Coe is INHUMANE AND UNSPORTSMANLIKE, says Renaldo Nehemiah (110h), agent for Gatlin

Really not fair wrote:

“I take offence to, with all respect, Lord Coe,” he told the BBC.

“I don’t condone doping but Justin Gatlin is not the poster child for it.

“He’s done his time, he plays by the rules, the IAAF reinstated him. They said if you come back we should accept that.

“So to put a narrative out that it’s just Justin Gatlin and he’s the bad guy, it’s really not fair.

“It’s inhumane. It’s unsportsmanlike.”

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/40858219

Really!!! It's "inhumane. It's unsportsmanlike" WTF!!!!!!

Yes, he did his time and yes we HAVE to accept that but we DON'T have to agree with it.

Message to Skeets Nehemiah....."Your boy is a cheater and will always be a cheater......PERIOD". He committed the most unsportsmanlike act any athlete could ever commit. You don't just walk away from that. How about all of the athletes he competed against while dirty in which he stole their prize money and or appearance fees? Bonus money? Shoe contract money? I'm sure there are a few sprinters out there who worked their butts off trying to train and race clean and couldn't get a lane to race in because of Mr. Gatlin.

Enjoy your Gold Medal Justin and enjoy your 10% commission Mr. Nehemiah but always know that there will always be a big asterisk next to your name and ALL of your performances.

Give me an effin break - Gatlin was a 10.08 / 20.29 guy in 2001 at age 19 before he ever met Trevor Graham. See

for his IAAF profile.

Is this a good time to point out that the massage therapist who allegedly "sabotaged Gatlin was later severely beaten up by someone who HAS been identified yet somehow never was charged with a crime?

Who Do They Think wrote:

Is this a good time to point out that the massage therapist who allegedly "sabotaged Gatlin was later severely beaten up by someone who HAS been identified yet somehow never was charged with a crime?

And last I knew Mr Starks still worked for Nike. Quite the world we live in. Fun fact - I happened to be sitting in the cheap seats on the backstretch near the LJ pit when Starks' leg exploded. At the time I thought it blew up on landing - only learned it blew up on takeoff (from the gruesome pic) in the last year or so.

All He Does Is Win wrote:

trails for life wrote:

Wrong. There are several athletes there who have served bans, but only Justin got booed. The fans have been coached by media to focus it all on Gatlin. If they truly hated dopers, they'd be booing everybody who has a violation.

They don't know. They are casuals who go because it's an event.

Exactly. I don't know all the dopers in cycling, so.... yay Lance? No.

Gatlin defenders ask yourself what if Ben Johnson had come back and won in 1992 with no positives. You. Would. Have. Booed. Admit it. It's the 100 meters, it's a big deal.

h@ters > hypocrites wrote:

The first "doping offense" was ridiculous. But it expanded Gatlin's reserves of PURE HATE to unimaginable levels. 16 years later he emptied those reserves on Coe and the poofters.

Shouldn't he be running the 800 in that case?

Bad Wigins wrote:

All He Does Is Win wrote:

They don't know. They are casuals who go because it's an event.

Exactly. I don't know all the dopers in cycling, so.... yay Lance? No.

Gatlin defenders ask yourself what if Ben Johnson had come back and won in 1992 with no positives. You. Would. Have. Booed. Admit it. It's the 100 meters, it's a big deal.

Perhaps, but the equivalent would be Johnson isn't busted in 88, continues to run well through 1990 when he is suddenly popped in strange circumstances at an early season meet, receives a four-year ban that's intended to end his career, gradually starts working his way back in 1994, and without being busted again, wins a medal in 96, wins another medal in 00, then wins gold in 01. And yes, I'd have been a fan of that Johnson comeback.

Bad Wigins wrote:

[quote]All He Does Is Win wrote:

Exactly. I don't know all the dopers in cycling, so.... yay Lance? No.

Gatlin defenders ask yourself what if Ben Johnson had come back and won in 1992 with no positives. You. Would. Have. Booed. Admit it. It's the 100 meters, it's a big deal.

Had Ben Johnson returned clean, no I would not have booed. Why? If the rules allow for an athlete to redeem themselves after serving a suspension, so be it.

What Coe did, as President of the IAAF was a douche bag move, he showed lots if BIAS, he's a douche. What the Brits showed by booing, lack of class and being sore losers, douche bags too. As another commentator said earlier, nobody booed Justin when he got bronze and silver a few times after his ban, which are still coveted medals for any athlete. Enough said.

Bad Wigins wrote:

All He Does Is Win wrote:

They don't know. They are casuals who go because it's an event.

Exactly. I don't know all the dopers in cycling, so.... yay Lance? No.

True. They don't know all the dopers...but for some curious reason many knew about just Justin Gatlin. Hmmm.

If we suppose that they are all ignorant first-attendees of a track meet, then how do they know about Justin's tests at all, unless local media chose to focus specifically on it?

If they're seasoned fans, how do they not know about any of the other dopers?

If they're something in between, such as fans of of just the 100m event, how do they not know about, say, Blakes positive tests?

The answer is that either the media conditioned fans to hate just Justin Gatlin, or seasoned fans are selectively choosing to boo just him. Those are the only possibilities, and both are abhorrent.

All He Does Is Win wrote:

All this support for a drugs cheat because he wins the USA medals is nauseating.

Says the guy that blindly supports Mo Farah...ha!

Haute Couture wrote:

All He Does Is Win wrote:

All this support for a drugs cheat because he wins the USA medals is nauseating.

Says the guy that blindly supports Mo Farah...ha!

Farah has never failed a test. You can't convict someone because they're fast or you might as well give up.

trails for life wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Exactly. I don't know all the dopers in cycling, so.... yay Lance? No.

True. They don't know all the dopers...but for some curious reason many knew about just Justin Gatlin. Hmmm.

If we suppose that they are all ignorant first-attendees of a track meet, then how do they know about Justin's tests at all, unless local media chose to focus specifically on it?

If they're seasoned fans, how do they not know about any of the other dopers?

If they're something in between, such as fans of of just the 100m event, how do they not know about, say, Blakes positive tests?

The answer is that either the media conditioned fans to hate just Justin Gatlin, or seasoned fans are selectively choosing to boo just him. Those are the only possibilities, and both are abhorrent.

Are you serious? Maybe because Gatlin served 4 years, Blake a few months.

All He Does Is Win wrote:

All this support for a drugs cheat because he wins the USA medals is nauseating.

From a kiwi I couldn't agree more. In my view russia, USA and Kenya needs to be benched for the next few games.

Filthy countries...

Love this. 8.5/10

Well trolled.

All He Does Is Win wrote:

trails for life wrote:

True. They don't know all the dopers...but for some curious reason many knew about just Justin Gatlin. Hmmm.

If we suppose that they are all ignorant first-attendees of a track meet, then how do they know about Justin's tests at all, unless local media chose to focus specifically on it?

If they're seasoned fans, how do they not know about any of the other dopers?

If they're something in between, such as fans of of just the 100m event, how do they not know about, say, Blakes positive tests?

The answer is that either the media conditioned fans to hate just Justin Gatlin, or seasoned fans are selectively choosing to boo just him. Those are the only possibilities, and both are abhorrent.

Are you serious? Maybe because Gatlin served 4 years, Blake a few months.

They know about Gatlin because he has been the chief rival of the biggest superstar in track for several years.

Yeah, it really makes sense for US officials to conveniently discard doping samples to protect a U.K. Athlete!?

More like they were protecting their own athletes from being discredited. Remember the dozens of positive results that were never declared during the US trials that year? Conveniently that info only emerged decades later.

10.08 / 20.29 at age 19 is an outstanding, super-elite level of talent. You show your ignorance by implying those marks at that age are nothing special. Ah, but you are a Let's Run poster, which means you have run sub 13:30, earn over $250k/year and have a super model wife. You have the right to look down on someone who merely ran 10.08 / 20.29 at age 19. Carry on.

Deanouk wrote:

Yeah, it really makes sense for US officials to conveniently discard doping samples to protect a U.K. Athlete!?

More like they were protecting their own athletes from being discredited. Remember the dozens of positive results that were never declared during the US trials that year? Conveniently that info only emerged decades later.

Hey, dumbo, those weren't US officials covering up the 84 games doping test results. It was a European aristocrat with IOC who "lost" the doping report. Hey Deano, most towns and cities have adult remedial schools where people like you can go to learn how to read. Villages may not have them so perhaps you don't have access to one.