Agreed!
The article has been taken down (your link has a 404 error now), for whatever that’s worth.
1 Like
Thanks for letting me know. I found it odd that I couldn’t find another article. I was wondering if anyone here had heard about it.
Today’s email. Oh look, they’re still drawing conclusions based on logical fallacies. My favourite part: "How can SafeSport impose sanctions in cases involving allegations of wrongdoing that happened decades in the past and were not witnessed, but not act on a current allegation with multiple witnesses and video footage to support the claim? "…they just keep going back to that PR-produced narrative of “it was 40 years ago so it doesn’t matter, or if it happened you can’t prove it” rolls eyes
[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”]Bullying & Sexual Harassment
SafeSport Case Study
*Names have been changed to protect privacy of those involved. The facts of this case occurred.*[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]Scenario
A successful and internationally competitive female swimmer had been struggling with bullying by a team mate since 2018. While the female swimmer was winning at World Championships and qualifying for the Olympics, her bully was gaining recognition as a successful coach and gaining more control of teams, bus assignments, and practice schedules. Gradually, the bully began communicating with the female swimmer with unkind words that ranged from hurtful to sexually suggestive. These comments made the female athlete uncomfortable and interfered with her focus during team practices. The stigma of filing a formal complaint against the bully with other coaches or the NGB seemed daunting and she feared would potentially result in retaliation from coaching staff or fellow team mates, and the female swimmer decided to stay silent.
One evening in 2019 at a fund-raising party, the bully was verbally abusive to the female athlete, after becoming visibly intoxicated. In an act that was caught on camera, the bully grabbed the female athlete without permission and sexually harassed her in front of colleagues and party attendees.
The female athlete contacted an attorney and filed a SafeSport report. The NGB was also contacted because the bully was at the time a team coach.
The formal SafeSport process began and a single investigator conducted interviews and reviewed the video footage of the assault on the female swimmer. [/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”]After a considerable amount of time passing, the female swimmer had received no communication from SafeSport regarding her claim. The coach had not received any public sanctions and was still employed by the Swim Club and interacted daily with the swimmer, which made her uncomfortable. Seemingly, neither SafeSport nor the NGB did their mandated jobs under the Ted Stevens Act.
Questions to Consider
Why did SafeSport fail to take action in this case?
Why was video evidence of a sexual assault not enough for SafeSport to take immediate action against the bully coach?
How can SafeSport impose sanctions in cases involving allegations of wrongdoing that happened decades in the past and were not witnessed, but not act on a current allegation with multiple witnesses and video footage to support the claim?
Who can question SafeSport investigators on their timeline and decision making process?
What safeguards are in place to detect and minimize arbitrary decision making in the SafeSport resolution process to ensure the SafeSport Code of Conduct is applied uniformly and that the investigation and resolution process is fair for both Claimants and Respondents?
Conclusion
The SafeSport system using the single investigator model is inadequate for the complex cases that SafeSport is presented with. The decision making process of SafeSport investigators seems arbitrary and inconsistent. In order for the system to work fairly, the SafeSport process must display more objectivity and transparency to protect the rights and interests of all parties who come under its jurisdiction. In the aforementioned case, the outcome of this case weakened the confidence of others that have previously been assaulted from coming forward and helps enables a painful cycle of abuse between coaches and athletes to continue. [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Hopefully messes like this will never happen again. It’s a very flawed system and too many stories like this one are coming to the forefront. Accused or victim— everyone needs to be heard!
What is “a considerable amount of time,” and how do they know the investigation has been concluded at this point?
9 Likes
Whomever wrote that letter sure did jump to a lot of conclusions for someone who was not privy to the facts.
8 Likes
Today’s email:
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]Athletes for Equity in Sport Supports
S. 2330 Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]Athletes for Equity in Sport (AES) supports the action of the U.S. Congress in passing S. 2330, the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020. This action by Congress provides significant advancement to all Olympic Sport athletes and para-athletes in providing safety from sexual predation and in affecting oversight of the process currently in use through the various governing bodies of sports, and the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
There have been numerous situations where athlete’s complaints have languished without action, and others where complaints resulted in summary punishment without any fair and equitable investigation or exercise of rights was allowed to those impacted. AES sees both behaviors as counter-productive to the protection of the athletes and furtherance of the sports.
The new funding requirement provides a necessary stream of funding to allow full and fair investigations, and where warranted, actions to protect the athletes as the earlier Congressional action to authorize SafeSport originally anticipated. It is a strong statement by our legislators that the horrific behaviors that were associated with the 2017 gymnastics scandal involving Nasser should never recur.
Athletes should not be ignored when they express fear and concern, and governing body (NGB or LAO) administrations and related entities should not be sheltered when they fail to take action resulting in father harm. In this context, the oversight implied by the funding and other provisions of this strengthening act will supply much needed fairness to all involved.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Wow! So now they are an organization purporting to support victims of abuse? As someone who has been through the Safesport process on the victim side, I find that rich indeed. The hatred and pure venom sent by them towards victims of their predator friends has been disgusting.
10 Likes
Today’s “newsletter”:
The Weaponization of SafeSport:
A Case Study by
Athletes of Equity in Sport
Scenario
A 2004 Olympic medalist marathon runner, who formally retired from the sport in 2005, became interested in community service. In 2017, the former athlete channeled their commitment to public service into a bid for a national public office. With the help of an army of volunteers, the campaign developed a platform and began to gain grass roots support. The former athlete lived and worked in the community and coached high school track and field. School officials and parents praised the athlete and coach as a person of great character, while the young athletes excelled in their track events and were developing in personal self-esteem and maturity.
While the former Olympic athlete gained in popularity and was well supported in their political campaign by the general public, their political opponent became fearful of losing the political contest if public support could not be swayed.
Seeing the creation of SafeSport in 2017 and reading about SafeSport policies, the political opponent decided that there was an opportunity to use SafeSport to cast a shadow on the former Olympic athlete. A SafeSport report was filed against the former athlete, claiming that while competing at the Olympics, they forced themselves on another athlete sexually. The political opponent made the SafeSport report public, smearing the spotless reputation and character of the marathon runner.
The local and national newspapers ran the story and the former Olympic athlete was forced to spend time and money getting to the bottom of this unsubstantiated charge. Although the local district attorney knew nothing of the charges, the police did not have a complaint on record, SafeSport took the report as true prior to investigation, publicly banned the former athlete and placed them on the SafeSport suspension list.
The former Olympic athlete’s political campaign was derailed and they lost their election and coaching position.
The marathon runner fought to clear his name successfully as the accusations could not be proven at even the lowest threshold used by SafeSport which is set at a preponderance of evidence. While the reversal of the SafeSport ruling was ultimately the correct outcome, it was too little too late. The marathon runner was defeated in their quest for public office and coaching positions dried up due to continued media scrutiny. SafeSport had been weaponized and a precedent was set for others seeking to harm perceived opponents.
Questions to Consider
What are the current statistics regarding SafeSport sanctions that are reversed?
How does SafeSport handle cases in which a Claimant files false allegations against a Respondent or otherwise improperly uses the SafeSport resolution process?
Is it SafeSport’s policy to pursue sanctions in those cases to uphold the integrity of the SafeSport process?
Is it fair to say SafeSport imposed and publicized the sanction prior to sufficiently investigating?
What institutional oversight safeguards and transparency requirements are in place to ensure SafeSport fulfills its mission fairly and competently?
Does Congress actively oversee the case by case resolution process at SafeSport?
Is Congressional oversight alone sufficient to protect the legitimate interests of all parties under SafeSport’s jurisdiction to ensure SafeSport fulfills its responsibilities as Congress intended?
Conclusion
Without sufficient safeguards and oversight, the SafeSport model is too easily weaponized which can severely punish individuals who are unfairly accused. There must be a more effective process between law enforcement and SafeSport to establish safety protocols regarding claim submission and SafeSport investigations. More oversight and transparency would inspire confidence in SafeSport among all participants who are under its jurisdiction and would strengthen SafeSport’s ability to fulfill its important mission to protect the safety of athletes.
1 Like
So, is this something that actually happened?
Well, as far as I can tell, none of the 2004 olympic marathon medalists retired from the sport in 2005. Meb Keflezighi was the silver medalist that year but kept running through at least 2016. Google searches don’t seem to return any kind of scandal or run for political office. In fact, I can’t find any articles about scandals involving marathon runners other than the Alberto Salazar case.
Maybe someone else has better Google skills but I’m pretty skeptical on the AfE story. They do label it as a “scenario” as opposed to a case study.
4 Likes
AES does not get to write fiction on this topic. Doing so is an act of bad faith IMHO.
If it had happened, there should be a name, ESPECIALLY if the person had run for office.
- I did not hear this story and I probably would have if it had happened, because I follow elections closely.
- An accusation of sexual assault during a political campaign hardly needs to involve SafeSport. These allegations can happen and they will be closely vetted by the press. Sometimes they are corroborated and sometimes not.
4 Likes
They do actually call it a case study as well as a scenario:
This is the part that stood out right away:
Just because there is no police report and the DA doesn’t know about charges doesn’t mean SafeSport didn’t do any investigation. In fact, isn’t it statistically more probable that the victim didn’t report anything to the police?
Whoever writes these up is either:
- A bad writer who isn’t clear;
- Does not use critical thinking skills; or
- Knows exactly what they’re doing in making these vague points that are designed to stir outrage
2 Likes
I can’t find anything other than Salazar either and that doesn’t fit.
3 Likes
All of the “real cases” put forth by the AFES people are fictional accounts, as far as I can tell. I have looked into every single one they have presented and come up with no identifiable individuals - prominent or otherwise - who have been wronged by SafeSport. That’s likely why they use “scenario” now.
3 Likes
If they are going to create fictional accounts, they should not use specific language such as “2004 Olympic medalist marathon runner”. In a way it brings potential negative attention to athletes who may have no involvement. Now people are scruntinizing the medal winners that year trying to determine if there were ever accusations against them.
8 Likes
Exactly.
1 Like
Remember, we aren’t talking about particularly ethical people here and they’ve never been clear when communicating via the written word.
It’s not surprising to see them fabricate “cases” without explicitly admitting they are doing so, or that they would not consider the damage that could result. Anything to help raise money for their cause (whatever that may be.) It’s sad, but not surprising.
7 Likes
Every hypothetical case is Tommy Serio 
5 Likes
