Was there any evidence that Pre was drunk when he died?

M.A.A.D. wrote:

PDXTrack wrote:

and BA content actually increases substantially (again, something I've read from a reliable source).

cite your reliable source?

i did not believe it at 1st, but did a quick google search and found this article abstract:

the paragraph titled "assessing alcohol's role" i think.

seems to say bac can rise after death.

I have a question for ALL the "Pre" haters? Please answer honestly?

If "Pre" did not drink and drive would you still hate him so much?

I just dont understand how some of you guys hate him so much? Why? All he ever did was give and give to the only sport he ever love! Especially American running! It is not his fault what Nike is doing to his image or that some people continue to praise him as a one of the best!

Why is the "hate" so personel for you? I just dont understand it?

and please answer the first question..if he did not drink would you still hate him?

More like reaching for an 8-track tape.

nokaman wrote:

More like reaching for an 8-track tape.

More like reaching for another beer. Probably a joint. Get over him people. He wasn't all that great.

M.A.A.D. wrote:

Does anyone have the facts? Did they take his blood alchohol?

You mean besides the mangled car and the dead body?

The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology: Volume 17(1) March 1996 pp 8-20

Postmortem Production of Ethanol and Factors that Influence Interpretation: A Critical Review

[Article]

O'Neal, Carol L. M.F.S.; Poklis, Alphonse Ph.D.

Abstract

Ethanol analysis is the most frequently performed assay in forensic toxicology laboratories. Interpretation of postmortem ethanol findings are often confounded by postmortem production of ethanol. Many species of bacteria, yeast, and molds are capable of producing ethanol from a variety of substrates. The probability of postmortem ethanol synthesis increases as storage temperature and the interval between death and autopsy increases. It is often difficult to distinguish between postmortem ethanol production and antemortem alcohol ingestion. This review presents a discussion of the criteria for the identification of postmortem ethanol synthesis and factors to consider in the interpretation of postmortem ethanol findings. The criteria include case history, condition of the specimens, types of microbes present, atypical fluid and tissue distribution of ethanol, the concentration of ethanol present, and the detection of other alcohols and volatiles. With careful consideration of all the information available, a valid interpretation of the source of ethanol, whether it be from antemortem ingestion or postmortem production, can be made.

Ethanol can be lost or produced after death, but it is postmortem synthesis that offers a more intriguing challenge for the forensic toxicologist due to the legal implications of ethanol results. Postmortem synthesis was first observed in the early 1950s (4-6) when ethanol was found as a product of putrefaction in several cases in which ethanol could not have been ingested antemortem. Due to the nonspecific methods for testing alcohol at that time (oxidative and enzymatic procedures) the concentrations reported were probably greater than actually present; however, postmortem synthesis of ethanol can result in significant concentrations. Evidence to date indicates that this is a problem that medical examiners and toxicologists must be aware of and consider in postmortem cases, especially if decomposition of the body has begun. The following is a critical review of the literature concerning postmortem production of ethanol and its implications in the interpretation of ethanol findings.

THE INCIDENCE OF POSTMORTEM ETHANOL PRODUCTION

The postmortem production of alcohol is well documented in in vitro and in vivo studies (7) and should be of concern in all postmortem cases. A review of studies of actual postmortem cases reveals that a range of 12-57% of ethanol-positive cases were attributed to postmortem synthesis (Table 1). When all postmortem cases positive for ethanol were surveyed, ¡­12% were a result of postmortem synthesis (14). If the cases were limited to only decomposed bodies, then that percentage rises to ¡­20% (22,23). When the cases were limited to less common situations such as aviation or naval accidents, the percentage of endogenous ethanol rises to 40 or 50% of the cases (24,25). For a single incident, like the explosion on the USS Iowa, 100% of the ethanol-positive cases were attributed to endogenous ethanol (26).

The majority of the cases attributed to postmortem synthesis did not have significant ethanol concentrations (<0.07%). Therefore, even if postmortem synthesis was to occur, it may not play a role in determining contributing factors to or the cause of death. This generalization is not true for every case, though. There are infrequent cases in which the ethanol produced postmortem is significant and can have a great impact on the interpretation of the circumstances leading to death. Corry (7) and Mayes (21) reported that the upper limit of ethanol synthesis in blood is ¡­0.15%. However, several in vitro studies have shown that it is possible to produce ethanol concentrations exceeding this value if highly favorable conditions for microbial growth are present (Table 2). In contrast to Corry (7) and Mayes (21), there are several documented cases in which ethanol synthesis has resulted in a much higher concentration (Table 3). The cases listed in Table 3 may be rare, but they do occur. Therefore, death investigators must be able to distinguish ethanol production from antemortem ingestion.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the ethanol concentration in a postmortem specimen can easily and accurately be determined, the interpretation of ethanol findings may be difficult. Factors described herein such as postmortem production and degradation of ethanol, diffusion of ethanol from the stomach, aspirated vomitus, extensive clotting, etc., can cause ethanol concentrations in autopsy specimens to be higher or lower than the concentrations at the time of death. Of these factors, postmortem synthesis of ethanol is often the most difficult to accurately establish. Several indicators have been suggested to identify postmortem synthesis of ethanol and differentiate endogenous ethanol from ingested ethanol. These indicators include: decomposition of the body, the presence of microbes in the specimens, atypical fluid and tissue distribution of ethanol, the concentration of ethanol in blood and other specimens, and the presence of other alcohols or volatiles arising from microbial synthesis. Many of the indicators are based on mean values of ethanol findings from surveys of postmortem cases. However, the range of the data is often quite large, demonstrating wide individual variations. Therefore, one cannot always rely on these indicators for the interpretation of every case.

More like reaching for another beer. Probably a joint. Get over him people. He wasn't all that great. (quote)

I know, nokaman....you are much greater. What was I thinking.

I'm fully aware of the Eugene Register-Guard story that came out on the 10th anniversary of Pre's death. It's an excellent article.

But think about it, a college town on a warm Friday night, you think there are times when cars AREN'T tearing around residential areas?

The animal theory was introduced by Geoff Hollister in the Pre documentary. Pathetically, I might add.

I'm sick of all the Pre revisionists and apologists. Rather than focus on Pre's extraordinary life and extraordinary accomplishments, the fixation on his death will never solve or prove anything.

He's dead. He's gone. He screwed up. He was drunk. End of story.

saw him wrote:

More like reaching for another beer. Probably a joint. Get over him people. He wasn't all that great. (quote)

I know, nokaman....you are much greater. What was I thinking.

You weren't thinking. I'm not nokaman, I was quoting him. Think first, speak later.

Who cares?

What does it matter?

He did what we all do. We are the lucky ones.

First, when I started driving in the 50s, some states had .20 as the "impaired" level. The military has .05, which I think is fairly reasonable.

Second, Shorter and Kenny both need to think that Pre was sober so that they weren't "Friends who let friends drive drunk."

Third, there was a lot of discussion at the time about how Pre had reached the "drunk" reading based on the amount that he drank (which several people thought they knew). One reason given is that he was dehydrated and had absorbed the alcohol at a greater than normal rate. Given the information above, the fact that the blood test was taken after he was dead may explain it.

PDXTrack wrote:

You're full of BS. There has been more than one Register Guard article (usually on the anniversary of the accident) that have discussed the second car theory. And, in fact, there was a story in the early 90s in which they actually identified two potential cars. One was a sheriff's son's car, which was an oncoming car, and the other was another MG, which was racing Pre.

Yes, there's an unbiased paper, the Eugene Register Guard. The Register Guard still can't say that Mary Slaney was a convicted drug cheat. What else do you think they'd say? You'd sooner see the New York Times admit that Saddam Hussien was one of the most heinous mass murderers of the last century than you'd see the RG admit that Pre was a drunk driver.

Just let it go.

Is a dead body enough evidence?

Yo- AA and Saw Him. My original response was to Luv2run's statement "more like he was reaching for a CD"

I was just pointing out there were no CDs in 1975, hence the 8-Track tape remark. By the way, I'm not defending Pre at all. He was drunk and never should have got behind the wheel that night.

sam w wrote:

i did not believe it at 1st, but did a quick google search and found this article abstract:

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/2/107

the paragraph titled "assessing alcohol's role" i think.

seems to say bac can rise after death.

Very nice research sam w. A law professor who actually argues facts? Refreshing.

Zat0pek wrote:

The 0.16 number is also what is reported in Tom Jordan's book. It's definitely valid that the BA was 0.16. The only question is its validity due to the fact a mortician did it. However, that was not an uncommon practice then and I personally have no reason to doubt the validity of the number simply because it wasn't done by an M.D.

MDs walk around in white coats they don't dirty their hands.

If they get involved at all they ORDER tests and the actual testing is done by techs/mortitians/summer interns/janitors.

Does it really matter? Does alcohol impair your abilities to drive? Yes. Does it really matter if Prefontaine was "legally" drunk when he wrecked? No, because nobody else was physically involved.

26mi235 wrote:

Kenny Moore (or Frank Shorter, probably KM) was just dropped off by Pre and strongly contends that Pre was not drunk. He indicates that it appears that something caused Pre to swerve hard to avoid a collision and that the tire marks and the geometry of the road are very consistent with thi hypothesis. Go see writings by Kenny Moore (his new book?), who is a very reputable writer and someone that I would trust more than some unknown internet commenter. How would the mortician measure his BA, which would have been later and might have changed differently that some assumption that the mortician made (note that my "knowledge" of the mortician angle is draw only from this thread)?

------------------------------------------------------------

It was Frank Shorter (just dropped off by Pre). I believe the "other car in Pre's lane on the curve caused him to swerve" theory. What kind of car did Pre drive?.... MG convertible sports car. Do any of you have one?....

(I do). Guess what this type of car does if you over steer on a curve? You guessed it, THEY TURN OVER! I have come close to turning mine over many times as I love to drive fast on curvy roads... My opinion: Pre's drinking had very little to do with his wreck. Pre ran at 6 AM every day and very rarely allowed himself to stay out late drinking as this would make it hard to get out the next morning... He was in 3 mile world record shape... That was one of his goals that year...

Braavo Furgi wrote:

Pre ran at 6 AM every day and very rarely allowed himself to stay out late drinking as this would make it hard to get out the next morning...

You must be drunk. Pre partied hard every night.