USA Today stories on John Coughlin

[okokok1777]

I think it would be difficult, especially without knowing specific allegations, to defend against the charges.

Charges have been levied... how do you defend, with evidence, that you did not do what is alleged? I suppose if you knew the specifics, like "It happened in Vienna" but he can prove he had never been to Vienna, it would be one thing. But if the charge is "It happened at training camp" how would he prove his innocence?

I think the fact that he did not request a hearing is not an indicator one way or the other. I do not know how much information about the allegations was disclosed to him.

"With SafeSport guarding details to protect the privacy of potential victims, all that his family and friends know comes from what he shared, from his point of view. He would have received a letter from SafeSport detailing the general accusations. The letter would have included the initials of the purported victim." (Source: The Kansas City Star)

According to the KC Star article and my own conversations with a SafeSport employee, John would have known the initials of the alleged victim(s) and the general nature/timeline of the allegations. More over, if he was telling his friends/family that allegations were from "consensual “peer-to-peer” relationship from his earlier skating days, none from when he was a coach", then that also contradicts the assertion that he wasn't given any information (The Kansas City Star).

 

[Figure 8's]

Not sure why this can of worms was opened again. Having dealt with many such cases in the Courts,both Accusers and Accused. I have only one thing to say--very easy to accuse but in most cases very hard to prove. If the accused is innocent that stigma hangs over them for the rest of their lives. Who ever leaked this investigation was out to ruin a reputation.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Who ever leaked this investigation was out to ruin a reputation.

Not necessarily. There isn't any way to handle these types of situations that is fair for everyone involved. The safety of athletes, especially minors, has to be the priority, even if it means a coach or other authority figure has to sit on the sidelines until these things are resolved. It's obviously unfortunate if it turns out the accused is innocent, but what other choice is there? Keep parents in the dark if their kids are being coached by someone accused of bad behavior?

 

[Icey]

Not sure why this can of worms was opened again. Having dealt with many such cases in the Courts,both Accusers and Accused. I have only one thing to say--very easy to accuse but in most cases very hard to prove. If the accused is innocent that stigma hangs over them for the rest of their lives. Who ever leaked this investigation was out to ruin a reputation.

You don't really think this kind of thing has happened once only in the history of fs in the United States. Yes, a can of worms has been opened and I suspect the public is about to find out who some of the worms are.

 

[ManyCairns]

Not sure why this can of worms was opened again. Having dealt with many such cases in the Courts,both Accusers and Accused. I have only one thing to say--very easy to accuse but in most cases very hard to prove. If the accused is innocent that stigma hangs over them for the rest of their lives. Who ever leaked this investigation was out to ruin a reputation.

[bold mine]

But this investigation wasn't leaked. The fact that Coughlin was being investigated was published as a notification from SafeSport, as per their guidelines, at least as it was described when it happened.

If you mean specifics about the allegations were leaked, what were those specifics, and by whom were they leaked/do you think they were leaked?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or rehash older information unnecessarily, but it just seems to me there is a persistent general impression that the fact that Coughlin was being investigated was leaked information -- it wasn't. It was published/public information, right from the start. First when the initial "interim restriction" was made in December 2018, then again when the action was elevated to "interim suspension" in January. Published on the Safesport website as official notification, not some accidental or intentional leak of information. Yes, USA Today published brief articles on the restriction and the suspension, but it wasn't leaked information, it was public information.

Unless I completely misunderstand, which is entirely possible.

 

[Sugar Coated]

[bold mine]

But this investigation wasn't leaked. The fact that Coughlin was being investigated was published as a notification from SafeSport, as per their guidelines, at least as it was described when it happened.

If you mean specifics about the allegations were leaked, what were those specifics, and by whom were they leaked/do you think they were leaked?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or rehash older information unnecessarily, but it just seems to me there is a persistent general impression that the fact that Coughlin was being investigated was leaked information -- it wasn't. It was published/public information, right from the start. First when the initial "interim restriction" was made in December 2018, then again when the action was elevated to "interim suspension" in January. Published on the Safesport website as official notification, not some accidental or intentional leak of information. Yes, USA Today published brief articles on the restriction and the suspension, but it wasn't leaked information, it was public information.

Unless I completely misunderstand, which is entirely possible.

Exactly. This was pretty public information, the outlets that were reporting it were not reporting leaked info. Safe Sport felt there was enough evidence to put the restriction in place and then elevate the restriction.

Fake sexual assault accusations are actually very rare. This article calculates them to be about 0.5% of all sexual assaults. https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

I find it hard to believe that multiple people got together to make fake accusations to prevent someone from getting a commentator position. One person? Possibly. But multiple people who are at putting their own career in jeopardy by coming forward, potentially angering the ISU and skating community? Just so someone doesn’t get a commentating job?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

TBH I don’t really understand why USA Today published these stories. IMO they just add a little bit of fuel to both sides who want to speculate on a situation that to me seems quite unclear. I don’t think we’re getting all the relevant information we need to form an educated opinion and yet you can tell people are already making up their minds. These articles seem aimed to just further divide two sides with hazy facts.

SafeSport walking away from this without a final report is just unbelievable. Something needs to be done to fix this organization. I think they are doing our sport a huge disservice honestly by not releasing a conclusive report.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I think they are doing our sport a huge disservice honestly by not releasing a conclusive report.

It's tough, because it really is difficult to produce a fair report when the accused is no longer available to defend himself. I agree that closing the investigation is the wrong decision, because the importance of this goes above and beyond this incident. People need to be held accountable if they covered for the accused, like we saw with USA Gymnastics, because it will continue to create a dangerous situation if things that should be exposed aren't.

 

[ice coverage]

… Fake sexual assault accusations are actually very rare. This article calculates them to be about 0.5% of all sexual assaults. https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

No, that is not what the article says.

All the estimated numbers in the article pertain to false accusations of "rape"-- as opposed to "sexual assault".

If you want to talk about estimated stats for false accusations of "sexual assault," you'll have to get them from a different source.

"Sexual assault" is a broader term than "rape."

 

[okokok1777]

No, that is not what the article says.

All the estimated numbers in the article pertain to false accusations of "rape"-- as opposed to "sexual assault".

If you want to talk about estimated stats for false accusations of "sexual assault," you'll have to get them from a different source.

"Sexual assault" is a broader term than "rape."

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, the prevalence of false reporting [sexual assault] is between 2 and 10 percent. However "....research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault." For example, let's say a victim of sexual assault refuses to participate in a sexual assault forensic exam (i.e. a rape kit) or to cooperate with the police after a brutal attack. A police officer may record this as a "false report" as it fulfills one of the FBI-issued guidelines for false reporting (victims deciding not to cooperate with investigators). Through my "day" job as a sexual assault and domestic violence counselor, I've seen these types of clerical errors done frequently by my local police department. There has actually been several times in which a case of sexual assault was recorded as a "false report" even though the perpetrator was later convicted of the crime. Nobody had taken the time to change the initial reports.

Another problem is that certain studies lump "false" reporting with "baseless" reporting. For example, if a victim of sexual assault comes forward after the statute of limitations has expired with insurmountable proof that the crime occurred, it would be considered a "baseless" report.

The 0.5% may actually be more accurate then the 2-10% due to all of these factors.

Source

 

[Sugar Coated]

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, the prevalence of false reporting [sexual assault] is between 2 and 10 percent. However "....research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault." For example, let's say a victim of sexual assault refuses to participate in a sexual assault forensic exam (i.e. a rape kit) or to cooperate with the police after a brutal attack. A police officer may record this as a "false report" as it fulfills one of the FBI-issued guidelines for false reporting (victims deciding not to cooperate with investigators). Through my "day" job as a sexual assault and domestic violence counselor, I've seen these types of clerical errors done frequently by my local police department. There has actually been several times in which a case of sexual assault was recorded as a "false report" even though the perpetrator was later convicted of the crime. Nobody had taken the time to change the initial reports.

Another problem is that certain studies lump "false" reporting with "baseless" reporting. For example, if a victim of sexual assault comes forward after the statute of limitations has expired with insurmountable proof that the crime occurred, it would be considered a "baseless" report.

The 0.5% may actually be more accurate then the 2-10% due to all of these factors.

Source

Thanks for saying this so much better than I could.

 

[moonvine]

SafeSport walking away from this without a final report is just unbelievable. Something needs to be done to fix this organization. I think they are doing our sport a huge disservice honestly by not releasing a conclusive report.

We will never know both sides of the story. One side is unable to give testimony. How can they release a conclusive report with only one side's testimony?

 

[moonvine]

There is no evidence here that Coughlin is allowed to talk to the press!

https://77media.blob.core.windows.n...8.2018-03-21---appendix-a---final-amended.pdf

People are saying Coughlin could have defended himself publicly in the press but there is no evidence of that.

Typically one's attorney will advise one not to speak to the press in a situation where one is accused of a crime. Although John was not yet accused of a crime and might or might not ever have been, anything he said to the press could and would be used against him in a court of law later if he did speak to the press. Any defense attorney worth his or her salt will advise their client not to speak to the press, to let the attorney do the talking. Of course we don't even know if he had an attorney. We know little and the likelihood of us ever knowing more is not high in my opinion. Peace to all affected.
.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

We will never know both sides of the story. One side is unable to give testimony. How can they release a conclusive report with only one side's testimony?

There is a lawyer claiming that SafeSport has uncovered a pattern within the sport that creates an unsafe environment for minors. If this is true then that means something needs to be done. I don’t care if they rule on John’s Case, I think considering the stakes...SafeSport is being reckless not giving us the details regarding these claims and others which may arise.

I think SafeSport owes us a report that details whether or not this pattern exists and in what ways. I believe he is indicating John took advantage of this. John May be gone but the sport and thousands of young skaters are not and may still be at risk. I for one am willing to ask the people I work with within USFSA to make any needed changes and lobby for those changes if we uncover something we should address.

To be clear...I’m not concerned over John’s case but wanting to be made aware of the situation in order to better guard against it. Knowledge is key and I think withholding information in this case could come at a price. YMMV.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, the prevalence of false reporting [sexual assault] is between 2 and 10 percent. However "....research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault." For example, let's say a victim of sexual assault refuses to participate in a sexual assault forensic exam (i.e. a rape kit) or to cooperate with the police after a brutal attack. A police officer may record this as a "false report" as it fulfills one of the FBI-issued guidelines for false reporting (victims deciding not to cooperate with investigators). Through my "day" job as a sexual assault and domestic violence counselor, I've seen these types of clerical errors done frequently by my local police department. There has actually been several times in which a case of sexual assault was recorded as a "false report" even though the perpetrator was later convicted of the crime. Nobody had taken the time to change the initial reports.

Another problem is that certain studies lump "false" reporting with "baseless" reporting. For example, if a victim of sexual assault comes forward after the statute of limitations has expired with insurmountable proof that the crime occurred, it would be considered a "baseless" report.

The 0.5% may actually be more accurate then the 2-10% due to all of these factors.

Source

I mean these are nice conversational points (extremely frustrating TBH) but without facts they really can’t tell the story of this case.

I appreciate the post and think it’s important information for the discussion but until they are weighed against the actual facts we have no way to guess where in the spectrum this case actually lies. It’s frustrating. I guess since SafeSport is stepping away all we can do is hope USFSA and or US Olympic Comittee are able to find the resources to further look into this and address the claims being made that a pattern may exist within our sport.

 

[okokok1777]

I mean these are nice conversational points but without facts they really are meaningless.

I appreciate the post and think it’s important information for the discussion but until they are weighed against the actual facts we have no way to guess where in the spectrum this case actually lies. It’s frustrating. I guess since SafeSport is stepping away all we can do is hope USFSA and or US Olympic Comittee are able to find the resources to further look into this and address the claims being made that a pattern may exist within our sport.

1. I wouldn't call the statistics "meaningless". I would argue that the rarity of false sexual assault allegations is one of the major reasons that SafeSport is set-up the way it is (protecting the identity of accusers, imposing interim measures, sharing the accused name online, etc) - a set-up that has been a major point of contention in regards to the JC case.

2. I posted this in another forum but I feel like it applies well here: Figure skating is a very small world. Sharing certain details of the allegations (such as the age of the women at the time of the alleged abuse, when it happened, where it happened, the age of JC at the time) could make it very easy to identify them.

3. This is not the first time the lawyer (John Manly of Manly, Stewart and Finaldi) or his legal partners has taken on the USFSA. He represented* Craig Maurizi (whose accusations of sexual abuse against Richard Callaghan were dismissed by the USFSA without further investigation in 1999 due to his failure to report within a 60 day window).

His legal partner, Vince Finaldi, represented* an anonymous figure skater and survivor of Don Vincent (a former figure skating coach who was sentenced to 98 years to life in prison for sexually molesting two of his students - one of which was the 11 year old plaintiff). In regards to this case, Finaldi stated: “The U.S. Figure Skating Association and the ice rinks where Vincent worked ignored complaints against him for years. If they had done their legal duty years ago and reported Vincent to the police, our client and other children could have been protected from this monster.” The family of the second victim (an anonymous female skater who was 9 at the onset of the abuse) also sued the USFSA for failing to fulfill their legal duty.

I've also personally worked on a number of sexual abuse cases within figure skating (mostly between coaches and students but also quite a few cases within pairs). There is a pattern of abuse. SafeSport is aware of it and certain people within the USFSA are aware of it. I would go into more but it will probably end up in a rant.

*I believe that the cases are ongoing but I'm not 100% sure. If so, just imagine that I wrote "are representing".

Craig Maurizi Case: Source
Don Vincent Case: Source 1 and Source 2

 

[karne]

We will never know both sides of the story. One side is unable to give testimony. How can they release a conclusive report with only one side's testimony?

Yes, and whose fault is that? Who chose not to see the investigation through to the end? Who was it who chose to end the investigation in the most painful way possible and ensure that nobody ever gets closure on this? Who was it who chose an action that near tore the sport apart and cast a shadow on what should have been the brightest spot in US Figure Skating's year?

Coughlin had every chance to give testimony. He had every chance to contribute to the reports and hearings. He had every chance to see this through. He chose not to in the way that left the most carnage behind him.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Let’s not forget that Suicide is often a sign of or a potential indicator of mental illness. We don’t know John’s medical history or his true state of mind during this tragic situation. Maybe it was guilt...maybe mental anguish...maybe several other factors combined. Until we know further the extent of certain extenuating circumstances it might be best not to make sweeping assumptions about the accused or the accusers.

Things aren’t always as simplistic as we prefer to make them out to be. Heck even if we were to just assume John was guilty and committing one final evil act to affect his accusors or to escape facing the situation......I still think it’s possible to have a nuanced discussion about SafeSport not presenting a final report. IMO regardless of the facts of John’s case I think we need to have a serious discussion on whether or not SafeSport’s actions are acceptable. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

 

[elbkup]

Given that atmosphere/transparency surrounding such allegations is changing DRAMATICALLY in the current environment (long overdue), this particular situation is doubly tragic in reverting to "old" school methods of investigation, i.e., cover-up, secrecy, half truths,, lies, evasions, denial. If society is to evolve in a positive way, such behavior must end and the method of reporting (rather than accusing/defending) must develop total transparency for both "victim" and "perpetrator"; it is the only environment where valid decisions/resolutions can be made. In an ideal world (one to strive for), sexual assualt in all its nasty forms would belong to a medieval past. Now, it would make sense to change conditions of reporting where "accuser" suffers no guilt, shame, remorse, in coming forward; the "perpetrator" knows with certainty such actions will be revealed, scrutinized, will no question have consequences.
Light is always better than dark when it comes to wrong- headed, seedy, violent behavior; we all of us know deep down only through light can healing begin and healing is where we all want to go in the final analysis.

 

[Sugar Coated]

Given that atmosphere/transparency surrounding such allegations is changing DRAMATICALLY in the current environment (long overdue), this particular situation is doubly tragic in reverting to "old" school methods of investigation, i.e., cover-up, secrecy, half truths,, lies, evasions, denial. If society is to evolve in a positive way, such behavior must end and the method of reporting (rather than accusing/defending) must develop total transparency for both "victim" and "perpetrator"; it is the only environment where valid decisions/resolutions can be made. In an ideal world (one to strive for), sexual assualt in all its nasty forms would belong to a medieval past. Now, it would make sense to change conditions of reporting where "accuser" suffers no guilt, shame, remorse, in coming forward; the "perpetrator" knows with certainty such actions will be revealed, scrutinized, will no question have consequences.
Light is always better than dark when it comes to wrong- headed, seedy, violent behavior; we all of us know deep down only through light can healing begin and healing is where we all want to go in the final analysis.

Do you believe in total transparency for child victims? That for them to see justice, everyone has to know forever what happened to them when then were a child? And this decision may be made for them by adults, not necessarily the decision of the child if they'd prefer not to be identified and press charges? Society hasn't changed. Online bullying is real. Look at how some of the outlets who reported on PUBLIC information were treated. Can you imagine being a child/teen victim and facing this kind of harassment for coming forward? Again, not saying anything about the alleged victims in this case but how this is handled more generally and why we protect identities, particularly of children.

As other's pointed out, the victims were not anonymous to John or the figure skating bodies. He had enough information to know who was accusing him. This information was just kept out of the public domain to protect potential victims.

Your argument also ignores for potential power differentials. Accusers and alleged perpetrators are often not in equal positions of power.