SafeSport alleges "culture of grooming and abuse" in U.S. figure skating

[mollymgr]

I don't think of culture and systemic issues as being exactly the same though. There is overlap and a bad culture often leads to problems with the system but not always.

SafeSport does not have a mandate to change every sport's culture. They are tasked with looking a problems in the system and dealing with individual complaints. If they found that the complaints against Coughlin had been made before and ignored or had been dealt with badly, that would be a systemic issue they would look into. Figure skating having a bad culture is just too broad a problem and not something they are tasked with investigating.

But saying "a culture in figure skating that allowed grooming and abuse to go unchecked for too long." is strange.
That sounds like a major problem and someone needs to do something about it. Obviously, they have evidence of grooming and abuse to make that kind of statement. With all the info they have, if SafeSport isn't going to make it a safe sport then what's the point?

 

[5Ali3]

Just to clarify: are you saying that the "near universal sentiment" is that SafeSport takes too long to complete its investigations or that the concerns expressed to the USFSA about SafeSport are by skaters/coaches who have a vested interest?

I'm not sure what you mean by the second half of that. I think my answer below might answer what I think you mean; if not, would you be willing to clarify?

Do you still have confidence in SafeSport and if so, do you see this earlier post as reconcilable with your more recent one? Do you feel that SafeSport does a thorough job at the start and does not act impulsively BUT that they take too long to complete their investigations. I only ask because I have long respected your posts and gave particular weight to your earlier one. I was thus surprised to hear your recent criticism of SafeSport, but understand that it is possible to hold these two opinions without contradicting oneself. I am simply interested in whether you have lost confidence in SafeSport since your early January post.

That's an interesting question and I am glad that you asked. As you said, they are not necessarily contradictory, but they do need to be reconciled.

I continue to believe (and in fact believe more strongly than I did in January, based on additional evidence) that the Center for SafeSport doesn't issue interim suspensions lightly. When they do, there is significant evidence already collected and they have good reason to believe the accused poses a short-term danger, either to one of the identified victims or to vulnerable athletes, especially minors. I like your word: they do not act impulsively at the start of the investigation, and they do not issue suspensions impulsively or for more "minor" violations.

The figure skating cases are regularly taking over a year. Looking only at the public cases, three involved criminal charges. Of the others, Richard Callaghan, Steve Moore, and Kordale Bavor have all been under investigation for over a year. I heard at Nationals from reliable sources that neither Richard Callaghan nor Steve Moore's case is close to a resolution. There are several cases that are not public that have been under investigation for a year. I am horrified by the stories that were shared with me at Nationals (after my post that you reference) about how the Center is treating victims and what the Center has asked of victims in our community.

The Center for SafeSport appears to be bending over backwards to avoid "taking someone's career away" (based on what is being shared by people who have been involved with cases). The burden of proof to suspend a coach is very high; the burden of proof to ban a coach appears to be nearly impossible to reach. This is the opposite problem of what the most vocal people on social media are saying. The problem is not that the Center is failing to protect coaches; it is failing to protect athletes. Do you know the expression "Not my circus, not my monkeys"? This is my circus and these are my monkeys, and the Center is failing to keep our athletes safe, and there's nothing U.S. Figure Skating can do about it.

As I said in this post, it might accidentally identify the accuser, so it's walking a fine line. But I don't think it would be appropriate to place him on an interim suspension as a "possible threat to skaters" if the case in question was 15 years ago and a power differential relationship gone wrong. Then there were apparently two more accusations we don't much about. It would have been helpful to know what general category all accusations fell into. Right now SafeSport uses the nebulous category of "sexual misconduct." As we saw in the original thread that led to a lot of confusion and speculation. Maybe it would be more appropriate for them to separate "sexual misconduct" out a bit more so it's less nebulous and open to speculation.

I agree with your assertion that allegations of fifteen year old behavior in a peer relationship with a power differential would be unlikely to result in a suspension.

"Allegations of sexual misconduct" protects the identity of the victims and also protects the accused. If SafeSport had put nearly anything more concrete on the website, it would have identified the victims to a very small community. If John had defended himself and been cleared, the allegations wouldn't have been known to haunt him. There have been coaches with interim suspensions who were eventually cleared by SafeSport who have returned to coaching just fine.

Even if there's no obligation to the accused, someone ending up dead, whether innocent or guilty, is problematic. If something can be done to prevent this from happening in the future without sacrificing protection of potential victims, then something should be done. Maybe they could aid the accused with finding psychiatric resources.

John was offered psychiatric resources on the day of his death, and many times before that. He chose not to take it. His family presents this as something new that just popped up; it was not and there had been concern about John for months. He had been offered help many times by many people; he chose not to take it. He was offered the same urgent appeal hearing of the suspension that everyone is offered (within 72 hours); he chose not to take it. He was offered love and support and friendship every day, including on the day of his death, and he chose not to take it.

John chose to kill himself.

The Center for SafeSport has thousands of cases, and one person chose to kill himself after being accused. The criminal justice system has hundreds of thousands of people accused each year. Don't blame the system.

How do people know that these accusations are from 15 years ago? Was this ever confirmed?

One occurred less than fifteen years ago but not recent. One was recent. One, the timeline would identify the victim, IMHO, so I won't comment.

I am not going to discuss or defend that information. Some of you have been around long enough to judge my credibility for yourself; to others, I am an anonymous, random poster on the internet whose username they haven't seen before. You can choose to believe me or not.

 

[skatfan]

But saying "a culture in figure skating that allowed grooming and abuse to go unchecked for too long." is strange.
That sounds like a major problem and someone needs to do something about it. Obviously, they have evidence of grooming and abuse to make that kind of statement. With all the info they have, if SafeSport isn't going to make it a safe sport then what's the point?

On the "About" page on their website, Safe Sport says,

" The Center provides services to sport entities on abuse prevention techniques, policies and programs." They are not of a size to go in and fix it for Federations, but they can provide a structure and framework for federations to follow. I thought each Federation had a Safe Sport liaison to work on this stuff.

So I think it's up to the US Figure Skating to say, "Yep, we agree with you, let's work together to fix this." The silence coming from them publicly is deafening to me. They want a clean bill of health, and they're not getting it. The only lever I can see Safe Sport has is the threat of the USOC deciding to de-certify them if they don't clean up their act, or Congress stepping in (because oversight is a terrible thing to live through).

 

[UGG]

But saying "a culture in figure skating that allowed grooming and abuse to go unchecked for too long." is strange.
That sounds like a major problem and someone needs to do something about it. Obviously, they have evidence of grooming and abuse to make that kind of statement. With all the info they have, if SafeSport isn't going to make it a safe sport then what's the point?

How do you know what information they have? Maybe they have complaints that have reached statute of limitations. Maybe they have reports of abuse where there is not enough information to move forward because the person accused is dead because they committed suicide.. Maybe there are people who report abuse and then take it back...for whatever reason. I am pretty sure Safe Sport isn't picking names out of a hat, laughing Dr. Evil style, and trying to ruin a life of some random person.

 

[UGG]

... peeping and barging in are different stories... peeping in most cases is about "sex" (unless one is a private detective collecting some evidence) and barging in may have nothing to do with sex, just bad manners.

Coach barges into a locker room: https://media.giphy.com/media/26n7aXjOKeStH78v6/giphy-downsized-large.gif

.. and that is far different then a young skater complaining that "his/her coach keeps opening the changing room door peeking in when he or she is undressing".

I have a problem (so far) with lack of set criteria "what should be reported" and how it is defined. There seems to be a lot left to "interpretation" and "personal morals" and "personal view about sex".

I also have an impression that even in 21-st century, in progressive USA:
- "sex" is still considered to be some "big deal".
- that particularly "girl's" virginity is something valuable.
- that "a man takes sex, and woman gives sex".
- that to a female "sex is emotional issue rather than just fun" and to a man "it is nature's call".
- that females should "guard themselves against men who just want to have sex" without any assumption that "females may also just want a boy for a quick sex".
- that a quick affair "is wrong for a woman", and "ok for a man, and that's what they want".

Do "protectors of the young girls" ever consider a possibility that a 17 year old female, can have 3 boyfriends outside a rink, and still have a quick roll in a hay, with a 30-something coach... maybe just for experience, or conquest to add his name to her little black book?

you are incorrect in what you have stated above.

-Sex is not a big deal. Sex between minors and adults is a big deal.
-A girl's virginity is valuable if she is bullied/groomed to have sex with someone much older See R. Kelly
-Man takes sex and a women gives sex- I have no idea what that means.
-I think sex is more emotional for young women than it is for older women. That is not a good or bad thing.
- As far as guarding themselves against men who just want to have sex- yes...if the female is a teenager she should probably do that. It is creepy for a 26 year old to want to f**K a 14 year old'. Or in general it is creepy for a dude to want to screw a person that has no interest and makes it clear.
-I am pretty sure no woman feels a quick affair is "ok" for a man

 

[mollymgr]

How do you know what information they have? Maybe they have complaints that have reached statute of limitations. Maybe they have reports of abuse where there is not enough information to move forward because the person accused is dead because they committed suicide.. Maybe there are people who report abuse and then take it back...for whatever reason. I am pretty sure Safe Sport isn't picking names out of a hat, laughing Dr. Evil style, and trying to ruin a life of some random person.

I have no clue how much evidence they have. I'm just inferring that they must have enough for them to state that there is a problem within the USFSA. I was just hoping that they would do something more about it. But apparently they don't as skatfan stated from their website.

 

[Prancer]

I have no clue how much evidence they have. I'm just inferring that they must have enough for them to state that there is a problem within the USFSA. I was just hoping that they would do something more about it. But apparently they don't as skatfan stated from their website.

I am not sure what they could do. If I understand their mission correctly, SafeSport was created to investigate specific allegations of misconduct. Who and what would they investigate here and to what end? If the complaints were not about specific code of conduct violations, what could SafeSport do in this instance?

If the USFS has a policy of mandatory reporting, then that would be something to investigate, but I don't know if they do or not. Anyone?

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

If the USFS has a policy of mandatory reporting, then that would be something to investigate, but I don't know if they do or not. Anyone?

It might be state specific. I think there are about 13 states that require institutions to have mandatory reporting if they organize any activities for children. That includes camps and recreation centers. I would think that it would cover sporting organizations in those cases. But I'm not sure.

 

[Prancer]

It might be state specific. I think there are about 13 states that require institutions to have mandatory reporting if they organize any activities for children. That includes camps and recreation centers. I would think that it would cover sporting organizations in those cases. But I'm not sure.

If it's state specific, wouldn't that be a legal issue for the states and not something that would be in SafeSport's purview?

I don't actually know; I am asking.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

If the USFS has a policy of mandatory reporting, then that would be something to investigate, but I don't know if they do or not. Anyone?

Yes, they do. It is addressed in their SafeSport handbook:
https://www.usfsa.org/content/safesport handbook.pdf

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

NM @RFOS answered while I was typing my question.

ETA: The covered individuals for mandatory reporting are listed on p. 11 in the link RFOS provided. It's a huge list.

 

[Willin]

@Prancer @mpal2 It's state-specific, but even then not everyone is a mandatory reporter. Even though a coach may not know, other skaters or parents may know, but it wouldn't matter because they aren't mandated reporters. In some states even coaches aren't necessarily required to report.
I would imagine SafeSport could require organizations to have a policy on individuals who are mandated reporters for the sport nationally (eg all coaches), but there wouldn't be legally binding punishment for individuals who fail to report. And even if the organization has a policy, if the person who failed to report is high up enough would the organization actually punish them for their failure?



I think the biggest issue with the USFS culture problem is that culture is hard to change. I'd imagine it's harder to change when people don't see a need for change. If, like some people are saying, this cultural problem involves pairs partners dating each other, maybe it's so accepted and/or so many excuses are made to justify it that no one would think to report something that would be wrong or inappropriate in any non-pairs skating situation.

The only solution I can think of is education of parents and athletes, since educating the coaches isn't doing enough. Teach them what grooming looks like. Teach them what's appropriate and when. Teach them about consent. Tell them what a healthy relationship looks like. Teach them about power differentials. Have mandatory consent and sexual harassment training for athletes and parents. Tell them how to report and who to report to. That might not help right away or with all cases, but I think it would help skaters and parents understand the concepts and raise awareness so that in future generations skaters and parents can avoid these situations and feel more empowered to stop ones that are happening.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

nm

 

[overedge]

@Willin I think USFS is trying to do some of that with the campaigns aimed at athletes about speaking up. But saying that and actually having the structures in place to ensure the complainants are supported and protected are two very different things. And one won't be effective without the other.

 

[Prancer]

I would imagine SafeSport could require organizations to have a policy on individuals who are mandated reporters for the sport nationally (eg all coaches), but there wouldn't be legally binding punishment for individuals who fail to report. And even if the organization has a policy, if the person who failed to report is high up enough would the organization actually punish them for their failure?

That's certainly an issue in any organization, as we have seen in some recent cases involving famous people.

But isn't that the point of having a SafeSport organization, so that independent (and that is problematic with SS) investigations can be done and organizations are bound by the rules of that investigation?

I think the biggest issue with the USFS culture problem is that culture is hard to change. I'd imagine it's harder to change when people don't see a need for change. If, like some people are saying, this cultural problem involves pairs partners dating each other, maybe it's so accepted and/or so many excuses are made to justify it that no one would think to report anything wrong or inappropriate in any non-pairs skating situation.

Well, sure, and I would think that this case should serve as a wake-up call to all kinds of people. But you often see situations where you would think people would see the need for change and all they do instead is double down.

The only solution I can think of is education of parents and athletes, since educating the coaches isn't doing enough. Teach them what grooming looks like. Teach them what's appropriate and when. Teach them about consent. Tell them what a healthy relationship looks like. Teach them about power differentials. Have mandatory consent and sexual harassment training for athletes and parents. Tell them how to report and who to report to. That might not help right away or with all cases, but I think it would help skaters and parents understand the concepts and raise awareness so that in future generations skaters and parents can avoid these situations and feel more empowered to stop ones that are happening.

I am a big fan of education and think all of this is great, but education is pretty limited. See all the coaches required to take education on sexual misconduct.

People do not take ethics violations very seriously and people are very good at justifying their unethical behavior to themselves. I don't know how to get around that, but I do think that it is necessary for the people who run organizations to make it clear that ethical conduct is not optional.

 

[Artistic Skaters]

I have no clue how much evidence they have.

All they would have needed to do is go back & review twenty years of the USFSA grievances & banned coaches, along with their own SafeSport cases. It would have provided them more than enough information to support the statement in their news release. There are also public records & news articles available since several of the coaches were criminally charged and prosecuted.

 

[aftershocks]

@Prancer, I have acknowledged that I do not have all the answers, nor have I claimed to. What I feel from what little I do know and have seen is that this moment demands better courage and better leadership, rather than fingerpointing and falling back on excuses.

It's a tragic situation that demands more clarity, rather than people taking sides and fearing future 'what if' scenarios. Obviously, there are people in the public who have been conflating, generalizing and rushing to judgement on all sides. I do not think SafeSport has been doing that. Clearly, the organization was formed to right wrongs and to aid victims who too often have gone unheard and ignored. But in trying to solve these complex problems, the organization needs to be open to regular review of their guidelines and procedures, and they should be willing to focus on making improvements instead of relying on excuses. To your question about my arbitration suggestion, of course that measure is not going to be needed or appropriate for every case. Therein lies the problem of trying to pursue investigations, while treating everyone fairly, and guarding against a rush to judgment or a witchhunt. Again, I'm not claiming that's what happened in this instance. Still, every case surely involves unique circumstances, some which might offer the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation.

I think what happened in the Coughlin case should be something that SafeSport would at least wish to make an attempt to examine. IOW, they could rethink finding ways to not only protect the accusers, but also the accused who during the course of a prolonged investigation may unfairly face unfounded gossip, innuendo, prejudiced commentary, and substantial livelihood challenges. OTOH, SafeSport may feel they were not formed or adquately funded to be able to protect the accused over the course of an investigation. But they should at least be willing to acknowledge that a need exists to review some of their approaches to pursuing cases, and try to make improvements. Another thing that occurs to me is the fact that Coughlin had a very high profile. He was widely known and respected within the sport for his passion, knowledge and past accomplishments. AFAIK, he had only recently began coaching on a more regular basis with Gracie Gold, if I'm not mistaken. In any case, whether wrongly or rightly, a person's high profile can have some bearing on how news of an investigation and a suspension are received/ perceived by the public and by the individual. Apparently, for whatever reason, the allegations and changed life circumstances devastated Coughlin and seemingly distorted his perceptions and his personal outlook.

What has happened in this case during this volatile and heated cultural landscape, provides an opportunity for the sport and for people on the sidelines to react in more responsible ways. It would be a positive and healing outcome if what happened could elevate a discussion, hopefully leading to the beginning of charting beneficial resolution of these grievously complicated and problematic conflicts. Sadly, that hasn't happened, so as things stand, the grief, trauma, rampant emotions, and confusion surrounding this particular case, continue unchecked.

 

[flyushka]

John was offered psychiatric resources on the day of his death, and many times before that. He chose not to take it. His family presents this as something new that just popped up; it was not and there had been concern about John for months. He had been offered help many times by many people; he chose not to take it. He was offered the same urgent appeal hearing of the suspension that everyone is offered (within 72 hours); he chose not to take it. He was offered love and support and friendship every day, including on the day of his death, and he chose not to take it.

John chose to kill himself.

The Center for SafeSport has thousands of cases, and one person chose to kill himself after being accused. The criminal justice system has hundreds of thousands of people accused each year. Don't blame the system.

Whoa there. Sooo this information opens up a whole new can of worms for me. He was offered psychiatric resources by who? Safe Sport? Do they have clinicians on staff, or contracted with them? I cannot agree with the notion that he "chose" to refuse help, as what you're describing is a very ill individual very much in need of emergency medical care to save his life. Unfortunately many people in this situation do deny that they need help, but they are not necessarily competent to make that decision for themselves. From what you write, it doesn't sound like John was competent to choose anything for himself at that time.

If there was this level of concern about John for months, and some sort of psychiatric service was involved (especially if involved via Safe Sport or USFS), I'm now wondering about some sort of legal exposure here. I'm a doc, not a lawyer, so I really don't know. All I know is if someone in this condition was seen by a psychiatrist and subsequently committed suicide, the psychiatrist claiming that they failed to provide care because the patient refused help would not be an acceptable excuse to avoid liability if the suicide was deemed foreseeable. They would need a documented risk assessment backing up why they did/did not involuntarily commit this person. Hindsight is 20/20 of course and I have no idea if any psychiatric service actually made contact with John, but this information troubles me very much and it's tragic he didn't get the help he needed. If it was Safe Sport or another entity involving the psychiatric services with some degree of knowledge of his mental state, this seems to have serious implications and should definitely be examined going forward.

Also, suicides and suicide attempts are a major problem in the criminal justice system. It's very much a part of the system, not some sort of rarity.

 

[aftershocks]

If John had defended himself and been cleared, the allegations wouldn't have been known to haunt him. There have been coaches with interim suspensions who were eventually cleared by SafeSport who have returned to coaching just fine.

What's 'just fine' for some who have been accused and who weathered investigation and were later exonerated, is obviously not 'just fine' for everyone in every instance. Who can say definitively what we humans as individuals might be 'haunted by or not haunted by' under any set of cirumstances?

 

[aftershocks]

... Let's leave aside the Coughlin case ... Suppose that the accusation is not of some sort of consensual relationship but outright rape and that the accuser was twelve and the accused was forty at the time of the incident. Suppose further that the accusation is true.

Do you really suppose that understanding and reconciliation is possible or even desirable?

Obviously not @Vagabond in the 'outright rape' scenario you posit. I was specifically addressing the Coughlin case in my remarks. Indeed, I could share some additional abusive horror stories with you as well, aside from the one I mentioned in my initial post.

Suffice to say we live in an imperfect world where bad stuff happens. Read Sally Field's recent memoir, In Pieces (suffered sexual abuse starting at the age of 3, by her stepfather); read Hunger, by Roxane Gay (suffered horrific sexual abuse at the age of 12 by her 12-year-old boyfriend and his friends; the victim never told her parents until her late 30s after experiencing years of severe emotional and physical PTSD trauma and life challenges; to this day she has never identified her abuser or sought to bring him to justice); read Educated, by Tara Westover (suffered violent physical abuse by an older brother she deeply cared about who was bipolar; the situation was ignored by her emotionally violent bipolar father and codependent mother -- there's a lot more to this story though than just this description; it's complicated).

Furthermore, read Anthony Ray Hinton's The Sun Does Shine: How I Found Life and Freedom on Death Row (about the frightful criminal justice system in Alabama and the United States, which has led to wrongfully accused suffering years of incarceration, separation from loved ones, and the specter of the electric chair).

 

[nlloyd]

The figure skating cases are regularly taking over a year. Looking only at the public cases, three involved criminal charges. Of the others, Richard Callaghan, Steve Moore, and Kordale Bavor have all been under investigation for over a year. I heard at Nationals from reliable sources that neither Richard Callaghan nor Steve Moore's case is close to a resolution. There are several cases that are not public that have been under investigation for a year. I am horrified by the stories that were shared with me at Nationals (after my post that you reference) about how the Center is treating victims and what the Center has asked of victims in our community.

The Center for SafeSport appears to be bending over backwards to avoid "taking someone's career away" (based on what is being shared by people who have been involved with cases). The burden of proof to suspend a coach is very high; the burden of proof to ban a coach appears to be nearly impossible to reach. This is the opposite problem of what the most vocal people on social media are saying. The problem is not that the Center is failing to protect coaches; it is failing to protect athletes.

Thanks for clarifying your stance re SafeSport, 5Ali3. It had not occurred to me that the Center has failed to protect athletes adequately. I had understood criticism of the Center to emanate from Coughlin's family/friends and to be based on the assertion that it failed to protect the accused adequately. The only other viewpoint I had read was that the Center was protecting athletes adequately as demonstrated by Coughlin being given an interim suspension. This third view is a combination of the worst of these options. The Center has failed by taking too long to complete investigations, being overly concerned with depriving someone of their career and of establishing an unrealistic burden of proof, and as a result, athletes are more vulnerable. It is particularly ironic that Coughlin's family and friends have argued that the Center was not sufficiently aware of the effects of its actions on Coughlin's career etc. In fact, it is just such a consideration that has led to the failure to adequately protect athletes.

 

[aftershocks]

In fact, it is just such a consideration that has led to the failure to adequately protect athletes.

That observation presupposes a knowledge of all of the evidence, conduct and investigatory actions that took place in the Coughlin case. The details have yet to be revealed. The investigation was not completed, but it should be.

And in fact, due to Coughlin's high profile and his popularity, the need for protecting the accusers and ensuring safety for all involved actually took on more urgency. SafeSport seemingly was unaware of the emotionally volatile circumstances that existed in this case and that spiraled out of control. Even now, there's concern for protecting the safety and identity of the accusers.

 

[misskarne]

SafeSport seemingly was unaware of the emotionally volatile circumstances that existed in this case and that spiraled out of control. Even now, there's concern for protecting the safety and identity of the accusers.

That's a little daft. SafeSport offered Coughlin counselling. How were they supposed to know he'd refuse it and kill himself? Unless he told SafeSport outright "if you do this I will kill myself" and they still suspended him, they're not one bit responsible for Coughlin's suicide.

 

[Prancer]

@Prancer, I have acknowledged that I do not have all the answers, nor have I claimed to.

Believe it or not, I am aware that you don't have all the answers. I didn't say that I thought you did or that you claimed to. That wasn't the point at all. It never is.

 

[flyushka]

That's a little daft. SafeSport offered Coughlin counselling. How were they supposed to know he'd refuse it and kill himself? Unless he told SafeSport outright "if you do this I will kill myself" and they still suspended him, they're not one bit responsible for Coughlin's suicide.

I don't know, man. Should an organization that's investigating you really be the one to offer mental health services for you? Especially if they don't really know what they're doing with it and aren't qualified to understand what level of care is needed? Does this not introduce some ethical problems here - with coercion/consent to treatment, and with expectations of confidentiality? Perhaps someone being investigated and offered this counseling service by the same entity that's investigating them might reasonably fear that information divulged to the counselor could be used against them. Or the simple fact that they accepted/rejected help could be used against them. Perhaps someone who might have otherwise accepted counseling from some independent party ends up rejecting help wholesale because the suggestion coming from people involved in the investigation makes them angry (irrational, but not implausible). Seems like the mere fact of involving/offering mental health services, especially if done improperly (or not well, at least), kind of does imply some degree of responsibility here. I mean, with the caveat I know nothing about this situation beyond what's written here, but yikes, if true, these issues really need to be thought through by the organization.

 

[oleada]

I mean, it could be that Coughlin was referred to an outside provider for mental health services.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I mean, it could be that Coughlin was referred to an outside provider for mental health services.

That is more likely than SafeSport providing the service. That's not the reason the organization exists.

 

[Tinami Amori]

oh, what the heck, i am going to ask...

"Third party reporting" ...
What happens if "someone with his/her own morals and understandings of what is allowed", or someone who has a "gripe with a coach or skater/family and wants to cause trouble" watches a practice, takes a foto, and decides to report "inappropriate touching" based on something like this? And finds two more people to "help out", so there are 3 complaints; Will the coach be under investigation?
https://tellymix.co.uk/ts/800/450/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/dancing-on-ice-2019-tx3-2.jpg
https://rec.bluehens.com/common/con..._path=/images/2018/6/21/HPTC_Web_Banner_1.png
http://01f2ff7.netsolhost.com/Axel/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kaelin-and-Coach-Thomas.jpg

What happens if two adults, over 20, a skater and a coach, start having a romantic relationship? What if it is a foreign coach and a foreign skater? Let's say the couple does not display relationship at the rink. Let's say the coach treats all other students fairly, without favoritism to the "lover". Every one knows they are in a relationship, but it is kept "professional" inside the rink.

Would these two couples get reported to Safe Sport?
https://media.tag24.de/0/9/c/9c2rf8hclh70h80m.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfrYme7X4AATyPW.jpg

 

[AxelAnnie]

oh, what the heck, i am going to ask...

"Third party reporting" ...
What happens if "someone with his/her own morals and understandings of what is allowed", or someone who has a "gripe with a coach or skater/family and wants to cause trouble" watches a practice, takes a foto, and decides to report "inappropriate touching" based on something like this? And finds two more people to "help out", so there are 3 complaints; Will the coach be under investigation?
https://tellymix.co.uk/ts/800/450/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/dancing-on-ice-2019-tx3-2.jpg
https://rec.bluehens.com/common/con..._path=/images/2018/6/21/HPTC_Web_Banner_1.png
http://01f2ff7.netsolhost.com/Axel/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kaelin-and-Coach-Thomas.jpg

What happens if two adults, over 20, a skater and a coach, start having a romantic relationship? What if it is a foreign coach and a foreign skater? Let's say the couple does not display relationship at the rink. Let's say the coach treats all other students fairly, without favoritism to the "lover". Every one knows they are in a relationship, but it is kept "professional" inside the rink.

Would these two couples get reported to Safe Sport?
https://media.tag24.de/0/9/c/9c2rf8hclh70h80m.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfrYme7X4AATyPW.jpg

Well, one nasty breakup and SLAM, BAM, THANK YOU MAM...and there could well be a report.............several if friends decided to "support" the first person.

 

[mollymgr]

I don't think it is as easy as 3 people conspiring to report someone and... boom you are done. It appears SafeSport was conducting several interviews for a while going back as far as several decades ago.