WAG Another USAG screw up

[sce]

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

That is really cool and does not exist in the us. Organizations can do background checks on people but nothing would show up if they are not convicted if a crime.

 

[Jenny]

That is really cool and does not exist in the us. Organizations can do background checks on people but nothing would show up if they are not convicted if a crime.

It started (if I remember correctly) because a school caretaker abducted, assaulted and killed two young girls, there was a previous complaint against him from a girl in a completely different part of the country which did not have enough evidence for trial or conviction. They wanted a way of having a national system that could tie this sort of information together. They also look at your partner/spouse other adults in your household as grooming can occur through another person who might have access to your phone, social network etc. Hopefully it all helps.

 

[coachmolly]

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

USAG does not require all coaches to be members, therefore to coach, you do not necessarily need a background check. Lots of clubs have recreational coaches or coaches who are not not he floor at meets who are not USAG members and not background checked. Plus, as raenndrops mentioned, there are other gymnastics organizations in the US that have their own rules (or lack of rules) regarding coaching certification. There is limited, if any, communication between the two groups, so even if USAG gets a bad report about a coach and actually does pass it along to gyms in that geographic area, I doubt they would communicate it to a non-USAG program. There are SO many loopholes in the sport of gymnastics in the US.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

This is chilling.

 

[gymdog]

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?

The physical facility and presumably business records and such are under new ownership. I have no idea how it worked, my assumption is his estate sold it to the new owner.

 

[gymjunkie]

One of USAG's big problems is they do not allow accusers to remain anonymous -- and they tell the accuser that their name will be shared with the USAG member they are accusing (even if the person is a minor). That cuts down on the # of reports USAG receives in the first place.

 

[txgymfan]

This is all horrifying.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

One of USAG's big problems is they do not allow accusers to remain anonymous -- and they tell the accuser that their name will be shared with the USAG member they are accusing (even if the person is a minor). That cuts down on the # of reports USAG receives in the first place.

..... are you serious? Is this actually true?

If so, it's beyond absurd

 

[Seeker]

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.

The point is that they could if they wanted to. They clearly don't care to get involved, but there is nothing legally barring them from doing so. It may spawn a lawsuit if they did this, but so be it. Let the courts hammer it out and then it becomes much more clear where the boundaries are.

 

[gymjunkie]

..... are you serious? Is this actually true?

If so, it's beyond absurd

Yes, that's what they told me when I tried to make a complaint.

 

[duyetanh]

Yes, that's what they told me when I tried to make a complaint.

I thought if the child was a minor, they were protected?
Holy h*ll....

 

[bogwoppit]

Yes, that's what they told me when I tried to make a complaint.

That is disgusting and not acceptable at all. I am really sorry gymjunkie. It is hard enough to bring a complaint forward with being told that. I bet 90% of people would just walk away rather than out their child to the aggressor.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

That is really cool and does not exist in the us. Organizations can do background checks on people but nothing would show up if they are not convicted if a crime.

So a restraining order would not appear either?

 

[GymDad9.9]

The point is that they could if they wanted to. They clearly don't care to get involved, but there is nothing legally barring them from doing so. It may spawn a lawsuit if they did this, but so be it. Let the courts hammer it out and then it becomes much more clear where the boundaries are.

I think the point is they could but they won't.

 

[saddlupasb]

Does anyone know what it takes to get put on the banned list? I think if you are a registered sex offender and you EVER were a pro member, you should be banned. Not that that covers anything but our competitions, but seeing the name on there does help.

 

[sewgood]

USAG does not require all coaches to be members, therefore to coach, you do not necessarily need a background check. Lots of clubs have recreational coaches or coaches who are not not he floor at meets who are not USAG members and not background checked. Plus, as raenndrops mentioned, there are other gymnastics organizations in the US that have their own rules (or lack of rules) regarding coaching certification. There is limited, if any, communication between the two groups, so even if USAG gets a bad report about a coach and actually does pass it along to gyms in that geographic area, I doubt they would communicate it to a non-USAG program. There are SO many loopholes in the sport of gymnastics in the US.

That's crazy! USAG has $15 "instructor" memberships specifically for rec/preschool coaches that don't go to meets, so there is absolutely no reason for that.

 

[Seeker]

I think the point is they could but they won't.

Yep.

 

[sce]

So a restraining order would not appear either?

Not sure, good question.

 

[profmom]

In depositions, Penny noted that because USAG coaches are members too, they have to protect their interests. The requirement of a non-anonymous complaint to trigger an investigation is a pretty common thing in US HR practices.

Not sure, good question.

Almost certainly not, unless there were associated criminal charges that led to convictions.

 

[JessSyd]

In Australia right now there is currently a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. It is a big deal. The federal government has given wide ranging powers to a commissioner to compel people to attend the commission and it has been running for years now, collecting information from victims, parents, community organisations, schools and other institutions.

It is still running so it has not released findings or recommendations yet but what had become clear from the reports so far is that making the victims completely responsible for reporting and pursuing offenders is a strategy that lets kids down and creates more victims.

I work in a school and by law I have to have a Working with Children Check. I would have to have it just to volunteer to help with reading too. It evaluates ANYTHING in my history that could affect my ability to work with children; convictions, charges that did not lead to conviction, apprehended violence orders (restraining orders), allegations, reasons for prior dismissals if they are on record, and any relevant information collected by registration bodies about disciplinary proceedings or employer concerns.

A new employer does not get given the details. They just find out whether or not I am deemed to be a fit person to work with children. It isn't just about what people have actually been caught doing. It is also about patterns of behaviour that suggest risk. A single unsubstantiated accusation or dropped charge would not put someone out of work under this system, but a list of restraining orders and dismissals like the one in that first link would mean someone should never work with kids again.

It may be that organisations like USAG need some sort of external support mechanism that lets them do something useful with the third party information they have. After all, even if they did ban a coach, a committed paedophile would just find themselves an alternate hunting ground. Volunteering, scouts, youth group leader, etc. There is no shortage of opportunity if there is no nation-wide system that actually keeps an eye on people's past behaviour.