Coughlin's Safe Sport Status Changed to Interim Suspension

[aftershocks]

The part I bolded was the Catholic Church's approach to abuse allegations, though from what I've read, many of those investigations were neither thorough nor in good faith. But they certainly valued the quiet part. Meanwhile thousands of children were abused because their parents had no clue they were trusting men who had already been accused of abuse. SafeSport's policies are intended to prevent this.

Stop equating please and stop transferring abuses and ineffective actions by the Catholic Church to this specific incidence of alleged allegations, which we have no specific details about.

 

[leafygreens]

SafeSport didn’t suspend him until after the TSL/Brennan publicization of the investigation.

To clarify - The upgraded suspension happened after TSL/Brennan commentary, but not because of it. TSL/Brennan do not have the power to make or change charges. The charges were only upgraded after investigators found two new, underage alleged victims. Then it went from restriction to suspension.

If I were the accuser's family, I would ask them why go to nationals? Why put yourself through that?

It's so obvious people are going to make an example out of this person.

Why should an alleged victim lose out on their chance for nationals? If there is any proof of retaliation, then that is going to expose a toxic culture. I say, bring it.

 

[mag]

I do not wish to engage in setting up 'what if' scenarios involving the accuser(s) and the accused, such as you have done in your post.

Of course you don’t because that would require you to come down off your very comfortable fence from where you spew platitudes in both directions hoping not to offend anyone.

I get it. John was a well loved, likeable guy and it is very hard to imagine he could have done anything to warrant an investigation let alone a suspension. The thing is, well loved likeable guys cannot be treated any differently the nasty, mean, rude guys. When people say all the right things about supporting complainants and investigating thoroughly but then slip in phrases like twisting in the wind and ratcheting up, those are the dangerous posts. You may not realize what you are doing, but, it appears to me, maybe in an attempt to appear unbiased or something, you are stoking the sentiment that some how John was treated unfairly. The problem with that is when that sort of thing is said enough times it starts to undermine people’s confidence in organizations like Safe Sport. Safe Sport may not be perfect, but they are what is available and we are better off with them than without them.

 

[skatfan]

I recall thinking that after watching the Christine Brennan vid. Perhaps I am mistaken but I swear they at least inferred the 2 additional complaints came as a result of sharing of the screenshot of the SS notice.

They might have - I never got through the whole video before it was taken down.

 

[mollymgr]

How do we know that two more came forward after TSL/Brennan? According to Hersh, it happened after Dec. 17. It is likely it happened after TSL/Brennan but does anyone know for sure.

I thought this piece from the article was important.
The restriction decision was like a restraining order, designed to prevent the parties involved from coming into further contact with each other. Neither the restriction nor the suspension requires final resolution; they are put in place for safety reasons, according to Hill.

Hill added that a determining factor in issuing interim sanctions is whether the individual is in a position to possibly cause harm or whether there are people within the individual’s sphere to whom he or she could possibly cause harm.

If we took John out of the equation and inserted "x" coach against whom there are 3 complaints (2 minors), would people react the same way?

 

[MacMadame]

The sister may have and this is based on what the sister said!

Pending resolution of the case, they prevented or had the effect of preventing Coughlin from doing nearly everything he had done in the sport since leaving competitive skating in 2014: coaching, commentating, representing an equipment manufacturer and serving on international and national figure skating athletes’ commissions.

What the sister said does not support your opinion that Coughlin killed himself because people thought he was another Larry Nassar. It does support an opinion that he killed himself because he saw his livelihood and life being put on hold for an indefinite amount of time. Because that's exactly what she said: that he can't pursue his profession.


Not sure any more if this came from this thread or the other one:

Actually, there are probably some parents out there who are concerned about leaving their children alone with any adults. Parents who have been sexually abused/harassed themselves, or the parents of a child who has been sexually abused/harassed might be hyper-vigilante about allowing their children to be alone with and in the care of certain adults.

I will speak as one of these people. When my children were young, I was very careful not to leave them in the care of a single adult as much as possible. This included even my relatives. They were watched in professional day care situations or by a couple. In addition, if I signed them up for something where I got a bad vibe from even one of the adults, I would remove them from that situation.

There is one case where I signed my daughter up for a week of soccer camp. When I dropped her off on Monday, the founder of the camp (someone relatively famous in soccer/football) gave me that kind of vibe. I didn't like the way he looked at my daughter and I didn't like the tone in his voice when he told me she was beautiful. I let her finish out the week since there were other adults there and the kids never went off somewhere with them but stayed in an open field. But I certainly never signed her up for that camp again.

I would be very careful about sending my kids to a competition without me. I would want there to be multiple adults around at all times and not to hear that one adult took my one kid anywhere private. However, most of the time that kids are going to internationals, they are teenagers and by the time my kids were teenagers, I had a good idea of their judgement and how vulnerable they were to things like grooming. So I did let them go on trips with other families. But I definitely kept an eye on the relationship and would ask questions when they got home to make sure they weren't being groomed and weren't spending a long time in private situations with a single adult.

 

[aftershocks]

Of course you don’t because that would require you to come down off your very comfortable fence from where you spew platitudes in both directions hoping not to offend anyone.

I get it. John was a well loved, likeable guy and it is very hard to imagine he could have done anything to warrant an investigation let alone a suspension. The thing is, well loved likeable guys cannot be treated any differently the nasty, mean, rude guys. When people say all the right things about supporting complainants and investigating thoroughly but then slip in phrases like twisting in the wind and ratcheting up, those are the dangerous posts. You may not realize what you are doing, but, it appears to me, maybe in an attempt to appear unbiased or something, you are stoking the sentiment that some how John was treated unfairly. The problem with that is when that sort of thing is said enough times it starts to undermine people’s confidence in organizations like Safe Sport. Safe Sport may not be perfect, but they are what is available and we are better off with them than without them.

And you @mag stay on top of your self-righteous know-it-all finger-pointing fence as long as you desire. Meanwhile, it would behoove you to just stop doing your own gnarly pontificating and judgemental assessing, and targeting of other posters. This is obviously an emotional situation from all standpoints.

You are not inside my mind, and frankly that's a good thing. But yeah, carry on with your own attempts to appear whatever way you are trying to appear.

 

[laviemn]

Stop equating please and stop transferring abuses and ineffective actions by the Catholic Church to this specific incidence of alleged allegations, which we have no specific details about.

I am not saying or implying that John Coughlin's allegations are equivalent to the proven abuses and crimes that have been committed by the Catholic Church and their priests.

I am using this known example to illustrate why SafeSport notifies the public of the existence of allegations before the investigation is over, why keeping quiet, as you stated you'd prefer, could have devastating consequences.

Their policies aren't just relevant to John Coughlin. SafeSport has to apply the same policies to all their investigations, and sooner or later they'll likely have to deal with a case like the Catholic Church or Nassar. Do you want them to keep quiet then?

 

[vesperholly]

I will speak as one of these people. When my children were young, I was very careful not to leave them in the care of a single adult as much as possible. This included even my relatives. They were watched in professional day care situations or by a couple.

As a single adult, particularly one who has done lots of babysitting for my nephew, my friends, my skating coach's children and even strangers (I put out fliers in my neighborhood when I was 14), I don't know whether to be offended, astounded, or both, by your incredible assumptions about relationship status and abusers.

I would also like to point out that Larry Nassar has a wife and three children.

 

[aftershocks]

I am not saying or implying that John Coughlin's allegations are equivalent to the proven abuses and crimes that have been commited by the Catholic Church and their priests.

I am using this known example to illustrate why SafeSport notifies the public of the existence of allegations before the investigation is over, why keeping quiet, as you stated you'd prefer, could have devastating consequences.

Their policies aren't just relevant to John Coughlin. SafeSport has to apply the same policies to all their investigations, and sooner or later they'll likely have to deal with a case like the Catholic Church or Nassar. Do you want them to keep quiet then?

Since I am not involved in any way, I'm not in a position to be characterized as 'preferring.' As far as the investigation itself, it's simply my thinking as an observer and a skating fan that it would have benefited everyone involved to investigate quickly, thoroughly, efficiently and with the least amount of public fanfare, in the effort to hopefully protect the safety of everyone involved.

Since the accused had been removed from his coaching position and publicly identified, why would anyone think he posed a threat to anyone? The only threat he apparently posed, in this instance, was to himself.

 

[mollymgr]

As a single adult, particularly one who has done lots of babysitting for my nephew, my friends and even strangers when I was younger, I don't know whether to be offended, astounded, or both, by your incredible assumptions about relationship status and abusers.

I would also like to point out that Larry Nassar has a wife and three children.

Don't forget Sandusky.

 

[leafygreens]

I have a question. If this was a coach that always gave off a creepy vibe, that people didn’t like, and three people separately brought forward complaints, and there was a 2 month investigation prior to anything being mentioned or posted and then another month before the upgrade, would you all still be crying about due diligence?

That's what this all boils down to. There's no outrage from the skating community when restricted/suspended coaches are made public in other fields of sport (or other types of jobs). It's only when it's one of our own that there's a problem with the process. In fact there are a number of skating coaches on "the list" right now that I haven't heard a peep about. What about their "due process rights"? That tells me there is some kind of public bias with the JC incident, and not an issue with the Safe Sport process.

I recall thinking that after watching the Christine Brennan vid. Perhaps I am mistaken but I swear they at least inferred the 2 additional complaints came as a result of sharing of the screenshot of the SS notice.

Regardless if the complaintants came forward because of seeing the screen shot on TSL, it doesn't make their claims any less worth investigating. Safe Sport found something concerning enough to do a restriction/suspension.

 

[BittyBug]

As a single adult, particularly one who has done lots of babysitting for my nephew, my friends, my skating coach's children and even strangers (I put out fliers in my neighborhood when I was 14), I don't know whether to be offended, astounded, or both, by your incredible assumptions about relationship status and abusers.

I would also like to point out that Larry Nassar has a wife and three children.

I read McMadam's use of "single" to mean "one" adult, not the individual's relationship status. She did not want to leave her child in the company of only one adult.

 

[laviemn]

Since I am not involved in any way, I'm not in a position to be characterized as 'preferring.'

You stated that here, unless you have an unusual definition of "should have".

Over and out.

It just placed a huge spotlight on something that should have remained under quiet and thorough investigation, until definite conclusions and resolutions could have been reached.

 

[Tahuu]

I'll say it again.

The best of both world: SafeSport and the federations may issue interim restriction and suspension per their current criteria but ONLY to the accused. The sanctions will prevent any further contact or harm to the accusers from the accuser, who may take a leave of absence from Olympic sports, going on vacation or exploring non-olympic sports opportunities, until the conclusion of the investigation. This will protect the accusers, potential victims in sports, and the wrongly accused.

 

[mollymgr]

I'll say it again.

The best of both world: SafeSport and the federations may issue interim restriction and suspension per their current criteria but ONLY to the accused. The sanctions will prevent any further contact or harm to the accusers from the accuser, who may take a leave of absence from Olympic sports, going on vacation or exploring non-olympic sports opportunities, until the conclusion of the investigation. This will protect the accusers, potential victims in sports, and the wrongly accused.

But how is everyone to know not to hire them?

 

[kittysk8ts]

How do we know that two more came forward after TSL/Brennan? According to Hersh, it happened after Dec. 17. It is likely it happened after TSL/Brennan but does anyone know for sure.

I thought this piece from the article was important.
The restriction decision was like a restraining order, designed to prevent the parties involved from coming into further contact with each other. Neither the restriction nor the suspension requires final resolution; they are put in place for safety reasons, according to Hill.

Hill added that a determining factor in issuing interim sanctions is whether the individual is in a position to possibly cause harm or whether there are people within the individual’s sphere to whom he or she could possibly cause harm.

If we took John out of the equation and inserted "x" coach against

That's what this all boils down to. There's no outrage from the skating community when restricted/suspended coaches are made public in other fields of sport (or other types of jobs). It's only when it's one of our own that there's a problem with the process.


Regardless if the complaintants came forward because of seeing the screen shot on TSL, it doesn't make their claims any less worth investigating. Safe Sport found something concerning enough to do a restriction/suspension.

Of course! I did not mean to imply that at all. Apologies everyone who thinks that. I am listening to the Brennan interview now and she says that the two others complaints came after the Dec. 17 notice and NOT after TSLs sharing of SS notice which he did on January 4. APOLOGIES

 

[Tahuu]

But how is everyone to know not to hire them?

He can't and won't apply to any job in Olympic sports cos the sanction.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

As has been stated above already, Safe Sport is not the only organization that publicly lists investigations before they are resolved. There are very valid reasons for doing so.

 

[leafygreens]

Of course! I did not mean to imply that at all. Apologies everyone who thinks that. I am listening to the Brennan interview now and she says that the two others complaints came after the Dec. 17 notice and NOT after TSLs sharing of SS notice which he did on January 4. APOLOGIES

No offense taken!

 

[vesperholly]

I read McMadam's use of "single" to mean "one" adult, not the individual's relationship status. She did not want to leave her child in the company of only one adult.

Maybe, but my reaction is the same even if that is her intention. In all of those babysitting situations I mentioned above, I was the only adult. In most babysitting situations, there is only one adult.

 

[Stephori]

Agreed. I was responding to the OP's refusal to back up its own claims.

I didn't refuse to back up my claims. I told you how to confirm them yourself and you chose not to, and I explained to you that I did not think rumors should be part of a bio. In fact my assertions were in response to what someone else posted if you recall.

 

[mag]

He can't and won't apply to any job in Olympic sports cos the sanction.

And how will future employers know about the sanction if it isn’t publicized? A sanctioned person could, say, move from the southern US to northern Ontario and be hired by a small local rink.

 

[Tahuu]

And how will future employers know about the sanction if it isn’t publicized? A sanctioned person could, say, move from the southern US to northern Ontario and be hired by a small local rink.

The accused and the federation know he can't take any job in olympic sports covered by SafeSport. But he can skate and do for profit shows in a cruise ship, for example. Any violation will result in the publication of the sanction.

 

[overedge]

I didn't refuse to back up my claims. I told you how to confirm them yourself and you chose not to, and I explained to you that I did not think rumors should be part of a bio. In fact my assertions were in response to what someone else posted if you recall.

No, I don't recall that. You may have been responding to someone on my "ignore" list. But if you don't think that rumors should be part of a bio, then don't post the rumors here and spread them even further.

 

[mag]

The accused and the federation know he can't take any job in olympic sports covered by SafeSport. But he can skate and do for profit shows in a cruise ship, for example. Any violation will result in the publication of the sanction.

So again, how would a small rink in Northern Ontario know that someone had been sanctioned? How would the USFSA find out coach X was working in said small rink in Northern Ontario?

Also, what about sports not covered by Safe Sport? Do you not think parents putting there kids in after school programs have the right to know if their instructor is under investigation for sexual misconduct?

 

[skatfan]

Since the accused had been removed from his coaching position and publicly identified, why would anyone think he posed a threat to anyone? The only threat he apparently posed, in this instance, was to himself.

@aftershocks - the removal happened as part of the Safesport investigative process and the public listing that you seem to want have made more quiet. Until January 17th, the only thing that had impinged on his employment/leadership opportunities was the John Wilson gig. Let's review the timeline as I understand it.

mid-October - accuser #1 makes a claim to Safesport
mid-October to Dec 17th - initial investigation occurs
Dec 17th - John Coughlin's name appears on interim restrictions (with no real restrictions revealed - maybe he can't have direct contact with his accuser?). His employment/leadership continues with all organizations.
Sometime between Dec 17th and Jan 17th two new accusers make claims to Safesport (three accusers sourced by Brennan, the timing of the additional two by Phil Hersh). Investigation continues.
January 7th - 1st Brennan article that describes his interim restriction listing.
January 8th or so - John Wilson Blades gets (asks for?) resignation from John Coughlin
January 17th - Safesport increases the listing to Interim Suspension. US Figure Skating send out notification to its list about the suspension, ending during the interim period his ability to coach, lead seminars, any US Figure Skating or ISU Committee assignments

 

[overedge]

The accused and the federation know he can't take any job in olympic sports covered by SafeSport. But he can skate and do for profit shows in a cruise ship, for example. Any violation will result in the publication of the sanction.

I doubt the other cast members in a cruise ship show would want to perform alongside someone under investigation for misconduct in the sport. Why is it OK to potentially put them at risk?

 

[aftershocks]

You stated that here, unless you have an unusual definition of "should have".

Over and out.

I know what I said, so there's no need for you to show me what I said which you characterized as me 'preferring.' Once again, since I'm not involved, I am not in a position of 'preferring.' As an observer and a skating fan, I only stated what I feel, which is not a preference, but simply a sideline opinion which carries no weight whatsoever. I'm not holding any false notion that my opinions carry any weight surrounding this investigation, which SafeSport has already indicated they are abandoning in the aftermath of John Coughlin's death.

'Over and out' ditto.

 

[Prancer]

I read McMadam's use of "single" to mean "one" adult, not the individual's relationship status. She did not want to leave her child in the company of only one adult.

That's how I read it, too. And MacMadame is right--the person most likely to abuse your child is a friend or family member, someone you would never suspect. It's one of the things that gives you nightmares when you have children.

He can't and won't apply to any job in Olympic sports cos the sanction.

Okay; are we assuming that an alleged abuser (not John in particular) is no threat to anyone except those specifically in Olympic sports? Let's say that our alleged abuser resigns from a position in Olympic sports, but tells people that he resigned because, oh, he wanted a change of pace. Or he had an issue with management. People who like him will think nothing of this.

He will still have friends in sports, giving him access to them and their families. He will still be able to freely associate at will with people in his sport. If he is abusing someone who has not come forward, he will be able to continue to do so because no one has any reason to question it. He can get another job; he could become a personal trainer, a non-Olympic coach or any number of other things.