SafeSport to overturn lifetime ban of Richard Callaghan

[nlloyd]

The mandate is to protect all athletes, not just minors.

Thanks, that is an important clarification because coaches, by virtue of their position, have influence over athletes who are, in legal terms, adults. There is a power differential built into any coach-athlete relationship, particularly where athletes are depending on coaches for success at the competitive level. My point still stands, though. Is SafeSport's mandate, in effect (and as a result of its arbitration process), only to protect athletes from abusive coaches according to the standards in place at the time the abuse took place?

 

[Tavi]

If he can’t do his job without abusing children, then he shouldn’t be doing that job.

I don’t disagree with you at all. Unfortunately, the doesn’t always say what we think it should.

@VGThuy, no arguments from me at all - as much as I loved Con Law & Civ Pro I’m pretty rusty on both these days. But I promise if I ever get hold of a copy of the arbitrator’s decision you and I can parse it and tear apart his logic together. ?

 

[kwanfan1818]

s SafeSport's mandate, in effect (and as a result of its arbitration process), only to protect athletes from abusive coaches according to the standards in place at the time the abuse took place?

No. It appears to be the limit of what an arbitrator has decided that SafeSports' sanctions against violators can reach.

Since we're not privy to the arbitrator's decision and may never be, how specific the decision was, and how much interpretative leeway the organization has is unclear, especially in identifying which charge should be applied as well as sentencing ranges in place.

 

[bethy135]

Once again it comes down to whether a survivor will feel like they get any justice from a civil case or settlement.

Nope

 

[Lanie]

I find the responses here to the Callaghan investigation and decision to be absolutely hilarious. And telling. It seems the majority were exposed to the situation through the media, applauded a suspension, determined Callaghan to be a monster and are now indignant that he wasn't given the death penalty, shunning, jail-time, etc and are angry he got 3 years suspension.

If he is 75 with 12-15 years left to him, a 3 year suspension may equate to a functional lifetime ban.

The majority of you all inspire hilarity.

Considering the history of Callaghan's abuse for decades of students, yeah, I'd say him being at least shunned for the rest of his life and unable to work would be somewhat appropriate punishment.

 

[nlloyd]

No. It appears to be the limit of what an arbitrator has decided that SafeSports' sanctions against violators can reach.

Since we're not privy to the arbitrator's decision and may never be, how specific the decision was, and how much interpretative leeway the organization has is unclear, especially in identifying which charge should be applied as well as sentencing ranges in place.

By allowing the arbitrator to set the sanction, SafeSport has given away a key party of its mandate, in my opinion. Perhaps, the arbitrator should simply rule on the accuracy of the findings and the sanction should be set by SafeSport or USFSA.

 

[VGThuy]

I don’t disagree with you at all. Unfortunately, the doesn’t always say what we think it should.

@VGThuy, no arguments from me at all - as much as I loved Con Law & Civ Pro I’m pretty rusty on both these days. But I promise if I ever get hold of a copy of the arbitrator’s decision you and I can parse it and tear apart his logic together. ?

It’s a date. I need you to kick my ass on those topics as well. Lord knows I need my butt kicked from time to time.

 

[kwanfan1818]

By allowing the arbitrator to set the sanction, SafeSport has given away a key party of its mandate, in my opinion. Perhaps, the arbitrator should simply rule on the accuracy of the findings and the sanction should be set by SafeSport or USFSA.

That's fine to posit, but plenty of organizations have mandates that, legally, are not entirely under their control, if they are obligated to have or are involuntarily subject to an independent appeals process. They've chosen arbitration, but an outside court might have decided the same, ie, that their punishments were overreach.

New York City Ballet first suspended and then fired two dancers this year for sexual misconduct, and the dancers union appealed to an arbitrator on behalf of the dancers, who ruled that NYCB had no right to fire the dancers, but upheld the suspensions.

 

[overedge]

@kwanfan1818 The NYCB example is a little different AFAIK because there was a collective agreement setting out a grievance procedure, and the dancers were employees working under that collective agreement. There was an arbitration over the penalty, but the arbitrator would have been bound by the terms of the collective agreement and the penalties that were allowed under those terms.

 

[antmanb]

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. )

Out of interest can you quote a single post from the thread that says there should not be a right of appeal (because arbitration right makes no sense I assume you mean a right of appeal), or where anyone has suggested that the length of ban should be based on public opinion on a message board?

 

[kwanfan1818]

@kwanfan1818 The NYCB example is a little different AFAIK because there was a collective agreement setting out a grievance procedure, and the dancers were employees working under that collective agreement. There was an arbitration over the penalty, but the arbitrator would have been bound by the terms of the collective agreement and the penalties that were allowed under those terms.

And, presumably, the arbitrator was required to take SafeSport's legal limits into consideration. Again back to Vagabond's post about how the organization was formed and how this imposes specific conditions and limits that your cell phone provider isn't subjected to.

 

[Tavi]

SafeSport rules regarding arbitration are set forth in its code & appendices:

https://77media.blob.core.windows.net/uscss/1488581091937.2017-03-03---safesport-code---final.pdf

 

[overedge]

And, presumably, the arbitrator was required to take SafeSport's legal limits into consideration. Again back to Vagabond's post about how the organization was formed and how this imposes specific conditions and limits that your cell phone provider isn't subjected to.

The NYCB situation was an arbitrator ruling on an employer's interpretation of its contract with its employees. SafeSport isn't an employer in the Callaghan situation and the dispute isn't between Callaghan and his employer. I would guess that depending on the arrangement he had with the rinks he was working at, he would be classified either as self-employed or as an independent contractor. So the mandates and the limits of authority of the arbitrator in each situation could be quite different.

 

[MacMadame]

By allowing the arbitrator to set the sanction, SafeSport has given away a key party of its mandate, in my opinion. Perhaps, the arbitrator should simply rule on the accuracy of the findings and the sanction should be set by SafeSport or USFSA.

That's not how arbitration works. You ask for arbitration when you don't agree with any aspect of the decision. Both parties have agreed that arbitration is allowed and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision.

I absolutely believe that the accused should have a right to appeal and that includes the length of their sentence. To say you can't appeal that is not only wrong but would probably be overturned in a court of law.

 

[Vagabond]

That's not how arbitration works. You ask for arbitration when you don't agree with any aspect of the decision. Both parties have agreed that arbitration is allowed and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision.

To which I would add that if the parties had not previously agreed to arbitrate their disputes, Callaghan could have litigated the matter in court.

I do understand why people feel that there is something wrong about this process, but we do need a formal system of dispute resolution available when parties disagree on such matters.

 

[nlloyd]

That's not how arbitration works. You ask for arbitration when you don't agree with any aspect of the decision. Both parties have agreed that arbitration is allowed and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision.

I absolutely believe that the accused should have a right to appeal and that includes the length of their sentence. To say you can't appeal that is not only wrong but would probably be overturned in a court of law.

Yes, I know what arbitration is, but I don't think it is the right mechanism for an organization that is tasked with protecting athletes. In my opinion there should be an impartial third party that checks the work of SafeSport, and to which coaches can appeal, but for this process to be construed as arbitration, in the same way a labour dispute may go to arbitration, goes beyond SafeSport's purview, in my opinion. SafeSport is neither the employer not a court of law. Its task is not to decide on appropriate punishment; it is to protect athletes from abusive coaches. The most important role of the third party is to ensure that the SafeSport investigation have been undertaken fairly and thoroughly. If they have been and a coach is found to have been abusive, there should be uniform sanctions according to the nature of the abuse and based on contemporary understanding of what protecting athletes entails. The quasi legal nature of arbitration, is not appropriate in this context. In my opinion.

 

[nlloyd]

Double post, apologies.

 

[LarrySK8]

Wow Larry, you sure sound arrogant to be judging everyone like that

My 'judgment' was finding the over-wrought, indignant banter to be hilarious.
Punishment has been doled out by the arbitrator. Suspension for three years, then 15 years of probation. The accusations and a couple of reporting victims are now well-known and covered in detail in the media. The details of the abuse are now out there.

By the time the suspension is over, the news will be common knowledge, and I don't believe any parent would seek him out for the training. Then the probation well toward his 90th birthday.

The punishment is a functional retirement for him. Mission accomplished. No more coaching. Skating as it is now won't miss him, and young skaters are now protected. No one will miss him. Das Ende.

Hand wringing over how this is not just somehow is just unwarranted.

 

[overedge]

Hand wringing over how this is not just somehow is just unwarranted.

Dismissing the penalty as being okay because it's a "functional retirement" is wrong. Callaghan's age is irrelevant to the penalty. His actions are unacceptable for any coach, regardless of whether they are young enough to continue a coaching career after the suspension ends.

And if you don't believe that "any parent would seek him out for the training" once he becomes eligible to coach again, you haven't spent a lot of time around skating parents.

 

[MacMadame]

Oh he has spent time around skating parents since he is one.

Which is why I know that he knows that what he said is ridiculous. For one thing, this stuff is not talked about enough at all so there will be parents new to the sport who will not have heard about it.

For another, we all know that if certain parents think a coach can make their kid a star, they will talk themselves around all sorts of troubling behavior. They did it when the Maurizi allegations first became public and they'll do it now.

Luckily for their kids, it's been a while since Callaghan has had a star pupil so the number of parents twisting themselves into a pretzel to convince themselves it will be fine to send their own kids to him will be smaller. But it won't be zero.

 

[ЭPiKUilyam]

I agree Macmadame that skate parents sometimes have blinders on. Didn’t Pat Lipinski garner much criticism during the Maurizi scandal by saying she was unconcerned with him coaching her daughter because Tara was a girl? Eek!

 

[Lana's Box]

I agree Macmadame that skate parents sometimes have blinders on. Didn’t Pat Lipinski garner much criticism during the Maurizi scandal by saying she was unconcerned with him coaching her daughter because Tara was a girl? Eek!

She said that? Oh Lord.

 

[Lacey]

My 'judgment' was finding the over-wrought, indignant banter to be hilarious.
Punishment has been doled out by the arbitrator. Suspension for three years, then 15 years of probation. The accusations and a couple of reporting victims are now well-known and covered in detail in the media. The details of the abuse are now out there.

By the time the suspension is over, the news will be common knowledge, and I don't believe any parent would seek him out for the training. Then the probation well toward his 90th birthday.

The punishment is a functional retirement for him. Mission accomplished. No more coaching. Skating as it is now won't miss him, and young skaters are now protected. No one will miss him. Das Ende.

Hand wringing over how this is not just somehow is just unwarranted.

I am not sure that all incidents have been reported, so the details of the abuse may not be out there.

Noting about this is hilarious, do not insult the victims or us.

There is no such thing as a functional retirement, some coaches just always seem to re-emerge.

 

[LarrySK8]

Oh he has spent time around skating parents since he is one.

LOLOL you assume sooooo much and are sooooo wrong.

 

[LarrySK8]

do not insult the victims or us.

There was no insult to the victims, and no insult to anyone here. The collective over wrought, melodramatic typing (hand-wringing) in general is hilarious. You see insults where there are none.

 

[Sylvia]

USFS' 12/19/19 update re. Richard Callaghan on their GRIEVANCES page:

On March 6, 2018, U.S. Figure Skating adopted the measure issued by the U.S. Center for SafeSport suspending the membership of Richard Callaghan. On August 21, 2019, the U.S. Center for SafeSport modified the sanction to Permanent Ineligibility which was subject to appeal.
As an update in the matter regarding Richard Callaghan, per the Notice of Decision issued by the U.S. Center for SafeSport on August 21, 2019, an opportunity to request a hearing was provided. On August 28, 2019, a request for a hearing was received by the Center. The arbitration hearing was scheduled and took place on December 2, 2019. Upon completion of the hearing, the arbitrator modified the Permanent Ineligibility sanction to a three (3) year suspension beginning December 16, 2019. Callaghan’s return to sport is contingent upon completion of additional terms and upon his return to sport within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, Callaghan will be on probation for a period of fifteen (15) years.
Pursuant to U.S. Figure Skating Bylaw Article XXV, Section 2, U.S. Figure Skating hereby adopts the Sanction imposed by the Center.

 

[VGThuy]

Melodramatic hang-wringing over melodramatic hang-wringers.

 

[MacMadame]

LOLOL you assume sooooo much and are sooooo wrong.

Well, if you aren't either a skating parent or spent time around them, that would definitely explain your idiotic post.

 

[overedge]

There was no insult to the victims, and no insult to anyone here. The collective over wrought, melodramatic typing (hand-wringing) in general is hilarious. You see insults where there are none.

So "melodramatic hand-wringing" is a compliment.
Thanks for clearing that up

 

[apollo13]

To Safesport, all I can say - BOOOOO!