- Messages
- 56,262
But why were they even in the Coughlin thread? Can you explain that at all?
Yes.
Third and final warning.
But why were they even in the Coughlin thread? Can you explain that at all?
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.
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.
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.This wreaks of cowardice.
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.
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?
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.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.
SafeSport applies to all participants in a covered sport, it is not limited to coaches.If Coughlin was 18 or 19 when the incident happened he was probably not a coach then. Safesport has questionable jurisdiction in the matter.
“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.”
However, SafeSport does not appear to define "abuse."“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.
There are many quotes in this thread from the SafeSport website defining its terms including the type of abuse John was accused of.However, SafeSport does not appear to define "abuse."
You have no idea what he was acuused of! Trauma is going to an extreme!
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.
You are not missing something. There are two talking points that have been endlessly repeated in these threads:I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...
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.There are many quotes in this thread from the SafeSport website defining its terms including the type of abuse John was accused of.
I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...
SafeSport does not appear to define "abuse."
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.There are many quotes in this thread from the SafeSport website defining its terms including the type of abuse John was accused of.
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.
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.I would imagine it was a lawyer who suggested he not comment...Safesport cannot override freedom of speech unless I’m missing something...
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 don't think your personal opinion counts for very much here without some more facts to support it.@Vagabond three separate complaints against the same person IMO demonstrate a systemic failure in addressing that person's behaviour.
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.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.