COE CAUGHT UP IN NEW DOPING STORM
LORD COE is accused of misleading MPs over athletics’ doping scandal and becoming the most powerful man in the sport with the help of an allegedly corrupt official. After a joint investigation with the BBC’s Panorama, Sportsmail can reveal Coe received an email detailing evidence of serious claims of corruption in August 2014 — four months before they were first broadcast in a German TV documentary. The double Olympic champion told the Culture, Media and Sport select committee he was not aware of ‘specific allegations’ until December 2014. Text messages have also emerged which suggest disgraced Papa Massata Diack, now banned from track and field for life, helped to secure votes for Coe’s election as president of the International Association of Athletics Federations last year. Coe denies the allegations.
commission and saw nothing untoward there, either.
A statement issued by Coe’s spokeswoman said: ‘The (IAAF) ethics commission (as it then was) was deliberately established as a quasi-judicial body to investigate all allegations of corruption and breaches of the IAAF rules. It is independent of the IAAF.
‘Seb Coe was forwarded a number of emails and information regarding allegations of corruption and concerning the behaviour of certain individuals.
‘All of this material was sent by him to the ethics commission whose remit is to investigate such matters and then to pass judgement. Seb Coe was subsequently contacted by the ethics commission to say they were already aware of the allegations and the matters were all being actively investigated and he therefore left them to do so.
‘Seb has never denied hearing rumours about corruption. In fact he has said on many occasions that when alerted to rumours he asked people to pass them to the ethics commission to be investigated.
‘He did receive an email from Dave Bedford that said, “The attachments relate to an issue that is being investigated by the IAAF EC (Michael Beloff)”. This was enough for Seb Coe to forward the email to the ethics commission. He did not feel it was necessary to read the attachments.
‘You may think this shows a lack of curiosity. He, and we, would argue that it shows a full duty of care. Ensuring the right people in the right place were aware of allegations and were investigating them.’