WAG Federal Child Pornography Charges Filed Against Dr. Nassar

[Jenny]

um...hypothetical: someone gets busted for 'you know what'. he does prison time. wife takes over the business. he gets back with her when he gets out. HEY! but some rules changed!

this guy can't go on the floor of a NGB's sanctioned event. no background check in place yet. but he's a convicted felon. but HEY!!! he wants to work!!!!
so he sues the NGB to get his credentials back. poor bastard...the NGB prevailed.

cost the NGB a ton of money to defend their right to keep a POS off a competition floor and away from the kids. but the guy is still coaching...hypothetically, of course.

who's fault? and was our 'system' flawed that he was allowed to file suit (civil rights and employment law) to get his credentials back? hypothetically speaking, of course.

so now what say you all? who's fault??

It wouldn't come up here because once convicted he would be on the Sex offenders register and isn't allowed to work with children. So he can't sue .....

 

[munchkin3]

The sad part with the Adams case, he had EVERYBODY completely charmed......except for that one vulnerable girl.......
the fact that the gym did not stand by the allegations was a crime....even the families.....but then again, the gym doesn't exist anymore .....

 

[Jenny]

right. understood. so you see, England is one country no states. USA is one country (hard to believe sometimes) and 50 states. each state has different laws and statutes that deal with the same issues. this is why the lawyer has to be granted license in the BAR varying state to state. some states accept a license from another state with a simple signature and some background. others not.

That is our advantage in this case that we don't have the different states/ legal stuff. That is where it gets very very hard for the US.
Although due to the 2 girls murdered by the school caretaker, a lot of systems and databases were combined/ cross referenced across different counties. Previously they were separate and this caretaker had been accused of something elsewhere previously but because he moved areas he was able to get another job near children.

It is a learning process and I struggle with the idea that USAG has done nothing wrong. There are always lessons to be learned, things to be tightened up, issues to accept. The very fact you can coach without a background check as long as you don't go on the competition floor is bonkers.

 

[munchkin3]

That is our advantage in this case that we don't have the different states/ legal stuff. That is where it gets very very hard for the US.
Although due to the 2 girls murdered by the school caretaker, a lot of systems and databases were combined/ cross referenced across different counties. Previously they were separate and this caretaker had been accused of something elsewhere previously but because he moved areas he was able to get another job near children.

It is a learning process and I struggle with the idea that USAG has done nothing wrong. There are always lessons to be learned, things to be tightened up, issues to accept. The very fact you can coach without a background check as long as you don't go on the competition floor is bonkers.

This is true.....i was surprised to learn that my son did NOT need a background check with USAG....he got one through the YMCA so......

 

[Deleted member D3987]

and as it pertains to gymnastics, the USA has the largest gymnastics system in the world. i've spoken about this before. so many places for kids to do gymnastics. and there are more places that kids do gymnastics where those places have nothing to do with USA Gymnastics. although their programs on how and what to teach come from there.

and as Bog will attest, the club system is growing in Canada. trouble always follows growth.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

right. understood. so you see, England is one country no states. USA is one country (hard to believe sometimes) and 50 states. each state has different laws and statutes that deal with the same issues. this is why the lawyer has to be granted license in the BAR varying state to state. some states accept a license from another state with a simple signature and some background. others not.

edited oops...thought an example would be good here. my cousin practiced law in Philly, PA. he moved to Washington state. had to re-take the bar in that state.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

That is our advantage in this case that we don't have the different states/ legal stuff. That is where it gets very very hard for the US.
Although due to the 2 girls murdered by the school caretaker, a lot of systems and databases were combined/ cross referenced across different counties. Previously they were separate and this caretaker had been accused of something elsewhere previously but because he moved areas he was able to get another job near children.

It is a learning process and I struggle with the idea that USAG has done nothing wrong. There are always lessons to be learned, things to be tightened up, issues to accept. The very fact you can coach without a background check as long as you don't go on the competition floor is bonkers.

and this is precisely what everyone in the industry is struggling with. yet, they have done nothing wrong. law enforcement has stated as much. but for some reason, readers don't see that part in all the articles.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

It wouldn't come up here because once convicted he would be on the Sex offenders register and isn't allowed to work with children. So he can't sue .....

yes. but you didn't have that register 20 years ago. understand? these issues are evolving everywhere. some slower some faster.

 

[Rapunzel]

yes. but you didn't have that register 20 years ago. understand? these issues are evolving everywhere. some slower some faster.

I thought (misguided clearly) in the States if a convicted Paedophile moved into an area the local residents were notified - is this a case of "in some states" or does it just not happen? There's no national sex offenders register?
So sad that more victims are affected while the system is corrected. I hope they're getting the support they need

 

[Iwannabemargo]

Not quite, not the full DBS but we have had a sex offenders register since 1997

 

[Deleted member D3987]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States

https://www.justice.gov/archive/tribal/docs/fv_tjs/session_3/session3_presentations/Adam_Walsh.pdf

 

[suebee]

In the US, I think it is less likely for a convicted pedophile to get through. It does not mean that they cannot overcome it, though, if they are determined to hide their past. The background check that I run on my volunteers has some loopholes, which I identified immediately after using it the first time. I even called them to ask about the loopholes and they confirmed that yes, those are loopholes. Very disturbing.

I think that it is not at all surprising in the US that someone like Larry Nassar who did not have any convictions or arrests (until now), but had some complaints and apparently various people talking (maybe) was able to continue for so long. In the US, accusations generally are only accusations. Without proof, I do not think that people act on accusations here due to fear of being sued.

 

[skschlag]

In the US, I think it is less likely for a convicted pedophile to get through. It does not mean that they cannot overcome it, though, if they are determined to hide their past. The background check that I run on my volunteers has some loopholes, which I identified immediately after using it the first time. I even called them to ask about the loopholes and they confirmed that yes, those are loopholes. Very disturbing.

I think that it is not at all surprising in the US that someone like Larry Nassar who did not have any convictions or arrests (until now), but had some complaints and apparently various people talking (maybe) was able to continue for so long. In the US, accusations generally are only accusations. Without proof, I do not think that people act on accusations here due to fear of being sued.

I had been trying to type something like this but could not get it to sound right. This is exactly what I was thinking. Someone who is determined, unfortunately, will find a way, anywhere. But without a conviction, the likelihood of something showing up is small.

Now, if people call previous employers then you might find out more information.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

this isn't completely accurate. but you'll get the general idea. again, i ask the same question. who's at fault?

Link Removed

 

[profmom]

I think part of the problem is USAG's ambiguous role in this. By maintaining the banned list and having a process through which people can be banned, the implication is that non-banned people are OK, and a phone call to USAG about a licensed coach that doesn't turn up any problems implies a clean bill of health. Furthermore, if USAG does NOT have a policy of accepting and acting upon reports sent to the national office, it should make that policy clear. There are multiple instances of individuals claiming that they sent letters to or called USAG with concerns about coaches; in some cases they were informed that USAG could not do anything, but in other cases, the letters/calls seem just to have been accepted without comment, which implies that something would be done.

For those unfamiliar with US employment -- in the US, there are two forms of ending employment. One is a voluntary separation, in which the employer and employee agree mutually to part ways, and the second is involuntary, when the employee is fired (and is therefore not eligible for unemployment insurance). In the different states, employees have stronger or weaker protections against involuntary separations, but in every state, it's possible to fire employees for cause, and the "cause" need not rise to the level of a criminal conviction. If USAG wants to play a productive role, it could certainly have a reporting system in which firings for cause of certified coaches were tracked. Some gym owners would still cut deals with bad guys just to get them to go away -- this happens in other contexts all the time where the employer says, "just leave and I will not make it impossible for you to draw unemployment " -- but it would allow the red flag to be raised sooner for more of these guys. A gym would go ahead and hire someone who's been fired for cause multiple times at its own peril, and possibly liability.

If there isn't already, USAG should develop and promulgate a strengthened set of best practices for member clubs in terms of how to conduct proper reference checks, how to spot predators who've made their way onto instructional staff, and simple policies to limit opportunities for abuse. A coach who takes a lot of photos of athletes not in a serious training context? Red flag. A coach who meets athletes outside of practice without supervision? Nope. A coach with a penchant for conducting closed-door private discussions with athletes? Not happening. If USAG doesn't develop the rules, they will be developed piecemeal by insurers as the suits roll in. It's probably better to have people who really know the industry developing the rules.

And I know it's not easy for gyms to talk about these issues with parents, but parents need to be part of the system, especially team parents who know the gym. It's the team parent, not the busy coach, the overwhelmed office manager, or the distracted owner, who's likely to spot someone in the gym who has no business being there, or notice that something weird is going on outside of practice. And the gym has to be an environment where owners are willing to hear negative feedback about their employees. Of course that will mean dealing with parents who don't know much about the sport complaining about Suzy not being moved up to Level 3, but if you have to listen to complaints about ten Suzies to get to the complaint about Coach Creepster, it's a worthwhile bargain to protect our kids, who are your kids too.

 

[suds]

Yes, attorneys immediately place restrictions on communications, and yes, I appreciate that this can be maddening for a defendant. Frustrating for everyone is that this creates an ongoing disconnect: A huge safety issue for children exists and simultaneously there is a paucity of the “right words and actions” coming from USAG. This dynamic insidiously erodes the trust of parents, even if USAG was not culpable.

Lines of communication need to be opened somehow to help de-escalate the situation with parents. There are still some effective words and actions (attorney sanctioned) that can occur to address some of the concerns, including proactively seeking input from parents on this critical issue. USAG currently has a perception problem.

Parents need to feel comfortable entrusting the care and safety of their children to gymnastics coaches, team physicians, etc. with what they believe to be a watchful and appropriately responsive administrative body. This is good for everybody. As a casualty of the past several months, this trust has been damaged.
Parents are wary of USAG.

I truly wish the best for USAG in the long run, and believe that in the end, the sport will not only pull through this horrible time in our history, but improvements will be made such that it will be changed for the better.

Finding the right balance of protecting our children (most important) and protecting USAG while optimizing communication is key.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

Interesting about your employment - here if you loose your job you can get unemployment ( it might be through no fault of your own), but if you leave voluntarily you cannot claim for 26 weeks.

The "system" is not working, the hard part if finding a system that is better (there is no perfect system) and works for you. To my mind, its always better to change proactively rather than have change forced upon you

 

[profmom]

Just to clarify -- if you just up and quit, you're not eligible for unemployment. Only if you are leaving by initiative of your employer. But with that situation, there is a distinction between being fired and being laid off, in which only the latter enables you to claim unemployment benefits.

 

[Gymmommy71]

In the case of Ray Adams, I think it is a shame the very first gym owner and/or parent did not report him to the police for that incident in the office. That was a clear case of abuse and not just "creepy behavior and rumors" - just awful that neither of them had the courage to go to the authorities .

 

[Rapunzel]

this isn't completely accurate. but you'll get the general idea. again, i ask the same question. who's at fault?

Link Removed

Thing is I don't think finding fault or blame is important in this discussion.
The crux is "does the system do what is reasonable practicable to protect the most vulnerable?" If the answer is anything other than yes, then it needs changing.