Repercussions of Papadakis' book & Cizeron's response

MacMadame said:
When it comes to other people, I go by actions, not by what people say about them. People are often wrong about the character of other people. And even their own character, if it comes to that. ;)


I did not say she shouldn't say anything. I said she shouldn't say anything about him. She said a lot of things about how this situation impacted her and I didn't object to any of it as she is one of the subjects of the documentary and therefore it was relevant. I only objected to her declaring that she was 100% sure he was innocent. There was no need to do that. No one would have known she was still dating him if she hadn't told us.

And, as I said, I find her declarations less than compelling. Her "100% innocent" boyfriend was accused, thoroughly investigated and, unlike with many, many accusations, got a SIX-YEAR ban. And his appeal was not "you overlooked this evidence" or "you considered the evidence wrongly" but "you don't have jurisdiction."

This is not a case where there is a lot of ambiguity or wiggle room. In our system, many, many more rapists get off than are wrongly convicted. In most cases where the accusation is false, that comes out well before anyone is punished. While there is a theoretical chance he is innocent. It is minuscule. Like 0.0000001%.
Click to expand...
It's HARD to get banned. Plenty of rapists both in court and in sport have gotten away with it because there's "not enough evidence." There being enough evidence in this case really says something about the likelihood of him being guilty.

Well that and the fact that his defense was a legal technicality, NOT that the evidence was poor.
 
overedge said:
That's not being victimized. That's essentially losing a job, which can happen to people in any occupation, and not always because of anything they personally did or were involved with.
Click to expand...
Losing a job is traumatic, and if it's a wrongful termination, it's also victimizing. And a skating partnership (which in this case also involves a romantic relationship) is a lot more than just a job. Isn't that apparent in what Papadakis wrote, too?

I don't think LFB is in the same category as the survivor by any means; not even close. But she has been placed in a very difficult position by someone she loves and trusts, and that's a hard thing to deal with.
 
People delude themselves about romantic partners all the time. I did for years in my second marriage. He wasn’t a rapist but he was a nasty jerk, as evidenced by something he didn’t tell me about until years after we divorced. I know that almost all my friends said “finally!” To themselves when we split up.

I’d like to think that if he had done something illegal to hurt someone else I would have turned him in and left him much earlier but can’t be sure. Humans are so good at self-delusion.
 
kosjenka said:
The evidence is not public and it definitely is not part of the legal system so legally he’s definitely not guilty of anything.
Click to expand...
That's not how that works. The absence of a trial does not make him not guilty - it means he did not face a trial. A jury would have had to decide the evidence did not meet the standard of proof, which did not happen.

Edit: I won't labor the point, but I agree that viewers can make opinions on who to support without a legal standard of proof. I'll just add that comments like this is what makes it harder for victims to come out. You think that "legally he's definitely not guilty" despite him not being charged or indicted, let alone convicted. Imagine a Safesport official reviewing a case with your mindset. It's their job to do an independent investigation. What does his (lack of) criminal history have to do with that?
 
Last edited:
kosjenka said:
and who else has publicly stood up with words and conviction for Sorensen?

there were vague comments, cropped instagram photos, mostly anonymous and silence.
silence from people around him because they didn’t want to say much because they don’t want to have questions from journalists? But we could all agree that he is most likely believed to be innocent by his former coaches and many of his former skating friends. and if anything, I am sorry that Brennan is not targeting IAM coaches , Who have known Sorensen longer than Laurance , as he was one of their very first students. They have provided him a protection of the institution they have built over the years. or maybe Skate Canada given that they have acquired Sorenson from Denmark and made sure he got citizenship.

We can always say something vague like everybody is different. I can share that in six years that I worked with victims of rape and sexual assault, for those whose rapist were not their spouse, partner ( and those are major majority in general and those that I’ve met) ect but either a stranger or somebody more distant like an acquaintance, those victims were more worried about not being believed by their circle that they were raped.
Those were primary reasons for not reporting aside from some others that I have already mentioned in previous post. Not everyone can handle telling their story over and over again, and re digging their trauma for the sake of maybe having a police investigation and maybe going to trial.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm chiming in.

I mentioned this several years ago, but I had a very close friend (male) who had a large class of young cello students. He was a very friendly, "huggy" type of guy, he loved everyone, including his young students... he hugged us all, adults and children. And he did it very publicly (think Jason Brown).

So one of his young students (a boy) was told, in an elementary school class, that if an adult has ever touched you, then you must report it to your teacher, police, etc. So this student told his school teacher that his cello teacher hugged him. The school teacher reported it to the police immediately.

My friend was arrested and charged with sexual assault on a child, taken to jail and got out on a bond. Spent months hiring a lawyer and disputing the charges. After all was said and done, he decided to plead no contest, to avoid a very public trial and possible prison sentence.

My friend never sexually assaulted a child. The news of his arrest made all the local headlines, so the public assumed he was a disgusting pedophile and deserved the harshest punishment. He was a brilliant musician, but was never hired again, ever. His close friends knew he was a good guy. But he lost his entire reason for living, and died of a heart attack just a few years later, penniless.

I'm saying this, @kosjenka , to agree that not everyone accused of sexual assault is guilty. And I miss my friend, he was a wonderful person.

As for Sorenson, it's an entirely different story. Sorry, but I am inclined to believe his accuser.
 
MacMadame said:
I'm sorry, but the police don't arrest someone because a kid said they were hugged. And they don't plead no contest if it was just a hug.
Click to expand...
Not true. The parents didn't know what to think, as they were merely informed by the police. And I taught one of their daughters. The teacher involved just knew what they heard from the kid, and reported it to the police. It happened.

I do think it's rare. But my friend was scared out of his wits and didn't know what else to do.
 
skateboy said:
Not true. The parents didn't know what to think, as they were merely informed by the police. And I taught one of their daughters. The teacher involved just knew what they heard from the kid, and reported it to the police. It happened.

I do think it's rare. But my friend was scared out of his wits and didn't know what else to do.
Click to expand...
I'm sure something was reported to the police. But they don't just go arrest someone without doing an investigation. They would interview the kid and other kids and adults.
 
MacMadame said:
I'm sure something was reported to the police. But they don't just go arrest someone without doing an investigation. They would interview the kid and other kids and adults.
Click to expand...
Not in this case. My friend was arrested immediately, and the newspapers had a field day with it.

The parents disallowed the child to be interviewed.

As mentioned, I think Sorenson is guilty as hell. I only posted to assure @kosjenka that yes, sometimes people are unjustly accused.

Happy to PM you with more details about my friend's case.
 
Katha said:
The tension here is I think to a certain degree also that no one can be made to disappear, to be tacky about it. Papadakis wrote a book about a toxic system in figure skating that, let's be honest, everyone has known about for decades. As is her right. To a certain degree her nuanced thoughts are being hijacked by rage bait headlines, because that is what sells.

On the other hand, FB/C are free to skate together and there's nothing to stop them. I've seen some people online say that they shouldn't be allowed. But on what grounds? Neither is accused of a crime, not by Papadakis either. The Sorensen of it all is more complicated, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he's coaching if/when he's not allowed? And he is indeed free to buy himself a ticket and support his life partner.

So Papadakis can write and talk whatever she wants and Cizeron just has to deal. And Cizeron is free to skate and Papadakis also has to deal with seeing him build a new partnership. I think the notion many fans have that either side can be drowned out and made to go away won't work. But many of the discussions circle around exactly this: Make it all easy, make one side go away.
Click to expand...
That’s the wisest reply I have seen in this thread…
 
MacMadame said:
I'm sure something was reported to the police. But they don't just go arrest someone without doing an investigation. They would interview the kid and other kids and adults.
Click to expand...
No not anymore I don't think. Look up the Martensville daycare case. They interviewed the kids and the adults, it didn't go well.
skateboy said:
Not in this case. My friend was arrested immediately, and the newspapers had a field day with it.

The parents disallowed the child to be interviewed.
Click to expand...
My bil is a retired teacher. He said as a male teacher, he never hugged or touched students unless it was absolutely necessary. He said it only took 1 parent for things to go sideways. Too bad about your friend.
 
pat c said:
No not anymore I don't think. Look up the Martensville daycare case. They interviewed the kids and the adults, it didn't go well.
Click to expand...
They definitely still interview the victim(s). They just do a better job to not put ideas in their head(s).

I will tell you where I am coming from: I have IRL seen too many instances where someone defends a friend or family member against accusations/convictions of sexual assault and the details they give make it sound like a big miscarriage of justice. Then you learn the stuff they left out, exaggerated or didn't happen as they said, and you realize it was not.

In the case of huggers and touchy-feeling people, think of Joe Biden. Remember everyone saying how creepy he was and women coming forward to say that he made them uncomfortable with all his touching? I am sure this teacher also made students (who have no power) feel uncomfortable. That doesn't mean he touched anyone inappropriately, but it also means the "everyone loved him" and "he was just a touchy-feely guy" narratives do not do justice to the situation.

Which is why I pushed back on that narrative.
 
hereforthevibes said:
That's not how that works. The absence of a trial does not make him not guilty - it means he did not face a trial. A jury would have had to decide the evidence did not meet the standard of proof, which did not happen.
Click to expand...
hereforthevibes said:
Edit: I won't labor the point, but I agree that viewers can make opinions on who to support without a legal standard of proof. I'll just add that comments like this is what makes it harder for victims to come out. You think that "legally he's definitely not guilty" despite him not being charged or indicted, let alone convicted. Imagine a Safesport official reviewing a case with your mindset. It's their job to do an independent investigation. What does his (lack of) criminal history have to do with that?
Click to expand...
You and i are using the term 'guilty' in two very different ways.
You are using it as a moral judgment based on an allegation and I am using it as a formal legal status. In both the US and Canada, the law does not recognize 'guilty' as some sort of spectrum. If a person cannot be charged and hasnt been convicted, they remain legally innocent. That isn't a mindset that harms victims - it is the fundamental principle of due process that protects every single citizen from being labeled a criminal without a trial.


You asked what a lack of criminal history has to do with an ethics investigation. In this specific case, it has everything to do with it. The Canadian ethics body moved to sanction him before they even confirmed they had the legal authority to do so. And it took an independent arbitrator to eventually step in and overturn their decision because they lacked jurisdiction.


The fact that an administrative body proceeded to investigate and punish someone without verifying they had legal ground to do so, is a massive red flag. When an organization acts outside its legal power, it creates a 'vigilante' style of justice that ignores the rule of law. If an ethics body can’t even determine if they have the right to oversee a case before they start handing out sanctions, we absolutely should question whether they should be allowed to operate in that manner at all.
The ethics committee didnt just fail the principle of due process,they failed their own mission. By proceeding with an investigation they had no legal jurisdiction over, they gave the victim a false hope of accountability and the public a false sense of safety.
When an administrative body acts as 'judge and jury' without first checking they have the legal right to do so, they get their decisions overturned. And we see this happen over and over again just look what has happened in Korea.
This leaves everyone; the victim, the accused, and the fans in a state of limbo where the truth is never settled and the 'sanctions' are meaningless. Just like what happened here…
It’s hard to argue that a body should be even allowed to investigate when their own incompetence in legal procedure results in the exact outcome they were supposed to prevent: an unresolved, public mess.
 
kosjenka said:
You asked what a lack of criminal history has to do with an ethics investigation. In this specific case, it has everything to do with it.
Click to expand...
No, it isnt. There are so many rapists who have never been charged. And the fact that he could dodge charges based on jurisdictional complexities based on where he lives, where things took place, etcetera makes it even more difficult for there to be charges. The lack of criminal charges doesn't mean he really didn't do anything wrong. It really doesn't. But, you seem to think that somehow makes whatever he did okay.

The lengths you are going to defend him are very unsettling.
 
Gabby on Instagram telling it like it is. :respec:

www.instagram.com

Gabriella Papadakis. on Instagram: "I love my sport. I really do. It took me around the world, gave me some of the best memories of my life, and built me in countless ways. It also deeply harmed me. I’m sharing my experiences because I believe in a s

7,807 likes, 256 comments - gabriellapapadakis on February 8, 2026: "I love my sport. I really do. It took me around the world, gave me some of the best memories of my life, and built me in countless ways. It also deeply harmed me. I’m sharing my experiences because I believe in a sport where...
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
 
Allskate said:
No, it isnt. There are so many rapists who have never been charged. And the fact that he could dodge charges based on jurisdictional complexities based on where he lives, where things took place, etcetera makes it even more difficult for there to be charges. The lack of criminal charges doesn't mean he really didn't do anything wrong. It really doesn't. But, you seem to think that somehow makes whatever he did okay.

The lengths you are going to defend him are very unsettling.
Click to expand...

It is actually pretty wild that you are trying to cast me as some kind of defense attorney for Sorensen when I have already said I believe the victim's story is likely true. You are so stuck in this all-or-nothing mindset—where you either join a mob or you are an "apologist",that you are completely missing how horrifically this ethics committee failed everyone involved.


You should be the one who is angry here. This body spent time and resources playing judge and jury while being so legally illiterate and incompetent that they didnt even check if they had the authority to act in the first place. They handed Sorensen a gift on a silver platter. They gave him a legitimate reason to walk away looking like the victim of a procedural conspiracy, and they left the actual victim with ZERo closure and a verdict that was overturned the moment a real legal body looked at it.


This is exactly why these administrative messes happen. We saw it in Korea with the Lee Hae-in scandal, where the federation rushed to brand an athletes with life-altering labels without any legal basis, only for the courts to have to step in and fix the mess they created.


Demanding due process isn't "unsettling”., bu it is the only way to make a sanction actually stick. If you are okay with an incompetent committee that cuts corners and fails the very people it is supposed to protect, that is on you. I am criticizing a broken system that is so poorly managed that it leaves the truth in limbo and lets the accused go right back to competing.

None of us on this thread actually know him, Laurence, or the victim personally.

Or do you?

I can completely understand why a partner of ten years, who has built a life and a career with him, would choose to believe his word. I am not going to judge her for that, and I find it strange that many here would. If any of you have a problem with me acknowledging the complexity of human relationships or the necessity of due process, that says more about your mindset than mine. Insisting on the rule of law isn't 'bullshit”, bit it is the only thing that keeps these investigations from becoming the absolute mess we are looking at right now. I am criticizing a broken system that is so poorly managed it leaves the truth in limbo and lets the accused go right back to competing and being allowed to stay involved in the sport.
 
kosjenka said:
You should be the one who is angry here. This body spent time and resources playing judge and jury while being so legally illiterate and incompetent that they didnt even check if they had the authority to act in the first place.
Click to expand...
They are the judge and jury in this capacity. And jurisdictional issues like this are complex. There are plenty of times when issues are not clear and have to get appealed. I just think it's bizarre in this context that you seem to care more about this issue than you do about what he actually did. What bias do you think they have against him, and why are they biased?
kosjenka said:
Demanding due process isn't "unsettling”.
Click to expand...
He isn't being denied due process. He was allowed to defend himself (including jurisdictional challenges) and to appeal, which are standard parts of due process. I have absolutely nothing against that and have not suggested that he shouldn't be allowed to defend himself or appeal or even win the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. What I have said is that, regardless of the outcome on the jurisdictional issue and regardless of whether he is ever criminally charged, that doesn't mean he didn't engage in terrible conduct. And I think that is very important. You don't seem very concerned about that.
 
Last edited:
Allskate said:
They are the judge and jury in this capacity. And jurisdictional issues like this are complex. There are plenty of times when issues are not clear and have to get appealed. I just think it's bizarre in this context that you seem to care more about this issue than you do about what he actually did. What bias do you think they have against him, and why are they biased?

He isn't being denied due process. He was allowed to defend himself (including jurisdictional challenges) and to appeal, which are standard parts of due process. I have absolutely nothing against that and have not suggested that he shouldn't be allowed to defend himself or appeal or even win the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. What I have said is that, regardless of the outcome on the jurisdictional issue and regardless of whether he is ever criminally charged, that doesn't mean he didn't engage in terrible conduct. And I think that is very important. You don't seem very concerned about that.
Click to expand...
I’ve been a vocal contributor to this topic since the beginning, in fact, I was posting about this topic and various cases before this specific thread even existed. I’m not going to sit here and summarize years of my opinions just to prove my "standing" to you, but you should probably avoid stating things as fact when you clearly have no idea what my history on this topic is.


Regarding the "complexity" of jurisdiction: it’s only complex when a body tries to grab power it doesn't have. If a Canadian organization tries to punish someone for an event from 12 years ago in the U.S., before he was even a member of their federation, that isn’t a gray area. It is a massive overreach that any competent legal team should have flagged on day one.


You seem to think that because he was allowed to appeal, he was given "due process." That’s backwards. Real due process means the body shouldn’t have moved to sanction him in the first place without the legal authority to do it. Because they were incompetent, they put the victim through a process only to hand her a result that was legally worthless.

This is the part you aren't getting: the victim only came forward after so many years because she wanted to make sure he couldn't transition into coaching. She spoke up specifically to protect other women from the person she says raped her. By being so legally illiterate, this committee didn't protect anyone. They handed her a "win" that they knew (or should have known) would be overturned, and in doing so, they’ve made it possible for him to coach and compete exactly as he planned. Their incompetence literally created the "unsafe" situation the victim was trying to prevent.


You keep saying "that doesn’t mean he didn’t engage in terrible conduct" like it’s some kind of profound point. I’ve already said I believe there’s truth to the allegations. The difference is that I’m concerned with actual consequences, while you seem satisfied with feelings only.


If you’re so "concerned" about his conduct, you show concerning lack of issue with this committee’s incompetence. Because they botched the jurisdiction, he’s back on the ice. Their failure ensured there was no lasting accountability. You are basically arguing that as long as we all feel he is guilty, the legal outcome doesn’t matter—but the legal outcome is the only thing that actually had the power to stop him.


At the end of the day, I care about a process that actually produces a result that sticks. You seem more interested in a process that makes you feel morally superior in a comment section. If you honestly think that demanding a functional, legally-sound system means I’m "not concerned" about the conduct, then you are just proving you care more about the label than you do about an actual resolution for the victim. You’re cheering for a system that failed the very person it was supposed to protect.
 
The ISU really needs to figure out what to do with skaters accused of sexual misconduct who country jump.
Or who skate for one country/federation, but commit assaults in another country.
I don't know how this would work, but clearly the sport needs a somewhat UN type investigation body to deal with it.
I also think it's about time to ban statute of limitations on sexual crimes. But as that's a country by country decision I'm not holding my breath.
 
kosjenka said:
I’ve been a vocal contributor to this topic since the beginning, in fact, I was posting about this topic and various cases before this specific thread even existed. I’m not going to sit here and summarize years of my opinions just to prove my "standing" to you, but you should probably avoid stating things as fact when you clearly have no idea what my history on this topic is.


Regarding the "complexity" of jurisdiction: it’s only complex when a body tries to grab power it doesn't have. If a Canadian organization tries to punish someone for an event from 12 years ago in the U.S., before he was even a member of their federation, that isn’t a gray area. It is a massive overreach that any competent legal team should have flagged on day one.


You seem to think that because he was allowed to appeal, he was given "due process." That’s backwards. Real due process means the body shouldn’t have moved to sanction him in the first place without the legal authority to do it. Because they were incompetent, they put the victim through a process only to hand her a result that was legally worthless.

This is the part you aren't getting: the victim only came forward after so many years because she wanted to make sure he couldn't transition into coaching. She spoke up specifically to protect other women from the person she says raped her. By being so legally illiterate, this committee didn't protect anyone. They handed her a "win" that they knew (or should have known) would be overturned, and in doing so, they’ve made it possible for him to coach and compete exactly as he planned. Their incompetence literally created the "unsafe" situation the victim was trying to prevent.


You keep saying "that doesn’t mean he didn’t engage in terrible conduct" like it’s some kind of profound point. I’ve already said I believe there’s truth to the allegations. The difference is that I’m concerned with actual consequences, while you seem satisfied with feelings only.


If you’re so "concerned" about his conduct, you show concerning lack of issue with this committee’s incompetence. Because they botched the jurisdiction, he’s back on the ice. Their failure ensured there was no lasting accountability. You are basically arguing that as long as we all feel he is guilty, the legal outcome doesn’t matter—but the legal outcome is the only thing that actually had the power to stop him.


At the end of the day, I care about a process that actually produces a result that sticks. You seem more interested in a process that makes you feel morally superior in a comment section. If you honestly think that demanding a functional, legally-sound system means I’m "not concerned" about the conduct, then you are just proving you care more about the label than you do about an actual resolution for the victim. You’re cheering for a system that failed the very person it was supposed to protect.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the victim would prefer Skate Canada/Canada Safe Sport didn’t investigate at all based on jurisdiction thereby letting Sorensen be free to skate and coach at will rather than investigate the evidence that exists, find evidence of sexual misconduct, sanction him and then have it overturned by a judge?

If I was the victim I’d feel much better about the scenario where it was investigated and returned a sexual
misconduct ban against him even if a judge did overturn it.

Besides IIRC this is not over. It is being appealed further so we must wait to see what comes of this next ruling.
 
chantilly said:
The ISU really needs to figure out what to do with skaters accused of sexual misconduct who country jump.
Or who skate for one country/federation, but commit assaults in another country.
I don't know how this would work, but clearly the sport needs a somewhat UN type investigation body to deal with it.
I also think it's about time to ban statute of limitations on sexual crimes. But as that's a country by country decision I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
Heck, in the US, it's a state-by-state decision. And that's part of the issue here, the statute of limitations in Connecticut had already expired, so Sorensen is always going to be viewed as innocent legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 33 (members: 8, guests: 25)

    Similar threads

    aemeraldrainc
    Papadakis/Cizeron Officially Retire
    Replies
    24
    Views
    10K
    Carolla5501
    C
    Sylvia
    News and updates à la Française, part quatre
    26 27 28
    Replies
    815
    Views
    245K
    Sylvia
    Sylvia
    N
    • Locked
    Does french figure skating have a culture of rape ? FFSG in the storm
    9 10 11
    Replies
    305
    Views
    67K
    genevieve
    genevieve
    M
    Nathalie Péchalat
    2
    Replies
    41
    Views
    9K
    Eleanor2
    E
    Sylvia
    2021-22 ISU Grand Prix assignments announced
    30 31 32
    Replies
    947
    Views
    175K
    skatingguy
    skatingguy
    Back
    Top
    Do Not Sell My Personal Information