PDA

View Full Version : Article re. Russian sports psychologist Rudolf Zagainov (worked w/ Yagudin in 2002)



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

kwanfan1818
12-03-2011, 02:16 AM
That might very well be the case in Russia, but it's not the case with all crimes in the US, where if they are witnessed or revealed, the crime is prosecuted, even if the victim or victim's survivors don't want them to be.

hanca
12-03-2011, 11:20 AM
That might very well be the case in Russia, but it's not the case with all crimes in the US, where if they are witnessed or revealed, the crime is prosecuted, even if the victim or victim's survivors don't want them to be.


But would they bother with prosecuting something as 'unimportant' as broken confidentiality if no one reported it? I am putting 'unimportant' into ' ' because personaly I don't think this is unimportant, but on the large scale, in comparison with some other crimes, this may be considered as relatively low level of crime.

I know that for example with cases of domestic violence, the law wouldn't let police to investigate and then prosecute if the victim did not want to press the charges, even if police was called to an incident of DV and it was clear what had happened. (the law may have changed since, not sure, but I know that the police hands were tied.)

Fashionista
12-06-2011, 01:34 PM
That might very well be the case in Russia, but it's not the case with all crimes in the US, where if they are witnessed or revealed, the crime is prosecuted, even if the victim or victim's survivors don't want them to be.

It's not the case with "all crimes" in Russia either. But we are talking about confidentiality cases and they are out of public prosecutor's business. Seriously don't you see the difference between the breaks of confidentiality law and for example assassination? In your opinion what are the ways of initiating investigation in this particular case by prosecuters? Should one of them randomly read Zagainov's book and think "oh, here is some personal information on Yagudin and Arustamova, I think we should start the trial", right? I don't see it happens neither in Russia, nor in the US.

berthesghost
12-06-2011, 02:24 PM
It's not the case with "all crimes" in Russia either. But we are talking about confidentiality cases and they are out of public prosecutor's business. Seriously don't you see the difference between the breaks of confidentiality law and for example assassination? In your opinion what are the ways of initiating investigation in this particular case by prosecuters? Should one of them randomly read Zagainov's book and think "oh, here is some personal information on Yagudin and Arustamova, I think we should start the trial", right? I don't see it happens neither in Russia, nor in the US.This seems to be a muddle between crime and ethics.

In the us, a crime can be reported by a witness, like what's going on now in the us with the sports coaches sleeping with underage boys.

But what this guy did isn't a crime, but a breech in ethics. As soon as the yags stuff came out, he would have had his license taken away in the us. Assuming this hack actually has a license. As has been stated often by many in this thread, it's astounding why anyone with a working brain would ever hire this guy after that. Even with this latest tragedy, I've yet to see anything from kessina's parents that she's no longer working with him. :scream:

Nadya
12-06-2011, 05:53 PM
It's not the case with "all crimes" in Russia either. But we are talking about confidentiality cases and they are out of public prosecutor's business. Seriously don't you see the difference between the breaks of confidentiality law and for example assassination? In your opinion what are the ways of initiating investigation in this particular case by prosecuters? Should one of them randomly read Zagainov's book and think "oh, here is some personal information on Yagudin and Arustamova, I think we should start the trial", right? I don't see it happens neither in Russia, nor in the US.
You are correct as a matter of practice because the American D.A.s and Russian prokuratura are typically too busy to go hunting for crimes to prosecute without a bigger agenda. However, in the American criminal prosecution practice, the degree of victim's influence over the case is much smaller than in Russia. In the U.S. law, cases are referred to as "People vs. Offender", not "Victim vs. Offender", which reflects the belief that offenders commit crimes against people as a whole, and not only one particular victim. Once the case is launched, victims (in the U.S.) have no say in how it will be prosecuted, what the punishment should be, or whether the case should be stopped completely - again, because the case is about "People vs. Offender", not "Victim vs. Offender."

Another reason for this legal philosophy is that prosecution of "similar" criminal offenses must be consistent regardless of the feelings of the victim. That is, two murderers in identical circumstances "should" (in theory) get identical sentences, even if the family of one victim is willing to forgive, and the other isn't.

kwanfan1818
12-06-2011, 05:58 PM
It's not the case with "all crimes" in Russia either. But we are talking about confidentiality cases and they are out of public prosecutor's business. Seriously don't you see the difference between the breaks of confidentiality law and for example assassination? In your opinion what are the ways of initiating investigation in this particular case by prosecuters? Should one of them randomly read Zagainov's book and think "oh, here is some personal information on Yagudin and Arustamova, I think we should start the trial", right? I don't see it happens neither in Russia, nor in the US.
Of course I see the difference in the seriousness of crimes. But in the US, all you need is a crusading and/or ambitious prosecutor, especially where publicity is involved, and it can be another story, having nothing to do with the seriousness of the case. I just read an article in an old "New Yorker" about the BALCO cases, which made a name for the prosecutor, and may have made a point, but for all of the time and money spent on the case and in Congressional hearings over steroid use in baseball, the longest jail sentence, in "Club Fed" that anyone served, was four months, except for Barry Bonds' personal trainer, who spent several stints in prison totaling a year, because he refused to testify.

So, yes, it happens in the US, where sports are newsworthy.

Nadya
12-06-2011, 06:01 PM
It's not the case with "all crimes" in Russia either. But we are talking about confidentiality cases and they are out of public prosecutor's business. Seriously don't you see the difference between the breaks of confidentiality law and for example assassination? In your opinion what are the ways of initiating investigation in this particular case by prosecuters? Should one of them randomly read Zagainov's book and think "oh, here is some personal information on Yagudin and Arustamova, I think we should start the trial", right? I don't see it happens neither in Russia, nor in the US.
Actually, I believe that breaches of confidentiality would not be in the arena of criminal or civil law, but rather in licensing requirements. That is, and I'm speaking in normative terms of what "should" happen, not what "does" happen, if an unhappy patient informs the Licensing Board of State XXX that Dr. XYZ has divulged confidential information improperly, chances are high that Dr. XYZ will lose his or her license, and livelihood. I believe (not sure), that for criminal or civil prosecution you will need to prove that you were harmed by releasing confidential information. The Licensing Board doesn't care if you were harmed or not, it just doesn't want its doctors to release information.

Conversely, a physician approached by attorneys acting for the state can, and is expected to, refuse to disclose patient data, and his refusal will stand in court because laws protect his or her ability to keep his clients' info confidential.

Sedge
12-06-2011, 06:19 PM
New article

http://sport.ria.ru/figure_skating/20111203/505793933.html

Skater Ksenia Makarova psychologically "upgraded" - Rukavitsyn

A google translate quote


"I am particularly pleased that kindly agreed to help Zagainov - added the coach. - Every day he led Makarova and correspondence, and talked for hours. And it was a powerful incentive."

Rukavitsyn said he was pleased with rolled Makarova during the Cup of Russia.

kwanfan1818
12-06-2011, 06:37 PM
With HIPAA laws protecting patient info, breach of confidentiality is no longer just a licensing issue but a Federal one that can lead to civil and criminal penalties.

NinjaTurtles
12-06-2011, 07:36 PM
Is there seriously a law against sexual relations between doctor and patient in the US? I have always thought it was a matter of ethics.


I don't think it's illegal per se, but you can definitely lose your license to practice for breaches of ethical conduct. A mental health provider having sex with a patient is absolutely grounds to revoke credentials.

It's covered under the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Sections 10.5-10.8:


10.05 Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients
Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients.

10.06 Sexual Intimacies with Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients
Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or significant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.

10.07 Therapy with Former Sexual Partners
Psychologists do not accept as therapy clients/patients persons with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies.

10.08 Sexual Intimacies with Former Therapy Clients/Patients
(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.

(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient.

Depending upon the information provided by local/state authorities and regulatory bodies and variables that might mitigate or worsen their view, the APA has a variety of options at their disclosure including expulsion, stipulated resignation, probation, and censure. However, those sanctions are used when they can demonstrate the the unethical behavior caused harm or substantial harm to the client.

I know a lot of states (like Florida) try to extend the former client rule from 2 years to indefinite and even include fines. It's something like 40% of all ethic committee hearings have to do with dual relationship violations (although those are not all sexual). I haven't read any very recent research, but previously it's been something like 8-12% of therapists have reported a sexual relationship with a client (the majority claiming to be after the termination of the therapist-client relationship).

Now if you're talking about how many therapists have admitted having sexual feelings or thoughts about a client, the percentages skyrocket!


Women can't be Psychologists.
http://ptichkafs.livejournal.com/6256.html

I wish he would have told me that before I started all of this education and research! :drama: He could have at least gave a semi valid explanation of transference, but non.