Keeping Track of Criminal Cases & SafeSport Suspensions in Skating

[fsfann]

However, those arguing the false accusations scenario are actually doing the boys will be boys defense of "one moment of time shouldn't ruin lives". To me that indicates they believe that the incident happened and are just excusing it.

Every time someone says, I support/believe victims BUT...remember the but negates everything that came before

OK.. So using this logic, and applying the very same thing to the Prime Minister of Canada... you both believe that he should be removed from his job based on the historic accusations against him. (One had a signed NDA, the other did not). Is that correct?

 

[Sparks]

No

 

[tony]

Good discussion here for sure. I definitely didn't mean to insinuate that a "one" moment shouldn't count. But I would say that a person who commits a single crime is different than someone who commits multiple, and repeated crimes over their victims. A hockey coach that abuses numerous boys over a 10 year period, grooming them, entertaining them at his home etc, is definitely different to me than a person who gets drunk and assaults (physical, sexual, etc) to another person.

I can’t agree here. Turn this into a pedophilia type of scenario- you think that the one ‘mistake’ made someone a changed person? Or that their one moment isn’t as vile as the next person who finally gets caught after more than one moment?

If the ‘drinking’ brings out certain behaviors or ideals, it doesn’t change that they still came out.

 

[once_upon]

OK.. So using this logic, and applying the very same thing to the Prime Minister of Canada... you both believe that he should be removed from his job based on the historic accusations against him. (One had a signed NDA, the other did not). Is that correct?

I have zero knowledge of that case, nor have I read specific descriptions of the incidents.

 

[Wyliefan]

Good discussion here for sure. I definitely didn't mean to insinuate that a "one" moment shouldn't count. But I would say that a person who commits a single crime is different than someone who commits multiple, and repeated crimes over their victims.

It doesn't feel any different to the victim.

 

[canbelto]

Good discussion here for sure. I definitely didn't mean to insinuate that a "one" moment shouldn't count. But I would say that a person who commits a single crime is different than someone who commits multiple, and repeated crimes over their victims. A hockey coach that abuses numerous boys over a 10 year period, grooming them, entertaining them at his home etc, is definitely different to me than a person who gets drunk and assaults (physical, sexual, etc) to another person.

Ok by that logic then ... Susan Smith should not have been imprisoned for life because it was just "one moment"? It should be reserved for serial killers?

 

[fsfann]

It doesn't feel any different to the victim.

Where did I say that it did? Love how things keep getting conflated.

 

[fsfann]

No

Why not? What is the difference?

 

[Sparks]

You are conflating two different cases. See how that works?

 

[fsfann]

I can’t agree here. Turn this into a pedophilia type of scenario- you think that the one ‘mistake’ made someone a changed person? Or that their one moment isn’t as vile as the next person who finally gets caught after more than one moment?

If the ‘drinking’ brings out certain behaviors or ideals, it doesn’t change that they still came out.

We can always turn things into different scenarios based on the argument/position we are trying to make. There are always different degrees to which someone should be punished based on numerous factors. I don't believe that all crimes are equal, even though all victims suffer in some way. I also believe that if a person does a bad thing, owns up to it and never does it again, that they ARE a better person than one who continues to commit crimes against others.

 

[Wyliefan]

I also believe that if a person does a bad thing, owns up to it and never does it again, that they ARE a better person than one who continues to commit crimes against others.

Okay, and what if they don't own up to it?

 

[pat c]

Good discussion here for sure. I definitely didn't mean to insinuate that a "one" moment shouldn't count. But I would say that a person who commits a single crime is different than someone who commits multiple, and repeated crimes over their victims. A hockey coach that abuses numerous boys over a 10 year period, grooming them, entertaining them at his home etc, is definitely different to me than a person who gets drunk and assaults (physical, sexual, etc) to another person.

But they aren't the same, and we do think of them differently. You're right, sex crimes are hard to prove unless the victim is dead, so in a way we think no harm no foul. Not true. Crimes against women AND children have been discounted through time. It's taken the law a long time to catch up, and it's still not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. History shows that we have been kind to rapists, but not their victims if they've even come forward. As always, power, reputation, money have all been taken into account far more than they should in these cases. I understand the guilty until proven guilty and officer I only did this once defence, but some crimes don't deserve that tolerance. Speeding yes, sexual abuse no.

 

[tony]

We can always turn things into different scenarios based on the argument/position we are trying to make. There are always different degrees to which someone should be punished based on numerous factors. I don't believe that all crimes are equal, even though all victims suffer in some way. I also believe that if a person does a bad thing, owns up to it and never does it again, that they ARE a better person than one who continues to commit crimes against others.

I hear your view, but the problem is that it seems like people typically only stop once they are caught. So if they are caught on their first offense and pay the price for it and get thrown away in jail for X amount of years, maybe they do learn. But what if they don’t get caught?

We can apply this to so many scenarios, but you mentioned drinking so let’s go with that. What if someone becomes comfortable driving drunk because they were able to get home a few times, but this time they crash into another car and there are fatalities. Did they really learn? No, they were ‘caught’ this time. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[once_upon]

Does someone owning up to it heal the victim?

 

[Vagabond]

Does someone owning up to it heal the victim?

It helps.

 

[AnnM]

Why do people keep bringing up completely unrelated topics to distract from the real issue at hand, that being the extremely serious allegation of a violent rape that could not remotely fall under the realm of "missed signals" or something like that.

This. I've been a prosecutor for two decades and have handled my fair share of sex assault cases. What the victim described is as clear a description of forcible rape that there can be.

 

[nlloyd]

Sexual assault is obviously a huge topic for women, but people being accused of anything in general (especially race-based and white people making claims against Black people, as we’ve seen) can have dire consequences on the accused party as well, including lengthy jail sentences and potentially even death. I do not agree with the suggestion that the rape or sexual assault may have been a ‘mistake’ that someone can grow from, for what that’s worth.

In general, I think that analogies across race, gender, sexuality, class etc. obscure more than they elucidate. As dreadful as that race-based incident in the park was, the type of power relations that informed it, the kind of assertion of misplaced power, and the cost entailed in addressing the incident were very different for that African American man than they are for a rape victim. This is because the assertion of power in rape is sexual in nature and going public with it requires the divulging of very intimate and personal information, information that often results in women being revictimized, again in a sexual way, as being responsible for it or having "wanted it."

I think there are some unique elements of the race-based incident that are obscured by the analogy of rape too, but those are beyond the parameters of this discussion.

 

[Prancer]

Good discussion here for sure. I definitely didn't mean to insinuate that a "one" moment shouldn't count. But I would say that a person who commits a single crime is different than someone who commits multiple, and repeated crimes over their victims. A hockey coach that abuses numerous boys over a 10 year period, grooming them, entertaining them at his home etc, is definitely different to me than a person who gets drunk and assaults (physical, sexual, etc) to another person.

So being the first person to step forward really sucks. I wonder why more people don't speak up.

 

[Vagabond]

Good discussion here for sure. I definitely didn't mean to insinuate that a "one" moment shouldn't count. But I would say that a person who commits a single crime is different than someone who commits multiple, and repeated crimes over their victims. A hockey coach that abuses numerous boys over a 10 year period, grooming them, entertaining them at his home etc, is definitely different to me than a person who gets drunk and assaults (physical, sexual, etc) to another person.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Spikefan]

Maybe I’ve known too many liars or grown up in situations that showed me to err with caution.

I understand coming at things from a life perspective, but I can name double digit women assaulted and never reported.

These women are family and now in old age corroborate each other’s stories about another family member.

These women are early school friend’s that confided in me at the time and I didn’t know what to do as it wasn’t talked about. I just listened and to this day wonder if I should have done more.

These women were college friend’s where we weren’t sure what to call what happened.

These women are a boss’s daughter who dropped out of college and has been in and out inpatient for the past twenty year’s for anorexia brought on by her date rape.

Other than the first scenario (he is dead), I don’t know what happened to any of these men but I do know every one of them got away with SA.

I also do not believe false reports help, but again, I know no one that ever reported to know of anyone that false reported and that is all I need to know.

 

[Prancer]

I understand coming at things from a life perspective

I think we all do that, as we find things harder to believe the farther from them we are personally.

But you don't have to have personal experience to know that a) women are sexually assaulted in far greater numbers than men are convicted of sexual assault and b) false reports are made. There is objective evidence of both.

 

[overedge]

False reports are also made in other areas, eg arson, robbery, car accidents. But I don't see anyone arguing that because there are false reports of those events, we should be suspicious every time one is reported.

 

[Prancer]

False reports are also made in other areas, eg arson, robbery, car accidents. But I don't see anyone arguing that because there are false reports of those events, we should be suspicious every time one is reported.

Is that the argument that is being made? It certainly doesn't seem so to me, but perhaps you can point me to where that was what is being said.

In the examples you cited, is the person making the report automatically believed (which is what people are asking for in SA cases) or is there an investigation to verify the report before any actions are taken?

 

[overedge]

I'm seeing a double standard in some of the posts here, which was the point of my post.

 

[leilaofpaper]

Unless there is an extremely convincing reason to believe the victim would falsify the report (I know she is anonymous to the public but OSIC would know who she is), I believe Sorensen should be temporarily suspended until the investigation is done.

This would send a message to participants that a) allegations of sexual assault are taken very seriously, b) that behaviour is unacceptable, and c) the priority is protecting other skaters from a potential perpetrator.

ETA: If he is found to be innocent before Worlds then I have no doubt FB/S would be sent there, so it is unlikely he will lose out of anything significant in the very small chance that these allegations are false. It is incredibly unlikely they would have won Canadian Nationals again.

 

[Prancer]

Unless there is an extremely convincing reason to believe the victim would falsify the report (I know she is anonymous to the public but OSIC would know who she is), I believe Sorensen should be temporarily suspended until the investigation is done.

And do you believe that he could sue and win?

I do.

 

[KMC]

I hate to say, but I always had a bad feeling about him

 

[overedge]

And do you believe that he could sue and win?

I do.

So be it.

If skaters can be suspended on the basis of reports that they took banned substances, before that evidence is confirmed or they have the opportunity to present their side of the story, the same should be true of a report of SA. A report that seems to have enough credibility for a formal investigation to go ahead.

 

[AJ Skatefan]

Just food for thought here....

Is there a difference between a one off drunken event and consistent targeting and sexual abuse? (I guess I'm just asking for people's thoughts on this). For example, I suspect MANY men and women have done things they regret after a drunken evening of partying in their early 20s. Is that sort of behaviour "equivalent" to someone who is targeting people and sexually assualting numerous people over a period of time?

Yes - some will think I'm trying to excuse this "one off behaviour" which I'm not.... but I do feel there is a difference.

IF this situation happened (and I have no reason to believe it didn't), does the perpetrator deserve to have their entire career destroyed? If you say yes to this, then would you say the same to any other professional/adult who has made a mistake in their past? (ie: If a victim comes forward 10-15 years after an alleged rape, should the accused automatically be fired and lose their job?). If that is the case, I think you could see hundreds of thousands of people around the world lose their jobs because of one accusation.

I'm just not understanding the logic with some of the posts above who claim that Nik's career should be ended right this very second.

I’m willing to bet that this won’t be the only time we’ll hear about him sexually assaulting someone

 

[Barbara Manatee]

IAM is an organization. It should have policies to deal with a situation such as this when an accusation is made about a person involved in the organization. It needs to be separated from personal feelings and not about the specific person whom the accusation has been made about.

I.AM's Charter of Values suggests it does have these policies -


"We create a safe environment for athletes to train, coaches to teach and staff to work.
I.AM does not tolerate and takes action against any kind of bullying, hazing and physical or
psychological abuse by any member of the community, contractor or supplier. (...)

All reports will be evaluated, and findings actioned in accordance with the laws of
Canada."

But does anyone know if this is actually written into the contracts between the organization and the athletes? Language that specifies what actions will be taken if a formal report of abuse is filed with the police/SafeSport/etc. I know there are limits to what the governing bodies can do during an investigation, but does a coaching school have more freedom to respond?