Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

polevaultpower wrote:

SafeSport means nothing outside the US. I suspect he is fairly unhireable at this point due to all of the allegations between SafeSport and doping, but I would not be shocked if some middle eastern country was willing to hire him. I have no idea what he wants to do though.

Why after you making a racial epithet against "middle eastern" countries? There have been far more American dopers in just the past few years than all the "middle eastern" countries have ever had.

OozmaKappa wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

you don't have to be a fan of Salazar to realize the implications of equating comments about an athlete's weight to sexual harassment.

So calling a fat girl fat is now considered sexual harrassment? Is that what this is about?

Any interaction with a woman can be considered sexual harassment if the woman seems it so. The woman also has as long as she wants to decide to take action, in any way, shape, or form.

Becca, my point (and those of many others here) all along today is that this entire discussion would easily go away if the track community and interested parties had MORE information). I cannot imagine anyone downplaying any serious allegations of true sexual misconduct if anyone, even anonymous, was to come forward at this point. There just aren't any real AlSal defenders out there. I have not seen a single person defending behavior that has already been made public. The only point we have made is that this process held in secret seems unfair, unjust and un American. Additional information would go a long way toward resolving the controversy. The criteria for punishment is almost what the accuser would like it to be.

polevaultpower wrote:

4. I have seen coaches get in trouble for things because they are stupid, not necessarily a predator. If you are a coach, you need to learn how to have appropriate boundaries with your athletes. I don't have a specific training to refer people to at this time, but seek something out if you are not good at maintaining professional boundaries.

Therein lies the problem. A coach has to be a perfect human being at all times, an emotionally charged moment could spell the end of a career. OF COURSE, all coaches should be required to take training in this regard, but the open ended nature of offenses and potential punishment for a moment of stupidity seems medieval.

Sal fan wrote:

Yet another LRC racist comes out to condemn Salazar without any facts to support their claims.

All they see is a Latino man who succeeded where they failed, so he must be taken down.

This^^^^^^^^^^

A real piece of crap if there ever was one. Good riddance

Great post from Becca. First hand information and insights into SafeSport. And well written.

The post confirms inconsistency from SafeSport in rulings. If we were to hold everyone accountable using the standard applied to Salazar, and apply the same punishment, we'd no doubt have a very great many fewer coaches.

When you single out one or a few people, you have to ask "Why?"

The answer is hidden in proceedings we can't see.

When most severe punishment is levied on Salazar but not others, you have to ask "Why?"

The answer is hidden in proceedings we can't see.

What, actually, was the "Sexual" conduct Salazar was sanctioned for? We don't know.

The answer is hidden in proceedings we can't see.

What standard of proof was used? Beyond reasonable doubt? We don't know.

The answer is hidden in proceedings we can't see.

Panel consensus was drawn from a body of testimony and fact, their interpretation, and subjective assessments on applicability, admissibility and plausibility. Was the finding unanimous? Is there a judgment summary - and if so, what were supporting facts and conclusions? Does that consensus seem reasonable to an outside observer? We don't know.

The answer is hidden in proceedings we can't see.

What the Appeal Arbitrator performing a new re-assessment of evidence and testimony? What latitude or requirements was there to change the panel's ruling? Was this a procedural review only? If a re-interpretation of evidence, was a different evidentiary standard used? What threshold or criteria was needed to overturn? Was did the written summary state - or was there one?

The answer is hidden in proceedings we can't see.

The 6th Amendment exists for good reason. Secret tribunals have are inequitable and lack accountability.

This is a most rancid response to one of the most substantial posts in this thread.

This is not true. I take SafeSport training every year for two youth sports associations. If you’re violating their policies you are doing more than succumbing to “an emotionally charged moment” or a “moment of stupidity.” If you can’t abide by the common sense standards of SafeSport you shouldn’t be coaching. It’s really not that difficult.

umstead wrote:

Therein lies the problem. A coach has to be a perfect human being at all times, an emotionally charged moment could spell the end of a career. OF COURSE, all coaches should be required to take training in this regard, but the open ended nature of offenses and potential punishment for a moment of stupidity seems medieval.

umstead wrote:

polevaultpower wrote:

4. I have seen coaches get in trouble for things because they are stupid, not necessarily a predator. If you are a coach, you need to learn how to have appropriate boundaries with your athletes. I don't have a specific training to refer people to at this time, but seek something out if you are not good at maintaining professional boundaries.

Therein lies the problem. A coach has to be a perfect human being at all times, an emotionally charged moment could spell the end of a career. OF COURSE, all coaches should be required to take training in this regard, but the open ended nature of offenses and potential punishment for a moment of stupidity seems medieval.

Really? It's pretty simple: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying it to a co-worker, your boss, your pastor, or your mother, then don't say it to an athlete or child that you coach.

Safe Sport isn't going to ban you for life over an errant curse word or a quick emotional outburst. If there is a pattern of intimidation, bullying, misogyny, or sexually inappropriate language or actions, then there are consequences. Also, and this should go without saying, use common sense when interacting with minors - no rides, no private meetings without witnesses, no gifts, no massages, etc. that could be interpreted as suspect behavior.

You are missing the point soccer coach. He’s basically being labeled a pedophile without evidence. Women are already blasting him as a rapist on social media. He’s getting a lifetime ban that will ruin him. Mary Cain is suing him for $20 million. They better have something more than fat shaming to justify all this. If they don’t, he should sue.

not very old sac joaquin guy wrote:

OozmaKappa wrote:

So calling a fat girl fat is now considered sexual harrassment? Is that what this is about?

Any interaction with a woman can be considered sexual harassment if the woman seems it so. The woman also has as long as she wants to decide to take action, in any way, shape, or form.

Pretty much. If a woman wants to ruin a mans life she can do so on a whim.

Aside from the inconsistency comment, you are wrong on all counts. Just spend the 15 minutes or so to browse through the relevant parts of the code.

stuff like this makes me care less and less for american running. it's just so ridiculously soft. we are talking about professionals, not students.

not even saying salazar shouldn't change some things about his approach, but a lifetime ban is a joke. though very appropriate for the direction 1/3 of our country wants to go in

OozmaKappa wrote:

not very old sac joaquin guy wrote:

Any interaction with a woman can be considered sexual harassment if the woman seems it so. The woman also has as long as she wants to decide to take action, in any way, shape, or form.

Pretty much. If a woman wants to ruin a mans life she can do so on a whim.

Except if you’re president. Then the allegations get swept under the rug and the women are called liars. Just ask both Trump and Biden. The heads of their non-respected parties.

jonnyio wrote:

Occam’s razor would tell you there is more to this than has been divulged and that Alberto does not want it divulged. This leads to confusion among the public and a sense that Alberto has been wronged. This is not likely the case at all.

I don't think I've ever seen Occam's Razor being cited as suggesting the situation is MORE complex than it appears. That's 360 degrees backasswards in the reverse direction .

It's sad but that's the best case scenario. The best case scenario for bs allegations of sexual abuse is what happened with Trump or Biden, or Kavanaugh. They got lucky that the false accusations of those leeches didnt completely ruin them.

Salazar wasnt so lucky, it seems.

Hoser, eh wrote:

This is not true. I take SafeSport training every year for two youth sports associations. If you’re violating their policies you are doing more than succumbing to “an emotionally charged moment” or a “moment of stupidity.” If you can’t abide by the common sense standards of SafeSport you shouldn’t be coaching. It’s really not that difficult.

umstead wrote:

Therein lies the problem. A coach has to be a perfect human being at all times, an emotionally charged moment could spell the end of a career. OF COURSE, all coaches should be required to take training in this regard, but the open ended nature of offenses and potential punishment for a moment of stupidity seems medieval.

Salazar was coaching at the highest level - world class athletes or those aiming to be. Being effective meant wringing out every improvement possible to get them to the next level.

These weren't school-age kids, but adult professionals who sought him out. Not quite the same standard.

Good behaviour never goes out of style, but if a high-level Coach suggests you might run better dropping excess body fat, or shouts when you're lagging on a timed interval bout, he's doing her/his job.

I have seen Coaches who make Salazar seem like a choir boy.

One longtime ex-German coach cussed every second word and often screamed things like "you run like a girl!" This coach worked J.D.

Another coach slept with a long string of female athletes, which everyone knew about, but was awarded by his peers.

I Have a lot to say on this topic, but I will keep it semi-condensed to:

1. Coaches must be held to a higher standard. I was coached in a way that worked for me (coach was TOUGH and even slapped me in the face at a Texas Relays decathlon because I was being a mental case) and I loved it. I know the guy cared for me, but his style was archaic. Coaches, especially men coaching women, need to nurture their communication and educate themselves in appropriate conduct. Many people are acting like the world is falling, and that coaches hands are tied. They are not. Whether it is HS, collegiate, or professionals, meet your athletes with knowledge, care, AND respect.

2. SafeSport has a enormous place in our community in regards to protecting children/athletes. I am sure that there is ample evidence surrounding AlSal and this case, but I do fear encompassing ALL innappropriate behavior as sexual misconduct. Being a sleazeball and subsequently not fit to coach USATF sanctioned events doesn't require labeling something what it is not. If more facts come out showing AlSal's behavior fit the mold of sexual misconduct, then okay.

Furthermore, I do feel that although a lifetime ban may seem extreme, it still allows him to coach professionals in the US at any event not sanctioned by the USATF. He still has the opportunity to coach US professional or even move to coach other internationals. SafeSport is not ending his career (he is doing that to himself) but rather labeling him. As mentioned before, the sexual misconduct tag might not be fair (putting him in the same vein as Nassar), but future athletes of his should clearly understand what they are signing up for.