SafeSport to overturn lifetime ban of Richard Callaghan

[VGThuy]

This is why so many cell phone companies and whatnot make people sign contracts that state any legal dispute can only be handled through binding arbitration rather than the court of law. Although, I guess this makes sense since SafeSport is a non-government body so they wouldn’t have access to an admin judge. So it seems SafeSport makes the initial determinations and if someone appeals, then an arbitrator handles it so that the same body that handed the initial decision isn’t reviewing their own decisions on appeal to get rid of conflicts-of-interest. Now, I want to see the basis of this arbitrator’s overturning of SafeSport’s initial decision to ban Callahan for life.

 

[Lacey]

I want to try to always say something nice on this board. I am screaming and, for legal reasons, unable to comment.

This is a negative, no make that -100, decision. IMO, the punishment should have been more, not less.

Please, to whomever has jurisdiction over his finale, do not let Richard Callaghan in a skate house with children of any age, no matter his age. And if the appeal can be turned around and repealed, let it be, let it be, let it be.

I am so very, very sad.

 

[DreamSkates]

We can all contact SafeSport and speak up. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/about/contact-us/

 

[bethy135]

I want to try to always say something nice on this board. I am screaming and, for legal reasons, unable to comment.

This is a negative, no make that -100, decision. IMO, the punishment should have been more, not less.

Please, to whomever has jurisdiction over his finale, do not let Richard Callaghan in a skate house with children of any age, no matter his age. And if the appeal can be turned around and repealed, let it be, let it be, let it be.

I am so very, very sad.

{{{Lacey}}}

 

[VGThuy]

We can all contact SafeSport and speak up. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/about/contact-us/

Although this probably won’t help the Callahan case, I do think speaking up and contacting them is a good idea so that they can rethink this process moving forward.

 

[Debbie S]

New article from Brennan: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ng-coach-has-lifetime-ban-reduced/2670686001/

The sentence was reduced b/c penalties for sexual abuse in the 70s were less than they are now. (Except that the second allegation took place in the late 90s, 20 years after Maurizi.)

 

[VGThuy]

New article from Brennan: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ng-coach-has-lifetime-ban-reduced/2670686001/

The sentence was reduced b/c penalties for sexual abuse in the 70s were less than they are now. (Except that the second allegation took place in the late 90s, 20 years after Maurizi.)

I didn’t know SafeSport was tied to whatever the penalties were at the time of the incidents.

 

[BittyBug]

Regardless, USFS and PSA could have their own rule permanently disqualifying from eligibility anyone who has been found by SafeSport to have committed sexual abuse.

 

[VGThuy]

Regardless, USFS and PSA could have their own rule permanently disqualifying from eligibility anyone who has been found by SafeSport to have committed sexual abuse.

I hope PSA learned a few things since they made that now deleted twitter/Instagram post being tone deaf towards the victims during the Coughlin death aftermath during those red Chief caps Nationals.

 

[Lacey]

As frustrating as this is... will Callaghan even be coaching when his 3 years are up? He's pretty old. I would expect him to quietly retire.
That was NOT clear to me from the article, but I think not.

Ugh. OK I get that the law wins and always has loopholes. Double Ugh. So, the penalties used to be far less when the first crime argued was committed. (But perhaps stiffer penalties existed when the second instance occurred? Can someone follow that?)

What was the starting date of Callaghan's 3 year suspension and 15 year probation?

With all due respect, @MacMadame, I think he would always try to coach until he is 150 years old, I can't imagine that he will go quietly.

 

[VGThuy]

Ugh OK I get the penalties used to be far less when the first crime argued was committed. (But perhaps stiffer penalties when the second instance occurred? Can someone follow that?)

What was the starting date of Callaghan's 3 year suspension and 15 year probation?

With all due respect, @MacMadame, I think he would always try to coach until he is 150 years old, I can't imagine that he will go quietly.

Yep. From his attorney’s press release, it sounds like he feels absolutely vindicated even though the Arbitrator did not take away the SafeSport’s condemnation of him, just greatly lessened the sentence based on a technicality. The original finding of guilt still stands.

 

[dramagrrl]

This is garbage.

 

[Colonel Green]

If those are SafeSport's rules, then those are the rules, but those rules don't make any sense to me. The purpose of SafeSport is to determine who is allowed to work as a coach. Based on what SafeSport has determined was Callaghan's conduct, he should not ever be working as a coach. Why does it matter that in the past when he was committing some of these offenses the penalties for it were lesser? This isn't a criminal trial where there's an imperative to avoid retroactivity; this is entirely a prospective judgement about what's going to happen from now on.

 

[kwanfan1818]

If SafeSport uses independent arbitrators, and the arbitrator made the ruling, that would mean that the arbitrator told SafeSport they couldn't go through with their original decision about Callahan. Brennan, though, tweeted,

"U.S. Olympic figure skating coach Richard Callaghan’s lifetime ban is reduced to three years by an arbitrator. Why? SafeSport says it must use laws that existed at the time of the sexual abuse — the 1970s in this case."​

Christine Brennan on Twitter

“U.S. Olympic figure skating coach Richard Callaghan’s lifetime ban is reduced to three years by an arbitrator. Why? SafeSport says it must use laws that existed at the time of the sexual abuse — the 1970s in this case. My @usatodaysports story: https://t.co/lSdgw8fzYU”

twitter.com

And in her article, she quotes SafeSport's spokesperson:

“When the allegations pre-date the U.S. Center for SafeSport, the Center has to use whatever rules and laws existed from the sport, the U.S. Olympic Committee or state and local government at the time,” SafeSport spokesman Dan Hill told USA TODAY Sports on Monday night.​

​

So, which is it: the arbitrator made the ruling and SafeSport is reporting the change the arbitrator is dictating they make OR SafeSport is going farther than the arbitrator ruled, OR SafeSport is responsible for making the change. Because if it's the former, then I think Brennan should have come right out and said that SafeSport was disclosing the arbitrator's decision. If the arbitrator ruling that is up for interpretation, then she should have reported on the latitude the organization had in interpreting it.

I'm not sure the blame thrown at SafeSport is well-founded.

 

[overedge]

Although it's a different situation, in labour relations cases, arbitration by an external third party can result in what happened here - a solid case but the outcome/penalty being adjusted. It doesn't mean that there isn't agreement on the facts, but that the arbitrator has a different view of what the penalty should be.

That being said, the standard of "penalties were different in the 1970s" seems very odd to me. Sexual abuse laws in the 1970s were not very effective or were not being applied very appropriately. That's why we now have different laws and we have organizations like SafeSport. Using that retroactive standard isn't right IMO.

And someone who has done stuff like Callaghan has done, no matter when it happened, should never be anywhere near a skater ever again. I agree with @BittyBug that USFS should have a rule that if SafeSport finds complaints to be valid, the coaching certification is cancelled.

 

[Erin]

I wonder if this finding will result in any additional complaints to SafeSport about Callaghan. There is at least one survivor from the 2000s (Schmidt) who has gone public. I’m assuming Callaghan can still be banned permanently over different complaints. Although the Brennan article makes it seem like the banning was related to the Schmidt lawsuit, as far as I know, Schmidt wasn’t part of the original SafeSport complaint.

 

[Carolla5501]

I’m going to point out a couple of things that some of you seem to be missing. In the United States, when you are found guilty of a crime you do have the right to appeal. What some of you seem to want to do is say if you go to this administrative system you no longer have an a right to an appeal. You also seem to want to believe that Safesport was a group of people will always be 100% right. Considering what we’ve already seen other I would dare to say that the chances of these people getting it right every time are on a scale of slim to none. So an system is absolutely necessary.

We also are convicting without having seen any of the real evidence. Well I firmly believe he’s probably guilty, I also don’t believe that I know all the facts that led to both his initial sentencing and the appeal. Forming a lynching mob on here is hardly effective judgment either.

My honest thought is that safe sport probably automatically bumps up the initial judgment just in case they get an appeal and lose some of it. That’s not uncommon with administrative things like this. And I think that’s especially true when you know your “lifetime ban” is going to get you a lot of headlines and press. I feel like to certain extent this organization is motivated by “look at us” headlines


My other thought continues to be that unfortunately this is Not really an effective system. If you have an abuser and all you’re saying is you can’t teach skating, you have not removed the abuser from being where children could be harmed. What’s the stop them from abusing children in another environment/place?

 

[Doggygirl]

No wonder it is so emotionally difficult for survivors to come forward....

 

[nimi]

So much "WTF" in one post but this bit was especially "WTF":

We also are convicting without having seen any of the real evidence. Well I firmly believe he’s probably guilty, I also don’t believe that I know all the facts that led to both his initial sentencing and the appeal. Forming a lynching mob on here is hardly effective judgment either.

Who is the "we" here doing the "convicting"? "We" as a society, including organizations like SafeSport? Do you think they have not "seen any of the real evidence"?

Or do you mean "we" as FSUers? Are you suggesting that we, the people posting things and opining on a skating forum, have the power to convict people? Are you arguing that Callaghan's "right to appeal" means that other people are not allowed to express their thoughts and feelings about the Callaghan case and the SafeSport process, because we're totally comparable to a judicial body with the power to issue convictions? (But whatabout muh free speach?!?! /s)

And did you really just say that people are "forming a lynching mob on here"? I mean, really? You think that if people here express their disagreement with the arbitrator's decision and their wish to see Callaghan permanently banned from the sport etc., they're just one step away from trying to literally kill him? Also why use the specific word you used when in American context, the word invokes the traumatic history of racial terror? I hope you're not trying to imply that people expressing negative views about Callaghan are comparable to lynching mobs who targeted innocent African Americans and acted with impunity, but words have meanings and connotations and if your point was that we should be careful about how we talk about difficult topics... Dunno, maybe consider that words matter and think about which words you choose to use and why?

 

[her grace]

I’m going to point out a couple of things that some of you seem to be missing. In the United States, when you are found guilty of a crime you do have the right to appeal. What some of you seem to want to do is say if you go to this administrative system you no longer have an a right to an appeal.

I am fine with a right of appeal. In this case, it seems that the arbitrator did not ultimately disagree with the fact findings, but the amount of punishment. I am firmly opposed to giving a predator a slap on the wrist because, poor thing, we knew in the 70's that this behavior was wrong, but we didn't take it very seriously then so we shouldn't keep him away from children now.

Forming a lynching mob on here is hardly effective judgment either.

Can we stop with the lynching mob? A lynching mob is literally going out to find a person, usually a person of color, to kill. That is not at all what we are doing here. Not even close.

 

[BittyBug]

I am fine with a right of appeal. In this case, it seems that the arbitrator did not ultimately disagree with the fact findings, but the amount of punishment. I am firmly opposed to giving a predator a slap on the wrist because, poor thing, we knew in the 70's that this behavior was wrong, but we didn't take it very seriously then so we shouldn't keep him away from children now.

Quoting because this bears repeating.

 

[antmanb]

Exactly, the righteous BS act in that post makes my blood boil.

No-one is saying that someone shouldn't have a right of appeal from a safe sport decision, but it is absolutely valid to question the reduction in punishment based on rules in the 70s, when one of the complaints against Callahan relates to abuses that took place between 1999 and 2001, when the punishments were much more like what we have today.

I have question about Callahan being told to do community service. In the UK that is a criminal punishment that can only be handed down through a criminal court process, how is it possible for an arbitrator to hand down a criminal penalty?

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

Safesport sounds like the athletic protection of Fair Work in Australia. Both useless.

They only have the power to act as referees in an 'honour-based' mediation between parties.

I’m going to point out a couple of things that some of you seem to be missing. In the United States, when you are found guilty of a crime you do have the right to appeal. What some of you seem to want to do is say if you go to this administrative system you no longer have an a right to an appeal. You also seem to want to believe that Safesport was a group of people will always be 100% right. Considering what we’ve already seen other I would dare to say that the chances of these people getting it right every time are on a scale of slim to none. So an system is absolutely necessary.

We also are convicting without having seen any of the real evidence. Well I firmly believe he’s probably guilty, I also don’t believe that I know all the facts that led to both his initial sentencing and the appeal. Forming a lynching mob on here is hardly effective judgment either.

My honest thought is that safe sport probably automatically bumps up the initial judgment just in case they get an appeal and lose some of it. That’s not uncommon with administrative things like this. And I think that’s especially true when you know your “lifetime ban” is going to get you a lot of headlines and press. I feel like to certain extent this organization is motivated by “look at us” headlines


My other thought continues to be that unfortunately this is Not really an effective system. If you have an abuser and all you’re saying is you can’t teach skating, you have not removed the abuser from being where children could be harmed. What’s the stop them from abusing children in another environment/place?

The irony is that SafeSport seems to want things both ways.

 

[skatfan]

Exactly, the righteous BS act in that post makes my blood boil.

No-one is saying that someone shouldn't have a right of appeal from a safe sport decision, but it is absolutely valid to question the reduction in punishment based on rules in the 70s, when one of the complaints against Callahan relates to abuses that took place between 1999 and 2001, when the punishments were much more like what we have today.

I have question about Callahan being told to do community service. In the UK that is a criminal punishment that can only be handed down through a criminal court process, how is it possible for an arbitrator to hand down a criminal penalty?

I was also wondering what probation looks like for Callahan. That’s usually a job for law enforcement.

 

[wickedwitch]

My other thought continues to be that unfortunately this is Not really an effective system. If you have an abuser and all you’re saying is you can’t teach skating, you have not removed the abuser from being where children could be harmed. What’s the stop them from abusing children in another environment/place?

They aren't expected to mitigate every possible scenario of child abuse. The only way to do that is to literally jail them for life for even a "minor" incident, which is completely unreasonable and unconstitutional. What they can do is limit the chances of child abuse. Someone in skating may feel it's worth the risk, because he coached an Oly champion. But if an employer or client not in skating does even a slight bit of research, they won't hire Callaghan, because there's no upside to that risk. That's why the ban from skating is crucial.

 

[mollymgr]

I understand that people should have the right to appeal. But when there are multiple cases involved, I don't get the logic of applying old rules. The main focus should be the safety of kids and athletes at this moment in time and for the future. How are people supposed to feel safe if SafeSport flips back and forth on its decisions?

 

[kwanfan1818]

To say that SafeSport should have the final say is denying the right of appeal. And to blame SafeSport for changing its decision is criticizing them for the arbitrator's decision: they didn't waste a great amount of limited resources to the case only to wake up one morning and decide to gut their own decision.

While the SafeSport process is not the same as criminal court, there is a concept that laws and policies shouldn't be updated and applied retroactively. I think there's a difference between law enforcement, the courts, agencies, organizations, and employers applying actual laws and standards toothlessly or ignoring what is on the books, a la Domingo or Levine or Weinstein, and there being no or lax laws, policies, and precedents, which sounds like the case with Callahan.

 

[Vagabond]

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any ex post facto law.

As stated by the Supreme Court in Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798),

Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

As an agency set up by Federal legislation, SafeSport is subject to Constitutional restrictions, and those it disciplines are entitled to Constitutional guarantees of due process.

Anyone who has a problem with this should address concerns to the Framers of the Constitution at their last-known addresses.

 

[Carolla5501]

I’m Sorry some you took offense. But I wonder why. If you’re in writing to complain to safe sport that there should not be an arbitration right then I’m sorry I think you’re wrong. And if you think the length of a “ban” should be based on public opinion on a message board, that’s another issue that I think is a little weird ( ferln free to attack me. )

I also still think that most of safesport is show. It’s not protecting kids. It takes way too long, and it has no real teeth

 

[skatingguy]

Anyone who has a problem with this should address concerns to the Framers of the Constitution at their last-known addresses.

Google maps is having difficulty giving directions to their location.