I don't want to take sides since I wasn't there, but as a general comment in reply to this is that a crime is a crime. You're basically saying professional sports/coaches should be above the law?
I read his comment as implying pros and coaches should get equal protection of due process of law. If a person is to be banned from his lifelong profession for life — not just fired from a single company but unable to work at all in the running world that is his entire world — the bar for proof beyond reasonable doubt should be higher. A pro is not quite as helpless as a college athlete.
Beyond reasonable doubt only applies to the criminal process. This was not the criminal process. He has been sanctioned for a finding of professional misconduct. Many professions do this. He has not been convicted of a crime. That would involve an entirely separate process, in a criminal court.
I'm pretty sure Kara thought through the allegations she was making before putting it in a book. She probably knew the legal ramifications if he chose to sue her (see: Depp/Heard).
I think it's fair to question why the slow drip of allegations over the years.
But I believe her.
What I hope people really understand is that sexual assault was really confusing prior to Me Too. We (women) were really really conditioned to give people the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. if someone touches you weirdly, you were conditioned to believe it couldn't possibly be intentional. If someone makes advances to you and you are on an airplane together, you just chalk it off to them having too much to drink. You were also supposed to shrug it off, not think those things were a big deal otherwise you would be branded as overdramatic and difficult. It was just a touch! It was just a kiss! who cares!?
So women bottled it up until it finally exploded. It sucks to be made to feel violated, betrayed and powerless by people you are supposed to trust. It sucked in the 00s, when we knew no one would listen or care. You are supposed to suppress your own gut for the sake of a creepy man. She did that over and over and over again.
No. Just the opposite. Adults should report it to law enforcement and get the police involved.
Use Safe Sport to protect 13-year old gymnasts.
Like many here, you are confusing a process that governs the conduct of sport with the criminal process. They are not the same. Keeping sport safe applies to all and not just minors. SafeSport cannot operate like a criminal court and isn't meant to; it couldn't be effective if it were required to do so. Consequently it doesn't have the power to impose criminal penalties. The criminal process is a separate process. It applies to acts against minors as much as it does against adults. It will be invoked and can only be invoked when there is evidence of a crime that can be proven in a court of law. That isn't SafeSport.
I think he's arguing that SafeSport has too much power, even though it cannot impose criminal penalties. Soft power is very, very dangerous, particularly when due process is denied on the grounds of protecting vulnerable people.
I'm on the fence when it comes to non-court entities making judgements about sexual abuse. On the one hand, it's very difficult to provide evidence of a crime that takes place in private; on the other, untrained people with an agenda can and do devolve into witch-hunting mobs. Such a system is easily exploited by bad-faith actors. If SafeSport's process were more transparent, people may be more comfortable with their judgements.
I believe Kara, and I strongly suspect that other female athletes came forward with similar stories. To those saying that it's unethical for coaches to massage their athletes: a coach has an interest in, say, rubbing T cream on athletes but has no more interest in sexually abusing them than anybody else. Maybe people are making the point that it's unusual and therefore suspicious behavior for a coach to also act as a massage therapist.
Predators often use legitimate activities as a cover for sexual abuse, whether doctors or coaches. The bad behavior escalates gradually over time after the predator has developed a caring relationship with the target, making it very difficult to parse. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable because the vast majority of sexual predators are men who abuse women. This is why I stick with women doctors, massage therapists, etc. Most men are safe, but one can substantially cut down on risk by avoding them in these contexts.
Huh? If Kara felt uncomfortable in inappropriate coach-athlete situations, she has all my sympathy.
Classic anonymous letsrun misogynist, calling sexual assaults "inappropriate coach-athlete situations", further belittling them with "If Kara felt uncomfortable".
Huh? I offer her my complete sympathy and I'm a misogynist? Are you suggesting I should have called "sexual assault" an "appropriate coach-athlete situation"?
I don't really know all the facts here, since these kinds of details are kept secret, so I offer my sympathy based on her feelings, regardless, within this coach-athlete power dynamic.
LOL - not very consistent, are you? If you don't think he is innocent, why do you talk here about a "witch hunt"? And are you seriously comparing rapists to witches?
Last but not least, this sexual abuser was found guilty by SafeSport, and also thereafter in arbitration, by two independent institutions that have seen more facts than the public. It's not like we are starting at 0, regardless how much you want to talk about "the law".
I read his comment as implying pros and coaches should get equal protection of due process of law. If a person is to be banned from his lifelong profession for life — not just fired from a single company but unable to work at all in the running world that is his entire world — the bar for proof beyond reasonable doubt should be higher. A pro is not quite as helpless as a college athlete.
Beyond reasonable doubt only applies to the criminal process. This was not the criminal process. He has been sanctioned for a finding of professional misconduct. Many professions do this. He has not been convicted of a crime. That would involve an entirely separate process, in a criminal court.
I am pretty sure what a lot of people are saying is that safe sport and title 9 and other organizations should use the same Beyond A Reasonable Doubt standard that criminal cases use. " Let's just err on the side of believing the accuser" isn't a great "standard".
[ oh and if Alberto really did what he is accused of why doesn't Kara press charges??]
Classic anonymous letsrun misogynist, calling sexual assaults "inappropriate coach-athlete situations", further belittling them with "If Kara felt uncomfortable".
Huh? I offer her my complete sympathy and I'm a misogynist? Are you suggesting I should have called "sexual assault" an "appropriate coach-athlete situation"?
I don't really know all the facts here, since these kinds of details are kept secret, so I offer my sympathy based on her feelings, regardless, within this coach-athlete power dynamic.
So typically mealy-mouthed. An "inappropriate (only "inappropriate"?) coach-athlete situation" saw him banned for life. How appropriate. Given your previous defences of his doping infractions I'm surprised you aren't also extending him your "sympathy". But if we include his doping ban he does appear to have quite a record of "inappropriate coach-athlete situations".
Like many here, you are confusing a process that governs the conduct of sport with the criminal process. They are not the same. Keeping sport safe applies to all and not just minors. SafeSport cannot operate like a criminal court and isn't meant to; it couldn't be effective if it were required to do so. Consequently it doesn't have the power to impose criminal penalties. The criminal process is a separate process. It applies to acts against minors as much as it does against adults. It will be invoked and can only be invoked when there is evidence of a crime that can be proven in a court of law. That isn't SafeSport.
I think he's arguing that SafeSport has too much power, even though it cannot impose criminal penalties. Soft power is very, very dangerous, particularly when due process is denied on the grounds of protecting vulnerable people.
I'm on the fence when it comes to non-court entities making judgements about sexual abuse. On the one hand, it's very difficult to provide evidence of a crime that takes place in private; on the other, untrained people with an agenda can and do devolve into witch-hunting mobs. Such a system is easily exploited by bad-faith actors. If SafeSport's process were more transparent, people may be more comfortable with their judgements.
I believe Kara, and I strongly suspect that other female athletes came forward with similar stories. To those saying that it's unethical for coaches to massage their athletes: a coach has an interest in, say, rubbing T cream on athletes but has no more interest in sexually abusing them than anybody else. Maybe people are making the point that it's unusual and therefore suspicious behavior for a coach to also act as a massage therapist.
Predators often use legitimate activities as a cover for sexual abuse, whether doctors or coaches. The bad behavior escalates gradually over time after the predator has developed a caring relationship with the target, making it very difficult to parse. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable because the vast majority of sexual predators are men who abuse women. This is why I stick with women doctors, massage therapists, etc. Most men are safe, but one can substantially cut down on risk by avoding them in these contexts.
It’s a shame that you avoid men, simply because they are men.
Quite honestly, how is that improving culture or society?
Last but not least, this sexual abuser was found guilty by SafeSport, and also thereafter in arbitration, by two independent institutions that have seen more facts than the public. It's not like we are starting at 0, regardless how much you want to talk about "the law".
It’s not unreasonable to expect news agencies to report more than what they did. NYT seems to know that in arbitration, he denied her sexual assault claims and said the two didn’t speak or meet on her alleged dates, but the arbitrator did not find his claims credible and went with her version of events. WSJ simply said an arbitrator upheld his ban. Given NYT knows what it knows, it is strange to think that there is more that they felt the need to hide. If there was say a witness to the two meeting, why wouldn’t it be reported? Maybe there isn’t much more to it than not finding him credible. Maybe they just didn’t like his face.
It’s easy in the me-too era to go with the flow and “believe her” for people at an organization like SafeSport as no one would face much criticism with that decision.
Beyond reasonable doubt only applies to the criminal process. This was not the criminal process. He has been sanctioned for a finding of professional misconduct. Many professions do this. He has not been convicted of a crime. That would involve an entirely separate process, in a criminal court.
I am pretty sure what a lot of people are saying is that safe sport and title 9 and other organizations should use the same Beyond A Reasonable Doubt standard that criminal cases use. " Let's just err on the side of believing the accuser" isn't a great "standard".
[ oh and if Alberto really did what he is accused of why doesn't Kara press charges??]
The criminal standard of proof isn't used because the accused is not facing a possible criminal penalty. Furthermore, with the bar set that high, of beyond reasonable doubt instead of what SafeSport finds believable, it would be incredibly difficult to reach a finding against the accused, and could take years to determine. That would deter young victims from seeking help and lessen the likelihood of holding coaches accountable who abuse their position. Safesport does not have the resources to conduct what would effectively be a police investigation.
Many commenters here do not understand that Salazar has been subject to complaint before a sports regulatory body, like a lawyer who is subject to complaint before a Bar Association. These are professional disciplinary bodies, not criminal courts. So he has been "struck off", so to speak, but not sent to gaol.
I don't want to take sides since I wasn't there, but as a general comment in reply to this is that a crime is a crime. You're basically saying professional sports/coaches should be above the law?
No. Just the opposite. Adults should report it to law enforcement and get the police involved.
Use Safe Sport to protect 13-year old gymnasts.
The problem with "report it to law enforcement" in a case like this is that all that would happen is that a report would get filled out. There is no way to prove digital penetration or anything else actually happened. I agree that there are problems with the power Safe Sport has but without it or something that does what it does it's hard to see what recourse there'd be for an athlete who is violated by a coach. Getting another coach is an obvious solution but does nothing to address the problem of a predatory coach and does not protect future unsuspecting athletes from that coach.
What do you expect from someone who has made it his life's purpose to defend and excuse dopers - including the doping coach, Salazar?
Lol! Armstronglivs taking the moral High Ground!
You have accused every runner under the sun of cheating and PED use no matter if there's been any evidence or not [ how about Kara in that regard? Well?]. You've tried to tarnish the reputations of countless amazing African athletes who have never been linked in any meaningful way to doping. It's pathetic and disgusting and lazy.
Is that your attitude about all other types of accusations? Always believe the accuser no matter what? Many many innocent people have gone to jail over the years due to such an attitude. But..... so what?
Salazar very well maybe guilty but don't make us all laugh out loud at you for acting like you are some arbiter of morals after your countless Reckless accusations of great athletes.
No. Just the opposite. Adults should report it to law enforcement and get the police involved.
Use Safe Sport to protect 13-year old gymnasts.
The problem with "report it to law enforcement" in a case like this is that all that would happen is that a report would get filled out. There is no way to prove digital penetration or anything else actually happened. I agree that there are problems with the power Safe Sport has but without it or something that does what it does it's hard to see what recourse there'd be for an athlete who is violated by a coach. Getting another coach is an obvious solution but does nothing to address the problem of a predatory coach and does not protect future unsuspecting athletes from that coach.
It’s hard to see what recourse there’d be for a coach whose career prematurely ended because of a post-hoc rewriting of memory or even entirely made-up charges out of spite, but it sounds like that possibility doesn’t concern you much.
No. Just the opposite. Adults should report it to law enforcement and get the police involved.
Use Safe Sport to protect 13-year old gymnasts.
There is no way to prove digital penetration or anything else actually happened.
So..... there's no proof Alberto did anything wrong and they're just deciding to take Kara's word for it? Because.... everyone knows the guy is kind of shady and if you can't prove it that is unfair to the potential victim? Not a great standard.
'In "The Longest Race," the runner says publicly for the first time that she is behind allegations that led to Alberto Salazar getting a lifetime ban at the Olympic and national level.'
Try again.
Talk about a "Slippery Slope"...Wow!
She clearly states that he sexually assaulted her...TWICE! Did she share this information with Adam or anyone else? She says she didn't, WHY NOT! I understand that after the first time she was confused and uncomfortable. After the second assault in Portugal, she needed to tell someone immediately and leave the team. This is serious sh^t! Why did she wait until her book comes out to make this public? Why is Alberto massaging her? This in itself is highly inappropriate and shouldn't have been allowed. I'm sorry, but Kara and Adam should've shut this down ASAP! Yeah, it's uncomfortable and awkward, but it needed to be done.
If Alberto denies the assaults, which he has, he has a clear defamation lawsuit against Kara. If he was a Nike employee (I believe he was) at the time these assaults took place, Nike should step up and defend him. You can't just go accusing people of sexual assault without proof and or evidence. On the flip side, if he did in fact assault her, Kara needs to prove this, not just put it in a book and go on national television accusing him. Maybe she is ramping up for a major lawsuit against Alberto and Nike. I can't see why she would divulge this information without moving forward with a lawsuit, unless she can't prove the assaults and just wants to make his life a living hell.
At this point, there is no reason not to believe her. I just question the timing of exposing this and what is the end game.
Alberto doesn't have a clear defamation suit against her. It would have to be a false allegation. SafeSport believed her.
I am pretty sure what a lot of people are saying is that safe sport and title 9 and other organizations should use the same Beyond A Reasonable Doubt standard that criminal cases use. " Let's just err on the side of believing the accuser" isn't a great "standard".
[ oh and if Alberto really did what he is accused of why doesn't Kara press charges??]
The criminal standard of proof isn't used because the accused is not facing a possible criminal penalty. Furthermore, with the bar set that high, of beyond reasonable doubt instead of what SafeSport finds believable, it would be incredibly difficult to reach a finding against the accused, and could take years to determine. That would deter young victims from seeking help and lessen the likelihood of holding coaches accountable who abuse their position. Safesport does not have the resources to conduct what would effectively be a police investigation.
Many commenters here do not understand that Salazar has been subject to complaint before a sports regulatory body, like a lawyer who is subject to complaint before a Bar Association. These are professional disciplinary bodies, not criminal courts. So he has been "struck off", so to speak, but not sent to gaol.
There is a lot of room between "believe all survivors" and "beyond reasable doubt"
if safesport doesn't have the resources beyond that, they shouldn't have the power they possess.
Moving forward, you need to be registered to post. Registration is free and you still can remain anonymous. If there is something you want to share with anonymity guaranteed, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com
Help Contribute to a Better Running Shoe Site
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.