Why do people think he was banned for commenting on athletes' weights? He was banned for sexual misconduct. Commenting on weight isn't sexual
Why do people think he was banned for commenting on athletes' weights? He was banned for sexual misconduct. Commenting on weight isn't sexual
mendo ponyo wrote:
what is a professional coach supposed to say if their star runner is all-of-a-sudden gaining weight to their detriment? Butt, belly and legs starting to get fatty, for whatever reason. Make sign language gestures? Or is that also sexual misconduct to do sign language? Questions many of us want to know. I am so glad I am out of the coaching game, a decade ago. Seriously, what can you say so as not to upset the person and have them running to SafeSport?
In Portland, there isn't a single room with a closing door where he could have discussed an athlete's weight in private?
In retrospect, this was all waiting to happen and many athletes could have torn it down. It really only took one squeaky wheel to send the train off the tracks and another one to send it off the cliff. Who is next? Or do other coaches learn from this or was he really the alpha-coach when it comes to gray area PEDs and weight related minutiae?
I really do hate the nomenclature of the me-too movement. This is just straight up mental abuse and over the top inconsiderate behavior, not Larry Nassar/Jerry Sandusky level sexual misconduct. It cannot be condoned, but characterizing it as they have done is also unconscionable. I don't disagree with the outcome, just the use of words.
And you know to a certainty there wasn't another athlete or more athletes who came forward as claimants with enough evidence of sexual misconduct to warrant investigating?
SafeSport opens investigations once the accusations are deemed credible. Investigators do their job, follow the facts and in so doing often find more athletes willing to come forward with their experiences involving the respondent.
Unfortunately for Salazar that is what is most likely to have happened. To think it has just to do with discussing an athlete's body composition is a fool's errand.
Clam Evans wrote:
Why do people think he was banned for commenting on athletes' weights? He was banned for sexual misconduct. Commenting on weight isn't sexual
WE have no idea what he was banned for,
AW Red and White wrote:
And you know to a certainty there wasn't another athlete or more athletes who came forward as claimants with enough evidence of sexual misconduct to warrant investigating?
SafeSport opens investigations once the accusations are deemed credible. Investigators do their job, follow the facts and in so doing often find more athletes willing to come forward with their experiences involving the respondent.
Unfortunately for Salazar that is what is most likely to have happened. To think it has just to do with discussing an athlete's body composition is a fool's errand.
We have no idea of what he was banned for.
I would not jump to the conclusion that it is based on legit reasons
Seems to me if they had truly damning stuff on this guy, they would come out with it or make sure it leaked.
According to Matt Hart, Salazar's input significantly influenced Goucher's compensation while injured, arguably costing her (from memory) six figures in a single year alone.
Although a Nike exec specifically denied her claim for further compensation (IIRC, although unable to compete, she represented Nike at various events that should have increased her compensation significantly), Salazar allegedly sabotaged her efforts.
Whether that specific account is accurate, I don't know, but given the nature of shoe contracts, a coach indirectly controlling athlete compensation - at least under certain conditions - seems reasonable.
What don't you understand about how SS conducts investigations? We do know. Sexual misconduct. If you mean you don't know who the claimants are you will never know unless those claimants decide to speak out. Have you ever been investigated? They essentially stick a scope up your fanny and take a good hard look. Salazar will never speak publicly about this investigation.
The CEO of SafeSport is totally unqualified.
carmine9 wrote:
Seems to me if they had truly damning stuff on this guy, they would come out with it or make sure it leaked.
SafeSport isn't the US legal system, and - likely due to victim privacy concerns - doesn't publish its findings in the same manner. Any publicly unknown, but truly damning information would thus have to leak, and that would surely expose SafeSport to expensive legal action.
Beyond that which is already known, I don't think we can reasonably assume anything at all regarding the breadth, or seriousness, of the complaints against Salazar. There could be much more, nothing more, or something in between.
And as much as I'm inclined to argue for greater transparency, I'm not currently informed enough regarding the various perspectives involved to form a useful opinion on how SafeSport should function.
The craziest thing is that Mary Cain BEGGED Salazar to let her rejoin his training group and he said no. If what he did was so bad, why was she trying so hard to go back to him?
AW Red and White wrote:
And you know to a certainty there wasn't another athlete or more athletes who came forward as claimants with enough evidence of sexual misconduct to warrant investigating?
SafeSport opens investigations once the accusations are deemed credible. Investigators do their job, follow the facts and in so doing often find more athletes willing to come forward with their experiences involving the respondent.
Unfortunately for Salazar that is what is most likely to have happened. To think it has just to do with discussing an athlete's body composition is a fool's errand.
Have you read their bylaws? Safesport’s process is a bit sketchy for an organization of their standing.
-Someone comes to them with a complaint.
-They make a ruling.
-In non-criminal cases such as this, if the accused disagrees, they can pay out of their pocket for arbitrage. No funds? Process ends.
-There is no cross-examination.
-Witness doesn’t have to appear
-Everything is via video.
This is shameful.
whaletail wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
Seems to me if they had truly damning stuff on this guy, they would come out with it or make sure it leaked.
SafeSport isn't the US legal system, and - likely due to victim privacy concerns - doesn't publish its findings in the same manner. Any publicly unknown, but truly damning information would thus have to leak, and that would surely expose SafeSport to expensive legal action.
Beyond that which is already known, I don't think we can reasonably assume anything at all regarding the breadth, or seriousness, of the complaints against Salazar. There could be much more, nothing more, or something in between.
And as much as I'm inclined to argue for greater transparency, I'm not currently informed enough regarding the various perspectives involved to form a useful opinion on how SafeSport should function.
We are given no info. To conclude he must be guilty of something serious is mistaken.
The establishment always gets out the info or propaganda they want out there. I think it is a huge mistake to think these people care about privacy
Clam Evans wrote:
Why do people think he was banned for commenting on athletes' weights? He was banned for sexual misconduct. Commenting on weight isn't sexual
Did you read our article? I guess not. You can be banned for sexual miscondcut even if nohting you did is sexual in nature. Everything below is from our article.
A close reading of the SafeSport code reveals that one may be banned for sexual misconduct even if one did nothing at all that is sexual in nature.
How does that work? Below is an excerpt from the SafeSport Code (IX.C.1.A on page 9) that explains how sexual harrassment can be a violation of the sexual misconduct category – even if the behavior is not sexual in nature – if certain conditons are met:
Sexual harassment includes harassment related to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, which may include acts of aggression, intimidation, or hostility, whether verbal or nonverbal, graphic, physical, or otherwise, even if the acts do not involve conduct of a sexual nature, when the conditions outlined in (a) or (b), below, are present.
The conditions in (b) require the creation of a “hostile environment” – which both Cain and Yoder Begley seemingly alleged occurred under Salazar. According to the SafeSport’s 2021 code, a hostile environment “exists when the conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive such that it interferes with, limits, or deprives any individual of the opportunity to participate in any program or activity. Conduct must be deemed severe, persistent, or pervasive from both a subjective and an objective perspective….”
But was Salazar’s mistreatment of Cain and Yoder-Begley related to their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression?
Unless there were allegations that haven’t been reported, it appears an arbitrator ruled in the affirmative. To be clear, SafeSport did not uphold Salazar’s suspension – according to the SafeSport Code, appeals are decided by a sole arbitrator.
And unlike doping violations, in which penalties are clearly delineated in the WADA Code based on the offense committed, SafeSport has the freedom to determine the sanction depending on its determination of the severity of the violation of the SafeSport Code. Those sanctions can range from a written warning to permanent ineligibility – the strongest sanction, and the one that was applied to Salazar.
The bottom line: we don’t know, specifically, what Salazar was banned for. And unless one of the victims comes forward, we probably never will.
"breasts and bottom were too big," are considered sexual harassment and Salazar is purported to have commented on these specific parts of Cain's anatomy.
https://www.insider.com/runner-mary-cain-nike-lawsuit-salazar-weight-shaming-abuse-2021-10
They make a ruling based on a complaint? Really? That simple, eh?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
How sure are you that Cain and Yoder-Begley are the claimants in Salazar's SS case?
Both aired accusations against Salazar in the press. There may be a whole host of others who are the actual SS claimants.
Mary Cain is the only runner who was a minor at the time. She wrote an ed-op for the NYT and didn’t mention anything sexual in nature. This is why everyone is confused about the sexual misconduct charge. It’s a heavy term with serious implications.
AW Red and White wrote:
How sure are you that Cain and Yoder-Begley are the claimants in Salazar's SS case?
Both aired accusations against Salazar in the press. There may be a whole host of others who are the actual SS claimants.
Salazar wasn't running a Catholic Church here. There are only a few female athletes he coached. I wonder if Magness is also now claiming he was sexually abused by Salazar just so Magness can get another 15 minutes of fame after his own self doping.