Alberto lied about firing Magness - Nike document proves it was mutual

interesting how quick of a turn around after contract went into effect, May 4th, then the letter dated less than 2 months later on June 27th

The letter is actually ambiguous on the subject. Magness said that he decided to leave NOP and did so by mutual agreement with Nike. Al Sal says that he terminated Magness's contract. It may very well have been that Al Sal told Magness he was going to be fired, but followed the very well worn corporate HR protocol of offering a mutual severance agreement in lieu of termination. Magness can make up self serving stuff about how they couldn't have fired him when he already wanted to leave.

My wife has her doctorate in IO psychology and has worked in the field for over 25 years, doing talent management and succession planning for several Fortune 500 companies.

I showed her the Nike/Magness letter and asked her if a departing employee would get that if there were either performance issues or some type of relationship that was against company policy and she said absolutely not;

at least not at a company that has sound HR policy and a competent legal department!

Al Sal wants us to believe the earlier writings/opinions of some of his accusers but yet there's an earlier document that disputes his current contention that Magness was basically fired? Can't have it both ways, Alberto.

IO Psychologist wrote:

My wife has her doctorate in IO psychology and has worked in the field for over 25 years, doing talent management and succession planning for several Fortune 500 companies.

I showed her the Nike/Magness letter and asked her if a departing employee would get that if there were either performance issues or some type of relationship that was against company policy and she said absolutely not;

at least not at a company that has sound HR policy and a competent legal department!

Al Sal wants us to believe the earlier writings/opinions of some of his accusers but yet there's an earlier document that disputes his current contention that Magness was basically fired? Can't have it both ways, Alberto.

Your wife is wrong and doesn't understand the dynamics of the situation where he's been let go from a Nike funded team and they aren't trying to screw him over from ever getting another coaching job. I 100% believe skill wise Magness should be a coach somewhere and that he'd be a huge improvement over many coaches. He wasn't what Salazar wanted, but neither are 99% of the college coaches. Salazar would probably tell you himself (when he's calmed down) that most coaches are way less competent than Magness.

Also it probably won't help Magness to argue this. How much do you want to bet Salazar has dozens of internal emails before the separation talking about issues with other internal people?

Not surprisingly, I think she's right!!!

While none of us will fully know what transpired between Salazar & Magness,

not giving him that letter wouldn't be screwing him over or hurting his chances at getting another coaching job.

Magness was probably asked in subsequent interviews for jobs about his time/experience at the NOP and how those coaching responsibilities would work at the collegiate level; some of those core competencies are similar, some are very different. Who knows if he gave permission for prospective employers to contact Nike and Alberto and if so, if they did. It would be interesting to read Magness' performance review in the Nike HR file. Performance issues?

If so, was he put on a PIP (Performane Improvement Plan)?

That's all mainly HR policy stuff, but it does speak to why Alberto's claim

that he fired Magness has holes in it. He thinks Magness is that bad a coach

but yet doesn't want to stand in his way of getting another job?! I think you're right, if Salazar could calm his Cuban blood, he would probably admit that Magness is actually a good coach.

"Also it probably won't help Magness to argue this. How much do you want to bet Salazar has dozens of internal emails before the separation talking about issues with other internal people?"

Salazar has issues with A LOT of people. Salazar loves to argue with anyone who does see the light only Salazar can see. It comes as no surprise that he gets angry at someone he cannot control.

Which one of you HR wizards can show me what a document in which the parties were indeed seeking a mutual termination would look like. If every mutual termination of contract agreement actually means the employee was, in fact, fired, is an agreement such as the one described in this document even possible?

IO psychologist wrote:

That's all mainly HR policy stuff, but it does speak to why Alberto's claim

that he fired Magness has holes in it. He thinks Magness is that bad a coach

but yet doesn't want to stand in his way of getting another job?! I think you're right, if Salazar could calm his Cuban blood, he would probably admit that Magness is actually a good coach.

Anyone who's been following Magness (his running, his blog) over the years can tell he's a shitty coach. Decent scientist, but major headcase when it comes to actual results.

He has a PhD and a fast high school PR that he never broke. That does not make for a good coach.

So, your definition of a good coach is one that dopes his athletes, and one who get WADA style tests that allows the coach to determine if the dope levels are too high and an athlete cannot compete in an upcoming event.

Sorry, that is not a good coach. That is a cheater who risks the health of others for their own personal gain.

SB wrote:

Which one of you HR wizards can show me what a document in which the parties were indeed seeking a mutual termination would look like. If every mutual termination of contract agreement actually means the employee was, in fact, fired, is an agreement such as the one described in this document even possible?

It works like this: Company finds out that a worker is doing bad things. In most cases, the worker is going to be the member of a protected class (women, over 40, minority, etc.). If they fire the worker, they will get sued because the prima facie case for a discrimination claim is that the worker was a member of a protected class and suffered an adverse employment decision (fired, demoted, not promoted, etc.). If the worker quits, there is no adverse employment action and no discrimination claim. So, employers will call in a worker and tell them that they know all the bad things they have done and will fire them unless they agree to sign a mutual termination agreement with a release. For the worker, it is a win because they do not have to explain to subsequent employers why the got fired. They can just say it wasn't the right job for me. And the employee usually gets a severance payment. For the employer, they get rid of a bad apple and won't get sued.

For Magness, he was not a member of a protected class. However, he had a contract for a term. In order to terminate an employment contract a term, the employer must show that the employee breached the contract. Most of the time, employment contracts will require termination "for cause" and define what is "cause" for termination (gross insubordination, failure to perform job duties, violation of company policies, etc.). If Nike fires Magness, they could get sued and have to prove up why they fired him. It is much better for Nike to twist his arm into a separation agreement and keep it out of court. For Magness, it is a much better deal because he does not have to explain to future employers why he was canned and can just claim that it wasn't a good fit for him. Which is pretty much what he did. If he got caught being involved romantically with his athletes, that sort of thing might make it extremely difficult for him to ever get a coaching job, especially on the HS level. So, you can see why a mutual separation agreement is more often than not a case where someone was going to get fired.

If you just want to quit in the middle of a contract, your employer is not going to offer to release you from anything because they will want to sue you if you try to go to work for a competitor. Nike would not release Magness if he was just going to quit. Magness may have had non-compete obligations. Nike would not want him to walk over to Asics or New Balance right in the middle of his contract.

mutual decision to terminate: his contract was terminated, like he said.

Follow It wrote:

Anyone who's been following Magness (his running, his blog) over the years can tell he's a shitty coach. Decent scientist, but major headcase when it comes to actual results.

He has a PhD and a fast high school PR that he never broke. That does not make for a good coach.

He seems to be building a nice program at Houston. The runners he's coaching are improving...Sara Hall most notably. And to say he doesn't know what he's doing is stupid and misinformed. He gets it. His book, while could have used a copy editor, is a fantastic resource and one of the best recent books to come out on training.

I think if any issues existed at NOP, it was because Steve was very young, eager to please, and probably felt overwhelmed by the thought that the things being done at NOP would eventually sully his name to the point he wouldn't be able to coach ever again. So Steve became noncompliant and wanted out.

The relationship that Alberto is alluding to is nothing but a distraction to find a motive for Steve's comments. There might have been a relationship established with a runner he coached, but it clearly wasn't the reason Steve left. I don't believe it's atypical for a pro/coach relationship. There's a lot of examples. Salazar had very little evidence to discredit Steve...emails, serving as some sort of evidence are a very one-sided view, and it was laughable that he went to a runnersworld interview with Steve as the main source of insight into Steve's motivations. You'd think he would have emails from Steve directly to him with that sort of information.

Mutual termination is a legal contract where both parties release the other from any claim they might have against the other. quit trying to pretend that it means more.

They are used all the time by the employer, employees never offer them up.

In every instance where I have fired someone or heard of a peer business owner firing someone these legal docs are used. The person who claimed their wife knew hr and said they wouldn't be used if the person was terminated for violating policy and therefore Magness wasn't terminated doesn't know hr very well or, like Epstein seems to be doing, is being intentionally misleading. A "for cause" termination carries a lot of risk and costs for the employer. A mutual termination agreement is more like a "settlement" strategy, so that the employer can get what they want (the employee gone) and avoid potential risk and cost. All situations are different, but just because someone isn't doing well or a good fit for a particular employer doesn't mean that they are completely and forever a "bad" employee. I personally have had "mutual" terminations with employees that I didn't want in my company but provided references based upon their skill set or expertise.

Bottom line mutual termination is used by employers to reduce/eliminate legal risk and cost.

Btw, Salazar brought up many other facts to support his claim about Magness' termination, like to see those addressed. Anyone??

I can't find the lie.

Mutual means they both wanted Magness out.

Alberto had his reasons. Magness had his reasons.

Where is the contradiction?

rekrunner wrote:

I can't find the lie.

Mutual means they both wanted Magness out.

Alberto had his reasons. Magness had his reasons.

Where is the contradiction?

Alberto repeatedly says that he was terminated, implying he was fired.

If they both left for mutually agreed upon reasons, then it was not the unilateral firing or termination that Alberto claims.

Also the question nobody's asking: if Magness was such a sh*tty coach as Alberto claims, why didn't Alberto say that back in 2012 when he left? Sounds like Alberto has some sour grapes over the whole affair.

So, what you're saying is there is actually no such thing as a "mutual agreement" to terminate an employment contract, and that any such document is always cover for someone being fired? If so, I find this hard to believe. Surely if an employee wanted to leave a job in the middle of a contract (say, because he/she had to move to follow a spouse, or had a sick relative to look after), and the employer had no problem with his/her reasons for leaving, that the parties would have a way to legally sever the contract, and that that legal agreement would look exactly like the one in question. You people need to admit that you know nothing about the actual meaning of this particular document. To say that employers frequently use such agreements to, in effect, fire people is interesting, but it proves absolutely zero about the meaning of this actual document.

Things are getting very dicey for Alberto. This was just released. Only a month before Magness left, and it contradicts Alberto's claim of having no confidence in him as a coach:

"In one email, sent on 8 May, Salazar tells Magness: “I just spoke with Lindsay and I think that’s a great idea for you to take over her coaching. I was trying to move to that eventually but didn’t want Lindsay to think that I didn’t want to coach her. She needs to train with other top woman runners to fulfil her potential. With Tara [Erdmann] hopefully coming in you will have three women all training together. If you injure her, I will kill you. Ha ha! See you both on Friday.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/25/alberto-salazar-defence-doctor-magness-emails

Correct, have never seen it unless the employee actually had another job lined up or had seen the writing on the wall and were pretty sure they'd be fired.

Magness signs contract renewal well after he supposedly had grave concerns and publicly states how great NOP is and how happy he is there and then we are to believe his decides to leave without job prospect much later? Yeah, seems pretty likely and mutual to me.

Ok, so now you're saying that these sorts of things (mutual agreement to terminate) are actually possible, but that you, personally, have never seen one in cases where an employee did not have another job lined up? Interesting, but of limited general value. Do you admit that this apparent "mutual agreement to terminate" could, in fact, be exactly what it appears to be? That's was all I was looking for.