The State of SafeSport – How We Got Here

 Originally published Mar/Apr 2019 PS Magazine

 “The masses don’t think, the masses feel…” Juan Perón, 1951

No better example of this was the recent death of John Coughlin. As a group, skating was not prepared for the allegations and the sudden turn of events. The turmoil and conflict between the accused and victims was difficult to process. The open anger on social media sites was painful. The lack of information led to confusion and speculation. What and who do we believe?



My perspective as Executive Director nonetheless is that I can’t make personal judgements when dealing with any type of accusation. I must think about the facts and the facts only, making the best decision with the information we have. This is not the first time a figure skating name has been placed on the interim measure list. In response to interim measures by SafeSport, PSA has been alerting members to the allegations of misconduct for the protection of victims and potential victims for the last year. Public notice regarding an active investigation into sexual misconduct is something that was once a recommendation to U.S. Gymnastics prior to the Nassar case. They ignored it and allowed several hundred more victims to be abused. I wish that was the first NGB to react to accusations this way, but it wasn’t. If you truly want to know how and why SafeSport was created you need to go back to August of 2013 and read, “WHEN THE ATHLETE IS A CHILD: An Assessment of USA Swimming’s Safe Sport Program.”



Reports began to surface in 2010 regarding swimming coaches molesting under-age girls, with some abuse lasting years, without being reported. USA Swimming responded by forming Safe Sport (not to be confused with the U.S. Center for SafeSport). After three years of ineffectual supervision, USA Swimming contracted with the National Child Protection Training Center, a program of Gundersen Health System, to conduct an independent assessment of USA Swimming’s Safe Sport program. This was also the first time Congress’ House Education and the Workforce Committee, asked the General Accountability Office to investigate how USA Swimming and other youth sports organizations handle child abuse allegations. The first paragraph on page one says, “When children have disclosed, or abuse has otherwise been discovered, there have been a number of cases in which parents, athletes, clubs and communities rally around an accused coach and ostracize the victim irrespective of the strength of the evidence. Understanding why this happens—and stopping it is of critical importance to the organization since it deters children from disclosing abuse and may have a chilling effect that keeps others from reporting.” When victims were exposed they were often treated poorly in the swimming community, the report said, “for example, a prominent coach told a survivor to just get over it.” A footnote in the report stated that there were other examples reflecting this culture. There were instances where a distinction was made by a club between, “sexual assault on a child” and, “consensual sexual assault on a child.” How can someone think a minor could ever consent? The note also said, “One witness told us there was a day when some within the swimming community openly wondered if the victims of abuse were victims at all.”



I read the USA Swimming report in 2014. It greatly affected the direction of PSA’s own response to abuse, and in turn PSA wrote 2 GRO Champions, the first e-course dedicated to all forms of abuse, specifically in figure skating.  I read the Daniels report (USA Gymnastics) which was published in June of 2017. Here at PSA we took the report and swapped out USA Gymnastics and placed our name in its place. PSA staff went through the process of reviewing the findings and recommendations to strengthen our own policies to protect athletes and made several changes. After the Daniels report came the Ropes & Grey Report regarding Larry Nassar. Again staff of PSA reviewed the issues that caused changes in leadership at the U.S. Olympic Committee. Before these reports it was Penn State. These reports are long and in some instances uncomfortable to read, but are part of the process of growth. I suggest reading these reports. I believe our members would better understand why we have SafeSport and the important work they do. 



Is the SafeSport process perfect? I’m sure even SafeSport would not even agree with that. However, it serves a very important purpose and one that will not go away. First and foremost we must protect our athletes; our future coaches. Neglect of our athletes will kill the sport and the business. If we can’t protect our athletes who will? Secondly, we do need to make sure that the accused have their fair process. SafeSport has assured PSA during a face-to-face meeting in late February the accused does have a right to appeal an interim decision and the Center will offer an opportunity for a hearing in front of an independent arbitrator to take place no later than 72 hours after the request. If you ever receive communication from the U.S. Center for SafeSport, either by email or certified letter, do not ignore it. There is vital information in that initial contact that must be read and understood.



In closing, please remember as members of the PSA, we have a responsibility to uphold our code of ethics and to act with professionalism, even during times of chaos. We need to have civil dialogue and to figure out a way forward that protects all.