Zola's Stinky Feet wrote:
So, the actual charges only involved the test in 1996? That was 12-13 years after the highlight of her career. She was never charged of anything in the eighties, was she?
Yep, the suspension was based only on the one test. And nope, she was never accused of doping at any other time.
gee, ok, let's give the critics what they want. erase all of mary's performances from the nineties. what are we left with?
the greatest female middle distance runner in american history.
Guilty as charged,
Before stating that what I said wasn't true, did you actually read the opinion? Note the following passage:
"According to the parties, proving the presence of exogenous testosterone in the body by scientific tests is not possible at the present time. Therefore, the IAAF has adopted the rebuttable presumption of ingestion from a high T/E ratio in an athlete's urine, as detailed throughout this opinion. . . . We hope that at some juncture, science will develop a means for detecting exogenous testosterone in athletes, such that an athlete's T/E ratio of 11.6:1 can be discounted if it is based on innocent factors."
The Seventh Circuit never reached the merits of the dispute over whether Slaney was a doper. It didn't have to. It simply held, in pertinent part, that the IAAF's procedures and standards were not so violative of U.S. public policy as to require the court to refuse to recognize the preclusive effect of a foreign arbitration award under the New York Convention.
She was the best (most successful) american runner ever.
Jaman wrote:
What puzzles me is why someone like her would need to cheat. She was probably the best runner of her kind when she was in high school and in her younger years. It's not like she lacked extraordinary talent and needed drugs to be the best.
well of course critics fail to point out that she was never accused of anything throught her running career from 1969-1996. that's 27 years, almost three decades!
nothing really puzzling about it. if you were in your late thirties, and way past your prime, you'd need drugs to be the best.
important question to ask is if she was on drugs when it mattered. the answer is no.
right and regina didn't do drugs until she got caught either. slaney was a cheat for a long time. as to the question about why she would do drugs if she was a phenom, why would marion need drugs when she was also a phenom? also, mary was always injured. how many freakin lower leg surgeries did she have? so it may have been easy for her to rationalize.
mary was not just a druggie but a low class whiny bitch as well.
then where is her oly medal? not bloody likely the most successful...
sickening wrote:
slaney was a cheat for a long time.
Prove it.
No wonder Shakespeare wrote "first thing we'll do, let's kill all the lawyers".
That whole pile of BS could have been reduced to ONE PARAGRAPH as could every important document since the Magna Carta.
G*D do I hate lawyers!!!
sickening wrote:
slaney was a cheat for a long time.
funny, the same standards applied to all athletes in the 70s-80s and she never was accused of anything.
can you trace the 1996 drug accusations back to 1983 at the world championships and all the american records mary set? explain 27 years of non detection and non accusations on the woman. boggles the mind.
1976 - she was too young and not allowed
1980 - boycott, not allowed to run
1984 - idiot's foot got in the way and she was clearly going to win. look at the shape she was in in 1983 and 1985.
1988 - too old
aside from that, she owned every american record on the track, from 800 meters to what was it, 5000 meters. and of course her double at the 83 WC's that made her sportswoman of the year.
no other female american middle distance runner has come close.
Zola\'s Stinky Feet wrote:
could someone please provide a brief celebrity justice version of that, or say some cliff notes?
USATF HEARING
Slaney received her hearing before the USATF Doping Hearing Board on September 14, 1997. The Hearing Board, unpersuaded by the testimony of the IAAF\'s investigating doctor, unanimously determined that no doping violation had occurred.Satisfied with the USATF Hearing Board\'s finding that the IAAF\'s rules regarding the use of the T/E/E ratio test were vague and inconsistent and the six to one ratio was not scientifically proven to be inconsistent with the normal ratio in humans, Slaney withdrew her complaint with the USOC.
IAAF ARBITRATION
The IAAF was unsatisfied with the USATF Hearing Board\'s findings, and invoked arbitration of the USATF decision./5 Slaney and the USATF opposed arbitration, but both were represented before the IAAF Arbitral Panel (\"the Tribunal\"). In late January 1999, the Tribunal issued an interlocutory decision upholding the IAAF\'s interpretation of how to adjudicate a testosterone doping offense, and found that the rules were neither vague nor inconsistent. Thus,once the IAAF showed that Slaney had a T/E ratio greater than six to one, Slaney had to come forth and show by clear and convincing evidence that the elevated ratio was attributable to a pathological or physiological condition.Believing that it was scientifically impossible to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her high T/E ratio was due to pathological or physiological factors, Slaney withdrew from the arbitration, followed by the USATF. Ultimately,the Tribunal ruled that Slaney had committed a doping offense.
FRIVOLOUS PROCEDURAL APPEALS
Slaney filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana raising numerous state-law contract and tort claims against both the IAAF and the USOC. Slaney also alleged that the organizations had violated the RICO Act, 18U.S.C. sec. 1961 et seq. On November 5, 1999, the district court entered a judgment and order dismissing Slaney\'s state-law claims against the IAAF and USOC pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1),and dismissing Slaney\'s 18 U.S.C. sec.sec.1962(c) and (d) claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). Specifically, the district court held that the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. sec. 201 (\"New York Convention\"), barred Slaney\'s claims against theIAAF, as those claims had been the subject of a valid arbitration decision. With regard to Slaney\'s claims against the USOC, the court held that the Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. sec.220501 et seq., gives the USOC the exclusive right to determine disputes over eligibility and does not create a private right of action. Finally, while the court held a RICO claim could theoretically be maintained against the USOC,Slaney\'s complaint did not \"come close to fitting the family of claims Congress intended the RICO statute to cover,\" nor did it adequately alleged violation of the RICO conspiracy provision.
FINAL RESULT
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. 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.
THE REST OF THE STORY
Denton Hall, the International Law Firm for the IAAF was given leads that would ultimately kill the Slaney case. Since Slaney would not voluntarily tender her medical records (to exonerate herself) and since Denton Hall was about to subpoena and depose her physician, the Slaney camp was forced to withdraw their petition, leaving no other options but a frivolous procedural lawsuit.
Slaney had every opportunity to offer her medical records and prove that her personal physiology was the explanation behind her outrageous T:E ratio. She refused.
Zola's Stinky Feet wrote:
can you trace the 1996 drug accusations back to 1983 at the world championships and all the american records mary set? explain 27 years of non detection and non accusations on the woman. boggles the mind.
Yes. Her coach at the time was Dick Brown, well documented as the architect of the Athletics West doping program. The big money was behind her, keeping her T/E ratio at 3.0 for the big meets. In 1996, if you'd look at her results, Slaney was struggling, far behind her peers. She did not show form in April, May or June to indicate fitness to make the Olympic team. Out of nowhere, with heavy acne on her back she makes the Olympic team and fails the doping test. Suprised?
so, trace that back 13 years earlier to her prime in 1983.
not a single doping allegation in that period. she was one of the sport's highest profile athletes at the time. who cares what she did in the nineties. she shouldve just retired after seoul anyway.
if paula radcliffe wins the masters division at london 15 years form now and is caught doping, does that mean she's not clean now, when it really matters?
Zola's Stinky Feet wrote:
so, trace that back 13 years earlier to her prime in 1983.
not a single doping allegation in that period. she was one of the sport's highest profile athletes at the time. who cares what she did in the nineties. she shouldve just retired after seoul anyway.
if paula radcliffe wins the masters division at london 15 years form now and is caught doping, does that mean she's not clean now, when it really matters?
NOBODY tested positive back in Slaney's prime. Well, almost nobody anyway. All the Russians and East Germans passed their tests. To point out that Slaney passed drug tests in 1983 proves nothing.
I remember the 80s wrote:
NOBODY tested positive back in Slaney's prime. Well, almost nobody anyway. All the Russians and East Germans passed their tests. To point out that Slaney passed drug tests in 1983 proves nothing.
the legacy she set for herself is based in the 80s, not the 90s. and almost no one who competed during mary's prime was still competing in 1996 like she was. so how do we know if ANY of her 70s-80s contemporaries were ever clean, since you say "NOBODY tested positive" then?
Denton Hall wrote:
Believing that it was scientifically impossible to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her high T/E ratio was due to pathological or physiological factors, Slaney withdrew from the arbitration, followed by the USATF. Ultimately,the Tribunal ruled that Slaney had committed a doping offense. . .
FINAL RESULT
. . . 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.
THE REST OF THE STORY
Denton Hall, the International Law Firm for the IAAF was given leads that would ultimately kill the Slaney case. Since Slaney would not voluntarily tender her medical records (to exonerate herself) and since Denton Hall was about to subpoena and depose her physician, the Slaney camp was forced to withdraw their petition, leaving no other options but a frivolous procedural lawsuit.
Slaney had every opportunity to offer her medical records and prove that her personal physiology was the explanation behind her outrageous T:E ratio. She refused.
Despite all the verbiage, you haven't refuted the fact that she never had a chance to have the testing procedure scrutinized in court. The idea that a contraceptive could have affected the results is entirely plausible. WADA's Web site says as much.
It's not surprising the she didn't want to turn her med records over to the IAAF's own tribunal. There's a clear conflict of interest in having the IAAF's own arbitration panel pass judgment on IAAF testing. Scrutiny of the test by an independent third party was needed. She never got it because all the U.S. courts, right up to the Supremes, said they didn't have jurisdiction. So, no, she did not have "every opportunity" to prove there was a physiological explanation for the positive.
You said the "IAAF was given leads that would ultimately kill the Slaney case." What were those leads, exactly?
Read the book "Swoosh" wrote:
Her coach at the time was Dick Brown, well documented as the architect of the Athletics West doping program. The big money was behind her, keeping her T/E ratio at 3.0 for the big meets. In 1996, if you'd look at her results, Slaney was struggling, far behind her peers. She did not show form in April, May or June to indicate fitness to make the Olympic team. Out of nowhere, with heavy acne on her back she makes the Olympic team and fails the doping test. Suprised?
Hearsay, weak inference, blah, blah, blah.
asked dick quax what mary used to enhance her recovery from a stress fracture in 1980. also compare pictures of mary in 1983 to 1985.
wtf wrote:
asked dick quax what mary used to enhance her recovery from a stress fracture in 1980. also compare pictures of mary in 1983 to 1985.
why? the usoc and iaaf havent charged her with anything prior to 1996.