- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I'm not sure what resolution would ever be reached if it's a "he said, she said" situation, particularly when one side can't even defend his behavior now.
Spun out of control: The final days of John Coughlin
- Thread starter Jayhawk
- Start date
I'm not sure what resolution would ever be reached if it's a "he said, she said" situation, particularly when one side can't even defend his behavior now.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2019
Is USFS an organisation really capable of learning? Does it have any jurisdiction? If the alleged victims don't press charges, the case will remain legally closed.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
- Country
-
I'm afraid that is not SafeSport's mandate.
(and everyone who is tired of hearing me say this, please skip).
SafeSport does not exist to give victims "closure". It does not exist to "clear someone's name". It does not exist to let the general public know "what really happened". It exists to keep persons in sport protected from abuse as defined by Safe Sport. If someone accused of abuse has died, there is nothing to investigate with regard to that person.
If USFS wants to know "what really happened", it can commission its own investigation. Anyone who wants to know "what really happened" should ask USFS to conduct the investigation. And if that's what folks want, from whatever angle, I think they should in fact ask for it.
Unfortunately, due to the circumstances, we may never know. And I agree that is a frustrating scenario
Thank you for this information. While I am a sports fan (limited to Olympic style sports) I have no children or immediate family members involved in any sports, so I am not familiar of the functions of SafeSport.
That being said......and I understand this is my opinion only.....I think this is inadequate. I get that SafeSport is not a branch of law enforcement. For SafeSport to take the actions it did, doesn't that mean that there were credible allegations made? I don't see how SafeSport could suspend Coughlin on hearsay.
And if there were credible allegations, then shouldn't law enforcement have been brought into the situation, in some manner? I'm not saying that that Coughlin should've been dragged off in handcuffs, but shouldn't some sort of official law enforcement-led investigation been started?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Sadly, in this case it really does look that the way SS operates right now let people run to conclusions. As I understand even the suspension doens´t mean that they have concrete testimony that there is a criminal or inapropiate behaviour. Just means that they are doing it to prevent any harn done to other athletes, literaly a "better safe than sorry" scenary. But in this case the trial by social media turns to conclusions "that x is guilty, becaus there is only 10%(or so) cases when the alleged victim lies..."; instead that way for more information before declaring someone a rapist, people run to conclusions.
As my doctor said to me before I got surgery 2 years ago, "you don´t know in what side of the statistic you are gonna end on", it could be that the accusations against John are true, but there is also a change that the allegations (rised not by a victim, but a third party) were not accurate or misinterpreted... so maybe our approach should really be focusing on asking for more investigation instead of taking sides.
Edit.
Someone could take the last part out of context. I apologize if I offended anyone.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
I think we should’ve much more careful about saying that accusations can drive someone to suicide. It will prevent victims from reporting.
Jumping to the worst conclusions based on little to no information is terrible and stupid. People shouldn’t do it. SafeSport should’ve been able to do what it was doing with public knowledge (let journalists report, who cares?) without people being so ignorant and assuming the worst thing and posting it to attack someone on the internet. But that’s on those people. It’s not the fault of the alleged victims or SafeSport or the journalists.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Country
-
Interesting questions.
I don’t know if USFS is capable of “learning”; I have seen nothing to indicate that they are or they aren’t.
I will make no assumptions about one organization based on other organizations, one unfinished investigation, the general ethos of the country, etc.Many organizations commission independent entities (usually law firms) to conduct investigations. One could question if the investigation is independent, but typically a “big name” law firm will not tarnish their reputation to favor those who commissioned the investigation. I say “typically”, again anyone can come up with an exception to prove the rule.
And a SafeSport investigation does not mean an allegation of criminal conduct. SafeSport may define a minor for sexual misconduct as under 18; the law may say 15, or 16. SafeSport may define consensual activity as abuse; the law may not. So there are myriad circumstances where SafeSport may initiate an investigation, but the police would not.
And yes, they could suspend Coughlin on hearsay. The investigatory bodies with which I am familiar would suspend an individual with allegations under, for lack of a better term “better safe than sorry”. The standards are different than those for a criminal conviction.
And under these circumstances, all would agree a frustrating situation.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
To his family and friends, my respects and I am so sorry for your loss. In the meantime with all the speculations, ugh,...wake me up when December comes.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Sorry if my comment made it look as If the dennouncing of abuse could drive someone to take their own life.
But you would agree counseling for both parts could be an improvement in this process? So there, we already have something we can improve in the way Safe Sports conduct their process.
People would act differently under different circumstances, the choice to commit suicide is on the person, but we don´t know what could trigger it. Reading a tweet in the wrong time, watching a tv program can drive a person to take the action, reading news like this can also be a trigger, so maybe we could allrefrein ourself on social media, or forums, since we don´t know who is lurking.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2018
- Country
-
Sometimes yes sometimes no. It really depends on the situation.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Country
-
I think one fix is to have some kind of quarterly mandatory certification/class/course in place in which coaches and other sports staff must take part in that explain what is and is not appropriate. For instance, many organizations have various classes in place (i.e.Equal Opportunity, sensitivity training, sexual harassment, etc.). This course would be designed specifically for the types of sports in which children and teenagers work closely with adults. The course would allow for questions, role-playing, senarios, etc. that would help staff have a better understanding in all aspects of dealing with young children and teenagers.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I think there would be challenges in educating others about certain topics, grooming being one example. Something like that, I think, involves more psychological manipulation rather than obvious signs of troubling behavior like inappropriate touching. How do you set bounds for a coach-student relationship when one side of that naturally must exert authority and influence over the other?
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
Coming in late to this thread but I absolutely disagree with those who thought the article was awful. WHY shouldn't John's family be able to speak out when everyone and their brother has had an opinion on this. WHY shouldn't they try to defend their son and believe what he has told them. John wasn't able to defend himself and while he was alive it doesn't seem like anybody other than his friends tried to defend him.
I do wish the investigation would continue because I think his family deserves to know the truth. Quite frankly I don't think anybody else is deserving of that truth or resolution unless they are directly involved. Most of what I've read in here was based on prurient curiosity. Our society in the US is so hair-trigger reactive on any hint of abuse that the truth sometimes gets lost in all the noise. Maybe, just maybe, an innocent man is no longer alive because of some hidden agenda. On the other hand, maybe there is a victim out there who truly felt there was inappropriate behavior and having that come to light might be a reminder to other men or women that their actions, while seemingly innocent to them, is NOT innocent to the receiver.
I do wish the investigation would continue because I think his family deserves to know the truth. Quite frankly I don't think anybody else is deserving of that truth or resolution unless they are directly involved. Most of what I've read in here was based on prurient curiosity. Our society in the US is so hair-trigger reactive on any hint of abuse that the truth sometimes gets lost in all the noise. Maybe, just maybe, an innocent man is no longer alive because of some hidden agenda. On the other hand, maybe there is a victim out there who truly felt there was inappropriate behavior and having that come to light might be a reminder to other men or women that their actions, while seemingly innocent to them, is NOT innocent to the receiver.
No. There is a bit of grey area that might need to be clarified as far as Safesport. I don't think this was any type of criminal investigation where at the conclusion of the investigation if found guilty that Safesport would send John to jail; the worst thing they could do would permanently ban him like Tonya Harding.
In a criminal investigation no one can force someone to participate in an investigation whether they are a victim or a suspect due to the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution*. With SafeSport it might just be considered a workplace investigation in which your employment might be conditional on participating in it, where John could either see the investigation through or leave the affiliated job. And at the end of the day this was something that happened years ago, the victims could have just answered any question with 'I have no recollection'.
*Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
There are a couple things that are just not right with this case. It was reported by a 3rd party, why? What was the motive by this 3rd party? Was it on behalf of the Victims or did they not feel they were victims? A dating relationship for example.
Too much innuendo and no facts behind it. Thought Safeport was suppose to conduct their investigations in secrecy. How was this all made public? Did someone have a Vendetta? John never had a chance to defend himself. Fundamental of our Justice system. The Accused has the right to know and face his accusers. This whole case stinks to high heaven. No one will ever know if he was guilty or not. It is not fair to his name, to any victims, nor his family who are struggling to find answers.
Too much innuendo and no facts behind it. Thought Safeport was suppose to conduct their investigations in secrecy. How was this all made public? Did someone have a Vendetta? John never had a chance to defend himself. Fundamental of our Justice system. The Accused has the right to know and face his accusers. This whole case stinks to high heaven. No one will ever know if he was guilty or not. It is not fair to his name, to any victims, nor his family who are struggling to find answers.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
And this is why the article is irresponsible. John did have a chance to defend himself. And he was offered meetings with investigators and counselors if required!
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
That's what bothers me most after reading this article. A third party files a complaint against him, not the alleged 'victims'. Coughlin said the relationships were a peer to peer relationship. It was strange that as US Champ he dumped Caitlin to then skate with 16 y/o Denney. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a relationship that was "turned in" against Coughlin. This seems like such a mess. If the 'victims' aren't complaining, why should some third party (with possible ulterior motives) be taken so seriously?
People seem to misunderstand what your rights are in a courtroom vs. when dealing with a private or semi-private entity.
The article was irresponsible and reads more like an op-ed than anything else. John took his own life, so unfortunately, the only people to protect in this situation are the alleged victims. His friends and family have every right to grieve, but this article sends the wrong message. I just don't understand how we went from John's friends and family saying he had no information and was suspended with no information, to here is an outline of everything we know, including identifiers of alleged victims.
Also, to answer the question above, a third party entity could be a family member or another adult. That doesn't seem strange because other coaches in the rink would be mandatory reporters.
The article was irresponsible and reads more like an op-ed than anything else. John took his own life, so unfortunately, the only people to protect in this situation are the alleged victims. His friends and family have every right to grieve, but this article sends the wrong message. I just don't understand how we went from John's friends and family saying he had no information and was suspended with no information, to here is an outline of everything we know, including identifiers of alleged victims.
Also, to answer the question above, a third party entity could be a family member or another adult. That doesn't seem strange because other coaches in the rink would be mandatory reporters.
Most of what's been discussed here was the situation prior to John's suicide; protecting his identity until an allegation had solid facts behind it.
In the US some states have statutes which require if you suspect child abuse you are required to report it; not sure this situation would qualify in those requirements but can we all agree that if you see something fishy it's better to report it and it turn out to be nothing vs. keeping quiet and it turned out to have been something.
And from what was in the article, John's family seems to say they know the names of the other people involved because they stated John was still friendly with one of them and knew them for 14+ years.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2017
Not all the 3 reports are by 3rd parties. As I understand it, the 1st report by the adult, was done by the victim.
On actions Safe Sport can take, thus far is permanent ban from the sport which happened to Jean Lopez & Steven Lopez of Taekwando. After that, 4 victims filed a civil lawsuit against Jean & Stephen Lopez, USA Taekwando.
Note that one of accusers against Steven Lopez is his ex girlfriend, Taekwando world champion Mandy Meloon. Meloon said Steven sexually assaulted her in 1997(when she was 16), 2004(age 23), 2005.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1235794002
Steven Lopez is born in 1978, he would have been 19 in 1997.
So, it does look that Safe Sport takes into account reports which otherwise would not have been chargeable under the Romeo & Juliet law, age of consent, statute of limitations.
The last news I read though was the bans on Jean & Steven Lopez were lifted in 2019 after arbitration. The civil suit is still ongoing.
On actions Safe Sport can take, thus far is permanent ban from the sport which happened to Jean Lopez & Steven Lopez of Taekwando. After that, 4 victims filed a civil lawsuit against Jean & Stephen Lopez, USA Taekwando.
Note that one of accusers against Steven Lopez is his ex girlfriend, Taekwando world champion Mandy Meloon. Meloon said Steven sexually assaulted her in 1997(when she was 16), 2004(age 23), 2005.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1235794002
Steven Lopez is born in 1978, he would have been 19 in 1997.
So, it does look that Safe Sport takes into account reports which otherwise would not have been chargeable under the Romeo & Juliet law, age of consent, statute of limitations.
The last news I read though was the bans on Jean & Steven Lopez were lifted in 2019 after arbitration. The civil suit is still ongoing.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Country
-
I might not be understanding exactly what you are saying, but a Romeo/Juliette law does not protect anyone against charges of sexual assault. And by that I mean non-consensual in the most obvious sense of "non-consensual."
A Romeo/Juliette law would apply to a situation in my past. When I graduated high school, I turned 18 and went to college. I continued to date my high school girlfriend, who was a year behind me. Technically speaking, I was a legal adult (18) and she was a legal minor (17). A Romeo/Juliette law would protect me from charges of statutory rape, but it would not protect me from hypothetical charges of sexual assault - which I certainly did not do. I'm using this as an example... I don't actually know what the legal age of consent was when I was in that place and time.
Similar threads
