Mary Cain's complaint is online

What a total loser Cain is! Hope it gets thrown out. She needs to move on.

How many of you think that Nike will settle out of court, and why?

fat at 27 wrote:

I totally get where Mary is coming from. She probably feels like Alberto robbed her of her career, and frankly he may have. Maybe he can coach robot Rupp well, but sometimes being a coach involves a little more tact and many people agree he is truly an “anything to win” type of guy.

He didn't rob her of anything. He is a prick but if she actually had the talent to be a world class runner like she thinks she did she would become one now. He may have ruined a few years but she is young enough, and was a few years ago for sure, to brush off those few years and then recover.

Bottom line, Cain peaked too early and it was all down hill from there. The fact she didn't bounce back to become world class after leaving Alberto shows she just fizzled out and deserves nothing.

This is the way Mary Cain world ends

This is the way Mary Cain world ends

This is the way Mary Cain world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

I read it. Salazar and Nike are scum and I hope they get what's coming to them.

Huddling Molly wrote:

Oh Please wrote:

One thing that isn't in the complaint, and surely would have been because it would help immensely, is being pressured to dope. The fact she is trying for 20M on fat shaming basically tells me NOP were never dopers, or at least never sanctioned or pressured by Salazar to be so.

That is a very good point.

I am sure Nike lawyers will use that to their advantage.

Something I find telling is that the lawsuit skates around the issue of what was said in written correspondence between Cain, Cain's parents, Salazar and NOP/Nike prior to when MC "informally joined the team" when she was 16. Nor does the lawsuit quote, describe, or attach a copy of the contract(s) signed by Cain, or rather Cain's parents on her behalf since she was a minor, when she officially joined the NOP the following year at 17.

From page 3-4 Paragraph 4, 5,6 and 7, with some bolding added:

In the Fall of 2012, defendant Salazar solicited Mary Cain (“PLAINTIFF or “CAIN”) to become her coach and recruited her to join the Nike Oregon Project. Cain, who was 16 years old at the time, informally joined the team, and Salazar began acting as her coach.

On or about November of 2013, Nike offered, and plaintiff accepted, an endorsement contract for plaintiff to become a professional runner as an athlete for Nike on The Nike OregonProject. Defendant Nike did not offer, and plaintiff did not have the freedom to change coaches or choose a different coach, apart from defendant Salazar, in order to train and run for the NikeOregon Project. Plaintiff was now 17 years old and a senior in high school. After she graduated, Cain moved from the state of New York to Portland, Oregon, where she principally resided for the duration of her time running for the Nike Oregon Project. During this time, when in Oregon, plaintiff would often stay at defendant Salazar’s home, at his invitation.

As Head Coach of the Nike Oregon Project, defendant Salazar’s role was to befriend, mentor, counsel, instruct, and train runners including plaintiff...

While performing his duties as Coach, and at least in part for the purpose of furthering the duties required in those roles, Salazar befriended plaintiff and gained the trust and confidence of plaintiff and her family as a trustworthy mentor, manager/supervisor, counselor, coach, and authority figure. As such, Salazar was able to spend substantial periods of time alone with plaintiff. As a consequence, plaintiff was conditioned to trust Salazar in a position of authority in related to physical and emotional matters.

Exactly what were the terms set forth in writing and agreed to by Cain's parents acting on behalf of their minor daughter? Didn't Cain and her parents have legal representation, or did they just sign the contract as NOP/Nike wanted it? Didn't Cain's parents wonder about the wisdom of putting a 16-year-old girl under what sounds like complete control of a grown man? Was there really no one else at NOP/Nike appointed to safeguard Cain's welfare? No chaperone or female person to act as advisor and shoulder to lean on? No point person or any office at Nike to which Cain and her parents could turn if they had issues? No grievance procedure? Was there no way for Cain to get out of the contract or renegotiate it? Also, how long was the contract Cain's parents signed for anyways? Wouldn't it have been necessary to do new contracts when she turned 18?.

I think it's strange that Cain's parents would have agreed to put her under the sole authority of a grown man sports Svengali figure like this in light of the fact that the period when Cain got involved with NOP and the terms of the deal were hammered out occurred not long after the story broke about rampant sex abuse of girls in USA Swimming that led to more than 100 coaches being banned for life - including one who was revealed to be a sex predator with more than a dozen young female victims, including a girl of 14 who needed an abortion after he raped her. Also, Cain's parents put her in the hands of NOP/Salazar and negotiated the terms of the arrangement at exactly the same time period when the USA was gripped by daily news of the unfolding child sex abuse scandal at Penn State that showed assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to be a predatory monster, and revealed that head coach Joe Paterno and other powerful men at Penn had looked the other way.

Page 10, Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 get what I think is at to the heart of the matter:

Plaintiff, acting through her parents while she was a minor, authorized defendant Nike and its employees and agents, including, but not limited to, defendant Salazar, to exercise independent supervisory responsibility to safeguard her physical and mental well-being while plaintiff was running and training with the Nike Oregon Project.

Plaintiff was placed in a position of reliance upon defendant Nike and its employees and agents, including defendant Salazar, and had entrusted responsibility and control over her well-being to them, while training with the Nike Oregon Project. Plaintiff was expected to abide by the expectations and rules of defendant Nike, acting independently and through its employees and agents, including defendant Salazar, while training at the Nike Oregon Project.

Defendants, and each of them, created a special relationship with plaintiff by inviting her to travel and live at defendant Salazar’s residence, and to rely on him as her advisor, above and before her parents. Indeed, Salazar specifically told plaintiff to stop going to her parents for help and guidance, as she was a professional now and other professionals on the team did not need their parents to consult with them. This special relationship created a duty of care on the part of defendants, and each of them, to ensure Cain’s safety, as a minor and young adult participating in an elite running program.

The repeated use of the passive voice in the preceding paragraphs is meant to deflect attention away from the fact that it was Mary Cain's parents who placed her in this vulnerable position in the first place. However much NOP, Nike and Salazar might be at fault, Mary Cain's parents fundamentally failed in their "duty of care" to their teenage daughter. Seems to me she should be suing them too.

NAIA nobody wrote:

.... it seems to me that a key legal issue will be the terms of Cain's Nike contract and the amount of discretion it gave her on choosing, hiring and firing her coach. If the contract gave her complete power over choosing her coach, then her case will be extremely weak because she could have just changed coaches at any time without any loss of income to her.

This is the most important point that no one knows about....also, Nike and Salazar will ask if all this "abuse" can be claimed when she and her parents asked to join the club and Salazar in April of 2019 (just months before his banning). How does this square with years of abuse and a $20 million lawsuit?

gas station fro yo wrote:

I think what happened to her is terrible and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, but I'm kind of perplexed by the timing and legal strategy here.

Can somebody post a quick summary of what she says happened to her? Because from what I've heard, it sounds like he was basically a jerk. So I'm wondering if anybody can sum up without me needing to read the entire complaint.

I'm also hoping maybe somebody with a legal background can clear up if what he did opens him to a civil suit like this, or if being a jerk is... I dunno the term, but not open to litigation?

Or could something in their contract make him liable? I assume if somebody is just a jerk constantly to their friend, their friend can just walk away from that relationship anytime, so it seems like they can't sue for that. But if they have a legal contract, maybe that makes it harder for her to walk away, so the abusive relationship becomes a potential liability for him? But I have no idea, looking for somebody with knowledge in the area to comment on it. Maybe the brojos can get an article written.

RunRagged wrote:

Huddling Molly wrote:

That is a very good point.

I am sure Nike lawyers will use that to their advantage.

The repeated use of the passive voice in the preceding paragraphs is meant to deflect attention away from the fact that it was Mary Cain's parents who placed her in this vulnerable position in the first place. However much NOP, Nike and Salazar might be at fault, Mary Cain's parents fundamentally failed in their "duty of care" to their teenage daughter. Seems to me she should be suing them too.

I think that will probably be next in the Mary Cain saga.

Prima Donna wrote:

Read through this complaint. Basically a he said/ she said that will be hard to prove without any witnesses. Also there is a one yr statute of limitations on “damages”. So all those running injuries she blames Al on will probably be tossed out. That leaves emotional distress which is hard to prove. That is definitely not worth near one million. She’s a sore loser looking for easy money and can’t take responsibility for her own failures. This complaint will ruin her already shoddy reputation

I have a gut feeling about this,and I have zero legal trainng or expertise.

I did read the op Ed by Mary Cain and was following her career

I have personally known successful coaches as Lydiard and my own high school coach, whose daughter is multiple Olympic medallist

In Biathlon.(Anne Briand, Oslo 1992)

Those were exception human beings capable of motivating anyone to the brink of their ability .

And they were Nice.

You don't have to be an as*s ho*le to succeed in sport or in life

But you can.

This I can prove and argue

The legal arguments is for lawyers and judges and jury

Many negative comments about Mary Cain are tainted with jealousy , misogyny or sheer adolescent lack of judgement.

And whete is your expertise come from ?

Lots of pages but nobody seems to have asked if Cain filed any complaints with Nike HR or at the minimum expressed concerns with anyone superior to Alberto during this alleged abuse. If she didn't raise any complaints while under his coaching, why not?

Also, can anyone name a 5'7 120+ pound female who is any good at distance running? I ran my best times at 5'7 108, and I'm a guy. My PRs were all faster than Mary's. It might be that I was underweight and would have performed better at 115 lbs, but I was never over 120 lbs, even before I began training. There's no way I could have been that heavy and been successful. I personally think the 114 lb weight goal that was set for Mary was reasonable.

Last thought, when is Mary going to sue letsrun? The Brothers Johnson have got to be shidding their pants right now. Mary has been thoroughly trashed on this site for almost a decade, far worse than anything Alberto did to her. Of course she won't be able to get $20M out of letsrun.

I'm pretty sure most of the reason they put so much trust in him is because he was also catholic. Mary comes from a devout catholic family and it tends to be an insular and patriarchal community.

hasjkdhjaskd wrote:

Last thought, when is Mary going to sue letsrun? The Brothers Johnson have got to be shidding their pants right now. Mary has been thoroughly trashed on this site for almost a decade, far worse than anything Alberto did to her. Of course she won't be able to get $20M out of letsrun.

Oh, come on. Why waste our time with such nonsense?

Cain's legal theory is not, as you suggest, that Salazar and Nike owe her the big $$$ because they are random bullies who were mean to her. Her theory is that, as her coach, Salazar had a legal duty to treat her better than he did, and as Salazar's employer, Nike had a legal duty to make sure he didn't act illegally.

Your first two points go to this argument by suggesting the facts might not support Cain's claims. I'm baffled as to how you follow those with a take that is so bad it's not even wrong.

running turtles wrote:

I'm pretty sure most of the reason they put so much trust in him is because he was also catholic. Mary comes from a devout catholic family and it tends to be an insular and patriarchal community.

Do you mean the Cain's were insular and patriarchal or you making a generalization about "devout catholic families"? I've been around lots of devout Catholic families and would describe very few of them as insular and patriarchal.

That Salazar was Catholic certainly may have been a factor for the Cain's. But the Cain's aren't unsophisticated country bumpkins. If the parents blindly trusted Salazar, then they certainly share culpability.

asdfghj1 wrote:

Do you mean the Cain's were insular and patriarchal or you making a generalization about "devout catholic families"? I've been around lots of devout Catholic families and would describe very few of them as insular and patriarchal.

That Salazar was Catholic certainly may have been a factor for the Cain's. But the Cain's aren't unsophisticated country bumpkins. If the parents blindly trusted Salazar, then they certainly share culpability.

The plural of "Cain" is simply "Cains." No need for an apostrophe.

Exactly. Thanks for remaining a voice of reason.

asdfghj1 wrote:

running turtles wrote:

I'm pretty sure most of the reason they put so much trust in him is because he was also catholic. Mary comes from a devout catholic family and it tends to be an insular and patriarchal community.

Do you mean the Cain's were insular and patriarchal or you making a generalization about "devout catholic families"? I've been around lots of devout Catholic families and would describe very few of them as insular and patriarchal.

That Salazar was Catholic certainly may have been a factor for the Cain's. But the Cain's aren't unsophisticated country bumpkins. If the parents blindly trusted Salazar, then they certainly share culpability.

Coming from a Catholic and convent school background myself, I don't find Catholic families to be insular nor particularly patriarchal, either.

Also, I find it hilarious that anyone in this day & age would think that a man being Catholic would make him seem more trustworthy in anyone's eyes, including the eyes of other Catholics or people raised Catholic. Even in once heavily-Catholic France, the reputation of Catholicism has nosedived as the sex abuse scandals have reached there. Just last week, the French government revealed that it's determined that over the past 70 years, more than 330,000 French children were sexually abused by Catholic clergy and laity working in official capacities for the Church.

KudzuRunner wrote:

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

Oh, come on. Why waste our time with such nonsense?

Cain's legal theory is not, as you suggest, that Salazar and Nike owe her the big $$$ because they are random bullies who were mean to her. Her theory is that, as her coach, Salazar had a legal duty to treat her better than he did, and as Salazar's employer, Nike had a legal duty to make sure he didn't act illegally.

Your first two points go to this argument by suggesting the facts might not support Cain's claims. I'm baffled as to how you follow those with a take that is so bad it's not even wrong.

Exactly. Thanks for remaining a voice of reason.

If you think my first two points have any merit, then surely you'd infer that I find Cain's claims frivolous. Since I find her claims frivolous, why wouldn't I suspect she was seeking someone else to sue? Individual posters on letsrun may be random bullies, but the site's owners allow the posts to go unchecked, damaging reputations and potentially market value of athletes.

hasjkdhjaskd wrote:

KudzuRunner wrote:

Exactly. Thanks for remaining a voice of reason.

If you think my first two points have any merit, then surely you'd infer that I find Cain's claims frivolous. Since I find her claims frivolous, why wouldn't I suspect she was seeking someone else to sue? Individual posters on letsrun may be random bullies, but the site's owners allow the posts to go unchecked, damaging reputations and potentially market value of athletes.

My god I hope this is a troll

hasjkdhjaskd wrote:

...

Also, can anyone name a 5'7 120+ pound female who is any good at distance running? I ran my best times at 5'7 108, and I'm a guy. My PRs were all faster than Mary's. It might be that I was underweight and would have performed better at 115 lbs, but I was never over 120 lbs, even before I began training. There's no way I could have been that heavy and been successful. I personally think the 114 lb weight goal that was set for Mary was reasonable.

...

Erin Donahue.