Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone else bothered by Coe's comments?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anyone else bothered by Coe's comments?

    TORONTO, Sporting Alert – Sebastian Coe says track and field needs Usain Bolt to beat Justin Gatlin at World Championships. Bolt ran 9.87 secs on Friday in London.


    In public, shouldn't Coe at least pretend to be above this?

    If I were a voter for IAAF president, I'd be very concerned about electing someone with so little discretion. Coe's apparent vendetta would call his leadership into question for me.

  • #2
    Seems inappropriate to me, even if that is his opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, we don't heads or potential heads of an organization playing favorites. We have seen it in cycling where the heads helped cover misdeeds of certain fan favorites.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm neutral on this but I can see where Coe's coming from. On one hand you have a larger than life athlete in Usain Bolt. He's a crowd favourite, he brings positive attention to TNF and he produces the results when it matters. On the other hand you have Gatlin with his doping past with many feeling he should have been banned for life. So yeah, I can understand how Coe feels.

        Comment


        • #5
          Coe is hypocrite of first order. Note how he took on the role of Ohuruogu's champion and finessed her drugs offense (3rd paragraph from last):

          As chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, I would be forgiven for feeling that the days tick by rather too quickly.


          And a lot of it has to do with the British "thing' about USA. If Gatlin were Gatlin with the same drugs record but from some country other than USA, I am certain Coe would not be nearly as intemperate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Having Bolt be a top challenger is obviously always in the best interest of the sport...

            What bothers me though in some of these articles is that there are so many people in the general public who still naively seem to think (and who often suggest in the media) that not having tested positive means that an athlete must be clean (and is therefore morally superior), when in reality there's a chance that the same athlete may have just been able to cheat better, or to use PEDs with less obstacles, or just had better luck than an athlete who tested positive. I'm talking in general, and I'm not suggesting anything about Bolt here.

            But because I'm of the belief that we've only been able to catch a small percentage of the successful PED using elite athletes, I think it's naive and unwarranted to play the good guy athlete-bad guy athlete game because one athlete hasn't tested positive and one has. I know it's good public relations for track and field if the general public believes that track and field's top athletes are all clean even if they aren't. All things considered though, to assume or suggest that the character of an athlete who's tested positive is automatically less admirable than the character of another athlete who (for whatever reason) hasn't, is unwarranted at this time. At least until the day when the anti-doping efficacy is 100%, and we all know when that will be... (smile)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Blues View Post
              when in reality there's a chance that the same athlete may have .....just been able to cheat better, or to use PEDs with less obstacles, or just had better luck than an athlete who tested positive. I'm talking in general, and I'm not suggesting anything about Bolt here.
              By starting your posting off as a Bolt headliner you are definitely and deliberately raising question marks about Bolt, and you are suggesting that he is perhaps lucky to have escaped being caught with a positive.

              Comment


              • #8
                Say Coe's dream of Bolt victories don't come true, then what? If there's an OFFICIAL IAAF problem with having a guy who's previously tested positive come back to competition then make lifetime bans. If not leave it alone.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Coe shouldn't be offering this type of comment just in general.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
                    By starting your posting off as a Bolt headliner you are definitely and deliberately raising question marks about Bolt, and you are suggesting that he is perhaps lucky to have escaped being caught with a positive.
                    I do not believe that is the implication at all. I believe (or at least, it is my view, if not Blues') that not testing positive means just that, you have not tested positive. It does not mean you are clean. Those are two very different things.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by player View Post
                      Coe is hypocrite of first order. Note how he took on the role of Ohuruogu's champion and finessed her drugs offense (3rd paragraph from last):

                      As chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, I would be forgiven for feeling that the days tick by rather too quickly.


                      And a lot of it has to do with the British "thing' about USA. If Gatlin were Gatlin with the same drugs record but from some country other than USA, I am certain Coe would not be nearly as intemperate.
                      The cases of Gatlin and Ohuruogu are not remotely similar.

                      Ohuruogu missed three out-of-competition drug tests (one in October 2005 and two in June 2006) The 3rd missed test was when Ohuruogu failed to inform the testers of a last-minute change of training venue after a double-booking at the original training venue. She passed a drug test 9 days before and 3 days after her 3rd violation. IMO she was guilty of stupidity, but rules are rules. The investigating committee stated "There is no suggestion, nor any grounds for suspicion, that the offence may have been deliberate in order to prevent testing".

                      Unlike Ohuruogu, Gatlin did test positive for a PED.

                      Consequently, I fail to see the hypocrisy as you claim. However, I do agree that Coe could have chosen a less controversial example to promote.

                      As far as the British thing goes, I think you have the wrong end of the stick on this as well. The British Olympic Association imposed a lifetime ban on Ohuruogu competing at future Olympic Games for Great Britain. Compare this treatment to the treatment meted out by the US to Tyson Gay and Gatlin.

                      But also compare it to the treatment the BOA meted out to British world champion triathlete Tim Don. In 2006 he also missed 3 tests but inexplicably, given the ban on Ohuruogu, he was allowed to compete in future Olympic Games. Why was that? What was the difference between Ohuruogu and Don, besides gender and race?

                      And finally, while I share Lord Coe's disquiet about Gatlin, given his political position and current aspirations it is not appropriate that he throw petrol on the flames of this debate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dustoff View Post
                        I do not believe that is the implication at all. I believe (or at least, it is my view, if not Blues') that not testing positive means just that, you have not tested positive. It does not mean you are clean. Those are two very different things.
                        We are all entitled to our opinions, including you and yours truly. However, you make it very clear that you will seize the chance to support anything that hints of casting dispersions about Bolt.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Nope. Most sports need their #1 star (by a long way) to keep winning (or at least to be competitive at the highest level).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Vault-emort View Post
                            Nope. Most sports need their #1 star (by a long way) to keep winning (or at least to be competitive at the highest level).
                            I disagree, the sport needs a competitive environment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It was not the right time or place to express such views, considering his political aspirations.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X