Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are many conditions athletes have to comply with in order to be eligible for top-tier events, some relatively minor - such as wearing appropriate garb. Yet there are those here who think that having a coach who is banned from coaching wouldn't be one of those conditions. Merely stepping outside your lane is a ground for disqualification but having a coach serving a permanent ban isn't a problem.

The rules don’t include getting coaching; where is the evidence of such a rule. 38 times asked.

nitrogen flamebum wrote:

So Becca's an insider now? She's your secret sauce?

I wouldn’t say secret sauce. Is Armstronglivs yours?

It’s hard to imagine anyone further outside of the USA than in New Zealand.

Distance from New Zealand to USATF HQ: 8,196 miles / 13,191 km — not quite half way ‘round the world, but about a 1/3rd.

Before asking a 38th, do some research.

Vladimir Kazarin was so far banned in Russia, he moved to Kyrgyzstan. Seven Russian athletes made trips to Kyrgyzstan to train with him. Artyom Denmukhametov was given a provisional ban by the AIU for working with Kazarin.

nitrogen flamebum wrote:

Before asking a 38th, do some research.

Vladimir Kazarin was so far banned in Russia, he moved to Kyrgyzstan. Seven Russian athletes made trips to Kyrgyzstan to train with him. Artyom Denmukhametov was given a provisional ban by the AIU for working with Kazarin.

Oh dear dear me.

It is you that needs to pay attention to what has already been posted and then apologise.

In case the penny has not dropped your example is of doping which has explicit rules on association unlike Safe Sport.

This debate is utterly disingenuous. The claim that Salazar's ban is unenforceable is merely a stalking horse for the view they really hold but dare not openly state that he should not be banned. These posters are supportive of a coach who was found to have abused minors in his care and who is also serving a ban for doping violations. But they resort to the feeble and unsustainable claim that he can attend events that he is banned from and still coach athletes because the ruling bodies in sport are powerless to stop him. We shall see. The noxious apologists for this disgrace to the sport will be sorely disappointed. He is gone.

Armstronglivs wrote:

This debate is utterly disingenuous. The claim that Salazar's ban is unenforceable is merely a stalking horse for the view they really hold but dare not openly state that he should not be banned. These posters are supportive of a coach who was found to have abused minors in his care and who is also serving a ban for doping violations. But they resort to the feeble and unsustainable claim that he can attend events that he is banned from and still coach athletes because the ruling bodies in sport are powerless to stop him. We shall see. The noxious apologists for this disgrace to the sport will be sorely disappointed. He is gone.

You invent stuff.

I support a ban on him and think that it should be more effective by being like doping bans by including association.

He can attend these events because he is not banned from them. He can still coach because he is still allowed to.

You have been told dozens of times that to question the rules is not defending anyone.

So you insult and don’t answer. Again.

So for the 39 th time … where is the association rule in safe sport that would ban an athlete from being coached ?

Armstronglivs wrote:

This debate is utterly disingenuous. The claim that Salazar's ban is unenforceable is merely a stalking horse for the view they really hold but dare not openly state that he should not be banned. These posters are supportive of a coach who was found to have abused minors in his care and who is also serving a ban for doping violations. But they resort to the feeble and unsustainable claim that he can attend events that he is banned from and still coach athletes because the ruling bodies in sport are powerless to stop him. We shall see. The noxious apologists for this disgrace to the sport will be sorely disappointed. He is gone.

I wonder what “debate” you think you are participating in, and with whom.

The question I raised is what “Permanent Ineligibility” really means in practice.

There are direct consequences, but also a much broader range of indirect consequences not necessarily required by the ban.

If a race director ejects a spectating Salazar, this is a demonstration of the enforceability of the race director’s right, but the question is whether that falls under a SafeSport ban of “Permanent Ineligibility” requiring ejecting banned coaches spectating. It is surely not a question of enforceability.

You seem to think “Permanent Ineligibilty” of participating in selected US Olympic movement events is a broad coaching ban, and a ban on spectating at these events.

I think you don’t really know what it means, and are simply making it up based on your own misguided intuition.

Like most topics you try to speak about with a false air of authority, attempting to explain what it must mean because your fabricated alternatives are ridiculous, you are unable, despite your self-proclaimed law qualification, to support these thoughts, for example by referencing parts of the SafeSport Code, or other authoritative information.

It’s better to admit you simply have no clue, rather than making up things as you go.

He has been found guilty of doping offences as a coach and now, of sexual misconduct. No athlete with any respect for themselves or their public image (and therefore, their earnings potential) are going to work with him. I'm sure he could get a job working in Uzbekistan or some place, but does a guy who I assume is a millionaire want to go live in some place that is culturally a million miles away from the US?

I don't really care if he can coach US athletes due to some technicality or loophole, he's de facto banned. He'll be coaching hobbyjoggers online

rekrunner wrote:

nitrogen flamebum wrote:

So Becca's an insider now? She's your secret sauce?

I wouldn’t say secret sauce. Is Armstronglivs yours?

It’s hard to imagine anyone further outside of the USA than in New Zealand.

Distance from New Zealand to USATF HQ: 8,196 miles / 13,191 km — not quite half way ‘round the world, but about a 1/3rd.

You are unaware of modern communications?

You might follow your own advice. You have no clue whether the ban against Salazar can be practically enforced. Can you give another example of any SafeSport ruling so defeated?

High hopes wrote:

He has been found guilty of doping offences as a coach and now, of sexual misconduct. No athlete with any respect for themselves or their public image (and therefore, their earnings potential) are going to work with him. I'm sure he could get a job working in Uzbekistan or some place, but does a guy who I assume is a millionaire want to go live in some place that is culturally a million miles away from the US?

I don't really care if he can coach US athletes due to some technicality or loophole, he's de facto banned. He'll be coaching hobbyjoggers online

In a nutshell. But the nutjobs will continue to argue otherwise.

There doesn't need to be a rule. What do you think a ban is, Einstein? There is no ban if athletes can still compete while being coached by him.

You have done nothing on thread after thread but defend dopers, liars and cheats. You are their champion. Unfortunately for them, you have nothing credible to say.

You might follow your own advice. You have no clue whether the ban against Salazar can be practically enforced. Can you give another example of any SafeSport ruling so defeated?[/quote

There is no ban/ruling on association and thus for him to coach outside restricted setting is not a ruling that has been defeated.

40th time,,, where is the ban on association?

If I was defending AS I would not have pointed out that the ban is very very limited.

41 st time…. where is there a ban on association?

Armstronglivs wrote:

This debate is utterly disingenuous. The claim that Salazar's ban is unenforceable is merely a stalking horse for the view they really hold but dare not openly state that he should not be banned. These posters are supportive of a coach who was found to have abused minors in his care and who is also serving a ban for doping violations. But they resort to the feeble and unsustainable claim that he can attend events that he is banned from and still coach athletes because the ruling bodies in sport are powerless to stop him. We shall see. The noxious apologists for this disgrace to the sport will be sorely disappointed. He is gone.

He can’t attend activities from which he is banned but the safe sport code makes it clear such circumstances are limited.

42 times ;where is the ban on association?

I followed my advice, and sought and cited the explanation of someone with personal experience.

But I wonder, what is not working in your brain?

Why are you talking to me about enforcement?

I assume the “Ineligibility” ban on participation at select events can be fully enforced.

Are you suggesting that is a wrong assumption?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I wouldn’t say secret sauce. Is Armstronglivs yours?

It’s hard to imagine anyone further outside of the USA than in New Zealand.

Distance from New Zealand to USATF HQ: 8,196 miles / 13,191 km — not quite half way ‘round the world, but about a 1/3rd.

You are unaware of modern communications?

I am. Are you?

Who are you communicating with? About what? Can you provide evidence, quotes, credentials, etc., that support some of your wishful thinking about what the terms of the ban must be?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are unaware of modern communications?

I am. Are you?

Who are you communicating with? About what? Can you provide evidence, quotes, credentials, etc., that support some of your wishful thinking about what the terms of the ban must be?

If Armstronglivs reads the 50 odd pages of the Code it would be clear but he refuses to read.

He has been asked many times to provide the rules that prohibited athletes being banned by association.

The ban isn't on association but participation - and coaching is participation.