Clerk
rekrunner wrote:
- Helped develop a robust ABP
- Most ABP sanctions by far of any sport
- Creation of an independent Ethics Commision
- 3 lifetime bans, and a 5 year ban, for the officials involved in the briberies, resulting from an ethics investigation in progress before the ARD documentary aired, and before the French investigations
- changes in their rules to allow more ethics investigations (eg Lamine Diacke), without requiring an initial complaint
[quote]Clerk wrote:
...
How have they developed a more robust ABP? There is a 60+ page thread you are involved in that is a moot point because the timing of some tests, the IAAF decided "just don't count".
Yes, they caught the bad guys. Does it really count as the IAAF cleaning up the sport when the IAAF were those very bad guys to begin with?
And finally, do we have to rehash the ethics comission? With two members facing or having faced corruption charges? Its clear Coe learned about all he knows about ethics from his position at FIFA.
Nothing? And the second poster who replied to me, you are not citing concrete examples, and ignored mine while saying I spoke out of my ass. Lets rehash. Coe has:
-denied the whistleblowing Shobukhovas (spelled that wrong I'm sure) an official platform to report their concerns
- criticized the media which did give them a forum, as an "attack on the sport"
-bullied the scientists who saw the biopassport data showing a third of medalists with suspicious values; gave them no consideration to weigh in on cleaning the sport
- decreased the number of tests at the world championships. Every athlete was tested in the edition prior to Beijing, about one third tested at Beijing
- set up an ethics commision with ethically dubious memebers, which has taken no action except criticizing Russia.
- chosen to willfully ignore the "old" BioPassport data as even part of the panel's consideration, even though the ABP process was designed to be subjective and analytical.
- continuing to send samples to the Lausanne lab despite evidence of corruption revealed in the Russia case.
What could they do more? They don't need to be innovative, just borrow from other sports who have made progress like:
- a no needle policy
- a >50% hematocrit non-starter rule
- not allowing prize money to be given to past dopers at IAAF events, or encouraging independant races to do the same
I'm not going to ignore the positive actions, like
-pledging to double the anti-doping budget,
-banning Russia (again, after ignoring evidence in the first place).
-They have dealt with the corrupt officials, but was the investigation on their own initiative, or the French authorities?
-Coe did finally rescund his connections to Nike, after several months of being on the record not understanding the conflict of interest.
-They have put on superb events since Coe took over. Good on them.
But their stance and rhetoric on anti doping is useless. Actually, worse than useless. Because when Coe calls the IAAF leaders in the fight against doping, not only is he wrong, but he is throwing a veil over all of their shortcomings, discussed above. Their actions speak for themselves, and their words do even more damage.