Salazar lied about not coaching Mary Slaney, and the BBC has the goods

erik wrote:

It's such a ridiculous lie--very strange they're digging their heels in so hard about it.

Especially since it's common knowledge he was her coach. So was he lying in every past report, and telling the truth to Farah? Or vice versa?

Either one is ridiculous and shows, at the very least, a thoughtless propensity for dissembling.

Indeed the lie makes no sense. He should have just said as he did at the time - the test was/is flawed - she was clean. It doesn't make sense to on the one hand say, "She was innocent" but then on the other hand say "I wasn't coaching her."

By saying "I wasn't coaching her" you basically seem to be admitting there is something to disassociate yourself from (which i fully believe).

I found the BBC article to be kind of funny. It does a big investigation and what not. They could have just done a cliff notes version and used the line buried at the end of the story.

In Salazar's 2013 autobiography he wrote, "I also coached my good friend Mary Slaney, the American middle-distance legend, at the end of her career.."

Rojo

PS. I think Salazar gave me the "I wasn't really coaching her line" as well when I met with him and talked about all of this drug stuff a few years back at the Nikecampus. THat was before the book even came out. Weird he'd put that in the book if he wanted to deny it.

This whole thread was STARTED by letsrun, the same as all of the others about Nike and Salazar.

Has Mary Slaney spoken about this at all since the story broke? The BBC article said they reached out to her for comment but she did not reply. I find it indeed compelling, because if Salazar was being truthful, then Slaney could clear it all up by saying, "He's telling the truth, I did not consider him my coach, and even if he was, it wouldn't matter because the test was flawed." Something. Instead she's totally silent. Does she still have a professional relationship with Nike? They did bring her out at the Pre Classic. I wonder if she's remaining silent because she doesn't want to jeopardize that relationship, but at the same time open herself up to potentially being caught in a lie.

Salazar was not her only coach, so maybe in his mind, at the time, he was only partially coaching. Here is an excerpt from the BBC article and '96 RW interview -

RW: How is the training going"

M.S.: Bill Dellinger, who also coaches me, has me on a time line.

Why would Dellinger have her master plan and not Salazar? Seems to me that Dellinger was the head coach and Salazar was the Steve Magness of the relationship.

BBC's undue diligence wrote:

.

That part is true. Any knowledgeable track fan knows it. It's John Cook's part that is unreliable. A self-proclaimed "close friend of Pre", he says Mary was being coached by many people at AW, when AW closed 10 years earlier? yeah yeah yeah.

Mary was coached by Dick Brown in the early 80s, switched to Bill Dellinger after AW closed down, then went with Alberto in 1994. Any questions?[/quote]

Actually, that's only partially true. People tend to forget Slaney was coached by Luiz de Oliveira from 1985 through at least the 1988 Olympics. She may have gone back to Dick Brown after that?

Brianruns10 wrote:

Has Mary Slaney spoken about this at all since the story broke? The BBC article said they reached out to her for comment but she did not reply. I find it indeed compelling, because if Salazar was being truthful, then Slaney could clear it all up by saying, "He's telling the truth, I did not consider him my coach, and even if he was, it wouldn't matter because the test was flawed." Something. Instead she's totally silent. Does she still have a professional relationship with Nike? They did bring her out at the Pre Classic. I wonder if she's remaining silent because she doesn't want to jeopardize that relationship, but at the same time open herself up to potentially being caught in a lie.

Hi, this is the real Mary Slaney.

Alberto is telling the truth, I did not consider him my coach, and even if he was, it wouldn't matter because the test was flawed.

I am very disappointed in the BBC and ProPublica. I am dedicated to clean sport and have worked extremely hard for every accomplishment in my running career. I expressly told these reporters that these allegations were not true and their sources admit they have no evidence, yet they print "suspicions" attacking me and sullying my reputation. That is inexcusable, irresponsible journalism.

The only reason Farah isn't being hammered personally is because he has good lawyers, and British law, ditto another famous British distance runner.

BBC's undue diligence wrote:

here we go again wrote:

Athletics West was active until 1990 when is became Nike International. I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about but you just keep talking and deflecting and apologizing. It seems that your response is poorly researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_West

McFly, you're back. Everyone knows that AW existed in a different form after 1986 when they closed shop in Eugene, It went from a centralized club in Eugene, with close to 50 members, most of them aspiring national class runners, to a much smaller National club comprised of mostly world-class athletes.

Try to keep up.

So you are quibbling with whether Cook should have called AW by their "new" name? And this is your evidence that Cook is making stuff up? Weird.

I ran a program for a couple of years designed to develop speed for non-track athletes. Some of the athletes were top high school football recruits and some professional football players among other sports. For short periods of time, I have also acted as a consultant-coach for a couple of pro track athletes who were in between coaches or NCAA athletes looking for a sponsor, etc. I have on a couple of occasions stated I coached one or two of those athletes. I admit that a couple of times I said I coached one of those athletes to raise my profile and some of the athletes themselves have referred to me s their coach; however, technically, I was never their coach of record. If one of those athletes ever tested positive, I would certainly not say I was not their coach. In the short periods I was working with these particular athletes, I don't deserve the credit for having coached them, nor would I deserve the credit if they were doping.

What does you fabricated story have to with Salazar?

BBC's undue diligence wrote:

I'm far, far away from being a fanboy. I'm just debunking John Cook's part of it. I makes me wonder if the rest of his testimony is true or not.

a) All your writing shows you're actually pretty close to a fanboy. Maybe you're an employee or an associate of Nike/Alberto/Eugene/UO/A Duck. Most likely you have an axe to grind against Cook. But whatever, pretty close to a fanboy

b) You didn't "debunk" anything, fanboy. What you've said in this thread probably has less truth in it, and more inflammatory deception, than what Cook has said, total, in the press, during this scandal. And Cook, who is saying a lot of the same things that a bunch of other Nike-related people have been saying for years, is the person you're trying to "debunk!" Sorry, the Alberto/Nike/Rupp/Farah myth is the one getting debunked, by lots of sources. Do you want your piece of the debunking pie as consolation for your heroes being pathological liars? Are you hoping that ProPublica will publish a report on your in-depth investigation of John Cook's knowledge of Athletics West?

Nice! POD

rojo wrote:

[quote]erik wrote:

It's such a ridiculous lie--very strange they're digging their heels in so hard about it.

Especially since it's common knowledge he was her coach. So was he lying in every past report, and telling the truth to Farah? Or vice versa?

Either one is ridiculous and shows, at the very least, a thoughtless propensity for dissembling.

Indeed the lie makes no sense. He should have just said as he did at the time - the test was/is flawed - she was clean. It doesn't make sense to on the one hand say, "She was innocent" but then on the other hand say "I wasn't coaching her."

By saying "I wasn't coaching her" you basically seem to be admitting there is something to disassociate yourself from (which i fully believe).

Completely agree. I can't understand this move by him at all. First, why we he risk even the slightest level of public dishonesty about Slaney when it does absolutely nothing to clear up the accusations about Rupp/testosterone/cytomel? Even if he had never met Slaney in his entire life, it would do nothing to ease what he is being accused of. Second, he very clearly did know and coach Slaney at least for a while as he wrote in his own autobiography. Why put himself in such a position when he has nothing to gain from it?

It's irrational. I can think of three possible motivators as to why he might feel compelled I backtrack on his record with Slaney:

1) he actually did tell Mo Farah that he never coached Slaney and now that Farah has made it public, he is trying to make good on that claim so as not to appear dishonest at a time when his integrity is being questioned

2) Farah was never actually told by Salazar that he didn't coach Slaney and threw him under the bus by making it up publicly. If Salazar believed that his fate is tied to Farah's, then he might think it is worth protecting the appearance of Farah's honesty if it risk confusion over his own interpretation of his relationship with Slaney

3) something else is coming and Salazar needs to distance himself from Slaney. Specifically, perhaps he is fearful that after all these years Slaney might be willing to come forward and admit her use of testosterone. If it came under Salazar's guidance she might have enough regret and ill will to do so, or she could feel that it is what is best for the sport she loves. There's of course no evidence to support that this would change her stance like this , but if she were to it would be a nail in the coffin after all that Salazar has said in the past about the tests and on his honesty

I guess I'm a bit confused by what him coaching her during her drug use can prove. Does it suggest he gave her the drugs or had knowledge at least? Even if true it seems like that would be difficult to prove since it was so long ago. Kind of just seems like fluff to me.

None of these sources are credible. St. Alban's Messenger? It doesn't exist. These articles are not available online, so we have no way of knowing.

I'm sorry, but this is a massive conspiracy against Alberto. And the BBC is in on it. Sad.

Merry Slaney wrote:

I am very disappointed in the BBC and ProPublica. I am dedicated to clean sport and have worked extremely hard for every accomplishment in my running career. I expressly told these reporters that these allegations were not true and their sources admit they have no evidence, yet they print "suspicions" attacking me and sullying my reputation. That is inexcusable, irresponsible journalism.

'And I still insist that Zola Budd tripped me", she continued."

(The brilliant 1985 world record breaking rematch if you haven't seen it

)

Timeline toby wrote:

BBC's undue diligence wrote:

.

That part is true. Any knowledgeable track fan knows it. It's John Cook's part that is unreliable. A self-proclaimed "close friend of Pre", he says Mary was being coached by many people at AW, when AW closed 10 years earlier? yeah yeah yeah.

Mary was coached by Dick Brown in the early 80s, switched to Bill Dellinger after AW closed down, then went with Alberto in 1994. Any questions?

Actually, that's only partially true. People tend to forget Slaney was coached by Luiz de Oliveira from 1985 through at least the 1988 Olympics. She may have gone back to Dick Brown after that?[/quote]

Im not sure why Cook was given any credibility from day one on anything he says. Anybody who has been in the sport long enough knows Cook is full of BS. He does know coaching athletes anything beyond that is verbal vomit.

Mary was bouncing around several coaches in Eugene getting advice, anybody in Eugene at that time would know that. She would ask questions about workouts, loose confidence and then ask someone else.Alberto was more of a advisor vs coach as was a number of coaches around Eugene.

It would be stretch to say Al was her coach.

Slytherin wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33096367

The Jere Longman NYTimes article referenced in your link

Water cooler talk wrote:

Timeline toby wrote:

That part is true. Any knowledgeable track fan knows it. It's John Cook's part that is unreliable. A self-proclaimed "close friend of Pre", he says Mary was being coached by many people at AW, when AW closed 10 years earlier? yeah yeah yeah.

Mary was coached by Dick Brown in the early 80s, switched to Bill Dellinger after AW closed down, then went with Alberto in 1994. Any questions?

Actually, that's only partially true. People tend to forget Slaney was coached by Luiz de Oliveira from 1985 through at least the 1988 Olympics. She may have gone back to Dick Brown after that?

Im not sure why Cook was given any credibility from day one on anything he says. Anybody who has been in the sport long enough knows Cook is full of BS. He does know coaching athletes anything beyond that is verbal vomit.

Mary was bouncing around several coaches in Eugene getting advice, anybody in Eugene at that time would know that. She would ask questions about workouts, loose confidence and then ask someone else.Alberto was more of a advisor vs coach as was a number of coaches around Eugene.

It would be stretch to say Al was her coach.[/quote]

Except for the fact that Al said he was her coach.