup.

It's inconsistent to give the WADA IC's opinion of the IAAF and the Nick Davies email (as an example of WADA not being against doping ?!?), and then continute to throw "Coe/IAAF/WADA" in the same "untrusted" category. This should be an argument that at least WADA (or the WADA IC) can be trusted.

But all of this is something the WADA IC did not evaluate. The investigation will come out in detail later.

I would say it the other way, there are some things that they said with which I agree.My whole opinion is largely influenced by some of the papers written, many by Ashenden, about how to get the ABP right. Those are parts in these peer reviewed papers, I agree wholeheartedly with Ashenden. But I disagreed with the Sunday Times portrayal and analysis of the leaked data, ironically for many reasons written by Ashenden/Parisotto themselves.With Ross, I wholeheartedly agree with the part that he wrote at his site, that basically said it could go either way and we need more data (and more context) to carry the discussion forward. I wish I had that gift of brevity.Not sure what you mean by my "context" post, but this is one of the first things I said, way back on page 3 -- Ashenden/Parisotto were never in a position to make certain ABP type conclusions on a spreadsheet alone -- because necessary external information was missing. I didn't know at the time that the database itself was incomplete, missing data points. This makes it even less credible to say things like there were gaps in testing.

Yup yup wrote:

Thwnks for the details. Rekrunner keeps this thread interesting and makes some good point but he does have a way of implying that people, particularly Tucker and Ashenden, agree with him when they did not. For example, see his context post after Tucker (if it was him) posted about 20 pages back.

Anyway, all intereting stuff, thanks.

Yes I saw that. If you add "Coe was not the *whole* IAAF Council" to these facts, then that's exactly my world view, without contradiction.Do you recall way back on page 2, you wrote "The good news here is Seppelt has the data. Ashenden and Parisotto have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like."I asked you what you meant, but you never really answered.Do you still think that's "good news" and that they "have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like"?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

The WADA "I"C didn't write "someone" of the IAAF council, but wrote explicitly "the IAAF Council could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in athletics and the non-enforcement of applicable anti-doping rules", and we all agree, I hope, that Coe was part of the Council.

Rekrunner, did you see this? You have a habit of not seeing facts posted that challenge your world view.

...

Has this article been posted yet?

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/interview-hajo-seppelt-on-how-collusion-in-sport-continues/

This part is good:

It is also understood that WADA fired its Chief Investigator, Jack Robertson, for sharing some of the conclusions of the second Independent Commission report ahead of its publication. Robertson is a former US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent and worked with the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) on its investigation into Lance Armstrong.

“Sir Craig Reedie said that he had retired, which is a lie”, says Seppelt. “As far as I know, he has not retired, he was fired. I cannot comment on the content – I can just say that what they say is not true.”

Seppelt argues that approaching Russia with emails during a period when they are under investigation is a more serious crime than sharing the conclusions of a report with trusted colleagues. “Craig Reedie told me that he doesn’t see any conflict of interests”, he said. “Excuse me? In every big company in the world, if you wear two different hats, people would say that doesn’t work. Why in sport is it any different? You cannot work as a nutritionist and also flip burgers in McDonalds.”

“I get the feeling that they wanted to get rid of him”, continues Seppelt. “If you fire a person who has helped uncover the truth in Russia for such a small mistake…then I don’t understand that. If somebody in WADA writes emails to Russia during a period where you shouldn’t be in touch with them, then I don’t understand how that is different. Jack Robertson is a very trustful and very courageous person. He was doing a lot to clean up sport. He was one of the key people in the major cases over the last couple of years.”

cleans wrote:

fred wrote:

Seb Coe " 'the issue is going to be a synthesis of the conclusion of the criteria' ".

I initially had no idea what Coe meant by the above, but after consulting various dictionaries and learned people I have come to understand that it means he will let the Russians go to Rio.

That was how I understood it also.