Olympic governing body 'knows the truth' behind late figure skater's alleged sexual abuse

[attyfan]

Each charge needs to be treated separately. It might be that he had a lot more information about one of the claimants (perhaps, one giving rise to a good defense), but felt he wasn't getting enough information about another.

 

[okokok777]

"With SafeSport guarding details to protect the privacy of potential victims, all that his family and friends know comes from what he shared, from his point of view. He would have received a letter from SafeSport detailing the general accusations. The letter would have included the initials of the purported victim." (Source: The Kansas City Star)

According to the KC Star article and my own conversations with a SafeSport employee, JC would have known the initials of the alleged victim(s) and the nature/timeline of the allegations. More over, if he was telling his friends/family that allegations were from consensual “peer-to-peer” relationship from his earlier skating days, none from when he was a coach", then that also contradicts the assertion that he wasn't given any information (The Kansas City Star).

 

[Frau Muller]

Of the 3 accusers in the SafeSport investigation, am I remembering correctly that the first was an adult at the time of the alleged abuse?

If Manly is representing 3 women who were minors, then a fourth victim has stepped forward.

Bingo, bango, bongo. Exactly what came to my mind when I read Brennan’s latest article.

We must keep this conversation going. “USFS Powers” cannot keep us from wanting to get to the truth.

Let’s see when someone tries to shut this thread...hope not.

 

[aftershocks]

But wait a minute. What are we talking about exactly please? An adult came forward and made an allegation against Coughlin. That then precipitated a third party to come forward on behalf of two individuals the third party said were minors at the time of alleged abuses (which would have occurred some 15 years ago). Therefore, John himself would have been around 18 at the time of the alleged abuses the third party said took place against two minors, who were not little girls at the time, but young teenagers. The article appears to be conflating all three claims, and calling the victims "little girls." Can we please be accurate and specific, and stop hurling accusations!

Unless we are talking about something that happened more currently against minors when John was actually in a position of prominence as an older adult, then what exactly is going on here? Have any of the students John coached ever made any allegations against him? This definitely needs to be fully and thoroughly clarified, otherwise it continues to be based on speculation, innuendo, invidious suspicion, supposition, opportunism by Manly, and digging up dirt to throw in order to see what might viably stick against a dead person.

If John was really a threat as has been claimed, then the threat is now removed. So please come forward with straightforward and fearless veracity, credibility and details that are substantial, specific, and solid. Dates, details, eyewitnesses and actual proof please, not just claims attempting to associate John Coughlin with the long-term, heinous crimes of a medical doctor who preyed on young girls who were competitive gymnasts.

The public needs to know exactly what happened, not what we imagine might have happened or assume must have happened because Coughlin was accused and suspended, and he committed suicide. If someone has the real information and evidence, let it be known please. I find Brennan leading with that opening sentence to be highly exploitative and indicative of an attempt to over-sensationalize the Coughlin case by associating it with the Nasser case. I find it reprehensible and irresponsible for Brennan to indulge in that kind of opportunistic journalism. All I want are the actual facts please. No one involved is going to be able to heal or get to the bottom of what really happened, with this mudslinging match going on in the media that Brennan is smack in the middle of.

 

[okokok777]

But wait a minute. What are we talking about exactly please? An adult came forward and made an allegation against Coughlin. That then precipitated a third party to come forward on behalf of two individuals the third party said were minors at the time of alleged abuses (which would have occurred some 15 years ago). Therefore, John himself would have been around 18 at the time of the alleged abuses the third party said took place against two minors, who were not little girls at the time, but young teenagers. The article appears to be conflating all three claims, and calling the victims "little girls." Can we please be accurate and specific, and stop hurling accusations!

Unless we are talking about something that happened more currently against minors when John was actually in a position of prominence as an older adult, then what exactly is going on here? Have any of the students John coached ever made any allegations against him? This definitely needs to be fully and thoroughly clarified, otherwise it continues to be based on speculation, innuendo, invidious suspicion, supposition, opportunism by Manly, and digging up dirt to throw in order to see what might viably stick against a dead person.

If John was really a threat as has been claimed, then the threat is now removed. So please come forward with straightforward and fearless veracity, credibility and details that are substantial, specific, and solid. Dates, details, eyewitnesses and actual proof please, not just claims attempting to associate John Coughlin with the long-term, heinous crimes of a medical doctor who preyed on young girls who were competitive gymnasts.

The public needs to know exactly what happened, not what we imagine might have happened or assume must have happened because Coughlin was accused and suspended, and he committed suicide. If someone has the real information and evidence, let it be known please. I find Brennan leading with that opening sentence to be highly exploitative and indicative of an attempt to over-sensationalize the Coughlin case by associating it with the Nasser case. I find it reprehensible and irresponsible for Brennan to indulge in that kind of opportunistic journalism. All I want are the actual facts please. No one involved is going to be able to heal or get to the bottom of what really happened, with this mudslinging match going on in the media that Brennan is smack in the middle of.

"The first, his family and friends said, occurred when he was in his mid-20s and the skater was in her later teens, old enough to legally consent. The allegation was made by a third party, someone who reported Coughlin over suspicions that Coughlin was “grooming,” or manipulating the female skater into an intimate relationship.

But the second set of allegations involved two minors. Varner said Coughlin told him that the girls were young when he was also young; they were no more than a few years apart. Yet it was unclear how many years older Coughlin was, or whether the alleged victims were old enough to legally consent. One of the girls was someone he knew well from 14 years prior. They were still friendly and had even been in contact in recent years, Varner said.

Family and friends were unclear whether either of the girls or a third party had made the allegation." (Source: Kansas City Star)

^I'm a bit confused by your first paragraph. According to the KC article, the first allegation (which involved an adult in her later teens) was made by a third party. The source of the second and third allegations (which involved minors) has not been made public at this time.

"Attorney John Manly [...] told USA TODAY Sports Friday afternoon that he also represents three women who were minors when the late figure skater John Coughlin allegedly sexually abused them."

^Also, considering that Manly is representing 3 clients that were minors at the time of the alleged misconduct, there is a possibility that a third person came forward with allegations (or, the first alleged survivor may have come forward and stated that the misconduct started when they were a minor).

 

[overedge]

It is a fact that the lawyer now representing three of the complainants against Coughlin also represented complainants against Nassar. That fact is relevant because both cases involve allegations that athletes were abused. Reporting that fact is not "exploitative" or "over-sensationalizing".

 

[aftershocks]

It is a fact that the lawyer now representing three of the complainants against Coughlin also represented complainants against Nassar. That fact is relevant because both cases involve allegations that athletes were abused. Reporting that fact is not "exploitative" or "over-sensationalizing".

Everyone can believe or perceive what they choose. The actual facts of the Coughlin case are obviously still being pieced together by the public, because little of the known details and evidence have been officially revealed. A lot of stuff is being reported in a piecemeal fashion with conflicting information and hearsay.

I object to Brennan's opening sentence in the way it's phrased. Regardless of the first part of the phraseology being factual to the Nassar case, it has nothing to do with the Coughlin case! The way Brennan opens this article salaciously and sensationally ties the heinous crimes Nassar was convicted of with the John Coughlin case:
"Attorney John Manly, who represents more than 200 victims in the Larry Nassar gymnastics sexual abuse case, told USA TODAY Sports Friday afternoon that he also represents three women who were minors when the late figure skater John Coughlin allegedly sexually abused them."

That sentence is sensationally phrased in order to tie Nassar with Coughlin. When SafeSport first posted information about the complaint against Coughlin, it was 'alleged sexual misconduct,' and now it's being referenced by Brennan as 'alleged sexual abuse.'

Manly is being positioned as some crusading hero who represents 200 victims. To be fair and factual, Brennan had no need to lead with the blaring notification about Nassar and 200 victims. Just state what it actually is that Coughlin has been accused of, and be clear about ages and time frames. The reference to Coughlin being in a prominent position of power would not be true if these alleged incidents occurred when he was much younger and competing as a skater, not a coach and not someone in a prominent position within the sport.

And once again, have any of the students Coughlin has coached as an older adult, ever brought allegations against him?

This statement is rather pretentious:
“My clients are going to pursue justice so this never happens to another little girl again." First of all, has John Coughlin ever been accused of harming 'little girls'? Can we get some clarity on that reference please. Second of all, kudos to Mr. Manly for wanting to pursue justice for his clients. But please let all the facts come out please, without embellishment, obsfucation, and sensationalist tactics. And can we keep in mind that unfortunately Coughlin is dead, so if he was in fact a threat to 'little girls,' the threat has been removed.

Also unfortunately, we know that a lot of sexual abuse occurs in families that's never reported. So sadly, Mr. Manly, good luck with thinking that successfully prosecuting this case will make abuse never happen to little girls or to little boys ever again.

I also question Manly's characterization of Coughlin taking his own life as "despicable... a mixture of denial, ignorance and in some instances, malice." What kind of statement is that??? It's horrible for anyone to get to the point where they would take their own life, but calling the act 'despicable' is not Mr. Manly's area of professional authority. And what is meant by "some instances"? There is only one instance in which Coughlin took his own life. I also do not get the references to 'ignorance' and 'malice.' I don't see the connection between suicide and malice. Unless Mr. Manly is a psychiatrist with expertise in suicide and depression, he needs to take several steps back and pursue professional consultation and extensive research.

At this point, reporting and opining about this case just seems like a series of mudslinging grudge matches.

@okokok777 Thanks for citing information from the Kansas City article in which the Coughlin family was quoted. It's all still a bit confusing, due to the rumors and speculation, and emotions running so high. I hope that reports would focus more on clarity and consistency. The whole situation is tragic, and not helped by rushing to judgment and jumping to conclusions.

 

[UGG]

The facts are pretty clear to me. Safe Sport closed the investigation. A lawyer is representing 3 minors who have alleged sexual misconduct is moving forward with an investigation. John's family says someone is out to get him and is making false accusations. USFSA has not made a statement. Christine Brennan has reported all of these facts.

 

[mollymgr]

This story should not die. There were 3 reports involved. But from this latest article it appears there are at least 3 separate victims. That by itself is a big thing. You have to remember that most of the time people never even come forward. If multiple people do, it could be a disturbing possibility that there were more who didn't.

 

[gkelly]

According to the KC article, the first allegation (which involved an adult in her later teens) was made by a third party. The source of the second and third allegations (which involved minors) has not been made public at this time.

"In her later teens, old enough to legally consent" could be 17, i.e., a minor, not an adult, but above the age of consent wherever the alleged activity took place.

 

[aftershocks]

The facts are pretty clear to me.

You've only stated factual chronology about a series of events. Nothing specific and detailed about the allegations has yet been officially released. There has been a lot of conflicting and confusing information being bandied about piecemeal, along with OTT speculation and gossip.

 

[Erin]

It is a fact that the lawyer now representing three of the complainants against Coughlin also represented complainants against Nassar. That fact is relevant because both cases involve allegations that athletes were abused. Reporting that fact is not "exploitative" or "over-sensationalizing".

Not to mention that representing the Nassar survivors is basically what Manly is known for by now. It’s a situation where people will see the name and go “why do I know that name?” Adding that context is basically “this is why he’s famous.” It’s not saying the two cases necessarily have anything to do with each other. It’s explaining who Manly is. When the first articles came out about Nassar, Manly was described as a lawyer who had taken on the Catholic Church because that was his previous claim to fame. Now it’s the Nassar case.

 

[BittyBug]

When SafeSport first posted information about the complaint against Coughlin, it was 'alleged sexual misconduct,' and now it's being referenced by Brennan as 'alleged sexual abuse.'

Maybe that's because US Figure Skating President Anne Cammett referred to the allegations as abuse. https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2019...rge-full-investigation-in-john-coughlin-case/

“John was well liked by many, from kids in his home rink in Kansas City, all the way to the leadership at ISU in Lausanne, Switzerland, and we were disheartened by the abuse allegations against him,” Cammett said.

 

[aftershocks]

This story should not die. There were 3 reports involved. But from this latest article it appears there are at least 3 separate victims. That by itself is a big thing. You have to remember that most of the time people never even come forward. If multiple people do, it could be a disturbing possibility that there were more who didn't.

Who called for 'the story' to die? I'm calling for responsible, objective reporting with clarity and not 'taking sides' on the part of any journalists, as we have seen happening. That's why it all seems like a mudslinging match. I have already said a number of times that all the truth needs to come out, and that a full and thorough investigation needs to happen.

I already stated in my previous post it's well known that many cases of horrific abuse are never reported. I can't speculate regarding your last sentence. Each case should be examined individually without conflation with other well known and disturbing cases in the news.

Not to mention that representing the Nassar survivors is basically what Manly is known for by now. It’s a situation where people will see the name and go “why do I know that name?” Adding that context is basically “this is why he’s famous.” It’s not saying the two cases necessarily have anything to do with each other. It’s explaining who Manly is. When the first articles came out about Nassar, Manly was described as a lawyer who had taken on the Catholic Church because that was his previous claim to fame. Now it’s the Nassar case.

No matter what she's writing about, Brennan has always been known to aggressively play-up the more sensational aspects of stories she covers. It's certainly fine to note that Manly represented victims in the Nassar case, and he's now representing accusers in the Coughlin case. But I don't see any reasonable need to lead in such a sensational fashion in the first sentence with "200 victims" when in fact, the number of victims in the Nassar case has nothing to do with the Coughlin case.

Also, there's no connection between the details of the Nassar case and anything we know about the Coughlin case. The fact that Manly is an attorney representing clients in both cases is the only connection, aside from SafeSport having been organized in the first place as a far too late response to Nassar's crimes. Once again, I think it's possible to describe who Manly is and to mention his connection to the Nassar case, without sensationally itemizing the number of Nassar's victims Manly is representing, when that has nothing to do with what the article is supposedly about: the John Coughlin allegations.

I doubt that everyone closely followed the Nassar case. The only association the name 'Manly' made me think of is Elizabeth Manley. I really hope that none of this is about Mr. Manly 'being famous.'

 

[UGG]

You've only stated factual chronology about a series of events. Nothing specific and detailed about the allegations has yet been officially released. There has been a lot of conflicting and confusing information being bandied about piecemeal, along with OTT speculation and gossip.

if you eliminate all of the speculation and gossip, what i posted are the facts right now.I really don't understand how you see this as one sided. Perhaps the victims do not want the details public right now. It is really none of your or anyone's business. The facts do not go in John's favor at this time, but that is not one sided reporting. He killed himself so there is no option for him to tell his side anymore. You may not like that she added in her article the victim's lawyer is the same lawyer who represented 200 victims of Larry Nassar, but it is a truthful comment. She didn't report something incorrectly or state anything untruthful and I am not sure why you think a fact is one sided reporting.

 

[giselle23]

Christine Brennan is not a reliable reporter. She has various agendas and reports only what supports her latest cause. Lately, it is sexual abuse. With the gymnastics scandal concluded with Nasser’s conviction, she is looking for other scandals to report on. Yes, sexual abuse is serious, but that doesn’t necessarily make it prevalent. Unnamed ( and not credible—the accusers’ lawyer, really?—sources are just a step above gossip. Until Christine finds someone willing to go on the record, her reporting is worthless.

 

[aftershocks]

if you eliminate all of the speculation and gossip, what i posted are the facts right now.

That's partly what I already said. But keep in mind that you listed no confirmed facts about the allegations. In any case, there's no reason for you to repeat back to me what I already said.

... I really don't understand how you see this as one sided. Perhaps the victims do not want the details public right now. It is really none of your or anyone's business. The facts do not go in John's favor at this time, but that is not one sided reporting. He killed himself so there is no option for him to tell his side anymore.

I didn't say anything about this is one-sided. I said that objective reporting is needed with journalists not taking any sides. We have seen the Coughlin family's 'side' being taken in the local Kansas City reporting, and in the national reporting we've seen a lot of different sides being taken.

If you think the facts of the case are 'none of anyone's business,' then why are you even in this thread posting about any of this? The facts of the case are not fully known, but that hasn't kept too many people from speculating, guess-tulating, pontificating, conflating with other cases of known abuse where perpetrators have been convicted, making judgment calls, gossiping, arguing, wondering, etc.

 

[caseyedwards]

Lol she’s never winning a Pulitzer!! She’s never going to be Ronan farrow

I have no reason to believe manly. That there are three accusers! None. Lawyers lie all the time!!!!

 

[BittyBug]

Unnamed sources are just a step above gossip. Until Christine finds someone willing to go on the record, her reporting is worthless.

As just one example, without unnamed sources we may never have gotten to the bottom of Watergate.

Perhaps you're not aware that there are actually journalistic standards related to the use of unnamed sources. You may not like Brennan, but she works for USA Today, which is a reputable paper and her editors would not allow her to publish an article without solid sourcing.

 

[caseyedwards]

As just one example, without unnamed sources we may never have gotten to the bottom of Watergate.

Perhaps you're not aware that there are actually journalistic standards related to the use of unnamed sources. You may not like Brennan, but she works for USA Today, which is a reputable paper and her editors would not allow her to publish an article without solid sourcing.

No. False. USA Today had one of its highest profile writers in its history get fired for making stuff up in his articles. USA Today is not legitimate. It doesn’t care. It has no standards.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/us/usa-today-finds-top-writer-lied.html

It had to be shamed to fire Kelley!

It’s a rag.

Nothing can be considered true or it’s employees journalists. It employs Brennen!

 

[Prancer]

@okokok777, you are bringing out information that is different from details previously bandied about. So once again, it's adding to the confusion. Clarity and consistency are needed, not mudslinging, speculation, OTT statements, and hearsay.

The only new information I have seen bandied about in this thread is this:

An adult came forward and made an allegation against Coughlin. That then precipitated a third party to come forward on behalf of two individuals the third party said were minors at the time of alleged abuses (which would have occurred some 15 years ago).

Never have I heard that a third party came forth on behalf of the minors, nor have I heard anything about the timing of the alleged misconduct with said minors.

Source, please?

No. False. USA Today had one of its highest profile writers in its history get fired for making stuff up in his articles. USA Today is not legitimate. It doesn’t care. It has no standards.

If USA Today has no standards, why was the reporter fired? They can't be shamed if they have no shame.

A number of newspapers have had to fire reporters for making things up, including the NYT. Are there any newspapers out there that you consider legitimate?

 

[meggonzo]

Lol she’s never winning a Pulitzer!! She’s never going to be Ronan farrow

I have no reason to believe manly. That there are three accusers! None. Lawyers lie all the time!!!!

Many others have said there are 3 accusers. That's not new information.

 

[caseyedwards]

Many others have said there are 3 accusers. That's not new information.

No reason for them not to be public if it’s true. There is still the third party complaining for people. It’s not three. It’s one and a third party.

 

[Prancer]

No reason for them not to be public if it’s true. There is still the third party complaining for people. It’s not three. It’s one and a third party.

Source, please?

 

[LarrySK8]

I believe the lawyer is just 'puffing,' like lawyers do in their cases.

 

[UGG]

That's partly what I already said. But keep in mind that you listed no confirmed facts about the allegations. In any case, there's no reason for you to repeat back to me what I already said.



I didn't say anything about this is one-sided. I said that objective reporting is needed with journalists not taking any sides. We have seen the Coughlin family's 'side' being taken in the local Kansas City reporting, and in the national reporting we've seen a lot of different sides being taken.

If you think the facts of the case are 'none of anyone's business,' then why are you even in this thread posting about any of this? The facts of the case are not fully known, but that hasn't kept too many people from speculating, guess-tulating, pontificating, conflating with other cases of known abuse where perpetrators have been convicted, making judgment calls, gossiping, arguing, wondering, etc.

You stated objective reporting is needed. That statement would lead me to believe you do not think the reporting is objective.

I am in this thread posting because I live in the USA and it is a free country.

 

[judiz]

As someone who lost a loved one (my husband) to suicide, it is very hard to accept that someone you love chose to end their life. John’s family is still in denial and that certainly contributes to the constant changing stories of what happened.

 

[Prancer]

No reason for them not to be public if it’s true. There is still the third party complaining for people. It’s not three. It’s one and a third party.

As someone else pointed out, the lawyer represents three people who were minors at the time of the alleged abuse, which means there are four individuals who have allegedly been abused, not three. We don't even know if there is any overlap in accusers here. Still waiting for some evidence that a third party brought the accusations about the minors.

Stick to known facts or go away. That goes for some of the rest of you, too. If you are posting bad information or speculation in this thread, you need to stop it. You aren't helping.

 

[aftershocks]

Yeah @Prancer. I don't know anything so I'm bandying about right along with everyone else on here what's been gossiped about in all of the Coughlin threads on FSU, and what's been mentioned in news articles. Go back and read the articles and previous threads if you wish. Maybe you can make sense out of it.

In the previous threads, posters repeated what they'd heard, read, or were told regarding the allegations. I recalled reading that the first accuser supposedly was an adult who had come forward. Once SafeSport made that accusation public, it was later reported that allegations from years ago involving two minors had surfaced. And again, in previous threads, there was confusing discussion about the family's revelations and the mention of a possible third party characterized as a 'jealous rival.' Now obviously, none of this has been confirmed. And that's the problem.

@okokok777 posted something that I thought was new information, but it's from the original Kansas City article in which Coughlin's family was quoted.

There have been a lot of rumors, which adds to the confusion, since nothing has been officially confirmed. But that hasn't prevented speculation and gossip from running rampant.

 

[MsZem]

Christine Brennan is not a reliable reporter. She has various agendas and reports only what supports her latest cause. Lately, it is sexual abuse. With the gymnastics scandal concluded with Nasser’s conviction, she is looking for other scandals to report on. Yes, sexual abuse is serious, but that doesn’t necessarily make it prevalent.

Sexual abuse is serious and prevalent. Whatever you (or anyone else) think of Christine Brennan, she is reporting on this story as it develops, not sensationalizing anything.

I'm not clear on what can be done here, though - is there any indication that USFSA did anything wrong, before or after the allegations were brought forth? SafeSport did its job, and whatever John Coughlin might have done, he's no longer a risk to anyone. His family has obviously tried to advance a very specific narrative, but USFSA can hardly bar them from speaking, or share confidential details that would refute their claims. The work that needs to be done seems to be more along the lines of training people to recognize abuse and provide more support and resources to victims.