Why does Mary Slaney get a pass????

uranidiot wrote:

Protection from Nike?! Now, that's funny!

ray wrote:

Please explain the humor. I don't get it.

What is funny is that someone is naive/stupid enough to think that Nike could have protected her. I'm laughing at you, ray.

douglas burke wrote:

i meant to write discriminatory, i hope i did not get all the english profeesors upset.

Not to worry. There's plenty of other stuff in your post that upset the english profeesors.

Well, hate to tell you you poor man, but the world laughs at you. Can you possibly think that Nike has not bribed, taunted, threatened, and coerced people of influence to get where they are today? You can actually sit there with a straight face and tell me that Nike abandoned their cover girl during her "time of need?" If so, why does the cheat get into the Oregon Hall of fame, USATF Hall of Fame, and receive numerous post competition/post cheating awards?

ray wrote:

Can you possibly think that Nike has not bribed, taunted, threatened, and coerced people of influence to get where they are today? You can actually sit there with a straight face and tell me that Nike abandoned their cover girl during her "time of need?" If so, why does the cheat get into the Oregon Hall of fame, USATF Hall of Fame, and receive numerous post competition/post cheating awards?

Hahahahahaha! You are a riot! Either you are a comedian or a moron.

By the way, reread the entire thread. Then look up the word "exonerated" in your dictionary.

Hahahahahaha!

ray wrote:

Can you possibly think that Nike has not bribed, taunted, threatened, and coerced people of influence to get where they are today? You can actually sit there with a straight face and tell me that Nike abandoned their cover girl during her "time of need?" If so, why does the cheat get into the Oregon Hall of fame, USATF Hall of Fame, and receive numerous post competition/post cheating awards?

uranidiot wrote:

Hahahahahaha! You are a riot! Either you are a comedian or a moron.

By the way, reread the entire thread. Then look up the word "exonerated" in your dictionary.

Hahahahahaha!

Hahahahahaha! You are a riot! and a moron.

By the way, read the entire Slaney Case from the link below. Tell me where the word "exonerated" appears?

Hahahahahaha!

Look in the mirror boy wrote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=994146

The Slaney case summed up in one paragraph.

"With the evidentiary procedure established, the Tribunal continued to consider whether Slaney had committed a doping offense. The Tribunal noted that the IAAF had established that both of Slaney's specimens had been analyzed as having T/E ratios significantly higher than 6:1. [9.5:1 and 11.6:1] The tribunal also observed that Slaney's longitudinal study revealed a previous T/E ratio high of 3:1 ; meaning that her present ratio, by the most modest of calculations, was more than three times greater than she had ever previously tested. Thus the burden was shifted to Slaney to produce a valid explanation for the findings. The Tribunal noted that Slaney had produced no evidence, let alone that of a clear and convincing nature, to prove that her elevated ratio was the result of pathological or physiological factors. Since Slaney had withdrawn from the proceedings, and refused to tender her medical records to the Tribunal, the panel was forced to conclude under the burden-shifting procedure it had outlined that Slaney was guilty of a doping offense on June 17, 1996."

Mr Maine,

Are you being fresh with me? Obviously I didn't know at the time I watched the race that Decker Slaney was a cheating bitch and with a lousy personality to go with it. Now I do know and am glad she got tripped. Capisce?

uranidiot wrote:

Hahahahahaha! You are a riot! Either you are a comedian or a moron.

By the way, reread the entire thread. Then look up the word "exonerated" in your dictionary.

Hahahahahaha!

Look in the mirror boy wrote:

Hahahahahaha! You are a riot! and a moron.

By the way, read the entire Slaney Case from the link below. Tell me where the word "exonerated" appears?

Hahahahahaha!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=994146

I said reread THIS thread, brighty. It was noted on page 1 that she had been exonerated by USATF.

I don't think so. I am using Bayesian statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inferenceYou can use this calculator if you want to test out my maths. http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/bayes/BayesCalc.htmPrior probability of being a cheat = .10probability of positive test given using drugs = .90probability of positive test given no drug use = .1Probability of being a drug cheat given a positive test = .50

some coked up brit wrote:

I think you need to go back and read what you wrote. Your maths is poor. (FYI, in Britain we write "maths" and not "math".)

The T/E ratio is so questionable that IT IS NO LONGER USED. Other than that inconvenient fact, yeah, she's dirty as hell.And since when do Regina or Marion rte even a single pecentage point of possible innocence?

Drunk again and unemployed wrote:

The T/E ratio is 99% sure too. Slaney was given an opportunity to offer her medical records as a defense. She declined.

Exonerated by USATF????!!!!!!!! Now that really is funny!!!!! I'm afraid the IAAF didn't exactly see it through those rose colored Nike sunglasses that you and USATF did. She was and is guilty as sin. You must be either a former Nike executive or usatf CEO, or both.

I'm not familiar with Bayesian statistics! I think I need to go back and withdraw my comment on your maths and read the article before commenting further. Apologies.

uranidiot2 wrote:

I said reread THIS thread, brighty. It was noted on page 1 that she had been exonerated by USATF.

Now reread THIS thread IDIOT. The IAAF found that the USATF decision was wrong and was OVERRULED. It was so wrong that the USATF was almost decertified because of it. IDIOT.

You guys are dense wrote:

The T/E ratio is so questionable that IT IS NO LONGER USED. Other than that inconvenient fact, yeah, she's dirty as hell.

What the hell are you talking about? The T/E test is still the standard, in fact, WADA has even LOWERED the positive threshhold from 6:1 (in the Slaney days) down to the current 4:1 ratio.

Your inconvenient facts are about as truthful as Al Gore's inconvenient truths.

Look in the mirror boy wrote:

Hahahahahaha! You are a riot! and a moron.

By the way, read the entire Slaney Case from the link below. Tell me where the word "exonerated" appears?

Hahahahahaha!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=994146

That link is from an appeal regarding Slaney's accusation that IAAF had overstepped its authority and/or incorrectly determined her guilty of doping. It is not the actual IAAF case against her, as you seem to believe.

By the way, she was exonerated by USATF. The IAAF, on the other hand, disagreed and found her guilty of doping.

Please get your facts straight before posting. Don't let your emotions and bias get in the way of the truth.

The tests used to determine the ratio were not valid. They have subsequently been changed. And, Slaney's Testosterone levels were normal, it was the body substance testos was measured against that had fallen significantly.

As I said, this whole shebang has been tossed and a completely new test was devised. The USATF position is and was valid.

A significant number of Slaney haters lie and say that her testos was way too high. Not true. They know that.

ray wrote:

Exonerated by USATF????!!!!!!!! Now that really is funny!!!!! I'm afraid the IAAF didn't exactly see it through those rose colored Nike sunglasses that you and USATF did. She was and is guilty as sin. You must be either a former Nike executive or usatf CEO, or both.

Yeah, I guess that's why USATF suspended her! Check your facts, Jack. Due process was followed and she made her case and proved that the ban was improper. Even her IAAF case went to arbitration because there was sufficient doubt regarding the situation. Her international ban was upheld more because of the need for consistent rules than because it was scientifically correct. IAAF admitted as much.

Typical Letsrun Poster wrote:

The tests used to determine the ratio were not valid. They have subsequently been changed. And, Slaney's Testosterone levels were normal, it was the body substance testos was measured against that had fallen significantly.

As I said, this whole shebang has been tossed and a completely new test was devised. The USATF position is and was valid.

.

You are absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.

The T/E test is still in effect. The T/E ratio for a positive has actually been lowered since the Slaney case, which means that the fewer people will get away than in Slaney's day.

Why do you keep posting falsehoods?

It's not fair, it's not fair bah bah bah (weep weep, collapse to the floor, then my great big East German girlfriend carries me upstairs)