Salazar has been connected to doping allegations, emotional abuse, and now sexual abuse. Why people continue to defend him baffles me. Nike is such a shady organization.
Hmm maybe because his accusers are profiting off of his alleged abuse. Cain got all sorts of attention and articles written about her, now Goucher is selling books. Because that's what normal people do when they've suffered abuse...
So who is "comfortable" with rape - except the rapist - if that is the analogy you are using?
Good question. But look at the mods here. They deleted the post highlighting that Salazar was banned for raping, supporting that creep who made fun of the raped woman. So sick.
Isn't it obvious? If the BroJos didn't cater to the misogynist incels, then they'd lose half of their traffic.
it is not right that safe sport is judge, jury, and executioner. they have more power over whatever their realm is than Roger Goodell has over the NFL.
Yep.
Who made these people God?
Probably the same people who make state licensing boards for doctors, psychotherapists, massage therapists, lawyers, etc., God. If a patient claims a doctor assaulted her she can file a complaint with her state's licensing board. The complaint will be investigated and if the board finds her complaint credible the offending doctor can lose his license either temporarily or permanently. It's not a criminal investigation and the standards for establishing credibility are not as strict as a rule as they would be for a guilty finding in a court.
Well, I just finished reading the book, and I thought is was excellent and though provoking. I totally believe Kara, she comes across as very honest and human.
Well, I just finished reading the book, and I thought is was excellent and though provoking. I totally believe Kara, she comes across as very honest and human.
I’m sure her ghostwriter is human and comes across as such.
Sadly, we live in a world where accusations are guilt. I am a little shocked by many of these posts. What matters is the law of the and how it works. A person is innocent until proven guilty by facts.
Also, feelings are not facts. Facts are required for convictions and seem to be inconvenient in an age where everyone is a self proclaimed "victim".
Also, making defamatory remarks without facts opens you up for libel and damages. At the same time, not choosing to sue a false accuser is NOT an admission of guilt.
So why was he banned for life? Because people didn't like his haircut?
The logic you idiots use is so bizarre. It's like you watch someone dig a hole, others make reference on the hole digging, an independent council finds him guilty of it, and then several years later someone again comments on it, and you're shocked, SHOCKED at the implication. As if this is the first time it's ever come up!
To believe he's innocent and railroaded, you have to believe the following, not just some but all of it: that everyone who ever referenced it is lying, that SafeSport railroaded him, and that Goucher is lying several years after the fact about something that has been adjudicated by SafeSport to be true, to such an extent that he was BANNED FOR LIFE FROM THE SPORT.
To believe he's guilty, you only have to follow the incredibly well-established pattern that points to it.
Karen Rodgers: I have seen a number of your posts here and you seem to do nothing but bully and name call. You speak of logic but commit the fatal error of argumentum ad hominem. You have zero credibility as a result.
Bullying and name calling do not advance an agenda of facts. Then again, you have provided no facts in any of your one sided posts so at least you are consistent.
You should be banned from this board and any other until you learn the mechanics of discussion and debate and the associated decorum.
Your rant is not relevant to what I posted. Did you even read it?
I never mentioned Mr Salazar. I have no position on his innocence or guilt. I was merely making a point about the rule of law and guilt by accusation fallacies. I may, in fact, not be the idiot you claim I am.
I never mentioned safesport either. It is a professional organization that does not need to follow ANY laws and can be as far left or right or fair or unfair as it wants, depending on how the wind blows. I do not find this credible vis a vis the law and safesport DOES NOT determine innocence or guilt. It is not the law which seeks to determine the truth. This is why I did not discuss it.
Your feelings do not determine the guilt or innocence of a party. Neither does your name calling. Remember, we are a nation of laws and people like you are ignoring that.
Finally, some inconvenient facts for you: -As many as 40% of rape accusations against men are false. The law knows this. -Many men (not women) have rotted in jail for decades for rape crimes they did not commit. That is why the Innocence Project has been so successful in exonerating people whose lives we destroyed by accusations. We should do our homework before we burn people at the stake. -Eyewitness testimony is considered to be one of the LEAST credible evidences in court by experts and the legal system. People say what they want to BELIEVE they saw and also have other emotional or political agendas. It is complex psychology but I am sure you can research it in between your rants.
Next time try to think before you rant and attack. Your posts are riddled with anger. Anger is not credible as logic.
Some simple homework for you - Why don’t you watch 12 ANGRY MEN (or MY COUSIN VINNY)?
This isn't bizarre. It's a video of somebody who's been through a lot of crap and is having a bad day. This is right after she came in 4th at the 2016 marathon trials.
It's actually one of my favorite interviews of Kara Goucher because she's not trying to play nice or sugarcoat things.
Honestly if I had watched this interview in 2016, I would have thought she had a couple loose screws. Today, I think the context we have makes this seem a lot more sane.
I'm still trying to reconcile Kara's relationship with AlSal and how it changed over the years. Supposed email exchanges between them when they parted (reference the thread about this on the boards), only ~5 years prior to this interview, made their parting seem amicable. Something obviously changed in those years... or perhaps the emails are fake.
Perhaps some time away from Sal allowed her to process the things he did to her? Gave her a new perspective? Or, realizing investigations were eventually going to take Sal down, flipped the script and tried to distance herself as much as possible from him?
So far, its rather interesting. Adam signed for 50k a year with FILA, that is actually a decent amount of money. And then Kara signed with Nike for 35k. That also is not terrible for the late 90s early 2000s.
And since Adam had such a great year made almost 200k. That is impressive. I am enjoying the insight so far.
I don't get it. You mean Mary Pilon the person she wrote the book with? The forward explains that part. I just meant Kara just came across as very honest and I believe her. Just an opinion. Thanks
“This is why I stick with women doctors, massage therapists, etc. Most men are safe, but one can substantially cut down on risk by avoding them in these contexts.”
I don’t really see any other way to take this statement. Some men are bad so you are avoiding all in vulnerable situations. I understand your sentiment, but where to we stop labeling people based on gender, race or appearance? A grandmother could state that she just doesn’t trust black men and therefore avoids them. She doesn’t want a black doctor? Is this ok? I’m simply pointing out that generalizations are not ok, but often viewed as “acceptable” when they fit one’s own personal narrative.
Regardless, if she was comfortable about it, she doesn't need my sympathy. If not, she has my complete sympathy.
So who is "comfortable" with rape - except the rapist - if that is the analogy you are using?
We are talking about a hypothetical allegation fabricated by an anonymous nobody, right? Of course -- it's Armstronglivs piling on to a fabrication rather than rebutting reality.
In this hypothetical allegation, the accusation is either true (the women is the victim) or false (the man is the victim):
- The allegation is false; the act was consensual -- no discomfort = no sympathy
- The allegation is true -- discomfort for the woman = sympathy
Karen Rodgers: I have seen a number of your posts here and you seem to do nothing but bully and name call. You speak of logic but commit the fatal error of argumentum ad hominem. You have zero credibility as a result.
“Pathetic mentally ill people will be stopped soon. They need to be institutionalized.” - Fargo on another thread.
Well, I just finished reading the book, and I thought is was excellent and though provoking. I totally believe Kara, she comes across as very honest and human.
All of the copies in the Central Ohio library system are on hold. It's more popular than I realized.
Moving forward, you need to be registered to post. Registration is free and you still can remain anonymous. If there is something you want to share with anonymity guaranteed, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com