Mary Decker found guilty in LetsRun kangaroo court?!?!

No innocent until proved guilty. Slaney Decker whatever her name tested positive. Guilty.

No Kangaroo court just facts

Athletics: Slaney doping ban upheld at IAAF hearing

Mike Rowbottom

Tuesday, 27 April 1999

MARY SLANEY'S campaign against the doping penalty imposed on her three years ago was effectively defeated yesterday when she received a two-year retrospective ban without the right of appeal. The International Amateur Athletic Federation's arbitration panel discounted the former world champion's claim that an adverse testosterone finding may have resulted from her using the birth control pill. It added that the ruling was "final and binding".

Slaney, who as Mary Decker completed the 1,500 and 3,000 metres double at the 1983 World Championships, had argued that the widely used method of detecting illegal manipulation of the naturally occurring hormone - measuring it in proportion to the body's levels of epitestosterone - was unreliable.

But the three-strong panel ruled that she had provided insufficient evidence to justify overturning the ban. An IAAF statement said the punishment had had to be imposed because of Slaney's "failure to establish by clear evidence that an abnormal T/E (testosterone/ epitestosterone) ratio was attributable to pathological or physiological conditions".

The Federation had thus rendered null and void her performances in the two-year period starting from June 17, 1996 - the date she was tested at the US Olympic trials in Indianapolis. That means Slaney, now 40, loses the 1,500 metres silver medal she gained at the 1997 World Indoor Championships in Paris.

Slaney had claimed that the test was unreliable when carried out on women in their late thirties or early forties who were taking the birth control pill. With the help of her US kits sponsor, Nike, she contested the decision through the courts and in September 1997 USA Track and Field cleared her of a doping offence. The IAAF, which allowed Slaney to compete pending the arbitration panel's finding, said that her domestic association had acted erroneously.

Slaney's attorney, Doriane Lambelet Coleman, reacted angrily. "It is a sham, and they know it," she said. "It is sad that the worldwide governing body of track and field should choose to prop up this sham doping test programme at the expense of one of its greatest athletes. That they have chosen this course merely reveals the corrupt nature of that organisation and the fact that it has no interest whatever in a scientifically sound programme."

By Susan Wessling

Mary Decker Slaney's silver-medal performance from the 1997 world championships has been erased from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) history books. On Monday the IAAF stripped Slaney of the 1,500-meters medal she won in Paris because she failed a drug test three years ago.

Slaney, 40, is still eligible to compete in IAAF events since she has retroactively completed her two-year ban.

A three-man IAAF arbitration panel said the American runner tested positive for high testosterone levels before the 1996 Olympics. The IAAF imposed-ban on Slaney ran from June 1996, when the test was administered, to June 1998 and included the 1997 world championships.

USA Track and Field CEO Craig Masback refused to comment on the IAAF decision. Slaney has repeatedly said she is innocence of the doping charge and earlier this month, she sued the IAAF and the U.S. Olympic Committee, which administered the original test. She claims the test is unreliable for women in their late 30s or 40swho take birth control pills.

The United States Track and Field Association (USATF) released a statement April 23 saying it supported Slaney's withdrawal from IAAF Arbitration. The statement said the USATF, acting jointly with Slaney, vigorously defended the decision of its hearing board which found Slaney did not commit the offense. "The USATF believes that the board properly exonerated Slaney, and on numerous occasions USATF urged the IAAF to accept that decision. Unfortunately, the IAAF chose instead to challenge the decision," the statement said.

It further said, "The decision to withdraw from participation in the IAAF arbitration was precipitated by a ruling of the IAAF arbitration panel on Jan. 31. In that ruling, the panel decided that all the IAAF had to do to convict Slaney of a doping offense was to prove that her T/E ratio exceeded 6:1; the IAAF panel concluded that the IAAF did not even have to prove that a prohibited substance caused the elevation. USATF believes that the IAAF panel's ruling departs from its own rule that the IAAF has the burden to prove a doping violation beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The IAAF's own experts agreed during the USATF proceedings that an elevated T/E ratio alone was not proof of a doping violation. After handing down this extraordinary decision, the IAAF arbitration panel adjourned the proceedings until April 23.

"The USATF agrees with Slaney that any further participation in these proceedings would be futile. First, based upon current scientific knowledge, reliance solely upon the T/E ratio as "proof" of the prohibited use of testosterone or testosterone precursors by women is inadequate to meet the requirement that doping violations must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, it now is clear that no relevant authority conducted the investigation necessary to determine whether or not Slaney's elevated ratio was caused by illness, birth control pills, bacterial degradation or alcohol, all of which are factors the IAAF knows may cause the elevation of a woman's T/E ratio.

"As a consequence, Slaney is faced with the insurmountable burden of having to prove that one of these factors, or some other innocent factor, in fact caused her elevated ratio. USATF believes that placing such a burden on an athlete is indefensible, both as a matter of science and as a matter of fundamental fairness. The evidence against Slaney-that her T/E ratio was elevated-is simply insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Slaney committed a doping violation.

"When Slaney filed a lawsuit against the IAAF last week, she put before the court the question of whether the manner in which the IAAF seeks to proceed in testosterone cases involving women is lawful. Although USATF hopes that this question ultimately will be decided forthrightly by the Olympic Movement itself, it believes that in the present circumstances, Slaney's lawsuit is an appropriate forum in which to raise the issue in her case."

I subscribe to the once a doper, always a doper belief, but Mary Decker Slaney probably wasn't doping when she ran under 4. When she was 15 she set WRs in the 800, 880 and 1000 (2:01, 2:02, and 2:26). It's not exactly some stretch of the imagination that in 1983 at age 23 she ran 3:57 completely unaided by PEDs. The doping in 1996 was her trying to turn the clock back, which of course made her entire career suspect.

The lateness of the doping violation and the obviousness of her talent is why she gets a free pass from so many organizations wanting to honor her (USATF Hall of Fame for instance), which is of course sick since she destroyed her own legacy in 1996.

God help us all if Ramzi or Regina ever get the same positive attention.

In high school, Jones won the California state championship in the 100 m sprint four years in a row, representing Rio Mesa and Thousand Oaks high schools. She was successfully defended by attorney Johnnie Cochran on charges of doping during her high school track career.

Ghost of Saddam wrote:

Seriously, Wejo?

"Jenny Barringer...becomes only the 3rd American to break 4:00 (and 2nd non drug cheat to do so)."

Nice touch. Guilty until proven innocent, huh? You would have fit in quite nicely on Saddam's "Supreme Court."

Perhaps you should know what you´re talking about before you open your mouth.

idiot alert wrote:

Ghost of Saddam wrote:

Seriously, Wejo?

"Jenny Barringer...becomes only the 3rd American to break 4:00 (and 2nd non drug cheat to do so)."

Nice touch. Guilty until proven innocent, huh? You would have fit in quite nicely on Saddam's "Supreme Court."

Perhaps you should know what you´re talking about before you open your mouth.

The obvious, and immature, implication is the the faster times were drug assisted. That is the brojo's problem. Jenny B. is simply the 3rd American to break 4:00.

Did Jenny B. submit samples for drug testing after her sub 4? If yes, the results aren't in yet. Why is being given a free ride?

I agree, Wejo is being an Assh*** with his statement on this. No need for the comment, and I agree, let's wait to see if Barringer competes another 15 years of competition and has a clean bill of health after she has finally retired retired before we declare her clean of drugs. Come up with an unclean sample once, and her whole career goes down the toilet, is that right Wejo? Until then, don't declare her clean unless you know something all the rest of us do not--that is can you see the future? On the other hand, you can apply the same standard to Barringer and Slaney...keep your flap shut.

First of all, Jenny B. is the 4th to go under 4:00.00. Regina Jacobs did it indoors. Now both Jacobs and Slaney were dopers at one point. SFH has to be considered innocent, as does Barringer, because there is no reason to say otherwise.

I think that it's no secret that Slaney is suspected of being a doper in the 80s. She was never caught, so it does not matter. But, I do believe that her later "offense" casts a shadow over previous parts of her career. I would feel that way about anybody caught doping, cheating, etc.

U.P. wrote:

First of all, Jenny B. is the 4th to go under 4:00.00. Regina Jacobs did it indoors. Now both Jacobs and Slaney were dopers at one point. SFH has to be considered innocent, as does Barringer, because there is no reason to say otherwise.

I think that it's no secret that Slaney is suspected of being a doper in the 80s. She was never caught, so it does not matter. But, I do believe that her later "offense" casts a shadow over previous parts of her career. I would feel that way about anybody caught doping, cheating, etc.

So, based on your "theory," is you (U.P.) ever did anything stupid, like steal something, or get caught driving under the influence, then you are forever a thief or dangerous driver.

Get a grip on your limit view of the world. Or else, GOD won't have a reason to forgive you your time is up.

With this kind of an attitude, God help all of us. C'mon get into the real world where we all make mistakes at one time or another. Making a mistake once (whether proven or not), does not condemn us to a lifetime of mistakes, nor mar an otherwise good life in the time before the mistake. For heaven's sake, why would you say that Mary Slaney was suspected of drug use in her earlier years. Unlikely, but using your sick attitude, every athlete is suspected of drug use. In Mary's defense, she was up against a system that she couldn't fight. Have you ever heard of a convicted killer, later found to be innocent of the crime? It happens, and I'd laugh my ass off at people like you if evidence in the future proves the Mary never used anything illegal.

Well, I believe that I said her later offense "casts a shadow." It's not like I'm pulling suspicion about Slaney out of my a#$ here. But, I did say "casts a shadow." If I were to steal something or commit a crime in a scenario that I had long been a part of, it would cast a shadow, yes. Just about everybody whose ever had more than a few beers has "legally" driven under the influence.I think if you look at the way society/media/average Joes feel about Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, etc. then the same towards Slaney is relevant.God, I would like to hope and believe that she was clean during her 80s success, but decades of suspicion are slightly more shady when the individual in question actually gets busted. She was banned in the 90s. She was not cleared.

dumb is as dumb does wrote:

[quote]

So, based on your "theory," is you (U.P.) ever did anything stupid, like steal something, or get caught driving under the influence, then you are forever a thief or dangerous driver.

Get a grip on your limit view of the world. Or else, GOD won't have a reason to forgive you your time is up.

U.P. wrote:

SFH has to be considered innocent, as does Barringer

No they don't.

Barringer is the 4th American woman under 4 minutes period.

you're so naive if you don't think she was using during the 80s... she was caught cheating. The way i see it, if you're caught cheating at some point, chances are you always have been.

letsrun is the us weekly of running journalism.

actually, no its more like national enquirer

tiocfaidh ar la wrote:

you're so naive if you don't think she was using during the 80s... she was caught cheating. The way i see it, if you're caught cheating at some point, chances are you always have been.

I have to agree, at least in terms of my gut reaction.

This is classic American bias at its best. Those of you defending the doping, tantrum throwing Slaney need to wake up and realize how hypocritical and one eyed you’re acting.

Hypothetically, image if a Russian runner had been dominating the world scene (someone like Yuri Borza in his early days), winning races, breaking records and then, in the twighlight of his career, is busted for doping (obviously Yuri hasn’t tested positive). This said runner would be crucified and none more by western runners and I can guarantee many of those defending Slaney would the first at his throat. Simply because Slaney is the quintessential white American poster child for 80s distance running some of you, stuck in that era, just can't let it go and accept that her accomplishments (like many others of her time...ala Western) may not have been honest and 100% legitimate.

It's simple...if you cheat and get caught you forfeit all dignity and respect that you bring and have ever bought to the track. All your victories and records are forever suspect. That is the risk you run by doping, that is the risk you run by getting caught. Slaney new that, I know that and you know it.

That being said no one can question Barringers (sp?) effort, until you have reason to do so.

Footloose and Free wrote:

I agree, Wejo is being an Assh*** with his statement on this. No need for the comment, and I agree, let\'s wait to see if Barringer competes another 15 years of competition and has a clean bill of health after she has finally retired retired before we declare her clean of drugs. Come up with an unclean sample once, and her whole career goes down the toilet, is that right Wejo? Until then, don\'t declare her clean unless you know something all the rest of us do not--that is can you see the future? On the other hand, you can apply the same standard to Barringer and Slaney...keep your flap shut.

I don\'t know whether it was wejo or someone else who was responsible for the comment, but I agree that it was an inappropriate -- and, as far as I know, inaccurate -- comment. If the people at letsrun.com have evidence that Slaney doped her way to a sub-4, I\'d like to see it.

Decker was a drug cheat. Period. It doesn't matter if she was clean when she ran the time (unlikely). She deserves to have her career thrown out because she cheated. End of story.

No one is saying Ben Johnson's times up until when he was caught should count. Same with Marion. Why do it with Decker?

Complete banishment and all accomplishments taken away. That's what the sport needs to do to ensure people won't cheat. And if they do, those are the consequences. Once a cheat, always a cheat.