I don't know Mary Slaney personally, and am neither fan nor foe of the woman. I am troubled, however, by the sloppy reporting -- here and elsewhere -- about the IAAF's findings in her case. Although there is little dispute that her testosterone/epitestosterone ratios were outside the IAAF's acceptable range, there is considerable legitimate dispute about whether the unacceptable ratios resulted from the use of exogenous testosterone or something else. That dispute was not resolved by the IAAF, or the arbitration or litigation that followed. For more detail, see Judge Flaum's opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=99&num=4146&Submit1=Request+Opinion
Note, in particular, the following passage:
"educed to its essence, Slaney contends that
the burden-shifting approach adopted by the IAAF
violates United States public policy. We
disagree. 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. Were the IAAF not to
make use of the rebuttable presumption, it would
be nearly impossible, absent eyewitness proof, to
ever find that an athlete had ingested
testosterone. As the IAAF notes, criminal
defendants are frequently required to come
forward with proof establishing a basis for
asserting affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Martin
v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987); Leland v. Oregon,
343 U.S. 790 (1952). 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.
However, until that point in time, we are
confident that requiring an athlete to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that her elevated
ratio was due to pathological or physiological
factors does not invoke a violation of United
States public policy as federal case law has
required in order for a court to refuse to
enforce a foreign arbitral award."
As for Slaney's induction into the National Distance Running Hall of Fame, I personally am not particularly bothered by it. I am, in fact, much more bothered by the Hall of Fame's overall record in selecting individuals for induction. The fact that, for example, Kathrine Switzer and Nina Kuscsik were selected for induction before Jim Ryun was inducted, or that Grete Waitz was admitted as the only foreign athlete, or that Fred Lebow was inducted but Olympic champions like Bob Schul or world-records holders like Buddy Edelen were not, should give you some idea of how seriously you should take this self-styled "Hall of Fame."