oldroadman
Veteran
- Location
- Ubique
A lot of NGBs must be a funny sight at their meetings. Difficult to talk with your head in the sand, eyes closed, fingers in ears, shouting nah, nah, nah, not us. And getting a mouth full of sand as a bonus.
Looks like someone has 'accidently' Blattered something out...
£0Just a thought - how much is the IAAF president's salary? It has to be worth a minimum of €250-300k to be anywhere near a comparison with other international federations. In which case if that is close to the amount, and the new president allegedly made a shed load of cash from other business ventures, then why continue to take the $100k from Nike, when looking at what's public, shows a huge problem of a clash of interests when making decisions.
There's probably something about "not biting the hand that feeds you" which would be fitting in these circumstances.So, president of IAAF stays for years, receives no salary. They have to live on something. But you can't take money from anywhere that compromises neutrality. Track and field is awash with money, athletes can earn lots. Officials and administrators paid nothing? Something wrong. Which leaves a question, when the old fellow Diack was president for so long, if IAAF was paying nothing, who WAS paying him, because someone must have been. The whole edifice is very malodourous
Good to see bad news is not being buried...gonna be a bigger hit in January apparently - place your bets now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34918165
Reckon Coe is implicated.
Did he renounce it or did it get too hot for NIke. I'm beginning to suspect Coe is a bit dim.Coe renouncing his link with Nike looks a litte like someone dumping a smoking gun to me. Sepp and co. is playing a blinder.
After Hein and Pat, Sepp and Jack, you'd think he'd have learned something by now. But he's working from the book of the discredited and is so far behind the game that it's hard to imagine him ever having won a race.Did he renounce it or did it get too hot for NIke. I'm beginning to suspect Coe is a bit dim.
The IAAF, such a fine upstanding organisation to give clearance....Meanwhile, the IAAF backs Radcliffe:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/27/paula-radcliffe--blood-samples-doping-allegations-iaaf