Mo Farah - very good article from Irish Independent

Your unique exaggerated interpretation of "conflict of interest" was also debunked two years ago. It is not a conflict of interest to select a Chair. Your argument fails, not in part, but in whole. It fails now, as it did then, for all the same reasons. It is not a conflict of interest for WADA to appoint an ex-president of WADA to lead a committee to investigate allegations of inaction against the IAAF. It is not a conflict of interest to "work together" towards the same interest. It is not a conflict of interest to be the same nationality, or to be buddies, assuming that Coe and Pound, for the sake of argument, really are buddies. These are emotional arguments. Your Stanford and NSF and FIFA policies do not say otherwise. I would bet Stanford and NSF and FIFA have similarly selected Chairs, their "buddies", their compatriots, or other people that they have worked together with in the past, in accordance with their own policies. Coe had no ability, or authority to alter the outcome of the Ethics Commission investigation, or WADA IC investigation, beyond being a witness, or providing evidence, and, outside of you, no one has even suggested any such improper manipulation occurred, not even by the British tabloids. Outside of you, no one else has even suggested that the investigations were not independent, or that Coe interfered with the independent investigations, or otherwise had some conflict of interest with the Ethics Commission, or the WADA IC. Whatever you think you have proved, you've only proved it to yourself, and you stand alone, with your unique interpretation. You fabricated this unique interpretation as a psychological defense mechanism, every time official investigations prove you wrong, to avoid admitting that you've been wrong all along, about a great deal of things. Regarding "you can't argue against that, you throw in an insult", this looks like a "I know you are but what am I" tactic. You insult me repeatedly, then express butt-hurt sadness when I call your feeble attempts feeble.

Never saw it.

movie buff wrote:

Rekrunner, just out of interest is your favourite movie 'See No Evil Hear No Evil?

Didn't see this either. Not a big fan of Jim Carrey. I liked him in his early days, but it got old.

movie buff 2 wrote:

I would have thought "Dumb and Dumber".

Haha, no, you just lied about it. Like you do here:

Because I never said anything if that sort. It is however, normally, a conflict of interest for person A to judge the ethics of person B, if they are long time acquaintances, and especially if B has given that job to A.

Newsflash: Standford's chairs are neither selected by the president, nor do they judge the president.

And a reminder about Coe's ability or authority: nobody suggested that - why do you always come up with these strawman discussions? And it is irrelevant for a conflict of interest.

Wrong.

You are playing opposite day again. Outside of you? Outside of you, no one trusts the NADOs, IAAF, Saugy, etc etc, and the lame excuses of the drug cheats.

As if you hadn't noticed that you are usually all by yourself here arguing against the rest. Sometimes joined by other Brits, when you are "defending" Radcliffe and Co.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha wrote:

'It looks like some kind of new social experiment to test if you repeat a fabrication often enough, others will eventually believe you.'....

Ha ha ha, sounds like a few of the athletes discussed in this thread! Rekrunner is hilarious.

+1

Also a good description of his own modus operandi.

But not new, since he's been doing this here for many years.

casual obsever wrote:

Because I never said anything if that sort. It is however, normally, a conflict of interest for person A to judge the ethics of person B, if they are long time acquaintances, and especially if B has given that job to A.

This is wrong on two counts.

1) "Long time acquaintance" is not a basis for conflict of interest.

2) The IAAF Ethics Commission did not judge the ethics of Coe, because Coe was not part of any complaint or investigation.

casual obsever wrote:

You are playing opposite day again. Outside of you? Outside of you, no one trusts the NADOs, IAAF, Saugy, etc etc, and the lame excuses of the drug cheats.

As if you hadn't noticed that you are usually all by yourself here arguing against the rest. Sometimes joined by other Brits, when you are "defending" Radcliffe and Co.

Let's not confuse "

; with the real world, especially the scientific world of anti-doping. I'm standing with all the scientific papers, the detailed findings of lengthy investigations, conclusions of CAS appeals, etc. You stand with the tabloids, and take it to the next level.

Again, the evidence says otherwise. See for example from the SSA:

"Conflict of Interest

1. Avoiding COI situations

DDS employees must disqualify themselves from acting on any official matter that involves:

a relative;

a personal acquaintance; or

their own Social Security records. "

Ha. Who would have thought - you were wrong again. This is not a surprise.

Ha. You started that strawman discussion, remember? Evidence:

Seriously, how can one even pretend to trust the IAAF's investigation into the IAAF's corruption?

Would you argue the same way if Trump appointed his buddy as Chair of the White House Ethics Commission, which then ends up clearing him of all wrongdoings?

Would you argue the same way if Obama would have appointed his buddy as Chair of the White House Ethics Commission, which then ended up clearing him of all wrongdoings?

Interesting. Earlier you pretended it was just me. Now you pretend it's just

. Oh well.

That's not even funny. You have always been against Ashenden, Tucker, and the rest of the involved scientists except for Plan B Saugy, while trusting corrupt organizations and suspected drug cheats. You defended Coe when he complained about "the so-called scientists".

That's also why so many people here recognize you as a troll, or PR shill.

And I don't even read tabloids. But obviously, all your British sources, from the Guardian to the BBC, are tabloids to you if they dare to criticize the IAAF or, gasp, Radcliffe - as you just proved yesterday again.

casual obsever wrote:

Wrong.

You are playing opposite day again. Outside of you? Outside of you, no one trusts the NADOs, IAAF, Saugy, etc etc, and the lame excuses of the drug cheats.

As if you hadn't noticed that you are usually all by yourself here arguing against the rest. Sometimes joined by other Brits, when you are "defending" Radcliffe and Co.

Agreed. Maybe 20 years ago I would have been more trusting of the sports governing bodies. But I cannot ignore the revelations of corruption that have come to light since then in so many sports, not just track and field. Many people who follow sports do no longer trust the sports governing bodies in soccer, cycling, tennis, boxing, etc etc ....

rekrunner wrote:

Let's not confuse "

letsrun.com/forum&quot

; with the real world, especially the scientific world of anti-doping. I'm standing with all the scientific papers, the detailed findings of lengthy investigations, conclusions of CAS appeals, etc. You stand with the tabloids, and take it to the next level.

No Gary....you suffer from a lack of a realistic viewpoint and a false trust of the governing bodies. You know (or should know) there's so much corruption, payoffs, cover-ups, protective status of certain athletes, etc. FFS...how long have you been following the sport? I think you look through everything with rose colored glasses - the sport desperately needs a major shakeup & cleansing. Cleaning up doping doesn't just start & stop with the Russians. Lol.

You suffer from a false mistrust, and look at the world with brown-tinged glasses.

Think This One Through wrote:

No Gary....you suffer from a lack of a realistic viewpoint and a false trust of the governing bodies. You know (or should know) there's so much corruption, payoffs, cover-ups, protective status of certain athletes, etc. FFS...how long have you been following the sport? I think you look through everything with rose colored glasses - the sport desperately needs a major shakeup & cleansing. Cleaning up doping doesn't just start & stop with the Russians. Lol.

This thread is sad. Every athlete mentioned is or has been cheating. How hard is it to understand.

The testing is a joke. Farah is going to Epo-opia because to many Kenyans have been busted lately. He doesn't want to end up like the woman from Kenya running for Bahrain. He would be busted in Kenya. The Kenyans would love it and exclaim "See, we are clean, We test everyone including the best" It'd be a PR nightmare for the Brits and Coe.

These arguments are pointless. Outside of being caught with a syringe in an athletes vein nothing will be proof enough for some. Even with a syringe some would argue the athlete was severely dehydrated and was just trying to re-hydrate.

Thoughts wrote:

Even with a syringe some would argue the athlete was severely dehydrated and was just trying to re-hydrate.

Or that the syringe accidently got stuck in there during a hospital visit to see their sick grandmother ....

rekrunner wrote:

You suffer from a false mistrust, and look at the world with brown-tinged glasses.

Say what? "False mistrust?" You must be oblivious to what has been going on in the world of athletics:

And just last year Spain's at it again with ANOTHER doping ring. Maybe these were the same drugs recycled from the bust at the Jama Aden training camp. ☝️??

I stand corrected. "Long time acquaintance" can be perceived as a conflict of interest for employees of the SSA. "Long time acquaintance" is not a basis for conflict of interest for the IAAF Ethics Commission or the WADA IC. I did not start the discussion with Coe and IAAF corruption, but was explicitly asked my opinion about Coe and any potential role in IAAF corruption. My response, which was explicitly solicited, is not a straw man, but the real topic you responded to. I noted correctly that there were two detailed investigations lacking any connection between the proven IAAF corruption and Coe. You introduced a red herring and turned it into a discussion about conflict of interest, because of personal relationships or long time acquaintancy between Coe, and the Ethics chair, and Dick Pound. It was you who claimed that it was improper for the IAAF Ethics Chair, and WADA IC lead Dick Pound, to judge the ethics of Coe. Since Coe was not under investigation, or being judged, the point is moot. If it is set up properly, there is no reason not to trust independent organisations within a larger organisation like the IAAF. I can trust the IAAF Ethics Commission, in part because they actually found against the IAAF, and issued 3 lifetime bans, and a 5-year ban including IAAF officers, providing transparency of the evidence, the investigation, in a detailed in a 200-page report. When I say you stand alone, it's because, as far as I can tell, no one else, including British reporters, official bodies, athletes, and letsrun forum, argues that the IAAF Ethics Commission was conflicted, that WADA or the WADA IC was conflicted, or that we should distrust WADA, and any NADO, except of course RUSADA. This is you taking the hype several steps farther than even the tabloids dared to. I said I stand with scientific papers, not "Ashenden and Tucker". I stand with Ashenden's statements, backed by data, in peer-reviewed papers. I have provided you links to many of Ashenden's papers and quotes from them, of statements I agree with. To the extent Ashenden's "non-peer reviewed" public statements contradict his peer-reviewed statements, I stand with his peer-reviewed statements. I stand with the WADA IC when they noted this obvious contradiction from both Ashenden and Parisotto, without explanation. Regarding Tucker, when Ross concludes with "So, to wrap up – is Radcliffe lying? I don’t know. Her explanations are all plausible, ..." I stand with Ross and Ross stands with me. Neither Ashenden, nor Tucker pointed the finger at Coe. Ashenden never pointed a finger at Paula, and Tucker basically said, "maybe, maybe not -- we need more information". The "declaration of war" comment, like any comment, must be interpreted in its context when it was made. The ARD, the Sunday Times, and Ashenden and Parisotto, accused the IAAF of inaction regarding suspicious blood samples. What we learned from the WADA IC was that the IAAF was extremely active, and reasonably followed up on suspicious blood samples. While Coe back-pedalled from an unpopular comment he made while campaigning for president, the statement was not wrong. The accusations against the IAAF were certainly an attack on the IAAF, that turned out not to be justified, according to the WADA IC. I made a comment about tabloids not being evidence -- it is you who understood this to include the Guardian and the BBC, only to argue that it doesn't. Let me know when you've made up your mind.

It's easy to understand. But is it fact or fiction? That's the hard part, and the accusers bear the burden of proof.

Thoughts wrote:

This thread is sad. Every athlete mentioned is or has been cheating. How hard is it to understand.

The testing is a joke. Farah is going to Epo-opia because to many Kenyans have been busted lately. He doesn't want to end up like the woman from Kenya running for Bahrain. He would be busted in Kenya. The Kenyans would love it and exclaim "See, we are clean, We test everyone including the best" It'd be a PR nightmare for the Brits and Coe.

These arguments are pointless. Outside of being caught with a syringe in an athletes vein nothing will be proof enough for some. Even with a syringe some would argue the athlete was severely dehydrated and was just trying to re-hydrate.

These are not the whole sport. I don't deny the recent Russian scandal, which failed, that involved Diack and others, both inside and outside the IAAF, or that countries like Azerbeijan, Bahrain, or Turkey hire and possibly dope East Africans, or that reporters, hungry for a story, themselves buy EPO in some kind of made for TV dramaticized re-enactment of what could happen. These are not reasons to turn off your brain, and throw out unsupported accusations across the whole sport.

Think This One Through wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You suffer from a false mistrust, and look at the world with brown-tinged glasses.

Say what? "False mistrust?" You must be oblivious to what has been going on in the world of athletics:

You spend too much time on this. Same to casual observer

Think This One Through wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You suffer from a false mistrust, and look at the world with brown-tinged glasses.

Say what? "False mistrust?" You must be oblivious to what has been going on in the world of athletics:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/07/russia-doping-scandal-corruption-blackmail-athletics-iaafhttp://m.france24.com/en/20170905-france-french-prosecutor-pins-corruption-iaaf-son-ex-presidenthttp://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-15/corruption-embedded-in-world-athletics-body-iaaf-says-wada/7089830?pfmredir=smhttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/04/doping-hotspot-ethiopia-drug-testing-epo

And just last year Spain's at it again with ANOTHER doping ring. Maybe these were the same drugs recycled from the bust at the Jama Aden training camp. ☝️??

http://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2017/10/25/59f077d8ca47411f368b4671.html

It is the day Oct. 25, 2017 in SPAIN.

I am going to take a wild guess with this question:

Where did Mr. Ilias Fifa live before he became a citizen of SPAIN???

European 5,000 metre champion in 2016, Ilias Fifa, was arrested on Wednesday afternoon for alleged links to a doping web that was supposedly involved in the buying and distributing of illegal substances for athletes. The 28-year-old Spanish athlete was arrested at him home where officers also carried out a SEARCH looking for further evidence of his participation.In addition to Fifa, there have been two other arrests related to the alleged crimes.

Mr. Fifa moved to Spain 11 years ago and gained Spanish nationality in July 2015, choosing to represent the European nation... instead of his native MOROCCO. (It's just a coincidence.)

The judicial operation leading to his arrest began in June with police seeking a judicial warrant to also SEARCH his house.

The news comes as a SURPRISE for the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation, who learned of the arrest through the MEDIA, and there is a deep concern from the governing body, who have called an URGENT MEETING.. to discuss the issue.

It's just a Coincidental Synchronicity™.

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy to understand. But is it fact or fiction? That's the hard part, and the accusers bear the burden of proof.

Thoughts wrote:

This thread is sad. Every athlete mentioned is or has been cheating. How hard is it to understand.

The testing is a joke. Farah is going to Epo-opia because to many Kenyans have been busted lately. He doesn't want to end up like the woman from Kenya running for Bahrain. He would be busted in Kenya. The Kenyans would love it and exclaim "See, we are clean, We test everyone including the best" It'd be a PR nightmare for the Brits and Coe.

These arguments are pointless. Outside of being caught with a syringe in an athletes vein nothing will be proof enough for some. Even with a syringe some would argue the athlete was severely dehydrated and was just trying to re-hydrate.

Must you be able to see the wind to determine that it's there?