What a crybaby.
What a crybaby.
Do any Oregon lawyers know what the statute of limitations for her various claims are?
guy being a dude wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
It's just not that simple. There must some line for you that Salazar should not cross. Would 100lbs as a goal be OK?
Even as a pro coach, Salazar did not have a carte blanche right to do whatever the F he wanted to do with her training and diet. If he did what she accused him of, he will be liable.
A jury will decide whether Salazar was reasonable in how he coached Cain. In no way will the defense argue that by signing a pro contract Cain gave away her rights to be treated decently.
When Cain signed with NOP, Salazar said he had a 10-year plan for her. How soon after that did he start pressuring her lose weight? The prudent thing to do would have been to let her run at her natural weight for awhile and then maybe consider tweaking her diet. Did that happen?
I'm confused, did Salazar forcibly deprive her of food? Did he kidnap her against her will? Until that can be proved, all Salazar is guilty of is poor dietary advice. Cain herself is the one ultimately responsible for not eating.
No, the jury will decide whether Salazar was reasonable in his treatment of Cain. If Salazar prescribed an unhealthy diet and told her it was necessary for her to become a world class athlete, should she be expected to reject the advice of probably the world's most famous distance coach?
To win the case, Salazar will need to prove that her goal weight was realistic and the diet was appropriate. What if whoever the experts at NOP were, analyzed Cain's body fat percentage and stated a minimum weight that would still be healthy, but Salazar wanted 10 pounds less?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
In no way will the defense argue that by signing a pro contract Cain gave away her rights to be treated decently.
Wow, just wow! We now have a right to be treated decently? I guess I'll just bring my lawyer around everywhere I go and we're sure to be able to cash in.
Saying insulting things to people and/or not being nice is generally not actionable. Salazar could have been mean to Cain and been a terrible coach, that doesn't entitle Cain to damages.
AsbelKiprop wrote:
mcndnend wrote:
Ok let me make this simple for all you boring fragile armchair coaching men.
He didn’t just casually tell her to watch her weight. He humiliated her in public about gaining five pounds because she ate bacon and eggs with a pre-race meal. He set an arbitrary number of 114 pounds (which has no basis in reality or performance) and wouldn’t let her go to Europe or compete because she hadn’t hit it. He gave her birth control and prescription drugs—illegal acts—to lose weight. Stop reframing this as just a tough guy. He was a creep.
She didn’t just “get injured” she lost her period for years and developed REDS which led to five broken bones. That was from his pointless pressure and fixation on her weight, NOT her performance. Because I emphasize, she was running well when the weight obsession started.
As another poster mentioned, her claims of abuse were widely corroborated by several adult NOP members including lambie, begley, goucher, levins, areson, and Steve magness too.
Now whether this case will win or not, fine that’s up for debate. But don’t try to paint this banned coach as just a tough guy getting bullied by woke sjws.
I guess you were there and witnessed all of this yourself? Or are you just spewing he said/she said?
Happy to see how many of you were triggered by my post! Hope you have a safe space to rest after you read my follow up:
Salazar never denied any of Mary’s claims nor the claims of the many many others who spoke out about his bullying ways.
That said, the real case lies in the prescription pills that Mary has from Salazar since that was illegal and the fact that treasure was billed to her as a sports psych and broke confidentiality and a ton of other rules in the process.
Guys gotta get used to women standing up for themselves and stop pouting about it so much!
SDSU Aztec wrote:
To win the case, Salazar will need to prove that her goal weight was realistic and the diet was appropriate.
Salazar and Nike are defendants. They don't have to prove anything. Even if Cain could prove that her goal weight wasn't realistic, that doesn't prove abuse.
Some things:
1) The calls that Mary Cain didn't do anything post high school are flat wrong. She was amazing post high school...just not for a very long period of time.
2) From what we know publicly, I can't get behind her suing Salazar for abuse. Sorry, but weight matters when it comes to elite distance running. Is it possible Salazar wanted her to get thinner than was realistic or healthy? Yes. Performing at elite levels of distance running though for men and women isn't necessarily healthy. The healthiest lifestyle doesn't produce world class distance runners. BUT, even if he said she was too fat or her bottom was too big...that's just not abuse.
3) Not sure what Mary Cain will get from any settlement (if there is one), but I think this probably makes her a pariah to most. She may find a small group of people who think she's an anti-body shaming champion, but she won't be rewarded in any career because of it.
4) I think this was a bad move on her part, and I'm not sure she will recover from it ever.
asdfghj1 wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
In no way will the defense argue that by signing a pro contract Cain gave away her rights to be treated decently.
Wow, just wow! We now have a right to be treated decently? I guess I'll just bring my lawyer around everywhere I go and we're sure to be able to cash in.
Saying insulting things to people and/or not being nice is generally not actionable. Salazar could have been mean to Cain and been a terrible coach, that doesn't entitle Cain to damages.
Why twist my comments? The case is not about him being mean to her but rather how much of a part he played in her having 5 stess fractures and losing her running career.
Her case is unique and regardless of what the jury decides your attorney will not be accompanying you anywhere.
You meant civilly liable, not criminally.
Officialdb wrote:
What a crybaby.
I know…..
Doesn’t change things though. He is still banned for life.
Shady Al……. First the ban and now this. Lol.
Nike employee of the month!
Teammates should sue for stolen Clif Bars!!!
yall mtherfckers. nike is sh`t and so is alsal.
take em for all they got.
Flagpole wrote:
2) From what we know publicly, I can't get behind her suing Salazar for abuse. Sorry, but weight matters when it comes to elite distance running. Is it possible Salazar wanted her to get thinner than was realistic or healthy? Yes. Performing at elite levels of distance running though for men and women isn't necessarily healthy. The healthiest lifestyle doesn't produce world class distance runners. BUT, even if he said she was too fat or her bottom was too big...that's just not abuse.
In Mary Cain's public op-ed video she sent to the New York Times, she stated Salazar and the assistants set her a target weight of 114 pounds. Mary Cain is a 5 foot 7 woman distance runner, 114 pounds would be average weight, it is not even low, I know tons of girls around this weight and height and some even lower. On the USATF website, it states Mary Cain weighed 111 pounds in 2014. Salazar set entirely realistic and average weight targets for her. It looks like Mary Cain just wanted to pig out and get fat but blame a man for it.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
asdfghj1 wrote:
Wow, just wow! We now have a right to be treated decently? I guess I'll just bring my lawyer around everywhere I go and we're sure to be able to cash in.
Saying insulting things to people and/or not being nice is generally not actionable. Salazar could have been mean to Cain and been a terrible coach, that doesn't entitle Cain to damages.
Why twist my comments? The case is not about him being mean to her but rather how much of a part he played in her having 5 stess fractures and losing her running career.
Her case is unique and regardless of what the jury decides your attorney will not be accompanying you anywhere.
Based on what is reported in the article in the first post of this thread, it is definitely a great deal in part to Salazar being mean to her.
I am assuming this will end in a settlement, with Nike/Alberto not admitting any fault.
joecrunner wrote:
I am assuming this will end in a settlement, with Nike/Alberto not admitting any fault.
No fault either side. No disclosure on settlement and both parties able to walk away victorious
Taliban for Gay Rights wrote:
Next up wrote:
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/10/distance-runner-mary-cain-sues-former-coach-alberto-salazar-nike-over-alleged-abuse.htmlThis lawsuit could kill our fragile sport if it's successful.
Men are already fearful of coaching youngsters or women lest they are accused of paedophilia or sexual harassment, now they could potentially be sued for millions for making a comment about weight or appearance.
In the UK most coaching is done on a voluntary basis by professional people.
I already have friends say that they can’t afford the risk of being sued.
They have no confidence the uka insurance scheme would actually cover their coaching as such is always so individual.
However the risks in gymnastics are far far greater.
What would the amount of the settlement likely be, if that were to happen?
joecrunner wrote:
What would the amount of the settlement likely be, if that were to happen?
Could be enough to pay her lawyers. Could be a few million.
1 post was removed from this page.