Alberto Salazar’s 4-Year Ban is Now Lifted. Does He Start Coaching Overseas?

agreeeerer wrote:

Generally you are quite correct - AW was a doping club; clearly Decker wasn't their only drug cheat.

Who else, when, how etc. is not precisely known. However, an unsubstantiated casual statement from one of their athletes - even if that may be a mod on the internet somewhere - is not a fact. At best, it is his observation; at worse, it is part of the usual cover-up.

I used to have a link to the webarchive.org page where Malmo mentioned the winstrol usage. It's obviously not on this site anymore. I can't find it right now and don't have the time to dig, but it's somewhere.

Could he end up coaching the
Guelph Gryphons?

gwalkerruns wrote:

Amazing that Kara waited all those years to accuse. Follow that up with the fact she didn't press charges or sue. Why? She would be open to discovery. Her emails, texts etc just might show she is motivated for the attention and it might lead to a book. And money. Amazing that Wetmore had way more accusers yet she defends him. Only Kara bashed Al Sal but provided no evidence. Not buying it.

I don't see a big positive in accusing someone with the full weight of Nike behind them of sexual abuse. He was also her coach, her employer, and father figure mentor.

I think it is very easy to sit at your desk and imagine what you would do if placed in a terrible situation (unwanted sexual advance, offers of drugs, etc.) but people don't behave that way in real life.

Worth a read for sure:

id pay a lot for him to coach me

I'd pay for a massage. And if he tried any monkey business, I'd report him. I'd tell my wife and I'd tell the police.

His chances of coaching anywhere are slim to none because it'll just bring new lawsuits to keep him from coaching. And Kara would be leading the charges.

Good old times. Just browsed through a certain Duck/malmo thread here from 2013, with of course rekrunner coming to malmo's rescue.

Some things will never change.

But, BTT, here is what malmo wrote in that "you can run but..." thread about Salazar/Decker(Slaney)/AW:

Do you recall or be willing to talk about how it came about that some Aw people told you they were on drugs? I always thought that if I were using PEDs I would never mention it to anyone under any circumstances.[/quote]
Yes. 1980 spring april or may. Three of them told me. Confirmed by another person today that two of the above told him too.

Friends talk to friends. I found out 2 months ago that two others had admitted to a friend that they too were on drugs. Never suspected them, but it made sense. Obviously hearsay, but the person who told me was close to them.[/quote]

Sorry that got botched. The HRE/malmo discussion, where malmo mentioned 3 AW dopers in 1980, and two more later on, is here on this page:

Yes. 1980 spring april or may. Three of them told me. Confirmed by another person today that two of the above told him too.

...

I found out 2 months ago that two others had admitted to a friend that they too were on drugs.

Hobby1jogger wrote:

And Kara would be leading the charges.

I'm not entirely sure AlSal's biggest detractors would necessarily be 100% against his return to the sport if he a) demonstrated rehabilitation, and b) took some form of ownership for his transgressions. Based on AlSal's public statements (e.g., "I'd never do what I'm accused of become I'm Catholic," et etc.), it doesn't seem like he's be even remotely interested in doing either, so it's a nonissue.

I think AlSal has some real serious mental issues. Besides being an absolute control freak, he's also a narcissist and people like that can compartmentalize their actions, no matter how damaging to others, and move on with their lives guilt free. I doubt he believes he did anything wrong at all.

I do have issue with SafeSport. It is something I really have mixed feeling about. One one hand we have a terrible problem in youth sports with adults sexually abusing and exploiting kids and young adults, getting caught, then just moving school districts, or states to do it again. There needed to be a network to track these people.

On the other hand you have a nongovernmental entity that can destroy a person's livelihood and reputation with no chance for them to defend themselves. When you say "abuse" in 2023 it has a VERY different scope and meaning than it did in 1983. Very scary witch trial stuff.

Your argument is poorly supported by evidence and contains a number of logical fallacies. You make claims without providing any evidence to support them, and you ignore or misrepresent evidence that contradicts your claims. I urge you to be more critical of your own arguments and to provide evidence to support your claims.

You say that people lie to you more than you can correct them, but you don't provide any evidence to support this claim. In fact, most people are honest, and even when they do make mistakes, they are often willing to correct them.

You say that you have seen 'a handful of other data' that supports your claims, but you don't provide any specific examples of this data or any links to where it can be found. This makes it difficult to verify your claims.

You say that '84.6% comes from a study I found,' but you don't provide any information about this study, such as its title, authors, or publication date. This makes it impossible to assess the quality of the study or to determine whether its findings are relevant to the argument.

You say that lowering the T/E limit from 6.0 to 4.0 made a 'marginal difference' in the number of doping positives, but you don't provide any specific data to support this claim. Additionally, you ignore the fact that the lower T/E limit is more sensitive to doping, which means that it is more likely to detect positive cases.

Your argument is a prime example of pseudoscience, and it is dangerous to spread misinformation like this.

ClubRunnah wrote:

On the other hand you have a nongovernmental entity that can destroy a person's livelihood and reputation with no chance for them to defend themselves. When you say "abuse" in 2023 it has a VERY different scope and meaning than it did in 1983. Very scary witch trial stuff.

But most of that is incorrect. SafeSport was created by Congress in a bipartisan decision (back under Trump), and it of course provides due process to the ones it investigates, naturally including changes "to defend themselves", and ultimately allows the offender to go into revision too (arbitration confirmed Salazar's lifetime ban). All of that is published on their web page. So that's literally the opposite of "witch trial stuff".

Finally unwanted penetration has been sexual abuse and a form of rape since a long time, in 2003 as well as in 2023.

dont feed the troll wrote:

ClubRunnah wrote:

On the other hand you have a nongovernmental entity that can destroy a person's livelihood and reputation with no chance for them to defend themselves. When you say "abuse" in 2023 it has a VERY different scope and meaning than it did in 1983. Very scary witch trial stuff.

But most of that is incorrect. SafeSport was created by Congress in a bipartisan decision (back under Trump), and it of course provides due process to the ones it investigates, naturally including changes "to defend themselves", and ultimately allows the offender to go into revision too (arbitration confirmed Salazar's lifetime ban). All of that is published on their web page. So that's literally the opposite of "witch trial stuff".

Finally unwanted penetration has been sexual abuse and a form of rape since a long time, in 2003 as well as in 2023.

When it come the "abuse" allegations being gray I knew someone would say this. Obviously sticking your finger in someones vag or butt is abuse and so are hundreds of obvious other scenarios, but is telling a runner they need to dial in their diet abuse? What about calling out an athlete for missed practices, or half efforts while at practice? "Mental abuse" from some is virtually anything an athlete sees as critical or just simply asking more of them.

The "criticism=abuse" thing is darn real in 2023.

I'm not sure what to make of these criticisms, because I provided much of the things you said I didn't. Maybe you can help me by practicing a little what you preach. I have many arguments. Which "argument" are you referring to that is poorly supported? Which statements are logical fallacies? Which claims have I made without support? Which evidence have I ignored or misrepresented that contradicts my claims? Which argument is a prime example of pseudoscience? I would like to take your advice and be more critical of my arguments and conclusions, but I need you to be a little more specific about what I got wrong, or what is unsupported, and where I can find the right information.

In response to the rest of your post:

One "lie" is evident from the immediate context: "too funny" said Slaney's T/E value was 11, and somehow that became my fault because I did not correct him/her/they as the correct value is 11.6 (allegedly -- this claim was also not supported and I did not fact check it), and instead kept passing off 11 as fact because it "fits my agenda".

I wouldn't really make anything of this negligible error, but incredibly I was actually blamed for "too funny's" error and then faulted for not correcting it. "too funny" did not come forward to correct it, and "don't feed the troll" didn't apologize for blaming me for "too funny"'s mistake after I attributed the source of the mistake.

Here's another immediate "lie". You say I didn't provide any data or titles, but I did provide the handful of data, and I provided three titles, back on page 5:

The"handful of data" I provided came from these two papers:

1) "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" ..."

2) "In another paper from the same workshop in 2001, in a paper entitled "GC/C/IRMS and GC/MS in "Natural Steroids" Testing" ..."

The workshop is "Manfred Donike Workshop" in Cologne, and each year, the Proceedings are put together in a book called "Sport and Buch Strauss".

The 84.6% (Correction, math error -- should be 83.6%) as well as the claim about lowering the T/E limit from 6.0 to 4.0 being marginally effective, comes from here (in 2010):

3) "In another paper "Reporting and managing elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratios—Novel aspects after five years' experience" ..."

Back on page 3, I provided this clickable link:

"Much of the information above can be found here, in this contemperaneous legal opinion of the Doping Control Process (in 2002):"

Here's a missing link:

Some quotes from a 2015 interview came from an article by PamplinMedia, "Slaneys still angry about doping allegations", but the link I have is broken.

This seems like rather rigorous and comprehensive external support for my most important claims -- far above and beyond the standard of most posters here.

If you would like more precision, please don't hesitate to ask first.

Wow 68 wrote:

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

Safesport covers USOPC sports and its authority comes from Congress. It would not stop you from calling out splits in Central Park, unless your athletes were competing in events under the jurisdiction of the NGB.

On a serious note, does anyone know how to reach him? I’d love to get in contact and see of he would coach me

What's with all your lies? You didn't take the 11:1 at face value at all, you ran with that smaller number for your PR against better knowledge. Quick Google reveals that you keep mentioning, and downplaying, the 11.6 here on letsrun at least since September 9, 2014. You liar. You knew it was 11.6 all along.

84.6% from the study? More lies, there is no 84.6% in that study whatsoever.

Thanks!