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".
"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".
Last edited by a moderator: