Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Try that South of the Thames.
And the threat to kill me.
And the hundreds of vile foul mouth insults.
Your inability to grasp the point is in spades.
Typical taunts you know have racial implications esp when matched with calling me a monkey when informed I am from a minority community..
Blatant racial bigotry.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your inability to grasp the point is in spades.
Typical taunts you know have racial implications esp when matched with calling me a monkey when informed I am from a minority community..
Blatant racial bigotry.
You are confused. All my comments about you are a reflection on your intelligence - nothing else. But you do keep proving me right about that.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Typical taunts you know have racial implications esp when matched with calling me a monkey when informed I am from a minority community..
Blatant racial bigotry.
You are confused. All my comments about you are a reflection on your intelligence - nothing else. But you do keep proving me right about that.
Thus monkey and spade relating intellectual ability to racial groups.
Blatant racial bigotry.
Bigots assume that if there is a difference in views then the other party have foul mouthed vile insults cascaded on them and then when that does not work, associate with an assumed difference in intelligence based on race.
Blatant racial bigotry.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are confused. All my comments about you are a reflection on your intelligence - nothing else. But you do keep proving me right about that.
Thus monkey and spade relating intellectual ability to racial groups.
Blatant racial bigotry.
Bigots assume that if there is a difference in views then the other party have foul mouthed vile insults cascaded on them and then when that does not work, associate with an assumed difference in intelligence based on race.
Blatant racial bigotry.
You are certainly laying it on in spades here. The manure, that is. I have no idea what race you are - it is a matter of complete indifference to me. Your inadequate intelligence speaks for itself.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Thus monkey and spade relating intellectual ability to racial groups.
Blatant racial bigotry.
Bigots assume that if there is a difference in views then the other party have foul mouthed vile insults cascaded on them and then when that does not work, associate with an assumed difference in intelligence based on race.
Blatant racial bigotry.
You are certainly laying it on in spades here. The manure, that is. I have no idea what race you are - it is a matter of complete indifference to me. Your inadequate intelligence speaks for itself.
You have been told many times that I am from a BAME community.
You are a person who fits firmly sat with blatant racial bigots.
This leaves aside death threats.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are certainly laying it on in spades here. The manure, that is. I have no idea what race you are - it is a matter of complete indifference to me. Your inadequate intelligence speaks for itself.
You have been told many times that I am from a BAME community.
You are a person who fits firmly sat with blatant racial bigots.
This leaves aside death threats.
I have no idea what a BAME community is. Is it like being a WASP? I do know that you fit the category of MORON. Perhaps you could describe the weapon that you believe you have been threatened with?
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
You have been told many times that I am from a BAME community.
You are a person who fits firmly sat with blatant racial bigots.
This leaves aside death threats.
I have no idea what a BAME community is. Is it like being a WASP? I do know that you fit the category of MORON. Perhaps you could describe the weapon that you believe you have been threatened with?
It was you that threatened to split my skull.
Next you will say you don’t know was BLM is.
Try issuing racial insults south of the Thames.
Like most racial bigots you would not care to.
#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.
Generally speaking, meet directors/facilities do not need temporary measures in order to trespass an individual that they don't want to be there. But the temporary measures can definitely be helpful if there is a no-contact type of situation.
If a meet was a USATF-sanctioned event, theoretically Alberto could be there as a spectator and the meet management would likely not get in trouble. For example, if one of his children were competing, it might be allowed.
But if there was evidence of him coaching or participating in some way, the meet management could run into trouble with USATF and lose their ability to sanction events in the future. If meet management didn't want him there at all, in most (if not all) parts of the US, they have the freedom to kick him out or bar him from entry. Being banned by SafeSport is not a protected class.
These aren't hypotheticals, these issues have already come up with other banned coaches.
polevaultpower wrote:
#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.
Generally speaking, meet directors/facilities do not need temporary measures in order to trespass an individual that they don't want to be there. But the temporary measures can definitely be helpful if there is a no-contact type of situation.
If a meet was a USATF-sanctioned event, theoretically Alberto could be there as a spectator and the meet management would likely not get in trouble. For example, if one of his children were competing, it might be allowed.
But if there was evidence of him coaching or participating in some way, the meet management could run into trouble with USATF and lose their ability to sanction events in the future. If meet management didn't want him there at all, in most (if not all) parts of the US, they have the freedom to kick him out or bar him from entry. Being banned by SafeSport is not a protected class.
These aren't hypotheticals, these issues have already come up with other banned coaches.
I agree that there are various methods that could be applied but would would depend how overt the coach was.Any it would be tortuous.
This leaves aside coaching in the non banned setting, a thing that would suit such as SH.
If there was a banned by association rule for the athletes then it all would be very different.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The ban isn't on association but participation - and coaching is participation.
*association within the Olympic movement. Salazar cannot coach at a USATF club practice or anything under USATF's umbrella. An athlete getting funding from USATF cannot use that funding to pay Salazar. The SafeSport Code doesn't have the ability to prohibit a banned coach from coaching outside the Olympic movement... what that means in practical terms really varies from sport to sport.
Nothing in the SafeSport Code formally punishes the athlete if they train with a banned coach outside of the NGB's umbrella. And realistically, in our sport, very few athletes actually need to be USATF members.
polevaultpower wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The ban isn't on association but participation - and coaching is participation.
*association within the Olympic movement. Salazar cannot coach at a USATF club practice or anything under USATF's umbrella. An athlete getting funding from USATF cannot use that funding to pay Salazar. The SafeSport Code doesn't have the ability to prohibit a banned coach from coaching outside the Olympic movement... what that means in practical terms really varies from sport to sport.
Nothing in the SafeSport Code formally punishes the athlete if they train with a banned coach outside of the NGB's umbrella. And realistically, in our sport, very few athletes actually need to be USATF members.
Await vile insults from Armstronglivs. Poss a death threat even.
gumpyrunner wrote:
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.
Correct. USATF's bylaws do not have this language that goes above and beyond what the SafeSport Code requires.
No one within USATF is pushing for such language. The handful of us who care enough to try and get bylaws changed have had all of the energy sucked up by the past few years of USOPC drama.
2.5 years ago I tried to create a SafeSport Advisory Committee that would advise the National Office on their Education and Outreach efforts regarding SafeSport (which have been pitiful). The Board opposed my legislation and said it should be a Board committee instead and that is what passed. That Board committee has since gone through three chairs, and no my knowledge has never met or done anything in the two years since they were formed.
polevaultpower wrote:
No one within USATF is pushing for such language.
I should add that I am the only person in the organization who cares enough about SafeSport to try and push for such a thing, and I have mixed feelings about punishing people who in some cases are in the middle of an abusive relationship and not ready to leave.
And just generally speaking, I really don't think that the support is there for such a thing within our NGB at this time. I would have to get AAC to buy into that concept and I don't think they would.
I'm actually surprised USEF has that language, but in most other NGBs, the membership has no power. USEF has a significant number of members who feel strongly that trainers (their equivalent of coaches) should be allowed to sleep with whoever they want, regardless of age, and that criminal actions beyond the statute of limitations don't matter.
original liar soorer wrote:
I have to throw a small point in in that sport can’t exist in its own legal void, statute nor common law.
However in terms of Safe Sport ruling you are correct.
The ruling will be very restrictive for AS but if he wishes he can still function as a coach.There are no more extra bans that can be placed on AS even if he does blatantly coach at restricted events.
This would not be so with most sports but in T and F he can because of its varied nature.
There is nothing whatsoever that can be seen as a ban on the athletes for being being coached, unlike with doping offences.
The athletes cannot be punished, but the meet management could be, if it was a USATF-sanctioned event. If it could be demonstrated that a meet director of a USATF-sanctioned event was _knowingly_ allowing a banned individual to coach at their event, that would fall under aiding and abetting in the SafeSport Code.
In a more practical sense, it is not reasonable to expect a meet director to know every person on the banned list (especially since it technically applies to all sports), but Salazar is high profile enough that any high level track meet director would know, especially if it were brought to their attention.
I know of an event where this was an issue with a different banned coach, and the event chose to get an AAU sanction moving forward instead of USATF, the meet director welcomed the banned coach, and AAU loves predators.
polevaultpower wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
I have to throw a small point in in that sport can’t exist in its own legal void, statute nor common law.
However in terms of Safe Sport ruling you are correct.
The ruling will be very restrictive for AS but if he wishes he can still function as a coach.There are no more extra bans that can be placed on AS even if he does blatantly coach at restricted events.
This would not be so with most sports but in T and F he can because of its varied nature.
There is nothing whatsoever that can be seen as a ban on the athletes for being being coached, unlike with doping offences.
The athletes cannot be punished, but the meet management could be, if it was a USATF-sanctioned event. If it could be demonstrated that a meet director of a USATF-sanctioned event was _knowingly_ allowing a banned individual to coach at their event, that would fall under aiding and abetting in the SafeSport Code.
In a more practical sense, it is not reasonable to expect a meet director to know every person on the banned list (especially since it technically applies to all sports), but Salazar is high profile enough that any high level track meet director would know, especially if it were brought to their attention.
I know of an event where this was an issue with a different banned coach, and the event chose to get an AAU sanction moving forward instead of USATF, the meet director welcomed the banned coach, and AAU loves predators.
I have never disagreed with your core thesis.
That’s why I said the start…. AS spectates and those in tracksuits come to have a chat. What would happen etc.
original liar soorer wrote:
I have never disagreed with your core thesis.
That’s why I said the start…. AS spectates and those in tracksuits come to have a chat. What would happen etc.
There is no simple answer to that question. It depends on the totality of the circumstances. Is the event a USATF sanctioned event? Is there evidence after the fact that he was coaching (like did someone film it)? Was the meet director aware ahead of time that he would be there? If the meet director knew he was there, did they take any precautions to try and avoid an infraction from happening (for example, making him sit far away from the track)? Was the meet director aware that athletes were talking to him? How did they respond, if so? Etc.
At the end of the day, a lot of this is going to come down to what Alberto tries to do (will he still try to coach, are there athletes still willing to train with him) and how much will the rest of the track and field community enable him to keep having a place in our sport.
original liar soorer wrote:
polevaultpower wrote:
*association within the Olympic movement. Salazar cannot coach at a USATF club practice or anything under USATF's umbrella. An athlete getting funding from USATF cannot use that funding to pay Salazar. The SafeSport Code doesn't have the ability to prohibit a banned coach from coaching outside the Olympic movement... what that means in practical terms really varies from sport to sport.
Nothing in the SafeSport Code formally punishes the athlete if they train with a banned coach outside of the NGB's umbrella. And realistically, in our sport, very few athletes actually need to be USATF members.
Await vile insults from Armstronglivs. Poss a death threat even.
Not at all. Unlike you, his opinions are informed and coherent.
It was you that threatened to split my skull.
Next you will say you don’t know was BLM is.
Try issuing racial insults south of the Thames.
Like most racial bigots you would not care to.[/quote]
Who "was BLM is"? A little undecided about whether to use past or present tense? Or just illiterate?
You didn't say what weapon you believe you were threatened with. Remind me - what was it?
Armstronglivs wrote:
It was you that threatened to split my skull.
Next you will say you don’t know was BLM is.
Try issuing racial insults south of the Thames.
Like most racial bigots you would not care to.
Who "was BLM is"? A little undecided about whether to use past or present tense? Or just illiterate?
You didn't say what weapon you believe you were threatened with. Remind me - what was it?[/quote]
It was you that said that you would kill me and did so very graphically.
I noticed that the other posters also demolished your arguments. Are you going to threat to kill them.
But well done on no racial insults even though you have not apologised for the racial insults.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It was you that threatened to split my skull.
Next you will say you don’t know was BLM is.
Try issuing racial insults south of the Thames.
Like most racial bigots you would not care to.
Who "was BLM is"? A little undecided about whether to use past or present tense? Or just illiterate?
You didn't say what weapon you believe you were threatened with. Remind me - what was it?
It was you that said that you would kill me and did so very graphically.
I noticed that the other posters also demolished your arguments. Are you going to threat to kill them.
But well done on no racial insults even though you have not apologised for the racial insults.[/quote]
You keep avoiding answering the question - what was the "weapon" you claim you were threatened with?