Safe Sport Dropping Coughlin Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oreo

Well-Known Member
Messages
576
This may be my parsing of the word "investigation". And definitely the definition of the word "minor".

I will make up a hypothetical that has *absolutely nothing* to do with the Coughlin case, about which I know nothing other than what I read.

Skater X says [ETA: and files a complaint with SafeSport] Director A initiated a consensual sexual relationship with her when Director A was 23 and Skater X was 17. Skater X skated at Director A's rink.

That’s not that far off from one of the allegations involving one of the minors. From what I was told this particular one dates back 15 years ago—when John was something like 18 or 19. I don’t know about the other two.

I’m very disappointed that Safe Sport didn’t complete the investigation.
 

analia

Well-Known Member
Messages
539
Sounds to me a lawsuit could be flying toward Safesport. Likely would end up in secret settlement.
If Coughlin was 18 or 19 when the incident happened he was probably not a coach then. Safesport has questionable jurisdiction in the matter.
 

Scrufflet

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,207
One general thing that is confusing to me: we have had media reports about individuals representing orgs. looking into and trying to prevent all kinds of abuse in sports. In the Canadian media I have seen no mention of Safesport. I checked the CBC item on a young male skater who suffered abuse many years ago. I have a friend with absolutely no connection to skating who blundered into an abuse situation several years ago and Skate Canada and Childrens' Aid were going back and forth about it. Again, no mention of Safesport. There seems to be a lot of talk about zero tolerance but I am left wondering who is actually doing something about it and which org. has the most clout.
 

UGG

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,437
Sounds to me a lawsuit could be flying toward Safesport. Likely would end up in secret settlement.
If Coughlin was 18 or 19 when the incident happened he was probably not a coach then. Safesport has questionable jurisdiction in the matter.

What would the lawsuit be for? They are an organization who investigates reports of abuse, and they were investigating 3 reports of abuse when the alleged abuser killed himself. As there is no longer a threat of safety the investigation is no longer going on. What could they possibly be sued for? Should they have instead told the people making the allegations to go away?
 

barbarafan

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,303
This wreaks of cowardice.
I agree and I am really torn on this....There are situations which are really just misunderstandings and if Safesport made it seem bigger resulting in the loss of life there should be new rules and repercussions. On the other hand if this is straight out assault or sexual harassement in any way it is very difficult as many girls would much rather this be the end of it as it is such an invasion of their privacy to have to testify in any way and it really takes so much guts to do it. This is so sad all around. I wish someone with the medical expertise required would post the pros and cons of testifying about this or going on with their life. In both cases they need to be treated for the trauma.
 

UGG

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,437
Trama is different for everyone. Maybe the victims are happy he is dead, maybe they aren’t, however someone in the medical field should not speak on behalf of the people who came forward without ever even talking to them. And if someone in the medical field did talk to them, it’s illegal to discuss it in public. Trama victims aren’t clones. What is best for one person doesn’t mean it’s best for someone else. Only a doctor who has worked with them would and should be the only person to recommend treatment and give suggestions.

Safe sport’s investigation did not result in a loss of life. John chose to kill himself. From what I have read, the organization followed procedures the same way as always. Do people think John should have had special treatment from the organization that went outside of their everyday procedure?
 
Last edited:

lala

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,812
I agree with this. It may be difficult / impossible to have any meaningful outcome investigating the allegations against John now that he is no longer alive, but it doesn't mean SafeSport shouldn't continue to look into any possible systemic issues around his club.

I do not agree that stopping the investigation in any way belittles the allegations made against him. Those will stay forever. We just will never have a fair assessment of whether they are true or not.

Agreed.
 

attyfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,152
What would the lawsuit be for? They are an organization who investigates reports of abuse, and they were investigating 3 reports of abuse when the alleged abuser killed himself. As there is no longer a threat of safety the investigation is no longer going on. What could they possibly be sued for? Should they have instead told the people making the allegations to go away?

Depending upon whether there is any basis for continuing the investigation (for example, any mention of third party witnesses who could still be interviewed), there could be a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief to compel SafeSport to either (a) continue the investigation or (b) turn their work over to some other entity to continue the investigation. There might be other parties who want the investigation to go further -- someone suspected of failing to report for example, or the victims themselves. After all, Coughlin's death would not prevent the victims from filing claims against his estate; they might want the investigation to continue before doing so.
 

bardtoob

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,559
SafeSport should not force someone accused to be silent if SafeSport, itself, does not have to be silent. That is, John should have been restricted (both in participation and public comment) but also no public notice should be made of the investigation. SafeSport should only have made a public announcement at the conclusion, and until the conclusion is reached all parties should be silent. When the investigation results are made public, any party can say what they want.
 
Last edited:

Willin

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,598
One general thing that is confusing to me: we have had media reports about individuals representing orgs. looking into and trying to prevent all kinds of abuse in sports. In the Canadian media I have seen no mention of Safesport. I checked the CBC item on a young male skater who suffered abuse many years ago. I have a friend with absolutely no connection to skating who blundered into an abuse situation several years ago and Skate Canada and Childrens' Aid were going back and forth about it. Again, no mention of Safesport. There seems to be a lot of talk about zero tolerance but I am left wondering who is actually doing something about it and which org. has the most clout.
As far as I know SafeSport as an organization is only in the US, not Canada, so that's probably why it isn't mentioned in those situations.
 

Colonel Green

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,930
SafeSport’s position is that they have no mandate to continue an investigation where there is no threat. That’s fair.

If the USFSA wants the investigation to continue (and it should), they can retain a third party to conduct an independent review. There are many law firms that specialize in this.
 

BittyBug

Disgusted
Messages
26,612
If Coughlin was 18 or 19 when the incident happened he was probably not a coach then. Safesport has questionable jurisdiction in the matter.
SafeSport applies to all participants in a covered sport, it is not limited to coaches.

Regarding the nature of the allegations, here are USFS President Ann Cammett's public comments:
“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. “But we take every allegation seriously, and we need to hear from those who may have suffered abuse, and we support them.”
“When allegations of abuse are made, we need to make sure the process is fair and carried out to the fullest extent under the circumstances,” Cammett said.
However, SafeSport does not appear to define "abuse."
 

UGG

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,437
SafeSport should not force someone accused to be silent if SafeSport, itself, does not have to be silent. That is, John should have been restricted (both in participation and public comment) but also no public notice should be made of the investigation. SafeSport should only have made a public announcement at the conclusion, and until the conclusion is reached all parties should be silent. When the investigation results are made public, any party can say what they want.

I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...
 

Aerobicidal

Shut that door.
Messages
11,148
I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...
You are not missing something. There are two talking points that have been endlessly repeated in these threads:

1. Coughlin wasn't allowed to say anything to defend himself (a claim supported, ironically, by a public statement made by Coughlin).

2. Coughlin wasn't given an opportunity to get due process.

Both of these arguments have been clearly disproved by numerous posters. Additionally, there are clear policy considerations on both sides of the question whether SafeSport should make investigations public. On the "make it public" side, there is the argument that other possible survivors might come forward and people in the community should know that there are (presumably) credible allegations against a coach who is in a position of power over vulnerable skaters. On the other side, there is the opportunity to protect the accused from damages to their reputation and related harms, which are clearly significant as this case illustrates.

With the obvious caveat that SafeSport doesn't and shouldn't care what people on FSU think about the choice it's made to make investigations public, I think their decision is at least logically valid given the current climate surrounding abuse:

1. The Me Too movement

2. Knowledge both within and outside the skating community that there have been countless examples of illegal and unethical behavior by coaches taking advantage of often underaged students that have been unreported and/or not resulted in any punishment to perpetrators. Is it as bad as gymnastics? Hopefully not, but skating doesn't want a scandal like that and at least a few people seem to be moving in a more progressive direction.

On the other hand, right now in skating numerous internationally competitive skaters, including Canada's #1 ice dance team, choose to be coached by Morosov. Additionally, many skaters, including teenage girls, continued to go to Fafjr after he was convicted of sexual abuse. Considering that, I think it is more than reasonable for SafeSport to give notice regarding their investigations because some skaters/families will know and not care and all of them (IMO) deserve to know and make an informed choice.

There will never be closure on this for anyone. It's a horrifically depressing story and illustrates how the law, SafeSport, etc. all continue to fail both accusers and those accused. But the fact that people are STILL making arguments that are completing focused on Coughlin being a nice person and not having due process and not having free speech and saying NOTHING about the possible survivors/accusers says a lot.
 

BittyBug

Disgusted
Messages
26,612
There are many quotes in this thread from the SafeSport website defining its terms including the type of abuse John was accused of.
There are? Would you please point me to them because I just reviewed the thread and see many quotes from prior posts, but nothing linking to SafeSport itself - only poster speculation or hearsay.

The USA Today article mentions sexual misconduct and sexual misconduct involving minors, but it is not a quote from SafeSport itself. Nor do I see any official definition of "abuse."
 

kittysk8ts

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,820
I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...

True, but everyone in USA sport is subject to their rules and policies, are they not? Perhaps it is their policy and they may have further sanctioned him for non-compliance? That's my best guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

This is a somewhat complicated issue in the USA - freedom of speech vs. objective due process.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,381
SafeSport does not appear to define "abuse."
There are many quotes in this thread from the SafeSport website defining its terms including the type of abuse John was accused of.
SafeSport does not define the term "abuse" as such, but its Code does define various types of prohibited behavior and uses the term "abuse" in many contexts. It also defines the term "child sexual abuse" to incorporate applicable state and federal law.
SafeSport should not force someone accused to be silent if SafeSport, itself, does not have to be silent. That is, John should have been restricted (both in participation and public comment) but also no public notice should be made of the investigation. SafeSport should only have made a public announcement at the conclusion, and until the conclusion is reached all parties should be silent. When the investigation results are made public, any party can say what they want.
I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...
Theoretically a covered person, including a coach, could agree in advance that if there is a complaint against him, he will not make any public comments about the matter. SafeSports Policies & Procedures, however, do not include anything requiring such a person to keep silent. The two most likely explanations are that (1) as UGG suggests, a lawyer or someone else recommended that Coughlin not say anything or (2) he made up something in an attempt to present himself in a more favorable light.

The Policies & Procedures do provide for when an investigation may be closed or reopened, namely:

At any point prior to final resolution the Office may close the investigation if (a) the investigator could not conduct or complete the investigation, (b) it is determined the Office does not have authority or jurisdiction over the alleged Violation or (c) it is determined there is no reason to believe that there has been a Violation. The Office may, at its discretion, reopen any case closed under this section.

I think it obvious that an investigator cannot complete an investigation when the person against whom the complaint has been filed has died and cannot defend himself.

As for reopening the matter, the only reasons that I have seen advanced here are (1) the possibility of a systemic problem or (2) trying to show the complainants to be liars. I haven't seen any mention of anything that would demonstrate a systemic failure, and the idea that complainants here should themselves be investigated reprehensible.
 

Tinami Amori

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,156
I have issues with this situation, on "both sides"..
- First, i disagree with those who blame "others" for JC's suicide decision. Many politicians, celebrities, athletes lost their careers, million dollar contracts, public reputation, families, and are facing criminal charges, due to similar accusations in the last few years. None (or few?) chose suicide. It is reasonable to say that "those who accuse/leak/etc." affect the life and careers of the accused, and can be blamed for "ending of careers/marriages/public image", etc.; but should not be blamed for "extreme solutions/behavior". Each chooses his/her own way how to deal with it. Suicide is not a normal solution or outcome. it is a personal choice.

- Second, i am on JC's side, in terms of "disclosure of information". If he was not allowed to talk/defend himself, then the fact of "investigations and accusations" should not have been made public, until investigation was completed.

- Third, "misconduct with minors" (vs. "attack/violence/coercion/criminal behavior") could mean few variations of behavior, which is "inconvenience" rather than "harm", and! could actually be of "no harm to the presumed victim" if for example a 16-year old girl had a crush on him, and he exchanged a few kisses, or slapped her on the butt (and while the girl herself has no problem with it, there are those Old Moralistic Wenches in the rink who don't like it); or if simply told a few dirty jokes in front of minors... That is not a reason to ruin a man's life..... give a warning, yes... But not make a big deal out of it.

- Last, i am very uncomfortable with accusing a 30+ year old man of what he did when he was 17-19 years old, as some information suggests.... and also the question is "why now??!!!".
 
Last edited:

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,381
@Vagabond three separate complaints against the same person IMO demonstrate a systemic failure in addressing that person's behaviour.
I don't think your personal opinion counts for very much here without some more facts to support it.

Suppose, for instance, that a coach (not Coughlin, just a hypothetical coach), has consensual sex with three of his under-age skaters and none of the four of them tells anyone else until one of the three skaters files a complaint. Unless skaters and coaches should be monitored every single moment of their lives, there isn't much that can be done to prevent something like this from happening.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
58,281
Since we don't know what the complaints are, we can't know if they show a systemic failure. We know SafeSport announced publicly that they would only continue the investigation if they found a systemic issue and then later announced they were closing the investigation. From this I infer they found no evidence of a systemic issue.

There would only be a systemic issue if the behavior in question was witnessed by others and/or reported and was ignored/dealt with poorly. If no one knew about it and it wasn't reported, then there is no systemic issue no matter how many complaints are filed.

I think, if there was a systemic issue but SafeSport didn't find it, that hopefully someone else would file a new complaint about that. Though given how the majority of the skating community has responded to the first complaint(s), I think you'd have to be pretty brave to do that.
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
35,792
@Vagabond The facts support my opinion, because (according to Brennan) two of the complaints weren't filed until the first one was filed and the first suspension was imposed. If an incident occurred and someone was afraid to report it, or didn’t know how to report it, or didn’t think it was an incident until they heard that someone else had also complained, that's a systemic failure.
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
8,150
This Phil Hersh column addresses the issue of whether or not Coughlin was permitted to speak about it (underlined below). Hopefully, everyone will finally get past this issue sometime soon because the speech censorship issue just continues to clutter up the topic.

*** GLOBETROTTING by Phil Hersh:
http://www.thesportsexaminer.com/gl...-against-late-national-champion-john-coughli/
Interim measures are communicated to responding parties directly, in writing, at the time they are issued and include the following:
• The reason(s) for the interim measure(s), the allegation(s) the Center received, information about the investigation process; and
• The responding party’s ability to appeal any interim measures to an independent, trained arbitrator at any time (which the Center must accommodate within 72 hours if requested), the right to an advisor, and the opportunity to speak with an investigator about the allegations, ask questions, share an account of the situation and identify witnesses and other relevant information and evidence.

In no way does the Center restrict individuals from speaking for themselves, though it may advise caution in the interest of protecting individuals’ privacy and safety, especially that of minors.
I also wanted to note a current example of an investigation into abuse done after the death of one of the parties. There is the inquiry into the cases against Dr. Richard Strauss, who was a sports medicine doctor at OSU, & died by suicide over ten years ago. It was assigned to an independent outside committee to investigate. So although there may be disagreement about how much can be investigated after the death of one of the parties, in fact it can still be done & has been done. If SafeSport chooses not to do it, perhaps USFSA ought to use a (completely independent) third party who performs this type of research to provide further information.
 

misskarne

Handy Emergency Backup Mode
Messages
23,456
So, tl;dr: He could have spoken about the investigation, he just chose not to.

And they could continue the investigation.

I think it needs to be continued. If it is left the way it is now, no-one gets closure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information