WAG Maggie Haney Hearing

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

ChalkBucket may earn a commission through product links on the site.
And Rhonda is testifying for Maggie even though she's the person Laurie reported Maggie's abuse to in 2016.

Conflict of interest? Nah. /s
 
I can't read the article. But come on Rhonda! For real?

Also, maybe the article says this, but what is the expected outcome of this hearing? I mean, obviously Maggie is trying to "clear her name", but if it goes the other direction, what does that mean for her?
 
It also mentions Aimee Boorman is testifying but doesn't specify on whose behalf. I know she and Maggie were close during the Olympics, but I would hate to see her speak against Laurie when we all know abusive coaches treat their colleagues differently than their gymnasts. I'm hoping it's just a "this is what I witnessed, this is what I didn't witness" type thing instead of a "Maggie's my friend and I know she would never do this."
 
I wonder if perhaps the article is wrong and maybe Rhonda is just testifying to what she was told by Laurie or perhaps what she witnessed at training camps with Maggie. Perhaps saying that she did/did not witness that behavior could be taken as testifying on her behalf?

Boorman’s name was interesting to me as well. I think hers would be more of a did/did not witness as well.
 
The article has been updated:


Earlier a person familiar with the investigation said Faehn was expected to testify at the hearing on behalf of Haney. Faehn said that is not correct. Haney asked Faehn to testify on her behalf and Faehn agreed but said she would also share information Hernandez and her mother Wanda provided her about Haney, according to Faehn and two other people familiar with the investigation.

“That is correct,” Faehn said. “I said that I would share everything that I know and it would be at the help of all parties.”
 
oh that makes much more sense! Thanks for the update!
 
Haney has just been banned from working with "minors" ...so that seems to exempt gymnasts like Mccusker and the Olympic team (or most of it) because they're all over 18....sooooo USAG are you really doing anything or just trying to make people think you are?
 
Haney has just been banned from working with "minors" ...so that seems to exempt gymnasts like Mccusker and the Olympic team (or most of it) because they're all over 18....sooooo USAG are you really doing anything or just trying to make people think you are?

But doesn’t the suspension mean that she can’t coach in a USAG gym or be on the floor at sanctioned meets?
 
Half of the top 10 or so Olympic contenders are minors - Kara Eaker, Leanne Wong, Sunisa Lee, Kayla Dicello, Grace McCallum - plus Olivia Greaves from MG Elite. This has to mean she won’t be allowed in the gym or at any camps.
 
Half of the top 10 or so Olympic contenders are minors - Kara Eaker, Leanne Wong, Sunisa Lee, Kayla Dicello, Grace McCallum - plus Olivia Greaves from MG Elite. This has to mean she won’t be allowed in the gym or at any camps.

One would hope that's what it would mean but I could see some folks who think she's the reason their kid is even in the discussion "training privately" with Haney because they have no issue with her methods.....now ......5 years down the road we'll hear how bad they thought it was but they feared speaking up ....by not banning her completely , USAG opens itself to their continued narrative of not doing enough to say no to the abuser...
 
Was she just banned? We saw her coaching minors at Parkette’s meet this weekend. So much for such ban
 
One would hope that's what it would mean but I could see some folks who think she's the reason their kid is even in the discussion "training privately" with Haney because they have no issue with her methods.....now ......5 years down the road we'll hear how bad they thought it was but they feared speaking up ....by not banning her completely , USAG opens itself to their continued narrative of not doing enough to say no to the abuser...

At some point though, the responsibility has to fall on the parents. They know the allegations against her. They know that they are serious enough to suspend her from training minors. If they still choose to have her privately train their children, to me, that’s on them at this point and not on USAG. Because those parents are the ones that are paying for results, regardless of how it harms their children to get them. And unfortunately even if the culture were to change 180 towards the positive, those types of parents will always exist.
 
At some point though, the responsibility has to fall on the parents. They know the allegations against her. They know that they are serious enough to suspend her from training minors. If they still choose to have her privately train their children, to me, that’s on them at this point and not on USAG. Because those parents are the ones that are paying for results, regardless of how it harms their children to get them. And unfortunately even if the culture were to change 180 towards the positive, those types of parents will always exist.

I am following this on social media and seeing parents calling Laurie and other gymnasts "snowflakes", defending the "tough" approach and saying it's what's needed to make a champion. The old if the kid can't hack it, it's their fault for not wanting it enough/being strong enough trope.

Parents need to wise up. I'd like to see them treated like that in their work environment, see who's the snowflake then. If you wouldn't accept it at work or in school, don't accept it in the gym.
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

College Gym News

Back