NY Times reports Alberto Salazar was banned by SafeSport for allegedly sexually assaulting an athlete twice while giving massage

Bio Dome wrote:

shelbo900 wrote:

They do? Can someone copy and paste? It’s behind a paywall

The document summarizing the arbitrator’s reasoning, which was prepared for U.S.A. Track & Field and the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee so they could impose the lifetime ban, does not name Salazar’s accuser. It does provide enough details to identify the person, by describing the athlete’s relationship to Salazar and giving details about the alleged incidents. The Times, which generally does not identify people who may be victims of sexual assault, is declining to publish those and other identifying details.

Salazar’s accuser did not respond to messages seeking comment for this article.

That definitely does not make it clear who the athlete is. My guess is KG.

The woman’s identity is revealed in the line “two accusations of physical assault, as well as sexually inappropriate comments and actions by Salazar toward the runner.”

This gives it away. It already tells us earlier that the two sexual assaults are finger penetration so the sexually inappropriate actions which were not categorized as assaults would include trying to kiss her. There is your answer.

In this day and age No coach should be giving athletes a massage

What is interesting to me is the following excerpt:

"The three violations that were sustained included the two accusations of physical assault, as well as sexually inappropriate comments and actions by Salazar toward the runner.

The fourth violation found by SafeSport, that Salazar made inappropriate comments about another runner’s weight and body shape, was not sustained by the arbitrator."

When this story first broke and many were left scrambling for details, some thought the inappropriate sexual misconduct may have been related to comments about a runners' weight, which does not fit the normal definition of sexual misconduct. It should be pretty clear by now that the allegations are far more serious than comments about weight (which were dismissed anyway).

I’m not going to make guesses but I’m going to guess it’s not Mary Cain, nor do I believe it’s Kara goucher.

Both have been extremely open about their experiences. Both have gone at great lengths to share experiences that would invite judgement. Mary came out after the gymnastics saga. She would have spoken up if this had happened to her. Neither mentioned ever receiving a massage from him.

middlingNAIAcoach wrote:

izzystradlin wrote:

His massage thing always seemed real weird

This. Access to the best massage therapists money can buy and you’re giving private, one on one massages to athletes. WTF.

Exactly what training did he have to give massages? Also from the SafeSport code

Nonconsensual Sexual Contact It is a violation of the Code for a Participant to engage in Sexual Contact without Consent. Sexual Contact is any intentional touching of a sexual nature, however slight, with any object or body part (as described below), by a person upon another person. Sexual Contact includes but is not limited to: (a) kissing, (b) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching of another with any of these body parts; and (c) making another touch themselves, the Participant, or someone else with or on any of these body parts.

Now someone would argue that the athlete consented to the massage except then the issue of the power imbalance comes into play. If the coach says "Hey lie down I'll give you a rubdown". Does the athlete feel empowered to say "no thanks"? So does that become coercion?

Coaches, even if you are trained as a massage therapist, do not give your athletes massages.

Not true.

If anything, this story confirms everything we criticized a few months ago when he was initially banned.

1) On the podcast, I said that the way SafeSport is set up isn't correct. You don't ban people from their profession for life without providing details. That's a kangaroo court. All they do is update a line on their database. When the ruling initially came out, we said they need to provide a summary of the allegations at a minimum. That's what we have here.

2) We also said that he shouldn't be banned for life for sexual misconduct if the sexual misconduct is just fat shaming. We've learned that he wasn't banned for fat shaming.

3) But I don't like the way this is has been done. You don't get to keep everything secret when it suits you but then leak something to the press when it's high profile so people don't doubt the whole setup.

4) I also don't understand what confidentiality Salazar is required to agree to (if he actually is required to do and Salazar isn't incorrect on that matter).

Does anyone know what " constrained by SafeSport’s confidentiality rules." means?I hope Salazar is incorrect when he states that he can't defend himself. I 100% think that once this was leaked to the press (or even before it's leaked), Salazar has the right to publicly defend himself in any way , shape or form that he sees fit.

It's not fair if they say, "Hey, you have been accused of x and we are going to bar you from your profession for life if you don't come to this hearing., but to come to this hearing you must agree 100% it is confidential."

I read the article. Not seeing what you all are seeing at all. So, is the bulk of this thread just rank rumor, or what?

I'm no big AlSal fanboy, but putting something like that up if it is true, would be very very not cool.

Just love these "alleged" BS stories that the whole world is subjected to

Can't the two ADULTS involved sort this out and move on with life? Jesus

Lol. The guy that endlessly posts random website blogs and YouTube videos as his sources thinks this is not credible. You are a joke.

I don’t doubt this for a second, I just wish the allegations came out with the ban.

Stop making a fool of yourself and come up with a pandering skeptical take to this one. From the article:

Salazar asked for an arbitration hearing, where he denied the accusations and said he did not speak with or see the runner on the days in question. The arbitrator did not find Salazar’s explanation credible, and accepted his accuser’s version of events.

In today's age of emails, texts, scheduling calendars, receipts, etc. (especially for busy, higher profile individuals) if you can't prove you didn't have ANY virtual or physical contact with an individual on a given day then you're lying. Give me a break.

adiBRO wrote:

Stop making a fool of yourself and come up with a pandering skeptical take to this one.

From the article:

Salazar asked for an arbitration hearing, where he denied the accusations and said he did not speak with or see the runner on the days in question. The arbitrator did not find Salazar’s explanation credible, and accepted his accuser’s version of events.

In today's age of emails, texts, scheduling calendars, receipts, etc. (especially for busy, higher profile individuals) if you can't prove you didn't have ANY virtual or physical contact with an individual on a given day then you're lying. Give me a break.

Remember what happened with Shelby. We thought Shelby was credible and we couldn’t believe when the case was thrown. Then we got the report and realized their reasoning. I believe safesport and the runner.

My college coach would offer lower body massages to all team members before big races. Until now, I had no idea that we had all, in fact, been sexually assaulted because we were being subliminally coerced into complying with his demands. Thanks for the info, I'll call a lawyer now and finally bring this monster to justice!