Accidents Happen. wrote:
"He was obsessed with the size of my breasts..."
Al comes across as a well balanced all round top and bottom kind of guy.
+1
Which 18 - 30 year old athlete wouldn't want to get a personal massage at night in private from such a 50+ misogynist?
asdfghj1 wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
At what level of certainty would you agree that Salazar should be appropriately banned from coaching? 5%, 51%, 75%, 95%, 100%? Who should make the determination if not safe sport? I know you want to be the one who gets to hear the evidence and decide, but your not qualified and that’s not your job. You seem to be arguing for > 95% certainty as determined by a criminal court of law? As a father of daughters I think you are demanding a standard that’s way too high. Coaching is one of several professions that should be viewed as a privilege and not a right. The standard to remove access to such a privilege can be far lower than to remove a right.
There are two issues with SafeSport banning someone for life under these circumstances. One is the "more likely than not" 51% standard that you address here. The other is the complete lack of transparency that is a bigger issue to me.
So I’ll ask you, given what’s at stake, what is the certainty level that would satisfy you? Also, the process is NOT secret or non transparent. Salazar was made aware of the charges and had ample opportunity to rebut, cross examine, etc. it’s secret to you, but it’s none of your business, or mine. If the accused is able to fairly engage with counsel assisting, that’s all that counts.
So SafeSport renders a judgment based on an ANONYMOUS source, and everyone here takes it as gospel… Clown world.
I’m sure SS did a great investigation without even knowing who the victim was lol. Imagine a real investigation being done this way. “…so in closing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we ask you to find the defendant guilty of sexual assault against anonymous victim. We ask you to look past the fact that anonymous victim is anonymous and trust our version of the story. We may never know who the victim is, but we are sure of the guilt of the defendant.”
SS = clown cops wrote:
So SafeSport renders a judgment based on an ANONYMOUS source, and everyone here takes it as gospel… Clown world.
I’m sure SS did a great investigation without even knowing who the victim was lol. Imagine a real investigation being done this way. “…so in closing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we ask you to find the defendant guilty of sexual assault against anonymous victim. We ask you to look past the fact that anonymous victim is anonymous and trust our version of the story. We may never know who the victim is, but we are sure of the guilt of the defendant.”
The victim is not anonymous to SafeSport…please educate yourself.
People, especially women, and ESPECIALLY children need to be protected from abuse and assault. As a society we MUST do better. As it stands, it certainly looks like Alberto should be gone from coaching.
BUT, is it too much to ask that things be handled in a manner that is not shady AF, like this SafeSport crap? I mean, shouldn't the victims deserve a ruling that just about everyone can confidently get behind? If SafeSport is not (or even is just perceived by many to be not be) credible, that sucks. The whole SafeSport operation looks like a freakin asking-for-corruption CYA racket, and I think the sport (and our society) deserves better.
notseeingit wrote:
People, especially women, and ESPECIALLY children need to be protected from abuse and assault. As a society we MUST do better. As it stands, it certainly looks like Alberto should be gone from coaching.
BUT, is it too much to ask that things be handled in a manner that is not shady AF, like this SafeSport crap? I mean, shouldn't the victims deserve a ruling that just about everyone can confidently get behind? If SafeSport is not (or even is just perceived by many to be not be) credible, that sucks. The whole SafeSport operation looks like a freakin asking-for-corruption CYA racket, and I think the sport (and our society) deserves better.
Many sorts of proceedings are closed or confidential for the good of all involved, often including the accused. That doesn’t mean they are shady AF. The privacy of the victim with respect to the public is paramount. I too am highly skeptical of a process in which anonymous allegations can result in stern or severe sanctions for the accused, but that is NOT what happened. Salazar knows who the accusers are and her got his chance to refute the accusations and the evidence. He lost and then again on appeal. Safesport doesn’t owe us anything. The public is not judge and jury, nor should we be. If satisfying everybody’s desire to judge the case on their own requires Safesport divulging information that would out the victims, they simply can’t do it. The damage is too great. Yes, I’d like it if the victim(s) waived thei confidentiality and let it all out in public, but they are victims and I’m not. What I and any of us want is irrelevant.
Wise Old Man wrote:
notseeingit wrote:
People, especially women, and ESPECIALLY children need to be protected from abuse and assault. As a society we MUST do better. As it stands, it certainly looks like Alberto should be gone from coaching.
BUT, is it too much to ask that things be handled in a manner that is not shady AF, like this SafeSport crap? I mean, shouldn't the victims deserve a ruling that just about everyone can confidently get behind? If SafeSport is not (or even is just perceived by many to be not be) credible, that sucks. The whole SafeSport operation looks like a freakin asking-for-corruption CYA racket, and I think the sport (and our society) deserves better.
Many sorts of proceedings are closed or confidential for the good of all involved, often including the accused. That doesn’t mean they are shady AF. The privacy of the victim with respect to the public is paramount. I too am highly skeptical of a process in which anonymous allegations can result in stern or severe sanctions for the accused, but that is NOT what happened. Salazar knows who the accusers are and her got his chance to refute the accusations and the evidence. He lost and then again on appeal. Safesport doesn’t owe us anything. The public is not judge and jury, nor should we be. If satisfying everybody’s desire to judge the case on their own requires Safesport divulging information that would out the victims, they simply can’t do it. The damage is too great. Yes, I’d like it if the victim(s) waived thei confidentiality and let it all out in public, but they are victims and I’m not. What I and any of us want is irrelevant.
BTW, I take your comments seriously and I realize many on these boards don’t trust Safesport. These days nobody trusts any institution. I ask you, what would Safesport need to do to earn your trust? What exactly can they do short of outing the victims? If there’s something other than a open and public airing of all of the evidence, I’m all ears.
These Pretzels wrote:
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.pdf3) 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!
Not really. I think I debunked the whole notion that you and others were suggesting, which is that the only reason Salazar would be giving a massage would be to sexually assault someone. There are plenty of non-criminal reasons that Salazar might give an athlete a massage, and I listed them.
I think you agree with me that for all we know, this could very well be a she said-he said case. And I think you agree with me that the evidence to prove liability/guilt by a preponderance of evidence could very well be as little as one sentence from a witness, including the accuser.
Where you appeared to disagree with me is when you declared Salazar white and then presumed, because you declared him white, that race is not a factor here, despite the fact that Salazar's name is Hispanic, he looks Hispanic, his background is well known, and the US has a long history, including in sports, of accusing and convicting men of color who are innocent.
None of us are owed anything by SS. Only the two parties involved deserve anything transparent and then transparent only to them.
It's probably for the best the details don't come out, knowing the specifics of your abuse will get out may actually dissuade some people from coming forward.
Keeping the details private and only known to the parties involved is really the best for everyone.
Wise Old Man wrote:
What exactly can they do short of outing the victims? If there’s something other than a open and public airing of all of the evidence, I’m all ears.
possibly. both the accused and the accuser could be allowed a small group of witnesses to the proceeding. not just lawyers. possibly a few of their athletes, co workers, friends, family members.
and though these witnesses would not be allowed to tell the public who the accuser is, they would be able to hear the evidence along with the officials. and watch the accusation from the accusser directly.
then if the "evidence" was on the bogus side there would be more potential somehow to step up and contest the process.
and if the accused declined having witnesses, it would lend more weight to the story that he probably did it.
This post was removed.
SS = clown cops wrote:
So SafeSport renders a judgment based on an ANONYMOUS source, and everyone here takes it as gospel… Clown world.
I’m sure SS did a great investigation without even knowing who the victim was lol. Imagine a real investigation being done this way. “…so in closing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we ask you to find the defendant guilty of sexual assault against anonymous victim. We ask you to look past the fact that anonymous victim is anonymous and trust our version of the story. We may never know who the victim is, but we are sure of the guilt of the defendant.”
The victim isn’t anonymous to SafeSport dumb dumb. You’re about as bright as an Oregon grad.
Bloody hell, this pic looks ominous:
"ominous
adjective
giving the worrying impression that something bad is going to happen;"
llllll wrote:
possibly. both the accused and the accuser could be allowed a small group of witnesses to the proceeding. not just lawyers. possibly a few of their athletes, co workers, friends, family members.
and though these witnesses would not be allowed to tell the public who the accuser is, they would be able to hear the evidence along with the officials. and watch the accusation from the accusser directly.
then if the "evidence" was on the bogus side there would be more potential somehow to step up and contest the process.
and if the accused declined having witnesses, it would lend more weight to the story that he probably did it.
Here is a rough outline of how the process has generally worked with the Center for SafeSport...
(There is a flow chart here:
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RR_Process_Infographic.pdf)
- Complaint comes in to the Center for SafeSport either via their intake or referred to them by an NGB.
- They decide whether or not they have jurisdiction over the case (for example, the person accused is a member of an NGB, the allegations are sexual in nature, etc).
- Investigation begins. Investigator talks to potential victim(s) and witnesses and begins looking at the evidence. The person accused is notified of the allegations against them and is given a chance to give their side of the story, offer witnesses, offer evidence, etc. If it is relevant, the investigator might go back and forth between the parties and give them a chance to provide more evidence and such depending on what comes up.
- Investigator submits their report to the Response and Resolution team who decides what should happen, like a permanent ban, temporary ban, etc.
- If the person accused does not like the sanction, they can take it to arbitration.
To go back to your original suggestion, if I had been abused and I knew that reporting my abuse meant my abuser could pick a few of their friends to attend a hearing with me and listen to the details of the worst thing I had ever experienced in my life, I would not report.
Wise Old Man wrote:
notseeingit wrote:
People, especially women, and ESPECIALLY children need to be protected from abuse and assault. As a society we MUST do better. As it stands, it certainly looks like Alberto should be gone from coaching.
BUT, is it too much to ask that things be handled in a manner that is not shady AF, like this SafeSport crap? I mean, shouldn't the victims deserve a ruling that just about everyone can confidently get behind? If SafeSport is not (or even is just perceived by many to be not be) credible, that sucks. The whole SafeSport operation looks like a freakin asking-for-corruption CYA racket, and I think the sport (and our society) deserves better.
Many sorts of proceedings are closed or confidential for the good of all involved, often including the accused. That doesn’t mean they are shady AF. The privacy of the victim with respect to the public is paramount. I too am highly skeptical of a process in which anonymous allegations can result in stern or severe sanctions for the accused, but that is NOT what happened. Salazar knows who the accusers are and her got his chance to refute the accusations and the evidence. He lost and then again on appeal. Safesport doesn’t owe us anything. The public is not judge and jury, nor should we be. If satisfying everybody’s desire to judge the case on their own requires Safesport divulging information that would out the victims, they simply can’t do it. The damage is too great. Yes, I’d like it if the victim(s) waived thei confidentiality and let it all out in public, but they are victims and I’m not. What I and any of us want is irrelevant.
SafeSport IS put in place to owe us something! They are there to tell us who we cannot hire and why (Hence their founding post USA Gymnastic scandal needing tons of people to stop it from happening). They didn't do that in a timely manner... that should have been done in 2019 pre sexual misconduct evidence. If you have rubbed banned cream on your children as an experiment you shouldn't be allowed to coach any athlete in the nation that could be an olympian one day or not. and you must either show evidence or else you are protecting the abuser not the abused. Right now SafeSport is withholding evidence of an assault which is shady at best and potentially illegal though it's the government so I'm sure they will get away with that crap.
Whatever happened to Jordan Hasay? Wasn't she part of NOP? Could she be the victim?
The view of a man who sniffs bicycle seats at the local high school. Your kindred spirit got banned. Absorb that.
I agree, SafeSport needs MORE resources to rapidly respond to allegations at all levels of sport, do thorough investigations and provide rapid adjudications. What’s going on now is lame, but that’s on us for not devoting the resources and money needed to do the job well. How to build confidence in the process is challenging when the confidentiality of both the accused and accuser must be honored. If AlSal had been exonerated we should NOT know he was accused. As for the burden of proof, that’s a tough call. If you view coaching as a privilege and not a right, beyond a reasonable doubt is likely to stringent. A preponderance of evidence maybe is too lax. I ask you all, if you are a parent, what level of proof would you require to ensure that an abusive, predatory or pervy coach or teacher is not with your children?
Guy started out doping his athletes. Once one gets accustomed to breaking certain rules and rationalizing doing it and seeing how easy it is to get away with it, it's easy to start breaking other rules.
Who leaked to the NY Times?
