Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

It might have been referred to the police, but it seems hardly plausible that any kind of following investigation could have been covered up so thoroughly, unless there was nothing even close to deeds worth of criminal prosecution.

I also remember that before the #metoo happenings, sexual misconduct had to be more than a few inappropriate remarks. Usually one had to touch someone (or expose oneself or so) to receive #metoo accusations.

If a SafeSport decision is believed by one of the parties to be wrong or unfair it is open to appeal to an independent arbitrator.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don’t. Why would you even ask?

The only question I addressed was whether the WADA and SafeSport codes, in general, can be considered fair, and I gave several reasons where unfairness can enter the non-criminal decision and reporting and public understanding process, without relying on any recent specific case outcomes.

You raise good points that “sexual misconduct” can mean different things, so we can conclude that without knowledge of the details, we don’t really know what it means, and it’s fair to ask, what does it mean?

No question that SafeSport is not a criminal court, and they should absolutely refer crimes to the criminal courts.

If a SafeSport decision is believed by one of the parties to be wrong or unfair it is open to appeal to an independent arbitrator.

What is the nature of this independent arbitrator with safe sport.

Jo72 wrote:

It might have been referred to the police, but it seems hardly plausible that any kind of following investigation could have been covered up so thoroughly, unless there was nothing even close to deeds worth of criminal prosecution.

I also remember that before the #metoo happenings, sexual misconduct had to be more than a few inappropriate remarks. Usually one had to touch someone (or expose oneself or so) to receive #metoo accusations.

I wonder if there are any forms of safe sport misconduct that would not cause such to be reported to the police.

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If a SafeSport decision is believed by one of the parties to be wrong or unfair it is open to appeal to an independent arbitrator.

What is the nature of this independent arbitrator with safe sport.

It isn't an arbitrator connected with either of the parties - or SafeSport. That is typical of most forms of arbitration.

original liar soorer wrote:

Jo72 wrote:

It might have been referred to the police, but it seems hardly plausible that any kind of following investigation could have been covered up so thoroughly, unless there was nothing even close to deeds worth of criminal prosecution.

I also remember that before the #metoo happenings, sexual misconduct had to be more than a few inappropriate remarks. Usually one had to touch someone (or expose oneself or so) to receive #metoo accusations.

I wonder if there are any forms of safe sport misconduct that would not cause such to be reported to the police.

Misconduct does not have to be criminal to be misconduct.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

What is the nature of this independent arbitrator with safe sport.

It isn't an arbitrator connected with either of the parties - or SafeSport. That is typical of most forms of arbitration.

Yes, but what set out in the safe sport stuff for this?

In the Uk there is an organisation called Sports Resolutions for this sort of thing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

I wonder if there are any forms of safe sport misconduct that would not cause such to be reported to the police.

Misconduct does not have to be criminal to be misconduct.

Obviously, but in practice in the sort of matters in discussion would they not be or very highly likely to be so.

Can you think of a form of sexual misconduct that would not warrant reference to the police?

Mary Cain is going to be just fine. In fact, I predict that she will come out of this a wealthy young woman after Nike and Salazar settle the civil suit. Both defendants have blazed a well documented trail of terrible behavior, support for suspect individuals, shady practices in track and other sports, plus a "boy's club" corporate culture. She is suing for $20 million and I bet that she walks with $3-6 million. Oh, as an FYI, Ms. Cain is currently on the payroll of Tracksmith and making a living from the sport.

But the real fun will be knowing that a bunch of misogynist creeps and emotionally immature aging men will continue to clock hobby jogger performances while trying to use their impotent rage towards Cain as fuel. I'm laughing right now picturing what some of you look like: receding hairline, Oakley shields, slight paunch, tufts of grey chest hair peeking out of your singlet, and crepey leg skin while rocketing through a local 5K at 7:30 pace in your brand new Vaporflys. All of this with a permanent angry scowl on your face that only gets more sour as you get "chicked" by more and more fast young women as time rolls on.

I don’t need to decide whether the CAS argued, or actually fell for, this textbook example of the “prosecutor’s fallacy”. The relevant question before the CAS was whether Houlihan argued “not intentional” on the balance of probabilities. This question can be decided without ruling on whether the possible but improbable excuse was true or false. In my opinion, this is an impossible burden without a source for testing (see Simon Getzmann), except in rare cases where the AIU expert’s testimony was found to materially mislead the respective tribunal (see Jarrod Lawson). I cannot be fooled that the WA/AIU argument of “cascade of improbabilities”, that a burrito could produce a positive result, tells us anything about the set of probabilities when a positive nandrolone result is already given. I can see how most people would be fooled by such an argument because they have not created the right model for the relevant probability. However your employer and my employer defines “sexual harrassment” is not relevant. Salazar was not fired by his employer for violating his employer’s HR policies. I don’t ignore his repeated derogatory comments, but find them more accurately described as “emotional misconduct” rather than “sexual misconduct”. Maybe you have different intellectual needs, but I think our language should be rich enough to distinguish between a coach who was insensitively concerned with excess fat arguably for performance reasons, as part of his job and theirs, and you hypothetically commenting on a work colleague’s fatty body parts that have nothing to do with your job or theirs, or a team doctor who was accused of sexual misconduct with at least 265 victims, including many minors with some as young as 6 years old, who was convicted and sentenced to between 80-300 years in prison, not counting other felonies and crimes. You make it sound like a personal victory that you can accuse Salazar of “sexual misconduct” because there is a narrow path that justifies it when given enough context and definitions, or in this case, a reported result without the context. If “sexual misconduct” is truly based on “big boobs and fat asses” comments better fitting “emotional misconduct” in a “hostile environment”, why argue so hard in favor of using charged terms which can mean far worse to those unaware of the full context? CIR? Do you mean IRMS?

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?

Who will protect those outside the Olympic sports like Zion Williamson? And could sports commentators and fans get lifetime bans?

It's becoming clear that those most against Salazar are vile, nasty, unloved human beings. I've seen them call people rapists, misogynists, trump supporters and creepy just for asking legitimate questions.

We are just concerned that this decision paves the way for more significant overreach by Safesport without any transparency. We fear what comes next....a coach comments on someone's shoes and gets banned for "sexual misconduct" because some people have a foot fetish?

Jo72 wrote:

It might have been referred to the police, but it seems hardly plausible that any kind of following investigation could have been covered up so thoroughly, unless there was nothing even close to deeds worth of criminal prosecution.

I also remember that before the #metoo happenings, sexual misconduct had to be more than a few inappropriate remarks. Usually one had to touch someone (or expose oneself or so) to receive #metoo accusations.

Salazar is an intense coach that mistreated his female athletes but he didn't sexually assault anyone. There isn't likely to be anything more in the report than statements like we've seen before about him harassing them over their weight. Nothing was referred to the police.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If a SafeSport decision is believed by one of the parties to be wrong or unfair it is open to appeal to an independent arbitrator.

Again — the question was how letsrun perceives the fairness of the codes, and not how one of the parties perceives it.

Independent arbitrators will interpret and rule within the framework and the definitions of the code, without ruling on the fairness of the code itself.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Salazar is an intense coach that mistreated his female athletes but he didn't sexually assault anyone. There isn't likely to be anything more in the report than statements like we've seen before about him harassing them over their weight. Nothing was referred to the police.

He forcibly tried to kiss Kara Goucher.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Jo72 wrote:

It might have been referred to the police, but it seems hardly plausible that any kind of following investigation could have been covered up so thoroughly, unless there was nothing even close to deeds worth of criminal prosecution.

I also remember that before the #metoo happenings, sexual misconduct had to be more than a few inappropriate remarks. Usually one had to touch someone (or expose oneself or so) to receive #metoo accusations.

Salazar is an intense coach that mistreated his female athletes but he didn't sexually assault anyone. There isn't likely to be anything more in the report than statements like we've seen before about him harassing them over their weight. Nothing was referred to the police.

Why was the emotional offending removed ?

Did the fat issue get shifted to sexual misconduct as it was a gender issue and thus easily assigned to sexual?

If that was the case then would we be happy ?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Salazar is an intense coach that mistreated his female athletes but he didn't sexually assault anyone. There isn't likely to be anything more in the report than statements like we've seen before about him harassing them over their weight. Nothing was referred to the police.

He forcibly tried to kiss Kara Goucher.

So that would have been a police matter and was it presented to them and they decided not to act?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Salazar is an intense coach that mistreated his female athletes but he didn't sexually assault anyone. There isn't likely to be anything more in the report than statements like we've seen before about him harassing them over their weight. Nothing was referred to the police.

He forcibly tried to kiss Kara Goucher.

That wouldn't be a criminal act and it probably can't substantiated anyway. There are witnesses to Salazar's harassment of his female athletes, so action can be taken as a result but not over unproven accusations.

rekrunner wrote:

However your employer and my employer defines “sexual harrassment” is not relevant. Salazar was not fired by his employer for violating his employer’s HR policies. I don’t ignore his repeated derogatory comments, but find them more accurately described as “emotional misconduct” rather than “sexual misconduct”.

My employer and I disagree with you and agree with SafeSport. See also Becca's statements. In fact, everyone in my running group also sees that as "sexual misconduct" - but most, including me, don't think that deserves a lifetime ban.

That has nothing to do with "personal victory" or "argue so hard".

CIR = the result (carbon isotope ratio); IRMS = the method (isotope ratio mass spectrometry).