Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Alex87 wrote:

These links all involve forcible kissing. That is a different thing from simply "trying to kiss someone."

Did you click the links? In the first case, the man was dashing by the reporter and kissed her on the cheek. What do you call that? He didn’t restrain her.

It was unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature.

Right. The links you provided are examples of unwanted sexual contact. You can try to kiss someone without entering this territory.

I lean in for a kiss. Girl pulls away. I take a hint and stop. I tried to kiss her. I did not forcibly kiss her.

Alex87 wrote:

Right. The links you provided are examples of unwanted sexual contact. You can try to kiss someone without entering this territory.

I lean in for a kiss. Girl pulls away. I take a hint and stop. I tried to kiss her. I did not forcibly kiss her.

Kara and Alberto weren’t on a date or out to dinner. This wasn’t a misinterpreted signal. Because he’s conceited and also because he was drunk, Alberto tried to make a move on Kara physically.

I’m not suggesting that he should be locked up for this, but I support his suspension.

LOL, Ottawa. Why would you pick ottawacitizen? But even so, they write:

Their first example for sexual harassment:

Let's look at Harvard - more relevant here. They include in their definition of "Sexual Harassment":

"Commenting about or inappropriately touching an individual's body"

"Lewd or sexually suggestive comments, jokes, innuendoes, or gestures"

Obviously sexual harassment doesn't have to include touching (though Salazar at minimum tried that too).

Plus, if there is no consensus definition, how can you argue that SafeSport's definition is wrong?

Are you arguing the Code is wrong because of your preferred definition of sexual misconduct (which you haven't presented yet)? Do you think Harvard is wrong? Why do you even argue about this?

P.S. Becca wrote here two days ago:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

What has that to do with my post?

You asked why it wasn’t referred to the police. Most sexual assaults aren’t.

By safe sport!

Kara Goucher is irrelevant because she was not a minor. SS doesn’t have the authority to consider rumors about what did it did not happen to other women. It breaks every legal principal. If you don’t like it, pick up some big stones and join the Taliban,

Sal fan wrote:

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.

Yikes. Someone REALLY resents losing all those Cheesecake Factory gift certificates to geezers.

Breathe, son, breathe. And run more.

Why Ottawacitizen? Good question. I realize Canada is not the USA. I was looking to see if there was any legal consensus, and skipping examples of University policies which might craft the term the way they want, and might not define “emotional misconduct” separately. It was one of the top google hits, and the title alone captured my point exactly, as does the article. It “Depends on who you ask”. You highlighted the example of “sexual jokes” — I would agree that this is conduct that is sexual in nature, while Salazar’s comments on excess fat are not necessarily “sexual” in nature. I think we agree that there is no consensus, and some latitude, e.g. for universities and employers, to define which conduct is considered “sexual misconduct”. What I find “wrong” is that I don’t agree that “sexual misconduct” applies “even if the acts do not involve conduct of a sexual nature”. It’s also not necessary as the conduct also fits under “emotional misconduct”, which is equally a violation. Note, I would consider the “attempted kissing” “sexual misconduct”. I agree with Becca’s statement. I would consider the acts a violation of the Code, just under a different section of the code. She didn’t say which conduct was which violation. Why am I arguing? Am I arguing? I thought I was explaining myself. I prefer clarity about what actually happened, over obscurity. As I already explained, I am looking for richer language to distinguish Salazar’s conduct from more egregious sex offenders like Larry Nassar, rather than an umbrella term which “can be used as a catch-all for all kinds of behaviour, often obscuring what actually happened”. When the finding is described with vague term that covers an array of conduct, and when the conduct remains unspecified, this opens it up to anyone’s wild imagination — as you can see in this and the other thread. Note you said that you agreed with Safesport and your employer, that your hypothetical would get you fired for “sexual harrassment”, but SafeSport’s definition of “harrassment” also requires a) submission to the conduct as a condition of employment (etc.) and b) a hostile environment.

AlohaState wrote:

Kara Goucher is irrelevant because she was not a minor. SS doesn’t have the authority to consider rumors about what did it did not happen to other women. It breaks every legal principal. If you don’t like it, pick up some big stones and join the Taliban,

The problem is that we don’t really know what authority they have. If you read what they say happens at the first indication rumour, hearsay etc that leads to an immediate suspension you will have your legal principles shaken.

And I ask on this thread…. how do they enforce their decisions?

Could Salazar forcing Mary Cain et al to eat birth control pills be grounds for "sexual misconduct"?

Enforcement Powers

V11 A of the Safe Sport Code says that they have no powers of enforcement as such sanctions are to be enforced by the various Governing Bodies. I can’t see what is set out for Safe Sport to do if they don’t act.

This then leads to the same basic question as to how do the Governing Bodies enforce the sanction(s)?

Extra legal body

As Safe Sport have no powers of enforcement of their decisions they then sit as Extra Legal Bodies according to the arguments of Armstronglivs.

So in summary, rekrunner, you want the offenses be called sexual misconduct (e.g., attempted kissing) and emotional misconduct (e.g., commenting on "boobs" - which you continue to downplay to "body fat" and public shaming etc.).

For comparison, I'd call attempted kissing sexual misconduct and commenting on "boobs" sexual misconduct and public shaming and weighing emotional misconduct. That is in line with many universities' policies, for example. Even you and I agree on 2 out of 3, which has to be a record.

Then ultimately your issue seems to be with the arbitration's result, that removed emotional misconduct from SafeSport's ruling. I don't like that either, but don't consider it that important.

Indeed. No reason to argue, imho.

original liar soorer wrote:

This then leads to the same basic question as to how do the Governing Bodies enforce the sanction(s)?

In this case, you are talking about USATF. They enforce this ban the same way they enforce USADA's/AAA's/CAS's current ban of Salazar. Or the current CAS ban of Houlihan. CAS does not enforce sanctions either, so I am not sure what your problem is here.

casual obsever wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

This then leads to the same basic question as to how do the Governing Bodies enforce the sanction(s)?

In this case, you are talking about USATF. They enforce this ban the same way they enforce USADA's/AAA's/CAS's current ban of Salazar. Or the current CAS ban of Houlihan. CAS does not enforce sanctions either, so I am not sure what your problem is here.

Wrong.

In doping cases the rule by not allowing to compete for athletes.

For coaches they increase the ban and or punishing the athletes they coach by the association rule.

Now pray advise how such would work with Safe Sport sanctions.Please answer.

A banned coach turns up at a completion as a spectator and then an athlete comes up and has a chat etc.

Or the same athlete visits the banned coaches home and they then go for a run together etc and then exchange emails about it all etc.

You are moving the goalpost, liar soorer. Originally you asked how USATF would enforce the ban (which I answered); now you ask how they would punish the banned if they violate their ban.

casual obsever wrote:

You are moving the goalpost, liar soorer. Originally you asked how USATF would enforce the ban (which I answered); now you ask how they would punish the banned if they violate their ban.

None sense.

You have utterly failed to show how usatf would enforce the ban.UTTERLY FAILED .

Enforce and sanction are the same thing in this context.

So how would they enforce the sanctions as they can’t employ the same methods in doping cases.

Answer please.

burritogates wrote:

Could Salazar forcing Mary Cain et al to eat birth control pills be grounds for "sexual misconduct"?

So we are supposed to believe Mary Cain never once consulted her father, who is a doctor, about medications she was “forced” to take? That fact that she even joined this program straight out of high school and took class simultaneously in a very difficult pre med program at a top tier school, suggests her parents are as much to blame for her mental and physical breakdown.

As far as the result goes, the distinction is not important. My issue not the arbitration result, but the resulting confusion that comes afterwards, as too much is left up to the wild imaginations of those who just read the headlines, not familiar with definitions on the Code, and lacking any accompanying clarification or explanation.

casual obsever wrote:

Then ultimately your issue seems to be with the arbitration's result, that removed emotional misconduct from SafeSport's ruling. I don't like that either, but don't consider it that important.

rekrunner wrote:

I think we agree that there is no consensus, and some latitude, e.g. for universities and employers, to define which conduct is considered “sexual misconduct”.

Indeed. No reason to argue, imho.

rekrunner wrote:

As far as the result goes, the distinction is not important.

My issue not the arbitration result, but the resulting confusion that comes afterwards, as too much is left up to the wild imaginations of those who just read the headlines, not familiar with definitions on the Code, and lacking any accompanying clarification or explanation.

casual obsever wrote:

Then ultimately your issue seems to be with the arbitration's result, that removed emotional misconduct from SafeSport's ruling. I don't like that either, but don't consider it that important.

Indeed. No reason to argue, imho.

And such implications would have been clear to Safe Sport and as great PR they would have been delighted.