Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

you know what hitting fan in Oregon?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
    The candidates do not take the money, the campaign committee does; it is not for personal use.
    This is correct in a perfect world but all monies can be pushed into a PAC for use later.

    Comment


    • #32
      From my observations from afar the American PACs are nothing but a corrupt fraudulent front to enable politicians to be "bought" of by America's super wealthy. Sorry for being so cynical but it seems that in the USA most politicians have to prostitute themselves to get the funding to pay for their campaigns so they can get elected. And the Nikes of the world (read drug companies, gun lobbies etc etc) expect a payback later.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
        As a former politician I think I am qualified to comment that IMO taking money for your personal election campaign qualifies for personal use in my books - and IMO again, in the books of most citizens.
        In the US, our problem(among so many others) is that it is very expensive to run for office. As a result, politicians have to raise money from numerous sources. That money doesn't come for free.There are always strings attached. When I consider a candidate in the primary, I wanto to know where his or her money is coming from. That typically informs my choice. Once we get to the general election, party and money guide my choice.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by John G View Post
          ….

          The Nick Davies case is a good example. He (and many on this board) saw nothing wrong in delaying a disciplinary process in order to manage the PR around it. ...
          I could be 100% wrong here, but as I understand the situation, Davies did zero in terms of "delaying a disciplinary process," or suggesting that anybody do so.

          What he was urging (as any good flak would) was managing the timing of the release of the news.

          Comment


          • #35
            So who is investigating the Doha bid? It's already been published that the Kenyan Council member got 2 cars from Qatar around that time.

            I'm all for transparency around awarding Eugene Worlds, and I didn't like that the process was skipped at the time, but an equal amount of scrutiny needs to be applied to the Doha bid...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by gh View Post
              I could be 100% wrong here, but as I understand the situation, Davies did zero in terms of "delaying a disciplinary process," or suggesting that anybody do so.

              What he was urging (as any good flak would) was managing the timing of the release of the news.
              My understanding is that the disciplinary process was delayed. I would argue that only when the bans are made public is the disciplinary process completed.

              It's also worth adding that Davies wasn't even sure when he wrote the emails that the athletes WOULD NOT compete in the champs. As the PR guy (or any other senior exec in the organisation) he should have been asking for immediate assurances that they would not be in the Russian team.

              To clarify - my issue with Davies is that if he worked in a more regulated industry like Pharma, and he was aware of a breach of the industry's code of conduct then, regardless of his role (PR, Marketing, Logistics, whatever), he would be expected to raise the breach with the internal Compliance department or an external regulator. As a senior exec (again, the fact he works in PR is irrelevant) the failure to do so would almost certainly lead to disciplinary action.

              Now, plenty of people working in Pharma or Financial Services will tell you that "the world's gone mad" and "Compliance has taken over the business" but I'm just sharing with you the direction that other industries have gone in. When Coe blithely talks about the sport adhering in the future to the highest levels of transparency and accountability, this is the benchmark he is (possibly unwittingly) setting.

              Comment


              • #37
                It seems to me that the athletes did not compete in the Worlds (or elsewhere, I believe), which raised some suspicions (a good thing). At the same time the PEDs news at that juncture would have led the Brit dailies etc to focus on the PEDs and not the meet. The announcing of the ban is not part of the ban, per se, and sometimes bans are not known for a number of months (minor players, I would suppose) and in those cases the whole process might not have been known particularly, so how does that fit with your definition?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
                  It seems to me that the athletes did not compete in the Worlds (or elsewhere, I believe), which raised some suspicions (a good thing). At the same time the PEDs news at that juncture would have led the Brit dailies etc to focus on the PEDs and not the meet. The announcing of the ban is not part of the ban, per se, and sometimes bans are not known for a number of months (minor players, I would suppose) and in those cases the whole process might not have been known particularly, so how does that fit with your definition?
                  Davies' email exchange with Diack's son took place before the champs. The athletes were not yet banned, as far as Davies knew. His prime concern as a senior exec should have been to clarify that a) they were going to be banned and b) it was going to happen asap. His responsibility for the integrity of the sport should have overridden his day job as Head of PR.

                  I disagree with you regarding the announcement of a ban. I think its timing is significant. Conceivably, if you do not announce a ban, even if an athlete is no longer competing, then the athlete may continue to receive sponsorship money, fees from media outlets for interviews etc. In other words, the full impact of the ban (including the public embarrassment) will not hit them until it is announced.

                  Also, if the public learn that the announcement of bans has been delayed in order to limit the damage to the organisations' reputation, they will form the view that the organisation lacks transparency. That is exactly how this has played out. Davies' understandable desire to protect his sport's interests has backfired and added to the perception that the sport lacks transparency and accountability.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X