Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

You are confused. It isn't SafeSport that needs do the ejecting; it is the sports bodies that run the events that the ban applies to. They are the agents for SafeSport in regard to implementing its ruling. They have control over the running of their own events. This applies to all public event organisers. They have the right to decide who can attend and who they can eject and someone subject to a ban they have approved easily falls within that latter category.

But your basic position appears to be that this is a ban in name only. That would be unprecedented for SafeSport. Who has publicly argued it is effectively powerless? Does its track record show that. If what you and others say here is correct SafeSport and the top level sports organisations in the US have set themselves up to look weak and even ridiculous. Really?

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are confused. It isn't SafeSport that needs do the ejecting; it is the sports bodies that run the events that the ban applies to. They are the agents for SafeSport in regard to implementing its ruling. They have control over the running of their own events. This applies to all public event organisers. They have the right to decide who can attend and who they can eject and someone subject to a ban they have approved easily falls within that latter category.

But your basic position appears to be that this is a ban in name only. That would be unprecedented for SafeSport. Who has publicly argued it is effectively powerless? Does its track record show that. If what you and others say here is correct SafeSport and the top level sports organisations in the US have set themselves up to look weak and even ridiculous. Really?

rekrunner wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

( may I raise an other point following from your comments… the additional restrictions you have mentioned …. are these actually lesser restrictions placed before total ineligibility?….. I have not got round to re reading the Code but your comments would be appreciated)

The database is one click away.

If you search for Salazar, you see: Action Taken: Permanent Ineligibilty; Additional Details: (blank)

Compare to Heather Adams: Action Taken: Permanent Ineligibilty; Additional Details: No Contact Directive(s)

If you look at more entries, you see way more Additional Detail options are available, ranging from education, probation, no training, no contact, no travel, and even no communication.

I don’t want to read too much into it, as the details and summary of the ban are “need to know” which excludes me, and it could be just a case that the data wasn’t entered, or wasn’t entered yet.

But it looks like with coaches, on a case by case basis, the type of ban is often well thought out, with detailed restrictions, factoring in the potential risk to athletes associated with each behavior.

https://uscenterforsafesport.org/response-and-resolution/centralized-disciplinary-database/

This is explained in more detailed in the Code under XIII. SANCTIONS, which explains the various sanctions and considerations for additional sanctions if deemed necessary or appropriate.

https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SafeSportCode2021_040121_V3.pdf

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are confused. It isn't SafeSport that needs do the ejecting; it is the sports bodies that run the events that the ban applies to. They are the agents for SafeSport in regard to implementing its ruling. They have control over the running of their own events. This applies to all public event organisers. They have the right to decide who can attend and who they can eject and someone subject to a ban they have approved easily falls within that latter category.

But your basic position appears to be that this is a ban in name only. That would be unprecedented for SafeSport. Who has publicly argued it is effectively powerless? Does its track record show that. If what you and others say here is correct SafeSport and the top level sports organisations in the US have set themselves up to look weak and even ridiculous. Really?

I didn’t say SafeSport needs to do the ejecting. You seem to think the SafeSport ban requires it. Is this opinion with or without any basis? My only position is that if it is without basis - and so far that is the case - I can safely ignore your unqualified conclusions.

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The ban applies to his "participating in any activity" at the events. That covers everything except sleeping in the stands. What do you think the event officials are likely to do if they see that he is "participating"? Ignore it?

I have fully understood the participation rules.

How strange that you think he would not be allowed to be a spectator on the basis of the participant definition set out in the Code.

But then you persist in selective and misleading quotes.

By your understanding of participation then ever spectator would be subject to the Code.

Utter illogical.

Now let’s examine what might happen if it is suspected that he is involved in coaching. How proven; witness statements, cameras and mikes breaching privacy.

I would think that such as AS would be subtle etc and have potential breaches well covered.

I have in mind some Cold War thriller with agents dodging all over the place trying to catch some odd contact or other. Folded newspapers left in trash cans.

So unenforceable in both theory and practice.

And you remain silent on how an athlete would be encapsulated by association. Re read the Code with such in mind and zero zero.Asked 3 dozen times now!

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

For all of those who are busy constructing their fanciful arguments for why a ban against Salazar won't work perhaps they can explain whether previous SafeSport sanctions against other athletes and coaches haven't worked also. If the views maintained here are correct, SafeSport will have already shown itself an ineffective body, without authority or muscle. You can of course all confirm this.

What sanctions against athletes?

I have never said Safe Sport had no authority. Why do you lie?

We have no idea if bans have been breached, we would never really know as there are no further bans after lifetime bans and no association ban.

I have explained why track and its various training locations differ fro team sports or gym/swimming.

But you have said you know it all and won’t read.

However my main crit is , as ever, you fall into tautological illogicalities.

Any answer on the association matter ? 37 times now.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

I have fully understood the participation rules.

How strange that you think he would not be allowed to be a spectator on the basis of the participant definition set out in the Code.

But then you persist in selective and misleading quotes.

By your understanding of participation then ever spectator would be subject to the Code.

Utter illogical.

Now let’s examine what might happen if it is suspected that he is involved in coaching. How proven; witness statements, cameras and mikes breaching privacy.

I would think that such as AS would be subtle etc and have potential breaches well covered.

I have in mind some Cold War thriller with agents dodging all over the place trying to catch some odd contact or other. Folded newspapers left in trash cans.

So unenforceable in both theory and practice.

And you remain silent on how an athlete would be encapsulated by association. Re read the Code with such in mind and zero zero.Asked 3 dozen times now!

The event officials do not have to admit him. He is banned from their events - persona non grata. That's the first easy step. If they do admit him, they could require he does not have any contact there with competitors, coaches or officials. That's the next step. If they learn he has done so they could have their security remove him. Happens all the time to members of the public - which he is - who don't comply with the organisers' requirements. None of this is exceptional. Your speculation is naive drivel. But predictable.

Armstronglivs wrote:

For all of those who are busy constructing their fanciful arguments for why a ban against Salazar won't work perhaps they can explain whether previous SafeSport sanctions against other athletes and coaches haven't worked also. If the views maintained here are correct, SafeSport will have already shown itself an ineffective body, without authority or muscle. You can of course all confirm this.

polevaultpower wrote:

As mentioned previously in this thread, SafeSport bans are much more limited than doping bans. They are banned from the Olympic movement (so Salazar could not coach at USA Triathlon events, for example). Salazar cannot participate (i.e. coach, compete, officiate, etc) at USATF sanctioned events. He could be a spectator (unless the meet director doesn't allow him in). Heck, apparently he could hang out in the Nike VIP area and that would be cool, like Mark Block.

Most track meets in the US are not USATF sanctioned. There is nothing stopping Salazar from coaching at any high school/college/AAU meet in this country, unless those groups or individual meet directors choose to ban him. AAU has absolutely zero concern about athlete safety, and they are trying to get into the business of sanctioning adult meets, so that's not as far fetched of an idea as it sounds, and of course the bulk of elite marks set on US soil are set at college meets.

Athletes who train with coaches banned by SafeSport are not punished for training with them, though no USATF/USOPC funds could be used toward that purpose.

SafeSport means nothing outside the US. I suspect he is fairly unhireable at this point due to all of the allegations between SafeSport and doping,