Is it really the end of the story if you have to start a thread about it 26 years later?
It is a fact that she was busted by the IAAF, but that doesn't mean it was the correct verdict, or that that tells the whole story. You might have a point if the science of 1996 was reliable and verdicts were infallible. According to a Duke Law School professor, even the IOC lab had doubts about the T/E testing, and the procedure has since been updated to use a more reliable test before busting athletes.
"Mary Slaney "never 'tested positive for testosterone,'" Coleman wrote. "The (International Olympic Committee) laboratory reports are clear that her testosterone levels were always within her own normal range, which itself was always within the normal, allowable range. Those facts were never disputed."
"She was exonerated by the USATF because of this and because the IOC laboratories were unable to explain why their own internal scientific literature questioned the validity and reliability of the ... test as a proxy for doping, especially for women whose hormone levels naturally fluctuate.""
"... the IAAF has since revised its procedures and the IOC Laboratories have stopped using the test as its basis to prosecute doping cases."
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/12-sports/263737-134485-slaneys-still-angry-about-doping-allegations
More insight can be found here, but note this was written after Decker was cleared by the USATF and before the IAAF ruled:
https://law.duke.edu/news/pdf/lawmagfall98.pdf