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.
