Mary Cain sues Al Sal and Nike for $20 million over alleged abuse

casual obsever wrote:

Aouita 84 wrote:

How about waiting for the actual facts to come out before regurgitating your personal feelings and displeasure.

Let's not forget that several other women have reported similar stories about Salazar. And that he is currently banned for sexual and emotional misconduct. For life! So quite a few actual facts have already come out.

Also, hmmm... how else could he have been able to comment on "her breasts and bottom" if he didn't check her out?

Also, wth? What stupidity, repeatedly, on his side. He will have a hard time in court pretending those were comments meant to improve her performance.

It seems with every organization out to get Salazar, the only sexual misconduct alleged is from an accusation by Kara Goucher (about as far from impartial that you can get) that Salazar hit on her while drunk.

Awards from jury trials are out of control. 1 year employee at Tesla awarded $130 million for a hostile/ racist work environment. People who have no idea how they got cancer can get millions by saying they used weed killer or baby powder. Even if it gets reduced it doesn't take much for a jury to think money grows on trees and hilariously believe this will teach the big bad corporations a lesson. When in reality it just gets passed on thru higher prices and less jobs while the execs laugh all the way to the bank...

thsjdjdjdjd wrote:

Awards from jury trials are out of control. 1 year employee at Tesla awarded $130 million for a hostile/ racist work environment. People who have no idea how they got cancer can get millions by saying they used weed killer or baby powder. Even if it gets reduced it doesn't take much for a jury to think money grows on trees and hilariously believe this will teach the big bad corporations a lesson. When in reality it just gets passed on thru higher prices and less jobs while the execs laugh all the way to the bank...

I can assure you that corporate execs do not laugh at such awards. They take them very seriously, as they are a hit on revenue, require budget cuts, and threaten job security for everyone in the company, including those at the executive level.

$130 is a massive hit for a company to take, and its why they spend millions appealing these idiotic awards. The $20 million Cain wants out of Nike is nothing to ignore either. That's a lot of people's salary increases, department expansions, insurance hikes, and many more adverse experiences for the company.

I hope they settle with her out of court for $5,000. Better than nothing, she gets money, but it does not hurt the corporation.

jecht wrote:

I hope they settle with her out of court for $5,000. Better than nothing, she gets money, but it does not hurt the corporation.

She’ll take 5M. If Nike offers 5K, she has no reason not to go on trial as there’s little to lose for her, so Nike won’t lowball that much. Cain’s ask is based on what Nike would pay to avoid the negative PR of a prolonged trial, and that damage is not cheap. Nike almost certainly will settle out of court.

The price she will pay for this is not measured in $.

novacain wrote:

jecht wrote:

I hope they settle with her out of court for $5,000. Better than nothing, she gets money, but it does not hurt the corporation.

She’ll take 5M. If Nike offers 5K, she has no reason not to go on trial as there’s little to lose for her, so Nike won’t lowball that much. Cain’s ask is based on what Nike would pay to avoid the negative PR of a prolonged trial, and that damage is not cheap. Nike almost certainly will settle out of court.

I'm not sure it's anywhere near that. She also has to understand that she'd probably get buried on the witness stand or even being deposed.

Max $250k and I'm not sure its that high.

fada tyme wrote:

novacain wrote:

She’ll take 5M. If Nike offers 5K, she has no reason not to go on trial as there’s little to lose for her, so Nike won’t lowball that much. Cain’s ask is based on what Nike would pay to avoid the negative PR of a prolonged trial, and that damage is not cheap. Nike almost certainly will settle out of court.

I'm not sure it's anywhere near that. She also has to understand that she'd probably get buried on the witness stand or even being deposed.

Max $250k and I'm not sure its that high.

I don't believe she would be buried on the witness stand. She'll just repeat what she has claimed so far and what's contained the lawsuit documents. The most important part of a trial would be the witness testimony. Salazar should be the one worrying about testifying.

How often are CEOs and big shots personally taking the hit when their companies face civil fines/ penalties? It didn't hurt them at Blackrock or Facebook. I guess the CEO at Wells Fargo did leave but with $130 million on his way out. That's laughing to the bank while the rest of the company suffers. But most people on juries think like you and that you're teaching these guys some lesson but you're not. As for the lawsuit I hope she doesn't settle and that discovery and depositions expose more of the inner workings at Nike. I honestly think that is more the goal than money as Mary's family seems well off on their own.

casual obsever wrote:

3) Safesport found, in their lengthy investigation, enough evidence of his sexual misconduct and emotional misconduct to ban him for life. Looks credible to me.

What specifically did they find that was sexual misconduct? Oh, that's right. They don't reveal anything. It's all secret. LOL

Sham organization.

Emperor Tiberius wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

3) Safesport found, in their lengthy investigation, enough evidence of his sexual misconduct and emotional misconduct to ban him for life. Looks credible to me.

What specifically did they find that was sexual misconduct? Oh, that's right. They don't reveal anything. It's all secret. LOL

Sham organization.

They really stretched the meaning of sexual misconduct on this one. It looks like they meant sexist but called it sexual because it is sex-related.

i dont think she took steroids,although her training partners may have,as well as lots of EPO.

thsjdjdjdjd wrote:

Chisel nuts wrote:

I can assure you that corporate execs do not laugh at such awards. They take them very seriously, as they are a hit on revenue, require budget cuts, and threaten job security for everyone in the company, including those at the executive level.

$130 is a massive hit for a company to take, and its why they spend millions appealing these idiotic awards. The $20 million Cain wants out of Nike is nothing to ignore either. That's a lot of people's salary increases, department expansions, insurance hikes, and many more adverse experiences for the company.

How often are CEOs and big shots personally taking the hit when their companies face civil fines/ penalties?

Nobody takes a direct personal hit. That's the whole basis for incorporation. But if you think executives aren't highly motivated to avoid these enormous tort awards, you are nuts. Or maybe you just have no idea how a company works. Like I said, those are hits on revenue and performance, they come directly out of budgets, stock price can take a hit, insurance goes up, amongst many other adverse things. Companies, run by their executives, take these things very seriously. You don't think the Nike Board of Directors aren't already pressuring Nike General Counsel and other executives about this two day old lawsuit? You really think they are too busy laughing about it?

Go back to bed, hophead.

casual obsever wrote:

Aouita 84 wrote:

How about waiting for the actual facts to come out before regurgitating your personal feelings and displeasure.

Let's not forget that several other women have reported similar stories about Salazar. And that he is currently banned for sexual and emotional misconduct. For life! So quite a few actual facts have already come out.

Also, hmmm... how else could he have been able to comment on "her breasts and bottom" if he didn't check her out?

Also, wth? What stupidity, repeatedly, on his side. He will have a hard time in court pretending those were comments meant to improve her performance.

You said “ogling”. Which of these few facts support that? Or is that just your own baseless personal projection?

The issue with the SafeSport ruling is that we don’t really have any of the facts, just the summary ruling. Without crucial facts, we are left to wonder if “sexual misconduct” is like the gymnastic coach admitting to 125 girls, while 250 stepped forward, or just one attempted incident one drunken night with one athlete.

Breasts and bottoms can be sexual, but can also be excess fat — something every athlete can be easily persuaded works against performance. If Salazar wanted these sexual things to go away, wouldn’t that be more anti-sexual?

Wasn’t Salazar already tried and convicted and currently banned for life for emotional abuse.

Although it is a different court, this reeks of double-jeopardy.

Magness just posted on Facebook about how stressful this long ordeal was for him personally and emotionally, and now he has closure after the last appeal. Kara Goucher said something similar in 2019, complaining about how long she had to suffer emotionally due to the length of the process.

Salazar has also gone through this same lengthy processes as Magness and Goucher, and now another lengthy process threatens to continue.

The treatment towards Salazar seems highly disproportionate. With 20-20 hindsight clarity, we can now see:

Salazar was convicted of anti-doping rule violations, but not found to have actually doped any NOP athletes, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times (by USADA, the AAA Panel, the CAS panel, and WADA). His initial three violations:

1) Magness’ self-inflicted excessive infusion, against Salazar’s express written instructions. Magness blew the whistle, and it is Salazar, not Magness, who was penalized for Magness’ “strict liability” violation.

2) The CAS panel reversed the AAA Panel’s ruling of “tampering” (but added “tampering” back for other reasons)

3) The CAS panel reversed the AAA Panel’s ruling of “trafficking” (but added “possession”)

Salazar was the subject of a BBC documentary, with many allegations which did not pan out, and some allegations which were not doping violations. This highly prejudiced Salazar from that moment forward, in every accusation, allegation, and adjudication, even if he would be cleared on all counts. Normal adjudications enjoy secrecy and avoid public scrutiny, until after the charge, or after the ruling, in fairness to the accused. Who else was the subject of such public scrutiny, without any real evidence of doping his NOP athletes? (Not to mention that these allegations unfairly tarnishes many NOP athletes, most notably Rupp and Farah, while still today, lacking any direct evidence that any doping or rule violation occurred.)

Salazar is currently banned for life from Safe Sport investigation and ruling.

Is a 4-year ban from USADA, upheld by the AAA Panel and CAS, and a lifetime ban from SafeSport, and a permanent tarnished reputation/legacy, not enough punishment for someone who was not found to have doped any NOP athletes, and was obsessed with weight for his athletes? Do we really need a $20 million lawsuit, and more years of litigation to balance the scales of justice?

The rumor is that he had Hassan lose 10 pounds and have a breast reduction which turned her into the best runner in the world.

I repeat that readers of this site will see the interactions as well within the norms of elite sport.

The judge etc may well deal with it on the basis that sport should be fun and healthy or in employment terms of duty if care etc etc.

I can’t see any elite coaching passing in employment terms.

That's rich, coming from you with your colorful language and vivid imagination and personal attacks à la witch hunt + pitch forks + mob + insane + weird + kindergarten intellect. etc. etc.

In fact, as per usual, your very first post here came with a personal attack, ever so innocently disguised as a question:

Here are a couple of other quotes about your hero, who is banned for life for sexual misconduct:

Remember, that's from a 50-something in a power position talking openly about, say, 17 - 30 year old ladies. Oh boy. I'd literally get suspended on the spot for such a behavior, and then fired after the investigation.

But, it's Salazar we are talking about. Nice person, right? Nothing to see here?

Shall I rephrase? Like this maybe: Salazar thoroughly investigated the teenager's breasts and bottom, and casually commented on their sizes in front of her teammates.

His ban was so overdue. Let's hope there will be more transparency, yes.

* shudder *

No comment.

90s guy wrote:

What happened was offensive and not abusive. If I’m offended by someone I can choose to not interact with them. No one was forcing Mary to be coached by Salazar. She has every right to be offended and leave. However to claim abuse is total bologna. She obviously has mental health issues and it has nothing to do with Salazar. People like him are all around. Heck we all have relatives that talk the same way. She needs to focus on getting counseling and not some attention seeking money grab.

All true. The complaint itself seemed weak. Don’t see how being offensive translates into any kind of solid court case. Meanwhile she lost every ounce of credibility she had. I personally heard runners close to her say she’s very strange and immature and just stay away from her.