Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

original liar soorer wrote:

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)?

Enforcement is achieved because SafeSport is legally authorised to make the decisions that it does and the sporting bodies involved have agreed to comply with its decisions. That is the process. If this were not so Salazar would not have contested the case - he could have simply ignored SafeSport. But he couldn't. Its findings mean he will not find employment again with the US Olympic bodies or any other national sporting body. That is how the decision is enforced. The only way that could change for Salazar is if he successfully challenged the decision in a court. Since he has already appealed before an arbitrator the chances of a further appeal are unlikely.

But they have no powers of enforcement.They can encourage and put pressure but that is not the same thing.

Because the process is extra-legal he has no right to go to Court; or have I missed out on being told how he can do that?

so Pete Jukien whi has never coached anyone is coaching on his own. The same people Salazar coached. OHHHHHH ok BS

thespeedmaker2 wrote:

so Pete Jukien whi has never coached anyone is coaching on his own. The same people Salazar coached. OHHHHHH ok BS

Unenforceable?

They don't have an army - if that's what you think enforcement is - but they are also not an "extra legal" body; they act according to an enabling statute - you simply have no idea what extra-legal means - and so US sports bodies apply their rulings. That is what "enforcement" means. Salazar has no options except to try to overturn the ban in a court. His chances are about zero - unless he can show his accusers lied. He can't - or he would have already done so in his appeal to an arbitrator.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

But they have no powers of enforcement.They can encourage and put pressure but that is not the same thing.

Because the process is extra-legal he has no right to go to Court; or have I missed out on being told how he can do that?

They don't have an army - if that's what you think enforcement is - but they are also not an "extra legal" body; they act according to an enabling statute - you simply have no idea what extra-legal means - and so US sports bodies apply their rulings. That is what "enforcement" means. Salazar has no options except to try to overturn the ban in a court. His chances are about zero - unless he can show his accusers lied. He can't - or he would have already done so in his appeal to an arbitrator.

V11 A says they have no power of enforcement.

You said that Safe Sport was not an extra/ legal body because it can enforce its regulations. It can’t.

The governing body have very limited powers of enforcement and actually can’t stop him coaching.Thus he has the option of by and large ignoring the decision.

Wada have powers of enforcement but Safe Sport does not.

I council rejection of your thinking as it has failed in medicine when you persistently said that the bladder was part of the digestive system. Further, it failed in law, when it said that shoplifting and possession where strict liability offences. And you failed as a human by saying you would put a spade through my brain and refusing to accept that phrases you use are perceived by various communities as being racial.

I didn't say SafeSport wasn't extra-legal because it can enforce its rulings - the Mafia can enforce its own decisions but it certainly isn't legal - but SafeSport operates by virtue of the law by which it was set up. Its decisions therefore have legitimacy. If it were not so Salazar wouldn't have wasted time and money contesting its rulings - he could simply choose to ignore the ban. But he knows he can't. The same applies to the sports bodies affected by its rulings, but because they have accepted the legitimacy of its rulings they will apply them - which means the ban will be enforced if Salazar attempts to defy it. Your understanding of this is comparable to your confused take on any other subject that you grapple with. You have shown that a spade is only a racial term to someone who never learned it is also a shovel, and that you never p** after drinking.

Your first sentence. You said such several times.

Other than a very restricted set of circumstances it a ban can’t be enforced and even then easily got round ; not like Wada..

You should check out the meaning of words and phrases in various communities as well as the reading you have been directed to.But I think you do know.

Call a spade a spade" is a figurative expression, sometimes given as "let's call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool". It refers to calling something "as it is"[1]—that is, by its right or proper name, without "beating about the bush"—or speaking truthfully, frankly, and directly about a topic, even to the point of bluntness or rudeness, and even if the subject is considered coarse, impolite, or unpleasant.

The idiom originates in the classical Greek of Plutarch's Apophthegmata Laconica, and was introduced into the English language in 1542 in Nicolas Udall's translation of the Apophthegmes, where Erasmus had seemingly replaced Plutarch's images of "trough" and "fig" with the more familiar "spade". It has appeared in many literary and popular works, including those of Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, W. Somerset Maugham, and Jonathan Swift.

-----------------

I wouldn't necessarily call you a spade but you are clearly an ignorant tool.

Why did you note quote the part which said that it is a racial slur and should be avoided.Why why why.

You mis quote on a regular basis and invent your own means and now you are well a hoisted by your own petard.

So you own source says it is racist slur.

Can’t make it up.

I have given you enough rope and you are now hung out to dry.

Also try this one for size.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

Now apologise and realise that words do have valid different meaning from time to time and place to place and it only a bigot that won’t read and always assumes their understanding is right.

So by your own source and supported by mine you use racist slurs.

Now the depths of your intellect have been exposed ( yet again) outstanding matters in relationship to the thread can be returned to.

For the 12th time : how is an athlete made ineligible by being coached by a safe sport banned coach.

For the nth time; on what basis would a court order be given to remove a spectator who has a safe sport ban.

THE BIG QUESTION

There's a very simple solution for Alberto Salazar, if he's been wrongly targeted. All he has to do, is file a lawsuit alleging how his rights have been violated due to false accusations and slander. If innocent, he has lots of money, perhaps hundreds of millions, to gain. With this much money at stake and his famous name, he should have no problem finding an attorney to take his case with a contingent fee arrangement.

Why hasn't Alberto filed suit? Anyone have any guesses?

GettingFasterDude wrote:

THE BIG QUESTION

There's a very simple solution for Alberto Salazar, if he's been wrongly targeted. All he has to do, is file a lawsuit alleging how his rights have been violated due to false accusations and slander. If innocent, he has lots of money, perhaps hundreds of millions, to gain. With this much money at stake and his famous name, he should have no problem finding an attorney to take his case with a contingent fee arrangement.

Why hasn't Alberto filed suit? Anyone have any guesses?

You have answered your own question.

Because "calling a spade a spade" , as I did, is not a racial slur. The post above makes that clear. If I had used it in the sense I was referring to a person by their color it would be. I wasn't - and it was obvious that I wasn't. But you are so unbelievably incontrovertibly irremediably f*cking stupid you can't tell the difference and have shown that thread after thread.

Both links say that the term should not be used.

I keep saying that it is not intent but it’s perception.I now note after a long time you are now pleading the “ non intent” card.

Now you see we are back to intent and how it feels when you are accused of something you did not intend😅

However in doping terms you are guilty of neglect and lack of a modern education and in this context you are digging and digging a massive hole.

Any answers to the other questions or are you going to reply with foul insults again ?

original liar soorer wrote:

Now the depths of your intellect have been exposed ( yet again) outstanding matters in relationship to the thread can be returned to.

For the 12th time : how is an athlete made ineligible by being coached by a safe sport banned coach.

For the nth time; on what basis would a court order be given to remove a spectator who has a safe sport ban.

Any answers, now 13 th time !

original liar soorer wrote:

Both links say that the term should not be used.

I keep saying that it is not intent but it’s perception.I now note after a long time you are now pleading the “ non intent” card.

Now you see we are back to intent and how it feels when you are accused of something you did not intend😅

However in doping terms you are guilty of neglect and lack of a modern education and in this context you are digging and digging a massive hole.

Any answers to the other questions or are you going to reply with foul insults again ?

Wikipedia doesn’t say the term should not be used.

It says more mildly that it is sometimes not used: “in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur.”

For what it is worth, Armstronglivs is not a part of “U.S. society”. Maybe not even a part of “contemporary”.

You say it is “perception”, but have you perceived it to be a slur? Has anyone? Would anyone?

Do you expect him apologize on the possibility that someone might misinterpret the phrase when reading it in context?

From the context, it was clearly not a slur targeted at African Americans, and it is not likely anyone perceived it as such.