WAG Another USAG screw up

[GlobalNomad]

And there's this: "...a packet of papers ... had been placed on cars outside McCabe’s gym. It included copies of letters to USA Gymnastics about McCabe." Yet, at least one parent and presumably others left their kids at his gym.

 

[l.c.o]

"Exposed his genitals to some gymnasts" , back in 1997, is pretty cut and dried for me....

YES. Absolutely agreed.

I was not defending him or the process in any way. I was defending the kids/parents for not reporting - if parents don't know, they can't report. And it's possible the kids, while uncomfortable, didn't know if it was "harassment enough" to be reported.

Had I experienced THAT as a 16 year old, yes it would have been clearly harassment, but I also suspect I would have been too scared to report it. Would have worried about getting fired, and that "no one would believe me". I mean, look at the defenders of Nassar, etc, saying no way it happened.

But it sounds like there's some slippery slope here - as in first emails were friendly, then moved on to something inappropriate... Where was the line? When does the red flag first appear.

Again, I believe the vast majority of coaches are great. And I would hope none get falsely accused. But accusations should be treated seriously, whether that's discreetly, publicly, etc is thankfully not for me to decide.

 

[l.c.o]

And there's this: "...a packet of papers ... had been placed on cars outside McCabe’s gym. It included copies of letters to USA Gymnastics about McCabe." Yet, at least one parent and presumably others left their kids at his gym.

To be fair, it's reported that they did call USAG, who said he was a coach in good standing.

As a mom, I probably wouldn't have been comfortable staying, but I really can't say how I would have proceeded.

 

[GlobalNomad]

To be fair, it's reported that they did call USAG, who said he was a coach in good standing.

As a mom, I probably wouldn't have been comfortable staying, but I really can't say how I would have proceeded.

That's what makes it difficult as a parent. I guess being a USAG member in good standing doesn't mean much. I will listen to other parents complaints regarding mistreatment of kids more closely now.

 

[l.c.o]

That's what makes it difficult as a parent. I guess being a USAG member in good standing doesn't mean much. I will listen to other parents complaints regarding mistreatment of kids more closely now.

Ditto!

 

[Randomactsofcheer]

Also an order of protection is about personal protection. Not having to do with the public at large.

I had an order of protection for a brief time when married to my ex. He wasn't a danger to any one but me, in very specific circumstances. Great guy if you were hanging out with him at the bar. Not so to me at home, after the bar.

An abuser is risk to the public at large, but you have to file charges and they have to be the right charges for the offense.

There were several orders of protection filed by different people. All of the orders of protection were for similar harassing behavior. While that may not be enough to file criminal charges against someone, that should have been enough for the USAG to ban him. And it sounds like the USAG was given copies of these orders of protection and filed them away "in case" a victim or parent came forward. If his behavior was bad enough for several individuals to file orders of protection against him AND required the police to escort him out of several different gyms, it was bad enough for the USAG to address. The USAG was absolutely negligent in not addressing this man's behavior.

 

[mariposa]

USAG has obviously turned a blind eye. I hope they are fully investigated and that changes are made to fix a broken system. Just awful.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

This is just one of many.... it's amazing me that I have to spend hours every year to take a stupid safety course, and yet people like this are allowed to coacch! So how did the BG check get approved for this guy ?

 

[Faith]

Had I experienced THAT as a 16 year old, yes it would have been clearly harassment, but I also suspect I would have been too scared to report it. Would have worried about getting fired, and that "no one would believe me". I mean, look at the defenders of Nassar, etc, saying no way it happened.

But it sounds like there's some slippery slope here - as in first emails were friendly, then moved on to something inappropriate... Where was the line? When does the red flag first appear.

Again, I believe the vast majority of coaches are great. And I would hope none get falsely accused. But accusations should be treated seriously, whether that's discreetly, publicly, etc is thankfully not for me to decide.

This is why I, as a coach, am not allowed to directly contact an athlete on social media, by text, phone, email, or any other way. I must go through their parents.

Here, the first red flag is that contact.

You also need to take 3rd party reports seriously. A colleague of mine reported a co-worker for texting an athlete (she was 16, him early 20's). The welfare officer investigated, he was asked to show the communications, if they were about training times etc he'd have warned and had to do his safeguarding training again.

As it was, the texts were crossing the line into a personal nature so the welfare officer reported him to her superior. It turned out he'd been the same at his previous workplace.

He is currently prevented from working with children.

You just can't take risks with children. We all do safeguarding training and we all know what is and isn't acceptable. Cross that line and your job is at risk.

 

[raenndrops]

This is why I, as a coach, am not allowed to directly contact an athlete on social media, by text, phone, email, or any other way. I must go through their parents.

Here, the first red flag is that contact.

You also need to take 3rd party reports seriously. A colleague of mine reported a co-worker for texting an athlete (she was 16, him early 20's). The welfare officer investigated, he was asked to show the communications, if they were about training times etc he'd have warned and had to do his safeguarding training again.

As it was, the texts were crossing the line into a personal nature so the welfare officer reported him to her superior. It turned out he'd been the same at his previous workplace.

He is currently prevented from working with children.

You just can't take risks with children. We all do safeguarding training and we all know what is and isn't acceptable. Cross that line and your job is at risk.

In this case, the guy pretended to be somebody else in the emails (a former Olympian) and the FBI actually traced it back to him.
I like the idea of safeguarding training.
The only time I contact gymnasts by text, I send the text to the gymnast AND parent at the same time (I only text gymnasts about their floor music though - and that is because they text me their music and i need them to approve the cut before sending it on to HC). For other matters, I text just the parents instead.

 

[wandrewsjr]

This is why I, as a coach, am not allowed to directly contact an athlete on social media, by text, phone, email, or any other way. I must go through their parents.

Here, the first red flag is that contact.

You also need to take 3rd party reports seriously. A colleague of mine reported a co-worker for texting an athlete (she was 16, him early 20's). The welfare officer investigated, he was asked to show the communications, if they were about training times etc he'd have warned and had to do his safeguarding training again.

As it was, the texts were crossing the line into a personal nature so the welfare officer reported him to her superior. It turned out he'd been the same at his previous workplace.

He is currently prevented from working with children.

You just can't take risks with children. We all do safeguarding training and we all know what is and isn't acceptable. Cross that line and your job is at risk.

If my understanding of what you describe is correct, this could not happen in the US. An employee could be fired for violating his employers guidelines, but an individual could not be banned from working with children altogether without being convicted of a crime. I believe it would be unconstitutional, a violation of the due process clauses. Under our constitution one cannot limit someone's liberty or take their property without due process and the sanction of the law.

 

[Randomactsofcheer]

If my understanding of what you describe is correct, this could not happen in the US. An employee could be fired for violating his employers guidelines, but an individual could not be banned from working with children altogether without being convicted of a crime. I believe it would be unconstitutional, a violation of the due process clauses. Under our constitution one cannot limit someone's liberty or take their property without due process and the sanction of the law.

In the Unites States, a private company or association can ban a person from working with their company or association without due process if they feel the person is not the right fit for the company or association for whatever reason.

Due process has to do with the government not limiting a citizen's liberty, it has nothing to do with private companies. Firing someone from a private gym or the USAG banning someone from working at a USAG gym/event is not a violation of that person's constitutionally protected liberty.

It sounds like, because this person was reported to a welfare worker and he is no longer allowed to work with children, his actions were considered criminal and he is suffering the consequences of his criminal actions.

 

[wandrewsjr]

In the Unites States, a private company or association can ban a person from working with their company or association without due process if they feel the person is not the right fit for the company or association for whatever reason.

Due process has to do with the government not limiting a citizen's liberty, it has nothing to do with private companies. Firing someone from a private gym or the USAG banning someone from working at a USAG gym/event is not a violation of that person's constitutionally protected liberty.

Agree was reading up a little after I posted, and USAG is a 501c3, not part of the government so wouldn't apply. I agree that a private gym could fire anyone they want and USAG can ban anyone they want from working at a sanctioned event, but can USAG mandate that a private gym fire someone?

 

[wandrewsjr]

In the Unites States, a private company or association can ban a person from working with their company or association without due process if they feel the person is not the right fit for the company or association for whatever reason.

Due process has to do with the government not limiting a citizen's liberty, it has nothing to do with private companies. Firing someone from a private gym or the USAG banning someone from working at a USAG gym/event is not a violation of that person's constitutionally protected liberty.

It sounds like, because this person was reported to a welfare worker and he is no longer allowed to work with children, his actions were considered criminal and he is suffering the consequences of his criminal actions.

I did not get the impression from her post that this person was criminally convicted, just violated her countries national guidelines for those working with children. Maybe Faith could clarify?

 

[Iwannabemargo]

Agree was reading up a little after I posted, and USAG is a 501c3, not part of the government so wouldn't apply. I agree that a private gym could fire anyone they want and USAG can ban anyone they want from working at a sanctioned event, but can USAG mandate that a private gym fire someone?

But they could withdraw their USAG membership and so cut off the supply of gymnasts ? Here, to work in gymnastics you need BG membership, no membership, no working in gymnastics

 

[Faith]

I don't know how the law works, but having had a quick google is appears the UK government disclosure and barring service holds lists of those who should not work with children, and by law any employer must report an employee they have fired because of a risk, proven or suspected. There is also some way to collate data - so someone moving around the country can't be overlooked, or a pattern of behaviour can be seen.

So it would appear you don't need a criminal conviction to be barred.

https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/dbs-barred-lists

 

[Randomactsofcheer]

Agree was reading up a little after I posted, and USAG is a 501c3, not part of the government so wouldn't apply. I agree that a private gym could fire anyone they want and USAG can ban anyone they want from working at a sanctioned event, but can USAG mandate that a private gym fire someone?

I am not an expert on the USAG requirements, but I am guessing that the USAG can revoke a gym's membership if the gym refuses to remove a coach that has been banned by the USAG.

 

[GymDad9.9]

I am not an expert on the USAG requirements, but I am guessing that the USAG can revoke a gym's membership if the gym refuses to remove a coach that has been banned by the USAG.

The gym that produced Jordyn Wieber and other elite gymnasts? Fat chance.

 

[raenndrops]

I am not an expert on the USAG requirements, but I am guessing that the USAG can revoke a gym's membership if the gym refuses to remove a coach that has been banned by the USAG.

They probably could... But in the US, you don't have to be a USAF member club to be involved in gymnastics. There are IGC and non-sanctioned programs that the gym could "pull out of their @$$3$" if they still wanted to compete. They could also change gym names, etc. Lots of ways for them to stay in when they should be out.

 

[Gymmommy71]

The gym that produced Jordyn Wieber and other elite gymnasts? Fat chance.

That makes me wonder - what ended up happening to Sharp's gym after he died? Looks like it's permenantly closed now when you search on it, but did the USAG force it to close, or was it just massive amounts of kids leaving that made them shut their doors? Wondering if they considered staying open with a name change or new owners, or were people just too grossed out to train there ever again? Or maybe it was seized to pay judgements to victims?