NY Times reports Alberto Salazar was banned by SafeSport for allegedly sexually assaulting an athlete twice while giving massage

You can call out anyone you want. Many people remain silent for many reasons. A victim does not owe potential future victims anything. Why do you want to blame the victim?

Accidents happen. wrote:

So it happened twice to the same person or once to two different people?

All of the charges come from a single athlete. So same person twice.

Plus "sexually inappropriate comments and actions by Salazar toward the runner."

That last sentence makes me think the alleged victim is female.

That's complicated because her tenure with Salazar was over before SafeSport came into existence. Retroactive proceedings where the rules were formulated after the fact make it difficult to pursue in the SafeSport venue. In addition, "sexual assault" may have criminal content especially if it's more than a Cuomo or Franken scenario of a passing fondling or two, and also could be the basis for a serious lawsuit against Nike deep pockets. But neither thing has happened. It could be that Salazar reached a kind of deliberately ambiguous plea deal with SafeSport and the accuser(s) to be retired from the sport with no further actions pursued by any of the parties.

If it was Kara, can we call her out for not speaking about it sooner?

She potentially allowed Salazar to abuse a dozen other women by remaining silent all these years.

Her silence speaks volumes and is louder than any denial Salazar can give.

No, hard stop. A victim - no matter who it is - should not be twisted into being complicit and somehow responsible for the offender's actions. There's one responsible party who was in the position of power. Victim blaming is horrible, don't even imply it.

serena wrote:

You can call out anyone you want. Many people remain silent for many reasons. A victim does not owe potential future victims anything. Why do you want to blame the victim?

I think morally there is a reason to speak out against it. We will have to disagree on this.

I’m not blaming the victim at all. For someone as outspoken as Kara Goucher, it would be weird not to address this issue back in 2011 (when she left the group) or 2015 when the allegations were really flying.

coachcommentsnicely wrote:

I’m not blaming the victim at all.

You quite literally are. I’m not sure how you can’t see this.

Situbusitgoodboi wrote:

If it was Kara, can we call her out for not speaking about it sooner?

She potentially allowed Salazar to abuse a dozen other women by remaining silent all these years.

Her silence speaks volumes and is louder than any denial Salazar can give.

No, hard stop. A victim - no matter who it is - should not be twisted into being complicit and somehow responsible for the offender's actions. There's one responsible party who was in the position of power. Victim blaming is horrible, don't even imply it.

I think you’re twisting what I am saying. Of course whoever the victim is in this case is in no way responsible for Salazar’s actions. I’d never say something like that.

This is a separate issue. Completely different than the sexual allegations. This is a moral/ethics issue.

coachcommentsnicely wrote:

Situbusitgoodboi wrote:

No, hard stop. A victim - no matter who it is - should not be twisted into being complicit and somehow responsible for the offender's actions. There's one responsible party who was in the position of power. Victim blaming is horrible, don't even imply it.

I think you’re twisting what I am saying. Of course whoever the victim is in this case is in no way responsible for Salazar’s actions. I’d never say something like that.

This is a separate issue. Completely different than the sexual allegations. This is a moral/ethics issue.

You are barking up the wrong tree here. Now you want to morally judge a victim because you think she owes other people something. The victim first has to take care of herself. Once she has done that she can potentially address other issues. You are implying that if the victim knows about a perpetrator that she potentially has moral culpability for his future behavior. This is incorrect.

This is the actual quote:

Salazar, in his open letter response, labeled Goucher’s husband, Adam, as “extremely emotional and belligerent toward me” before dismissing them from his Oregon Project training group.

“That will come out there is a definite reason why there is trouble between Adam and Alberto,” an upset Goucher said on Sunday.

“There was a lot of fear involved and I didn’t want to have to share that publicly but since this is becoming my reputation, my family’s reputation, the companies I work for reputation, I will have to share that unfortunately.”

The article is poorly written and strings a lot of quotes together so it's hard to tell what the context is. I can see one now thinking that she was referring to this but it just as easily could be a million other things. If she was the one he sexually assaulted, then why would she have just let it slide for years and only have gone the SafeSport route? The article is almost 7 years old.

Due Course People wrote:

You have no clue what Salazar and Nike are up to in terms of defense, zero clue...and neither do I.

Alberto is NOT going to be making any kind of major public statement with allegations like that...and they ARE allegations whether he was found guilty or not.

Alberto and his team may be in the process of filing charges against the accuser, who knows?

I don't understand why you are so adamant claiming that AS "is NOT going to be making any kind of major public statement with allegations like that..."

The NYT article linked to at the top of the thread says:

In an email, Salazar said he had “never engaged in any sort of inappropriate sexual contact or sexual misconduct.”

“Sexual misconduct is completely at odds with who I am as a person,” he wrote. “As a devoted husband, father and a human being, I consider any kind of sexual misconduct toward another person to be personally repugnant and to go against everything I believe. My heart goes out to victims of sexual misconduct, but in this case, I never committed any such misconduct.”

Salazar wrote that the SafeSport process was unfair and “lacked due process protections,” and if there was a “full and fair trial” there would have been a different result. He also said he would like to provide more facts about the “falsity of the allegations against me” but was constrained by SafeSport’s confidentiality rules.

That sounds like a major public statement to me.

As to your claim that "Alberto and his team may be in the process of filing charges against the accuser": in the US, only law enforcement can file charges against someone. People who aren't police or prosecutors can report crimes to law enforcement authorities, file civil lawsuits, lodge complaints to non-governmental bodies, start grievance procedures, and so on. But we can't file charges. Even if we sit on a grand jury and vote to indict someone, I believe the prosecuting attorney's office actually files the charges.

Well, the lynch mob here is out in force for this.

I think the guy is innocent. The story just doesn't add up. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time in America that a man of color (MOC) was taken down by false and stereotyped racist accusations. You have to view these situations in their historical and societal context.

Salazar almost appears to confess in his statement of repudiation. He says”but in this case, I never committed any such misconduct.” That sounds like someone who has other cases in which he did. It also sounds like someone who thought his behavior was OK, but we know Alberto loved to stretch the….rules into a pretzel if he thought he could get away with it.

Well, the Times did bury the Holocaust as documented in a 2005 award-winning book, Buried by the Times. And, it was a principal co-conspirator in the russia collusion hoax.