Keeping Track of Criminal Cases & SafeSport Suspensions in Skating

Aussie Willy said:
She wasn't a minor in the sport at the time of the incident which is what Safe Sport and the National Integrity Framework would be dealing with.
Click to expand...

The Center has discretionary jurisdiction to investigate and resolve allegations that a Participant engaged in one or more of the following:
1. Non-sexual Child Abuse;
2. Emotional and physical misconduct, including stalking, bullying behaviors, hazing, and harassment;
3. Criminal Charges or Dispositions not involving Child Abuse or Sexual Misconduct;
4. Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy or other similar Proactive Policy violations;
5. Misconduct Related to Aiding and Abetting, Abuse of Process, or Retaliation, when it relates to the processes of the USOPC, an NGB, an LAO, or any other organization under the Center’s jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
As I read the Code, the Center has discretionary jurisdiction to investigate and resolve the kind of allegations Gracie Gold made but is not obligated to do so.
 
Australia's National Integrity Framework info was posted earlier in this thread:
Aussie Willy said:
Australia falls under the National Integrity Framework which covers all sporting organisations in Australia. ISA has signed up to the framework and has policies in line with this. I can tell you this is taken very seriously.

National Integrity Framework | Sport Integrity Australia

Australia has a world-first process to deal with sport integrity issues. The National Integrity Framework sets rules for members of a sport to follow.
www.sportintegrity.gov.au www.sportintegrity.gov.au

It is worth reading the home page of the website, particularly why the framework was developed. It was actually prompted by the US gymnastics case.

Someone asked about an investigation in Australia in relation to this. I daresay there would be no investigation here but the various organisations would take on board any decision that happens in the US given the seriousness of the case.
Click to expand...
 
Certainly it sounds like the case with the 17-year-old violated SafeSport on many levels. It also sounds like there were many reliable witnesses and likely things like text messages to back the case up.

The problem with Gracie's case - and as I mentioned, this is a common problem in this sort of case - is the evidence. Witnesses at parties are not necessarily reliable or paying exact attention to what's happening. There's usually a "he said/she said" aspect. We know Gracie likely had someone in her corner saying she told them what happened immediately after, but Brandon could've had someone else backing him up. There may not be text messages if the two parties were strangers - or at least not texts about the incident in question. And the kiss? Who know if there were witnesses or texts.

So while I believe Gracie, being a woman who's seen and heard about many similar cases, I know why SafeSport focused on the other case. Even places with a lot more resources than SafeSport routinely fail to find justice for those victims.
 
Unless she said it elsewhere, in her book she didn't tell anyone immediately, because she felt responsible by drinking. She told her sister sometime afterwards. (She wasn't specific about when.) The only other people she writes about telling were a therapist in rehab, who encouraged her to report it, to Mitch Moyer while reporting it, and, a few years later, to the SafeSport investigator who fangirlled her first. She doesn't say anything about writing it all in her journal, but rather that she swallowed it and tried, as the great Canadian-born ballerina Lynn Seymour named one of the chapters in her memoir, "Pulling Up the Old Socks." She doesn't say whether or not she told eventually told Coughlin, but that would have been post-rehab.

In their line of work, SafeSport investigators would expect inconsistent accounts, because of the nature of the reports and traumatized reporters, who've sometimes have years of additional mental and emotional churn waiting to be contacted, compounding trauma. Ultimately, they're looking for a case that won't be appealed or won't be overturned on appeal: it's not simply a matter that they think someone is lying because they haven't taken a case further. Not having credible witnesses from two or more years before, where there were a lot of parties in the meantime, does not make an airtight case. And from the outside, since she was being evasive rather than confrontational, the witnesses might point to obnoxious behavior, but they weren't there to witness or film either assault.
 
MacMadame said:
I would say it's advice from their lawyer.
Click to expand...

Which means they are choosing not to make certain statements because it is advantageous to them. She implies they're being silenced. :rolleyes:

Aussie Willy said:
She wasn't a minor in the sport at the time of the incident which is what Safe Sport and the National Integrity Framework would be dealing with. It would then be a criminal case that would be dealt with by the police. And unfortunately so many sexual assault cases become "he said she said" and are difficult to prove.

Look how much it took to get Weinstein and Epstein convicted, regardless of how many women came forward. And you have someone running for US president who regardless of having a finding against him of rape against him is still a front runner.

#Metoo has been incredibly important in helping getting sexual assault taken seriously but there are still too many issues regarding the application and perception in society generally which is why women don't come forward. I still hear even women say "well why did she get herself into that situation" when it comes to the victim.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused about why it is that Gracie's case wasn't enough. I just think that it's a sad state that he easily could have gotten away with raping Gracie if he hadn't also had a 17 year old victim. I don't think Gracie reporting to the police would have gotten her anywhere, either. Look at Brock Turner.
 
Theatregirl1122 said:
What, precisely, is preventing her and Brendan from “having a voice”?
Click to expand...

And what is the likelihood that the two separate incidents that were reported, by two different complainants, were both independently made up? "He didn't do it" doesn't seem like an entirely feasible response in this situation.

I sincerely hope that "clearing his name" involves him acknowledging the problems he seems to have, and getting help for those problems.
 
Monica Macdonald’s statement “I really don’t give a shit what people want to say, what people want to think”

is a very poor and aggressive response that lacks any empathy to such serious allegations and also doesn’t do anything to help Brendan right now and shows no respect for a necessary process. Coming from someone who has such a high profile in Australian skating shows poor judgement in my opinion.

I understand as a Mother her desire to defend and care for her Son no matter what…but didn’t he admit to the charges against claimant 1, with the caveat that he didn’t realise she was too young to consent? Now his position is he didn't do it.

“ sanctioning me for alleged violations that I did not commit," Kerry said in a statement.
 
Theatregirl1122 said:
Which means they are choosing not to make certain statements because it is advantageous to them. She implies they're being silenced. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course. It's step one in the Accused Playbook. Coughlin did the same and so have other accused related and not related to skating.

can'tsk8 said:
“ sanctioning me for alleged violations that I did not commit," Kerry said in a statement.
Click to expand...
That could still be "I didn't know she wasn't old enough to consent according to SafeSportand she's of age in CA so it wasn't a violation." He didn't say "I did not have sex with that woman" to quote a famous politician.
 
can'tsk8 said:
Monica Macdonald’s statement “I really don’t give a shit what people want to say, what people want to think”

is a very poor and aggressive response that lacks any empathy to such serious allegations and also doesn’t do anything to help Brendan right now and shows no respect for a necessary process. Coming from someone who has such a high profile in Australian skating shows poor judgement in my opinion.

I understand as a Mother her desire to defend and care for her Son no matter what…but didn’t he admit to the charges against claimant 1, with the caveat that he didn’t realise she was too young to consent? Now his position is he didn't do it.

“ sanctioning me for alleged violations that I did not commit," Kerry said in a statement.
Click to expand...
Reading her response is disturbing. I get that a mother wants to believe her son, she knows him differently and can´t imagine her own child doing something criminal, but that way she goes all in protection mode and makes it seem like the end of a world for her family and her almost 30 year old son who needs to move home because of this news (which obviously he knew about the allegations before so it can´t be the biggest shock), it feels over the top and dramatic. And she is so quick to believe her son and go to conclusion without hearing both sides and try to see the rational sides here. For instance: Would a mother ever able to know that her son was a rapist? And like you said, the rapports come from two different persons, that should give you a clue?

And the whole part about "we could have said a lot but we won´t", well she for sure said a lot already with this interview, painting a picture of that they are innocent people that life has been destroyed and that they are the victims. She doesn´t need to say more because it´s obvious she is convinced that the allegations are not true.
 
I don’t have a biological son but I’ve had two stepsons in two different marriages. First husband and I did not take the side of teenaged son who got in trouble (not rape thank god but property crime) and were ok with his short time in jail. He never got in trouble again.

That said, in a crime where victim and perp completely differ, I’m not sure I wouldn’t give my son the benefit of the doubt. I’d be more careful publicly but she obviously didn’t sent care for the feelings of the victims.
 
I have a feeling that Kerry and his mother do not understand the standard of review at this new arbitration. It is apparently de novo, which means that arbitrator will be deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case. That does not however, mean that Kerry can change his testimony without consequences. Any prior admissions he made, such as that he did have sex with the complainant, can be used against him.
 
Monica Macdonald has every right to believe and support her son and I don't blame her for that one bit. But she's also got a duty to all the other skaters she was serving until a few days ago. And her public rant about rape accusations ruining the lives of a nice young man and his family sends a clear message to anyone abused by members of the Federation hierarchy - 'we will destroy you to protect our own.'
 
skateblessing said:
Reading her response is disturbing. I get that a mother wants to believe her son, she knows him differently and can´t imagine her own child doing something criminal, but that way she goes all in protection mode and makes it seem like the end of a world for her family and her almost 30 year old son who needs to move home because of this news (which obviously he knew about the allegations before so it can´t be the biggest shock), it feels over the top and dramatic. And she is so quick to believe her son and go to conclusion without hearing both sides and try to see the rational sides here. For instance: Would a mother ever able to know that her son was a rapist? And like you said, the rapports come from two different persons, that should give you a clue?

And the whole part about "we could have said a lot but we won´t", well she for sure said a lot already with this interview, painting a picture of that they are innocent people that life has been destroyed and that they are the victims. She doesn´t need to say more because it´s obvious she is convinced that the allegations are not true.
Click to expand...
Yes this interview and her attitude did him no favours. I get she is defending her son, but this is not the way to do it.

Putting aside his guilt or innocence. As a coach in Oz he has to disclose any ongoing investigations.

I’m guessing he did not disclose the SafeSport investigation to the coaches body.

I’m also not sure how he got a working with kids clearance from the government because they ask if you have any current investigation going on about you, I had to get one for my partime after Uni job. (can’t remember the exact words on the form)

I vaguely remember Brendan going to Russia to train around the time of the allegations.
 
Mezzy09 said:
Yes this interview and her attitude did him no favours. I get she is defending her son, but this is not the way to do it.

Putting aside his guilt or innocence. As a coach in Oz he has to disclose any ongoing investigations.

I’m guessing he did not disclose the SafeSport investigation to the coaches body.

I’m also not sure how he got a working with kids clearance from the government because they ask if you have any current investigation going on about you, I had to get one for my partime after Uni job. (can’t remember the exact words on the form)

I vaguely remember Brendan going to Russia to train around the time of the allegations.
Click to expand...
regarding working with children’s card - at least in my state it just gets processed online and I believe checks your criminal record only.
 
leilaofpaper said:
regarding working with children’s card - at least in my state it just gets processed online and I believe checks your criminal record only.
Click to expand...
I have to maintain my SafeSport certification every year or I lose my Race Director status with USA Triathlon. I don't know if other sporting federations do that but they should. i.e., you can't be a NGB coach if you don't have the certificate, can't be an official, etc. I wish they'd even do it for volunteers but that is much harder to enforce and makes it harder to get volunteers.
 
All USFS coaches are required to have a SafeSport certification - background check and completion of an online course. I believe it is also a requirement for club board members to complete the SafeSport certification process (or maybe just "highly recommended" but I know my club board members all do it).
 
A background check isn't going to reveal something like a SafeSport investigation in process, if there isn't any publicly posted action like a temporary suspension or other restriction.

Because of confidentiality etc I don't think SafeSport would confirm that it received complaints about someone or was investigating them, if someone conducting a background check asked specifically about that person.
 
leilaofpaper said:
regarding working with children’s card - at least in my state it just gets processed online and I believe checks your criminal record only.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure it’s your entire history even allegations. Regardless the coaches in Australia need to disclose any allegations when they sign their paperwork. It’s on the form.
 
I am surprised that USFS or SafeSport didn't tell [or didn't enter some sort of information sharing arrangement with all federations to tell] ISA that their then-current coach was being investigated for [underage] rape. I am also surpised that a then-current coach was not obliged to tell ISA about the fact that he was the subject of an investigation by a foreign body for such proximate allegations as his then-current coaching job.

If my teenage daughters were learning skating, wherever they were, I would like them to NOT take lessons from someone who was being investigated for [underage] rape (wherever it allegedly happened), or in any event I should have full knowledge to make an informed decision.
 
Marco said:
I am surprised that USFS or SafeSport didn't tell [or didn't enter some sort of information sharing arrangement with all federations to tell] ISA that their then-current coach was being investigated for [underage] rape.
Click to expand...
Inasmuch as SafeSport does not generally publicize the names of people who are the subject of an ongoing investigation, why are you surprised?
Marco said:
I am also surpised that a then-current coach was not obliged to tell ISA about the fact that he was the subject of an investigation by a foreign body for such proximate allegations as his then-current coaching job.
Click to expand...
According to at least one poster in this thread, Kerry, as a coach, was required to tell ISA exactly that. And yet he evidently did not do so.
 
Marco said:
I am surprised that USFS or SafeSport didn't tell [or didn't enter some sort of information sharing arrangement with all federations to tell] ISA that their then-current coach was being investigated for [underage] rape. I am also surpised that a then-current coach was not obliged to tell ISA about the fact that he was the subject of an investigation by a foreign body for such proximate allegations as his then-current coaching job.

If my teenage daughters were learning skating, wherever they were, I would like them to NOT take lessons from someone who was being investigated for [underage] rape (wherever it allegedly happened), or in any event I should have full knowledge to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...
He was certainly obliged to tell his professional organisation and you would think they would advise ISA. Given his mum was President of APSA 👀 not sure how that all works.

APSA MEMBER PROTECTION POLICY

See page 28
 
I know in figure skating and I am pretty sure all other sports require those involved, particularly the volunteers are required to have Working with Children Checks. Coaches definitely are required to have one professionally and anyone working at the rinks.

Here they are managed at a state level and not federally.
 
leilaofpaper said:
regarding working with children’s card - at least in my state it just gets processed online and I believe checks your criminal record only.
Click to expand...
It's similar in New South Wales. Application is online, and you also have to present your identity documents at a Service NSW office (i.e. same place where Driver's Licences etc are processed) for checking in person. Per the NSW Government website, the Working With Children check "involves a National Police Check (criminal history record check) and a review of reportable workplace misconduct." So taken completely at face value he wouldn't have needed to reveal the SafeSport investigation as there was no criminal case and the allegations did not occur in the workplace (assuming of course there was an application recent enough - they last 5 years before requiring renewal).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information