casual obsever wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
On the other hand you suggest that the West's women didn't use drugs.
No, I do not. Source?
Yes, you are correct. I misread the comment, "And it worked, see e.g. Coe and Lewis and Moses, except for the ladies who didn't voluntarily completely turn into monsters in the free West."
I apologise for that mistake.
"That last sentence is exactly why nothing will change. See e.g. Coe attacking Seppelt instead of thanking him for his discoveries, Coe attacking Ashenden and Parisotto as "so-called scientists" instead of thanking them for providing their expertise, Coe declaring Paula to be innocent prior to the begin of the investigation while insisting on an internal process insteadof a transparent independent investigation, and Coe supporting Paula in her newly found anti-transparency stance, and last but not least Coe fighting against criminalization of doping."
I respectfully disagree with you on most of this. Things have already changed, quite considerably, and for the better IMO. The creation of the independent AIU has revealed a lot of high level dopers and has 'largely' brought Jamaica and Kenya into line. No, it's not perfect and there is more to be done, but Coe has shown that he has taken on board what needs to be done and has acted on it. There has been widescale and swift re-distribution of medals to those who were cheated by dopers.
In addition, he has passed legislation that states IAAF Presidents can only have a 2 term tenure, to help prevent corruption from the top on the scale of Diack; continued, in direct opposition to the IOC and other Sporting federations, to keep Russia banned from international competition; listened to the vast majority of women athletes competing in events that have been dominated by 'intersex' athletes.
Yes, he started off on the wrong foot with his comments re Seppelt and Ashenden, for which he has acknowledged and apologised for. I think he was given a poisoned chalice tbh, and believe he wasn't in full position of the facts when he took over, and his initial reaction was driven by his passion for the sport, rather than some Machiavellian scheme to cover up corruption.
Coe has long been against the criminalisation of the athlete caught doping, while still advocating life bans from the sport, but has always been in favour of criminalising the traffickers and distributers of banned substances (including coaches); a stance that is adopted by WADA.
'He (Coe) said criminalisation of individual athletes was looked into but it was felt that the first thing to do would be to
create a criminal offence around trafficking; this was written into the bill that became
the Criminal Justice Act.1988. He argued that he had concerns about criminalising the
athletes because he thought it was always very complicated to combine criminal and civil
processes and sanctions, as this led to arguments about which took primacy.'
'While stating that “it does not wish to interfere in the sovereign right of any
government to make laws for its people”, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) does
not believe that doping should be made a criminal offence for athletes. In a statement on
the criminalization of doping in sport, on 25 October 2015, WADA noted that it believes
that, “the sanction process for athletes, which includes a right of appeal to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS), is a settled process, accepted by all governments of the world,
and further that the sanctions for a doping violation by an athlete, which now includes
a longer, four-year period of ineligibility, have been globally accepted by sport and
government. As such, the Agency does not believe that doping should be made a criminal
offence for athletes”. However, WADA has encouraged governments to introduce
laws that penalise those who are trafficking and distributing banned substances, noting:
“this is a commitment that governments made in ratifying the UNESCO International
Convention against Doping in Sport”.'
I think being tough on athletes doping and criminalisation of (athlete) dopers can be mutually exclusive.