Lamine Diack goes down- going to prison for 2 years

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The corruption started in 2011 with Russia:

"According to French prosecutors, the "full protection" scheme was first suggested by Lamine Diack at a meeting with the then Russian sports minister, Vitaly Mutko, in November 2011."

Unlikely that they weren't corrupt before 2011, when the "full protection" started. For example, they are also being investigated for bribes for Rio, which got the Olympics in 2009.

Maybe the Diack's were corrupt in other ways not involving doping and coverups before 2011.

But before we hop to other unrelated allegations, perhaps after this important milestone, it's worth pausing to update the scorecard with respect to which of the wide range of allegations from 2014-2015, and subsequently, failed to survive the scrutiny of various detailed investigations: an IAAF Ethics Commission investigation, The WADA-IC investigation, British Parliamentary Inquiry, and the French criminal courts.

Specifically, the IAAF were the targets of many allegations of inaction, coverups, bribery, and extortion. With the benefit if hindsight, and the powers of the resources of the criminal courts, the judges awarded the IAAF "€16m for embezzled funds and for reputational damage suffered as a direct consequence of these crimes and the resulting media coverage" arising from the actions of this small band of actors.

This is inline with the WADA-IC's near complete (if not complete) rejection of the conclusions of the Australian "experts" with respect to the IAAF's lack of action, and the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation which banned some of the very same small band of rogue actors for life.

rekrunner wrote:

This is inline with the WADA-IC's near complete (if not complete) rejection of the conclusions of the Australian "experts" with respect to the IAAF's lack of action, and the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation which banned some of the very same small band of rogue actors for life.

Seriously? You are trolling with ""experts"" and "very small band of rogue actors" again?

1) They are experts, not "experts", check their cv; and 2) your "very small band of rogue actors" included the IAAF's president, its medical and anti-doping director, its treasurer, its head of communications, one of its top consultants, and so on. Last but not least, even WADA's committee had to admit that the IAAF Council was of course involved as well.

3) You are off topic with respect to the Australian experts and the IAAF's lack of action. But, thank you for reminding us.

rekrunner wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Diack’s net effect on t&f was negative. Ditto his son.

At least we got one of them.

Never forget: Diack = Bolt

In terms of ill-gotten gains, Diack, etc pale in comparison to Dolt.

What a travesty, but it went way beyond Diack—others in IAAF and its orbit, others in national governing bodies, coaches, individual athletes, and the IOC.

It’s an almost complete sh!tshow as far as the very top athletes and competitions are concerned, and it is ALL about money.

Can you offer any details of substance?

no

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This is inline with the WADA-IC's near complete (if not complete) rejection of the conclusions of the Australian "experts" with respect to the IAAF's lack of action, and the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation which banned some of the very same small band of rogue actors for life.

Seriously? You are trolling with ""experts"" and "very small band of rogue actors" again?

1) They are experts, not "experts", check their cv; and 2) your "very small band of rogue actors" included the IAAF's president, its medical and anti-doping director, its treasurer, its head of communications, one of its top consultants, and so on. Last but not least, even WADA's committee had to admit that the IAAF Council was of course involved as well.

3) You are off topic with respect to the Australian experts and the IAAF's lack of action. But, thank you for reminding us.

It is a serious topic, and they were serious allegations. Regarding the Australian "experts", don't confuse expertise in one-field with expertise in all fields.

1) They are indeed experts in a field, but were paid to offer opinions and conclusions that wandered outside their field of expertise, and sometimes in contradiction of previously published opinions. These opinions were rejected by the WADA IC.

It's misleading to suggest that the head of communications was involved in anything more than being untruthful to the IAAF Ethics Commission.

Similarly, the IAAF Council was faulted, in a weakly worded double-negative stated opinion, for not getting involved in doping enforcement, rather than being involved in any of the corruption.

2) (sic)

3) Off-topic? Seems like the criminal convictions of this small band of rogue actors acting within a parallel, "unofficial" organization, and the award of significant compensation by the criminal court to the "official" IAAF organization, for damaged reputation caused by this group acting outside the auspices of the IAAF, overlaps and re-affirms WADA's finding that i) the Australian "experts" were wrong, when arriving at conclusions against the IAAF, based on incomplete information, and/or outside their field of expertise and/or contradictory to previously stated positions/opinions, and ii) that the IAAF was far from complacent, and acted reasonable to identify suspicious athletes and follow up on suspicious tests, with no obvious pattern of cover-up before 2009.

I was asked the same question when I first called out Diack, before it all blew up, and was roundly criticized for having “had nothing”—and yet here I am, right again.

Again.

There is a lot. It’s not up to me to make any kind of case here, for your benefit. These things have a process, that doesn’t include letsrun. I will say that it is almost certain that Dolt will remain untouched. Diack was nothing, Dolt was everything for a decade. Everything. Right now, he IS the central pillar of all of track and field, like it or not.

Nobody else matters, even Mo pales in comparison.

DOLT IS BIGGER THAN ALL THE REST OF T&F PUT TOGETHER.

He is the king, a god on earth. Even I sense that maybe he should not be disturbed.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I was asked the same question when I first called out Diack, before it all blew up, and was roundly criticized for having “had nothing”—and yet here I am, right again.

Again.

There is a lot. It’s not up to me to make any kind of case here, for your benefit. These things have a process, that doesn’t include letsrun. I will say that it is almost certain that Dolt will remain untouched. Diack was nothing, Dolt was everything for a decade. Everything. Right now, he IS the central pillar of all of track and field, like it or not.

Nobody else matters, even Mo pales in comparison.

DOLT IS BIGGER THAN ALL THE REST OF T&F PUT TOGETHER.

He is the king, a god on earth. Even I sense that maybe he should not be disturbed.

It's easy for anyone to be right once in a while, without necessarily possessing any real insight.

No question that Bolt has been the biggest thing in track and field in the last decade or so, and that Mo is a whiter shade of pale by comparison.

It makes sense that Bolt remains untouched, if there is no reason to touch him.

Nice try.

Down goes Diack!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Nice try.

Down goes Diack!

Fair enough.

I guess we can just "forget: Diack = Bolt" then.

It doesn’t matter to me what you do, rek.

It really doesn’t.

**************

Unfortunately this is more or less the end of the current trail, maybe a few loose threads. We have to think now about what we have left, and for what level of fight it is worth.

I suspect that things will slip into the abyss, which is why even though this has been a noble battle, I want nothing to do with pro track. We may have won this battle, but the war was lost a great many years ago.

To the victor go the spoils—and they can have them. I have moved on.

what on earth are you babbling about you disturbed shyster?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

It doesn’t matter to me what you do, rek.

It really doesn’t.

Likewise.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Unfortunately this is more or less the end of the current trail, maybe a few loose threads. We have to think now about what we have left, and for what level of fight it is worth.

I suspect that things will slip into the abyss, which is why even though this has been a noble battle, I want nothing to do with pro track. We may have won this battle, but the war was lost a great many years ago.

To the victor go the spoils—and they can have them. I have moved on.

But you haven't moved on from letsrun.

rekrunner wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

It doesn’t matter to me what you do, rek.

It really doesn’t.

Likewise.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Unfortunately this is more or less the end of the current trail, maybe a few loose threads. We have to think now about what we have left, and for what level of fight it is worth.

I suspect that things will slip into the abyss, which is why even though this has been a noble battle, I want nothing to do with pro track. We may have won this battle, but the war was lost a great many years ago.

To the victor go the spoils—and they can have them. I have moved on.

But you haven't moved on from letsrun.

rekt

Os letsrun pro track?

Next.

*Is

Sprintgeezer wrote:

(I)s letsrun pro track?

Next.

Precisely. You are here, in a non-pro track setting, offering nothing of real substance.

As you can see above, a few people asked what you mean, because, quite frankly, no one understands what "Never forget: Diack = Bolt" means, particularly when you clarified that Bolt must be much greater than Diack, because Bolt "is everything", while Diack "was nothing". Looks like even you forgot they were equal. If you don't listen to yourself, then we shouldn't either.

Or is this some weird philosophical "everything is nothing and nothing is everything" conundrum?

You said it's not up to you to make a case, but it doesn't matter to anyone else here whether you won't make a case, or can't make a case.

Maybe 10 years later, you will post as "senile-geezer" and tell a new group "10 years ago, they said this, and I was right -- again", I guess because you need that kind of self-reinforcement, and I will ask myself -- right about what? What did you even mean? That's where we are now, here at letsrun.

?

you must be in prison and he was your shyster

?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Surprised Kenya was not mentioned must have been some bungs there.

Surprised Coe was not mentioned, Mr. ukprotecteddoperscoach.

mr. nice guy wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Likewise.

But you haven't moved on from letsrun.

rekt

+1

Rek, are you always this obtuse?