About what? Be specific? If someone you worked with took a bung to make a decision, a bung you did not share or know about, are you seriously telling me you would resign and accept culpability in the crime? Do you think his (Lord Coe's) lawyers/advisers might be telling him to seriously limit what he says as Diack is subject to allegation and is not yet tried and proven guilty? Why did the Jimmy Saville inquiry allow the media to change our fundamental concept of justice from being innocent until proven guilty to being guilty once accused?
I agree with that and all I have worked with do have that rule (sometimes with a lower limit), although rules are only of real worth if those trusted with enforcing them are not implicated in their corruption. FIFA being a classic case in hand.
Did FIFA have any independent audits? They should have such audits and it should extend to all related people and organisations.
Plenty of people had heard the rumours about Jimmy Saville. It was corrupt police officers who refused to investigate.
it would be interesting to see a clean games under proper scrutiny and themselves see how the athletes come out of it.
what's the point of principles if the people you appoint to investigate crime don't do so? so all the people who are in reality guilty are classed as innocent because corrupt people don't investigate. presidents make people their successor on the understanding they will get a pardon for their crimes - so that's alright then?
I can only believe you are trying to play Devil's Advocate, as your argument is becoming a tad bizarre! The point of having strong principles is that they are your foundation, the source of your strength and your belief system. If those people who are appointed to uphold the principles subsequently fail them, or abuse them, then that should be addressed and the best place to start is by turning the spotlight of those principles on them - if you are telling me that does not work then I wonder what your alternative is? Like I said, bizarre.
I didn't think you wanted to "turn the spotlight of the principles on them". when people suggested that you demurred and wanted to "FOCUS on going forward". I'm all for having principles but it's more than just something to say and then ignore. Principles need to go hand in hand with investigation and real punishment. Just saying "we have our principles" and feel good about yourself and FOCUS on the future is pointless.
Don't be daft! Its becoming apparent that the Russians have been cheating extensively, I'm sure WADA have reported this back to IAAF, as such the whole committee would/should have been aware. If you have a role within an organisation where it's becoming increasingly evident that independent scrutiny is taking place, then you have no option but to put yourself 'above this' or you run the risk of getting dragged down with it. As such Coe and the other IAAF members should have 'protected' themselves by the members swearing an affidavit to put them individually beyond reproach; in other words lay a safety net to protect each other. If someone swears no wrong doing, and it turns out they have, at least you are able to distance yourself from it! However it hasn't suited Coe to do this, he's either been extremely naive or has chosen to turn a blind eye to some extent, given the risk of losing his Nike sponsorship, so he's chosen to continue to work with, and receive funds from the one brand that is most complicit in sponsoring cheating sports people, says it al really. Coe will probably distance himself from Nike over the coming days, but its too late and is the result of outside pressure, too little too late. The whole thing stinks in the same way FIFA does.
I like Peter Hitchens' comment: It's harder to get into jail than it is to get into university. When a crime is committed the police don't want to investigate. When they are forced to investigate they will give a caution. After a few cautions the criminal may get fines or community orders. After many crimes and the criminal has settled down into a lifestyle of crime they will start getting small sentences that are cut short so they can get back to their life of crime. Then there is outrage when the criminals beat 80 year olds because they think they have a right to their property!
Yet again you have taken what I said out of context, even though I took the trouble to give you further explanation. Read it, it is clear, if you have trouble understanding it then ask for advice. I have never mentioned ignoring principles and I do not think anyone else is either; only you have brought that up to develop an argument with no basis that you seem to be capable of explaining. I believe the principles are just fine, but the mechanisms that sometimes apply them (depending on the context in which they are embodied) have been flawed and need addressing for the future - we can learn about that by random sampling. Just so you are clear, as you seem to have difficulty understanding, I would totally agree You ignore my points of explanation - for instance, how far would you go in your investigation, where would you, Peter, draw the line and stop testing frozen samples and adjusting results, at what level, for how long? Once you draw that line will you have exhausted every possible avenue of retrospective (cold-case if you prefer) investigation, because if you haven't, by your logic, why not? What part of this did you not understand or agree with: "If evidence is available and easily acted upon then yes, take away the medals, out the offender and satisfy justice; but my point is that the real focus (and energies, resources, political will) should be concentrated on the future of sport as a general concept - not just athletics, football, baseball, etc - something I said on here long before this broke. People who have broken the rules and been punished are competing again at the highest levels - Bolt has to run against a few - the retrospective actions we have are weak and worthless, so move forward and focus on inventing the next set."
"the retrospective actions we have are weak and worthless, so move forward and focus on inventing the next set." That says it all. I don't agree with this.
Okay, you think me daft, fine. I have news for you, the whole of the educated world have known Russian (and ex USSR countries) have been cheating for donkeys years; if you think it is only just becoming apparent then you need to reassess who is daft, Les. In particular I think the relevant organisations, IAAF and IOC for starters, knew this about the athletes and coaches and both took action against them over the years - it is a fact though that some now are back, having served their punishment and are competing again. What has never been publicly stated (to my knowledge) is the WADA accusation of State collusion, cohersion and complicity; that is a result of this report, a report from a long and detailed investigation. Can you show me anything whatsoever that shows that Coe or any other (not impeached) member of the IAAF has had factual knowledge, that they could support with proof, that might not have compromised their eventual position? The Nike question is a valid one and I have addressed that earlier - are you asking yourself the same question about TV rights? There has been a very poor culture of sponsorship that needs to change, on that I totally agree with you. But you know, there have been drug cheats for a long time, you are telling me that and I agree, Lord Coe has always been open and transparent about his Nike sponsorship, he has been the Vice-President of the IAAF for 7 years and now he is the President, so where were all of you zealots during all of this time? It wasn't an elephant in the room, it was bigger than that, according to you. Just to offer balance, as I am open to argument (and I have said I would prefer him to cut the tie for the benefit of sport), read this; here is a critical snippet: "Sebastian Coe has defiantly defended his links with Nike, refusing to give up his role as a special adviser to the sportswear giant as he takes over as the most powerful man in athletics. The incoming president of the International Association of Athletics Federations had come under fire for refusing to drop his links with the company over worries that there could be a conflict of interest. Critics pointed to the decision to award major championships to Portland and Eugene, two cities in Oregon with links to the company, and the furore surrounding Nike’s decision to back the twice-banned Justin Gatlin as examples. But Lord Coe, who has been involved with Nike since 1978 but took up his current role as a global adviser in 2012, said his role with Nike centred on a corporate social responsibility project called Time to Move, tackling childhood obesity, and did not involve contracts and negotiations or the elite performance side of the company. “There are three things to bear in mind here: a conflict is only a conflict if it is not a registered responsibility. I think I am probably the most transparent and open person who has ever sought office. You can go on to any number of websites, everything I do is in the public domain,” said Coe. “Secondly, it is only a conflict if you can’t stand behind procedures and processes and, thirdly, it’s if you behave badly. I don’t intend to do any one of those three.”" People need time to assess these WADA revelations, they need to allow time for response, they need to review and discuss their own affairs and it is important they are allowed that time so that the very best way forward can be planned. Only a fool will allow media pressure to dictate the pace of getting this right.
What does it say to you, Peter, as you are consistently vague? This tells me that we can catch them, maybe not as effectively as we should, but we can catch them, but then what? The punishments are inadequate, they are not sending a strong enough message because the offence continues to be widespread. If we carry on with these weak actions then what does the future hold but more of the same? We need to focus on the future of sport and put the bulk of our energies and moral indignation into that for the sake of those coming through, or they won't come through any more.
I think there should be lifetime television bans for anyone credulous enough to watch athletics and thinks it's in any way a fair test of athleticism.
So do most athletes, so do I for performance enhancers; although someone being stitched up by a coach or their system is a real concern, but the problem is so big we do need to be hard.
