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

So, now two of you have admitted that what another one of you stated was wrong.

Speculation and conclusory conjecture by you and others about "no reason for him to touch athletes."

If we are going to engage in that, consider that: Maybe the athlete didn't want some unknown masseuse putting their hands on them? Maybe all the masseuses within "almost constant access" that day were creepy looking? Maybe the athlete only trusted Salazar to understand the point of the massage? Maybe the athlete had seen other getting massages from Salazar for years? Maybe the athlete needed a massage relatively quickly, and there were no masseuses on call at the time?

Those are all plausible and reasonable.

No, I said lynch mob because of an abundance of posts like yours with unequivocal statements that are easily debunked, and that fact that we are talking about yet another man of color facing serious allegations in a society with a long history of convicting innocent people of color.

I appears lengthy. Not aware of whatever "legal debate" you are referring to, and I'll bet you aren't either. And yes, we know what the conclusion was.

You don't have the slightest idea "how much evidence is required to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard" is a closed SafeSport proceeding. You don't even seem to know ""how much evidence is required to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard" in a court of law. To the extent you are referring to quantity of evidence, and that is certainly what you appear to be referring to, you can meet the preponderance of evidence standard with as little as a one word sentence from someone. A simple text can meet the standard. Testimony that "I'm pretty sure I saw that person" can meet the standard. You are seriously OVERestimating how much evidence is required to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

For all you know, that is precisely what the ruling is based on.

I am not "nitpicking small points." I was responding to unequivocal, unsupported, unpersuasive and conclusory statements like "there is zero reason for him massage the athletes" and "by someone that is trained to give massages, numbnuts!" and your own "still no reason for him to touch athletes in anyway."

Yes, I am ignoring the "years of toxic culture associated with NOP." That is the kind of broad and vague assertion that is typically ignored in such proceedings. I would hope, and even bet, that SafeSport ignored or excluded any attempts to have a witness say such things.

Was it Jeff Nelson?

Anyway, a guy who I had shown himself to be a scumbag for the better part of a few decades gets accused of doing scumbag things. Losers still support him. More at 11.

This will be the only post on moderation on this thread.  Moderation posts just sidetrack the thread but since this thread is active and being read I will post.

Over 75 posts have been removed from this thread. You may have viewed them before they were removed (I Know I've seen a few just reading the thread myself and not just from the moderation reports) but we do not want any thread to go off topic or the type of posts you are referencing. 

The Holocaust or NYTimes (I think that is how some people looped in the Holocaust) is not the subject matter of this thread.

@Grace Kelly People going off topic, talking about the Holocaust in a thread about Alberto Salazar, etc, does not bring us more money. We don't want those posts on LetsRun.  We do leave up posts we disagree with obviously and believe in free speech in general, but the crazies who sidetrack threads are not good for the discussion. We want discussion on LetsRun.

If you'd like to see how many posts have been removed you can surf the thread with the new Beta software that shows when a post is deleted. To do that go here  https://www.letsrun.com/account/staging-access while logged in and check the box. Please email me wejo@letsrun.com with feedback on the forum or any moderation questions.

It's completely irrelevant what the athlete was "comfortable" with. It's illegal for AS to give massages without a license even before getting to SafeSport. Even if he were licensed, a coach giving an athlete a private massage is a SafeSport violation (and with good reason).

I am confused as to how SafeSport fits in here because people have been posting that the events took place a long time ago. How can one violate SafeSport for acts that occurred before SafeSport existed? Or were the events more recent?

Ernest wrote:

I would bet dollars to donuts there will be zero criminal charges - because while no actual evidence is available to concerned observers, and most probably does not exist.

Funny that one donut at Dunks plus tax is more than a dollar now.

I am one of the aforementioned who questioned Safesport in recent threads.

If this new revelation is true, looks like it is time I put my foot in my mouth.

On another note, this is not the first massage-related news out of NOP. Remember when Salazar tested T on his son because he was (according to him) paranoid because Trainer Chris Whetstine had briefly rubbed Rupp's shoulders following a U of O race?

My point with that post, I guess, is to play devil's advocate and address the question of why he is so hands on by pointing out that ever since Gatlin popped Salazar has always been paranoid about others touching his athletes.

"My point with that post, I guess, is to play devil's advocate and address the question of why he is so hands on by pointing out that ever since Gatlin popped Salazar has always been paranoid about others touching his athletes."

- Agreed! I'm not some glazed eyed fan boy but this really sticks - something smells foul about these accusations - maybe more than just his fingers!!! Why 'twice' and what's with the 'wait' and why not name the person - Always follow the "Money Trail" - this is perfectly as set up for Cain to get money and revenge for something that may never have occurred.

Alright you bring up important questions! Let me respond

1) Once again, you took what someone said out of context. You used my snippet to help your point. I said "There is no reason for him to touch athletes in anyway that could bring the idea of inappropriate contact" not that there's no reason for him to touch them under any circumstance.

I am not speaking for others on this board, please do not construe their argument with mine (saying they are wrong). I said there could be legitimate and situational reasons for him to massage people, but multiple instances that could evoke allegations of inappropriate touching is highly concerning.

The questions you bring up about when and how the massage happened are critical! And were very likely (although you're right there is never any certainty in the world) asked by the arbitrator and investigators and were brought forth by Salazar's legal team.

2) I'm a lawyer. And I work on cases that have to meet this standard every day. Going ad hominem insulting me and saying I don't know anything isn't a making a point. Yes, it is the "easiest" standard, it is not as easy as you're saying and I think you are making things up here.

If you're unaware how arbitration works, it's generally similar to a trial but with no appeal. Certain parts can differ depending on the arbitration. Safesport's website also provides some details about their process. I recommend you take a look.

https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Arbitrations-FAQ_July-2019.pdf

3) I am quite confident that this was far more than a he-said/she-said scenario. You're right we don't know. But if no one knows anything your assumption holds just as much weight as mine, no more or less.

4) As to Salazar being a person of color. This is a complex topic. I understand our country's racist history and serious issues of prejudice within the legal system. Salazar is Cuban, a country where as of 2012 63% of the population identified as white or of European descent. I do not know how Salazar identifies and he would certainly be within his rights to call himself a POC. While skin color is certainly not a definitive indicator of race, ethic-minority status has been historically linked to being non-white. While this certainly does not make him immune from prejudice. Salazar appears white and is likely not part of the prejudiced population to which you refer to. You also fail to take not of the long history of ignoring women's accusations of assault.

Hope I cleared up some of my thoughts even if you disagree!

People on this website get offended/ take things seriously way too quickly. I for one commented way earlier in this thread that AS is innocent until proving guilty simply to troll the morons that are going to get all riled up. Most people on this site believe AS got what he deserved and the allegations are enough for the punishment. Most of the people saying innocent until proving guilty are probably saying it to troll Salazar haters

It's time to charge the piece of sh*t, conduct a trial in a criminal court of law, and let the chips fall where they may. If guilty, the piece of sh*t needs to spend some time in the big house and learn the meaning of penetration.

Ben Shiller wrote:

I am confused as to how SafeSport fits in here because people have been posting that the events took place a long time ago. How can one violate SafeSport for acts that occurred before SafeSport existed? Or were the events more recent?

Violations of the SafeSport Code have no statute of limitations. Salazar is not banned for giving an athlete a massage. He is banned for penetrating the athlete with his fingers.

From the SafeSport Code:

G. Statute of Limitations or Other Time Bars

The Center assesses a Participant’s fitness to participate in sport. As past conduct informs current fitness, no criminal, civil, or rules-based statutes of limitations or time bars of any kind prevent the Center from investigating, assessing, considering and adjudicating any relevant conduct regardless of when it occurred.

Ben Shiller wrote:

It's completely irrelevant what the athlete was "comfortable" with. It's illegal for AS to give massages without a license even before getting to SafeSport. Even if he were licensed, a coach giving an athlete a private massage is a SafeSport violation (and with good reason).

The SafeSport policies around massages apply to minors, you can find the latest policies (they were just updated Jan 1) in USATF's SafeSport Handbook.

A coach giving an adult athlete a sports massage is not necessarily a SafeSport violation, though it seems like a pretty bad idea in most situations at this point.

polevaultpower wrote:

Ben Shiller wrote:

It's completely irrelevant what the athlete was "comfortable" with. It's illegal for AS to give massages without a license even before getting to SafeSport. Even if he were licensed, a coach giving an athlete a private massage is a SafeSport violation (and with good reason).

The SafeSport policies around massages apply to minors, you can find the latest policies (they were just updated Jan 1) in USATF's SafeSport Handbook.

A coach giving an adult athlete a sports massage is not necessarily a SafeSport violation, though it seems like a pretty bad idea in most situations at this point.

It is interesting that Salazar didn't deny the act during the massages, he actually denied seeing the athlete on the days of the occurrences. It is certainly difficult to prove something didn't occur, but it seems between cell phone tracking, schedules and witnesses, it could be proven if he did or did not spend time with the athlete on those two days.

I can not see how it would be other than a he said she said case.

Unless Salazar admitted to the act. Or it was caught on film.

Surely it wasn't done in the presense of witnesses.

If he admitted to the act. I would guess it would be in the form of, "at the time the person was receptive."

These Pretzels wrote:

Very true. A few people have suggested the site isn't doing well financially considering the type of ads they have ("hot singles near you!") and their creation of a membership program. Not to mention their mutilated understanding of freedom of speech on a private message board.

You mean Supporters Club content that they post on YouTube anyways?

ruppgalen wrote:

People on this website get offended/ take things seriously way too quickly. I for one commented way earlier in this thread that AS is innocent until proving guilty simply to troll the morons that are going to get all riled up.

Sincerely, what is the point of that? It's not adding anything useful to the discussion, and by your own admission it's just stirring the pot. Since it doesn't contribute in any way, the only point I can see is that it somehow makes you feel important or powerful to affect the conversation that much.

I guarantee it's a lot more interesting to talk about actual thoughts and opinions, working through the unknowns and grey areas and adjusting your own views as you learn more, if you're ever inclined.