I’m well aware of how SS works. Their fees seem very high though, at least compared to the court costs in my area. I could easily see it being too cost prohibitive to attempt to clear your name, especially if you are a lower level pro.
5 Likes
Well this statement certainly jumped out at me. Of course an attorney needs to know the name of the accuser, and all relevant details, to provide a competent defense. Moreover, the attorney needs to be able to use the name of the accuser to find and interview witnesses.
As a litigator, I’m gobsmacked that someone would even have the idea that an attorney could defend a case without these basic abilities. (Picturing myself interviewing a potential witness: “Hi, Client has been accused of inappropriate touching of a certain unnamed child. Can you tell me your observations of Client’s interactions with the unnamed child?” Witness: “Huh? There are like 200 kids at this barn…”
5 Likes
Or an attorney could not go on a rant with statistics pulled out of thin air and incite lack of confidence.
I am shocked at the people believing Facebook comments without any due diligence.
17 Likes
I’m not sure if this refutes BN’s assertion, but the SafeSport Code for the U.S.Olympics and Paralympic Movements, dated April 15, 2019, states:
”The Center assesses a Participant’s fitness to participate in sport. As past conduct informs current fitness, no criminal, civil or rules-based statute of limitations or time bars of any kind prevent the Center from investigating, assessing, considering and adjudicating any relevant conduct regardless of when it occurred.”
10 Likes
Is there a reason to think that? Just curious.
I’m pretty sure in one of Kathy’s posts she went on at length about how brutal their experience was. And how fortunate they were to have an attorney that represented without charging. And how she (Kathy) has done intense research herself. But other people might not be so fortunate in terms of an attorney and the time and ability to do their own leg work in terms of research.
Maybe I’m confusing their case with someone else speaking up about being caught in an investigation, but But pretty sure it was her.
2 Likes
No. she says she knows 10 women who were sexual abuse/misconduct victims. Not 10 victims of RG.
Let’s get a citation for that statistic instead of simply believing it. As someone pointed out earlier, the author can barely string 2 coherent sentences together.
USA Gymnastics has a different take on SafeSport.
“USA Gymnastics is striving to become a truly athlete-centric organization that keeps athlete safety and wellbeing at the forefront of everything we do. This new SafeSport policy is the foundation of our efforts to foster a safe, positive and encouraging environment where athletes and all members alike can thrive.”
USA Gymnastics currently has five staff members devoted to safe sport, and it is looking for a vice president to lead that group. It also uses three outside investigators."
USOC formed SafeSport, not any of the individual sport governing bodies, and the rules are the same all across every sport. It’s not part of the USEF.
13 Likes
I fight it frightening the number of people who find Navin’s post clear and insightful. If I wanted to take down SafeSport, I would be concerned about her being the voice.
17 Likes
It’s frightening that anyone would accept that statistic thrown out there by Ms. Navin without a single citation and posted on Facebook.
18 Likes
I don’t take it as true. I was responding to a post above that said if it was true it would be frightening and agreed. Geez.
2 Likes
I had an earlier post about this issue that went unapproved. I will try again.
There is a person on the Safe Sport list who comes from the Saddlebred world with the initials RC. He was one of the first people to go on it. You can read details of his case, and how he actually violated the ban and continued to attend recognize shows, etc, in this USA Today article. And about a kind of stunning error in the part of the State of Oklahoma. But that’s a side issue. It does go to show how clueless we all can be when it comes to recognizing predators though. Assuming this guy is s predator (obviously Safe Sport thought so…)
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2379832002
Well, guess who commented on Bonnie Ns post? Here is his comment…
Bonnie,
My case as a previously adjudicated case (USEF’s only one but supposedly across the NGB’s there are 900) I don’t understand how it’s “legal” but SS is retroactively applying all these new rules to these old cases. The level of due process is across the board in these old cases, mine for example wasn’t given any independent examination and was not only not supported by the alleged victim but was refuted by the alleged victim. My point, if SS can do that then Katie bar the door. Everyone is at risk.
15 people have reacted to his post. There are thumbs up. And sad faces. I guess it’s sad what Safe Sport did, putting this guy on the banned list.
The case involved this RC… a 40 year old man, and a teenaged student. She was 16 or 17 when THOUSANDS of sexualized text messages were found. And diary entries the girl had made. The parents and police were both of the opinion that there was intercourse after looking at this evidence. The parents wanted him prosecuted. But the teenager refused to cooperate with the investigation and refused to testify against RC, so the prosecutor did not bring charges. But the available evidence WAS apparently sufficient enough to put in place a lifetime Safe Sport ban.
Anyway, read the article, then read this guy’s comment on Bonnie’s post. If you are on Facebook, look at the 15 reactions to the comment, and do note that no one on BNs post has replied to his comment yet, asking him to explain more about his case, because they are aware of the report in USA Today and the details are concerning. Nope. Everyone seems focused on how bad Safe Sport is.
1 Like
I had an earlier post about this issue that went unapproved. I will try again.
There is a person on the Safe Sport list who comes from the Saddlebred world with the initials RC. He was one of the first people to go on it. You can read details of his case, and how he actually violated the ban and continued to attend recognize shows, etc, in this USA Today article. And about a kind of stunning error in the part of the State of Oklahoma. But that’s a side issue. It does go to show how clueless we all can be when it comes to recognizing predators though. Assuming this guy is s predator (obviously Safe Sport thought so…)
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2379832002
Well, guess who commented on Bonnie Ns post? Here is his comment…
Bonnie,
My case as a previously adjudicated case (USEF’s only one but supposedly across the NGB’s there are 900) I don’t understand how it’s “legal” but SS is retroactively applying all these new rules to these old cases. The level of due process is across the board in these old cases, mine for example wasn’t given any independent examination and was not only not supported by the alleged victim but was refuted by the alleged victim. My point, if SS can do that then Katie bar the door. Everyone is at risk.
15 people have reacted to his post. There are thumbs up. And sad faces. I guess it’s sad what Safe Sport did, putting this guy on the banned list.
The case involved this RC… a 40 year old man, and a teenaged student. She was 16 or 17 when THOUSANDS of sexualized text messages were found. And diary entries the girl had made. The parents and police were both of the opinion that there was intercourse after looking at this evidence. The parents wanted him prosecuted. But the teenager refused to cooperate with the investigation and refused to testify against RC, so the prosecutor did not bring charges. But the available evidence WAS apparently sufficient enough to put in place a lifetime Safe Sport ban.
Anyway, read the article, then read this guy’s comment on Bonnie’s post. If you are on Facebook, look at the 15 reactions to the comment, and do note that no one on BNs post has replied to his comment yet, asking him to explain more about his case, because they are aware of the report in USA Today and the details are concerning. Nope. Everyone seems focused on how bad Safe Sport is.
It should be stated very clearly that Ms. Navin’s claim that 90% of safesport decisions of sanction are overturned after arbitration IS COMPLETELY UNVERIFIED.
23 Likes
Her post does say she did extensive research herself. If that is true, how is that possible given her other statement:
“NOTE: You can’t tell anyone, you can’t breathe a word about it. Your husband nor wife can read the allegations against you because its confidential.”
And if it is true you cannot tell anyone, how was this accomplished without knowing who the accused identity?
“The next 10 days are a blur as you’re dancing as fast as you can, gathering evidence, gathering witnesses, your attorney is getting affidavits, gathering as much information as possible to defend yourself. … NOTE: It is also good to have Annie Fucking Oakley as your wife or life partner, who is VERY VERY VERY good at investigating, good at technology and has a “take no prisoners” mentality and should be a PI”… or … " If you are a man perhaps of a certain age, you have no idea how to use technology to your advantage to get evidence, so you sure as shit better hope you have a tech savy wife, barn manager, friend, whatever, to capture everything."
I understand emotion can cloud a person’s thinking; I get emotional at times and want people to side with me also, but if you are trying to prove a system is flawed, you need to be consistent with the facts.
14 Likes
Well as I said before - the USEF community seems to be the only ones really going to battle with Safe Sport. Everyone else seems to realize that after Larry Nassar - Safe Sport is very necessary.
I am heavily involved with USA hockey and I can tell you there is not even a whisper of complaint about adhering to the standards. I even googled - I can only find from each hockey program that comes up, how one can make sure they comply with Safe Sport. I may have missed it but I don’t see anything.
Additionally this: Coaches, referees, employees and volunteers with regular, routine and frequent access to minor participants, who are 18 years of age or older, are required to consent to be screened and pass a criminal backround check conducted by your Affiliate. Please click on link below that corresponds to your Affiliate for more information on how to obtain your background check.
And as stated above with regard to old claims: ”The Center assesses a Participant’s fitness to participate in sport. As past conduct informs current fitness, no criminal, civil or rules-based statute of limitations or time bars of any kind prevent the Center from investigating, assessing, considering and adjudicating any relevant conduct regardless of when it occurred.”
14 Likes
Under new safesport policies, you can’t release any official documents or details. They are afraid of victim shaming or people using the documents to gain support for their side. There was an article about it recently and that’s what I was told by the interviewer. The repercussions would come down on the person who released the information.
Perhaps this answers your question:
SafeSport Code … page 7 clearly states:
IX. Prohibited Conduct
“ It is a violation of the Code for a Participant to engage in or tolerate…. (3) any conduct that would violate community standards analogous to Prohibited Conduct that existed at the time of the alleged conduct including then applicable criminal and/or civil laws.”
Sexual misconduct with a minor was not legal 30 years ago. That is the portion of the code SS used, so if the allegations are from 30+ years ago, she is correct the code as written in 2018 was not violated, but section IX(3) was violated.
6 Likes
I’m sure BN is both grieving over the loss of her client and professionally aggravated because she won’t have further success with this case.
With that said, like with KS’s post, it is really hard to digest any points she is trying to make in such an emotionally-charged, rambling social media statement.
Maybe once time has passed, calmer heads will prevail who can better articulate these gross procedural flaws that are allegedly occurring. Right now, whatever they are trying to say makes no sense. :no: I really would like to better understand, but remain skeptical of stories being told with such personal vendettas.
10 Likes
I believe SafeSport is needed to protect our young athletes. I think there is room for improvement, but I don’t know what the “correct” method is. There are a few things I learned over the last year through my involvement, one is SafeSport is working the way they intended it to work. A complaint is made, they inform the public about the complaint and they get others offering information. To me this is similar to the news channel asking if anyone has additional information. The other information may be additional victims, it may be a person offering names of potential victims, they may come in as anonymous tips, or a person may provide their name. Perhaps there could be a list of “People Under Investigation”. However, I see the need to protect minors while the investigation is ongoing. Take Sandusky or Nasser for example, the Grand Jury had convened and Penn State personnel had testified, yet nothing was done to remove the access Sandusky had to young boys. Does anyone have a suggestion? Do we swing to the conservative side and protect minors at all costs, or do we keep it hidden until we have more proof. If the complaint /suspension/ban is not made public, how does the investigation progress? It stays at he said/she said.
I also was informed when SafeSport started they expect about 35 reports per month the first year. I do not have the exact statistic and perhaps SafeSport will release it at some point, but I was told they had received over 800. This is sad from a victim’s side, but also presented an enormous strain on financial and administrative resources.
16 Likes
