John Coughlin has died

[dots]

I believe that the accused has a right to anonymity while the investigation is taking place.

Why ?

Normal cases are public. If you and I were to be investigated for misconduct, our names would be public. Bet on it. Reporting on what is happening is not denying John Coughlin due process. It's passing down information that we can choose to access if we want to. And why shouldn't we want to?

Trump's problem is not that people were not aware about his sexual misconduct. The problem is that not enough people cared because misogyny is that strong in the United States.

 

[alice73]

Why ?

Normal cases are public. If you and I were to be investigated for misconduct, our names would be public. Bet on it. Reporting on what is happening is not denying John Coughlin due process. It's passing down information that we can choose to access if we want to. And why shouldn't we want to?

Trump's problem is not that people were not aware about his sexual misconduct. The problem is that not enough people cared because misogyny is that strong in the United States.

I was talking about Bill Clinton.

 

[PRlady]

I’ve never worked for an organization that managed to keep its HR issues confidential, especially if they involved sexual harassment. Someone always knows and someone always talks. I have a former colleague who’s been out of work for several years despite his enormous talent at the job, because he resigned rather than go through the investigation process. His accuser, a woman, then was promoted to his job. I and others had lots of doubts about how this went down but our opinions were not solicited.

This is just by way of saying that there’s no such thing as a perfect objective process that always arrives at the truth, even when all involved are adults and HR procedures are followed.

 

[carriecmu0503]

It's not slander or libel to state that someone is suspended or under investigation. Those are facts. You can't sue an organization for stating facts.

And if you think that publicizing someone's suspension is dragging their name through the mud -look at how much it has cost the University of Michigan for *not* letting people know that one of their employees was being investigated for alleged inappropriate behaviour.

A) Can you at least bother to cite the correct school? Such misinformation contributes to rumor spreading and destroying lives.
B) You cannot compare the John Coughlin case to what happened with Larry Nassar. There was evidence of wrong doing that was ignored for 30 years in that case, with hundreds of survivors. Absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing on the part of John Coughlin has been reported. To drag his name through the mud with no evidence is terrible. Even if he was found innocent, he would still be guilty in the court of public opinion. What if it was found he actually did not do anything wrong? Do you really think he would get his job as brand manager back with John Wilson Blades? Do you really think he would be restored to all his committees with USFS and ISU? Do you really think his coaching career would be unaffected? I highly doubt it, and now a young man is dead.

You do not even know what he was being investigated for. It is WRONG to drag someone through the mud without making sure there is a substantiated claim first. Again, any person can make any complaint at any time. Should we trash the life of every single accused person without knowing if they even did anything wrong? We have no idea if SafeSport acted appropriately. We do not even know the professional qualifications of the people at SafeSport who are doing the investigations. John Coughlin had a muzzle put on him, and was not allowed by SafeSport to comment on the case. He was not even given the chance to give his side or the opportunity to defend himself.

 

[babayaga]

That is a perfectly good position to take as long as you don't make the mistake of declaring the accusations against him, from whoever they come from, not worthy of being investigate.

The accuser/s deserve to have their stories investigated.

I don't understand who you are directing your posts to since before your messages there was not a single poster shaming the accusers or claiming that reports should not be investigated. People expressed very different thoughts and suggestions than those things you wrote.

 

[carriecmu0503]

Why ?

Normal cases are public. If you and I were to be investigated for misconduct, our names would be public. Bet on it. Reporting on what is happening is not denying John Coughlin due process. It's passing down information that we can choose to access if we want to. And why shouldn't we want to?

Trump's problem is not that people were not aware about his sexual misconduct. The problem is that not enough people cared because misogyny is that strong in the United States.

A "normal case" is not brought to trial until there is substantial evidence to support the claims. In the Coughlin case, his name has been reported and dragged through the mud, and we do not even know what he has been accused of, let alone if the case is substantiated. SafeSport has no transparency in their operation, and we do not even know the professional qualifications of those doing the investigating at SafeSport. John also was not allowed to say his side of the story or given a chance to defend himself. This would not happen in a normal case. There is so much wrong with this situation, and now a young man is dead. We still do not know if he even did anything wrong.

 

[Prancer]

This would not happen in a normal case.

Yes, it often would. It happens all the time.

 

[VGThuy]

I was talking about Bill Clinton.

You don't think people were talking about it, making all kinds of assumptions before they knew all the details, and were calling for his head with his name dragged through the mud? People still are doing it as they see red when the name "Clinton" comes up for them. It was also 20 years ago and our standards are different as our attitudes have changed towards sexual assault. However, it hasn't changed that much. We have sitting President and two Supreme Court Justices who were also centered on a very public sexual assault scandals with tons of talking heads going on about it for weeks (months) and people were and are still talking about it and debating it online. They all continued to have their jobs. So no double standard. I hate to say it because it may seem insensitive, but Coughlin could have ridden the wave and continued on as other men have unless he felt what would have come out in public would have been too much. It's sad that he felt suicide was his only option and I am saddened for his loved ones and those who knew him and liked/loved him. But suicide is complicated and many factors drive people to it.

 

[wickedwitch]

Is there any chance we could keep this thread about mourning John for those of us who want to do that? There's another thread for the other aspect.

 

[princeton123]

If SafeSport found enough preliminary evidence to restrict him as they conducted a more thorough investigation, then parents and the community had a right to know. This information wasn't 'leaked'. His name went up on the SafeSport website per protocol.

 

[Prancer]

Is there any chance we could keep this thread about mourning John for those of us who want to do that? There's another thread for the other aspect.

That is an excellent idea.

 

[attyfan]

Is it feasible to try to limit the dissemination of information? It is one thing for SafeSport to put an accused on interim suspension; it is another thing to spread the news nationwide. John's friends and family are in my prayers over this tragedy, but i wish I knew how these things could be prevented.

 

[carriecmu0503]

"Due process" means conducting a full investigation and giving both sides the opportunity to state their case, and to respond to each other's position. Suspending someone's professional license while they're being investigated doesn't violate due process. That person still has the right to state their position and to give evidence, and to respond to the evidence against them.

Except for John was not afforded that opportunity. He was told, while the investigation was ongoing, that he was not allowed to comment on the case. Therefore, he was given no opportunity to share his perspective or to defend himself. That is just wrong on so many levels. I see cases on the Safe Sport website that have been pending for almost a year, with people suspended for that long. Exactly how is this right? In the US legal system, a fundamental right for the accused is a speedy trial. How was John supposed to make a living if he cannot work for a year or more while Safe Sport drags its feet with its investigation?

 

[dots]

Skating culture is very misogynistic, especially for a sport that has such a massive female following. In fact, not naming people, I would say certain females coaches are enablers.

Regardless of what becomes of these investigations. Let's hope, at the very least, some good changes are in order.

 

[VGThuy]

In the US legal system, a fundamental right for the accused is a speedy trial.

A lot of trials don't even take place for a year or two depending on certain factors. People who face charges are also subject to losing their jobs in the meantime. It happens all of the time.

 

[overedge]

Except for John was not afforded that opportunity. He was told, while the investigation was ongoing, that he was not allowed to comment on the case. Therefore, he was given no opportunity to share his perspective or to defend himself. That is just wrong on so many levels. I see cases on the Safe Sport website that have been pending for almost a year, with people suspended for that long. Exactly how is this right? In the US legal system, a fundamental right for the accused is a speedy trial. How was John supposed to make a living if he cannot work for a year or more while Safe Sport drags its feet with its investigation?

A speedy trial is not a fair trial. In complex cases, like these usually are, it takes time to collect all the evidence and fully assess it. And unless I've missed something, SafeSport does not have the power to tell people not to speak publicly about cases.

 

[carriecmu0503]

A speedy trial is not a fair trial. In complex cases, like these usually are, it takes time to collect all the evidence and fully assess it. And unless I've missed something, SafeSport does not have the power to tell people not to speak publicly about cases.

John Coughlin was quoted as saying he was not allowed to speak to the case.

"While I wish I could speak freely about the unfounded allegations levied against me, the SafeSport rules prevent me from doing so since the case remains pending," he said. "I note only that the SafeSport notice of allegation itself stated that an allegation in no way constitutes a finding by SafeSport or that there is any merit to the allegation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ohn-coughlin-restricted-safesport/2506060002/

 

[TallyT]

He certainly could and did comment on the case, stated flatly that the accusations were unfounded. "Speaking freely" pretty well has to mean actually giving out identifying information about the children/minors involved (which would not be allowed in any decent organisation dealing with children, I would hope) so I'm not sure much more could be said. And did he specifically say Sportsafe forbade him to comment? (that statement could just as easily have meant his lawyers told him not to, which again is no proof of guilt, just good advice)

 

[VGThuy]

Alex Naddour spoke and maintained his innocence. He couldn't speak about the specifics of the case. Plus, if anything, it didn't mean Coughlin wouldn't have been able to speak at a later time. As TallyT said, he did speak and said they were unfounded. I'm suspecting this is like people's first exposure to the experience of ANYONE who finds themselves as a defendant of any crime or it's the first time they care because it involved someone they have some personal experience with (not personally knowing him but knowing of him and watching him skate).

 

[carriecmu0503]

A lot of trials don't even take place for a year or two depending on certain factors. People who face charges are also subject to losing their jobs in the meantime. It happens all of the time.

So that makes it okay? For people who might be innocent to lose their jobs, livelihoods, and even their lives?

 

[dots]

Except for John was not afforded that opportunity. He was told, while the investigation was ongoing, that he was not allowed to comment on the case.

Who told him he was not legally able to state his case publicly?

Even if his case had been referred for a criminal investigation ( we don't know with certainty) he can still state his innocence. Unless a judge gagged him, there are very few things that could prevent him from having his due process. Which he had and was going to have.

 

[carriecmu0503]

He certainly could and did comment on the case, stated flatly that the accusations were unfounded. "Speaking freely" pretty well has to mean actually giving out identifying information about the children/minors involved (which would not be allowed in any decent jurisdiction dealing with children, I would hope) so I'm not sure much more could be said. And did he specifically say Sportsafe forbade him to comment? (that statement could just as easily have meant his lawyers told him not to, which again is no proof of guilt, just good advice)

It CLEARLY said Safe Sport rules prevented him from speaking about the case. He was not even allowed to say what he has been accused of. This is just plain wrong.

 

[VGThuy]

So that makes it okay? For people who might be innocent to lose their jobs, livelihoods, and even their lives?

My answer is that due to factors involving the timeline it takes to gather evidence, it can take that long. I was only clarifying a statement you made that wasn't accurate. You made it seem like Coughlin was going through something highly unusual and it's not. My question for a lot of people is that we allowed things to happen all throughout the country to thousands of people a year, but nobody cared or just think that's the system. Now that it comes to sexual assault and someone you sort of know because you watched him skate, you act surprised. I only have issue with people think he had worse treatment than most people who find themselves accused of committing a serious crime. It's on par.

 

[babayaga]

Incredibly nuanced take by Mervin. This is a difficult situation all around.

I still have sympathy for those who don't see a way out besides suicide. But it causes so much pain and suffering for their loved ones, so I can't support it.

People who take their lives are usually in such (emotional in this case) pain, that they are ready for anything to make it stop. They can't handle it, it's unbearable. It doesn't have to be about a way out. There could have been an underlying depression that nobody knew about and the accusation (true or not, could have been either) could have been a trigger.

People developed physical pain killers, but not emotional. Emotional pain can be excruciating.

 

[dots]

It CLEARLY said Safe Sport rules prevented him from speaking about the case. He was not even allowed to say what he has been accused of. This is just plain wrong.

Safesports does not have criminal jurisdiction. They have no legal way to censor you. You can even take them to court if they retaliate against you. I understand the politics behind it, but Safesport and no one was going to deny him due process.

I do, however, agree that Safesport needs to change their transparency rules. People are not stupid, people have eyes and ears and they repeat what they hear. Exhibit one: FSU.

I rest my case.

 

[carriecmu0503]

My answer is that due to factors involving the timeline it takes to gather evidence, it can take that long. I was only clarifying a statement you made that wasn't accurate. You made it seem like Coughlin was going through something highly unusual and it's not. My question for a lot of people is that we allowed things to happen all throughout the country to thousands of people a year, but nobody cared or just think that's the system. Now that it comes to sexual assault and someone you sort of know because you watched him skate, you act surprised. I only have issue with people think he had worse treatment than most people who find themselves accused of committing a serious crime. It's on par.

A) Why are you stating that this case is about sexual assault? We have NO idea that that is what he was accused of.
B) Why are you making any kind of assumptions about whether I have any kind of relationship with John when you do not know me?

 

[puglover]

Unfortunately, not too much seems to be known about the process and procedures of SafeSport. It seems much better to me that it is an independent body that initially considers these allegations as opposed to committees made up of people of influence in the particular sport. Dave L. just interviewed a former skater on his podcast who claims to have been interviewed regarding these allegations back the middle of October. She goes into some detail about the process but it would be much more helpful if it came from an official SafeSport source. I am not talking specifics about this case, but, in general, how much investigation goes into raising a complaint to this level. Also, whether it was officially reported or not, wouldn't rumor and innuendo be more of a problem for a coach and U.S.F.A. He was a very well known personality who wore many hats in skating, if he just dropped out right before nationals, wouldn't a lot of questions be asked?

 

[VGThuy]

A) Why are you stating that this case is about sexual assault? We have NO idea that that is what he was accused of.
B) What are you making any kind of assumptions about my relationship with John when you do not know me?

It's true we have no idea. But I find people have already adopted it and I observed people really care about due process for the accused when it comes to sexual assault crimes much more so than any other and they get really bent out of shape about it. Regarding your relationship with Coughlin, the only assumption I made about you is that you at least knew of John Coughlin which is a safe assumption since anybody posting in this thread knew of him as a skater.

I'm just going to make one last statement as I know emotions are high and I don't want to continue posting in it as I already have crossed the boundaries of sensitivity. I only posted because I saw so many posts not really understanding what due process is, what it affords people, and how it works in real life. I hope if people feel John Coughlin faced some sort of injustice, that they feel compelled to educate themselves more on the subject of criminal justice reform and learn how people in the United States everywhere and every year face injustice through our system. Study how it affects people of certain backgrounds and who fit certain descriptors disproportionately. Learn about our overworked criminal justice system and how our adversarial system undermines the search for truth. Then if you're so inclined, read about how our trial system can be very faulty and can result in wrongful convictions based on dubious evidence and look statistically who it has overwhelmingly affected in terms of race and ethnicity.

While doing that, don't lose sight about studying facts about sexual assault crimes and why there has been a movement advocating for survivors due to the history of silence. Find out about why sexual assault crimes suffer historical severe underreporting, how law enforcement agencies fail to serve the accusers well and undermine and harm the investigations leading to the accusers being the accused and vilified and denied justice as well.

Then we can start to understand why these two conflicting issues crash into each other and make a lot of us feel very conflicted about how to best serve the needs of the accused and the accusers. Again, we don't know if Coughlin was accused of sexual misconduct, but it seems clear by people's posts that this is what we're really reacting to.

 

[dots]

Also, whether it was officially reported or not, wouldn't rumor and innuendo be more of a problem for a coach and U.S.F.A. He was a very well known personality who wore many hats in skating, if he just dropped out right before nationals, wouldn't a lot of questions be asked?

This is to me is the biggest problem with this whole case. I don't think this is the inability of a sport's organization, but the absolute arrogance from the USFSA. They believe that if they stay quiet it will make any scandal go away. Just go to their website and see how hard it is to find any information about this case.

I do commend TSl for giving us, until someone else comes with better reporting, the best description of the inner workings of Safesport we have to date.

 

[babayaga]

This is to me is the biggest problem with this whole case. I don't think this is the inability of a sport's organization, but the absolute arrogance from the USFSA. They believe that if they stay quiet it will make any scandal go away. Just go to their website and see how hard it is to find any information about this case.

I do commend TSl for giving us, until someone else comes with better reporting, the best description of the inner workings of Safesport we have to date.

I would like to join some previous requests about taking the discussion about safesport and TSL to the initial thread.