Whining Mary Slaney is being elected to Track and Field Hall of Fame. Didn't Miss "Somebody always trips me ", serve a recent doping suspension? America's sweetheart, according to at least Larry Rawson of ESPN, should give some P.R. advice to Pete Rose .
As for the rest of us let's keep flossing and brushing with Dieter Baumann Toothpaste.
Mary's performance in the first Worlds in 1983 should get her into the Hall of Fame. This was before her whining period. In her interviews she comes across as ego am I. With what she could have done, personal problems, injuries, not withstanding, I think we missed something that would have been legendary. She and Carl Lewis never made it in the interview department. They just don't come across as likeable. Suzy Favor Hamilton comes across well in interviews, but never made it when it counted. She has psych problems at the drop of a hat. I wonder where she stands mentally now that Regina Jacobs won the World 1500?
One athlete has psych problems, another only whines. I think somebody is overlooking both athletes are much faster (and certainly have achieved much more) than the vast majority of people on this message board.
Also, it is not really for people that do not know all the facts to judge whether some comments are 'whining' or not. And even if people are saying certain things in interviews, what is it to you (us)? Burning people down like this really reflects more on the person who writes it than it does on the one being slandered (especially if it is a cowardly 'anonymous')
What does your running ability have to do with one's opinion? Mine is 13:26 5k if your wondering. Next, isn't it the American way to make generalizations about people without really knowing them or even meeting them.
I bet Mary Slaney and Carl Lewis will get a much rougher ride by the media, then say, tennis player Mary Joe Fernandez on the drug issue. Frank Shorter once said, "that it shouldn't be a burden to complete an athletics career with honour, that means drug free. This should be a basic criteria for any hall of fame entry."
Unless I'm mistaken, by USATF rules, Slaney did NOT have a drug positive and was exonerated. IAAF didn't buy the argument, but since IAAF doesn't have a Hall of Fame, USATF's putting her into theirs (don't know what else the original poster was talking about), it's not untoward at all.
Yes you are mistaken. Slaney tested positive at your Olympic trials.urine test showed Slaney had a testosterone-epitestosterone (T-E) ratio above the 6-to-1 limit. The normal accected level in females is 1:1.
This is the accepted rule in 209 countries,
including the United States, and sanctions involved are for IAAF events..Olympics,World CS et.
I'm not shure what the aftermath of all the lawsuits entailed, if you say the USOC let her off then OK ,I believe you. I guess she could have run at the Oregon County fair pie dash ,or whatever, but not on the International stage.
1)Does her career warrant Hall of Fame status? Clearly, yes.
2)Does her positive (by IAAF standards) test warrant exclusion from the Hall of Fame? That's a question we should look at on a broader scale. Does a lifetime ban lead to exclusion? Two- or four-year ban? Three-month ban? Exonerated by USATF but not by the IAAF?
The fact that she may have also been a jerk is inconsequential; Ty Cobb was a royal a-hole by anyone's standards, yet no one questions whether or not he belongs in baseball's HOF.
Slaney tested positive at
>your Olympic trials.urine test showed Slaney had
>a testosterone-epitestosterone (T-E) ratio above
>the 6-to-1 limit. The normal accected level in
>females is 1:1. This is the accepted rule in
Uh-uh. 200 of which don't have any kind of testing program at all and whose opinions don't count for shit.
The IAAF sanction ... does it mean anything if a USA court deems the test non-valid, I think the real sanction is how your judged by your peers after the fact. This test gives an athlete a 600%
margin of error, re:6:1 ratio limit. Wasn't Slaney the Nike poster girl at one point, I wonder what happened to that.