Someone asked for “exact details” and IMO, that is horrible. Why does someone need to know exact details?
16 Likes
Also they’re completely ignoring the abuse of power differential that makes this behavior inappropriate with a younger, less established student under his control of any age, a fact long recognized in education settings (both high school and university) and the client-provider power dynamic that make sexual conduct a breach of ethics in medicine and law and has for decades.
They saw the evidence; they ruled they found an ongoing threat. Lots of reasons this might be so.
Athlete-centric. Our sport’s governance is meant to protect athletes. Not coaches.
19 Likes
I’m a bit busy today with my work-related project about SafeSport so I had to take a second to read through the most recent posts. @OwnToo
I know I’ve already said this multiple times to multiple people, but have you read the policies, procedures, and definitions under which SafeSport operates?
SafeSport gave RG a lifetime suspension because of “sexual misconduct with a minor.” SafeSport documents define exactly what actions constitute “sexual misconduct.” So we know that RG did one or more of the things that are explicitly defined by SafeSport as “sexual misconduct.”
So, when you say you want to know which of those things RG did in order to deserve a lifetime suspension, what you are saying is that you believe that some of those things aren’t serious enough to warrant that punishment. You are saying something like, “Well, if it was just rubbing their breasts and putting his hand down their pants, that’s not bad enough to get a lifetime ban.”
This is why people who ask the question keep getting asked, “Which of those things do you think were OK for RG to have done to the teen girls that rode with him?” Because a lot of us think that anyone who does any of the things on that list, especially, as RG did, to multiple young teens, absolutely deserves a lifetime ban and we don’t particularly care which specific things on that list he did.
32 Likes
FWIW, I’ve seen several people say “well if she was 16 that would be understandable and OK.” As has been stated many times here, in addition to the power differential issue, this would definitely have been against the law in California. In general, a sexual relationship with someone you are teaching and evaluating and have the power to promote is inappropriate. This understanding has been lacking in equestrian, and some of the discomfort with Rob’s suspension is surely due to how many people have seen these “relationships” (with him and with other horsemen) and how few have ever spoken out about it, in addition to the fact that they liked Rob personally.
I think SafeSport has been clear in their criteria, which were posted earlier on the thread, and clear also that they’re not going to explicitly call out the line in the way that is asked. They can’t. As someone who has written a lot of rules, let me tell you that the vagueness protects us all - it protects the victims from the creativity of the guilty and the redeemable or innocent accused from getting stuck in a word bramble. SafeSport is allowed to use their judgement and judgement on the spot with all the facts and evidence and extenuating circumstances is MUCH MUCH smarter than the more exact and explicit rules you say you want.
They have a list of considerations and say that any one exacerbating factor, if sufficiently severe, or multiple factors, can be enough to make a lifetime ban appropriate. Similarly, they have the option to look at the situation and decide that a single questionable relationship long ago isn’t a threat to athletes today.
For example, let’s say Coach X killed a puppy in front of a junior to intimidate her into silence after he was overheard cheating a client on a horse deal. It’s not explicitly in the rules that you can’t do that. It may not even be a crime.
No harm no foul?
And if we write an explicit rule, is there a student age (or a puppy age, or a client dollar amount) where this is more or less severe? Is it less severe if it was a chicken or a goat? What if he served it up to her for dinner?
SafeSport can work the angles of this as needed. Maybe they find that it was totally true and in the process of doing so, find a pattern of intimidation of other juniors and other clients. Maybe they can’t verify it and it sits in the files, and then another eerily similar but unconnected testimony comes in a few years later. Maybe they find it couldn’t have happened that way or that the conduct wasn’t as originally portrayed. But, IME hard and fast rules as you ask for, beyond what they’ve already done, won’t create more justice.
I get that we want transparency and the confidence to trust in what is a brand new system. So maybe what we can do is call out what kind of anonymized statistics and information we could get that would create this confidence. Maybe that’s something like X investigations started, Y investigations were found to have merit, Z investigations led to a sanction. XX led to interim suspensions; of those YY were permanent and ZZ were lifted. Here is a listing of different sanctions applied with counts - verbal reprimand, timeout suspension, restricted to working with adults only, loss of official license, permanent ban. I would also be interested in breakdowns by sport.
10 Likes
I had asked earlier if SafeSport considered sanctions like restricting a coach from working with minors as an alternative to a total ban. Apparently the answer is yes, that gymnastics coaches have been given this restriction:
This is a list of USA Gymnastics suspensions:
https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pag…d_members.html
- Suspended from all contact: the individual is not permitted any contact with any USA Gymnastics-sanctioned event, member club, professional member or athlete involved with USA Gymnastics member clubs or events.
- No unsupervised contact with minors: the individual may not be in the presence of minors at any USA Gymnastics member club or USA Gymnastics-sanctioned event without another adult present. The second adult must have successfully completed the U110 training course within the previous 365 days, as required by the U.S. Center for SafeSport and USA Gymnastics.
- Membership suspended: the individual’s membership in USA Gymnastics is suspended, which means the individual may not exercise any rights of USA Gymnastics membership, including but not limited to participation on the competition floor of any USA Gymnastics sanctioned event.
3 Likes
Yes I have read it. I’m not one of the ones asking.
If you read what I said again, I was asking why people think that is what those people are asking. I did NOT get the impression that they were all wanting to know EXACTLY what RG did. I feel like people are getting so emotional about it no one is really reading what people are actually saying and are just attacking them. Like you thinking that I was asking what he did, when I just don’t understand why everyone is automatically jumping on people the second they say anything about wanting more information, when the information they want isn’t necessarily what you think they want.
I’m not talking about the one or two people that DID ask for the exact details. I’m talking about a few I saw that just wanted more detail in general and got jumped on. That’s all. I thought the rudeness towards them was excessive.
ETA: Let me emphasize this again: I am NOT one asking for detail. I don’t want detail, I don’t need to know detail, I think SS made the right call, I trust that they did their jobs properly. I don’t think there is any 'acceptable" level of sexual abuse. At all. Far from it. So please don’t read that into what I am saying.
3 Likes
And all I was trying to do was answer the question you asked. I didn’t say you personally were asking for details. So please don’t read that into what I am saying.
As far as “the information they want isn’t necessarily what you think they want” goes, you said, and I quote:
They said they wanted details on what constituted a life ban.
If my answer didn’t address what it is you think they want, then please explain it to me, because I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
4 Likes
Not Peggy, oneequestrienne. I edited for clarity.
@RainWeasley , People who want more information about the Safe Sport rules and process can go to the website and read about it. All of the information is there. If they have any questions, they can email Safe Sport.
This has been repeated many times on this thread.
12 Likes
Look we’ve been going around and around this for a lot of pages. For those that trust SafeSport, what is on the website is enough. For those with differing levels of confidence in SS, there isn’t enough information on the website. As @poltroon noted, that vagueness is often for a reason. But pretending like there is no vagueness is disingenuous.
And because it’s been illustrated that it needs to be said over and over again, I don’t think misconduct with a minor is okay.
However, I disagree that there are no degrees to what that misconduct can be…and SS and the law also see degrees of misconduct. Oh…and the poster who bravely railed against considering all abuse/misconduct as being the same.
6 Likes
Again, anyone can email Safe Sport if they have questions that are not answered on the website.
9 Likes
The way the law views degrees of abuse and misconduct does vary, but not in the way you might think. I have first hand knowledge of someone convicted of sexual misconduct with a minor that did not involve penetrative sex, but the perp is serving a 12 year sentence. The perp has also lost every appeal, all the way up to the state’s supreme court.
I have also been involved with cases where parents who were sexually molesting their children lost custody, but were not charged with a crime. Whoever is passing judgment has to look at the totality of the evidence and no doubt a number of other factors, but I think it’s safe to say that you can’t draw up a chart that consistently draws a linear relationship of punishment to act. This is where the discretion of the judge/trier of fact comes in. Also why there is an appeals process. Also why it is somewhat irrelevant what the actual act was.
13 Likes
I think this is the important piece. There is no linear relationship, and rightly so, so for those that would like to see it, the answer is it doesn’t exist for a reason. Those same people are still going to be concerned that someone could get a lifetime ban for being flirtatious with a minor, but that’s just not going to happen from what I can tell.
6 Likes
Just to build on this, it’s the difference between, I have evidence sufficient to convict this person of a crime, versus, I have a child in front of me that is telling me, please don’t put me under the control of this person any more; I don’t feel safe. The second is enough to say “the law shouldn’t require this kid to be alone with that adult.” It would be another step past that to say that adult shouldn’t be unsupervised with any kids.
Coaches, especially team coaches, have tremendous control over their athletes, not just in controlling their future opportunities, but also their safety, especially in sports like gymnastics and equestrian.
5 Likes
NoSuchPerson asked. You can’t say I’m disgusting when I answered a question and she respectfully came back. This is why many who have different opinions here don’t speak up much. You can’t have any meaningful dialog without knowing what EVERYONE thinks, not just the ones that share your opinion.
4 Likes
I am reading that sexual misconduct is a blanket statement. Streaking and skinny dipping are categorized as sexual misconduct. All the way to sexual relationship. So it does matter.
There is a case in the NFL that a player was accused and investigated by the police for child abuse. The police dropped charges for lack of evidence but the NFL is still investigating. I asked my football husband his feelings on this and they were mixed. He likened it to civil cases where the burden of proof was less. He said he felt that if the police felt there was no evidence, how could the NFL act on something the police felt was unwarranted.
As for statute of limitations, I personally feel safe sport should use the legal guidelines. California’s statute of limitations is 21 years for forcible rape. Although we don’t know the details, RG’s case was not for forcible rape.
Again, this is my opinion. Some of you are complaining that when questions are asked of those that don’t share many’s opinion, there isn’t a lot of reply. I’m brave enough to reply. I’m trying to have a worthwhile conversation. You can’t have a meaningful conversation if you (the collective you) shut out or ridicule those who don’t think the same.
6 Likes
Ok I don’t have too much time today to respond individually since I’m a bit swamped with work (which, interestingly enough, is related to many of the topics that are being discussed here) but I’m just gonna say a few things:
- As I stated previously, keeping the details to a minimum is done to protect the identity of the claimants. These sport communities are very insular, and while redacted information may seem harmless (such as stating that " 36 year old Person A was found liable of having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old student."), it becomes SUPER problematic in these context because it makes it very easy to track down the claimants if you ask the “right” questions. I know because I’ve actually worked on several cases with different NGBs (pre-SafeSport) that would publish something along the lines of the aforementioned blurbs (after the coach was banned) and the survivors were harassed and threatened by the “supporters” of their abusers.
@OwnTooMany I’ll answer your questions about the pre-existing models that inspired the SafeSport investigative process shortly (I need to look through a few documents that I saved on my desktop at home). But in regards to its independence from the USOC and its board composition, SafeSport was inspired by USADA.
In response to points #1 and #2 of your post:
Ok - so this is something that I feel like some people may be unaware of. SafeSport is very cognizant of public perception. The Center is also severely underfunded and understaffed - meaning that they have to dedicate their limited resources to protecting the most people from the most heinous actions.
The SafeSport staff know that (for the most part), the nature of the allegations that resulted in a person’s lifetime ban will eventually become available to the public. The most common ways that this is done is through criminal charges, a lawsuit or the survivors deciding to come forward through the media.
Do people really believe that SafeSport would ban an 18 year old for having an otherwise consensual relationship with a 17 year old? Or that they would ban a then 25 year old coach for, say, commenting on a 16 year old’s breast over 30 years ago? Short answer - they don’t. Because, honestly, that would be a huge headache for them.
If you look at the centralized disciplinary database, you may notice that MOST people are permanently banned for “Criminal Disposition - Involving a Minor” or “Criminal disposition - sexual misconduct”. This is purposeful.
Speaking from personal experience, SafeSport REALLY doesn’t like to hand out permanent bans without criminal convictions unless the allegations are especially severe and the evidence is especially convincing (i.e.some of the ones I am aware of included multiple accusations of drug-facilitated rape, forcible rape, and statutory rape of a minor 14 and under from a perpetrator over 21 + some very strong corroborating evidence). In my experience, they’re especially resistant if the claimants were not minors at the time of the incident.
SafeSport is also very particular about taking on older cases (>20 years) - unless there is reason to believe that the behavior has continued (usually in the form of additional victims stepping forward) OR when the accusations are especially heinous and there is evidence that the survivor DID come forward at the time of the abuse. There is also the issue of addressing sexual abuse cover-ups (which are, unfortunately, very common within the entirety of the USOPC). I actually have several theories for why this is the case, but I’ll discuss them later.
In response to point #3 of your post:
Let’s say that SafeSport received an incident report accusing a then 35 year old coach of forcibly raping a then16 year old student over 25 years ago. The incident report includes an audio recording of the coach crudely confessing to the rape during a phone call with the claimant. More over, the claimant has several witnesses (including her close friends, her family members, her therapist and doctors, etc.) who can attest that she told them about the attack. A bit more investigating finds that he also forcibly raped 5 other students in a 5 year period- including two cases in which his DNA matched two previously untested sexual assault evidence kits (commonly referred to as rape kits). However, there is no evidence showing that he has attacked anybody else in, say, the last 20 years. Now, in some states, he could not be arrested for these crimes.
Do you really think that a lifetime ban from a private club, like the USEF, would be inappropriate in this case?
(This example is based on a real case that I worked on a couple of years ago).
A key problem that I think you and I are facing during our discussions is that I believe that the severity of certain actions are greater than you do and I believe the severity of SafeSport sanctions are lesser than you do.
43 Likes
Here’s the thing @CindyCRNA : I feel like you just did what so many people keep doing when they want to brush these situations under the rug. They say “sexual misconduct” casts too wide a net and try to write off the charge as some benign, consensual act.
So much about the SS investigation process has been revealed and discussed as a result of RG’s death. And something that keeps coming up again and again is that SS is very quick to release people once the allegations are investigated. Yeah, it might be cumbersome and embarrassing for the accused, but a ton of people are being released.
So even if sexual misconduct is a blanket statement, the fact that SS felt RG deserved the most severe punishment should be telling enough that this wasn’t some false accusation or non-threatening distortion of the term.
Jobs and professional organizations can terminate people who do not uphold their standards. That’s what I keep coming back to again and again.
22 Likes
[/B]
Yes, I am paying more attention to that now. I am not a football fan but when I saw the NFL was doing the same, the process was more clear. Thank you for reminding me. I need to remember SS and the USEF are by far not the only ones doing this.
2 Likes
