Sexual misconduct is a blanket statement. We are not talking about sexual misconduct in general though. We are talking about it with minors, and for me that is what makes it not a blanket statement. If a 19 and 17 year old go streaking I doubt Safe Sport will care. . If a 19+ year old goes streaking with a 15 year old, that is a problem and I am sure they would look into it.
6 Likes
I don’t have a kid but if I did I don’t think I’d feel better that she was raped by someone who last raped a child 22 years prior. USEF is a membership club and I’m fine with membership being more exclusive than criminal statutes of limitations
33 Likes
Although on one hand I hate to derail to the NFL, on the other, as long as it was brought up in this discussion, I feel compelled to point out a couple of things that could be seen as relevant - or not - to the Rob Gage case, and possibly to other SS cases.
Unfortunately in the Tyreek Hill case, it wasn’t that the evidence let anyone off the hook, instead it was fears of deep pockets funding an aggressive defense, against a frightened 3 yo child. In fact, if Hill were not an NFL star of uncommon brilliance, the court process would probably be rolling hard over the lives of the child’s parents right now. The word “unwarranted” is out of place because the police and the district attorney thought the investigation was very much warranted.
By contrast, the Rob Gage case wasn’t built around the confused testimony of a 3 yo who had been coached by parents who want to cover up their own crime. The Gage investigation has far more substance to go on than that.
Instead, the commonalities are in the way each sport values the talents of these two individuals and how that colors the opinions and the public pressures on the league. Would supporters be just as fired up to defend an ordinary participant who in a few years probably won’t even still be in the sport? I doubt it.
Like Rob Gage, Tyreek Hill’s dominant talent makes his participation in the sport hugely influential for the careers of many other people as well himself. That matters to public opinion. There are many in the NFL who, although deeply troubled by the allegations against Hill, would nonetheless welcome a chance to have Hill helping get a good team to the playoffs and even the Super Bowl. Many fortunes would hang on those outcomes. There are comparisons there with Rob Gage, to go by the posts of his supporters.
If more evidence emerges, Hill’s final outcome with the police and DA are far from definitively over. Things could still become very serious legally for Hill and his girlfriend just on lying to police and the DA, not to mention what happened to the little boy (they apparently talked more than they should have to people in their circle).
8 Likes
This is a contradictory statement. If you don’t know the details, that means you don’t know the exact charges.
28 Likes
I would have guessed they wouldn’t have called it sexual misconduct. I need to look again but from what I read it is not the same as felony rape. I would have guessed SS/USEF would have used a different description .
1 Like
They may not be able to call it felony rape if no charges are filed or if no changes can be filed due to statute of limitations. Or they reserve that term for those that are convicted but don’t use if in instance where they can’t be charged.
11 Likes
@CindyCRNA I’ve seen individuals who have been found liable (and in some cases, guilty in criminal court) of forcible rape with the description of the cases going under the following names:
-
“Criminal Disposition - Sexual Misconduct” (usually used if the survivor is over 18 - however it has been used for cases involving minors as well)
-
“Criminal Disposition - Involving a Minor” (if the survivor is under 18)
-
“Sexual Misconduct” (this is the most broad category - for e.g. there is a coach from figure skating whose violation is listed under this. He is currently serving a 98 year to life prison sentence for sexually abusing two of his former students).
-
“Sexual Misconduct - Involving a Minor” (the survivor is under 18. Once again, very broad).
14 Likes
May I just say that I love the fact you refer to the claimants as survivors instead of victims.
23 Likes
The Safe Sport Overhaul group just let Randall Cate in and they are all, ‘Oh poor Randall Cate.’ That is not going to be a good look!
15 Likes
No it will not.
2 Likes
I saw that too. Someone invited me into the group and I didn’t accept or decline the invitation. But FB is still showing me posts from the group (I just can’t respond or post). I saw Randall Cate right at the top. Disgusting.
FYI - there are very different statutes of limitations for civil lawsuits and several states have no statute of limitations on civil actions for sexual assault of a minor. I liken SS investigations and USEF punishments to civil actions/lawsuits, not criminal prosecution and punishment.
8 Likes
What if a few of the people who don’t trust the process or don’t understand how it works, volunteer for a fake complaint to be filed against them? Surely there’s at least one or two lawyers in the Safe Sport Overhaul group who can volunteer time to appeal should it come to that.
Then they get firsthand knowledge on how easy/hard it is to make an allegation stick. They can report back from “the inside.” I’d feel bad wasting SS’s time on this but sometimes a scientist with a real burning need to know will just go ahead and test him/herself… so why not try that? If the system works, now you know. If the system doesn’t (ie you end up with a bogus charge and ban) you can go to an actual court of law and wrench the change you wish to see in SS process.
I’d be interested in firsthand reports from folks that have had allegations, appeals and suspensions. The two highest profile ones are now (or had been in JW’s case) dead, Kathy Serio’s writeup seemed pretty abysmal. So I think there’s a little confirmation bias that’s going on, which may or may not disappear as more cases pop up.
Speaking of, was there anything that came out of Tommy’s case? Like was it just a revenge thing? It was classy of them not to name and shame if the case was really that straightforward and horrendous to process through.
3 Likes
That specifically was what was bothering me. The rudeness and verbiage (things like “wtf is wrong with you people”) towards people that asked a question, made a comment, viewed things slightly differently than others, is what I thought was really unnecessary. Not the responses that calmly said “Any act at all to me deserves lifetime ban”. I get that it’s a really touchy and emotional subject but being rude towards people never helps anything. But then again, it IS a public forum so there will always be some people that are a bit too…harsh in how they word things, especially with subjects like this.
7 Likes
The version I heard thirdhand was that it was a (former?) employee who was not a minor.
1 Like
I tried to find that group and ended up rereading the Michael Cintas post. I just can’t believe what people write. The victim shaming is unreal. Women saying that at that time it was the girls responsibility to not get molested. The men weren’t taught it wasn’t ok? Really? It wasn’t the 1800’s.
I honestly think victim shaming has gotten worse in the last few years.
9 Likes
And the misinformation is working. People think SS is just throwing out lifetime bans.
I don’t particularly agree with the texting rules as I think it will just force the abusers to communicate to their victims via apps that “poof” messages and hinder the many people who communicate via text. And I think they need obvious rethought if they we’re only prepared for a hand full of reports.
BUT I don’t think that means all of SS is a witch Hunt.
Many people are speaking without even knowing how the program is organized.
6 Likes
Is this on the SS Overhaul FB page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1218093071704233/?ref=share)? I’ve been tempted to join, but probably couldn’t remain silent in the face of alternative fact slinging, and would likely get myself banned.
A friend who is usually fact based, but clearly had not read up on SS at all, had to do a Gilda Radner “never mind” when I pointed out that the ban came from SS and not USEF.
That would be my (almost) sole reason for joining, if I were to. I was wondering if roseymare’s comment about misinformation was from that page, or if people were ranting elsewhere.
