Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

eagle down wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, he can't - if he is in an employment relationship with her. In his position of power his comments can be seen as being abusive - and probably were seen as that.

Letsrun worships a sleazebag like Hadsell who sleeps with his college athletes, but when a pro coach (Salazar) says an athlete needs to lose weight and then MAYBE flirts with an athlete everyone says he should be banned from the sport and put in prison.

Insane.

Hadsell is well liked on here because he was well-liked already before his downfall. He continues to be well liked because he turned his life around and is even more successful now. Salazar was essentially hated by everyone before this and that will continue. For the record: I am a Hadsell fan and I also do not think AlSal should be crucified but I do not see him recovering from this like Hadsell did.

Highly doubt wrote:

eagle down wrote:

Letsrun worships a sleazebag like Hadsell who sleeps with his college athletes, but when a pro coach (Salazar) says an athlete needs to lose weight and then MAYBE flirts with an athlete everyone says he should be banned from the sport and put in prison.

Insane.

Hadsell is well liked on here because he was well-liked already before his downfall. He continues to be well liked because he turned his life around and is even more successful now. Salazar was essentially hated by everyone before this and that will continue. For the record: I am a Hadsell fan and I also do not think AlSal should be crucified but I do not see him recovering from this like Hadsell did.

Would be interesting if such as the Netherlands Federation stop their athletes being coached by AlSal in the way that UKA tried to stop UK athletes being coached by Rainer.

Highly doubt wrote:

eagle down wrote:

Letsrun worships a sleazebag like Hadsell who sleeps with his college athletes, but when a pro coach (Salazar) says an athlete needs to lose weight and then MAYBE flirts with an athlete everyone says he should be banned from the sport and put in prison.

Insane.

Hadsell is well liked on here because he was well-liked already before his downfall. He continues to be well liked because he turned his life around and is even more successful now. Salazar was essentially hated by everyone before this and that will continue. For the record: I am a Hadsell fan and I also do not think AlSal should be crucified but I do not see him recovering from this like Hadsell did.

The fact that you are a still a Hadsell fan is DISGUSTING. Safesport would give him 10 lifetime bans.

Who cares if he found a job that pays more than his old coaching job? Any coach can easily make more in another profession. He's a perv and will always be a perv.

He should be hated far more than Salazar is hated.

Let me just say that carmine and Aloha speak truth. The affair stinks like rotten fish.

And the controversy and bad feelings will never go away until people can truly understand the facts.

SafeSport has morphed into something it was never set up to be.

mendo ponyo wrote:

Let me just say that carmine and Aloha speak truth. The affair stinks like rotten fish.

Well maybe the affair wouldn’t have happened if Alberto had been loyal to his wife. And I am not sure it is fair to refer to these gals as smelling like rotten fish.

That's a fair take. There are a lot of unanswered questions. It will be interesting to see whether Salazar DOES, in fact, decide that it's in his best interests to just remain silent. I find it hard to believe that he will; that's not our modern style. If he does, I'll be tempted to agree that you called this one correctly.

casual obsever wrote:

Oh, and a little reminder: USATF knows, and they aren't exactly anti-Nike. So to call this a secret process (just because it's not public), isn't exactly accurate.

Kinda like Paula’s “secret” samples were known to the IAAF, UKAD, WADA, and the WADA IC, not to mention the Sunday Times and ARD, but not to the public. And yet, some of the public still wanted to see the samples, with no possible anti-doping value, that the UK journalists did not publish because they were not suspicious.

casual obsever wrote:

Arbitrators have to follow the applicable Code, whether it's WADA's or SafeSport's. Looks like large parts of Letsrun now deem both Codes unfair just because they led to the banning of Houlihan for doping with nandro and Salazar for sexual misconduct (who is already banned for three different doping infractions).

“large parts of Letsrun”?

I can only speak for myself, and rarely feel like I speak for large parts of letsrun, but your attempt to reduce the reasons with your “just because …” logic falls far short, leaving out many facts you should already well know.

The WADA Code is unfair because of what it might have done to Simon Getzmann, who was only able to prove his innocence by the luck of having one remaining tablet to test, and what it still did to him, as, despite his proven innocence, he suffered a 1 year suspension with any associated loss of income, while spending 10,000 Euros of his dad’s personal savings for legal and scientific expenses. It is unfair because of what it might have done for 27 athletes USADA decided were not at fault, but WADA still considers guilty, or up to 49 Kenyans, or maybe more, who did not have 10,000 Euros to spend to do what is necessary legally and scientifically to defend the charges. It is unfair because it expands the definition of terms to include a broader set of conduct not normally considered as doping, making it easier for ADAs and ADOs to prosecute the guilty and the innocent alike, and making it easier for zero-tolerance posters like you to say that Salazar’s infractions were “doping”, despite no athletes receiving any banned substance, and only one assistant coach, also considered an athlete, receiving a banned method.

Similarly the Safe Sport code appears to have expanded the definition of sexual misconduct to include non-sexual acts, and is not bound by a statute of limitations. Compare that to the WADA code, with a statute of limitation of 8 years extended to 10. While some were rightly concerned that Mary Cain could have committed suicide under Salazar’s hostile environment, the Olympic skater turned coach John Coughlin family actually committed suicide because of SafeSport, apparently for dating skaters his age he was still on friendly terms with, while he was a skater, long before becoming a coach, and long before SafeSport existed.

The unfairness of the WADA Code is not because of one ruling which many seemed to relish, but because it does not aspire to be fair to charged athletes, and it lumps athletes like Houlihan, who the CAS still says is possibly innocent, together with Lance Armstrong, who confessed to a sophisticated long term doping program he orchestrated for his team.

Similarly the unfairness of SafeSport is that it brands Salazar and John Coughlin with the same scarlet letter as the multiply convicted gymnast coach Larry Nassar . In the case of Salazar, that information that has become public looks more rightly called emotional misconduct or bullying, except for the attempted kissing incident in 2011, which hardly seems to merit a lifetime ban. But maybe there is more that remains to be seen, or will remain unseen.

Extra- judicial bodies will always expand into areas that were not intended to expand into.

They sit outside normal law and run the danger of being uncontrollable and unaccountable. Be beware.

The problem is that they take a moral high ground and anyone who asks questions about their power gets accused of supporting wrong doings.

Thus if there is an objection to the extent of strict liability or lack of proportionality then those who raise these questions are deemed to support all the offences that the bodies were set up to control.

Without knowing the details of the case, how do you know the acts complained of were "non-sexual"? It may also depend on what your - or more particularly, their - definition of a sexual act is. The definition may possibly include anything that, in its context, may be understood to have a gender-specific connotation. That is potentially a very wide net. It isn't necessarily the criteria that is exercised by the criminal code, as the issues are not being dealt with as criminal infractions. If they were, that would be the role of a criminal court. Safesport isn't.

As usual, threads such as these fail to distinguish between criminal infractions - which Salazar isn't charged with - and professional infractions - which he is.

Armstronglivs wrote:

As usual, threads such as these fail to distinguish between criminal infractions - which Salazar isn't charged with - and professional infractions - which he is.

Strikes me that the distinctions and overlaps are clear.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Oh, and a little reminder: USATF knows, and they aren't exactly anti-Nike. So to call this a secret process (just because it's not public), isn't exactly accurate.

Kinda like Paula’s “secret” samples were known to the IAAF, UKAD, WADA, and the WADA IC, not to mention the Sunday Times and ARD, but not to the public. And yet, some of the public still wanted to see the samples, with no possible anti-doping value, that the UK journalists did not publish because they were not suspicious.

Nice. Interesting comparison. Actually yes kinda like, but neither you nor I called that a "secret process", let alone a "secret tribunal". And yet, here you are, now defending statements such as "secret process" and "secret tribunal".

In both cases, the public by and large wants to see the facts, including me, while you were against transparency in Paula's case, and pro transparency in Salazar's case.

Plus, the corrupt IAAF has a well documented history, not to mention reputation, of letting (or trying to let) cheats off the hook, while SafeSport does not have the history, or even reputation, to ban innocent people for life.

In addition, Salazar's case, with his lawyers, went to independent arbitration, with his lawyers, and Paula's case was treated internally, without a prosecutor, and then forwarded to Wada for approval, without prosecutor and cross-examination.

Kinda like Nike investigated Salazar, and then reported back to the public (nothing to see here...). And yet, now he got banned for life for his behavior, once an independent organization took over - which I'd love to see in Paula's case.

Finally, Paula's other samples were kept secret to protect the suspect, and Salazar's case was kept secret to protect the victims of his egregious sexual misconduct.

P.S. "with no possible anti-doping value" is of course wrong. It is also not clear how many of her samples were missing in the data the ARD and "UK journalists" have seen.

rekrunner wrote: Houlihan, who the CAS still says is possibly innocent

Oh Lord, your downplaying in this case is endless.

Reminder: CAS said, that there needed to be a number of increasingly improbable events for her lame burrito excuse to be true: 2x improbable + 1x highly improbable, and then the CIR was neither consistent with commercial pork nor her own signature. That ship has sailed months ago.

rekrunner wrote:In the case of Salazar, that information that has become public looks more rightly called emotional misconduct or bullying, except for the attempted kissing incident in 2011, which hardly seems to merit a lifetime ban. But maybe there is more that remains to be seen, or will remain unseen.

More downplaying. You keep ignoring his repeated derogatory comments on young (less than half his age) athletes' "boobs" in public. Try that at your workplace. I would get fired for sexual harassment, were I to do that even once in my job, let alone repeatedly over many years, derogatory or otherwise.

And yes, "sexual harassment" is a form of "sexual misconduct".

Sexual harassment is only a form of sexual misconduct if if wish to define bit as such.

Extra- legal bodies will end up defining anything in a way that suits them.

Safesport - SS

Coincidence?

AlohaState wrote:

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.

Yeah this is ridiculous. If you can’t handle throwing up during a workout then maybe don’t try running as a profession. I hope Cain burns for all this. The best part is that she will end up actually being fat because she spends all her time worrying about how she can take money from the sport and not contributing to it. She is an absolute disgrace and it should be incredibly telling to all of you that she only started this little tantrum raid on Albertos life after he has already been vilified by the community for kinda almost cheating. You people are sick.

Am I defending statements such as “secret process” and “secret tribunal”? Not really. I don’t really know enough about SafeSport to make these claims one way or another, but generally I’m in favor of fair and independent processes conducted without uninformed public scrutiny or knowledge. I simply presented an analogy of two things that were rightly shielded from the public view.

There was no “Paula’s case”, therefore no secret tribunal, nor secret process.

Was I against transparency for Paula? Yes, in part. Like you argue now about who knows what, I favored full visibility to a small number of relevant bodies with experts and a need to know, and not general publication out of context to an uninformed public unable to understand, and wishing to believe the worst and looking everywhere for confirmation.

Did I favor transparency in the Salazar case? I’m struggling to understand what that refers to. I thought the “transparency” from the publicity in the BBC/Panorama documentary severely prejudiced Salazar, just like the “transparency” from the publicity of ARD and UK journalism severely prejudiced Paula.

The well documented history of the “IAAF corruption”, has several significant limitations which prevent me from projecting it anywhere you wish to believe.

What would you love to see in Paula’s case? How much more independent could that review have been, with IAAF and WADA having visibility at that time, and in hindsight, UKAD and the WADA IC reviewing all the facts “de novo”, and all bodies and experts telling us that this is not what an ABP violation looks like? With all of these bodies already issuing their verdict, either explicitly or tacitly, who would be left to conduct this independent review you’d love to see? Is there anyone left who is both qualified and independent who hasn’t seen the data? Keep in mind, the Australian researchers never accused Paula specifically, explicitly by contract, so she really never had any expert accusers — just UK journalists, and an uninformed public who wanted to believe all along.

With respect to Salazar and SafeSport, I don’t ask for full public transparency, but do share the same questions as other as to why “emotional misconduct” was removed, and whether acts that look to me like “emotional misconduct” were finally considered “sexual misconduct”, or whether it was just the attempted kiss, or whether it was more. We may never know. Apparently it wasn’t so “egregious” to be referred to the courts for criminal prosecution. IMO, the charges that have already been made public already are likely already sufficient for SafeSport to ban him for both sexual misconduct (attempted kissing an athlete) and emotional misconduct (hostile environment with public weighings and comments).

But without these answers, and knowing that SafeSport expanded the definition of sexual misconduct to include non-sexual conduct, I would be reluctant to apply an ambiguous and charged label and simply say he shouldn’t have attempted to kiss one of his athletes, and he should have handled his weight loss concerns without the public hostility and humiliation, and that these acts should have consequences.

Do we know that it was not referred to the Police?