BOYCOTT MILLROSE GAMES

and whats your beef with her? its a serious question. i dont know much about her career. know she was given advice by pre at an early age and fell in the olympics in the 3k

I suspect that the Millrose games has honored other runners who are arguably as "unclean" as Mary

You won't get anywhere contacting any of those sponsors. USATF and Masback tried to hide Slaney's positive test. If it wasn't for the leak they would have gotten away with it.

The New York Post's sports desk number is 212-930-8700. They live for exploiting any misdeeds by their arch-rival the Daily News. Give them a call or send them a letter to

letters@nypost.com

Mary Slaney? wrote:

Can anyone possibly take our sport seriously now?

yeah, no one takes the NFL seriously after showering awards on shawn merriman.

i'm rather anti-drug but i'm not all that interested in expelling athletes from our sport forever for a disputed doping positive at age 37. she had a long, long career before that. i would suspect that millrose is honoring her for her millrose games record in the 1500, set in 1980, or her six wins - first one at age 15, or for being in the hall of fame. see below for the letsun party line on this issue, though.

coach wrote:

I suspect that the Millrose games has honored other runners who are arguably as "unclean" as Mary

Agreed. However, Slaney is a convicted drug cheat. That in itself should disqualify her from such an honor. Aside from her drug conviction, Slaney is the antithesis to sportsmanship and goodwill. She represents all that is wrong with our sport.

Do you see Randy Barnes on the list of honorees?

chuck d wrote: she had a long, long career before that. i would suspect that millrose is honoring her for her millrose games record in the 1500, set in 1980, or her six wins - first one at age 15, or for being in the hall of fame.

The Millrose Games have never tested Slaney over that period, did they?

i believe testing was instituted at the millrose games during what would be the latter part of that time period. sometime in the early 1990s, i believe. of course, if we use a lack of testing as a litmus test, it's going to be pretty hard for anyone to be honored. i guess we should throw out eamonn coghlan, as well.

chuck d wrote:

i believe testing was instituted at the millrose games during what would be the latter part of that time period. sometime in the early 1990s, i believe. of course, if we use a lack of testing as a litmus test, it's going to be pretty hard for anyone to be honored. i guess we should throw out eamonn coghlan, as well.

Lack of testing isn't the litmus test. A failed test and conviction is. Why do you keep trying to shade the issue?

Eamon Couglin was NEVER a convicted drug cheat, Mary Slaney was. Coughlin has never had a black cloud following him around, Slaney in contrast always had a bad reputation (in more ways than one).

I don't know a lot about Slaney's testing. But when she failed the t/e ratio test in 96 it was because that test was never validated for woman.

Slaney said she had never used prohibited substances. Her lawyers argued that the t/e ratio testing, as it is called, discriminates against women because their hormonal levels can be affected by such things as menstruation, birth control pills and alcohol. The validity of t/e testing as an indicator of possible drug use has also been questioned by the United States Olympic Committee.

A three-member hearing panel issued a one-sentence statement vindicating Slaney for a disputed drug test at the 1996 Olympic trials, but did not explain its decision. Ann Breen-Greco, the chairwoman, said that the panel had 15 days to issue its findings and that she would discuss the case then.

well, you implied that she was dirty the whole time. we'll never know. we'll also never know whether any of the other innumerable athletes who competed during the first 85 or so years of the millrose games cheated either. i'll certainly admit that the fact that she was cheating later in her career makes her accomplishments more suspicious. but a "black cloud" or a bad reputation? sure, she was a whiny bitch; but i can't say i recall drug accusations following her around during the 1970s or 1980s.

if people want to expel forever athletes who are convicted, i understand that position. i don't necessarily subscribe to it when there doesn't seem to have been evidence or really even suspicion that an athlete was cheating throughout a large measure of their career. i personally think slaney started cheating later on in her career when she started to lose it. thus, i don't mind honoring her for her prior accomplishments.

by the way, there are plenty of athletes who ended up being cheaters who didn't have a "black cloud" following them around.

I agree with what everyone is saying, but the comment about "showering awards on Shawn Merriman" is wrong, didn't you see Jason Taylor was defensive player of the year? Yeah Merriman got to the Pro Bowl, big deal. I know people act like he is the next Reggie White and the NFL drug testing policy is a joke, but let's be fair.

that was a flippant comment; i note, though, that merriman was also voted to the all-pro team. players, coaches, fans, and the media don't seem to really care that the guy missed 1/4 of the season for drugs - and, more than likely, was using during at least part of the time when he was piling up the stats they cite to justify their awards..

yes, this is a smart idea...

let's boycott one of the most time-honored indoor events in the entire US! hoorah! wahoo! that's the way to show the uninformed masses that our sport is worth paying attention to! yes, let's decrease even further the ever-sinking ticket sales to this legendary event! what a way to show the sponsors that it's still worth funding! northeastern high schools don't need the high-level competition found there, especially in the dead of winter when texas, florida, and california are running in the sunny sunshineness of the sun! forget about trying to increase public awareness of our sport in the sports capital of the world -- we're too good for that! let's throw tradition to the wind, and give television yet another reason to not show major track events! well thought-out! boycott penn, too, while we're at it, because, hey, didn't some drug-cheats run there once-upon-a-time?!

...you're a goddamned, selfish idiot. go crusade somewhere else, jackass.

The thought of boycotting Millrose, the only U.S. indoor track meet for a crowd larger than about 5500 spectators, is vile, stupid, cretinous, and childish, and certainly counterproductive. Of course it won't get any further than this thread, which is just fine. Undoubtedly the person who started this notion considers himself a highly principled moral individual. "Petulant child" is closer to the truth.

slaney isnt a cheat wrote:

A three-member hearing panel issued a one-sentence statement vindicating Slaney for a disputed drug test at the 1996 Olympic trials, but did not explain its decision. Ann Breen-Greco, the chairwoman, said that the panel had 15 days to issue its findings and that she would discuss the case then.

That hearing was a violation of Masback's fiduciary responsibilities on many fronts: 1) He stacked the panel. One member, Jill Pilgram, who Masback had hired as general council for USATF, had blatant conflicts of interest. 2) Representing Slaney was a former colleague in a firm that Masback worked had for. 3) In the most egregious offense of all, Masback hired a lackey volunteer associate attorney to represent the USATF's interests in the case, insuring that the fix was in.

The IAAF saw through this charade and sent the case to CAS arbitration, where the fraudulent USATF decision was overturned.

Nike and Slaney tried to overturn the IAAF's decision on frivolous legalistic grounds and were roundly beaten in every hearing.

From American Lawyer

"If one case highlights the conflict between USATF and the international track federation, it's that of Mary Decker Slaney, the phenomenal middle-distance runner. In June 1996 the 37-year-old Slaney was making one last bid for an elusive Olympic medal. At the Olympic trials, Slaney finished second in the 5,000-meter finals, qualifying for the team. A urine sample taken after that race showed testosterone levels more than ten times the norm for women. Slaney denied she was doping, instead blaming her menstrual cycle and a change in birth control pills. While her doping case was pending, she competed in the Atlanta Olympics but did not medal.

When Masback took over USATF in the summer of 1997, the organization had yet to hold a hearing in Slaney's case, despite a year's passage since the runner's positive test. Aggrieved by USATF's perceived foot-dragging, the IAAF suspended Slaney. USATF finally held a hearing in September 1997. The three-person panel included athlete advocate Pilgrim, who was then in private practice. Slaney was represented by former Wilmer, Cutler partner James Coleman, Jr., who had practiced law with Masback at that firm. To present the case against Slaney, USATF used a volunteer fourth-year associate from San Francisco's Pillsbury Madison & Sutro (now Pillsbury Winthrop)."

chuck d wrote:

if people want to expel forever athletes who are convicted, i understand that position. .

Why expel Slaney forever? She served her time. She's eligible to compete again. It is inappropriate to honor a convicted cheat. You DO understand the differences here?

No one is suggesting that anyone boycott Millrose, or Penn because convicted drug cheat competed there. They should be boycotted for ill-advised decisions to honor drug cheats. Understand yet? If Penn Relays chooses to honor Tim Montgomery this year then a boycott would be appropriate.

What about competitions that Ben Johnson won, should he be invited to honorary banquets?

Blofeld wrote:

The thought of boycotting Millrose, the only U.S. indoor track meet for a crowd larger than about 5500 spectators, is vile, stupid, cretinous, and childish, and certainly counterproductive. Of course it won't get any further than this thread, which is just fine. Undoubtedly the person who started this notion considers himself a highly principled moral individual. "Petulant child" is closer to the truth.

Ironically, "petulant child" describes Slaney perfectly.

Without the high school events there would be NO draw at the Millrose games. The days of a sold-out Millrose Games are long gone. The tickets are over-priced, and the product is mediocre.

Don't be a troll....go protest at the San Diego Charger game this week, instead.