Eventually I decide to report the time that Tinami was in the locker room soothing a crying client. The kid is crying, Tinami is hugging the bereft student.
Then, (remember, I lost 75% of my best students) I find two other people who remember the incident, and on reflection they see that Tinami's behavior was inappropriate, and they file a report also.
This is a violation of the locker room policy. It would be handled by USFS's SafeSport Committee. No promises, but based on precedent: you, the three witnesses, the athlete, and (if the athlete was a minor) the athletes' parents would be interviewed. If at that point, all five parties agreed that the incident involved you taking a crying student into the locker room
alone, with a closed door, to comfort them, the likely consequence would be what USFS calls "a private letter of admonition" to be placed in your permanent file. The letter would be provided only to you. The people who filed the complaint would be notified that you had received a private letter of admonition, but would not receive the letter. You would likely be required to read the locker room policy and the policy on two deep leadership, and to sign a document stating that you had read both policies and you agreed to abide by them.
More painful than a flu shot, less painful than Garasil.
But correct me if I am wrong on other issues. I believe that the accused are notified that they are under investigation. I believe that they have the opportunity to refute the allegations as part of the investigation. And I believe they all have the right to an urgent appeal hearing of the suspension within 72 hours of an actual suspension.
What part of that have I gotten wrong?
The accused are not notified that they are under investigation until the Center has evidence that a violation took place. Then they are notified and given the opportunity to refute or rebut that evidence, and to offer their own evidence. That eliminates many of the "But what if pure lies are reported for retaliation!"
in this thread.
I find it bizarre that so many of you think that if you were to report Tinami for hugging a crying student, she would be suspended immediately. There is no evidence that such things have happened, at least not that I know of. And if you are going to say that this has happened in skating, I want links, not anecdotes.
There is no evidence that this has happened in any sport. In figure skating, the only interim suspensions that have been issued (besides John) are:
Interim suspensions later changed to permanently ineligible:
1. Thomas Incantalupo (currently facing nine felony charges for sexual abuse of a child between the ages of 14-16)
2. Eugene Heffron (currently facing ten felony counts for sexual abuse of multiple children under the age of 18)
3. David Delgado: no additional public information
Interim suspensions that remain interim suspensions:
1. Richard Callaghan: not all of these allegations are public, but the public allegations are quite serious and involve sexual misconduct with multiple students over an extended time period
2. Kordale Bavor: no additional public information
Other figure skating decisions from the Center:
1. Andrew Lavrik: declared ineligible based on felony criminal charges of sexual abuse of a child under 18; if he is cleared of the charges, he can appeal the Center's decision
2. Steve Moore: "interim restrictions based on allegations of sexual misconduct," no additional public information
In any case, my original challenge, which no one has answered, was:
I am not looking for some general "in a way that protects both accuser and accused" but for a specific proposal for how you would go about:
1. Protecting the identity or identities of the accusers
2. Protecting the identity of the accused
3. Protecting potential victims of the accused during the investigation process
4. Bringing forward other accusers, if any
Because it seems to me that all of those things are necessary. Perhaps it doesn't to others, so feel free to modify the list as needed, but please explain your reasons for doing so.
5. Protecting the identities of witnesses
6. Protecting the identity or identities of third party reporters, especially if mandated reporters
Why? Elite sports are very small communities with histories of retaliation, harassment, and even blacklisting for speaking out, especially against popular, well-liked, and/or powerful individuals. Encouraging people to report and to participate in investigations requires an attempt to protect them from retaliation.
I think the accused can request a hearing, and SafeSport would grant one within 72 hours? I'd have to go back and read the old articles again, or see if I can find the info on their website. Regardless, it sounded like John never requested a hearing.
Yes, and such a hearing gives the accused the opportunity to see the evidence against them.
