Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

original liar soorer wrote:

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 !

14 th time is asking

original liar soorer wrote:

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 !

Didn’t I answer this question for you yesterday?

(IMO IANAL) I think of the Safe Sport ruling as a restriction on US Olympic subject organizations (that receive federal benefits), and who they can work with, in any capacity, at their sanctioned events.

The restriction does not extend to athletes making private coaching decisions. For example, this ruling, per se, would not prohibit athletes from setting up a private coaching relationship with Salazar, and then the same athletes competing in USATF meets, while Salazar sits in the audience as a paid spectator acting in no official capacity at that event, so long as USATF funds are not used for that purpose.

Indirectly, however, any athlete, school, university, etc. would have the ability to consult the publicly available SafeSport central database of banned coaches, and have that inform their decision.

This is not like the WADA ban which places a restriction on athletes subject to WADA, and who they can associate with in which capacity, as it is the athlete who also risks being banned by violating WADA rules of prohibited association, in addition to Salazar risking a lifetime WADA ban for a “second” offense.

original liar soorer wrote:

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

Clearly not intent but you have to admonish for neglectful language when used. Strict liability me thinks.

I get your “strict liability” angle, but whatever you think about “strict liability”, for better or for worse, it is part of a contract that all athletes necessarily agree to as a condition of competing.

You didn’t say “when used”, but “it’s perception”. Has anyone perceived it to be offensive, or is this purely theoretical? Who are you speaking for?

Your link is to “npr” — National Public Radio — with the nation being the USA, explaining the history of an idiom and the history of a slur in the USA towards African Americans.

Once again, Armstronglivs is not a part of contemporary US Society, and the context does not involve any African-Americans.

I note also that your link doesn’t say it shouldn’t be used, but the NPR author only “urge(s) caution”, and it is only another author, University of Vermont's Wolfgang Mieder, who thinks it “should be retired from modern usage”, “(r)ather than taking the chance of unintentionally offending someone or of being misunderstood.”

As Armstronglivs’ comment seems to be directed at a non-African-American coach, abusing non-African-American athletes, it seems that there is little chance of unintentionally offending someone or being misunderstood, unless the context is completely stripped. At that point, it is the perceiver who bears the responsibility for his/her lack of understanding.

Sorry: question asked of Armstronglivs.

Not sure about your flipped burden at the end.

Certainly never a possibility in the Yorkshire Cricket race matter.

Meider wrote nearly 20 years ago and a lot of change has continued to take place. I certainly would not want to go into certain circumstances and start using the garden tool word.

My concern with Armstronglivs was that he never bothered to check anything out; just blindly bashing on oblivious when the potential problem was raised.

Bit like bladder and digestive system and then cascades of foul abuse.

original liar soorer wrote:

Not sure about your flipped burden at the end.

Certainly never a possibility in the Yorkshire Cricket race matter.

Meider wrote nearly 20 years ago and a lot of change has continued to take place. I certainly would not want to go into certain circumstances and start using the garden tool word.

My concern with Armstronglivs was that he never bothered to check anything out; just blindly bashing on oblivious when the potential problem was raised.

Bit like bladder and digestive system and then cascades of foul abuse.

What flipped burden? If offense is only made possible by interpreting words out of context, why isn’t that burden of the one who didn’t make the intellectual effort to understand the context? Isn’t that precisely the danger of using redefined terms like “intent” and “doping” and “sexual misconduct” without referencing the context?

Yorkshire cricket? Looks like that was a case of genuine racist remarks directed at foreign cricket players.

Meider who?

At the end of the day, this thread was about “Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"”. There are plenty of things that Armstronglivs fails to research which are on topic — you don’t need to play this racist card in three separate threads, which only serve to demean true cases of genuine racism, like the Yorkshire cricket scandal.

Meider is the person from Vermont who wrote the stuff on s xxxxxs

Yorkshire Cricket; there may well be that the receiver did not see the context of banter.However as we know there is no current flipped burden and I think that is the perspective Armstronglivs should have taken if he had bothered to read.

You are however right about context of terms and that was the lesson I was hoping the foul mouthed Armstronglivs would take.

original liar soorer wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

Any answers, now 13 th time !

14 th time is asking

Now 15 th time of asking Armstronglivs

Continuing a dialogue with the insane is its own form of insanity. So I decline to keep wading in your manure.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Continuing a dialogue with the insane is its own form of insanity. So I decline to keep wading in your manure.

So directly in the context of the thread.

I have asked about the meaning of ban.

You said that;

1 A court order or such would be granted and the police would remove AS from the stands.

2. That an athlete would be deemed ineligible if coached.

I asked you to to substantiate both and kept asking.

You do what you always do when challenged.

RUN AWAY AND HIDE AND WITH A FOUL EXCREMENT INSULT AS YOU DEPART.

So to the thread.The ban can’t be enforced by the Governing Bodies as they would be acting in an Extra Legal capacity and any attempt to do so would be an insult to the Rule of Law.The other thread has still had no response to what has AS actually done…. Rule of Law again.

So you have demonstrated again that you have no clue what you are talking about and any sentence in which you use terms such as "extra-legal" and "rule of law" is mere flatulence coming from someone with no qualifications or experience in law.

When rekrunner disputes your take on what you think I have said you have clearly lost.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

Not sure about your flipped burden at the end.

Certainly never a possibility in the Yorkshire Cricket race matter.

Meider wrote nearly 20 years ago and a lot of change has continued to take place. I certainly would not want to go into certain circumstances and start using the garden tool word.

My concern with Armstronglivs was that he never bothered to check anything out; just blindly bashing on oblivious when the potential problem was raised.

Bit like bladder and digestive system and then cascades of foul abuse.

When rekrunner disputes your take on what you think I have said you have clearly lost.

Still done no reading.. have you.

Try using the n word and the s word in a variety of your communities as as the backlash hits you try telling them that it is their fault they are offended.

Go on; off you go and try it.

Any answers to the actual thread yet or do you keep wanting to raise your racial slurs.

Are we into 20 times yet?

Oh , foul response and no answers.

So running away when asked to explain or justify what you have said.Again and again.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When rekrunner disputes your take on what you think I have said you have clearly lost.

I have asked him to stop playing the racist card, in part because it gives you an excuse to avoid answering:

You said that;

1 A court order or such would be granted and the police would remove AS from the stands.

2. That an athlete would be deemed ineligible if coached.

I asked you to to substantiate both and kept asking.

From my reading, both of these statements are not correct. Can you correct me if I’m wrong?

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you have demonstrated again that you have no clue what you are talking about and any sentence in which you use terms such as "extra-legal" and "rule of law" is mere flatulence coming from someone with no qualifications or experience in law.

Oh , foul response and no answers.

So running away when asked to explain or justify what you have said.Again and again.

What this imbecile is effectively maintaining is that the Safe Sport ban is unenforceable, legally and practically. There isn't an expert anywhere who says that - and that includes Salazar, who spent thousands on legal help to unsuccessfully contest it. If he followed liar forever's advice he could have simply ignored it.

Here’s an article about a coach (gymnastics) violating her ban and what that means in the sport for some background on what that looks like:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.dailydemocrat.com/2020/09/08/special-report-maggie-haney-still-working-with-gymnasts-despite-suspension/amp/

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

Oh , foul response and no answers.

So running away when asked to explain or justify what you have said.Again and again.

What this imbecile is effectively maintaining is that the Safe Sport ban is unenforceable, legally and practically. There isn't an expert anywhere who says that - and that includes Salazar, who spent thousands on legal help to unsuccessfully contest it. If he followed liar forever's advice he could have simply ignored it.

More insults!

AS would have contested it because of stigma. You have been told that.

Why lie about advise. You can’t ignore it but in a non team and outside sport you can skate round it in nearly all circumstances.

So you think it can be enforced by making the athlete coached banned.

And a spectator can have a court order and be removed.

So how can you enforce a coaching ban in all but exceptional circumstances.

If his drug ban is over he is free to coach at the Worlds.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

When rekrunner disputes your take on what you think I have said you have clearly lost.

I have asked him to stop playing the racist card, in part because it gives you an excuse to avoid answering:

You said that;

1 A court order or such would be granted and the police would remove AS from the stands.

2. That an athlete would be deemed ineligible if coached.

I asked you to to substantiate both and kept asking.

From my reading, both of these statements are not correct. Can you correct me if I’m wrong?

1. A person who has been banned from a fixture/event governed by a specific organisation could be removed for trespass if they fail to leave when asked. The organization can do that because the fixture is their responsibility. This is basic law. It hasn't happened with regard to SafeSport before that I am aware of because no one subject to such a ban is as stupid as liar forever and tried to defy it.

2. If a coach is serving a ban on activities that relate to providing coaching services - as Salazar's ban does - the ban would be nullified if the athletes he was known to coach were able to compete. If this were so, Salazar could carry on regardless of the ban, doing what he usually does. The ban isn't simply about him sitting in the stands. He wouldn't have spent a small fortune trying to defeat it if he could simply ignore it. It is difficult to see that SafeSport and the sporting bodies involved had not seen this "loophole" to the ban - if it existed.