Wrong. The suspicions are proven, that e.g. Paula doped is not proven.
There are huge differences between suspicion/evidence/proof. This goes in steps. I'll demonstrate this with the most recent example, Aden:
1) Suspicion that Aden doped his athletes:
e.g., outlandish performances from G Dibaba. Those are proven.
2) Evidence for that Aden doped his athletes:
e.g. convicted drug cheat Driouch, his statement, EPO found in the block of rooms rented by Aden for his team. All proven.
3) Proof for Aden doping his athletes: not demonstrated, yet, correct.
So for you to state that "there is no reason for suspicion" is plainly absurd, when like in this case the evidence is officially documented.
Wrong again. He lobbied, as IAAF Vice-President, to his "spiritual leader" and old buddy, the IAAF President, on behalf of Nike, and then later denied it.
As for common policies, read and weep:
Stanford University Policy:
“a conflict of interest occurs when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests and his or her professional obligations to the University such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual’s professional actions or decisions are determined by considerations of personal financial gain.â€
See? No proof required, and "an independent observer" could be the judge.
NSF, employee manual:
“What is a conflict of interests? A conflict of interests is a clash between an official's concern for the public interest and his or her private interests or allegiances. “
So there. They go beyond "personal financial gain".
Read on in the employee manual for examples of conflict of interest:
“(1) You might use your government position to further your personal interests, in conflict with the public interest.
(2) Outside affiliations or relationships could affect the objectivity of your judgments as a public official.
(3) Gifts or favors from those interested in agency decisions could affect the objectivity or integrity of your contribution to those decisions.â€
And last but not least:
"Conflicts that require prohibition or disqualification.
...If a proposal from a member of your family or from your home institution comes into your program, for instance, you would clearly have to disqualify yourself from handling it.
"home institution" - see how that goes? For example, someone from Stanford cannot review a proposal from anyone else from Stanford, even if he doesn't know him.