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

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

If it was sexual assault, SafeSport is the wrong one to judge since it now becomes a criminal matter.

The whole point of SafeSport is that it has a much broader scope than the criminal system.

For example, numerous girls came forward in the 90s and early 2000s and said their coach was molesting them while stretching them at practice. Two juries did not believe it was possible for a person to molest athletes in plain sight like that. He is a free man today, but he is banned from USATF.

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

serena wrote:

Statute of Limitations would have likely prevented criminal prosecution by the time Safe Sport was involved.

What statue of limitations? SafeSport gives itself unlimited powers so there is no statute of limitations and regular courts investigate sexual assault cases from decades ago like in the Boy Scouts and Catholic Church.

The fact that SafeSport didn't do the proper thing and turn the case over to the real courts that judge it by proper merits indicates all SafeSport had to go on was a he said she said.

You need an education. The Statute of Limitations prevents criminal prosecutions. SafeSport is irrelevant in that context.

AW Red and White wrote:

How do you know a separate criminal case is not ongoing?

Because SafeSport would have been publishing endless congratulatory news releases about itself for doing a great job filing a criminal case. SafeSport thrives on self-gratification, you never hear from them about cases they lose

SafeSport didn’t jail Salazar. There’s no evidence to support the allegations so it’s unlikely any DA would pursue criminal charges. SafeSport, on the other hand, can deem the acusations to be plausible and act accordingly.

natty ice wrote:

middlingNAIAcoach wrote:

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

Really isn't that weird considering how expensive a good massage costs - usually in the realm of $100/hour give or take, multiplied by 5-10 athletes (I don't know how many athletes were being coached directly by Salazar at a given time) every week for several months at a time. As a coach, why not save that money and just do some of the massages yourself, it's not like giving a therapeutic massage is rocket surgery.

Ok, let’s say 10 athletes getting one massage a week at 100 bucks.

1000 dollars a week for 52000 a year

If AlSal was paying for these and wanted to save some coin that makes sense. But they are backed by freaking NIKE.

Come on man.

SafeSport does take cases to law enforcement if minors are involved.

Clearly the claimants went to SS to get Salazar out of the sport due to what he had done to them. The claimants may also have legal cases going on against him separate from SS.

polevaultpower wrote:

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

If it was sexual assault, SafeSport is the wrong one to judge since it now becomes a criminal matter.

The whole point of SafeSport is that it has a much broader scope than the criminal system.

For example, numerous girls came forward in the 90s and early 2000s and said their coach was molesting them while stretching them at practice. Two juries did not believe it was possible for a person to molest athletes in plain sight like that. He is a free man today, but he is banned from USATF.

So TWO juries from real courts ruled against those allegations and yet you side with the secret kangaroo court of SafeSport that does not judge evidence to a high standard? Or even have penalty of purjury?

Does anyone find it odd that the Times went out of its way to no mention the gender of the accuser?

That got me to think, "Might it be male and might it be Galen Rupp??"

Moreover, the Times article says that the report "does provide enough details to identify the person, by describing the athlete’s relationship to Salazar and giving details about the alleged incidents."

What other NOP athlete would be so easily identifiable?

Before I thought of this, I was thinking it was Cain as Cain has connections to the New York Times.

serena wrote:

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

What statue of limitations? SafeSport gives itself unlimited powers so there is no statute of limitations and regular courts investigate sexual assault cases from decades ago like in the Boy Scouts and Catholic Church.

The fact that SafeSport didn't do the proper thing and turn the case over to the real courts that judge it by proper merits indicates all SafeSport had to go on was a he said she said.

You need an education. The Statute of Limitations prevents criminal prosecutions. SafeSport is irrelevant in that context.

What Statue of Limitations are you talking about? The Catholic Church would like some of that to make its sexual assault court cases go away.

no gender revealed wrote:

Does anyone find it odd that the Times went out of its way to no mention the gender of the accuser?

That got me to think, "Might it be male and might it be Galen Rupp??"

Moreover, the Times article says that the report "does provide enough details to identify the person, by describing the athlete’s relationship to Salazar and giving details about the alleged incidents."

What other NOP athlete would be so easily identifiable?

Before I thought of this, I was thinking it was Cain as Cain has connections to the New York Times.

No you are reaching here. If you are trying to not reveal identity, of course you would not reveal gender. Wow are you people sense.

reset the cuboid wrote:

serena wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-salazar-goucher-idUSKCN0P810C20150628

In the above article Kara says that it will come out why there is trouble between Alberto and Adam. It has now come out people. I do not need to say anymore.

I applaud the women who shared this information. They may have prevented an alleged sexual predator from harming more people.

She was expressly referring to doping (not sexual misconduct).

SafeSport does not file criminal cases.

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

serena wrote:

You need an education. The Statute of Limitations prevents criminal prosecutions. SafeSport is irrelevant in that context.

What Statue of Limitations are you talking about? The Catholic Church would like some of that to make its sexual assault court cases go away.

Do you know what a criminal statute is? Start there pal. For instance in Oregon, unless you are a child or vulnerable adult, it is two years for sexual assault cases.

I do find it ironically funny that a Salazar jock rider can neither spell “perjury” nor “lying” - two things Al knows a lot about!

Ben Shiller wrote:

reset the cuboid wrote:

I applaud the women who shared this information. They may have prevented an alleged sexual predator from harming more people.

She was expressly referring to doping (not sexual misconduct).

That is not true.

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

So TWO juries from real courts ruled against those allegations and yet you side with the secret kangaroo court of SafeSport that does not judge evidence to a high standard? Or even have penalty of purjury?

Did you even read the article:

Yes, I side with the high school girls who claim their coach molested them.

Here is one of the quotes from the coach:

And, he says that in some cases, without any wrongdoing on his part, he had noticed girls getting aroused while he was massaging their legs.

“They get excited, and I don’t,” Smith said in an interview Thursday. “It’s not my thing. For me, an athlete’s an athlete.”

The juries were hung, they did not find him not guilty.

If you want to believe the coach who is publicly stating that he is noticing high school girls getting aroused while he stretches them, I really hope you don't work with children,

AW Red and White wrote:

SafeSport does not file criminal cases.

Obviously SafeSport cannot file criminal charges. They can, and do, report allegations of a criminal nature to relevant law enforcement.

If they knew the statute of limitations was long expired in a case involving an adult, would they still make that report? I do not know.

anyone else still think it's a little ironic that Magness got fired from NOP for having a relationship with an athlete? Seems that making sexual advances at athletes was a large part of the culture at that group, in addition to the obvious doping, prescription drugs, etc.