Alberto Salazar BANNED For Life for "Sexual Misconduct"

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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?

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?

If you think the ban can be enforced then what is the point of your innumerable posts on that topic?

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?

I am not communicating with you. That would be beyond any degree of optimism. But modern communications enable me to be as aware of events in any part of the world as you are. I don't supply details of the kind that would satisfy you because I can form an understanding based on reason, logic and facts (sound familiar?) whereas you appear to need others to tell you what to think.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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?

I am not communicating with you. That would be beyond any degree of optimism. But modern communications enable me to be as aware of events in any part of the world as you are. I don't supply details of the kind that would satisfy you because I can form an understanding based on reason, logic and facts (sound familiar?) whereas you appear to need others to tell you what to think.

So what fact do you depend upon for saying that athletes are made ineligible by association in Safe Sport matters.

44 th time of asking.

And you are such a man of facts that you persistently said that the bladder is part of the digestive system and maintain possession of stolen goods is a strict liability offence. And the latter was from a man with legal qualifications.

You refuse to read and this intellectual failure gets demonstrated post after post.

Other than the above you are good at racial insults that now appear on a regular basis.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

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?

The ban isn't limited - your intelligence is. He cannot "participate in any activities" at the events covered by the ban. It could include selling popcorn - or offering informal tips to competitors.

The ban is limited to certain settings.

I accept that he can’t coach in such setting but say that such would be near impossible to enforce.

As for selling popcorn being banned ….lol.

45 th time .. rule ref association ?

Ps ; thanks for non racial insults in your post.

Armstronglivs wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

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?

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

The ban you claim to exist on athletes getting coaching is what is meant by association. You have been told this on multiple occasions to deny this makes you a liar.

So for the 46 th time where is such a ban.

An Alberto Salazar lurking at a track and field meet doesn't provide affected athletes a positive, (emotionally) safe and/or secure environment.

SafeSport can create Temporary Measures that allow the centre flexibility to mitigate potential risks to the sport community and to protect the well-being of individuals.

They are implemented on a case-by-case basis and tailored to the specific needs of a matter.

They can include many different tools, including, for example, no-contact orders, restrictions on travel or event attendance, restrictions on interactions with minors and temporary suspensions.

Alberto Salazar might get into one event, but if discovered, probably never another one.

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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

The ban you claim to exist on athletes getting coaching is what is meant by association. You have been told this on multiple occasions to deny this makes you a liar.

So for the 46 th time where is such a ban.

American Show Jumping coach George H. Morris was found guilty of sexual misconduct, lost his appeal and his status is "permanent ineligibility". In Morris' case, in Equine, he's been banned from participating in USEF-sanctioned events and barred from interacting with USEF members. USEF memberss who interact with permanently ineligible individuals can also be subject to sanction."

Not track and field. But, there is precedence.

If by innumerable, you mean 1, then your post makes half sense. Regarding enforcement, I made one post referring to organizations created by federal Acts and receiving federal benefits. All of my posts on this topic was whether certain acts outside of participation at selected events would also be banned by SafeSport, as you claim without substance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you think the ban can be enforced then what is the point of your innumerable posts on that topic?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not communicating with you. That would be beyond any degree of optimism. But modern communications enable me to be as aware of events in any part of the world as you are. I don't supply details of the kind that would satisfy you because I can form an understanding based on reason, logic and facts (sound familiar?) whereas you appear to need others to tell you what to think.

Can you share these facts, with specificity, preferably citing sources with credentials, arising from your communications?

#safernow wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

The ban you claim to exist on athletes getting coaching is what is meant by association. You have been told this on multiple occasions to deny this makes you a liar.

So for the 46 th time where is such a ban.

American Show Jumping coach George H. Morris was found guilty of sexual misconduct, lost his appeal and his status is "permanent ineligibility". In Morris' case, in Equine, he's been banned from participating in USEF-sanctioned events and barred from interacting with USEF members. USEF memberss who interact with permanently ineligible individuals can also be subject to sanction."

https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/en/News/George-H-Morris-banned-for-life-by-the-US-Center-for-SafeSport.html

Not track and field. But, there is precedence.

Well done; very helpful.

For completeness I would like to see the detail of the decision. Also does the governing body in question have such set out in there own rules.

Certainly far stronger than WADA ‘s association ban.

Again thanks.

#safernow wrote:

An Alberto Salazar lurking at a track and field meet doesn't provide affected athletes a positive, (emotionally) safe and/or secure environment.

SafeSport can create Temporary Measures that allow the centre flexibility to mitigate potential risks to the sport community and to protect the well-being of individuals.

They are implemented on a case-by-case basis and tailored to the specific needs of a matter.

They can include many different tools, including, for example, no-contact orders, restrictions on travel or event attendance, restrictions on interactions with minors and temporary suspensions.

Alberto Salazar might get into one event, but if discovered, probably never another one.

There is some question as to the other tools you suggest are in addition to ineligibility or a lesser sanction than such.

And the ban for coaching is only at sanctioned events.

I can’t see how such as AS can be banned from being a spectator and as for lurking who is going to define such.

But some progress in the debate.

Not a bother.

Morris got hit with this 50 years after said events were alleged to have occurred.

In any case, the Federation's own rulebooks prohibit any and all participation/attendance in any capacity:

https://www.usef.org/compete/resources-forms/rules-regulations/rulebook

“PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY from Federation membership and all Federation related activities, including a prohibition from taking any part whatsoever in any Competition licensed or endorsed by the Federation and exclusion from all competition grounds during Competitions licensed or endorsed by the Federation in any capacity, including as an exhibitor, participant or spectator. Additionally, a permanently ineligible person is prohibited from attending, observing, or participating in any event, forum, meeting, program, clinic, task force, or committee of the Federation, sponsored by or conducted by the Federation, or held in connection with the Federation and any of its activities.”

Suffice it to say, there's no such known clause within Track and field's rulebooks. Yet.

Someone else beat me to the above. In regards USATF, how would you interpret the following?

These individuals [currrently serving a suspension from either USATF or the U.S. Center for SafeSport] may not participate in any capacity in any activity or competition authorized by, organized by, sanctioned by, or under the auspices of USATF or the USOPC, the national governing bodies recognized by the USOPC, and/or any Local Affiliated Organizations of a national governing body recognized by USATF and/or the USOPC (including any USATF associations and clubs).

I tend to think this leans closer to an outright ban on showing up to an event.

If you read the definition of participant within the Code it would be very hard to see this as including being a spectator at the restricted events.

However, even if it does( denied) it would be very very hard to enforce.I think that the spectator ban would need to be explicit in order for there not to be a breech of contact case by the spectator.

That takes it onward somewhat.

Anything that confirms or otherwise the association matter?

Again read what participant is defined as.

If you read participant or the similar in doping rules that does not include being a spectator.This may or may not be indicative.

So if you are a participant by being a spectator under the Code you are also subject to the Code ; clearly a nonsense.

USEF ... If someone on the USEF Safe Sport sanctions list is on the grounds, they must be removed by competition management or law enforcement if necessary, for trespassing.

#safernow wrote:

USEF ... If someone on the USEF Safe Sport sanctions list is on the grounds, they must be removed by competition management or law enforcement if necessary, for trespassing.

Yep , as set out in their rules.

Interesting if plod would turn up for this form of trespass.

Good luck on going for trespass whilst watching a sporting event.