Coughlin's Safe Sport Status Changed to Interim Suspension

[her grace]

I thought the Daily Mail piece was fairly balanced. Coughlin's friend Kandis Kovalsky is quoted as saying,

"Unfortunately, the process Safe Sport follows by making an accusation public but with no details so as to provide some important distinguishing factors about what’s actually being investigated immediately led to so much misinformation being spread around, followed by a conviction in the court of public opinion.

'What happened in the world of gymnastics was an atrocity and a tragedy. I am supportive of investigations and following the evidence where it leads. If, here, that led to an unfavorable result for John, then I could live with that.

'What is so deeply troubling and now difficult to swallow is the fundamental unfairness of this process to accused like John in its nascent stages. A public post with no details, an indefinite timeline and essentially, a gag order. I strongly suggest that Safe Sport reconsider its process."

She raises a good point. If you all you put is "allegation of misconduct", then people will fill in the gaps in their minds. Some will go to "It must not have been that bad." Others will think, "He's a child rapist." I don't think the investigation would be undermined if SafeSport included a few more details, ex. "allegations of misconduct: bullying of minor", "allegations of misconduct: sexual assualt of minor" allegations of misconduct: "sexual misconduct involving an adult".

 

[rfisher]

Can we not speculate on who the alleged victims are?

I thought the Daily Mail piece was fairly balanced. Coughlin's friend Kandis Kovalsky is quoted as saying,



She raises a good point. If you all you put is "allegation of misconduct", then people will fill in the gaps in their minds. Some will go to "It must not have been that bad." Others will think, "He's a child rapist." I don't think the investigation would be undermined if SafeSport included a few more details, ex. "allegations of misconduct: bullying of minor", "allegations of misconduct: sexual assualt of minor" allegations of misconduct: "sexual misconduct involving an adult".

I think that would be a major violation of the privacy of those that reported the incident and to the individual being investigated. I can see multiple legal issues with them being that specific in the early stages of an investigation.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I agree that the accuser should have privacy and I worry for her having to face people at Nationals that are clearly emotional and blaming the victim. The fact that more cases came up tends to validate that she (whoever she is) was right to bring a complaint to Safe Sport.

 

[Rob]

Can we not speculate about the identity of the accusers.

Someone earlier in the thread said that if you believe rumors, one of the accusers is competing at Nationals. I think gkelly was asking who was spreading that rumor. But I agree, no need for identification or speculation regarding the accusers.

 

[ZilphaK]

People are quoting @gkelly but I didn't take her post to mean that she was wondering who the accuser was. She was responding to someone that was speculating that it was a senior pairs person. It was asked more in the line of why would we assume it was a pairs lady. Or at least that's how I took it.

I agree that the accuser should have privacy and I worry for her having to face people at Nationals that are clearly emotional and blaming the victim. The fact that more cases came up tends to validate that she (whoever she is) was right to bring a complaint to Safe Sport.

It came across as a rhetorical to me, too. Also, just seemed very unlike @gkelly to mean anything otherwise.

But yes, in general, no speculation on who. Oof. I know we're all better than that.

 

[rfisher]

And, unfortunately, for the individual, based on some of the skaters social medial messages, they already have speculated as to who they are, and apparently so do some of the officials. I really feel for them if they are indeed still a competitive skater.

 

[mikeko]

Dave Lease talking to Christine Brennan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCHOVoH8wgQ

I am never a fan of TSL, but found the interview very informative on how SafeSport works. It is an organization made to protect athletes from abuse after the gymnastic scandal, so they publish names of those accused even before the accusations are proven to be true because people wanted that way. Once the accused is dead, whether the accusation is true or not is no longer an issue because the accuser is safe now. They will only continue the investigation after the accused is dead, assuming the accusation is true, if there was a systemic problem, like whether someone knew but turned a blind eye to it.

 

[LarrySK8]

"DailyMail.com contacted TSL host David Lease, but he asked not to be quoted in this article."

Coward. Get a lawyer, Leese.

 

[BittyBug]

ISafeSport .... is an organization to protect athletes from abuse after the gymnastic scandal....

I believe that Safesport's formation preceded the gymnastics scandal, as USFS rolled it out in 2013. However, it is quite possible that Safesport may have modified it's protocols in response to the gymnastics situation.

 

[Andora]

"DailyMail.com contacted TSL host David Lease, but he asked not to be quoted in this article."

Coward. Get a lawyer, Leese.

Isn't the DailyMail called DailyFail for a reason? I wouldn't want to be quoted by them myself vs. other news outlets.

And if DL is such an attention whore/needs press for clicks, you'd think he'd be alllll over it, and yet...

 

[skatingguy]

I believe that Safesport's formation preceded the gymnastics scandal, as USFS rolled it out in 2013. However, it is quite possible that Safesport may have modified it's protocols in response to the gymnastics situation.

SafeSport was set up in 2017.

 

[BittyBug]

SafeSport was set up in 2017.

I don't know the evolution of the national organization but I do know that I have an email in my inbox dated July 3, 2103 with the subject "Join us for 'U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Program' that says:

Please join us Thursday, July 11 at 8 p.m. EST for part one of a two-part Webinar series on the new U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Program, presented by SafeSport subcommittee chair, Karen Terry Perreault. The presentation will cover the carefully defined policies prohibiting various forms of abuse and misconduct including sexual, physical and emotional abuse, as well as bullying, harassment and hazing. Various athlete protection policies and guidelines will also be addressed, such as proper supervision, travel, locker room usage, social media and codes of conduct intended to reduce the risk of potential abuse and misconduct and provide specific guidelines on how and when to report abuse.
For information regarding the new SafeSport Program, please refer to www.usfigureskating.org/safesport or email [email protected]
This Webinar will be recorded and posted in the Member’s Only section of usfigureskating.org.

I remember going through the program and I also remember being involved in complaints submitted through the SafeSport program long before 2017.

 

[skatingguy]

I don't know the evolution of the national organization but I do know that I have an email in my inbox dated July 3, 2103 with the subject "Join us for 'U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Program' that says:


I remember going through the program and I also remember being involved in complaints submitted through the SafeSport program long before 2017.

Sorry, it's splitting hairs, so the SafeSport program was started in 2012 by the USOC, and it was launched as an independent organization in March of 2017.

 

[BittyBug]

That makes sense. I just knew it was around well before 2017.

 

[Amantide]

Once the accused is dead, whether the accusation is true or not is no longer an issue because the accuser is safe now. They will only continue the investigation after the accused is dead, assuming the accusation is true, if there was a systemic problem, like whether someone knew but turned a blind eye to it.

I commented on the video because I'm not clear on one thing. What if the family of John Coughlin wants to pursue this, regardless of "who else knew", in order to clean his name.
Do we know what happens in that case? Are they obligated to follow this?

 

[rfisher]

I commented on the video because I'm not clear on one thing. What if the family of John Coughlin wants to pursue this, regardless of "who else knew", in order to clean his name.
Do we know what happens in that case? Are they obligated to follow this?

I don't think so since Safesport's mandate is to protect those who made the allegations. They do clearly state that any unsubstantiated report would face a fine and potential prosecution to avoid false claims. The issue would be the privacy of the people who made the allegation, especially if they are minors. Safesport would not release any information.

 

[Scrufflet]

Oh dear. Now everybody’s going to wonder who, among the ladies competing here, is “the one.”

Deleted reference to specific discipline.

In that case, I hope he hugs every woman in the place.

 

[CaliSteve]

I don't think so since Safesport's mandate is to protect those who made the allegations. They do clearly state that any unsubstantiated report would face a fine and potential prosecution to avoid false claims. The issue would be the privacy of the people who made the allegation, especially if they are minors. Safesport would not release any information.

But its still unclear if SafeSport would continue the investigation if there was a formal request to do so.

 

[rustymuffins]

"DailyMail.com contacted TSL host David Lease, but he asked not to be quoted in this article."

Coward. Get a lawyer, Leese.

Posting a screenshot from a public website isn't illegal. This has been established many times over.

 

[Amantide]

I don't think so since Safesport's mandate is to protect those who made the allegations. They do clearly state that any unsubstantiated report would face a fine and potential prosecution to avoid false claims. The issue would be the privacy of the people who made the allegation, especially if they are minors. Safesport would not release any information.

Hummm...I understand and support their mandate. On the other hand, I understand also the family wishes to clear his name, if they want to pursue the case. Tricky situation...sigh!

 

[rfisher]

Hummm...I understand and support their mandate. On the other hand, I understand also the family wishes to clear his name, if they want to pursue the case. Tricky situation...sigh!

Family could do whatever they wanted, but SafeSport would not be obligated to release any information to them and in fact would be prevented from doing so unless there were a criminal case.

 

[Perky Shae Lynn]

Posting a screenshot from a public website isn't illegal. This has been established many times over.

Doubt the poster meant it was illegal. Probably that the family might file a civil suit. Not that they have a leg to stand on.

 

[rustymuffins]

Doubt the poster meant it was illegal. Probably that the family might file a civil suit. Not that they have a leg to stand on.

Every lawyer would tell them they don't have a case. There's not going to be a civil suit, unless the family wants to bankrupt themselves. The original lawyer comment was unnecessary and misleading.

 

[Perky Shae Lynn]

Every lawyer would tell them they don't have a case. There's not going to be a civil suit, unless the family wants to bankrupt themselves. The original lawyer comment was unnecessary and misleading.

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[ZilphaK]

So, in another recent story that turned the court of social media toward accusations, doxing and threats of harm, turns out the full 1:48 video of the kids in DC show an almost entirely contradictory story from the one first reported. Won't go into details, but major news outlets are retracting/amending much of what they reported. (I did watch the entire 1:48 video, and can pretty much attest that the retractions are merited.)

That said, the teen whose photo has been splashed worldwide is still facing threats to himself and his family. Because some people just suck.

This whole fiasco would hopefully be instructive to folks-at-large when it comes to giving lots and lots of time for facts and news to come out in ongoing situations, sitting on their hands, and not taking to measuring lengths of rope for anyone, accused or accuser. And frankly, once the facts do come out, still sitting on their fingers when any temptation arises to dox or threaten someone or just be plain nasty.

However, my guess is that outrage just feels too good, and social media knows that outrage = clicks = $$$. Not that there aren't some situations to be outraged about, to do something about. But as a parent, it's a hard lesson to teach my kids -- to take time, to approach with a critical mind, to seek out reliable sources, to ask questions and listen, even when the situation seems to merit immediate response, like sending cash to help at a natural disaster.

And really, if I were queen, I'd somehow make people much more responsible for their online crap behavior.

 

[Amantide]

Family could do whatever they wanted, but SafeSport would not be obligated to release any information to them and in fact would be prevented from doing so unless there were a criminal case.

Yeah I get that. I'm just thinking outloud because I find this a bit messy and "unfair".

 

[Erin]

Sorry, it's splitting hairs, so the SafeSport program was started in 2012 by the USOC, and it was launched as an independent organization in March of 2017.

Although since SafeSport gets its funding from the USOC, it’s not truly independent (in contrast to USADA, which is funded independently from Congress).

 

[PRlady]

So, in another recent story that turned the court of social media toward accusations, doxing and threats of harm, turns out the full 1:48 video of the kids in DC show an almost entirely contradictory story from the one first reported. Won't go into details, but major news outlets are retracting/amending much of what they reported. (I did watch the entire 1:48 video, and can pretty much attest that the retractions are merited.)

That said, the teen whose photo has been splashed worldwide is still facing threats to himself and his family. Because some people just suck.

This whole fiasco would hopefully be instructive to folks-at-large when it comes to giving lots and lots of time for facts and news to come out in ongoing situations, sitting on their hands, and not taking to measuring lengths of rope for anyone, accused or accuser. And frankly, once the facts do come out, still sitting on their fingers when any temptation arises to dox or threaten someone or just be plain nasty.

However, my guess is that outrage just feels too good, and social media knows that outrage = clicks = $$$. Not that there aren't some situations to be outraged about, to do something about. But as a parent, it's a hard lesson to teach my kids -- to take time, to approach with a critical mind, to seek out reliable sources, to ask questions and listen, even when the situation seems to merit immediate response, like sending cash to help at a natural disaster.

And really, if I were queen, I'd somehow make people much more responsible for their online crap behavior.

The original coverage was one-sided but the students aren’t blameless: https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...78f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html

On the larger issue, nothing can be done about immediate media coverage of complex stories. Journalism is on-deadline news. No newspaper is going to hold a story that meets journalistic standards until all the facts come out months later.

 

[dee342]

Every lawyer would tell them they don't have a case. There's not going to be a civil suit, unless the family wants to bankrupt themselves. The original lawyer comment was unnecessary and misleading.

Not to mention that every aspect of the case would be subjected to the discovery process.

 

[CaliSteve]

I thought the Daily Mail piece was fairly balanced. Coughlin's friend Kandis Kovalsky is quoted as saying,



She raises a good point. If you all you put is "allegation of misconduct", then people will fill in the gaps in their minds. Some will go to "It must not have been that bad." Others will think, "He's a child rapist." I don't think the investigation would be undermined if SafeSport included a few more details, ex. "allegations of misconduct: bullying of minor", "allegations of misconduct: sexual assualt of minor" allegations of misconduct: "sexual misconduct involving an adult".

Its not the process, which is a result of mandates, but its the reactions and assumptions of people. You cant develop an investigative process based on what people may or may not think.