Knowing who awaits at home, can you blame the poor guy for wanting to spend as much time away as possible? (Even if it means a meager existence in some dusty little out of the way African village.)
Knowing who awaits at home, can you blame the poor guy for wanting to spend as much time away as possible? (Even if it means a meager existence in some dusty little out of the way African village.)
Well it's not in Spain's best interests to tighten up on PEDs, if they did their economy would fold.
a) Obviously. And many others. See e.g. NSF.
b) It should be, but the IAAF has a very narrow view of conflict of interest. For example, they saw nothing wrong with their president being on Nike's payroll.
c) Correct - to which you came up with the IAAF Ethics Committee clearing Coe, which started this discussion.
In any case, what did Pound say? He didn't judge Coe? You are wrong there too. This is not a surprise.
What did others say, outside of me?
For example here:
http://ttoc.org/index.php/sports/athletics/5503-support-from-wada-independent-commission-chairman-pound-offers-coe-mandate-to-continue-as-iaaf-president"many", i.e. more than casual obsever. Try to remember that. Oh come on, troll better next time, please.
Man, this is like stealing candy from a baby.
You continuously blame me, and rjm, and others, for using only or mostly use tabloids for evidence, when the opposite is true: we mostly use the Guardian and BBC, aside from the science. Thusly you either lied again, or you indeed see the Guardian and BBC as tabloids. Your decision.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Well it's not in Spain's best interests to tighten up on PEDs, if they did their economy would fold.
+1
Damn Subway - you crack me up! ???.
It's too bad our good friend rekrunner doesn't have your sense of humor.
Think This One Through wrote:
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Well it's not in Spain's best interests to tighten up on PEDs, if they did their economy would fold.
+1
Damn Subway - you crack me up! ???.
It's too bad our good friend rekrunner doesn't have your sense of humor.
+1
Too much time wrote:
You spend too much time on this. Same to casual observer
After rekrunner's EPO thread got locked down to registered users only, he said he was going to take a sabbatical. However, within two or so weeks of his thread shutdown, he's come back with vengeance (I think he likes to spar with casual observer ?).
It really is getting very boring to read for any "outsider" now. Some people think the IAAF is corrupt, Coe is bad for the sport, and there are hidden dopers everywhere. Some people think the IAAF has done more than enough to put its house in order and trust the testing system to uncover dopers.
Neither side will ever agree, and no piece of evidence will convince the other side that they are right, unless a definitive statement on the subject ever arises (though I'm not sure who each "side" would trust to issue that definitive statement anyway).
Save a bit of bandwidth guys, and do something useful instead?
larkimm wrote:
It really is getting very boring to read for any "outsider" now. Some people think the IAAF is corrupt, Coe is bad for the sport, and there are hidden dopers everywhere. Some people think the IAAF has done more than enough to put its house in order and trust the testing system to uncover dopers.
Huh? Not the way the current ABP is designed with very generous thresholds that encourage doping. There's a plethora of good info on the design & technical aspects of the ABP - look at the hematological, hormonal & steroidal modules and see the generous thresholds for yourself.
What's up with this? wrote:
larkimm wrote:
It really is getting very boring to read for any "outsider" now. Some people think the IAAF is corrupt, Coe is bad for the sport, and there are hidden dopers everywhere. Some people think the IAAF has done more than enough to put its house in order and trust the testing system to uncover dopers.
Huh? Not the way the current ABP is designed with very generous thresholds that encourage doping. There's a plethora of good info on the design & technical aspects of the ABP - look at the hematological, hormonal & steroidal modules and see the generous thresholds for yourself.
Are you trying to make my point for me?
I actually said "it's time for me to take an EPO myth-busting timeout". Two-weeks later I called "time-in". This thread is not about "EPO mythology".
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
Too much time wrote:
You spend too much time on this. Same to casual observer
After rekrunner's EPO thread got locked down to registered users only, he said he was going to take a sabbatical. However, within two or so weeks of his thread shutdown, he's come back with vengeance (I think he likes to spar with casual observer ?).
You make it sound like both sides have arguments. However, I have yet to see any argument against the historical fact that "there are hidden dopers everywhere". Similarly, it is a historical fact that the IAAF was corrupt. Whether it still is, is debatable, yes.
larkimm wrote:
It really is getting very boring to read for any "outsider" now. Some people think the IAAF is corrupt, Coe is bad for the sport, and there are hidden dopers everywhere. Some people think the IAAF has done more than enough to put its house in order and trust the testing system to uncover dopers.
casual obsever wrote:
You make it sound like both sides have arguments. However, I have yet to see any argument against the historical fact that "there are hidden dopers everywhere".
Similarly, it is a historical fact that the IAAF was corrupt. Whether it still is, is debatable, yes.
larkimm wrote:
It really is getting very boring to read for any "outsider" now. Some people think the IAAF is corrupt, Coe is bad for the sport, and there are hidden dopers everywhere. Some people think the IAAF has done more than enough to put its house in order and trust the testing system to uncover dopers.
....these days dopers don't have to hide.
rekrunner wrote:
I actually said "it's time for me to take an EPO myth-busting timeout".
Two-weeks later I called "time-in".
This thread is not about "EPO mythology".
When will we get a say on this? Could be worse, you could be Ventolin.
rekrunner wrote:
I actually said "it's time for me to take an EPO myth-busting timeout".
Yeah...that and a timeout from "trolling."
rekrunner wrote:
Two-weeks later I called "time-in".
No kidding...don't remind me.
rekrunner wrote:
This thread is not about "EPO mythology".
Yeah...sure, but it be won't long until you start gravitating to that subject again. ?
casual obsever wrote:
You make it sound like both sides have arguments. However, I have yet to see any argument against the historical fact that "there are hidden dopers everywhere".
Similarly, it is a historical fact that the IAAF was corrupt. Whether it still is, is debatable, yes.
larkimm wrote:
It really is getting very boring to read for any "outsider" now. Some people think the IAAF is corrupt, Coe is bad for the sport, and there are hidden dopers everywhere. Some people think the IAAF has done more than enough to put its house in order and trust the testing system to uncover dopers.
Of course both sides have arguments. There are hidden dopers, yes. Are they everywhere? We simply don't know the prevalence. I have a view, but I don't know.
Is the IAAF corrupt or is it whiter than white? Who knows. It is not a historical fact that the IAAF was corrupt, it is a historical fact that some senior leaders in (and outside) of the IAAF were corrupt, and corrupted some of the workings of the IAAF. Whether that still persists, I don't know. I have a view, but I don't know.
larkimm wrote:
Of course both sides have arguments. There are hidden dopers, yes. Are they everywhere? We simply don't know the prevalence.
Closet dopers? ?
holy moly wrote:
Abdi is there but no sign of Martin Fagan
Mo's sprint coach is Ben Johnson.
Coming back to this, there are still several issues I cannot overlook: 1) First, I note that you first said "long time acquaintance" yet your "proof" was about "personal acquaintance", which is not exactly the same. This raises the question if Coe and Pound (or Coe and Beloff) are "personal acquaintances" or something less personal like "professional acquaintances". 2) Second, it is questionable whether the sections of a policy that governs employees' behavior, on specific operational matters (i.e. deciding who is eligible for permanent disability), also applies to an "ethics" or "compliance" office, on specific internal matters of employee compliance to the policy. What happens when an employee violates the policy? NORMALLY, companies and universities and organizations have set up their own compliance or ethics organization, as independent, yet still within the company, university, or organization. That is, companies often will "investigate itself", and in small companies, it will be done by employees who are acquaintanced with each other, doing their job in a well defined way. That is not to say that larger companies, like in the finance sector, won't also hire external auditors, in addition to internal auditors, to ensure compliance to policies, laws, and regulations, but rather, it is normal that companies investigate themselves, and that the investigator will often be acquainted with the subject of investigation, without the obligation to recuse themselves. 3) The IAAF Ethics Committee, and the WADA IC, did not "clear" Coe. To be cleared, you need to be under investigation in the first place. Although you followed with conflict of interest, the issue of "conflict of interest" between the Ethics Chair, or Dick Pound and Coe does not follow, if Coe was never part of either investigation, through no act or omission of the Ethics Commission, or the WADA IC. 4) Coe was not judged by the Ethics Commission or by the WADA IC. You are playing around with the word "judge", interpreting a press conference answer to mean judgement. In a press conference reporting the conclusions of the investigation, Pound was asked if Coe was the right man for the job. This is not the setting where an issue of conflict of interest would arise. It would be awkward for Pound to answer, "I cannot answer that question because I read in a forum that we are long time buddies." In any case, Pound did not give an official judgement, but gave his thoughts and hopes. Here is how the Guardian recorded it in live updates:
5) Regarding tabloids, did you respond to something I said somewhere else? What did I say here? I questioned whether linking to tabloids counts as evidence. I could be more specific to say that reporters' opinions, reflections, reactions, etc. are not evidence -- reporters are not supposed to make the news. This includes reputable news sources.
6) Of course not all of your ideas are unique to you. You are correct that many people felt that "Coe is the right man for the job" contradicts "At least some of the members of the IAAF Council could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in Athletics and the non-enforcement of applicable antidoping rules." I note again that the council is 27 members, and again, that this finding is oddly worded, carefully crafted with a double negative -- if the WADA IC knew some members were aware of a lack of enforcement, why not affirmatively say that?
None of this addresses my observation that no one else has accused the WADA IC or the Ethics Commission of a conflict of interest with Coe, or suggests that we can no longer trust any NADO, outside of RUSADA.
Well, I do remember the study from Tübingen + Harvard published in 2017, showing (likely underestimated, according to the authors) 44% admitted dopers at the World Championships. Whether the real number is 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70%, we do know that the prevalence is in any case so high that "there are hidden dopers everywhere".
Well, knowing how important semantics are for you, let's say "almost everywhere", before you argue that there are no dopers at the North Pole or on the moon.
Semantics, especially since these corrupt senior leaders included the president.
As I cited on this page:
"Pound warned, though, that the corruption within the IAAF "cannot be ignored or dismissed as attributable to the odd renegade acting on his own"."
Here we agree for a change. Though considering that most of the IAAF's leaders stayed in their positions, or even moved up, I am not optimistic.