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.
i don't think this means he can't be a paid spectator
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.
i highly doubt he is prohibited from being a spectator.
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.
"not quite true" - technically correct but not even half the story. History shows that she was originally banned by the IAAF, then USATF* reinstated her, then the IAAF reinstated the ban, which ultimately survived Decker's challenge in court.
If it doesn't matter who coached her, why did you falsely imply that it wasn't Salazar? Back then it was common knowledge that Salazar and Dellinger coached her, as confirmed by a number of news outlets, not just "no name fans". Of course that matters, for example to the OP, and in general to Salazar's and Dellinger's reputation, just like it matters for Schumacher's and Flanagan's reputation when Houlihan was caught doping. Even if - hypothetically speaking - Flanagan could have doped her without Schumacher's knowledge.
Messinat only commented on this weird statement from the OP: "Remember, Salazar has never had an athlete test positive for a banned substance; Schumacher has." which obviously has nothing to do with Salazar's lifetime ban and with Salazar's 4-year ban.
* USATF, not USADA, yes exactly the same USATF that - at the very same time - hid over 100 positive tests to protect American athletes instead of banning them. Of course they reinstated - however briefly and unjustified - Decker; fortunately the independent organization saw right through that and re-issued the ban.
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.
You can’t even start a damn USATF club team without listing coaches and all of them going thru safesport. They wander why track and field participation is dying. They stupid requirements. Money grabs by these organizations to be relevant. Who in their right mind coaching would ever be apart of this? All it takes is one woman claiming BS and you are unable to coach anymore.
"not quite true" - technically correct but not even half the story. History shows that she was originally banned by the IAAF, then USATF* reinstated her, then the IAAF reinstated the ban, which ultimately survived Decker's challenge in court.
If it doesn't matter who coached her, why did you falsely imply that it wasn't Salazar? Back then it was common knowledge that Salazar and Dellinger coached her, as confirmed by a number of news outlets, not just "no name fans". Of course that matters, for example to the OP, and in general to Salazar's and Dellinger's reputation, just like it matters for Schumacher's and Flanagan's reputation when Houlihan was caught doping. Even if - hypothetically speaking - Flanagan could have doped her without Schumacher's knowledge.
Messinat only commented on this weird statement from the OP: "Remember, Salazar has never had an athlete test positive for a banned substance; Schumacher has." which obviously has nothing to do with Salazar's lifetime ban and with Salazar's 4-year ban.
* USATF, not USADA, yes exactly the same USATF that - at the very same time - hid over 100 positive tests to protect American athletes instead of banning them. Of course they reinstated - however briefly and unjustified - Decker; fortunately the independent organization saw right through that and re-issued the ban.
Also technically not true -- there was no inital IAAF ban, so there was no ban to uphold. There was an initial IAAF suspension, but no ban. "In May 1997, Slaney and two other athletes were suspended by the International Amateur Athletic Federation, which stressed it was not presuming the athletes guilty of using banned substances ...". In April 1998, the IAAF changed this stance (or maybe they lied earlier), and presumed the athlete was guilty, now requiring her to prove her innocence, in the presence of a test that the IOC labs themselves questioned the validity "as a proxy for doping".
I did not "falsely imply" that "it wasn't Salazar". I was explicit. In 2015, In an interview with Mary Decker Slaney, it was reported that she explicitly denied it: "Mary Slaney also denied reports that Salazar was her coach in 1996." "The guy has always been helpful, but Bill was my coach."
Messinat did not only comment "on this weird statement from the OP". He replied directly to me, responding to him. He said "Mary Slaney had elevated testosterone levels in 1996", which is also "technically not true". She had a high T/E ratio -- this does not necessarily mean high T, and there was no evidence of high levels of testosterone: "The (International Olympic Committee) laboratory reports are clear that her testosterone levels were always within her own normal range, which itself was always within the normal, allowable range. Those facts were never disputed."
It is wild how he sexual assaulted multiple woman and no one seems to care. It is not a shame he can’t coach in America. Safesport is correct there, even if as an institution they have their own problems.
Allegedly
Nothing has been proven. Just hearsay
How bout we believe women...don't be a Clarence Thomas
"not quite true" - technically correct but not even half the story. History shows that she was originally banned by the IAAF, then USATF* reinstated her, then the IAAF reinstated the ban, which ultimately survived Decker's challenge in court.
If it doesn't matter who coached her, why did you falsely imply that it wasn't Salazar? Back then it was common knowledge that Salazar and Dellinger coached her, as confirmed by a number of news outlets, not just "no name fans". Of course that matters, for example to the OP, and in general to Salazar's and Dellinger's reputation, just like it matters for Schumacher's and Flanagan's reputation when Houlihan was caught doping. Even if - hypothetically speaking - Flanagan could have doped her without Schumacher's knowledge.
Messinat only commented on this weird statement from the OP: "Remember, Salazar has never had an athlete test positive for a banned substance; Schumacher has." which obviously has nothing to do with Salazar's lifetime ban and with Salazar's 4-year ban.
* USATF, not USADA, yes exactly the same USATF that - at the very same time - hid over 100 positive tests to protect American athletes instead of banning them. Of course they reinstated - however briefly and unjustified - Decker; fortunately the independent organization saw right through that and re-issued the ban.
Also technically not true -- there was no inital IAAF ban, so there was no ban to uphold. There was an initial IAAF suspension, but no ban. "In May 1997, Slaney and two other athletes were suspended by the International Amateur Athletic Federation, which stressed it was not presuming the athletes guilty of using banned substances ...". In April 1998, the IAAF changed this stance (or maybe they lied earlier), and presumed the athlete was guilty, now requiring her to prove her innocence, in the presence of a test that the IOC labs themselves questioned the validity "as a proxy for doping".
I did not "falsely imply" that "it wasn't Salazar". I was explicit. In 2015, In an interview with Mary Decker Slaney, it was reported that she explicitly denied it: "Mary Slaney also denied reports that Salazar was her coach in 1996." "The guy has always been helpful, but Bill was my coach."
Messinat did not only comment "on this weird statement from the OP". He replied directly to me, responding to him. He said "Mary Slaney had elevated testosterone levels in 1996", which is also "technically not true". She had a high T/E ratio -- this does not necessarily mean high T, and there was no evidence of high levels of testosterone: "The (International Olympic Committee) laboratory reports are clear that her testosterone levels were always within her own normal range, which itself was always within the normal, allowable range. Those facts were never disputed."
ProPublica and the BBC reported that Salazar had been Slaney's coach in 1996. So did Runner's World. Based on the balance of probabilities in addition to none of them being sued for libel, a rational mind would be fine to be inclined to believe that Salazar was, indeed, her coach at the time.
Mary Decker Slaney, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the International Amateur Athletic Federation and the United States Olympic Committee, Defendants-appellees, 244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2001):
Slaney's test was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles ("UCLA") Laboratory. The test revealed that Slaney's T/E ratio was elevated significantly beyond the permitted six to one ratio.2 The laboratory notified both the USOC and the IAAF3 of its findings. According to Slaney, the USOC informed United States of America Track and Field, Inc. ("USATF")4 of its mandatory duty to investigate whether Slaney's specimen should be declared positive for testosterone. However, it appears that the USATF played no such role, as the actual investigation was conducted by the IAAF. The IAAF's investigating doctor analyzed Slaney's samples, her past test results, and two additional samples. Slaney claimed that her elevated level was the result of (1) her menstrual cycle, and (2) her changing of birth control pills. Furthermore, Slaney posited that there was no scientific validity to the hypothesis that a T/E ratio above six to one was not normal for female athletes. Nonetheless, on February 5, 1997, the IAAF adopted the investigating doctor's recommendation and found Slaney's specimen positive for the prohibited substance testosterone.
ProPublica and the BBC reported that Salazar had been Slaney's coach in 1996. So did Runner's World. Based on the balance of probabilities in addition to none of them being sued for libel, a rational mind would be fine to be inclined to believe that Salazar was, indeed, her coach at the time.
Nice. That should clarify it. Wiki says so too on its unrebutted Decker page. Let's see whether the astroturfers will keep trolling regardless...
Nonetheless, on February 5, 1997, the IAAF adopted the investigating doctor's recommendation and found Slaney's specimen positive for the prohibited substance testosterone.
It is wild how he sexual assaulted multiple woman and no one seems to care. It is not a shame he can’t coach in America. Safesport is correct there, even if as an institution they have their own problems.
I'm not aware of any publicly known evidence or allegations to indicate Salazar has sexually assaulted anyone besides Kara Goucher. Who are the other women you talk about?
Also technically not true -- there was no inital IAAF ban, so there was no ban to uphold. There was an initial IAAF suspension, but no ban. "In May 1997, Slaney and two other athletes were suspended by the International Amateur Athletic Federation, which stressed it was not presuming the athletes guilty of using banned substances ...". In April 1998, the IAAF changed this stance (or maybe they lied earlier), and presumed the athlete was guilty, now requiring her to prove her innocence, in the presence of a test that the IOC labs themselves questioned the validity "as a proxy for doping".
I did not "falsely imply" that "it wasn't Salazar". I was explicit. In 2015, In an interview with Mary Decker Slaney, it was reported that she explicitly denied it: "Mary Slaney also denied reports that Salazar was her coach in 1996." "The guy has always been helpful, but Bill was my coach."
Messinat did not only comment "on this weird statement from the OP". He replied directly to me, responding to him. He said "Mary Slaney had elevated testosterone levels in 1996", which is also "technically not true". She had a high T/E ratio -- this does not necessarily mean high T, and there was no evidence of high levels of testosterone: "The (International Olympic Committee) laboratory reports are clear that her testosterone levels were always within her own normal range, which itself was always within the normal, allowable range. Those facts were never disputed."
ProPublica and the BBC reported that Salazar had been Slaney's coach in 1996. So did Runner's World. Based on the balance of probabilities in addition to none of them being sued for libel, a rational mind would be fine to be inclined to believe that Salazar was, indeed, her coach at the time.
Mary Decker Slaney, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the International Amateur Athletic Federation and the United States Olympic Committee, Defendants-appellees, 244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2001):
Slaney's test was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles ("UCLA") Laboratory. The test revealed that Slaney's T/E ratio was elevated significantly beyond the permitted six to one ratio.2 The laboratory notified both the USOC and the IAAF3 of its findings. According to Slaney, the USOC informed United States of America Track and Field, Inc. ("USATF")4 of its mandatory duty to investigate whether Slaney's specimen should be declared positive for testosterone. However, it appears that the USATF played no such role, as the actual investigation was conducted by the IAAF. The IAAF's investigating doctor analyzed Slaney's samples, her past test results, and two additional samples. Slaney claimed that her elevated level was the result of (1) her menstrual cycle, and (2) her changing of birth control pills. Furthermore, Slaney posited that there was no scientific validity to the hypothesis that a T/E ratio above six to one was not normal for female athletes. Nonetheless, on February 5, 1997, the IAAF adopted the investigating doctor's recommendation and found Slaney's specimen positive for the prohibited substance testosterone.
Did Mary or Alberto confirm the ProPublica, BBC, and Runner's World and (Wiki?) reporting? Because in 2015, it was reported that Mary herself denied it, because Bill was always the coach. If your screenshot is any indication, it doesn't say Salazar is her coach, but just a coach.
I'm less interested in what rational minds are inclined to believe about some unverified thing they read in newspapers, than I am in verified facts. Not suing for libel (or rebutting a Wiki) does not rise to the level of such verification.
And again, once the dispute of who coached her is settled, coaching an athlete is still not the same as doping an athlete.
It's puzzling to see the USATF did not investigate, as there was a USATF process including a hearing in front of a 3-person panel, where Slaney's team presented a great deal of information about her medical history, her treatments, and the criticisms and concerns of the T/E test.
The Feb. 1997 timeframe was before any hearing where an athlete presents their evidence and arguments. It is unsurprising that the IAAF asked their own doctor, and followed their own doctor's recommendation. What else would they do, before any hearing for the athlete took place?
Some more timeline: The USATF hearing was in Sep. 1997. The IAAF announcement that they didn't accept the ruling was four months later, in Jan. 1998. They set a hearing for April 1999 -- nearly three years after the initial test result, and 19 months after the USATF ruling.
Afterwards, Mary filed suit in an Indiana Federal District court, which dismissed the case, not on the merits, but on jurisdictional grounds, rejecting to re-litigate what was decided in arbitration. On appeal the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.
What has happened since? The IAAF is no longer able to unilaterally challenge a national decision, and arbitrarily choose to re-litigate de novo with their own panel, subjecting athletes to double-jeopardy. They now have to appeal any decision to the CAS. The T/E test used to accuse and suspend and convict Slaney is currently considered insufficient to charge an athlete. Shortly after Mary's conviction, (by Sydney 2000?) the T/E test was supplemented with GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS testing, to gain a confidence before accusing the athlete that was not possible for Slaney in 1996.
The "sexual assault" was not the "fat shaming" or "public weigh-ins in underwear", but for two instances of after workout massages with digital penetration where the fingers shouldn't be.
I was not there, but if my girlfriend or wife had "the massage" and didn't tell me about the digital penetration, report it, and she still kept a cordial relationship with the coach, and I was the boyfriend or husband.... I would be pissed off. And pissed off at both parties.
Don't forget, Salazar and his athletes all worked for Nike which sponsors the largest number of athletes in the sport. Salazar had his pick of athletes, more than any other coach. Without Nike behind him, there is nothing to suggest that he'll have success. Remember, the first iteration of NOP had him coaching B and C class Americans who had no success.
Despite the World Athletics ban being lifted from Alberto Salazar he still has a lifetime ban from Safesport. I believe Safesport is only an American institution so Salazar would be free to coach athletes from countries that do not recognize Safesport. Will Salazar take his coaching talents elsewhere? Can Salazar coach American athletes if the training group is based in another country?
It is a shame he cannot coach in America as our poor performance on the world stage is a clear indicator we need a coach like Salazar, especially for the men’s marathon.
Remember, Salazar has never had an athlete test positive for a banned substance; Schumacher has.
he should in Canada. it appears that it would business as usual there.
ProPublica and the BBC reported that Salazar had been Slaney's coach in 1996. So did Runner's World. Based on the balance of probabilities in addition to none of them being sued for libel, a rational mind would be fine to be inclined to believe that Salazar was, indeed, her coach at the time.
Mary Decker Slaney, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the International Amateur Athletic Federation and the United States Olympic Committee, Defendants-appellees, 244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2001):
Did Mary or Alberto confirm the ProPublica, BBC, and Runner's World and (Wiki?) reporting? Because in 2015, it was reported that Mary herself denied it, because Bill was always the coach. If your screenshot is any indication, it doesn't say Salazar is her coach, but just a coach.
I'm less interested in what rational minds are inclined to believe about some unverified thing they read in newspapers, than I am in verified facts. Not suing for libel (or rebutting a Wiki) does not rise to the level of such verification.
And again, once the dispute of who coached her is settled, coaching an athlete is still not the same as doping an athlete.
It's puzzling to see the USATF did not investigate, as there was a USATF process including a hearing in front of a 3-person panel, where Slaney's team presented a great deal of information about her medical history, her treatments, and the criticisms and concerns of the T/E test.
The Feb. 1997 timeframe was before any hearing where an athlete presents their evidence and arguments. It is unsurprising that the IAAF asked their own doctor, and followed their own doctor's recommendation. What else would they do, before any hearing for the athlete took place?
Some more timeline: The USATF hearing was in Sep. 1997. The IAAF announcement that they didn't accept the ruling was four months later, in Jan. 1998. They set a hearing for April 1999 -- nearly three years after the initial test result, and 19 months after the USATF ruling.
Afterwards, Mary filed suit in an Indiana Federal District court, which dismissed the case, not on the merits, but on jurisdictional grounds, rejecting to re-litigate what was decided in arbitration. On appeal the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.
What has happened since? The IAAF is no longer able to unilaterally challenge a national decision, and arbitrarily choose to re-litigate de novo with their own panel, subjecting athletes to double-jeopardy. They now have to appeal any decision to the CAS. The T/E test used to accuse and suspend and convict Slaney is currently considered insufficient to charge an athlete. Shortly after Mary's conviction, (by Sydney 2000?) the T/E test was supplemented with GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS testing, to gain a confidence before accusing the athlete that was not possible for Slaney in 1996.
I have no stake in the game here, but you're clasping at straws. You lose all credibility with your counter-argument about the word "coach". "Coach" in the sentence "Slaney confers with coach Alberto Salazar after Olympic trials" can refer to one of two things: 1) either the person who is coaching someone; or 2) the person who is being coached. It's as simple as that.
"To confer with" means to consult with someone to discuss a matter or to seek advice. In the context of an athlete and a coach, it means that the athlete is talking to the coach to discuss their training, performance, or other matters related to their sport.
The implication of the word "confers with" between an athlete and a person who is a coach, but not the athlete's coach, is that the athlete is seeking advice or guidance from that person.
This could be for a variety of reasons, such as the athlete wanting to get a different perspective on their training or performance, or the athlete wanting to learn from the coach's experience.
To simplify this for you, let's look at several examples of how "confers with" can be used in a sentence: Mary Slaney confers with coach Alberto Salazar after the Olympic trials. The quarterback confers with the offensive coordinator before calling each play. The student confers with her professor about her research paper. The business partners confer with their accountant before making any major decisions. The doctor confers with the other specialists about the patient's treatment plan.
In the first example, Mary Slaney is talking to her coach, Alberto Salazar, to discuss her performance at the Olympic trials. In the second example, the quarterback is talking to the offensive coordinator to discuss the team's game plan. In the third example, the student is talking to her professor to get feedback on her research paper. In the fourth example, the business partners are talking to their accountant to get advice on a financial decision. In the fifth example, the doctor is talking to other specialists to get their input on a patient's treatment plan.
In all of these examples, the person who is conferring with someone else is seeking advice or guidance.
Why would Slaney seek advice/guidance from someone who was not her coach?
Verified facts, hahaha. An unsubstantiated denial of news reports by a banned drug cheat is not a verified fact, but an irrelevant remark.
What else has happened since?
- The suspicion limit has decreased from 6 : 1 to 4 : 1.
- No one else was found with such an absurdly high T : E ratio of above 11 : 1 - and got away with it.
- Decker's second highest peak reported was 3 : 1.
- No study or report or whatsoever came out in those 25 years showing that such high T : E ratios are normal for over 30 years old on birth control.
- USATF isn't able anymore to cover up positive doping tests of its athletes.
- USATF isn't able anymore to declare its doping athletes innocent.
Let's not pretend that absence of evidence constitutes evidence.
So on the one hand, we have three unverified newspaper reports which are unattributed, and one which was attributed to Slaney in a one to one interview.
But let's have it your way -- none of them rise to the level of verifying who was coaching her in 1996 with conflicting newspaper reports that it was Bill Dellinger or Alberto Salazar or perhaps both.
The undisputed fact remains that coaching is not doping, so I strain to see the relevance of using conflicting reports to adamantly claim that Salazar was the coach. And again, given the complete lack of other Salazar athletes testing positive for a banned substance, it's hard to say that a pattern exists when the number of athletes is one, and that one is qualified by a series of "maybes".
You are again not quite technically correct. The 6:1 ratio was used to convict athletes without further testing, while now the 4:1 ratio is used for screening, and further GC testing is required to determine positives.
I haven't seen much of any data to support any notion that 11:1 is the unique outlier you want to believe it is, across the whole population of urine samples, as anti-doping researchers don't readily publish their data.
But what data does exist? The data I can find is not all that favorable to the IAAF.
In a paper in the 1997 Proceedings of a Doping Analysis workshop, in a paper entitled "Stability of Steroid Profiles (6): The Influence of Oral Contraceptives on Steroid Profiles", we can find this conclusion: "Application of oral contraceptives can lead to an increase of the ratio T/epiT due to a suppression of the epitestosterone-excretion." We also find this explanation "For female volunteers ratios with testosterone and epitestosterone show much more variation, because the concentrations of those steroids are near the detection limit and other endogenous substances frequently coelute with them."
Again for emphasis: "female(s) ... show more variation ... because concentrations ... are near the detection limit ...."
In the same paper they publish the data of 4 volunteers -- 3 females in their 30s, and 1 aged 29 -- with one volunteers ratios fluctuating between 2 to 6, within one menstrual cycle. Given the sample size, n=4, it's hard to conclude that fluctuations between 3-11 are not also possible naturally, especially if "E" is so low, it is near the detection limit. The missing data are the results of GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS tests.
In another paper from the same workshop in 2001, in a paper entitled "GC/C/IRMS and GC/MS in "Natural Steroids" Testing", we find again data from two selected athletes with T/E ratios of 6.1 and 6.7, who were determined to be "negative" based on the GC testing. We can also find the selected data from two males and one female, described as "Normally elevated" (as opposed to "Positive"), ranging from 2.9 to 6.9, from 3.1 to 8.7, and from 3.0 to 9.2, respectively. I presume the men were not taking oral contraceptives. Again, it's hard to conclude that just 3 selected data points from Slaney, ranging from 3 to 11, would be sufficient to reliably determine a positive, especially when the "concentrations ... are near the detection limit ...".
How reliable are these T/E limits in determining guilt? In another paper "Reporting and managing elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratios—Novel aspects after five years' experience", it is reported that out of 63,510 samples collected between 2005-2009, there were 1442 with a T/E ratio greater than 4, and 464 with a T/E ratio great than 6. Applying the GC tests showed that only 80 out of 1442 (5.5%) and 76 out of 464 (16.4%) were actually positive. They suggested that lowering the T/E threshold from 6.0 to 4.0 brings marginal added value, with just 4 more positives detected, at the cost of tripling the number of GC testing required. (I wonder, do the labs conducting the research and making the guidelines get paid by the test?)
Using these figures, there is as much as an 84.6% chance that Slaney was "Normally elevated" rather than "Positive". Again, the missing data are the results of GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS tests.
But more generally, the statistical approach using population thresholds used then by the IAAF, especially when the data near the limit of detection is known to vary greatly, is one that will reliably catch many dopers, but statistically will certainly detect false positives leading to false convictions. What's worse for the athlete is that when there are statistical outliers, the burden is placed on the athlete to explain why their specific data doesn't match the anti-doping research data, starting from a position of no expertise on the topic, and most likely with no access to the research data itself.
In summary, Mary Decker Slaney was tried twice (double jeopardy), over a period spanning nearly three years (right to speedy hearing?), and was found innocent when the USATF applied the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", and was found guilty when the IAAF applied its own standard of "guilty until the athlete proves themselves innocent", placing the burden on the athlete to explain why her data doesn't fit the research, using test results known to vary more due to concentrations near the detection limit, that were not confirmed by GC/MS or GC/C/IRMS tests. I'm not convinced the IAAF made the right judgement, and wonder if they had other motives.
I have no stake in the game here, but you're clasping at straws. You lose all credibility with your counter-argument about the word "coach". "Coach" in the sentence "Slaney confers with coach Alberto Salazar after Olympic trials" can refer to one of two things: 1) either the person who is coaching someone; or 2) the person who is being coached. It's as simple as that.
"To confer with" means to consult with someone to discuss a matter or to seek advice. In the context of an athlete and a coach, it means that the athlete is talking to the coach to discuss their training, performance, or other matters related to their sport.
The implication of the word "confers with" between an athlete and a person who is a coach, but not the athlete's coach, is that the athlete is seeking advice or guidance from that person.
This could be for a variety of reasons, such as the athlete wanting to get a different perspective on their training or performance, or the athlete wanting to learn from the coach's experience.
To simplify this for you, let's look at several examples of how "confers with" can be used in a sentence: Mary Slaney confers with coach Alberto Salazar after the Olympic trials. The quarterback confers with the offensive coordinator before calling each play. The student confers with her professor about her research paper. The business partners confer with their accountant before making any major decisions. The doctor confers with the other specialists about the patient's treatment plan.
In the first example, Mary Slaney is talking to her coach, Alberto Salazar, to discuss her performance at the Olympic trials. In the second example, the quarterback is talking to the offensive coordinator to discuss the team's game plan. In the third example, the student is talking to her professor to get feedback on her research paper. In the fourth example, the business partners are talking to their accountant to get advice on a financial decision. In the fifth example, the doctor is talking to other specialists to get their input on a patient's treatment plan.
In all of these examples, the person who is conferring with someone else is seeking advice or guidance.
Why would Slaney seek advice/guidance from someone who was not her coach?
But again -- so what? None of your definitions suggest coaching means doping. The main point is that any suggestion of the coach doping her is pure unfounded speculation and innuendo.
Who determined that she was "conferring" and with "her coach"? Reporters from the BBC, Propublica and Runner's World? Who did they attribute that to? My credibility is neutral, as my statement is based directly on a 2015 interview where she personally denied that Salazar was the coach, because her coach was Bill Dellinger. Maybe she was just "conferring" with her long time fellow teammate and friend and mentor -- something most every athlete might do.
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.
