wejo wrote:
I understand your point but it’s much more than just losing his job. Plus, this is a quasi government organization.It was created and funded by Congress . It needs to have more transparency imo. But we all agree Salazar could coach people individually right?
More victim blaming and accuser defending from Wejo, sick POS
meep meep wrote:
wejo wrote:
I understand your point but it’s much more than just losing his job. Plus, this is a quasi government organization.It was created and funded by Congress . It needs to have more transparency imo. But we all agree Salazar could coach people individually right?
More victim blaming and accuser defending from Wejo, sick POS
Where did wejo do any of that? Lame and ignorant response there, meep meep. I think everyone deserves some answers about how a secret tribunal is involved with professional coaches of professional athletes with legal contracts.
Perhaps Josh Lambo could have gone to SafeSport last year for redress. Why couldn't he?
This post was removed.
AlohaState wrote:
rojo wrote:
What are you talking about?
I think most people believe in due process. I've heard A LOT of rumors and allegations about Salazar over the years but don't know why in the hell he'd be banned for life for sexual misconduct. I heard her made a pass at Kara Goucher on a flight once, but I don't think trying to kiss an athlete while drunk and/or on sleeping pills, would be worthy of a lifetime ban. Certainly worthy of discipline, but a lifetime ban for one of the most successful coaches in US history? No.
It's pretty amazing in the year 2021 that no one really knows what he's accused of. Normally you'd see a rumor of it somewhere - probably these forums. I mean Salazar has been accused of a LOT on these boards over the years but almost nothing really grave that is sexual in nature. I just got off the phone with one of the reporters from one of these major publications that has reported on it - think NY Times, WSJ, RW, etc. - and they too have no idea why he was banned.
What could it be? Was it an actual affair with an athlete? If it's a long term relationship that might be easier to prove than some one-time thing. But do we know if that would that be enough for a lifetime ban?
Does SafeSport have a list of crime and punishments? Like is it spelled out what actions results in what punishments. Like are certain things worthy of a 6 month ban, 2 year ban, lifetime ban, etc.? I need to go to their website and find out.
Safe Sport does not provide due process. It’s not a court of law. For example, there is no cross examination of witnesses. There is no statute of limitations. The arbitrators do not have law degrees. The accused cannot defend himself.
Here’s a tragic story:
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/article226196295.html
You absolutely can defend yourself.
wejo wrote:
I understand your point but it’s much more than just losing his job. Plus, this is a quasi government organization.It was created and funded by Congress . It needs to have more transparency imo. But we all agree Salazar could coach people individually right?
Created and funded by Congress - yes, democracy in action. Also their code, including a detailed description of this process, including the arbitration and the definition of sexual misconduct, is available to the public, just a simple click away.
And yes, more transparency is (almost) always better.
But let's not forget, again, that SafeSport decision to ban this creep for life was upheld in independent arbitration (see for example the NYT article you read).
Finally yes, Salazar could even live in Amsterdam and train Hassan and Koko, or in Vancouver and train Cam etc., once his ban for his three doping infractions is over.
I just read their link. Its pretty clear on pages 8-11 that what he has been publicly accused of is, by their definition, sexual misconduct.
The world has changed. Women aren't going to be humiliated again.
Nothing is clear, sorry.
Was this an offense against a minor, or adult?
If offense was against a minor, why were no charges filed?
If offense was against an adult, how can you end someone's right to earn a living for a non-criminal offense? No one else in America is subject to this BS.
Yeah, the world has changed. Are you saying men accused of misbehavior by women have less rights than anyone else in America?
wejo wrote:
Uncle P wrote:
That does appear to be a long history of making a lot of money "prosecuting" sexual misconduct. Let's be clear, there are lots of dirt bag guys out there. Many make their way into coaching. However, when you get rich leading the charge against them you do open yourself up to questions about motive and ensuring you have a product to keep selling.Of course I think the Susan Komen Foundation is a nothing but a cash cow for her sister so who am I to pontificate.
Her career is all about protecting children. If the ban was just specific to coaching children then I’d be willing to trade some public disclosure (but not all of it - we need transparency) but an out right ban on coaching needs more public disclosure. Private courts essentially funded by Congress is un American.Either way we need more transparency from the process. It’s not totally equivalent, but dictatorial regimes are famous for telling us to trust the private justice system set up with no transparency.
After reading their description of what constitutes sexual misconduct, I support the decision (and I'm a huge Salazar fan going back to 1980). What has been publicly reported falls under their definition of sexual misconduct.
As for private courts being un-American... Our SCOTUS was politically packed and clearly doesn't represent the majority of the country. Private courts are the definition of American.
The US Center for Safe Sport is mostly funded by the USOPC. This was all encoded into law by an act of Congress. You can read all about it and review their financials and tax returns on their website. No need to keep posting on here about who funds them and who gives them authority. A trip to the website will answer those questions, if you actually want answers.
Salazar is banned for sexual misconduct. It’s not involving a minor - those cases are listed as criminal and involving minors. So he was involved in a situation with an adult. We don’t know who it is but given the first round of investigating/suspension and then the appeal, it would appear that the case against Salazar is solid. Given the length of the suspension - forever - and the categorization of ‘sexual misconduct’, it is probable that this involves something other than fat-shaming.
This thread has a serious case of the stupids. If Salazar wants to go public or his accuser(s) wants to go public, they can do that. Salazar was given repeat opportunities to present his case and - despite his seemingly unlimited legal resources via Nike - he failed on both occasions.
umstead wrote:
"I promise you that any of you who are whining that everyone is too hard on poor Alberto would crack and break under his "training" methods."
That has to be the lamest closing argument ever on these boards. What does his tough training methods have to do with a situation where a guy is judged to have committed what sounds like a criminal offense, yet there is no crime, and the man is deprived of a living in his field. WTF is that all about? I don't like Alberto, but this insane system is unfair to anyone with an objective view of the situation.
I agree. The phrase "sexual misconduct" has had a long-established meaning, and it's about unwanted touching of a sexual nature, up to and including rape. It can also mean soliciting or propositioning: language of a sexually explicit nature.
What worries me here is that the meaning of the phrase may have been contorted into somehow giving Alberto a lifetime ban for, in effect, having sought to achieve MUTUALLY AGREED UPON TRAINING AND RACING GOALS with a female athlete by yelling, in effect, "Your a** is too goddamned fat." That would be a travesty of justice. Let's hope that what he's accused of is significantly more serious than that. (I mean I'm not hoping, I'm just saying.)
Do I sound disgusted? Yes. But not at Salazar, until far more than I've previously seen comes to light.
Birkoboy wrote:
zxcvzxvc wrote:
Carmine9 appears all of a sudden one month ago and already had 1238 posts as of a few days ago, pretty much all on COVID vaccination. Now he's here. The phrase "pile of poop" that he uses here does not appear much in a search, the last use being that of "Lead Foil Hat X."
It wasn't all of a sudden,he was here before that as Unkle,but got banned for persistent lying and giving false and dangerous information out.Not quite sure why he's allowed to do the same as Carmine,but presume he will get banned again soon enough.
Bingo.
He had a career of being a jerk to everyone, and as soon as he slips everyone he's ever screwed over is there to kick him when he's down.
Good riddance
If that's true, sounds like you trust everyone involved in SafeSport and you have faith that they are good people making honest decisions. Even though you will never know, you trust them. Great. Most of us don't trust any secret tribunal. That is indeed the stuff of the Soviet Union and North Korea.
How in the hell is a secret tribunal involved with professional coaching of professional adults with legal contracts.
Why doesn't this apply to the NFL, MLS or any professional sports league in America- men or women? Why only traditional Olympic sports, even though everyone is a professional? Can any disgruntled professional athlete, man or woman, can run to SafeSport and into their secret world?
SafeSport is a glimpse at our future under Democratic rule... a quasi-governmental kangaroo court with no due process or transparency, but the ability to destroy careers. Make no mistake, SafeSport isn't about nailing true criminals like Larry Nasser. Real courts will do that. SafeSport and future iterations are about going after political enemies of the regime.
P. 9, "Sexual and gender related harrassment." It's exactly as I thought, on the face of it. Suppose Salazar repeatedly accused one of his male runners of having a "candy a**," as part of a concerted attempt, based in sincere belief, to get him to change his diet and lose weight. Would that fall into this category? Body shaming is an established protocol in the training of athletes. "You guys look like a bunch of f***ing puffballs!" This includes the explicit naming of problematic body parts. It's not sexual. It's psychological. It may be misguided and ineffective--or not.
Something changes, apparently, when the stigmatized a** in question belongs to a female rather than a male.
That's what this comes down to. You can quote me on that.
Jhb wrote:
He had a career of being a jerk to everyone, and as soon as he slips everyone he's ever screwed over is there to kick him when he's down.
Good riddance
To be honest, I agree totally. This is righteous justice and/or karma for Saladbar being such a PRICK his entire life.
Good riddance SQUARED!
Someday, feminists telling women to "lean in" will be declared guilty of fat shaming and, therefore, sexual misconduct.
meep meep wrote:
wejo wrote:
I understand your point but it’s much more than just losing his job. Plus, this is a quasi government organization.It was created and funded by Congress . It needs to have more transparency imo. But we all agree Salazar could coach people individually right?
More victim blaming and accuser defending from Wejo, sick POS
What I see:
1. Actions sanctioned occurred long ago, well before formation of SafeSport.
2. Actions sanctioned are not disclosed, raising issue of transparency and process. But based on accounts from complainants, sanctioned actions do not seem remotely close to meeting any usual definition of "sexual" misconduct, or at least that which might be construed as sufficiently serious to warrant severe sanction.
3. This sets a very low bar. The actions said to have placed Salazar in SafeSport's crosshairs are not uncommon - if the same yardstick applied to Salazar were applied to others, we could see hundreds or thousands of American coaches become permanently ineligible.
4. Punishment should fit the crime. We don't apply death sentences except in rare, egregious instance - why then apply career and reputational death sentence?
5. Our culture is to rehabilitate, not vindictively marginalize . Was Salazar given opportunity to take sensitivity training or to make amends, for example? Why not lay a path forward so we don't deprive our high-level athletes of a legendary and effective icon/coach?
We're seeing a lot of extreme opinions on Salazar here, but fairness applies equally to those you don't like.
The whole affair smacks of a hatchet-job driven by a behind-the-scenes agenda, a send up made all too easy in an environment of rampant cancel culture and sensational news.
This seems like mob "justice", not blind justice.
MatthewXCountry wrote:
Conspiracies Are REAL wrote:
Of course Salazar's race and relative lack of wealth played an enormous part SafeSport sticking him to a cross. Compare this to Bill Gates and his pedophilia with Epstein and nothing happens to Gates because he is untouchable. The people in SafeSport are so woke and hypocrites that I bet you they would kick the feet of Bill Gates given the chance.
Are you claiming that safesport has the authority to ban bill gates from coaching?
Given that we've seen SafeSport has unlimited secret powers of a secret court and is not even an elected body, yeah, they could go after Bill Gates for being a pedophile. How do you even replace the heads of the secret court? There is no election and everything is secret. The people who run SafeSport have no accountability to anyone and create secret laws they secretly interpret anyway they wish. Is Bill Gates connected to anyone inside SafeSport?
KudzuRunner wrote:
P. 9, "Sexual and gender related harrassment." It's exactly as I thought, on the face of it. Suppose Salazar repeatedly accused one of his male runners of having a "candy a**," as part of a concerted attempt, based in sincere belief, to get him to change his diet and lose weight. Would that fall into this category? Body shaming is an established protocol in the training of athletes. "You guys look like a bunch of f***ing puffballs!" This includes the explicit naming of problematic body parts. It's not sexual. It's psychological. It may be misguided and ineffective--or not.
Something changes, apparently, when the stigmatized a** in question belongs to a female rather than a male.
That's what this comes down to. You can quote me on that.
Kudzu, perfectly summed up. How can people continue to watch Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer every year, with such career ending behavior shown to the youth of America? That coach in Rudolph was never banned from coaching, and he should have been.