And they would use any information they somehow came across (or make up in their sad little brains) to threaten and harass victims, so that will be fun for our sport too :rolleyes:
12 Likes
Also I like that they will be raising awareness of safe sport, and protecting athletes from abuse by
“focus(ing) on raising awareness of the fundamental flaws in this important organization”
I just cant with these losers.
7 Likes
It’s so messed up because Bonnie, the driving force, represents these idiots but can’t spell out the innocence. Not surprised because she’s an ambulance chaser. You want me to take what you say seriously? Don’t make me pay for it.
1 Like
Is it just me, or are there only two “prongs” contained in that mess. I have to admit my brain wasn’t making much sense of it.
Never mind, I found the missing “prong”. It wasn’t given its own paragraph.
What a load of bull.
4 Likes
Somehow I ended up on their (AES) mailing list (email), and I have no idea how. Is it possible USEF sells membership contact info?
1 Like
Phelps Media.
That makes sense since I don’t get the AES emails and am a USEF member but have unsubscribed from Phelps Media bc I find them so annoying.
3 Likes
Way back in this thread, I posted about the same thing happening to me. I visited the site ONCE to see what was up, but definitely did not subscribe to this mess. I even emailed back and asked where they got my email from, as they appeared to be violating anti-spam legislation in Canada 
Of course, no answer, however we decided it was likely through Phelps Media, as I do get their other emails (I also have no idea how I got on their mailing list). I don’t want to unsubscribe from Phelps as then I assume I will miss out on the AES garbage too, so I just delete the Phelps emails and come here to post the AES ones.
5 Likes
Today’s AES update:
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”] [TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“width: 70%, bgcolor: FFFFFF, align: left”] [TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]Athletes For Equity In Sport’s Response to Recent SafeSport Actions[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]Athletes for Equity in Sport works diligently in seeking a just and equitable process for all athletes, trainers and community members under the jurisdiction of SafeSport. With the recent SafeSport actions involving swimming and equestrian community members, AES would like to take this opportunity to evaluate particular concerns in the SafeSport procedures that must be addressed.
Since 2018, there have been multiple cases from cycling, swimming, and equestrian rulings, where SafeSport procedures rush to public statements of serious sanctions or bans only to have the cases reversed and the athlete or coach reinstated after SafeSport thoroughly reviews all the facts in a hearing. By understanding how SafeSport’s procedures can be enhanced, AES seeks to work with SafeSport and Congress to enhance oversight and transparency of SafeSport operations and make improvements to the SafeSport investigation and resolution process which will enable SafeSport to more credibly fulfill its mission.
Investigatory Process
SafeSport frequently denies requests by persons accused of violating the SafeSport Code to record initial SafeSport interviews. Respondents often decline the initial interview until an accurate recording of the interview is permitted. SafeSport interprets the decision by a Respondent to decline an interview without an audio record as a decision to not participate in the process and proceeds to make a final decision without a thorough investigation, utilizing only statements or evidence provided by a Complainant.
Additionally, prior to interviewing Respondents, SafeSport does not provide sufficient information to enable persons accused of violating the SafeSport Code to fairly and adequately respond to allegations made against them. One might ask, “How can a Respondent come to SafeSport with their defense and rebuttal evidence if they walk into the interview process blind?” [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“width: 100%”] [TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]Further, the publishing of Respondents’ names on the sanction list results in expansive news coverage around the world and the Congressional mandate requires NGB’s to discipline the Respondent by suspending their membership and participation rights in their sport’s events. When errors take place in SafeSport’s “sanctions first, hearing second”resolution process, irreversible damage is done to stakeholders, the individual and the future of their livelihood. This flaw in the SafeSport process has a remedy: hearing first, sanctions second. Withholding a permanent ban ruling until all the evidence is collected and analyzed first in an interview or hearing would establish a more credible resolution process for SafeSport.
Protecting youth from any abuse or misconduct is crucial and SafeSport’s timeline of their investigatory process needs to be rectified. With each faulty investigation, the value of SafeSport weakens and erodes trust for all sides of a SafeSport case.
AES would also like to note that any alleged SafeSport violation outside of sexual misconduct is typically passed on to the respective National Governor Body (NGB) rather than handled by SafeSport. These alleged violations reviewed directly by the NGB are addressed with a full hearing before a panel after the exchange of evidence, and they are not announced unless there is a ruling against the Respondent.
Moving Forward
In the past months AES has become aware of additional reversals and a dismissal involving a USA Swimming athlete from an alleged SafeSport code violation. During the arbitration hearing which took place after SafeSport banned the athletes, the athlete’s legal counsel, Dean Groulx, provided a full set of facts regarding his client’s case in an arbitration and the sanctions were lifted. In this particular case, and others previously, had the SafeSport process gone in a manner advocated by AES it is reasonable to believe no ban by SafeSport would have occurred.
This pattern of SafeSport case reversals is cause for concern because it ultimately undermines SafeSport’s ability to do its job. If stakeholders subject to Safe Sport jurisdiction don’t have confidence in Safe Sport to fairly and competently fulfill its mission, that undermines the ability of Safe Sport to achieve the objectives Congress intended which is to improve safety for athletes.
AES will continue to advocate for a SafeSport process that is fair and equitable for all parties under SafeSport’s jurisdiction which includes examining all of the evidence in a case, in an interview, or in a hearing before a sanction is published to the public at large unless there is an immediate risk of danger to minors.
Without changes and improvements to the SafeSport process, there is the continued potential for innocent athletes, owners, and trainers to be unjustly accused and removed from competition by those manipulating the SafeSport process. A fair and equitable process is particularly essential because an incorrect SafeSport decision has the potential to cause great and irreversible damage to not only innocent Respondents but also to minor athletes who have suffered at the hands of abuse in sport and may become hesitant to speak up due to the mishandling of a case or waiting months or years in some cases for a SafeSport investigation to be conducted. Such decisions will certainly erode the confidence of those participating in sport under SafeSport’s jurisdiction.
AES will continue to seek and suggest improvements in SafeSport processes, including a review of its investigators qualifications and background to ensure SafeSport investigators understand how to fairly and impartially conduct the investigations to which they are assigned. AES believes these reforms will strengthen SafeSport and will benefit all participants in Olympic sports under its jurisdiction. [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
2 Likes
From today’s email:
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD] [TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“width: 70%, bgcolor: FFFFFF”] [TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD]SafeSport Case Study Scenario
*Names have been changed to protect privacy of those involved. The facts of this case occured.*[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD]Scenario
A well-sought after tennis coach of 40 years has worked with thousands of beginners who are interested in learning the correct techniques and rules of the game. Their students span across a wide range of ages from retired seniors to young adults and minors who are covered under the U.S. Center for Safe Sport (“SafeSport”) Code of Conduct.
Some of these tennis enthusiasts have financial means to pay for individual lesson packages, while other students participate in group lessons or watch lessons from the sidelines hoping to pick up some pointers. Many minors and young adults are dropped off and picked up by parents following their lesson and others can ride public transportation or bike to the courts.
One of the coach’s determined students is 19 and bikes to the courts most days to watch lessons with dreams of making it to Wimbledon despite not having the financial means for top training. The coach recognizes this student’s drive and offers a “training apprenticeship” opportunity to the student.
As a training apprentice, the student’s job responsibilities included collecting the tennis balls around the courts, picking up towels in the locker room, collecting garbage around the courts and helping carry equipment when needed, and working out with other students running laps to work on fitness endurance. Occasionally practices would run well past dark and the coach would give the student a ride home rather than letting the student dangerously ride their bike in the dark.
Flash forward several months and this student has vastly improved their on-court performance and a selection for a national tournament is an exciting possibility in the near future.
The qualifying tournament takes place and the coach’s training apprentice is passed over for a player who played well during the selection but had previously been beaten by the student.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“width: 100%”] [TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD]Years go by and the coach rises to Olympic tennis notoriety with private clients. The now 30-year-old former student feels their tennis career would have been different if that national team opportunity had happened for them. Personal bitterness takes the form of a SafeSport sexual abuse allegation made in 2020.
The former student claims the coach forced the student to perform belittling activities to gain court time and that the coach was inappropriate in the handful of car rides home when it was too dark to ride a bike. The student claims to have never achieved potential success because of the abuse.
SafeSport takes the report seriously and finds through interviews that the coach was harsh, encouraging students to practice in the heat and was frequently alone with athletes. For the next step, SafeSport confronts the coach with the report and requests an interview.
On advice from the coach’s legal team, the coach denies the interview as it forfeits a person’s Fifth Amendment rights and SafeSport does not allow a transcription or recording of the interview. The coach only receives the initials of their accuser and no information of the alleged transgressions.
SafeSport interprets the decision of the coach to decline an interview as a decision to not participate in the process and proceeds to make a final decision without a thorough investigation, utilizing only statements or evidence provided by the student. They publicly ban the coach for sexual misconduct regarding a young adult covered under the SafeSport Code of Conduct who was 19 and 20 at the time of the alleged accusation.
The coach seeks an arbitration hearing through an attorney to clear their name. It comes at great financial cost as well as public loss of confidence and business because of the public declaration. In addition, the NGB, the US Tennis Association, is required to follow through regarding sanctions involving sexual misconduct and restricts the coach from participating in NGB sanctioned events.
Through this process, SafeSport eventually agrees to a recorded transcript of the interview and the coach and attorney have a fair hearing. Following review of the evidence, SafeSport declares a reversal of their public misconduct decision yet no public statement is made by SafeSport. The coach is quietly removed from the sanction list, yet the majority of the press featuring the coach highlights his permanent ban.
Questions to Consider
Why does SafeSport not take the time necessary in its effort to protect all participants under its jurisdiction to objectively determine the facts in a case prior to making public declarations about SafeSport sanctions against individuals in a specific case?
Why is SafeSport seemingly resistant to permitting recordings of its interviews during investigations which would protect the interests of all parties involved?
What are the measurable damages to the confidence and trust in the SafeSport process?
What are the lasting effects to a coach, their career, and future earning potential? What happens to a person who makes a false accusation?
When the SafeSport disciplinary process lacks sufficient institutional safeguards to prevent sanction decisions that cannot withstand closer scrutiny and investigation, that weakens the important intent and ability of SafeSport to do its job to protect athletes from abuse.
By strengthening the SafeSport hearing process and including the exchange of evidence prior to a public proclamation of wrong doing, confidence in SafeSport is gained and the safety of all in sport is better served.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
2 Likes
Could you cliffsnotes for those of us who refuse to give Jeff Bezos more money?
It was a free article so he didn’t get my money.
Here are some highlights:
Currently USOPC gives SafeSport $7.5 million annually. This will be raised to $20 million;
They will have more oversight of coaches and executives; congress can decertify individual governing bodies
4 Likes
Here’s a free article
1 Like
Thank you!
That is some impressive drivel with carefully chosen adjectives.
But the clear lesson here, assuming of course the bones are true, was: the accused coach refused to cooperate with or speak to the SafeSport investigator, and thus was banned.
SafeSport didn’t block the coach from “giving his side.” Faced with no refutation at all, they took the only action they could.
Once banned, the legal team changed its tactics and then presented a defense. The defense was successful.
Yes, in a court of law you can plead the 5th - the wording goes, “I refuse to testify on the grounds it may incriminate me.”
Contrary to the suggestion here, pleading the 5th does not in any way preclude a guilty verdict. They can and do convict people in cases where the defendant does not testify. It is up to the defendant’s lawyers to choose the best strategy for the defense and it seems here that the defense attorneys made poor choices.
10 Likes
I don’t think this was the change Athletes for Equity was hoping for but good on them for making a difference! :yes::lol:
7 Likes
Seems like everything is working as intended if the appeal was successful and the report was false.
1 Like
We don’t know that the report was false. What we can say is that there was insufficient corroborating evidence for sanctions to be upheld.
5 Likes
Looks like SafeSport had a security breach. This article was posted on Twitter. I cant find any other articles. The only other mention I found was by a Professor at Purdue referring to this article.
https://theathletic.com/news/us-cent…d/XNEsMw9Fbzop
Agreed. I’m just saying if AforE or whatever people want to slam SS are saying this was a malicious report, then what’s the issue? They investigated, he failed to participate, was banned until appeal and now is not banned due to not being able to corroborate the report. System working as intended.
7 Likes
