Of course he knew nothing of corruption at the IAAF:
Of course he knew nothing of corruption at the IAAF:
Since 1978 or 1979, Coe has been a presence on the track, in the legislative chambers, in the back rooms, and in the corporate board rooms.It does seem a little odd that, like Sargent Schultz, he knows nothing ... nothing.
LtM wrote:
Since 1978 or 1979, Coe has been a presence on the track, in the legislative chambers, in the back rooms, and in the corporate board rooms.It does seem a little odd that, like Sargent Schultz, he knows nothing ... nothing.
He knows nothing about corruption in FIFA either.
Lord Coe has explained the situation very clearly. He received an email from Dave Bedford, apparently alerting Coe to the existence of corruption in Russian Athletics. Rather than read the email, Lord Coe forwarded it to the IAAF Ethics committee without opening it. As has been explained by his spokesperson, the worst they can accuse him of is being incurious. He's not guilty of misleading the committee about his knowledge of the corruption because, as he claims, he doesn't read the information people provide him on the subject.
Clearly it's time to move on--nothing to see here.
I nominate Jama Aden to head the IAAF Ethics Committe.
Jive Turqy wrote:
Lord Coe has explained the situation very clearly. He received an email from Dave Bedford, apparently alerting Coe to the existence of corruption in Russian Athletics. Rather than read the email, Lord Coe forwarded it to the IAAF Ethics committee without opening it. As has been explained by his spokesperson, the worst they can accuse him of is being incurious. He's not guilty of misleading the committee about his knowledge of the corruption because, as he claims, he doesn't read the information people provide him on the subject.
Clearly it's time to move on--nothing to see here.
Exactly.
Wait a minute.
Lord Sebastian Coe knows nothing again?
Lord Coe sees no evil.
Lord Coe hears no evil.
Lord Coe speaks no evil.
http://eightlane.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Seb-Coe-and-Paula-Radcliffe.jpghttp://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2007+World+Athletics+Gala+bVvZN8YHBSjx.jpghttp://i4.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article6915888.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/PaulaMain.jpghttp://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Capture-400x256.pnghttp://1gr.cz/fotky/idnes/16/012/cl6/TEN609f8d_5d9827989ce9440f823409972d04c9f9_0.jpgThis is a plausible explanation (for rekrunner).
So what do we have here exactly?Despite the big words from British MP Jesse Norman, the British Parliament has no effective role. None of the international sporting or anti-doping organisations are subject to a British Parliament select committee.In August 2014, when Bedford sent the email to Coe, the extortion of Liliya Shobukhova was already four months into an investigation by the IAAF Ethics Commission. The proper thing for Coe to do would be to forward the email to the IAAF Ethics Commission -- which he did. It would have been inappropriate for Coe to do more, and risk interfering with an on-going investigation.It's not clear from the Daily Mail article, that the email about "the extortion of Russian marathon star Liliya Shobukhova" mentioned the IAAF's role in the extortion. The Shobukhovas did not know who received the money.
rjm33 wrote:
Jive Turqy wrote:Lord Coe has explained the situation very clearly. He received an email from Dave Bedford, apparently alerting Coe to the existence of corruption in Russian Athletics. Rather than read the email, Lord Coe forwarded it to the IAAF Ethics committee without opening it. As has been explained by his spokesperson, the worst they can accuse him of is being incurious. He's not guilty of misleading the committee about his knowledge of the corruption because, as he claims, he doesn't read the information people provide him on the subject.
Clearly it's time to move on--nothing to see here.
Exactly.
Wait a minute.
Lord Sebastian Coe knows nothing again?
Lord Coe sees no evil.
Lord Coe hears no evil.
Lord Coe speaks no evil.
...
This is a plausible explanation (for rekrunner).
rekrunner wrote:
The proper thing for Coe to do would be to forward the email to the IAAF Ethics Commission -- which he did. It would have been inappropriate for Coe to do more, and risk interfering with an on-going investigation.
Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been inappropriate for him to read the email directly addressed to him?
I consider it inappropriate to forward emails without reading them.
LtM wrote:
Since 1978 or 1979, Coe has been a presence on the track, in the legislative chambers, in the back rooms, and in the corporate board rooms.It does seem a little odd that, like Sargent Schultz, he knows nothing ... nothing.
Correct. Facts: he was a star athlete in a Cold War country when doping was state philosophy in the Cold War countries, and then he was a long-time politician and official and PR guy. This is also why he fights so hard against transparency, as for example evident from the Paula case.
He will never see anything wrong when seeing doping.
Of course he can open and read his emails.I'm suggesting opening and reading this e-mail is not "more" than forwarding it to the IAAF Ethics Commission already investigating the subject of the email. It's a qualitative suggestion, not quantitative.Apparently he had read enough to decide to forward it to the appropriate organization in the IAAF.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:The proper thing for Coe to do would be to forward the email to the IAAF Ethics Commission -- which he did. It would have been inappropriate for Coe to do more, and risk interfering with an on-going investigation.
Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been inappropriate for him to read the email directly addressed to him?
I consider it inappropriate to forward emails without reading them.
But he has claimed that he wasn't aware of the content of this email. This is one of the many occasions where I don't believe him.
Coe was a star athlete in a "Cold War country when doping was state philosophy"?In Paula's case, lacking a finding of a "case to answer", it would be highly inappropriate to share her data with the public, without her prior permission.
casual obsever wrote:
LtM wrote:Since 1978 or 1979, Coe has been a presence on the track, in the legislative chambers, in the back rooms, and in the corporate board rooms.It does seem a little odd that, like Sargent Schultz, he knows nothing ... nothing.
Correct. Facts: he was a star athlete in a Cold War country when doping was state philosophy in the Cold War countries, and then he was a long-time politician and official and PR guy. This is also why he fights so hard against transparency, as for example evident from the Paula case.
He will never see anything wrong when seeing doping.
Reading the subject line would be enough.
casual obsever wrote:
But he has claimed that he wasn't aware of the content of this email. This is one of the many occasions where I don't believe him.
rekrunner wrote:
Coe was a star athlete in a "Cold War country when doping was state philosophy"?
Yes. Where you born yesterday?
rekrunner wrote:
In Paula's case, lacking a finding of a "case to answer", it would be highly inappropriate to share her data with the public, without her prior permission.
Yes. But supporting a previously pro-transparency athlete in her newly found anti-transparency stance reeks of anti-transparency. And personal bias, but that was already evident before that IAAF "investigation", i.e. when he declared her to be innocent prior to said "investigation".
This was already investigated once.
Of course Coe said he knew nothing and didn't even need to read the email to find out what was in it and forward it along to the appropriate authorities.
I did not find that "explanation" very credible. Neither did numerous MPs. Several of them all but accused Coe of perjury (taking into account Britain's very harsh laws on such things, the calls were muted but unmistakable).
The new development is that they are going to call Dave Bedford again. They are going to ask him more questions and get more answer to potentially call Lord Coe again.
No, I was born more than 50 years ago.Coe was born in London, and was a UK athlete. Technically, UK was a "Cold War" country. Doping was an "East German" state philosophy. Was doping ever found to be a UK state philosophy? Your statements seem highly misleading. I'm not sure what connection between doping and the cold war you see.Non-transparency is her right. Paula made pro-transparency statements before she learned that the data can be unreliable for many non-doping reasons, and that the public would not understand that.When you look at the public data, and the state of the art of anti-doping at that time, and the known pitfalls, and the inability to use that data to make a guilty finding, Coe's "innocent" declaration doesn't require any bias.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Coe was a star athlete in a "Cold War country when doping was state philosophy"?
Yes. Where you born yesterday?
rekrunner wrote:
In Paula's case, lacking a finding of a "case to answer", it would be highly inappropriate to share her data with the public, without her prior permission.
Yes. But supporting a previously pro-transparency athlete in her newly found anti-transparency stance reeks of anti-transparency. And personal bias, but that was already evident before that IAAF "investigation", i.e. when he declared her to be innocent prior to said "investigation".
rekrunner wrote:
Non-transparency is her right. Paula made pro-transparency statements before she learned that the data can be unreliable for many non-doping reasons, and that the public would not understand that.
Ugh. Here we go again. Spin us another of MOST COMPLEX denial strung together with plausible, but false, claims.
Paula was a doper. It's clear from her own broken excuses and conflicting claims she doped. How EXACTLY did she dope? It's not known.
The head of the IAAF knows nothing. Think about that for a minute. The head of an organization knows nothing about it at any given time. He knew nothing at FIFA either. Sure, makes sense.
Totally agree.
Unfortunately there are several posters on here who want to se Coe fail. Never mind all the good work he has done and sticking to his guns re banning Russia, something the IOC didn't have the balls to do.
If he was so corrupt then why take the hard stance against Russia, resulting in death threats to him and his family? If he hadn't banned them he'd be damned and criticised, and by banning them he is still being damned. He can't win.
As D. Pound stated at the time, Coe is the best man to deal with the situation.
rekrunner wrote:
No, I was born more than 50 years ago.
Coe was born in London, and was a UK athlete. Technically, UK was a "Cold War" country. Doping was an "East German" state philosophy. Was doping ever found to be a UK state philosophy? Your statements seem highly misleading. I'm not sure what connection between doping and the cold war you see.
Don't tell me you fell for the "we good - they bad" propaganda. State support for doping was proven to have occurred on both sides, including East and West Germany, Russia, the US etc. etc. That was normal back then, and you know it.
rekrunner wrote:
Non-transparency is her right.
...
Coe's "innocent" declaration doesn't require any bias.
In theory, yes. In this case however, we are talking about the hear-nothing-know-nothing Coe, who allegedly knew nothing about the bribes, corruption, and destroyed samples. By definition then, he could not have known the involvement, or lack thereof, of Paula's, before that case was properly investigated. But by declaring her innocent, as IAAF President, he all but ordered his subordinates to correspondingly give their investigation a certain direction.
Note also that Paula herself uses different excuses for her newly found fight for non-transparency than you do... none of them making any sense in my humble opinion.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures