Clerk,Did we ever "hash" the IAAF Ethics Commission?With respect to the IAAF anti-doping, it makes sense to distinguish between:1) The Russian (and other) briberies organized by a handful of handpicked associates outside the normal structure2) The rest of the anti-doping organizationThere were clearly problems with 1) casting a dark shadow on 2), but the rest of the anti-doping organization, beneath Dolle, timely recommended Russian sanctions, and repeatedly pressed to have sanctions imposed when there were long delays. Most of the anti-doping IAAF did their job, and kept doing their job, only to be undermined and let down by their leadership (Dolle and Diack).With respect two 2), the IAAF was all the things Coe says they were, and you say they weren't. This is not only my opinion. The WADA IC supports Coe when finding the IAAF anti-doping effort was "thorough and reasonable" and "extremely active". From the Daily Mail:"The independent commission's (IC) report did clear the IAAF over its handling of suspicious blood tests, ...'Follow-up activities in the face of suspicious values have generally been thorough and reasonable in the circumstances.'The IC does not endorse suggestions that the IAAF has not been sufficiently active in relation to EPO testing from the outset of a reliable test for EPO. While nothing is perfect, the IAAF has been extremely active in this aspect of the fight against doping in sport.'"So if we assume Coe was unaware of 1), (which I'm well aware many of you don't) then his comments are correct regarding the longtime efforts of 2).I don't want to argue this point further, as recent history suggests the difference is irreconcilable from the start, but would rather ask a question: If you think, that the IAAF was not the leader, or not in the top 2, in advancing the fight against doping (i.e. aggressive detection, enforcement, and new research), which anti-doping organizations have done more than the IAAF? How? I see both the UCI and the IAAF as both leaders in anti-doping, while both having recent checkered histories.With respect to the pre-ABP blood data, another brief recap:1) The primary goal was to serve as a cheap marker for doping, to achieve effective urine testing with lower costs2) The large blood database also served as a valuable resource for the ABP. It is precisely the errors observed "in the field" with 2001-2008 data, that make it both "just don't count", and provided the lessons learned that led to the 2007 and 2009 rule changes that enable a more "robust" ABP program. This robustness doesn't happen without the IAAF's blood data.3) It is misleading to call it "old" BioPassport data -- or to treat this data at all as part of an ABP program that did not exist. It was not collected for that purpose, and was not suitable for an ABP type profile analysis.Regarding your "rehash":- Maybe you are mixing up the Stepanovs with the Shobukhovas (you spelled it correctly). Quite the opposite, the Shobukhovas had complete and immediate and direct access to the official platform of the IAAF. They were the chief whistleblowers for the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation, an 18 month investigation that preceded the airing of the ARD documentary (featuring the Stepanovs) by 8 months. It was the Shobukhova's full cooperation which led to the reduction of her ban, and the lifetime bans of Papa Massata Diack, Valentin Balakhnichev, Alexei Melnikov, and a 5 year ban for Gabriel Dolle. Note that three of these four are "non-IAAF" bad guys. The Stepanovs actually went to WADA, and WADA redirected them to the ARD/Hajo Seppelt.- I'm extremely unimpressed with the media's role, especially the UK media. It's not that I generally object to the role of the media, but specifically they did a poor job here. The UK seem to harshly criticize their own for its own sake. They've sensationalized, and misled the public in several ways. After a thorough investigation by the WADA IC, many of the accusations and implications were simply found wrong.- The scientists were also wrong about a few things. They accused the IAAF of complacency. The WADA IC did not "endorse (these) suggestions". They wanted the IAAF to ban athletes, not according to ABP type profile anomalies, but on the strength of extreme values alone, as "compelling evidence", if I'm not mistaken. Either way, this ideal stance would have been unenforceable, and an ineffective use of limited anti-doping funds, setting back the anti-doping effort even further.- Coe decreased the testing?- Which members of the Ethics Commission are ethically dubious? Here is the initial list from Jan 2014: Michael BELOFF (GBR) – Chairperson, Kevan GOSPER, (AUS),Akira KAWAMURA (JPN), Thomas MURRAY (USA), Tafsir Malick NDIAYE (SEN), Carlos NUZMAN (BRA), Lauri TARASTI (FIN)Again, contrary to your assertion of no action, one of their first actions was the investigation of a complaint from Sean Wallace on behalf of Andrey Baranov (Shobukhova's agent), that led to the previously mentioned sanctions. After a rule change that loosened restrictions on triggering new investigations, they have initiated a followup investigation of Lamine Diack (who wasn't named in the original complaint). None of this was triggered by ARD or Seppelt or the Sunday Times or the French criminal investigations. Another "not nothing" action taken is that they have provisionally suspended Kenyan officials Mr Isaiah Kiplagat, Mr David Okeyo and Mr Joseph Kinyua pending investigations.- What do you mean by "chose to willfully ignore the "old" BioPassport data as part of the panel's consideration"? Consideration of what? The pre-ABP blood samples are not bio-passport data, and not suitable or enforceable as such. It would be correct to ignore it for that purpose. And the data was not ignored, let alone willfully. The IAAF have used the data to lengthen sanctions found from enforceable data, and to optimize target testing of "problem" countries.- Corruption? The Lausanne lab has not been found, or not even been accused, of corruption. In any case it would be up to WADA to discipline the lab and it hasn't done so and doesn't seem about to. So long as the lab retains its WADA certification, the IAAF should be able to send samples to WADA certified labs.