The title was "Investigation could take fresh look at Lord Coe's £12m 'murky deal'", and the MP said " and "Coe’s windfall from a company which made a fortune at the Olympics could represent a conflict of interests, according to Chris Matheson MP." Has there been any change of status on either of these speculative points that would turn "could" to "did"? Discussing "support for Eugene’s successful bid for the 2021 World Athletics Championships with executives from the sportswear company" is also not lobbying Diack on behalf of Nike.
casual obsever wrote:
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."