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

Man, the the hatred for this guy just don't stop.

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

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.

Um.

1. You don't know that information hasn't been turned over to law enforcement (which is what you are trying to say with "courts"). For all you know, this has been done. Civil proceedings may also be pending.

2. Even if SafeSport didn't turn over a thing, it would not show anything whatsoever about what the agency "had to go on."

Dear g_d some of you people are uneducated.

If the allegations/findings are true, that's some next-level evil sh*t. It would be hard for anyone to sympathize with or defend Salazar.

The NYT article is behind a paywall for me. But the 4 pages (so far) of discussion here offer no substantive proof, so presumably the article actually offers none.

We know a lot of folks wanted Salazar's head on pike.

We know accusations were made and found to be believable by SafeSport.

Believable, but not verifiable AFAWK.

I doubt the contentious massages were witnessed or recorded, so presumably this is a "he-said, she-said" thing.

A District Attorney might find that insufficient to lay charge, a Jury might find that insufficient to award judgment, but SafeSport may well find that adequate to impose a lifetime ban.

SafeSport is a black box. Pull the handle and a verdict pops out. What happens inside is a mystery.

And, this may be hard for some to believe, but people lie. Or are wrong. There many instances of completely fabricated cases, false reports, and such. People can also be convicted (or not) on flimsy or faulty evidence. Not usual, but very much not zero.

We have no reason to believe that happened here. But absent public evidence, we also cannot know it did not.

In today's Me-Too culture, one risks criticism, cancellation and censure if questioning an accusation of sexual wrong-doing.

A lack of doubters doesn't necessarily speak to lack of reasonable doubt - but fear expressing it.

And, sadly, there are some who care less about truth and more about perverse entertainment in watching others fall.

SafeSport's ruling is out, but in the court of Public Opinion, the Jury ought to still be out until actual evidence is provided.

Unless you hold SafeSport unbiased and infallible, and those involved beyond scrutiny and without agenda.

Which I do not.

Well...The Alberto Salazar situation just got a lot more serious, didn't it?

There you go again with your appeal to emotion and vindictiveness instead of accepting the judgement of the TWO real courts that ruled opposite of SafeSport. Real courts that judge to a higher standard of evidence and with real purjury powers. And it's a crime to you for a man to notice that they were getting aroused? A woman would easily notice a man getting aroused, and it works the other way.

AW Red and White wrote:

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

Exactly.

When Kara said 'It will come out', people said 'show us the sanctions!'

When the sanctions dropped, people said 'show as Salazar's actions!'

When Salazar's actions were published, people said 'show us the legal case!'

Gee, is there a pattern here?

I'm sure the same people will be back on the message boards for the likely civil and perhaps criminal trials.

Bio Domerr wrote:

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.

Magness was fired because he called Alberto on his cheating and then Alberto sought retribution. The reason stated at the time was pure BS.

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).

OK.

To be clear: You are defending Salazar's sexual assault record by referring to his doping record.

Is this rock bottom yet?

Agreed. I was responding to someone who was wondering why SS didn't file criminal charges.

SS will go to law enforcement if an adult makes a report about being a minor and being sexually assaulted by a coach.

Statute of limitations usually kills the criminal case in these instances but SS is a mandated reporter so they follow through.

SS will proceed onward with the case if statute of limitations prohibits a criminal case.

Show the police report or are you saying someone would not report a sexual assault. Ridiculous. Let me guess, anonymous.

reset the cuboid wrote:

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

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.

Um.

1. You don't know that information hasn't been turned over to law enforcement (which is what you are trying to say with "courts"). For all you know, this has been done. Civil proceedings may also be pending.

2. Even if SafeSport didn't turn over a thing, it would not show anything whatsoever about what the agency "had to go on."

Dear g_d some of you people are uneducated.

Courts work slow but Jesus not that slow. SafeSport had been gung-ho at Salazar for years. They would have long been releasing congratulations about filing a criminal case if they had any evidence that is more than mere preponderance.

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

There you go again with your appeal to emotion and vindictiveness instead of accepting the judgement of the TWO real courts that ruled opposite of SafeSport. Real courts that judge to a higher standard of evidence and with real purjury powers.

It is concerning how uneducated people are about their legal system.

A not guilty verdict does not mean the court "ruled opposite of SafeSport" (though you are barely writing in English at this point).

It means that the burden of proof for the specific charge was not met, beyond a reasonable doubt.

No judge or criminal lawyer would ever suggest that this proves evidence or contradicts other findings of wrongdoing.

To speak in your language and knowledge level, which seems to be informed by television programs about court, do you recall that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in criminal court (not proven beyond reasonable doubt) but also responsible for the death of two people in civil court (different standard or evidence)?

No go read a book on the legal system. Literally even one book.

Galen Rupp Fan wrote:

reset the cuboid wrote:

Um.

1. You don't know that information hasn't been turned over to law enforcement (which is what you are trying to say with "courts"). For all you know, this has been done. Civil proceedings may also be pending.

2. Even if SafeSport didn't turn over a thing, it would not show anything whatsoever about what the agency "had to go on."

Dear g_d some of you people are uneducated.

Courts work slow but Jesus not that slow. SafeSport had been gung-ho at Salazar for years. They would have long been releasing congratulations about filing a criminal case if they had any evidence that is more than mere preponderance.

You are an idiot and a bad troll. Just shut up. Learn about Statute of Limitations.

probably wrote:

coachy wrote:

My money is on Mary Cain

My money is on Galen Rupp.

Adam Goucher. Otherwise, why would Kara have turned against him?

How to circumvent the NYT paywall.

1. Download Tor Browser

2. substitute the onion address

https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/

for the domain of any article you want to read and append the path to it:

https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/2022/01/31/sports/alberto-salazar-sexual-assault.html

3. open in Tor Browser.

Gwalkerruns wrote:

Show the police report or are you saying someone would not report a sexual assault. Ridiculous. Let me guess, anonymous.

Are you being this stupid on purpose?

Gwalkerruns wrote:

Show the police report or are you saying someone would not report a sexual assault. Ridiculous. Let me guess, anonymous.

So you are saying that if a girl/woman doesn't file a police report that a sexual assault didn't occur? You must not know too many women.

or maybe? wrote:

Adam Goucher. Otherwise, why would Kara have turned against him?

We need to ask: who knew and stood by Salazar?

Rupp?

Centrowitz?

Corporate?

It seems that all who were aware share responsibility for the silencing of the victims.