Salazar coached doper Slaney??? and my how things have changed for US track

Montesquieu wrote:

The Mary Decker Slaney case is a bit complicated, since at least some authorities have called the test used into question, and, indeed, it is not longer used. Here's an article on part of the story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010143/

However, let's stipulate she was guilty as charged. It is a jump from that to the conclusion that Salazar was involved. One might ask would he really take such a chance with a thirty-seven year old athlete, who's lifetime best 5000 would have netted her 13th place in the Atlanta Olympics, and who ran 15:41 while presumably on drugs. It should be kept in mind that Slaney's husband was a discus thrower, who would have had relatively easy access to a variety of pharmaceuticals.

Finally, here's a long interview with Salazar that appeared today from Flotrack, which deals almost exclusively with doping:

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/250920-The-Program/video/719241-Alberto-Addresses-the-Skeptics-The-Program-Nike-Oregon-Project

Montesquieu wrote:

The Mary Decker Slaney case is a bit complicated, since at least some authorities have called the test used into question, and, indeed, it is not longer used. Here's an article on part of the story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010143/

However, let's stipulate she was guilty as charged. It is a jump from that to the conclusion that Salazar was involved. One might ask would he really take such a chance with a thirty-seven year old athlete, who's lifetime best 5000 would have netted her 13th place in the Atlanta Olympics, and who ran 15:41 while presumably on drugs. It should be kept in mind that Slaney's husband was a discus thrower, who would have had relatively easy access to a variety of pharmaceuticals.

Finally, here's a long interview with Salazar that appeared today from Flotrack,

which deals almost exclusively with doping:

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/250920-The-Program/video/719241-Alberto-Addresses-the-Skeptics-The-Program-Nike-Oregon-Project

A Duck wrote:

Monty, I totally agree. Pointing to her husband is another unproven accusation -- though it is the predominant story behind the scenes. And, yes, I hate posting that because I stand against posting unproven accusations (even though someone will come on here and lie about that too).

It is indeed a jump to automatically conclude Alberto was the source. As the nitwits and liars here usually do.

What the OP needs to read fast in order to understand the true history of it, is that George Malley once posted here about his own drug use, and tried to claim he saw Alberto's car at the same doctor's office as where he got his drugs and that somehow that equates to Malley knowing what did or did not go on in the doctors office. Another freaking leap.

Enter paranoid Brojo's and an army of anonymous and libelous liars on a "world famous message board."

Crock.

A Duck wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

The Mary Decker Slaney case is a bit complicated, since at least some authorities have called the test used into question, and, indeed, it is not longer used. Here's an article on part of the story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010143/

However, let's stipulate she was guilty as charged. It is a jump from that to the conclusion that Salazar was involved. One might ask would he really take such a chance with a thirty-seven year old athlete, who's lifetime best 5000 would have netted her 13th place in the Atlanta Olympics, and who ran 15:41 while presumably on drugs. It should be kept in mind that Slaney's husband was a discus thrower, who would have had relatively easy access to a variety of pharmaceuticals.

Finally, here's a long interview with Salazar that appeared today from Flotrack, which deals almost exclusively with doping:

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/250920-The-Program/video/719241-Alberto-Addresses-the-Skeptics-The-Program-Nike-Oregon-Project

Monty, I totally agree. Pointing to her husband is another unproven accusation -- though it is the predominant story behind the scenes. And, yes, I hate posting that because I stand against posting unproven accusations (even though someone will come on here and lie about that too).

It is indeed a jump to automatically conclude Alberto was the source. As the nitwits and liars here usually do.

What the OP needs to read fast in order to understand the true history of it, is that George Malley once posted here about his own drug use, and tried to claim he saw Alberto's car at the same doctor's office as where he got his drugs and that somehow that equates to Malley knowing what did or did not go on in the doctors office. Another freaking leap.

Enter paranoid Brojo's and an army of anonymous and libelous liars on a "world famous message board."

Crock.

"I know you guys are busy and probably not paying that close attention to the board while worlds are going on, but there are some good discussions going on regarding a Mary Slaney documentary that aired on ESPN last night.

I'm a young guy, so I don't know a lot of the history. It was very enlightening, for one, to see what a darling she was (and how crazy she was), and how we just don't see that level of attention to track and field anymore. After watching the documentary, I'm convinced it's both the influence of doping on the sport, but also the emergence of the east Africans. Americans like to watch American winners who are not cheaters, and that has been rare to find in recent years. There is no Gabby Douglas or Michael Phelps in track these days -- not even Allyson Felix rises to that level for whatever reason.

Anyway, the brief and abbreviated history lesson, I was interested to know more, in part because the documentary in no way addressed doping by anyone, let alone Slaney. So I read up on her. I was astonished to see that Alberto Salazar was her coach when she was busted during her comeback for the Atlanta Olympics. The quotes he gave about her at that time sound eerily similar to things he has said about Treniere Clement this season.

I found it shocking in part because I had no idea that Alberto had any past history linked with doping. I thought people on the boards always accused his athletes of it simply because they're so good. So I tried TWICE to start a thread about this -- making it clear that it was no indictment on any of Alberto's current athletes, simply an airing of facts that many people as young as myself and younger on the boards and in the sport probably had no knowledge of. Both threads were summarily deleted. I made another comment on the matter on a thread about Salazar's interview on doping with Flotrack, which was also deleted within minutes.

This is absurd censorship. My comments were more than fair and were clearly being made with the intent of starting a discussion about the history of our sport, to better educate myself and so many others who have no knowledge of any of this because it has apparently been swept under the rug. Maybe that has been for good reason -- something I pointed out in the threads -- and that's fine. I just want to know more. But the mods aren't interested in enlightening discussion, apparently.

Thanks for reading."

wejo wrote:

This thread has been restored.

We received the following email below from the started of the thread. My comments are below his:

"I know you guys are busy and probably not paying that close attention to the board while worlds are going on, but there are some good discussions going on regarding a Mary Slaney documentary that aired on ESPN last night.

I'm a young guy, so I don't know a lot of the history. It was very enlightening, for one, to see what a darling she was (and how crazy she was), and how we just don't see that level of attention to track and field anymore. After watching the documentary, I'm convinced it's both the influence of doping on the sport, but also the emergence of the east Africans. Americans like to watch American winners who are not cheaters, and that has been rare to find in recent years. There is no Gabby Douglas or Michael Phelps in track these days -- not even Allyson Felix rises to that level for whatever reason.

Anyway, the brief and abbreviated history lesson, I was interested to know more, in part because the documentary in no way addressed doping by anyone, let alone Slaney. So I read up on her. I was astonished to see that Alberto Salazar was her coach when she was busted during her comeback for the Atlanta Olympics. The quotes he gave about her at that time sound eerily similar to things he has said about Treniere Clement this season.

I found it shocking in part because I had no idea that Alberto had any past history linked with doping. I thought people on the boards always accused his athletes of it simply because they're so good. So I tried TWICE to start a thread about this -- making it clear that it was no indictment on any of Alberto's current athletes, simply an airing of facts that many people as young as myself and younger on the boards and in the sport probably had no knowledge of. Both threads were summarily deleted. I made another comment on the matter on a thread about Salazar's interview on doping with Flotrack, which was also deleted within minutes.

This is absurd censorship. My comments were more than fair and were clearly being made with the intent of starting a discussion about the history of our sport, to better educate myself and so many others who have no knowledge of any of this because it has apparently been swept under the rug. Maybe that has been for good reason -- something I pointed out in the threads -- and that's fine. I just want to know more. But the mods aren't interested in enlightening discussion, apparently.

Thanks for reading."

The thread is restored. We have always said we will allow discussions of drugs in sport. Since there is another thread on Mary Slaney's documentary, a moderator probably felt this thread was repetitive.

But this thread clearly was well intentioned and we want it up.

Trollist the First wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

The Mary Decker Slaney case is a bit complicated, since at least some authorities have called the test used into question, and, indeed, it is not longer used.

Source please.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1146530.html

"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."