He said it wrote:
Salazar: "It is impossible to be a world class runner or Olympic medalist without taking PEDs."
That pretty much says it all. Paula can go shite.
He said it wrote:
Salazar: "It is impossible to be a world class runner or Olympic medalist without taking PEDs."
That pretty much says it all. Paula can go shite.
If you find my words confusing, try the IAAF's explanation:
Information on Athlete Biological Passport process:
The monitoring and review of ABP profiles recorded under the IAAF’s Anti-Doping Programme are conducted in strict accordance with the applicable WADA Regulations, by external independent experts and through ADAMS. It consists of a multi-stage review process with a specific official terminology set out in accordance with WADA’s Result Management Regulations to assist Anti-Doping Organisation in the implementation and prioritization of their ABP Programme.
The official terminology which includes “Likely doping”, “Passport suspicious; Further data is required”, “Likely medical condition”, “Normal”, “Cancelled by APMU” (Athletes Passport Management Unit) are used to classify profiles flagged as “atypical” by the ADAMS mathematical model, indicating whether or not an athlete’s biological passport profile should be further investigated. It does not provide a final determination on whether or not an athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. It is a dynamic process in which the status of an athlete’s profile can change at any time.
It would be wrong to make assumptions based upon leaked documents without the full evidence and that evidence being put in context. Single data readings of an Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) cannot alone constitute evidence of doping. All atypical ABP Profiles are automatically reviewed in the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) following the processes and protocols of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
Why do you get any impression that I would be troubled about anything about Rupp and Jager?
ABP "Likely Doping" wrote:
As I mentioned in another post, it's hard to decipher what you're saying half the time. Let my correct myself on one item though - it's not "steps" but classifications that I meant to say (i.e. normal, passport suspicious, likely doping, etc.).
And I understand the process - keep in mind on a "likely doping" status one expert initially classified the module as such. In the next process either one or both of the other two experts that reviewed the profile didn't agree with the first, therefore no ABP violation charge can be issued.
I get the impression you're troubled that Rupp & Jager were listed as "likely doping" on FB hack document? You at least look at it in a different light than I view it. My question is how can these two "likely doping" classifications amount to nothing when several Ukrainians and one Moroccan & one Moroccan-Saudi on the list were later charged & sanctioned for ABP violations. And with the exception Kiprop testing positive a few years later, none of the big names on that list ever tested positive or were charged with an ABP violation. Maybe it's used to only warn some athletes while charging others...makes you wonder what goes on behind closed doors there.
rekrunner wrote:
Nearly all of these statements are demonstrably false.
LordEric44 wrote:
You stating the purpose of the report is made up in your head , and you stating it as a fact does not make it a fact .
There was no official statement on why the report was commissioned prior to its authoring.
You believe the IAAF response was to defend everyone that was in the likely doping list ... The IAAF basically stated the
report was because ..... "The IAAF said Radcliffe was the victim of untrue allegations and was “hounded remorselessly in the media” after blood samples collected in Portugal in 2003 " So in reality the report was about Coe responding because her feelings were hurt . She had no sanctions against her. There was no need for a follow-up on non-sanctioned athletes.
The other part of this was Coe admitting he was employed by Nike , and turning down his paid advisory role with Nike .
He had to do this with the IAAF boards insistance , and he did not do it on his own when he won the IAAF Chair position. Shame , Shame on his lack of ethics .
Coe forced to give up Nike employment, he was reluctant to give up the 100,000 a year relationship ... after his IAAF nomination .
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/26/sebastian-coe-iaaf-nikeSo in light of the Guardian article, let's assess this claim:
"He had to do this with the IAAF boards(sic) insistance (sic), and he did not do it on his own when he won the IAAF Chair (sic) position. Shame , Shame on his lack of ethics ."
From the Guardian:
"... the International Association of Athletics Federation ethics committee had reassured him that he could have retained the Nike role and his position as chairman of the sports-marketing company CSM as long as he was not involved in decisions relating to the sport’s world governing body. He at once insisted he had not been bounced into standing down yet argued that it was the “noises off” around the issue, rather than the substance of it, that had caused him to relinquish the lucrative contract."
We see clear demonstrations:
- He did NOT have to do this
- The IAAF board did NOT insist
- The Ethics Committee found no lack of ethics
- It looks like it was his own decision, based on appearances of conflict rather than substance
rekrunner wrote:
So in light of the Guardian article, let's assess this claim:
"He had to do this with the IAAF boards(sic) insistance (sic), and he did not do it on his own when he won the IAAF Chair (sic) position. Shame , Shame on his lack of ethics ."
From the Guardian:
"... the International Association of Athletics Federation ethics committee had reassured him that he could have retained the Nike role and his position as chairman of the sports-marketing company CSM as long as he was not involved in decisions relating to the sport’s world governing body. He at once insisted he had not been bounced into standing down yet argued that it was the “noises off” around the issue, rather than the substance of it, that had caused him to relinquish the lucrative contract."
We see clear demonstrations:
- He did NOT have to do this
- The IAAF board did NOT insist
- The Ethics Committee found no lack of ethics
- It looks like it was his own decision, based on appearances of conflict rather than substance
Not really. You are overlooking "as long as he was not involved in decisions relating to the sport’s world governing body", which he clearly was.
So considering that he clearly was involved in decisions relating to the sport’s world governing body already as VP (well, you might argue against that but there is clear proof), he should have given up he Nike role and his position as chairman of the sports-marketing company CSM much earlier. His own IAAF committee was just nice to word it indirectly, but did notice the blatantly obvious conflict of interest.
I read that as "decisions (at Nike and CSM) relating to the sport’s world governing body". There are ethically acceptable ways to declare and manage and avoid conflicts, while retaining his role, by removing or recusing yourself from decisions that could potentially be viewed as conflicting. This was more a matter of public perception causing too much distraction.
casual obsever wrote:
Not really. You are overlooking "as long as he was not involved in decisions relating to the sport’s world governing body", which he clearly was.
So considering that he clearly was involved in decisions relating to the sport’s world governing body already as VP (well, you might argue against that but there is clear proof), he should have given up he Nike role and his position as chairman of the sports-marketing company CSM much earlier. His own IAAF committee was just nice to word it indirectly, but did notice the blatantly obvious conflict of interest.
rekrunner wrote:
I read that as "decisions (at Nike and CSM) relating to the sport’s world governing body".
Ah. But that goes all ways. Decisions at Nike concerning IAAF (unknown) and decisions at IAAF concerning Nike (known). Likewise with CSM.
rekrunner wrote:
There are ethically acceptable ways to declare and manage and avoid conflicts, while retaining his role, by removing or recusing yourself from decisions that could potentially be viewed as conflicting.
One could try that, but more ethical is the clear cut, which he only agreed to after public pressure. And a president can't really recuse himself, and even if he does, the people who then decide work under him.
Plus, Coe thrived on scenarios where he used his various functions in parallel. See his murky CSM deals while working on the Olympics and as VP lobbying Diack the president on behalf of Nike to get the championships to Eugene (and then lying about it). Both was highly unethical, imho.
Sources for example:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2018/03/24/probe-could-take-fresh-look-lord-coes-12m-murky-deal/https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/25/sebastian-coe-nike-eugene-iaaf-lamine-diackYour first source says "At no stage was Lord Coe involved in the awarding of any contract to Chime or any of its group companies during London 2012."
Your second point is pure nonsense each time you say it, for multiple reasons.
But all this digresses, the original "goalpost" was "He had to do this with the IAAF boards insistance".
The IAAF board insisted no such thing.
[quote]casual obsever wrote:
One could try that, but more ethical is the clear cut, which he only agreed to after public pressure. And a president can't really recuse himself, and even if he does, the people who then decide work under him.
Plus, Coe thrived on scenarios where he used his various functions in parallel. See his murky CSM deals while working on the Olympics and as VP lobbying Diack the president on behalf of Nike to get the championships to Eugene (and then lying about it). Both was highly unethical, imho./quote]
rekrunner wrote:
Your first source says "At no stage was Lord Coe involved in the awarding of any contract to Chime or any of its group companies during London 2012."
Funny what you take home from that. The telegraph's title highlights "the murky deal":
"Investigation could take fresh look at Lord Coe's £12m 'murky deal' "
The article also says:
Coe’s windfall from a company which made a fortune at the Olympics could represent a conflict of interests, according to Chris Matheson MP.
Matheson is on the parliamentary select committee examining sports governance and said he would seek urgent talks with its chairman Damian Collins.
“The Olympics were a great success but the organisers were not meant to make a fortune on the back of it,” Matheson, the MP for Chester, said.
rekrunner wrote:
Your second point is pure nonsense each time you say it, for multiple reasons.
LOL, no. What do you mean with second point?
"as VP lobbying Diack the president on behalf of Nike to get the championships to Eugene"?
That was proven in my second source:
leaked emails showing he discussed his support for Eugene’s successful bid for the 2021 World Athletics Championships with executives from the sportswear company in January of this year.
...
he had reached out to Diack specifically on this topic
...
“Seb made it clear that if he is elected president that he is willing to consider as early as next November choosing the 2021 site.”
Nonsense for multiple reasons? How about you name just three, with independent sources please?
Regarding "murky deal", can you provide a more recent reference that doesn't use the word "could"? Preferably something in the past tense.
Did the MPs and the "select committee" investigate? Did they confirm or conclude that it did represent a conflict of interest?
Regarding sources, my sources are the same as yours.
It is nonsense because you say "Coe lobbied Diack on behalf of Eugene, and then lied about it." while your sources do not.
Nonsense #1: "reached out" does not mean "lobby".
In this case, it looks like Coe reached out to clarify the bidding process and timing:
"he had reached out to Diack specifically on this topic and got a clear statement from Diack that 'I am not going to take any action at that April meeting [in Beijing] to choose a 2021 site'"
"He sought clarity from president Diack when asked by Gothenburg about the 2021 bidding process and received assurances that no decision would be made at the April council meeting so he continued to encourage Gothenberg and Eugene to both put themselves forward for the 2021 bidding cycle."
"At the time, he expected there to be a full bidding process with a vote in November 2016."
Nonsense #2: "On behalf of Nike"
"Lananna has previously insisted Nike played no role in the bid. Those close to Coe point out that what he told the Nike executive was no different to the information he was giving to others about the 2021 race."
Nonsense #3: "Coe lied"
This follows directly from #1, since Coe did not lobby Diack, he did not lie about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/25/sebastian-coe-nike-eugene-iaaf-lamine-diack
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/24/sebastian-coe-role-eugene-2021-bidding-process
Oh come on, you aren't even trying anymore to provide any serious arguments. Reaching out is not lobbying, lol - were you Clinton's advisor?
"Lobby" requires an attempt to influence the outcome -- something we do not find in your source.
As I have shown, The Guardian only says that Coe "reached out" to Diack on behalf of Gothenburg about the 2021 bidding process:
"he had reached out to Diack specifically on this topic and got a clear statement from Diack that 'I am not going to take any action at that April meeting [in Beijing] to choose a 2021 site'"
"He sought clarity from president Diack when asked by Gothenburg about the 2021 bidding process and received assurances that no decision would be made at the April council meeting so he continued to encourage Gothenberg and Eugene to both put themselves forward for the 2021 bidding cycle."
"At the time, he expected there to be a full bidding process with a vote in November 2016."
rekrunner wrote:
"Lobby" requires an attempt to influence the outcome -- something we do not find in your source.
As I have shown, The Guardian only says that Coe "reached out" to Diack on behalf of Gothenburg about the 2021 bidding process:
"he had reached out to Diack specifically on this topic and got a clear statement from Diack that 'I am not going to take any action at that April meeting [in Beijing] to choose a 2021 site'"
"He sought clarity from president Diack when asked by Gothenburg about the 2021 bidding process and received assurances that no decision would be made at the April council meeting so he continued to encourage Gothenberg and Eugene to both put themselves forward for the 2021 bidding cycle."
"At the time, he expected there to be a full bidding process with a vote in November 2016."
As a matter of curiosity, how much are you paid to write this? No sane person would do what you do for fun.
I do this for free, with no external compensation in any form.
Note above an example of how intellectual arguments are supposed to work -- I say something, then back it up with supporting references linking what I say to real world evidence.
Compare this to the less intellectual, but sometimes effective, strategy of accusing someone of being paid for this, and calling them insane.
Armstronglivs wrote:
As a matter of curiosity, how much are you paid to write this? No sane person would do what you do for fun.
Good question. But I think he just enjoys riling people up while being wrong, while a PR shill would actually instead try to win you over. . Classical troll behavior, but I doubt that the brojos are paying for that though he seems to appreciate his mod power, maybe as a thank you.
As for the reaching out story, that actually comes originally from the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34908237A BBC investigation has uncovered emails which claim Coe - an ambassador for sports giant Nike and then vice-president of world athletics - "reached out" to Lamine Diack with his support for Eugene's bid.
...
When asked about the allegations, Coe told the BBC he "did not lobby anyone" over Eugene's bid, but "encouraged them to re-enter another bidding cycle as they had a strong bid".
No evidence of any NOP athletes doping has been presented.
In fact, no NOP athlete has been accused of doping.
Yet the coach is given a 4 year ban?
For what?
Oops, forgot:
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding "murky deal", can you provide a more recent reference that doesn't use the word "could"?
It said "murky deal", not could be a "murky deal".
Evidence:
"details emerged of the “very murky” £12 million deal that Lord Coe struck on the back of London 2012."
But fine, next time I use more precisely "very murky".
rekrunner wrote:
Nonsense #2: "On behalf of Nike"
Yes. Evidence:
"leaked emails showing he discussed his support for Eugene’s successful bid for the 2021 World Athletics Championships with executives from the sportswear company in January of this year."
For the fun of it, seen at Nike WHQ:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTj6k3LUwAAkx10?format=jpg&name=smallrekrunner wrote:
I do this for free, with no external compensation in any form.
Note above an example of how intellectual arguments are supposed to work -- I say something, then back it up with supporting references linking what I say to real world evidence.
Compare this to the less intellectual, but sometimes effective, strategy of accusing someone of being paid for this, and calling them insane.
For free? Well, I guess that proves the second part of my question.
casual obsever wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As a matter of curiosity, how much are you paid to write this? No sane person would do what you do for fun.
Good question. But I think he just enjoys riling people up while being wrong, while a PR shill would actually instead try to win you over. . Classical troll behavior, but I doubt that the brojos are paying for that though he seems to appreciate his mod power, maybe as a thank you.
As for the reaching out story, that actually comes originally from the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34908237A BBC investigation has uncovered emails which claim Coe - an ambassador for sports giant Nike and then vice-president of world athletics - "reached out" to Lamine Diack with his support for Eugene's bid.
...
When asked about the allegations, Coe told the BBC he "did not lobby anyone" over Eugene's bid, but "encouraged them to re-enter another bidding cycle as they had a strong bid".
As you say, that's in the region of, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Coe has similarly preserved his "virtue" unsullied, as Bill Clinton did.
The BBC also fails to say "lobby", except to ask Coe if he did it, and Coe's answer denying it. It did say that "Track Town" lobbied the IAAF. The BBC also shows us the email contents, again indicating reaching out was about the bidding process and the timing.
casual obsever wrote:
Good question. But I think he just enjoys riling people up while being wrong, while a PR shill would actually instead try to win you over. . Classical troll behavior, but I doubt that the brojos are paying for that though he seems to appreciate his mod power, maybe as a thank you.
As for the reaching out story, that actually comes originally from the BBC.
A BBC investigation has uncovered emails which claim Coe - an ambassador for sports giant Nike and then vice-president of world athletics - "reached out" to Lamine Diack with his support for Eugene's bid.
...
When asked about the allegations, Coe told the BBC he "did not lobby anyone" over Eugene's bid, but "encouraged them to re-enter another bidding cycle as they had a strong bid".
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Why's it cost every household $5000 in taxes just to run a public school?