Alberto Salazar Should do a Media Tour and DENY any wrongdoing

Law School 101 for S & G\'s wrote:

Rrrrrrrrrrrrr wrote:

If Salazar may be innocent then how to account for the SafeSport investigation and decision? Each of the claimants and the respondent got to read the transcripts of each other's lengthy investigative interviews once the investigation was complete and the decision was handed down. Why don't we hear Salazar defending himself by quoting from his own transcript? We don't hear him doing that because SS found by the preponderance of evidence that his account didn't square with Goucher's.

Are you serious? I don't have to account for anything about SafeSport and I do believe Kara Goucher did not tell the truth. The SafeSport investigation and their decision is not a court of law. Try a real courtroom and see how far she gets.

Where's her lawsuit against Alberto? Trust me, Kara knows that she'll be put in the hot seat. The questions that I laid out in my post are nothing compared to what a sharp defense attorney would do.

Salazar can put in writing that he categorically denies Kara Goucher's accusations. Why does her words in a book trump Alberto's words?

I saw an interview on YouTube with a police officer that was accused of doing something "strange" in his vehicle while watching a lady at an ATM machine. She got part of the license plate number and the vehicle type. She immediately went to the police station and as she was walking in, she saw the truck with 3 of the numbers or letters that she remembered in the police parking lot. She wasn't touched by the guy or even had a conversation with him, but she went right to the police station.

The Officer was being interviewed and his commander said you've done some very strange things on your part, implying that an innocent person wouldn't do the things he did. One thing was that he found out through her police report that the lady saw his vehicle so he had his plates changed and his logic for doing so made zero sense.

Why the above example? Kara's timing of doing things and not doing things makes very little sense to an unbiased person. Not going to the police? You can try to justify her reasons, but...they make no sense. I personally think she was mad at Alberto and wanted to get back at him. Yes, I could be wrong, but if you believe her because of what she wrote in her book, you could be wrong too. Then in your mind you are convicting what could possibly be an innocent person. Is that fair?

You can't convict Alberto based on someone's word years later, especially after her email. That just doesn't sit too well with me.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Law School 101 for S & G\'s wrote:

Are you serious? I don't have to account for anything about SafeSport and I do believe Kara Goucher did not tell the truth. The SafeSport investigation and their decision is not a court of law. Try a real courtroom and see how far she gets.

Where's her lawsuit against Alberto? Trust me, Kara knows that she'll be put in the hot seat. The questions that I laid out in my post are nothing compared to what a sharp defense attorney would do.

Salazar can put in writing that he categorically denies Kara Goucher's accusations. Why does her words in a book trump Alberto's words?

I saw an interview on YouTube with a police officer that was accused of doing something "strange" in his vehicle while watching a lady at an ATM machine. She got part of the license plate number and the vehicle type. She immediately went to the police station and as she was walking in, she saw the truck with 3 of the numbers or letters that she remembered in the police parking lot. She wasn't touched by the guy or even had a conversation with him, but she went right to the police station.

The Officer was being interviewed and his commander said you've done some very strange things on your part, implying that an innocent person wouldn't do the things he did. One thing was that he found out through her police report that the lady saw his vehicle so he had his plates changed and his logic for doing so made zero sense.

Why the above example? Kara's timing of doing things and not doing things makes very little sense to an unbiased person. Not going to the police? You can try to justify her reasons, but...they make no sense. I personally think she was mad at Alberto and wanted to get back at him. Yes, I could be wrong, but if you believe her because of what she wrote in her book, you could be wrong too. Then in your mind you are convicting what could possibly be an innocent person. Is that fair?

You can't convict Alberto based on someone's word years later, especially after her email. That just doesn't sit too well with me.

He wasn't believed when given the opportunity to defend himself. He hasn't sued or even responded to what some here claim is a libel. The reason is simple. He knows the truth better than you do.

PattyB wrote:

older runner wrote:

with years of slandering salazar is still don't know what he did wrong and i don't know one of his athletes who ever failed one damn drug test. i do know of other coaches popular on this board that can't say that and they seem to be treated with respect. goucher needs to sue him and prove it instead of writing books to promote herself and make money. the only other way that i know of is a failed drug test. please don't reference usatf and safesport, their history of successfully promoting athletics in this country speaks for itself. while not condoning testing drug on his child (it was stupid at a minimum) , they should have to show intent to use the results in a negative way. his athletes were competing in an environment where drug use in athletics was and is extensive and his athletes drug free results speak for themselves

First, maybe read more from Goucher herself, like her book, articles, etc. 2nd, have you heard of masking the drugs to cheat the tests? (It's in the book.) 3rd, Goucher spoke out to prevent his abuse from happening to others. It takes a lot for a sexual assault victim to come forward. Please learn from the victims instead of throwing aspersions.

Law School 101 for S & G\'s wrote:

Rrrrrrrrrrrrr wrote:

If Salazar may be innocent then how to account for the SafeSport investigation and decision? Each of the claimants and the respondent got to read the transcripts of each other's lengthy investigative interviews once the investigation was complete and the decision was handed down. Why don't we hear Salazar defending himself by quoting from his own transcript? We don't hear him doing that because SS found by the preponderance of evidence that his account didn't square with Goucher's.

Are you serious? I don't have to account for anything about SafeSport and I do believe Kara Goucher did not tell the truth. The SafeSport investigation and their decision is not a court of law. Try a real courtroom and see how far she gets.

Where's her lawsuit against Alberto? Trust me, Kara knows that she'll be put in the hot seat. The questions that I laid out in my post are nothing compared to what a sharp defense attorney would do.

Salazar can put in writing that he categorically denies Kara Goucher's accusations. Why does her words in a book trump Alberto's words?

I saw an interview on YouTube with a police officer that was accused of doing something "strange" in his vehicle while watching a lady at an ATM machine. She got part of the license plate number and the vehicle type. She immediately went to the police station and as she was walking in, she saw the truck with 3 of the numbers or letters that she remembered in the police parking lot. She wasn't touched by the guy or even had a conversation with him, but she went right to the police station.

The Officer was being interviewed and his commander said you've done some very strange things on your part, implying that an innocent person wouldn't do the things he did. One thing was that he found out through her police report that the lady saw his vehicle so he had his plates changed and his logic for doing so made zero sense.

Why the above example? Kara's timing of doing things and not doing things makes very little sense to an unbiased person. Not going to the police? You can try to justify her reasons, but...they make no sense. I personally think she was mad at Alberto and wanted to get back at him. Yes, I could be wrong, but if you believe her because of what she wrote in her book, you could be wrong too. Then in your mind you are convicting what could possibly be an innocent person. Is that fair?

You can't convict Alberto based on someone's word years later, especially after her email. That just doesn't sit too well with me.

Aouita 84 wrote:

shootpost wrote:

Lol.

Guilty or not guilty the only correct for him to do is disappear.

The narrative has been decided, there is no fighting it. Time for him to move on.

Not necessarily. Alberto has disappeared and has seemed to move on, I believe Kara is the one who has stirred the pot with her sexual assault claim. Correct? And rightfully so if she's telling truth.

If he didn't do it he should sue Kara for defamation of character and liable, and he may be planning to do so. We can all throw around accusations and opinions on this, but if Kara is claiming sexual assault (she seems to do so) she needs to prove it. That being said, there is some discrepancy in her statement and or interpretation. Did she claim "His finger was going to a place it shouldn't be", or "His finger went to place it shouldn't be". Those are two different accusations, are they not? Another thing is that Alberto was a paid employee for Nike during this time, Nike should step up and defend him and pay legal fees if they feel he's innocent. On the flip side, if Kara in fact was sexually assaulted she in turn has a viable lawsuit against Nike. There could be a substantial settlement from Nike for Kara with an iron-clad NDA. This is a PR nightmare for Nike and rather than fight it, just pay and end it.

My 2 cent opinion is that Nike will settle with Kara and include an NDA that shuts this down for once and for all.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Nonsense! wrote:

That's ridiculous, if that were the case, I could print in a newspaper that you molested 3 children back in 2010 and if you wanted to sue me, you would have to prove that you didn't. That would be an impossible standard and that's why the burden lays directly on the person making the allegation. If Goucher were sued, she would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that Salazar inserted his finger in her. I doubt she could prove that given the timeline and her prior statements.

I don’t know about your extreme example, but if you do some research, you’ll find the burden of proof generally falls to the filer of the suit.

Obviously, Goucher can’t prove what Salazar did with his finger, but under your analysis, it would be possible for Goucher to lose a judgment even after telling the truth.