Coe to face new questions in British parliament

"good man", as in "good business man", as you yourself said.

Him pleading the fifth (its British equivalent of course) like Paula does indeed not look good. Let's wait for rekrunner to explain why that was however the best option here, and how it proves his innocence.

And yet the best physical evidence we have:- samples collected after her two world records- marginally above sea-level suspicion (two below altitude level, and only one above)- collected under conditions known to inflate off-scores, and create false positivesTherefore you have to turn to interpreting statements made at different times in different contexts, and portray them as contradictory, looking to catch her in a lie. "No case to answer" means there was no investigation necessary and were no questions she needed to answer."The head of the IAAF knows nothing"; "The head of an organization knows nothing about it at any given time." I have thought about it -- these are not very accurate statements.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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.

We don't play the same game by the same rules. "casual obsever" relies highly on evidence which is at best, ambiguous, when he is not interpreting a complete "lack of knowledge" in his favor.My position on Bedford and Coe and the investigation:- If he forwarded the mail to the IAAF Ethics Commission, there is absolutely no story.- For emphasis, if he forwarded the mail to the IAAF Ethics Commission, there is absolutely no story.- The IAAF Ethics Commission came with the right outcome, sanctioning 3 officials for life, one for 5 years, and changing their rules to allow them to conduct further investigations (they were constrained to sanction only the persons named in the original complaint, despite finding more evidence of others).- Unless Bedford actually submitted a complaint to the IAAF Ethics Commission, it would inappropriate to discuss an on-going investigation with him.- That Coe did not reply to Bedford could be considered rude to a friend, or someone he was friendly with, but not necessarily an indication of anything more than "Coe is a busy man".- Receiving a mail with Shobukhova as the subject does not contradict a claim to the UK Parliament that he was not aware of "specific allegations" or the "scale within the IAAF".- It was not Coe's place to initiate his own anti-doping corruption investigation, nor to interfere with an on-going independent investigation. Sending the e-mail to the IAAF Ethics Commission indicates he was aware, and would have good reason to believe, that such claims of IAAF corruption would be thoroughly investigated and dealt with.My position on the UK Parliament Select Committee:- Despite being British MPs, they absolutely have no authority over the IAAF. Nor should they -- imagine Bubka winning and the Ukrainian parliament attempting to interfere. Or Hightower and the US Congress. Or Diack and Senegal.- High and mighty claims of "wilful ignorance" or "extreme lack of curiosity" or "incompetence" from British MPs seem to indicate 20-20 hindsight and an extreme lack of understanding, and are completely out of line if Coe actually forwarded the mail to the committee investigating the complaints, even without opening the mail and/or attachments himself.- Judging by the results so far, the level of questioning, and the lack of direction of their inquiry, and their stated goal, their inquiry is a complete waste of time, and UK taxpayers money. It's only effective purpose so far seems to be to supply fodder for British tabloids, and throw their own UK citizens under the bus. How does the UK Parliament think they can exert any influence, if the end result is that all UK officials decide to, or are forced to leave?- Coe is right to refuse. It's a complete waste of his time, and would be counterproductive to the stated goal of the Select Committee for him to give them one more minute. I wondered if he shouldn't have refused before, considering the non-existent role of the UK Parliament with international organisations. I think he went well out of his way to cooperate before only to be harshly criticised as if he perpetrated the scandal himself, or should have singlehandedly implemented a level of governance that did not exist in the IAAF.I will be surprised if any new facts emerge and I have to change this opinion.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Rekrunner vs Casual Observer who you got?

I'm taking odds.

Gary, there you go spinning again. "No case to answer" simply means that some rule technicalities prevented her old values from being reinvestigated. It says nothing about the suspiciousness of her blood values.

The very reason ukad and iaaf used these technicalities was because of how incredibly suspicious her blood values are--they want to absolutely avoid further investigation for fear of sullying their queen.

rekrunner wrote:

And yet the best physical evidence we have:

- samples collected after her two world records

- marginally above sea-level suspicion (two below altitude level, and only one above)

- collected under conditions known to inflate off-scores, and create false positives

The first point is incorrect, as you had to admit before.

The second point is formally correct, but one should add the enormous increase in Hb by 30%, and that she lied about the race conditions, and that she lied about having been tested "right after", and that the IAAF accepted both her lies in writing.

(I also think that the suspicion levels were arbitrarily chosen too high. See for example Tucker's graph that rjm likes to post.)

The third point is correct for her first two suspicious blood test results (that we know of), but not for the third. That situation could very well have led to a ban, were different scientists chosen (their vote was either 1 : 2 or 2 : 1).

(Considering how the IAAF worked in 2012, they might have simply settled on asking her to retire instead of banning her. Yes, that is an unproven assumption, based on their repeated attempts to avoid scandals e.g. in announcing bans. Not to mention the documented bribes and Saugy's involvement.)

rekrunner wrote:

We don't play the same game by the same rules. "casual obsever" relies highly on evidence which is at best, ambiguous, when he is not interpreting a complete "lack of knowledge" in his favor.

Ambiguous evidence? Such as a 30% increase in Hb, and a couple of documented lies a la 30 C? Or that Coe received an email plus text messages plus a phone call?

Contrast that with your - at best hilarious - statements such as that we a) have the blood test values from Paula's WRs and b) that those are inconspicuous and c) that there is no reason for suspicion in any of Paula's test results.

rekrunner wrote:

- marginally above sea-level suspicion (two below altitude level, and only one above)

This is just completely untrue. On repeated occasions PRs off scores were at or over the 1 in 100 threshold for suspicion of doping even when corrected for altitude. Not corrected for altitude they were at the 1 in 1000 threshold.

Zero credible evidence that supported the excuses for these repeatedly high off scores (or the wild fluctuation in Hb value prior to 2003 WH champs) has been presented only a refusal to provide any more data from the athlete.

Gary. Oooh! There goes my screen and keyboard.What speaks to the lack of suspiciousness are the scientific papers behind the technical rules, and the wider thresholds of suspicion in place at the time.Even now, one year after the "no case" was closed, it would be premature to approach Paula with questions, let alone look for inconsistencies in her answers. And it was always unnecessary -- all of the answers needed to dismiss the allegations can be found by consulting just the papers co-authored by the sufficiently prolific Sunday Times expert, Ashenden.

Provider of Sausage wrote:

Gary, there you go spinning again. "No case to answer" simply means that some rule technicalities prevented her old values from being reinvestigated. It says nothing about the suspiciousness of her blood values.

The very reason ukad and iaaf used these technicalities was because of how incredibly suspicious her blood values are--they want to absolutely avoid further investigation for fear of sullying their queen.

Are we looking at the same picture? I see two below and one above the altitude level of suspicion, like I said. Perhaps you are quibbling over these three values "marginally" above sea-level? "Marginal" seems to me to be more correct than "highly suspicious" when you add the scores of the Russians to the plot.I'm not sure how you are qualified to determine "zero credible evidence". All of the evidence was completely available to WADA, the IAAF, and UKAD, and the excuses are corroborated from scientists like Ashenden. With these papers, we don't need excuses from Paula, nor even a finding from WADA, the IAAF, and UKAD.

not true wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

- marginally above sea-level suspicion (two below altitude level, and only one above)

This is just completely untrue. On repeated occasions PRs off scores were at or over the 1 in 100 threshold for suspicion of doping even when corrected for altitude. Not corrected for altitude they were at the 1 in 1000 threshold.

http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Capture.png

Zero credible evidence that supported the excuses for these repeatedly high off scores (or the wild fluctuation in Hb value prior to 2003 WH champs) has been presented only a refusal to provide any more data from the athlete.

Yes, thanks for some of the examples. I forgot "unreliable". I'm sure I forgot more, but there is no point in making an exhaustive list.But one example, "rjm33" uses "22%" where you use "30%". The pre-race value needs to be confirmed, and is causing this ambiguity, as it was reported two different ways. Furthermore both pre-race and post-race values are subject to a handful of pre-ABP uncertainties, you chose to completely ignore. 30% is simply not real, hiding potentially huge uncertainties, yet you pretend it cannot be questioned and accept it as fact. We don't play by the same rules.The lie of "30 C" is also not as relevant as you chose to believe. We know by consulting science, even at 23 C the conditions of the race she ran will produce an exaggerated off-score at after only 6 minutes, and requires "no less than 2 hours" to "return to pre-exercise values". But you hope to catch her in a lie based on an airport thermometer 30 miles away, knowing she is neither a scientist, nor meteorologist. As if she lied once about one detail, then all of your accusations must therefore be true.Coe receiving an email, plus text, plus a phone call is evidence of Coe receiving an email, plus text, plus a phone call. He was sufficiently aware of Shobukhova's case, having forwarded the mail as evidence for an on-going investigation, but claims he was not aware of the "scale" or "specific allegations" of IAAF involvement until 4 months later. This is not a contradiction, and doesn't seem interesting to pursue, unless he lied about forwarding the mail to an on-going investigation.I never said we had Paula's WR blood test values. I said the Sunday Times had values from 2001-2012, fourteen between 2001-2008. They reportedly reported "all" of the suspicious values they had, in her case three, and all of them occurred afterwards.You can find reasons for suspicion, but there are also many reasons to dismiss these suspicions.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We don't play the same game by the same rules. "casual obsever" relies highly on evidence which is at best, ambiguous, when he is not interpreting a complete "lack of knowledge" in his favor.

Ambiguous evidence? Such as a 30% increase in Hb, and a couple of documented lies a la 30 C? Or that Coe received an email plus text messages plus a phone call?

Contrast that with your - at best hilarious - statements such as that we a) have the blood test values from Paula's WRs and b) that those are inconspicuous and c) that there is no reason for suspicion in any of Paula's test results.

I don't know what you think I admitted before, but all the points are correct as I wrote them.- All of the samples that have been identified as suspicious to date (even adding the fourth "pre-race" sample) occurred after the world records.- Whatever lies you think the IAAF accepted, what we know today, independent of Paula and the IAAF, about the race conditions and testing "right after", is still "a condition known to inflate off-scores, and create false positives".- "Altitude" is "a condition known to inflate off-scores, and create false positives". The vote could have been 3:0 for no adverse finding, once they saw 2400m.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't know what you think I admitted before, but all the points are correct as I wrote them.

You admitted before that we don't know anything about the samples after Paula's records. Why do you bring them up again?

rekrunner wrote:

- Whatever lies you think the IAAF accepted

Oh please. Now you pretend that for example they didn't go with Paula's lie about the temperature? They explicitly yet falsely state "29C" in their lengthy response.

You have admitted that too before, but pretended that lie to be irrelevant. But alas, why the lie? And why accept it?

Oh, wait. Coincidence, right?

rekrunner wrote:

The vote could have been 3:0 for no adverse finding, once they saw 2400m.

But it was not, even Paula said so ("only one expert....").

A great overview and summary. Very well chosen and accurate words.

How come when you get caught in a lie, you call it an "an erroneous statement"? Shouldn't we hold you to the same standard you hold Paula?Go re-read what I wrote. I didn't bring up samples we *DON'T* know about. I talked about the best physical evidence we *DO* have. I brought up samples we *DO* know about. This is what I meant before by you considering "lack of knowledge" a strength. We don't play by the same rules. I talk about what we *DO* know, and you interpret what we *DON'T* know in your favor.Go re-read what I wrote. We actually don't need to accept "29C" from Paula or the IAAF (didn't you just say 30C? Another "erroneous statement" from you?) Anyone can pick up a science book, a few published papers, look up the historical temperature, and they should also see that blood collected in less than two hours after 67 minutes of strenuous exercise, even in 23 C, will give a falsely elevated off-score, increasing the chance of a false positive. This is why Paula's "erroneous 29C" is irrelevant, because even 23C leads to the same conclusion. We don't play by the same rules. Rather than straightforward apply the science, you nitpick, looking for lies in details that make no difference to the outcome.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don't know what you think I admitted before, but all the points are correct as I wrote them.

You admitted before that we don't know anything about the samples after Paula's records. Why do you bring them up again?

rekrunner wrote:

- Whatever lies you think the IAAF accepted

Oh please. Now you pretend that for example they didn't go with Paula's lie about the temperature? They explicitly yet falsely state "29C" in their lengthy response.

You have admitted that too before, but pretended that lie to be irrelevant. But alas, why the lie? And why accept it?

Oh, wait. Coincidence, right?

rekrunner wrote:

The vote could have been 3:0 for no adverse finding, once they saw 2400m.

But it was not, even Paula said so ("only one expert....").

Thanks.

Deanouk wrote:

A great overview and summary. Very well chosen and accurate words.

This seems typical of the public relations thrashing Coe is taking:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/sebastian-coe-select-committee-questions-snub-athletics-corruption-scandal-drugs-cheats-a7521876.html

Regardless of whether you think the committee has jurisdiction and should investigate or whether Coe really hasn't done something wrong, his refusal to appear and answer questions is not doing himself or the cause of reform any good. It can be described, at best, of being tone-deaf.

rekrunner wrote:

How come when you get caught in a lie, you call it an "an erroneous statement"? Shouldn't we hold you to the same standard you hold Paula?

Go re-read what I wrote. I didn't bring up samples we *DON'T* know about.

Oh please. Just stop it. Your trolling is way too boring.

You wrote in the Paula thread last year:

"Fact: Paula set two world records 2:17 and 2:15, with normal blood levels, that wouldn't even raise a yellow flag with today's ABP."

Don't believe it? Was it one of your secondary handles who brought "up samples we *DON'T* know about"? Evidence here:

You were just making stuff up as per usual, without evidence, as per usual. And now again, e.g., calling my erroneous statement a lie, naturally again without evidence. Indeed, we don't "play" by the same rules. You troll, I don't.

What's the evidence for Paula's false statement to be a lie? That she kept repeating it for several months, despite having been corrected several times. Yet you never called it a lie.

I on the other hand admitted my error on the same day. And apologized for it. As soon it was pointed out. Never repeated it. Yet you call it a lie. And then you accuse me of a double standard?

As for the 23 C/29 C/30 C. That is important because IAAF's acceptance of Paula's false claim demonstrates that the IAAF is still not interested in the truth, but in protecting Paula, and by extension themselves. This undermines the trust one might boldly and optimistically place in the IAAF after Diack's departure.

That is furthermore important because it validates a comparison with the studies Professor Tucker referred to. None of them showed such an increase in Hb, despite of what you say can be found in textbooks:

Case 1 (women running for 80 minutes at 21 C):

"Note both the hematocrit and hemoglobin values – they actually go DOWN, not up. "

Case 2 (men running for 150 - 180 minutes at 22 C):

"So, on average, losing 4% of your body mass increases the hemoglobin concentration by 1.6 g/dL. The most extreme case (of this admittedly small group of six) increased hemoglobin concentration by 2.2 g/dL (Subject 3). Similarly, hematocrit increases by 1.6%, with a maximum increase of 3.2% (Subject 4)."

Note, again, that these are measurements, i.e. the effects of the plasma shift are included. Note also that Paula's data were obtained some 60 - 90 minutes after the race, i.e. the dehydration effect was already partially gone.

As for the 22% vs. 30% increase as discussed before: the 2.8 g/dL (thus 22%, which rjm and Tucker used) come from Paula's statement, but the 30% comes from using her data published in her bio.

As for your 29 C vs. 30 C: that is not my error. Paula claimed originally 30 C (see for example Tucker, or her statement in the Guardian, or wejo's report?), and then the IAAF reported, also in writing, that Paula said 29 C. Why would you possibly think that that could be my error? Try to hide your trolling a bit, ok?

Finally, I wish you would remember that altitude was ruled out as a factor for her first two cases that we know of. So please, remember to compare these values to the sea-level-threshold.

(Again, the above citations can be found here:

)

So, Coe has apparently realized how tone-deaf and what a public relations nightmare his refusal to testify has become. Says he is now willing to come, but appears to be wanting to limit the areas of questioning:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4135650/Lord-Coe-ready-evidence-Westminster.html

Did Coe "refuse to testify"? It looks like, from the article, Coe actually never said he would not answer more questions.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

So, Coe has apparently realized how tone-deaf and what a public relations nightmare his refusal to testify has become. Says he is now willing to come, but appears to be wanting to limit the areas of questioning:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4135650/Lord-Coe-ready-evidence-Westminster.html