Weird psuedo-legal talk always comes up when NOP is being discussed. Salazar being banned is kind of like being fired from work or banned from a trade organization. You don't need to do anything illegal to be fired from your job, just don't do your job or be rude to everyone and they'll eventually show you the door. Salazar broke some rules. They just happened to not be the rules that everyone is most familiar with, e.g. directly doping an athlete.
Your firing argument doesn’t apply. It’s a lifetime ban on obtaining employment consistent with his skills.
I think it is more akin to a lawyer being disbarred or a financial advisor getting a lifetime ban from FINRA. However, unlike people in these situations, although SafeSport has some legal origins from 2017, Salazar’s alleged act (the allegation always seemed fishy to me) occurred well before this. I also think the idea behind SafeSport was to protect kids, not what allegedly happened here — where criminal/civil law proceedings are a seemingly better venue for provable allegations.
Her ban was upheld by the IAAF. If Mary Slaney's lab reports are clear that she engaged in no wrong doing, she should have provided that evidence during her due process instead of walking away and trying to sue.
Also, according to Mary Slaney (I'm not on a first name basis with her like you) she was coached by Alberto Salazar in 1996. Maybe she isn't the most reliable source.
No name fans are also not a reliable source. To me it just looks like another desparate attempt to somehow link Salazar to doping competing athletes, by pointing to a historic case, long before NOP, of an athlete where abnormally high levels of testestorone were not established as a fact.
There was no ban for the IAAF to uphold. The IAAF retried her "de novo" in April 1998, almost two years after the fact, after the USATF had cleared her -- an instance of double jeopardy that would not be possible today, under WADA and USADA's current rules.
Mary did provide that evidence during her due process, and was cleared by the USATF based on the doubts raised by that evidence.
The IAAF, already back then, applied the controversial standard of "guilty until proven innocent" and placed the burden on the athlete to establish their innocence. This allows convicting athletes without actually requiring to establish, or establishing, their guilt.
The lawyers for Slaney decided not to appear at the final IAAF hearing, objecting to the fairness of the shifted standard of proof and burden. At the time, the USATF supported this decision not to appear at the hearing.
The test used to "convict" Mary would be considered insufficient today, given the unreliability of the T/E ratio tests, especially for women on birth control, and in their late 30's with fluctuating hormones.
Much of the information above can be found here, in this contemperaneous legal opinion of the Doping Control Process (in 2002):
Mary Slaney told Sports Illustrated she was coached by Alberto Salazar, not some no name fan. IAAF stripped Slaney of her 1997 world indoor silver medal. She claimed the result was caused by taking the birth control pill and never provided evidence for that claim and instead of providing that evidence, tried to sue. I'm sorry your hero isn't who you think they are.
No name fans are also not a reliable source. To me it just looks like another desparate attempt to somehow link Salazar to doping competing athletes, by pointing to a historic case, long before NOP, of an athlete where abnormally high levels of testestorone were not established as a fact.
There was no ban for the IAAF to uphold. The IAAF retried her "de novo" in April 1998, almost two years after the fact, after the USATF had cleared her -- an instance of double jeopardy that would not be possible today, under WADA and USADA's current rules.
Mary did provide that evidence during her due process, and was cleared by the USATF based on the doubts raised by that evidence.
The IAAF, already back then, applied the controversial standard of "guilty until proven innocent" and placed the burden on the athlete to establish their innocence. This allows convicting athletes without actually requiring to establish, or establishing, their guilt.
The lawyers for Slaney decided not to appear at the final IAAF hearing, objecting to the fairness of the shifted standard of proof and burden. At the time, the USATF supported this decision not to appear at the hearing.
The test used to "convict" Mary would be considered insufficient today, given the unreliability of the T/E ratio tests, especially for women on birth control, and in their late 30's with fluctuating hormones.
Much of the information above can be found here, in this contemperaneous legal opinion of the Doping Control Process (in 2002):
Mary Slaney told Sports Illustrated she was coached by Alberto Salazar, not some no name fan. IAAF stripped Slaney of her 1997 world indoor silver medal. She claimed the result was caused by taking the birth control pill and never provided evidence for that claim and instead of providing that evidence, tried to sue. I'm sorry your hero isn't who you think they are.
I should probably google this but from where does safe sport obtain its authority to ban someone from coaching across the United States? I do not believe it is based on federal law. are there laws in all 50 states that delegate authority to state associations and then those delegate to safe sport? If I wanted to stand with a stopwatch in Central Park and call out splits to people who pay me would I need to register with safesport? Alberto should challenge the cosntitustioanotiy of it
My googling isn't 100% clear, but basically yes he can coach an adult, but USATF, NCAA and other professional organizations won't recognize him as such. So basically if he shows up at an official US track meet he is treated as a random spectator, and he also wouldn't have any other priveleges registered coaches may get. Not sure exactly what those priveleges would be.
I should probably google this but from where does safe sport obtain its authority to ban someone from coaching across the United States? I do not believe it is based on federal law. are there laws in all 50 states that delegate authority to state associations and then those delegate to safe sport? If I wanted to stand with a stopwatch in Central Park and call out splits to people who pay me would I need to register with safesport? Alberto should challenge the cosntitustioanotiy of it
USATF requires it’s coaches be Safesport trained.
Correct. The 90-minute bulls*it SafeSport online course must be taken by all coaches and employees of all National Governing Bodies. It is a requirement to be “SafeSport certified”.
The CEO of SafeSport, Ju'Riese Colón, is relentless. Think the female version of Travis Tygart with an even bigger axe to grind.
No name fans are also not a reliable source. To me it just looks like another desparate attempt to somehow link Salazar to doping competing athletes, by pointing to a historic case, long before NOP, of an athlete where abnormally high levels of testestorone were not established as a fact.
There was no ban for the IAAF to uphold. The IAAF retried her "de novo" in April 1998, almost two years after the fact, after the USATF had cleared her -- an instance of double jeopardy that would not be possible today, under WADA and USADA's current rules.
Mary did provide that evidence during her due process, and was cleared by the USATF based on the doubts raised by that evidence.
The IAAF, already back then, applied the controversial standard of "guilty until proven innocent" and placed the burden on the athlete to establish their innocence. This allows convicting athletes without actually requiring to establish, or establishing, their guilt.
The lawyers for Slaney decided not to appear at the final IAAF hearing, objecting to the fairness of the shifted standard of proof and burden. At the time, the USATF supported this decision not to appear at the hearing.
The test used to "convict" Mary would be considered insufficient today, given the unreliability of the T/E ratio tests, especially for women on birth control, and in their late 30's with fluctuating hormones.
Much of the information above can be found here, in this contemperaneous legal opinion of the Doping Control Process (in 2002):
Mary Slaney told Sports Illustrated she was coached by Alberto Salazar, not some no name fan. IAAF stripped Slaney of her 1997 world indoor silver medal. She claimed the result was caused by taking the birth control pill and never provided evidence for that claim and instead of providing that evidence, tried to sue. I'm sorry your hero isn't who you think they are.
Ding ding ding, winner! There's a very clear trend of people distancing themselves from Salazar and Salazar distancing himself from others whenever it's convenient.
1. Salazar and Decker are both on the record multiple times referring to each other as coach/athlete. After the debacle is when they started saying they had no connection. In fact, iirc, when Salazar picked the Goucher's up from the airport for the first time, one of the first things he said was something like, "Don't worry about that whole Mary Slaney thing, it's all untrue!"
2) Salazar ran for Athletics West. Multiple reputable people, including a moderator for this board, have admitted there were plenty of steroids going around then. Today the tale is, "Oh Salazar had nothing to do with them, he just wore the singlet!"
3) I've heard from people who know Salazar personally that according to Salazar, Dr. Brown was just a kook and a crook, despite them doing "business" for quite some time.
4) Remember when Mo was like, "Salazar who? Got a new coach!"
Now we've got people really trying to say that Salazar and Schumacher have nothing to do with each other — the same Schumacher who said he'd never heard of nandrolone lmao. I can never tell if they're actual astroturfers or just some of the most gullible people on earth.
Well said. And now come again all the attacks against SafeSport, like against USADA back then (and AIU/CAS in case of drug cheat S.H.)...
Also let us not forget that Salazar doped himself with testosterone as an athlete back in the early 90s (at least) - not exactly surprising for an AW athlete.
But this multiple cheater and sexual abuser continues to have his defenders here. Strangely enough though, no one has hired him yet although his AAA/CAS ban is over: no high school, no Canadian, no Mexican, no African, no European, not even Hassan or Klosterhalfen. All this propaganda here on letsrun appears to be pointless, thank the Lord.
You guys are such hypocrites. You use products from Elon Musk; you buy products from Apple; I'm sure many of you drive a Ford. Using a product (coaching plan) from Salazar is the same. I'd still have my kids coached by him.
I should probably google this but from where does safe sport obtain its authority to ban someone from coaching across the United States? I do not believe it is based on federal law. are there laws in all 50 states that delegate authority to state associations and then those delegate to safe sport? If I wanted to stand with a stopwatch in Central Park and call out splits to people who pay me would I need to register with safesport? Alberto should challenge the cosntitustioanotiy of it
My googling isn't 100% clear, but basically yes he can coach an adult, but USATF, NCAA and other professional organizations won't recognize him as such. So basically if he shows up at an official US track meet he is treated as a random spectator, and he also wouldn't have any other priveleges registered coaches may get. Not sure exactly what those priveleges would be.
so at worst, he is in Gjert Ingebrigtsen's position?
I should probably google this but from where does safe sport obtain its authority to ban someone from coaching across the United States? I do not believe it is based on federal law. are there laws in all 50 states that delegate authority to state associations and then those delegate to safe sport? If I wanted to stand with a stopwatch in Central Park and call out splits to people who pay me would I need to register with safesport? Alberto should challenge the cosntitustioanotiy of it
yes he can coach an adult, but USATF, NCAA and other professional organizations won't recognize him as such.
So basically if he shows up at an official US track meet he is treated as a random spectator
That seems to be working for Lauren Johnson and Addy Wiley. So it looks like Salazar can in fact coach someone and then during the meets he can sit in the stands with their mom.
Salazar can not attend any USATF sanctioned events as a spectator, coach or participant. SafeSport has ruled him permanently ineligible. Since USATF must carry out SafeSport's directives he is persona non grata with regard to USATF.
You guys are such hypocrites. You use products from Elon Musk; you buy products from Apple; I'm sure many of you drive a Ford. Using a product (coaching plan) from Salazar is the same. I'd still have my kids coached by him.
And if you have a daughter, would you let Alberto give her a massage?
If I was to advise Alberto, I would tell him to take this as a win and move on and focus on something else.Enjoy life, perhaps venture into business or something else totally unrelated to athletics. The western media doesn't forgive regardless of whether one has been acquitted or not.Once you have been in the dock,the western media passes a guilty judgment on you regardless and without consideration of the judicial process.If you get a second chance through acquittal then you should walk away and do something else.Just look at the tragic comedy that Matt Hancock has become. Anyway its upto you Alberto.
USATF must abide by the decisions of SafeSport and also carry out SafeSport's directives. If USATF did not remove him from a meet if Salazar tried to get in then USATF would lose its federation sanction. Those are the rules.
4) Permanent IneligibilityThis means that a Participant is permanently prohibited from participating, in any capacity, in any program, activity, event, or competition sponsored by, organized Page 5 5 by, or under the auspices of the USOPC, any NGB, and/or any LAO, or at a facility under their jurisdiction.
USATF must abide by the decisions of SafeSport and also carry out SafeSport's directives. If USATF did not remove him from a meet if Salazar tried to get in then USATF would lose its federation sanction. Those are the rules.
And what happens if he sits in Phil Knight's suite at Historic Hayward Field at next year's US Olympic Trials? Will USATF hire security guys and Eugene PD to barge into the sugar daddy of the federation's suite and haul Alberto's ass outta the stadium that Phil built?
Mary Slaney told Sports Illustrated she was coached by Alberto Salazar, not some no name fan. IAAF stripped Slaney of her 1997 world indoor silver medal. She claimed the result was caused by taking the birth control pill and never provided evidence for that claim and instead of providing that evidence, tried to sue. I'm sorry your hero isn't who you think they are.
I was referring to you telling me "Her ban was upheld by the IAAF", which is not quite true, and "she should have provided that evidence during her due process", which she did.
For all this talk about coaching, what matters more, is not who coached her, but who (allegedly) doped her, if anyone.
Again, Slaney is intended as a counter example of Salazar never doping any athlete, and still there are a few "maybes". Maybe she was partly coached by Salazar, assisting her primary coach. Maybe Salazar doped her as suggested by the T/E ratio. Maybe the T/E was high T and not low E. Or maybe not.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.