Safe Sport Dropping Coughlin Investigation

[Tinami Amori]

And I never said it was a man.

then we can use the term i use "older/younger mate/lover"...

Every situation is different, but coaches always hold some degree of power.

no... people only have power over you if you let them, regardless of age..

 

[misskarne]

no... people only have power over you if you let them, regardless of age..

Oh, for fcuk's sake, Tinami. Yeah, I'm sure a 12 year old "lets" adults have power over them. It's not like the adult actually has power or anything. Using that brainless logic, an abused four year old should not have let their uncle have power over them!

 

[once_upon]

When one is younger or has little to no experience in relationships, one does not know how much power they have to say no. And they may have stars in their eyes...as a teen you are flattered when someone older pays attention to you and you don't necessarily have the skills to spot grooming.

That's why professional ethics need to be in place. If one is attracted to a student, stop the professional relationship and take a break waiting until the legal age of concent is reached.

The thing that is controllable is the adult acting as an adult with ethics. If others in the camp knew of violations regardless of the good guy stuff, they have a moral duty to report and advocate for the student.

 

[nlloyd]

I don't assume the worst but there were three charges. It is highly unlikely that 3 people were just being prudish. So all the "what if" attempts to minimize this are really just starting to disturb me.

I agree. In addition to this, people seem to have forgotten that the day prior to Coughlin's death, SafeSport had escalated his restriction from "Interim Measure -- Restriction" to "Interim Suspension." Would SafeSport really have done this simply because their investigation had shown inappropriate flirtation? Highly unlikely.

 

[oliver]

In the two latter two instances we are not talking about flirtation. We are talking about sexual relations with a minor. The initial report appears to have been sexual misconduct with an adult.

 

[skatfan]

then we can use

I am not ignoring professional ethics... I agree with you. Any exhibition or actions of “personal relationship” in a work place/professional environment is not acceptable, regardless of age. I agree with this part of professional ethics; even a married couple if they work together should act professional and not display “personal” and not break those boundaries, making others uncomfortable.

But as far as “safe culture”… to me it is an assumption that if there is a love interest between a young girl and an older coach, the “girl” is automatically in “danger” and will somehow be “harmed”. Any person, regardless of age, if subjected to unwanted advances, actions, or bullying, is harmed and/or in danger. But if the “love interest” is mutual, then it is not “danger” but “pleasure” for both.

Why do people assume that if an older coach falls in love with younger skater, he/she has evil motives, and will abuse/manipulate/harm the student? What if they are both sincerely interested in each other, and the younger lover will learn a lot from the older lover, will be treated with understanding and patience younger mates rarely have, plus receives all the sexual benefits from lover’s maturity and experience?

Why is there an assumption that an older mate will dominate and abuse younger mate? That is not true.

Why is there an assumption that a 16/17 year old girl is stupid and does not know how to handle an older man? It is very easy, if one uses one’s brains, to handle any man, and have him in the right place, especially an older one, who is thrilled to have young/pretty/exotic girl in love with him, or thinking she is in love with him.

It sometimes works quite well for a girl of 16/17 to have a coach of 30+ for a lover, especially if they both like each other. More free lesson time, special attention to programme, music, costumes, heart and soul into the work.. Stands up for you in conflict with other girls, their mothers, rink’s administration. Gives rides to/from rink, pays for your meals when out at competitions, saves on hotel room when you don’t need one and can stay in his. Your mother does not need to take off work, to go with you to competitions, because he’ll take care of everything…. And if a girl has a dance partner, and there are issues, the coach is always on girls side..

What "safe culture" when there is no danger? (well, except for the older coach, who gets dumped when the girl falls in love with the next guy, or switches rinks).

What you are describing is classic grooming behavior that leads to abuse - the giving of special favors and private time away from parents. See Larry Nassar. That’s why it is banned behavior.

It really doesn’t matter what you think, fortunately for the rest of us.

 

[Artistic Skaters]

The OSU investigation is not at all the same.

It is being conducted *by. the. University*. Not by an organization such as SafeSport. And it is being conducted to determine *if the University failed in some aspect* and not simply if the physician abused persons.

SafeSport did the ONLY thing it could do with an investigation *of Coughlin* with the death of Coughlin. It closed that investigation.

If USFS wants to commission an outside group to determine if there were systemic failures, as OSU did, USFS has every right to do that.

That’s what folks who feel there needs to be more investigation should be asking for, not holding open an investigation of a deceased person.

I am aware of the differences between the OSU investigation & the SafeSport case. I simply noted the information to address the general views that were put forth earlier that this is not an option because a party is deceased.

According to Phil Hersh, he inquired about how the decision by SafeSport was made & received the following response:

“The Center made the decision after much deliberation — a very tough situation,” Hill said in an email response to my question on the decision-making process.

SafeSport setting a protocol to use for an exceptional situation like this one (something that has not happened before) is not an "ONLY" situation, but a decision for them to make for the organization as it continues to evolve. If there was "ONLY" one way to proceed, then they would never have had to give it much, if any, deliberation at all; & it would have been an easy decision not a very tough situation.

It seemed pretty clear USFS requested the continuing involvement from SafeSport because the case was already under that jurisdiction. Sports federations need to seek assistance & guidance when these things arise so they do not drop them prematurely; & I don't see why they should be subjected to so much criticism when they ask for it. The overall process is still new enough a learning curve is needed for cases like Coughlin's, even though many here want to portray it as something clearly black & white. SafeSport has made their decision. USFS can determine how they want to proceed following it, & other federations are aware in the event of future similar incidents. Twenty years ago none of this would have been discussed openly at all, so it's still progress.

 

[analia]

Many ways Safesport can be found at fault in this case. Say Coughlin had "sexual misconduct" with a minor when he was 18 or 19 some fifteen years ago, Safesport needs to establish what they found in their investigation to merit an interim suspension. I suspect material evidence is not likely present, be it accusations from one or three people, assuming of course the other two cases also happened a long time ago. Statute of limitations over sex crime varies by state but very rarely goes past 15 years. This is not about whether Safesport decides to continue its investigation, it's about them possibly mishandling this investigation that resulted in real damage.

It's not that hard to understand why a person would kill himself over this. She said, he said about something that happened a long time ago. Exactly what can you do to help yourself? I don't assume Coughlin is innocent. I'm writing all this because I'm wary of the practice of secretive internal investigations. There seems to be a lack of liability since none of their work is going to face court so to speak.

 

[misskarne]

Coughlin didn't let them finish the investigation. We don't know what the outcome would have been, but evidently SafeSport thought there was enough merit to warrant precautions.

 

[Japanfan]

As far as a career or reputation being ruined irreparably, as @Aerobicidal pointed out, both Morozov's and Fajfr's businesses are booming, and there is a line-up miles long of people in Hollywood and the European film industry who will defend Roman Polanski with their dying breaths, and he drugged and raped a young teen-aged girl.

Well, I really hope that an equal number will not defend Roman Polanski.

I for one will never again see one of his films (and I think he is brilliant).

 

[antmanb]

Is it time for this thread to be locked again? There is actually nothing new to discuss. The one thing that was has been discussed and everyone is going back to going round in circles...

 

[Moustaffask8r]

@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.

Oh, for fcuk's sake, Tinami. Yeah, I'm sure a 12 year old "lets" adults have power over them. It's not like the adult actually has power or anything. Using that brainless logic, an abused four year old should not have let their uncle have power over them!

People like Tinami..... it's the rape culture talking!!! I suggest you go watch videos and report, actually the one from CBC is quite good. I also suggest this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPqHGRDyhzg. Abuses by coaches or by people with power over any individual as to stop.

 

[Prancer]

Is it time for this thread to be locked again? There is actually nothing new to discuss. The one thing that was has been discussed and everyone is going back to going round in circles...

I am very much inclined to agree with this, as I see baseless speculation about the details of the Coughlin case starting again, along with a lot of "what ifs" about situations that have nothing to do with the Coughlin case. When most of the sentences in your post start with the word "If," then you've got nothing and I don't see the point.

Does anyone have anything relevant to say about SafeSport closing the case? Because otherwise, I don't see any point in keeping this thread open.

 

[MsZem]

It's unfortunate that the case can never be fully investigated and resolved. However, if the accusers want to keep the case in the public eye, they can do so through others means. If the Coughlin family want to try and clear John's name, they probably have appropriate avenues to try.

SafeSport has limited resources, and they should not be expected to apply them to this case when there is so much else to investigate and adjudicate.

I agree that there's really no point in discussing this any further.

 

[Perky Shae Lynn]

In the two latter two instances we are not talking about flirtation. We are talking about sexual relations with a minor. The initial report appears to have been sexual misconduct with an adult.

Has it been confirmed that it was sexual relationships with minors?

 

[LarrySK8]

Well, I really hope that an equal number will not defend Roman Polanski.

I for one will never again see one of his films (and I think he is brilliant).

You need to include Jack Nicholson, at least I do. He provided Polanski with the house and the Quaaludes. The victim has been interviewed extensively and provided this information.

As such, I have never seen The Shining, As Good As It Gets, The Witches of Eastwick or any of his movies. I have also never seen The Pianist or any film after Rosemary's Baby by Polanski.

 

[VGThuy]

Well, I really hope that an equal number will not defend Roman Polanski.

I for one will never again see one of his films (and I think he is brilliant).

Unfortunately, I think that only works with directors who are no longer making relevant movies or made movies that is easy for people to ignore because they didn't like that person's work anyway. People don't seem to care about problematic film directors, even if accused of sexual assault and being sexually predatory to underaged boys, if they do a movie that they like so much and they can find a way to distance that person from the project even if he directed nearly the whole thing, retained director's credit, and participated in post-production, i.e. Bryan Singer and Bohemian Rhapsody and the 800 million+ box office it has. Even when presented with the fact that he gets a portion of the gross, meaning ticket sales will directly benefit him financially (and he's looking to make 40+ million from it) people are still choosing to see it multiple times because they liked it so much.

 

[Prancer]

I don't know why I bother sometimes.