"The Drug Cheat Mary Slaney"

Wow I was off on vacation and come back to this big thread.

Let me start by saying that we have often referred to Gatlin as a drug cheat and talked extensively about his drug usage in the article in questio. We don't do refer to hims as "drug cheat" all the time as there is no need to.

The difference is everyone with a brain knows Justin Gatlin was banned for drugs. It's been in the news all summer.

Many younger fans, those under the age of 30, would have no idea that Mary Slaney was a drug cheat if we didn't mention it the few times she gets pub on the site each year. She's been inducted into all sorts of Hall of Fames, etc.

The double standard that 'ray' talks about bother me:

Doping is bad. It nearly killed the sport.

There is no reason to refer to Justin Gatlin as "drug cheat" Justin Gatlin 100% of the time as everyone knows about it. It would be redundant. It's brought up every time he races. He's vilified constantly. The guy served a 4 year ban and still can't even get into a meet.

We have received a number of emails saying we do it too much and it's depressing (and I sort of agree). With Slaney, a reminder every few months serves a good purpose.

The double standard really bothers me. Your reaction only confirms the double standard.

It amazes me that so many people think "Foreign drug cheats are bad, black US sprinting distance cheats are bad, white distance cheats aren't so bad."

-Rojo

PS. As for Gatlin, do I think he was clean with Trevor Graham? Of course not. Do I think he was clean at Tennessee? I'd say yes but honestly don't know enough about it. Why is that relevant? I don't really care.

Gatlin is forever being stained by his past drug usage, bordering on overkill. With Slaney, it's the opposite. Everyone acts like it didn't happen.

Good post Rojo, I agree with what you said and I'm glad that you responded.

Lance failed many tests before he was "caught".Lance failed multiple testosterone tests in 1999.Lance's Tour de Suisse samples contained "suspicious" levels of EPO, but below the threshold of failure.The 2004 research on the 1999 samples showed that of the 13 positive tests for EPO, 6 of them belonged to Lance, and two others belonging to Lance, were clearly suspect to the trained eye, but fell below the pre-established test criteria.There were some indications that his blood levels and bio-passport in the 2009 comeback were also suspicious.

HRE wrote:

Lance was eventually caught doping despite never failing a test. As I recall they asked Jacobs some tough questions about doping at a press conference. I don't recall that they called her a drug cheat before the BALCO thing outed her but maybe you do. Can you confirm that? And no, "everybody" does not know that Radcliffe is a drug cheat. I certainly don't know it though I also don't know that she's clean.

I'm glad you want to say it, but do you have something more than a desire to speak? Would you have a link to some kind of study or scientific analysis that says that any outlier is impossible, unless she was doping?A quick 10 minute google research found that:- hormonal birth control can significantly reduce epitestosterone levels- Mary Decker previously showed a 3:1 level- in 2000, there was not much research on the impact of oral contraceptives on T/E ratios. Only one study existed in 1996, with "not more than" 4 subjects, but this already suggested higher T/E ratios, due to "suppressed E excretion", as opposed to artificially increased "T". In that study, one subject (of not more than four) "the ratio approached the level of 6 twice in one cycle. The mean T/E increased 2-3 times due to administration of a single-phase or three-phase contraceptive". Here is one "failed" subject out of a sample of four, who presumably wasn't doping.- Mary Decker appears to have been a victim of a number of defects in procedure, slanted in favor of the IAAF. After lengthy legal proceedings and arbitration, she eventually withdrew, when it was clear the burden was on her to show with "clear and convincing evidence" that she did not dope, and that the possibility of meeting that high standard did not yet exist (at least in part based on the lack of scientific studies looking at women on birth control).Again, while I'm happy you want to say what you want to say, I'm happier if anyone could provide any external support, beyond personal opinion or gut feeling that says:- test ratios of 9.5:1 and 11.6:1 would by impossible to achieve by any women on hormonal birth control- Mary Decker doped before her twilight years in 1996

Makh is back baby wrote:

I just want to say that it's pretty much impossible to have your ratio be 11:1 or 10.5:1 (can't remember the exact number) from taking birth control. That ratio is off the charts and not possible. I'm not saying that proves she was dirty in the '80s or anything like that but using the pill or any other birth control can't skew your ratio that much, it is just not possible.

rekrunner wrote:

- Mary Decker appears to have been a victim of a number of defects in procedure, slanted in favor of the IAAF. After lengthy legal proceedings and arbitration, she eventually withdrew, when it was clear the burden was on her to show with "clear and convincing evidence" that she did not dope, and that the possibility of meeting that high standard did not yet exist (at least in part based on the lack of scientific studies looking at women on birth control).

That's like the IRS telling people to prove they didn't make 5 million last year, and therefore owe taxes on it. How is anyone supposed to prove something like that. Hence the standard that a person is innocent, unless and until they are proven to be guilty. Decker was not proven to be guilty of anything other than ignorantly false testing procedures.