Equestrian Coach Takes Own Life After SafeSport Sanctions | Golden Skate

Equestrian Coach Takes Own Life After SafeSport Sanctions

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
I post this link about the suicide of a prominent equestrian coach for two reasons:

  • It is the second suicide in the Olympic community following a SafeSport allegation.
  • The article mentions the previous case involving John Coughlin, and this case generated discussion among board members.


I make no pretense of understanding a lot of this, and remain neutral with this case, as I did with the Coughlin matter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...dies-suicide-recent-safesport-ban/1455390001/
 

tothepointe

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
I post this link about the suicide of a prominent equestrian coach for two reasons:

  • It is the second suicide in the Olympic community following a SafeSport allegation.
  • The article mentions the previous case involving John Coughlin, and this case generated discussion among board members.


I make no pretense of understanding a lot of this, and remain neutral with this case, as I did with the Coughlin matter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...dies-suicide-recent-safesport-ban/1455390001/

I'm not as connected with the riding community as I once was but equestrian is one of the sports where all adults who compete must do the safesport training. There is a lot of potential for abuse in riding. Usually of the financial kind but even in the time I was in the sport I wasn't immune to the toxic abuse that is rampant in the sport.
 

karne

in Emergency Backup Mode
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Country
Australia
And? What are you trying to say?

The equestrian coach in the article was an evil person. These weren't "just" allegations, he was banned for life which means there must have been definite reason for SafeSport to take such an extreme action.
 

Manitou

Medalist
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
And? What are you trying to say?

The equestrian coach in the article was an evil person. These weren't "just" allegations, he was banned for life which means there must have been definite reason for SafeSport to take such an extreme action.

I have no idea how evil he really was, but I am scared how self-righteous you are feeling about yourself. Not only in this post, but probably in the 90% of all your posts I remember.
Please, keep judging. Some day you will be judged.
 

Rissa

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
I have no idea how evil he really was, but I am scared how self-righteous you are feeling about yourself. Not only in this post, but probably in the 90% of all your posts I remember.
Please, keep judging. Some day you will be judged.

Karne didn't judge. Safesport did - and found the man guilty. How nice of you trying ad hominem tactics, however.
 

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
And? What are you trying to say?

The equestrian coach in the article was an evil person. These weren't "just" allegations, he was banned for life which means there must have been definite reason for SafeSport to take such an extreme action.

My goodness. I'm not trying to say anything.

There was a high-profile suicide in figure skating, now followed by another in another sport. Both occurred after a SafeSport allegation (or investigation, or action, or verdict, or whatever you wish to call it).

The first generated a lot of attention and discussion on the board. I thought this second case might be of interest to the community.

That is all. I have no idea how that generated such hostility.
 

Vanshilar

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Eh I think Karne is right on this one. Don't know how pointing out the obvious amounts to being self-righteous. The person was banned for life, meaning SafeSport conducted an investigation and found enough evidence of a serious nature to do so. This is very different from the Coughlin situation where he was under an interim suspension due to allegations under investigation, when no determinations had been made yet.
 

Ducky

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
But shouldn't two deaths by suicide resulting from SafeSport Sanctions raise some eyebrows in how they are handling these cases or dealing with these individuals? Please note that this isn't to say that SafeSport is wrong to impose sanctions or ban people from the sport, but that maybe they should institute some procedures or policies to prevent someone else from taking their own life?
 

Ziotic

Medalist
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
But shouldn't two deaths by suicide resulting from SafeSport Sanctions raise some eyebrows in how they are handling these cases or dealing with these individuals? Please note that this isn't to say that SafeSport is wrong to impose sanctions or ban people from the sport, but that maybe they should institute some procedures or policies to prevent someone else from taking their own life?

To me, this is backwards logic and would be once again be protecting the accused.

I’m all for innocent until proven guilty but this equestrian coach wasn’t innocent, why should he be protected. Those he abused weren’t offered the same opportunity.

It’s so often why people don’t report abuses of power, usually those that are the victims are marginalized or vulnerable.
 

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
To me, this is backwards logic and would be once again be protecting the accused.

I’m all for innocent until proven guilty but this equestrian coach wasn’t innocent, why should he be protected. Those he abused weren’t offered the same opportunity.

It’s so often why people don’t report abuses of power, usually those that are the victims are marginalized or vulnerable.

I think the process SafeSport is following is the issue.

No one wants persons who would abuse a child to be in a position of authority or responsibility of athletes. And the US Gymnastics case should make clear that those in a position of power and prestige can willfully ignore horrendous crimes for the sake of "protecting" the sport or federation, at the expense of athletes.

On the other hand, I think the secrecy of the process is troubling. The facts of the cases, at least of these two suicides, aren't public. In Coughlin's case, the concern seems to be something that is alleged from 20+ years ago. In the case of this equestrian coach, it's closer to 40 years, if I understand the article correctly. What tangible evidence exists of misconduct? On what grounds were these disciplinary decisions made? For sure, there is testimony that should provide some facts... but the public does not know what it is.

I may not fully understand exactly how SafeSport works. An allegation is made in private, and investigation is conducted in private, and disciplinary action is taken by a body that, as far as I can tell, isn't accountable to anyone. There's something about the secrecy that I find unsettling. Now, two men are dead, and SafeSport basically dusts their hands and says, "our work here is done." We'll never know what evidence was uncovered to support their actions. It sounds like a Star Chamber.

It seems that the federations have outsourced their responsibilities... but, again, US Gym proved that they can't be trusted to do the right thing. The SafeSport process does not resemble the due process I'm familiar with. And, lest anyone be concerned that I am "soft on pedos," I assure you that my remedy for those who sexualize children would be viewed by most of you as medieval. I have loved this sport for nearly 50 years, and I would rather every skating rink in the world burn to the ground than have a child hurt by a monster.

The whole situation is an abominable mess.

I do believe something is wrong in sport, and honestly in society in general. I'm not sure a remedy carried out in secret is the answer.

And I also believe that those "gym moms" and "skating moms" have good instincts, so please stop looking down your noses at them.
 

Ducky

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
To me, this is backwards logic and would be once again be protecting the accused.

I’m all for innocent until proven guilty but this equestrian coach wasn’t innocent, why should he be protected. Those he abused weren’t offered the same opportunity.

It’s so often why people don’t report abuses of power, usually those that are the victims are marginalized or vulnerable.

I'm not saying he should have been protected. I'm saying that SafeSport should be looking into developing procedures to prevent sanctioned individuals from committing suicide: treating them as 'high-risk', making sure that their family and friends have enough resources to come up with crisis intervention plans, should be checking in on them at regular intervals.
 

Ziotic

Medalist
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
I'm not saying he should have been protected. I'm saying that SafeSport should be looking into developing procedures to prevent sanctioned individuals from committing suicide: treating them as 'high-risk', making sure that their family and friends have enough resources to come up with crisis intervention plans, should be checking in on them at regular intervals.

But why?

How is their mental health the responsibility of a investigative organization?
 

okokok1777

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Hello Everyone - I just wanted to add a bit more information regarding this case. Hillary Ridland and four other survivors of Rob Gage had an informal "question and answer" session after the Grand Prix at the Oaks on June 22. One of the five survivors who attended was only 13 when they were abused.

Source: Hillary's FaceBook page and statements from people who attended the "Q&A".
 
Last edited:

heyang

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I may not fully understand exactly how SafeSport works. An allegation is made in private, and investigation is conducted in private, and disciplinary action is taken by a body that, as far as I can tell, isn't accountable to anyone. There's something about the secrecy that I find unsettling. Now, two men are dead, and SafeSport basically dusts their hands and says, "our work here is done." We'll never know what evidence was uncovered to support their actions. It sounds like a Star Chamber.

Yes, the allegation is made privately to allow the person to feel that they can come forward. Investigation occurs somewhat in private to protect the victim (who was generally underage at the time) and the innocent until reasonable threat proven accused is also protected. The Police in America are also not supposed to comment on an ongoing investigation. In the case of Safe Sport, they allegedly had enough concerns while investigating John to feel that a temporary suspension was warranted.

As for not revealing the results of the investigation, it was incomplete and the accused could no longer defend himself. At least one person who has accused John has come forward and John's friends have accused her of mental illness - that's why victims don't want to come forward. Unless more woman come forward publicly, it continues to be a he said, she said.

GIven these 2 suicides, the families and friends of the accused should consider keeping a closer eye out, but as with many suicides, those seemingly closest are surprised.
 

CoyoteChris

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
I think the process SafeSport is following is the issue.

No one wants persons who would abuse a child to be in a position of authority or responsibility of athletes. And the US Gymnastics case should make clear that those in a position of power and prestige can willfully ignore horrendous crimes for the sake of "protecting" the sport or federation, at the expense of athletes.

On the other hand, I think the secrecy of the process is troubling. The facts of the cases, at least of these two suicides, aren't public. In Coughlin's case, the concern seems to be something that is alleged from 20+ years ago. In the case of this equestrian coach, it's closer to 40 years, if I understand the article correctly. What tangible evidence exists of misconduct? On what grounds were these disciplinary decisions made? For sure, there is testimony that should provide some facts... but the public does not know what it is.

I may not fully understand exactly how SafeSport works. An allegation is made in private, and investigation is conducted in private, and disciplinary action is taken by a body that, as far as I can tell, isn't accountable to anyone. There's something about the secrecy that I find unsettling. Now, two men are dead, and SafeSport basically dusts their hands and says, "our work here is done." We'll never know what evidence was uncovered to support their actions. It sounds like a Star Chamber.

It seems that the federations have outsourced their responsibilities... but, again, US Gym proved that they can't be trusted to do the right thing. The SafeSport process does not resemble the due process I'm familiar with. And, lest anyone be concerned that I am "soft on pedos," I assure you that my remedy for those who sexualize children would be viewed by most of you as medieval. I have loved this sport for nearly 50 years, and I would rather every skating rink in the world burn to the ground than have a child hurt by a monster.

The whole situation is an abominable mess.

I do believe something is wrong in sport, and honestly in society in general. I'm not sure a remedy carried out in secret is the answer.

And I also believe that those "gym moms" and "skating moms" have good instincts, so please stop looking down your noses at them.

That pretty much sums up my feelings about safe sport. In a working justice system, ideally of course, their is the rule of law, crime and punishment. But we live in a world were one of our major religions is full of pediphiles and that religion is not policing itself either. Maybe it needs a safepray???
There are no winners here. The only thing that is clear is that kids need to be protected. I just dont know where to draw the lines. A 19 year old skater might have an consensual affair with a 17 year old skater. That's no so big a deal in my mind as a 35 year old having an affair or worse..much worse...with a 13 year old. Lord help us.
 

TallyT

Record Breaker
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Country
Australia
The only thing that is clear is that kids need to be protected. I just dont know where to draw the lines. A 19 year old skater might have an consensual affair with a 17 year old skater. That's no so big a deal in my mind as a 35 year old having an affair or worse..much worse...with a 13 year old. Lord help us.

How do we know - even if she says it - that the 17 year old did consent and wasn't pressured/groomed/peer-pushed into saying yes? I know women who did at 16-18 agree to sex with boys or men and now admit they did it because they felt that pressure, the risk of ridicule, rejection, being thought badly of. Statutory age limits are there for a reason.

As I understand it, Safe Sport's remit is simply and purely to protect those under possible threat from abuse, and like the child protection agencies all over the world, they have to put that possible threat above every other consideration. It may not be the perfect path, it may need work (child protection agencies are also constantly under criticism, attack and review for similar reasons) but it's got to be done. We've learned that the hard and horrifying way.
 

SarahSynchro

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Country
Canada
My heart breaks for the victims of this situation, as it does for all survivors of sexual abuse. Any individuals responsible for such atrocities on innocent victims must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I think the main problem here is that SafeSport is NOT the official governing body who is responsible for determining whether or not the alleged perpetrator is guilty or innocent. They are NOT the law. That’s up to the criminal justice system in the state/country/jurisdiction where the alleged crimes took place. Being banned for life by the SafeSport organization is one thing, but it holds no official weight whatsoever to the criminal justice system as an automatic guilty verdict. At most, the documentation collected in SafeSport’s internal investigation and its resulting ban could be presented at trial by the prosecution as evidence of an aggravating factor against the accused. Innocence or guilt must always be proven in a criminal court of law, AFTER the accused is arrested, taken into custody by the police, officially charged with the crimes, appears in front of a judge for a preliminary hearing to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, and is given the option to stand trial if they choose to plead not guilty.

Think of it like this, using a much less serious accusation: An employee is caught stealing money while on duty at work. Evidence of this is recorded on the store’s security camera that is positioned to monitor the area surrounding the cash registers. Management becomes aware of the situation, reviews the security footage, then calls the employee in for a meeting. The manager presents the video to the accused employee, then fires them on the spot.

In its most basic, objective definition, theft is a crime. Period. Full stop. It doesn’t matter if the amount stolen is two dollars or twenty thousand dollars. I don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to argue otherwise.

Now, if this hypothetical manager wishes to criminally prosecute the now ex-employee, he does not have the authority to do so on his own. He must contact the police and present them with the evidence. Usually a detective is given the job of reviewing said evidence and investigating the scenario further using other means. After this process is complete, it is then at their discretion to determine whether or not they have enough hard evidence to arrest and charge the ex employee and prove their guilt to a judge.

Sometimes, likely more than you’d think, for various reasons, the manager chooses not to get the justice system involved, believing the accused’s immediate loss of employment is punishment enough.

Back to the situation at hand. SafeSport is basically the equivalent of the aforementioned hypothetical manager. By no means do either of them have the authority to act as the criminal justice system.

Just as all victims of a crime deserve the right to be listened to, believed, comforted, and supported; the accused party also has the right to due process and a fair trial.

SafeSport seems to just throw the results of their internal investigations to the media, which then creates this massive ripple effect, where the general public automatically believes the accused is guilty.

If you can’t understand how this can have a serious impact on the accused’s mental health, to the point where it leads to them taking their own life, irregardless of their guilt or innocence... honestly, I don’t know what else I can say to you.

Think of all the individuals who have been vilified on social media by the court of public opinion, over some sort of trivial faux-pas that isn’t even criminal in nature. Many lose their jobs, experience shunning from friends and family, watch their marriages fall apart, their children become embarrassed of to be seen with them, their neighbours and acquaintances turn the other way if they see them in the grocery store... etc.

Now, imagine you’re accused by the masses of being a sexual predator, all because of information provided by a private organization’s private investigation, NOT the judicial system. What if you’re innocent? What if you aren’t given a chance to tell your side of the story? What if nobody even cares to hear your side of the story, because the general consensus is you’re a liar who’s guilty as sin?

SafeSport’s investigative policies and procedures desperately need to be more transparent for the general public. Contrary to popular belief, this CAN be done while concurrently protecting the identities of the victims. SafeSport should be working WITH the criminal justice system to bring perpetrators to justice, NOT conducting these secretive internal investigations, handing out lifetime bans, and throwing the accused to the wolves.
 

TallyT

Record Breaker
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Country
Australia
My heart breaks for the victims of this situation, as it does for all survivors of sexual abuse. Any individuals responsible for such atrocities on innocent victims must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I think the main problem here is that SafeSport is NOT the official governing body who is responsible for determining whether or not the alleged perpetrator is guilty or innocent. They are NOT the law. That’s up to the criminal justice system in the state/country/jurisdiction where the alleged crimes took place. Being banned for life by the SafeSport organization is one thing, but it holds no official weight whatsoever to the criminal justice system as an automatic guilty verdict. At most, the documentation collected in SafeSport’s internal investigation and its resulting ban could be presented at trial by the prosecution as evidence of an aggravating factor against the accused. Innocence or guilt must always be proven in a criminal court of law, AFTER the accused is arrested, taken into custody by the police, officially charged with the crimes, appears in front of a judge for a preliminary hearing to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, and is given the option to stand trial if they choose to plead not guilty.

Think of it like this, using a much less serious accusation: An employee is caught stealing money while on duty at work. Evidence of this is recorded on the store’s security camera that is positioned to monitor the area surrounding the cash registers. Management becomes aware of the situation, reviews the security footage, then calls the employee in for a meeting. The manager presents the video to the accused employee, then fires them on the spot.

In its most basic, objective definition, theft is a crime. Period. Full stop. It doesn’t matter if the amount stolen is two dollars or twenty thousand dollars. I don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to argue otherwise.

Now, if this hypothetical manager wishes to criminally prosecute the now ex-employee, he does not have the authority to do so on his own. He must contact the police and present them with the evidence. Usually a detective is given the job of reviewing said evidence and investigating the scenario further using other means. After this process is complete, it is then at their discretion to determine whether or not they have enough hard evidence to arrest and charge the ex employee and prove their guilt to a judge.

Sometimes, likely more than you’d think, for various reasons, the manager chooses not to get the justice system involved, believing the accused’s immediate loss of employment is punishment enough.

Back to the situation at hand. SafeSport is basically the equivalent of the aforementioned hypothetical manager. By no means do either of them have the authority to act as the criminal justice system.

Just as all victims of a crime deserve the right to be listened to, believed, comforted, and supported; the accused party also has the right to due process and a fair trial.

SafeSport seems to just throw the results of their internal investigations to the media, which then creates this massive ripple effect, where the general public automatically believes the accused is guilty.

If you can’t understand how this can have a serious impact on the accused’s mental health, to the point where it leads to them taking their own life, irregardless of their guilt or innocence... honestly, I don’t know what else I can say to you.

Think of all the individuals who have been vilified on social media by the court of public opinion, over some sort of trivial faux-pas that isn’t even criminal in nature. Many lose their jobs, experience shunning from friends and family, watch their marriages fall apart, their children become embarrassed of to be seen with them, their neighbours and acquaintances turn the other way if they see them in the grocery store... etc.

Now, imagine you’re accused by the masses of being a sexual predator, all because of information provided by a private organization’s private investigation, NOT the judicial system. What if you’re innocent? What if you aren’t given a chance to tell your side of the story? What if nobody even cares to hear your side of the story, because the general consensus is you’re a liar who’s guilty as sin?

SafeSport’s investigative policies and procedures desperately need to be more transparent for the general public. Contrary to popular belief, this CAN be done while concurrently protecting the identities of the victims. SafeSport should be working WITH the criminal justice system to bring perpetrators to justice, NOT conducting these secretive internal investigations, handing out lifetime bans, and throwing the accused to the wolves.

I think the difficulty is that Safesport are meant to be the equivalent of child protection agencies (whose actions often preempt legal due process because of the overriding need to stop whatever abuse may be ongoing), but with the victims often being adults and not actually related to/living with the accused, they have to use sanctions which are more in line with law enforcement. It makes it messy.
 

CoyoteChris

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
I think the difficulty is that Safesport are meant to be the equivalent of child protection agencies (whose actions often preempt legal due process because of the overriding need to stop whatever abuse may be ongoing), but with the victims often being adults and not actually related to/living with the accused, they have to use sanctions which are more in line with law enforcement. It makes it messy.

Trying to find out how to stop the J. Epsteins of the world recruiting girls to recruit other girls... :(
 

SarahSynchro

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Country
Canada
I think the difficulty is that Safesport are meant to be the equivalent of child protection agencies (whose actions often preempt legal due process because of the overriding need to stop whatever abuse may be ongoing), but with the victims often being adults and not actually related to/living with the accused, they have to use sanctions which are more in line with law enforcement. It makes it messy.

I see what you’re saying and I do agree with the similarities you stated. However, at least where I live (Southern Ontario, Canada, which I may have stated previously; if so, apologies for being a broken record!) child protective services are both funded and regulated via the various levels of government - federal, provincial, regional, and municipal - AND they are mandated to work within the law of the justice system; mostly in a family court setting, but of course, there are too many unfortunate cases where the criminal courts must also be involved, such as when there are accusations of physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and verbal abuse; along with accusations of neglect that are made towards the children’s parents or guardians.

Mind you, children’s service agencies all across North America don’t exactly have a glowing reputation themselves, to put it mildly, nor is their work perfect by any means. I can’t keep track of all the terrible stories I’ve heard over the years of children being horrifically failed by these services, sometimes even leading to the end of these sweet innocent children’s lives. :(

But unlike SafeSport, these agencies are mandated to operate with the laws of the land. Accusations of abuse are investigated as transparently as possible, and law enforcement becomes involved as soon as there are sound allegations of criminal behaviour made against the parents, who are then entitled to their due process, so they may hire an attorney, and either accept a plea bargain for a guilty plea, or be proven guilty or innocent in a trial, just like everyone else who finds themselves charged with a crime. The children in question are always removed from the alleged abusive parents’ homes, and either they are placed with other immediate family members, or they go into the foster care system - another agency with a bad reputation overall, irregardless of location.

SafeSport doesn’t seem to have any remotely similar procedures and alliances with the law. That is what concerns me the most.
 
Top