SafeSport to overturn lifetime ban of Richard Callaghan

[Carolla5501]

For your reading enjoyment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217/amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2019/03/13/team-usa-weightlifter-jennyfer-roberts-reported-being-raped-but-safesport-process-only-added-to-her-anxiety/amp/

 

[kwanfan1818]

He's a bit behind answering his email, but

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

John Adams Gravesite

 

[Tinami Amori]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2019/03/13/team-usa-weightlifter-jennyfer-roberts-reported-being-raped-but-safesport-process-only-added-to-her-anxiety/amp/

Just an FYI. She did not let it go after SS. She sued.

Jennyfer Roberts to Sue USOC, USAW and Colin Burns – Weightlifting House

www.weightliftinghouse.com

 

[Winnipeg]

Even he can coach, what parent would hire him given the reputation? KNowing the allegations, I would think his list of clientele would be minimal (at least one would hope so)?

 

[Tinami Amori]

Even he can coach, what parent would hire him given the reputation? KNowing the allegations, I would think his list of clientele would be minimal (at least one would hope so)?

My immediate thought was "what rink would even let him inside"...

 

[LarrySK8]

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.

 

[Winnipeg]

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

 

[Tinami Amori]

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.

I agree that media and readers sometimes and in some cases have a tendency to over-hype and exaggerate "any news".

But! no-one here or in the media wishing Callaghan a death penalty, that is too an exaggeration. The concern is legitimate, will he be allowed to coach children.

After all, this is not about a "pinch, or bad flirt". This man forced kids into sexual encounters, gave them no choice to even leave or to reject his advances. He had one boy in a moving car, that's "no choice". He locked the other one in this office and approached, that's "no choice". It was not a "seduction" or "an offer" where at least kids had some tiny choice, they were held captive and forced. that's more than rape..

 

[Debbie S]

I understand the issues of laws and retroactive, etc, but SafeSport is not part of our criminal justice system and this is not a criminal case. We're not talking about sending Callaghan to jail (although I think he should be there but that's another discussion), we're talking about keeping him away from children/skaters. That is SafeSport's purpose. Unless the arbitrator is suggesting the evidence is inaccurate, which doesn't sound like the case here, the SafeSport determination should be upheld. It's been determined that he is guilty of abuse, that he is a predator, therefore he should be prevented from ever being able to do that again, regardless of whatever year it occurred.

 

[BittyBug]

Thank you @Debbie S. The distinctions you made about SafeSport’s span of control and role vs. law enforcement / criminal justice are important and germain to the disgust expressed by so many about the arbitration decision.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Thank you @Debbie S. The distinctions you made about SafeSport’s span of control and role vs. law enforcement / criminal justice are important and germain to the disgust expressed by so many about the arbitration decision.

However disgusted any of us might be, Vagabond posted above why SafeSport would not be allowed to retroactively punish someone by different standards than under which they they occurred, however bleak the standards were back then for victims. And that is even giving a whopping benefit of the doubt to law enforcement that none of his victims or their parents were willing to come forward before the statute of limitations ran out.

 

[VGThuy]

I find it hilarious that the two posts I’ve read correcting people and addressing them as “you all” or some variation in this thread certainly are not reading the actual posts, understanding what “people” are responding to which explains why they write that they are confused as to why people are “angry” while doing the most to sound superior, nor do they understand the issues that people are arguing about. It’s telling that one of them is acting like the appeal actually changed the funding of guilt or disagreed with SafeSport’s findings. It just changed the penalty based on whatever guidelines they are using. It didn’t change any findings.

Also, for “you all” going on about how weak SafeSport is while explaining to “all of us” that we don’t get things, you certainly don’t understand the mission statement or purpose of SafeSport and how it does not stop law enforcement from doing its job. If something is preventing law enforcement from proceeding, it’s not SafeSport.

 

[VGThuy]

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),



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.

But does that apply to memberships to bodies like the USFS? Those aren’t criminal sanctions that I would think would fall under constitutional restraints in the same way.

 

[Vagabond]

But does that apply to memberships to bodies like the USFS? Those aren’t criminal sanctions that I would think would fall under constitutional restraints in the same way.

SafeSport was created by Federal statute, and its arbitration rules can be enforced in court. The right to engage in one's profession is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In other words, they do.

 

[kirkbiggestfan]

Can he coach overseas in the mean time?

 

[VGThuy]

SafeSport was created by Federal statute, and its arbitration rules can be enforced in court. The right to engage in one's profession is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In other words, they do.

I don’t think liberty interests includes memberships to skating associations. It usually has always been interpreted to mean imprisonment and actual loss of liberty. I really don’t think the Ex Post Facto precedent you cited applies here. I think this has more to do with whatever SafeSport and USFS by-laws say or if the federal statute actually says any non-criminal punishment and penalities issued by SafeSport must comply to whatever athletic body had at the time of the incident. If that language is included then I’d like to see it.

 

[Vagabond]

I don’t think liberty interests includes memberships to skating associations. It usually has always been interpreted to mean imprisonment and actual loss of liberty. I really don’t think the Ex Post Facto precedent you cited applies here. I think this has more to do with whatever SafeSport and USFS by-laws say or if the federal statute actually says any non-criminal punishment and penalities issued by SafeSport must comply to whatever athletic body had at the time of the incident. If that language is included then I’d like to see it.

Nothing is stopping you from doing your own research.

 

[overedge]

Even he can coach, what parent would hire him given the reputation? KNowing the allegations, I would think his list of clientele would be minimal (at least one would hope so)?

Sadly, I think there would still be parents who would only look at his record of producing world and Olympic champions, and figure he could do the same for their child

 

[Vagabond]

Callaghan will be on probation for fifteen years. I would be surprised (and disgusted) if the terms of the probation did not include measures to make sure prospective students and their parents were not informed of why Callaghan was on probation and to monitor interactions but Callaghan and anyone affiliated in any way with USFS.

 

[Winnipeg]

ON the other hand, maybe he is getting too old to worry about from "that" perspective?

 

[overedge]

ON the other hand, maybe he is getting too old to worry about from "that" perspective?

Do you mean that because he is old he wouldn't be capable of physical or sexual abuse? The leaked excerpts of the SafeSport report said he was also very mentally abusive (e.g. screaming at skaters that they were fat and untalented) and also very controlling (e.g. demanding to know what skaters were doing when they weren't at the rink). Someone doesn't have to be young to act like that.

 

[MacMadame]

ON the other hand, maybe he is getting too old to worry about from "that" perspective?

Sexual abuse is not about having sex. It's about exerting power. It can be done at any age.

 

[Carolla5501]

I understand the issues of laws and retroactive, etc, but SafeSport is not part of our criminal justice system and this is not a criminal case. We're not talking about sending Callaghan to jail (although I think he should be there but that's another discussion), we're talking about keeping him away from children/skaters. That is SafeSport's purpose. Unless the arbitrator is suggesting the evidence is inaccurate, which doesn't sound like the case here, the SafeSport determination should be upheld. It's been determined that he is guilty of abuse, that he is a predator, therefore he should be prevented from ever being able to do that again, regardless of whatever year it occurred.

So tell me how this keeps him away from children. I want evidence that this keeps someone away from children
It may remove him from one potential location. But it does nothing to make sure he is not around children. That requires you being convicted of a sex crime and being put on the monitoring program.. Thus does protect some skaters but it’s not protecting children.

 

[Debbie S]

Banning him from coaching protects children who are in skating. I didn't say the ban kept him away from "all" children. At least it would ensure he would never be able to do what was documented in the complaint (including emotional and physical abuse, as overedge noted above) to any other skaters.

 

[Tavi]

Information about arbitration is contained in the SafeSport Code:

I don’t think liberty interests includes memberships to skating associations. It usually has always been interpreted to mean imprisonment and actual loss of liberty. I really don’t think the Ex Post Facto precedent you cited applies here. I think this has more to do with whatever SafeSport and USFS by-laws say or if the federal statute actually says any non-criminal punishment and penalities issued by SafeSport must comply to whatever athletic body had at the time of the incident. If that language is included then I’d like to see it.

Not that I feel sorry for him or that I’m happy with the arbitrator’s decision, but I think it’s actually Callaghan’s property interest that’s at issue.

By banning him from working as a coach you’re theoretically depriving him of his ability to make a living.

I think the argument would be that under the laws in place at the time, he didn’t have notice that his horrible scummy behavior could have these consequences.

 

[believed]

Information about arbitration is contained in the SafeSport Code:


Not that I feel sorry for him or that I’m happy with the arbitrator’s decision, but I think it’s actually Callaghan’s property interest that’s at issue.

By banning him from working as a coach you’re theoretically depriving him of his ability to make a living.

I think the argument would be that under the laws in place at the time, he didn’t have notice that his horrible scummy behavior could have these consequences.

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

 

[VGThuy]

Information about arbitration is contained in the SafeSport Code:


Not that I feel sorry for him or that I’m happy with the arbitrator’s decision, but I think it’s actually Callaghan’s property interest that’s at issue.

By banning him from working as a coach you’re theoretically depriving him of his ability to make a living.

I think the argument would be that under the laws in place at the time, he didn’t have notice that his horrible scummy behavior could have these consequences.

Yeah, but when we are talking about liberty interest as per the US Constitution they don’t mean the right to take a specific job. I wrote a 30 page paper in Advance Civil Procedure about how courts have defined “liberty” interests and “property” interests. I’d wager a court would say he has no absolute right to work with skaters as a coach and he can find another job elsewhere.

Lack of notice is a real thing but I don’t know if he’d have a leg to stand on if the USFS argues they have an interest in protecting current members and minors, and with our pro-employer laws here, they may even say lack of notice sucks but oh well, there no legal cognizable remedy we can yive

Nothing is stopping you from doing your own research.

The only reason I asked you was because you were the one presenting ex post facto in that way so I wanted clarification because I wasn’t sure if that is used in non-criminal or non-judicial judgment settings. I was only replying to the answer you gave me since I didn’t think that was right but I wanted to know if your research came up with something that specifically mentioned cases like when a sporting body decides to amend rules to further their interest in protecting members. It’s not criminal statutes and the criminal court we’re dealing with so they have more latitude to expel members but not absolute latitude.

Obviously, you do have a point in that somewhere the arbitrator found that SafeSport could only issue a penalty that existed back then. I was just questioning if it was existing in the current by-laws and therefore can be changed.

 

[Artistic Skaters]

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

 

[nlloyd]

I understand the issues of laws and retroactive, etc, but SafeSport is not part of our criminal justice system and this is not a criminal case. We're not talking about sending Callaghan to jail (although I think he should be there but that's another discussion), we're talking about keeping him away from children/skaters. That is SafeSport's purpose. Unless the arbitrator is suggesting the evidence is inaccurate, which doesn't sound like the case here, the SafeSport determination should be upheld. It's been determined that he is guilty of abuse, that he is a predator, therefore he should be prevented from ever being able to do that again, regardless of whatever year it occurred.

Agreed. SafeSport argued after Coughlin's death that it would no longer pursue the investigation because its mandate was to protect minors from abusive coaches and Coughlin was no longer a threat. Does this process of arbitration mean they will actually only protect minors according to the standards in place at the time the abuse took place? If this is the case, their mandate is seriously compromised, in my opinion - they have placed an asterisk after "protect."

 

[meggonzo]

Agreed. SafeSport argued after Coughlin's death that it would no longer pursue the investigation because it's mandate was to protect minors from abusive coaches and Coughlin was no longer a threat. Does this process of arbitration mean they will actually only protect minors according to the standards in place at the time the abuse took place? If this is the case, their mandate is seriously compromised, in my opinion - they have placed an asterisk after "protect."

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