How does the statement by the McDonalds “threaten the anonymity” of the accusers? They obviously know the identity of the two JDs and have not revealed their identity or threatened to do so.
The McDonalds certainly know the identities.
They publicly disparage the JDs for availing themselves of pseudonyms. One of the signatories to that statement (Debbie) was at the time the statement was made, an official and employee of the USEF - a person who is a member AND and employee of the USEF in one of the top positions of power in that organisation and obligated to abide by SS Code.
That person then openly and publicly attacks the JDs for doing something allowed by SS Code (i.e., using a pseudonym). That is a clear violation because it amounts to: attempting to discourage an individual’s proper participation in, or use of, the Center’s processes. Thus, it is very clearly a violation of 1© Abuse of Process.
Attacking them for their proper use of the process is also: harassing or intimidating (verbally or physically) any person involved in the Center’s processes before, during, or following proceedings (including up to, through, and after any review by an arbitrator). Thus, a clear violation of 1(d) Abuse of Process.
Finally, Bob’s original misrepresentation is a clear violation of 1(a) abuse of process. This interpretation clear and straightforward and is further supported by the fact that what he said caused SS to issue its own statement in contradiction to Bob’s.
Thus, these two USEF members (and one an employee in a powerful position over lower-level competitors who may come forward) have made harassing and intimidating (and in at least instance false) statements all of which constitute violations of SS Code which they are bound to abide by through their membership and Debbie’s employment. These people have violated SS Code and should be sanctioned for those violations separate and apart from the underlying case(s) against them.
**
In the statement they say that they find it “upsetting” that the accusers are tarnishing their public reputations while remaining anonymous themselves. Griping that the accusers are making accusations from a position of anonymity is not the same thing as violating their anonymity.
(i) USEF members are not allowed to “gripe” about a Claimant’s exercise of their rights under 4. Claimant’s Request for Anonymity in the SS Code. Doing so violates SS Code (see break down above), (ii) challenging anonymity publicly is threatening and intimidating to the Jane Does and can easily be seen to have a chilling effect on other Jane Does coming forward. That is why doing so is prohibited by SS Code. Challenging victim anonymity always carries the threat of exposure, especially when done by people who, by your own admission, know those victims’ identities.
What bothers me in terms of violation of confidentiality and anonymity is the leaking of a bunch of confidential SS documents to the press. The safe sport process is supposed to be confidential in order to protect not just the reporters but also the respondent- McDonald.
**It should bother you that two USEF members, one an employee in a position of power, have publicly misrepresented the process and harassed the Jane Does. If that doesn’t bother you, do better.
**
When the SS spokesman corrected BM on the claim that he had been cleared, I thought that was necessary and not disclosing any of the guts of the investigation - just clarifying that administrative closure is not exoneration. However, turning over a bunch of should-be confidential documents to the press is a clear violation of confidentiality.
Speculation; no one knows who that information was obtained. No speculation re: the McDonald’s statements and how those statements violate SS Code. Again, if their behaviour in this respect doesn’t bother you, that is problematic, at best.
I really, really hope that it was one or both of the JDs who leaked the documents, and not SS itself. I trust that SS has a good case and could win in arbitration if the JDs participate, but if SS violated confidentiality by leaking the documents, would that weaken their case?
I suspect it was the JDs who leaked the “confidential” documents. By disclosing one girl’s initials, plus her birth year, plus the time interval she trained with BM, that would probably identify her to other people training with BM at the time. Whoever leaked the SS documents is the person who threatened the anonymity of the JDs.
outrageous that these two are carrying on like this, in print, in public and nothing is being done about it.