Ps ; still no answers. Why?
Ps ; still no answers. Why?
original liar soorer wrote:
Ps ; still no answers. Why?
I think you should look up "psychosis". In your case it will give you all the answers you need.
The answers are in the link I provided: a banned or suspended coach cannot coach athletes who appear in any sanctioned meet, which would include nationals, trials, etc. Other athletes and coaches also cannot have contact with them - so they can’t send training plans to other athletes, etc nor can they attend any meets, practices, etc.
So, yeah, you could privately hire Salazar if you just wanted to improve your times for your own personal satisfaction. But you couldn’t compete in any sanctioned competition, make any teams, or do any serious competitive running in the US.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Ps ; still no answers. Why?
I think you should look up "psychosis". In your case it will give you all the answers you need.
Insults and no answers…. every single thread you are on goes the same way.
yawnjawn wrote:
The answers are in the link I provided: a banned or suspended coach cannot coach athletes who appear in any sanctioned meet, which would include nationals, trials, etc. Other athletes and coaches also cannot have contact with them - so they can’t send training plans to other athletes, etc nor can they attend any meets, practices, etc.
So, yeah, you could privately hire Salazar if you just wanted to improve your times for your own personal satisfaction. But you couldn’t compete in any sanctioned competition, make any teams, or do any serious competitive running in the US.
Wrong.
The coach can not coach at a limited number of competitors and trainings settings and their are no restrictions on the athlete actually competing.
Unlike doping, the athlete can receive coaching in all settings.
Coach can send coaching plans but not hand them over in the restricted settings.But if he does the athlete can receive them.
I again ask what would happen if AS is in his seat at a meet he can’t coach at and an athlete comes and sits next to him? You can’t say the athlete is not allowed contact with such as AS. You could imagine a whole range of such circumstances.
I have explained several time that this is not like the “ association “ rule in doping controls.
yawnjawn wrote:
The answers are in the link I provided: a banned or suspended coach cannot coach athletes who appear in any sanctioned meet, which would include nationals, trials, etc. Other athletes and coaches also cannot have contact with them - so they can’t send training plans to other athletes, etc nor can they attend any meets, practices, etc.
So, yeah, you could privately hire Salazar if you just wanted to improve your times for your own personal satisfaction. But you couldn’t compete in any sanctioned competition, make any teams, or do any serious competitive running in the US.
It looks like the “No Contact Directive” is something that can be a part of the ban, or not.
There is no such indication of a “No Contact” restriction for Salazar in the SafeSport database. Only “Permanent Ineligibility”.
I don’t find Maggie Haney in the database, but other coaches have this additional restriction.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
The words sound nice, but once again — is this your empty opinion coupled with rationalization of the way you think it might work, or is it something that can be substantiated? Surely a poster with a law qualification would have the habit of supporting his opinions, especially in legal domains, with official references.
1) Of course an organizer can decide to eject Salazar, as any organization has the right to refuse service. But … the question is if organization would be required to eject Salazar as a spectator under the SafeSport ruling.
2) The SafeSport ruling is “Permanent Ineligibility” - a ban from participating in USATF (and other NGBs) events. That is important enough to defend, along with defending his reputation. There is no indication of an additional “No Contact Directive” in the SafeSport database, while it does exist, explicitly, for other coaches. Setting up a private coaching relationship doesn’t seem to violate the SafeSport ban. If SafeSport wanted further restrictions, they could have explicitly added Additional Details, for example: “No Unsupervised Coaching / Training, Travel / Lodging Restriction(s), Contact / Communication Limitation(s), No Contact Directive(s)”. Salazar’s Additional Details were left blank.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
The words sound nice, but once again — is this your empty opinion coupled with rationalization of the way you think it might work, or is it something that can be substantiated? Surely a poster with a law qualification would have the habit of supporting his opinions, especially in legal domains, with official references.
1) Of course an organizer can decide to eject Salazar, as any organization has the right to refuse service. But … the question is if organization would be required to eject Salazar as a spectator under the SafeSport ruling.
2) The SafeSport ruling is “Permanent Ineligibility” - a ban from participating in USATF (and other NGBs) events. That is important enough to defend, along with defending his reputation. There is no indication of an additional “No Contact Directive” in the SafeSport database, while it does exist, explicitly, for other coaches. Setting up a private coaching relationship doesn’t seem to violate the SafeSport ban. If SafeSport wanted further restrictions, they could have explicitly added Additional Details, for example: “No Unsupervised Coaching / Training, Travel / Lodging Restriction(s), Contact / Communication Limitation(s), No Contact Directive(s)”. Salazar’s Additional Details were left blank.
I think it was the Sadler law firm link that suggested there are many grey area that will need case law to challenge and resolve.So it is not unreasonable to suggest what look like massive loopholes in what the headlines suggest and reality.
So back to sitting in the stand.I see the two limbs.
They have a right to reject, I am not sure if he could actually challenge that at the time or later as a breach of contract.
Are they required to eject and in the circumstances of being say there chatting to the next person.I would think not. But I have previously asked “ what would they do”
I would say that sitting in the stands
next to athletes is the more public potential breach.
Telephones, car park etc etc .
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I have asked him to stop playing the racist card, in part because it gives you an excuse to avoid answering:
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.
1. Has not been banned from being a spectator.
What basic law? How about breach of contract by the organiser?
2. So where is the ban on association, as in doping control.
You say if there is not one then AS could carry on and thus there must be. What none sense; where is the ban on association?
Summary :; still the same two questions sat there flashing.Can’t be answered by saying Safe Sport won’t have left loopholes so loopholes can’t exist. Tautology.
I add that you did say they would go for a court order or similar to get removed from the stands.
Why have you not explained that point as asked 20 times?
Oh you avoid by running away.
yawnjawn wrote:
The answers are in the link I provided: a banned or suspended coach cannot coach athletes who appear in any sanctioned meet, which would include nationals, trials, etc. Other athletes and coaches also cannot have contact with them - so they can’t send training plans to other athletes, etc nor can they attend any meets, practices, etc.
So, yeah, you could privately hire Salazar if you just wanted to improve your times for your own personal satisfaction. But you couldn’t compete in any sanctioned competition, make any teams, or do any serious competitive running in the US.
Basically correct. Salazar can have no open coaching relationship with any top-level athlete. Nor they with him without risking their own eligibility.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
The words sound nice, but once again — is this your empty opinion coupled with rationalization of the way you think it might work, or is it something that can be substantiated? Surely a poster with a law qualification would have the habit of supporting his opinions, especially in legal domains, with official references.
1) Of course an organizer can decide to eject Salazar, as any organization has the right to refuse service. But … the question is if organization would be required to eject Salazar as a spectator under the SafeSport ruling.
2) The SafeSport ruling is “Permanent Ineligibility” - a ban from participating in USATF (and other NGBs) events. That is important enough to defend, along with defending his reputation. There is no indication of an additional “No Contact Directive” in the SafeSport database, while it does exist, explicitly, for other coaches. Setting up a private coaching relationship doesn’t seem to violate the SafeSport ban. If SafeSport wanted further restrictions, they could have explicitly added Additional Details, for example: “No Unsupervised Coaching / Training, Travel / Lodging Restriction(s), Contact / Communication Limitation(s), No Contact Directive(s)”. Salazar’s Additional Details were left blank.
1. The rights that event organisers have to control and restrict entry and attendance are as established as that the sky is blue. I don't cite common law principles that commonly have a statutory expression. It isn't much different than being thrown out of a night club as a perceived trouble-maker. They simply don't have to like the look of you. A banned coach attending an event he is banned from easily qualifies as an undesirable presence.
2. Salazar would probably not be ejected as a mere spectator - if that is clear that is all he is. The organisers would need to see that he was participating in some way. That wouldn't be hard to infer if he was associating with competitors. A private coaching relationship would also violate the ban if the athlete was competing in those events. The directive has a very broad brush. It could cover virtually anything.
Armstronglivs wrote:
yawnjawn wrote:
The answers are in the link I provided: a banned or suspended coach cannot coach athletes who appear in any sanctioned meet, which would include nationals, trials, etc. Other athletes and coaches also cannot have contact with them - so they can’t send training plans to other athletes, etc nor can they attend any meets, practices, etc.
So, yeah, you could privately hire Salazar if you just wanted to improve your times for your own personal satisfaction. But you couldn’t compete in any sanctioned competition, make any teams, or do any serious competitive running in the US.
Basically correct. Salazar can have no open coaching relationship with any top-level athlete. Nor they with him without risking their own eligibility.
Utter rubbish; justify.
Been asked over 20 times ; where is the association rule .
Where where where?
ride the wave of emotions and things shift pretty quickly if you wrote:
OozmaKappa wrote:
So calling a fat girl fat is now considered sexual harrassment? Is that what this is about?
God.
Can we all just admit that this dude is and was always a bad dude?
The sexual harassment allegations are probably deeper than what we have heard about publicly. There is a situation with Kara, Alberto and a plane and the details we haven't heard about.
He didn't just "call her fat". that's such BS. He gave her birth control and laxatives she didn't have a prescription for to lose weight. He fixated on her weight even when she was performing well. The "sports psych" who should also be banned Darren Treasure shared information that she thought she was sharing with him in confidence. She told him she was self harming and they dismissed her and rolled their eyes. He weighed her in front of teammates. And oh yeah, he called her fat. Yelled it actually. In front of a huge crowd. And told her it was because she had bacon and eggs at IHOP that she gained five pounds. The whole thing was manipulative.
I promise you that any of you who are whining that everyone is too hard on poor Alberto would crack and break under his "training" methods.
Even if everything you say is true, I still don't see a 'lifetime ban for sexual mis conduct'. Did he try to sleep with an underage athlete?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The words sound nice, but once again — is this your empty opinion coupled with rationalization of the way you think it might work, or is it something that can be substantiated? Surely a poster with a law qualification would have the habit of supporting his opinions, especially in legal domains, with official references.
1) Of course an organizer can decide to eject Salazar, as any organization has the right to refuse service. But … the question is if organization would be required to eject Salazar as a spectator under the SafeSport ruling.
2) The SafeSport ruling is “Permanent Ineligibility” - a ban from participating in USATF (and other NGBs) events. That is important enough to defend, along with defending his reputation. There is no indication of an additional “No Contact Directive” in the SafeSport database, while it does exist, explicitly, for other coaches. Setting up a private coaching relationship doesn’t seem to violate the SafeSport ban. If SafeSport wanted further restrictions, they could have explicitly added Additional Details, for example: “No Unsupervised Coaching / Training, Travel / Lodging Restriction(s), Contact / Communication Limitation(s), No Contact Directive(s)”. Salazar’s Additional Details were left blank.
1. The rights that event organisers have to control and restrict entry and attendance are as established as that the sky is blue. I don't cite common law principles that commonly have a statutory expression. It isn't much different than being thrown out of a night club as a perceived trouble-maker. They simply don't have to like the look of you. A banned coach attending an event he is banned from easily qualifies as an undesirable presence.
2. Salazar would probably not be ejected as a mere spectator - if that is clear that is all he is. The organisers would need to see that he was participating in some way. That wouldn't be hard to infer if he was associating with competitors. A private coaching relationship would also violate the ban if the athlete was competing in those events. The directive has a very broad brush. It could cover virtually anything.
How on earth do you justify the last two sentences ?
You have been asked this 30 times.
Anyone trying to pull the right to refuse service would leave themselves open to a raft of protected category claims.Far too risky.
Thus back to unenforceable.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I think you should look up "psychosis". In your case it will give you all the answers you need.
Insults and no answers…. every single thread you are on goes the same way.
Agree, never seen anyone else around here that beats Armstronglivs in their mind numbing combination of being gratuitously insulting and yet offering no substance in arguments. Rather repulsive a character.
What is truly mind-numbing is the insistence on this thread that the ban simply won't work, when SafeSport has been making such decisions for several years now. No one off this site in any position of expert commentary anywhere has come to that view, that it is a ban which isn't really a ban. You would think that would give some here pause for thought, but thinking isn't what they do.
bluh wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Insults and no answers…. every single thread you are on goes the same way.
Agree, never seen anyone else around here that beats Armstronglivs in their mind numbing combination of being gratuitously insulting and yet offering no substance in arguments. Rather repulsive a character.
I find it very reassuring that I'm not your cup of tea.
Armstronglivs wrote:
1. The rights that event organisers have to control and restrict entry and attendance are as established as that the sky is blue. I don't cite common law principles that commonly have a statutory expression. It isn't much different than being thrown out of a night club as a perceived trouble-maker. They simply don't have to like the look of you. A banned coach attending an event he is banned from easily qualifies as an undesirable presence.
2. Salazar would probably not be ejected as a mere spectator - if that is clear that is all he is. The organisers would need to see that he was participating in some way. That wouldn't be hard to infer if he was associating with competitors. A private coaching relationship would also violate the ban if the athlete was competing in those events. The directive has a very broad brush. It could cover virtually anything.
I’m not interested in common law or statutes. The question is the SafeSport ruling. You should cite SafeSport. As I explained, from the SafeSport central database, there doesn’t seem to be any additional restriction on Salazar prohibiting private coaching or contact with any athletes.