And Now, Witness for the Defense: Mary Slaney

some dude wrote:

Well, both Salazar and Rupp had the chance of telling their side of the story when they were contacted by Epstein for the ProPublice article. He even sent them the questions (with specific details) on the prednisones/testosterone tests, the Daegu IV story and more. They decided not to answer any of that questiones.

Precisely. The article is quite clear on this point. Salazar and Rupp did not respond to the most damning allegations. The fact that they did not is at best incredibly foolish, and at worst a sign of guilt.

It wasn’t until 1996, at the age of 37, that Decker Slaney (she married British discus thrower Richard Slaney in 1985) got into doping trouble.

Read more at

http://running.competitor.com/2011/05/news/the-top-10-running-doping-scandals-of-all-time_28190#GZ7HdKB7SO4VsMij.99

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Slaney

pop_pop! wrote:

Except all the proof needed is in the BBC episode.

But, pure nonsense. Sorry, try again.

Not enough NOP-bots polluting threads.

You are easily one of the most ignorant, close-minded, fool posters on this website. Every single thing you post is some form of judgmental drivel. Honestly, good for you for having such bold opinions, but you don't have to come across as a complete tool because of it.

Reports say Slaneys FaceBook page has been recently modified to exclude any Salazar mentions.

162430 wrote:

Is Alberto guilty? Of course. Have we seen any actual proof? Not even close.

Yes. Except what does "guilty" mean in your sentence? Doping is not a crime.

More demands of proof. Let's go backwards then... Please post what would be sufficient "proof" of Al Sal doping athletes if concrete evidence doping teenagers isn't "proof." And be specific.

runDirtyrun wrote:

162430 wrote:

Is Alberto guilty? Of course. Have we seen any actual proof? Not even close.

Yes. Except what does "guilty" mean in your sentence? Doping is not a crime.

Providing controlled substances without a prescription is a FELONY. Shipping controlled substances across state lines is a FELONY.

runDirtyrun wrote:

162430 wrote:

Is Alberto guilty? Of course. Have we seen any actual proof? Not even close.

Yes. Except what does "guilty" mean in your sentence? Doping is not a crime.

More demands of proof. Let's go backwards then... Please post what would be sufficient "proof" of Al Sal doping athletes if concrete evidence doping teenagers isn't "proof." And be specific.

Fair point. We know for certain that drug testing is ineffective. That makes real "proof" very hard to come by. However, I do not think that the information provided by the BBC report is enough to result in a ban for AlSal, Rupp, or any other involved parties. I guess that is the point that I am trying to make.

As for the question: what would it take? I think it would take something very unlikely such as an athlete coming forward and saying:

"I took drugs because Alberto told me to."

or

"I am a doctor who gave Galen an banned substance".

Right now, the firsthand accounts that we have are more along the lines of:

"I am pure as the driven snow and I think that the bad man was trying to get me to do bad stuff, but I'm not sure. I think everyone else was doing it."

or

"I was hired to be Galen's b*tch and it made me mad. He was only better than me because he took secret hidden book pills."

or

"I am the best coach ever and am incredibly moral. For a few years, the evil temptress known as money was pulling the wool over my eyes. Now, I can see the light. I am so certain that AlSal is cheating that I would be willing to sever ties with any close friend who chooses to associate with him."

To be honest - I believe the Gouchers, Steve Magness, and John Cook. That doesn't really matter though.

runDirtyrun wrote:

More demands of proof. Let's go backwards then... Please post what would be sufficient "proof" of Al Sal doping athletes if concrete evidence doping teenagers isn't "proof." And be specific.

I would specifically point out that a chart with the word "testosterone" written on it is not concrete evidence of anyone doping a teenager. Especially with the denial that the word was written accurately.

Jesus Christ, Brah, I need more proof, and you basically need someone somewhere to have seen something at sometime with or without some semblance of an excuse to refute it. Claim Salazar is lying about the testoboost comment all you want, that picture is still not "concrete" anything.

101 proof wrote:

runDirtyrun wrote:

More demands of proof. Let's go backwards then... Please post what would be sufficient "proof" of Al Sal doping athletes if concrete evidence doping teenagers isn't "proof." And be specific.

I would specifically point out that a chart with the word "testosterone" written on it is not concrete evidence of anyone doping a teenager. Especially with the denial that the word was written accurately.

Jesus Christ, Brah, I need more proof, and you basically need someone somewhere to have seen something at sometime with or without some semblance of an excuse to refute it. Claim Salazar is lying about the testoboost comment all you want, that picture is still not "concrete" anything.

It's "concrete" that the BEST CASE for Salazar is that he was giving Testoboost to a 16-year-old. I sincerely hope no one entrusts a teenage athlete to him again.

Salazar "searching for evidence" to clear his name. It just sounds like a liar scrambling to back track his story. Hiding his lies with new lies. I just get the feeling that he's nervous and trying again to cover things up. His stories are getting wilder and wilder though, like a lying witness on the stand, his excuses are getting far-fetched.

dkny64 wrote:

It's "concrete" that the BEST CASE for Salazar is that he was giving Testoboost to a 16-year-old. I sincerely hope no one entrusts a teenage athlete to him again.

This is the point that's getting lost. If the best that Salazar can say is he was giving testoboost to 16 year old Rupp, he should be banned from coaching.

Amen Amen Amen wrote:

dkny64 wrote:

It's "concrete" that the BEST CASE for Salazar is that he was giving Testoboost to a 16-year-old. I sincerely hope no one entrusts a teenage athlete to him again.

This is the point that's getting lost. If the best that Salazar can say is he was giving testoboost to 16 year old Rupp, he should be banned from coaching.

Or at least banned from coaching athletes under the age of, say, 20. If he was a HS coach and he was giving Testoboost to his athletes, he'd be fired, right? Maybe? I hope...

dkny64 wrote:

Or at least banned from coaching athletes under the age of, say, 20. If he was a HS coach and he was giving Testoboost to his athletes, he'd be fired, right? Maybe? I hope...

There are HS football coaches all over the country advising kids to use sketchy supplements, particularly "pre-workout", that are not regulated and can be dangerous. The ignorance of the general public keeps them safe from being fired.

Should be fired? Yea probably. But I wouldn't count on it.

siksikayi wrote:

hear hear! what happened to the presumption of innocence?

Absolutely nothing. It's alive and well and living in the very narrow confines of a court of law, but still being overused and misunderstood by wooly-brained finger-waggers who trot it out with exasperating predictability and behave as if it's a Bill-of-Rights for accused people and is violated at one's peril of litigation or even prison.

Thanks for asking.

162430 wrote:

pop_pop! wrote:

all the proof needed is in the BBC episode.

I think that everyone here can agree that NOPers are dopers. Let's be honest - we have all suspected as much for YEARS. However, to say that "all the proof needed is in the BBC episode" is idiotic and bordering on lunacy. Hearsay and a pill bottle supposedly scrawled on by Salazar? Photos of a notebook page stating that Galen was on testosterone dating back to over a decade ago? Give me a break. Is Alberto guilty? Of course. Have we seen any actual proof? Not even close.

Oh, I think we have.

It's hilarious to me how armchair lawyers talk about proof. First if there is forensic evidence they call it merely 'circumstantial evidence,' as if it's a bad thing when in fact it's the most powerful evidence of all.

But what are the alternatives to circumstantial evidence? Eye witnesses, not as strong or compelling as circumstantial evidence, contrary to popular misconception, but powerful all the same. And the eye witnesses were powerful and compelling.

At the end of the day, what do you expect? Alsal's front lawn littered with syringes and a diary with the words I DID IT! in his handwriting? When doing dodgy things dodgy people don't leave evidence behind.

Frankly, I'm shocked that Salazar was as sloppy as he was.

Armchair lawyer? C'mon. Do not patronize me. Please refer to my previous post that very clearly addresses the point that you are making. I have already answered your only real question ("At the end of the day, what do you expect?"). Again, it is pretty clear that AlSal is guilty. I am only stating this simple fact: he definitely will not be convicted based on what has been presented so far.

ding! ding! ding! ding!

I made this point on a previous thread but no one could connect the dots, smh.

There is 0 reason that he needed to be on test/testoboost/ or any test boosting supplement. And no one can argue that maybe he actually needed it before his running career because he was already a highly successful soccer player. If he legit had low test and needed it, he would of been a bum at any athletics.

Obviously Galen's parents had to know that he was on a test boosting product... why did they allow it? What was said to them to convince them he needed it from a doctor? They need to take the stand and tell everything honestly.

Is this sardonic, sarcastic or just being facetious?

Questions mount over Alberto Salazar's links to Mary Slaney

By Matt Slater and Samuel Smith

BBC Sport

Fresh doubt has been cast on assurances Mo Farah says he was given by Alberto Salazar about his links to Mary Slaney, who failed a drugs test in 1996.