Dude, calm down and stop with the strawmans. I never said anyone is being malicious or complacent towards rapists. And I think it's rich for you to lecture me on my supposed belief that people can't adhere to standards of respect, while simultaneously demonstrating such a belief would be justified.

Let me be clear though. I think people- all people- are prone to selfishness and considering their own needs and risks well above those of others or groups as a whole. I think that is what is happening here on this thread. We've got a majority chiming in here who granted could only be hurt by Safesport and probably not helped by it, so it should not be that shocking to point out that might influence the overall tone and confirmation bias at play here. I submit that the ridiculousness of the "can't hug at the finish line anymore" hypothetical and your own extremely overdramatic mischaracterizations as proof this thread is not about objective truthful debate on this issue.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

I'm still just a little perplexed as to how this all morphed into adult vs adult. I get and totally support the original purpose of this, adult vs child, but seems like a totally set of different rules should be in place for two 40 year olds, vs a 10 year old and a 40 year old.

And you are right in that most here would most likely only be affected in a negative way(as the harasser). But that fear is not a hypothetical, it happens and is happening to folks that have/had no ill intent towards other adults whom they coach, or frequently train with..You seem to be advocating that we must throw out the baby with the bath water, but how about just clarifying the objectives and stick to the original intent of safe sport. IF there is a problem with other adult populations that are not addressed by laws in affect, then lets talk about that too, but separately as it should be..

I am absolutely not advocating for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or dismissing that false accusations happen.

I am advocating for a debate that:
1) actually includes the pros and cons for *everyone*, not just the typical Slowtwitch user
2) is not hyper-focused on misuse, and victimization of one particular group, but also fully acknowledges why Safesport is the way it is designed and what is at stake for all parties
3) is actually reality based so doesn't include ridiculous accusations that Safesport = no consensual hugging at the end of a race.

From my point of view, there seem to be a few who are advocating that we cannot take any action to address this issue if it results in the possibility it could be misused against innocent people (i.e. men). In the absence of alternative solutions from those who seem bent on just attacking people who disagree with them, I take this to mean they think we should do nothing.

I would agree with you that adult-adult relationships are not the same as child-adult relationships and should have different approaches for preventing abuses. However, extremely toxic adult relationships do exist in our sport, and I can think of one fairly high profile recent example, and wonder how the triathlon community could've intervened if only this or that or no covid etc. I think we have a responsibility to each other in this manner and it is worth addressing one way or another.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

Don't get stuck on the hugs as finish lines, there are various areas of the current safe sport policies that create "gray area" decision making. The hugs at finish line I think technically is allowed as "celebratory hug" according to an USOC document I just found. I would like to know what constitutes a power exchange with respect to adults because there is rules that pertain to that. Are 2 adult athletes in a zero power exchanged relationship? Is there only a power exchanged when an coach/authority is involved.

I think they have written it in a way to protect minors who are going to be 99% of the cases, and simply put the caveat that all participants are now directed to follow safe sport. However imo how the rules are written then brings in direct issues with how the rules are enforced and thus have to be followed by each member.

And I'm talking beyond "hugs at finish lines". Let's move on from that specific example. You win that was a bad example.


Here is the safe sport power exchange definition:

A Power Imbalance may exist where, based on the totality of the circumstances, one person has supervisory, evaluative, or other authority over another. Whether there is a Power Imbalance depends on several factors, including but not limited to: the nature and extent of the supervisory, evaluative or other authority over the person; the actual relationship between the parties; the parties’ respective roles; the nature and duration of the relationship; the age of the parties involved; whether there is an aggressor; whether there is a significant disparity in age, size, strength, or mental capacity.




And the whole point I am bringing up is to highlight the *requirements* that ALL members are now required to race/train/live by with the new "adult" add on. You are now REQUIRED to report adult v adult safe sport violations. Based on the *current* safe sport rules and regulations there likely is many violations occurring in an adult v adult that is a "safe sport" issue but that we commonly brush off as just "adulting".

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

That sounds like a pretty good definition of a power imbalance, and I looked up everywhere they used the word "power" in the code, and what they are using that term for- I have no objections. What seems problematic about this? I don't understand.

Another piece of the code that I think is relevant and possibly the origin of your concerns about being *required* to report incidents....

" If an Adult Participant reasonably suspects that an incident(s) of Sexual Misconduct has occurred, they *must* immediately report the incident(s) directly to the Center."

To me, the key words are "If" and "reasonably suspects", but you may be focusing on "must" (especially because they italicized and underlined it). They didn't have to start it with "If" and add the caveat about reasonable suspicion to get the point across, but they did so for a reason and make it even more clear in section F. Meaning that if you *don't* report something because you did *not* reasonably suspect a problem, you are in the clear. It is not saying you have to report everything everyone does. It is not saying that if a relationship is found to be problematic and you are identified as a past witness to contact between them, that you are now liable even if you never saw anything that raised a red flag. They are talking about people like Jim Jordan and John Geddert who were aware of abuse and did nothing to stop it. And I think they've done a pretty good job at defining what abuse and harassment are, though perhaps they could define "reasonably suspects" as explicitly as "power imbalance".

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

No they can't and that is a problem. We have all seen in the news the person calling the cops on the parent spanking their kid, the person who decides they need to be the mask enforcer and cause the plane to land unscheduled, etc.

Why would any organization want a third party organization to set standards of conduct for their members including mandating that members are mandatory reporters where more often than not the accused is assumed guilty until proven innocent with adult on adult conduct? That is crazy.

Thank you for raising this important topic. I have been a coach many times in my career and I have many friends that are high level coaches. One of the topics that comes up over and over again, is that if you stand back and look at the risk you are taking as a coach when you are working with athletes of any age is extremely high. Its only a matter of time where someone you are coaching might have some kind of bone to pick with you and potentially ruin your career - and safe sport guidelines expanding to include adults coaching adults - just makes coaching business even more risky.

---

Michael Hay - helped on the journey by the great folks at ZiZU Optics, (for the custom fit), and Bialkowlski's TRYSPORT

I am so confused. I have heard zero stories about any "mask enforcers" causing planes to land unscheduled. I have heard plenty of stories of people refusing to wear masks, getting into fights with the flight attendants trying to make them follow the requirements for being on the flight, and THOSE morons causing the plane to land unscheduled.

My neighbors called the cops on us because they got a letter from the HOA. I am not joking. And that letter was notifying them that the HOA is aware a police report was filed when they assaulted my husband in our front yard, so they better be on their best behavior. So these morons called the cops and claimed *we* were harassing them via the HOA's letter, and a very nice but irritated cop came to our front door to ask what was up and we explained we have not had any contact with our neighbors whatsoever since the day THEY ASSAULTED MY HUSBAND, so obviously we are not harassing them.

So, I am very aware plenty of people are idiots and abuse the systems we have and can try to use it to cover for their own failings and mistakes. That is not a reason to say cops shouldn't investigate harassment. Safesport is not giving people who would make false claims so much more power than they already have to destroy an innocent person's reputation, so I don't think that is a good reason to say USAT shouldn't be trying to do better here either.

My real feelings for the men who are so concerned about the possibility of false accusations- is welcome to the world women have been living in since... forever. Yes it sucks to have to live with the risk that you can do everything right, be completely innocent, and still have your life turned upside down just because you crossed paths with the wrong person. I think men have been mostly sheltered from that possibility and it is uncomfortable to be asked to shoulder some of the responsibility women have been carrying all this time. Women live our lives having to be hyper vigilant we don't go to the wrong place at the wrong time, don't run at night, take a partner, don't wear that, never leave our drink unattended, watch out for our girlfriends, don't say the wrong thing to the wrong man, don't make eye contact, don't be alone with him, don't get involved, don't break up with him or he'll murder you. And now men are being asked to be vigilant about their own behavior, watch out that their bros don't do something stupid that will get them in trouble, and the attitude is that's so unreasonable cause aren't good men entitled to not have a second thought about what bad men could do? And they could do everything right, and still have their lives be negatively affected- so unfair! When false accusations towards men outnumber women being murdered and raped and harassed and discriminated against by men I guess I will have more sympathy but for now I think this level of risk aversion is pathetic. Like yes, false accusations are a possibility, but is it a common enough thing to really outweigh the benefits of taking assault and harassment seriously? To avoid making it crystal clear abusive treatment will not be tolerated among our ranks? I personally don't think so. And again, I think Safesport helps create a situation where innocent people can actually defend themselves, so isn't that a good thing?

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

Any reasonable person would have called the police/filed a report when they got assaulted in their own front yard.
There is no need for a tattletale to some irrelevant organization who one thinks will take care of it without you getting involved. Nothing gained and the situation just escalated at your cost.

I am totally sympathetic towards the concern of women in public spaces. Heck, there are neighborhoods in my own city where I wouldn't want to go alone at daylight, not to speak of night. Even the police stay in their cars.

But what is asked here is other people (or private businesses) police people, and that they replace the public safety obligations of your community and your government. This makes it an arbitrary environment, where everybody can punish others just by anonymously slandering their name or business (ever heard of 'Nextdoor'?). Vile and evil.
And we all know how much help (reporting) you would actually get (people don't care for the hassle, costs and/or exposure). "I didn't see anything".

I think those who want more safety/security would be more effective spending time promoting and advocating for effective public safety initiatives and measures that strengthen the voice of minorities and the weak. And to fund and support their local government in providing that safety.
.

I said adult on adult conduct. You made it he vs her. That wasn't my point.

I can only assume that you need some kind of "higher authority" to bless off on a random stranger to be magically gifted the ability to know the difference in a normal hug and an "excessive hug". And then be forced by a silly rule to report to some "authority" on their magic judgment call. If you need that to feel safer or emotionally fulfilled than vote "yes".

However the "victim" of this "excessive hug" may not see it that way and has to explain to the authority that random stranger that was granted magic hugging judgement was off his/her rocker.

What could possibly go wrong..............(insert eyeroll here)

You are misunderstanding the story about the HOA. We did call the cops and filed a report when they assaulted my husband in our front yard- that same day. It was on Thanksgiving in fact and ruined everybody's day. Somehow the HOA got wind of it, I don't know how, but my guess is when the police tried to investigate the assault, they may have contacted the HOA to see if they had any records of issues or complaints between us. At which time they would have found out that yes, there was a history of lesser issues that did not yet amount to such explicit criminal actions, but helped confirm that though there was no explicit evidence of our neighbors having assaulted him, there was a record of these people being problematic including challenging him to resolve prior disputes with a fight. I think it absolutely is the HOA's business to know what is going on between neighbors even if it has not yet escalated to criminal offenses. I see a parallel with USAT.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

I guess I just think that is an unnecessarily alarmist take, and an exaggeration of what will happen if USAT adopts these rules. There is nothing preventing someone from stirring up similar trouble right now if they were so inclined. Adopting Safesport is not going to suddenly create the moronic people ya'll are concerned about, and voting no on this is not going to protect anyone from false accusations.

I don't understand this concern that if we vote yes for this, the result will be a draconian nightmare. I mean USAT has rules against doping and drafting and yet I don't see them being unfairly hardcore about that. It does help though and they are good rules to have and I hope we can agree on that. I also don't see a huge problem with athletes accusing innocent athletes of cheating just because they can and could destroy someone's reputation that way. Does it happen? Yes. Does it mean we shouldn't have the rules? No.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

I wonder how many coaches / bosses / employer / medical personal are dating an member in an power exchange circumstance but in an happy consenting adult relationship, are now committing safe sport violation.....Zero sexual assault issues, zero physical issue, 2 adults in an consenting happy relationship. That's an safe sport violation among adults now. ETA: I should add if that couple is married, the dynamics can change and that's not an issue. If you aren't "family" that is an automatic power exchange relationship and thus has to follow safe sport protocols. The moment you kiss said individual you are in safe sport violation.

I then wonder how many people who know of said relationship and haven't reported said "power exchange" on said person are then in violation of safe sport protocol.


You can keep coming back with "oh your only worried about yourself" with my examples.....I'm actually trying to show the issue that is arising when adults are added to the list. It creates scenarios where all types of "innocent" people are in fact committing safe sport violations.

I’m not much for getting into the private life of adults. Especially 2 happy adults. If something happens to hurt any person that person deserves justice. I just don’t think it’s fair to make me judge another adult and have to “tell on them”. If someone is in danger you bet your ass I’ll do all I can to help. But being on the hook to tell on another adult doing nothing criminal, sorry that regulation loses me there.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

The scenario you are worried about, is not justified by Safesport's code and requires ignoring select pieces of their definition of "power imbalance".


"K. Power Imbalance A Power Imbalance may exist where, based on the totality of the circumstances, one person has supervisory, evaluative, or other authority over another. Whether there is a Power Imbalance depends on several factors, including but not limited to: the nature and extent of the supervisory, evaluative or other authority over the person; the actual relationship between the parties; the parties’ respective roles; the nature and duration of the relationship; the age of the parties involved; whether there is an aggressor; whether there is a significant disparity in age, size, strength, or mental capacity."

They are not referring to the coaching relationship you are worried about. If I as an age group triathlete hire a coach, they do not have authority over me- they sorta work for me, I pay them. And should that relationship sour, I am very free to terminate that coaching relationship and find another coach, and they are free to find other athletes to hire them. The relationship is not explicitly enabling or disabling the single pathway to advancement or achievement. The coaching relationship Safesport is mostly talking about are elite and national team coaches and staff. Like where the governing body of the sport has hired a head coach, and if you want to compete at that level, you have to train under them. I would hope we can all agree an intimate relationship in that situation is extremely problematic. Other examples exist but the key is authority.

I tend to agree that elite team coaches should not date their athletes, and bosses should not date their subordinates which is what Safesport is against. Most corporate organizations have similar rules about not allowing authority figures to potentially abuse that authority to coerce people into intimate relationships.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

The coaching relationship Safesport is mostly talking about are elite and national team coaches and staff.

——-

I’m a rules follower. Where in the safe sport policy does it say specially it only applies to the elite and national team coaches and staff?
How you interrupt the rules is different than any coaching relationship I’ve ever known. By default a coach has an power over the athlete irregulardless if it’s AG or elite or minor.

I’ve read the policy and it doesn’t make specifics like you are saying it does. Now is that what the rule is geared towards? Absolutely I’m making the point by how the rules are written it applies to all coaches and power exchange situations that can arise.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I am a rules follower too. And I think maybe our difference here is you think you have authority because people voluntarily do what you say sometimes. I've dabbled in coaching myself, I understand the perception of power, but know it is an illusion.

Ok now let's debate the definition of authority I guess.....

au·thor·i·ty
/əˈTHôrədē/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 
   1.
   the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
   
2. 
   2.
   a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.
   "the health authorities"
   

Do you see how this does not actually apply to the age grouper/coach relationship? You cannot enforce obedience. Anything your athletes do because you told them to, they *chose* to do because they *chose* you over any number of other coaches they could listen to. So long as they are fully functioning sober adults not being coerced or threatened into making that choice, you are equals in a consensual voluntary relationship. Where authority occurs, is where the athlete really has no choice. Do what this person says or your athletic career could be sabotaged.

I did not say this only applies to elite and national teams, I said it *mostly* is about elite and national teams and other examples exist. Safesport is wise not to attempt to list specific cases and roles, and to instead make it clear it is about power and authority, stronger versus weaker, somebody taking advantage and using their power over another. An age group coach and athlete should have nothing to worry about if theirs is truly a consensual relationship of equals and no one is attempting to assert authority outside the normal coaching relationship using other means.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

Do you see how this does not actually apply to the age grouper/coach relationship? //

I think that you do not see where this could go.(and has gone) Keep in mind that once you are tagged by an athlete, you are assumed guilty, and the road to prove your innocence is long and costly, while you sit on the sidelines unable to make your living anymore. You are getting a lot of pushback from coaches on what you think it ought to do, because they all know of cases where it went off the rails, and lives were severely disrupted and a lot of money spent to get to the truth.


The bar to file a compliant is very, very low, but that bar to prove your innocence in nearly out of reach for most people. I cannot tell you how many coaches I know who have dated clients, and a large portion of them end up marrying one too. But with all that happy adult relationships going on, there is of course the often gilted partner, and a % of those have no problem going down a rabbit hole to get what they perceive as revenge. There has to be some sort of carve out for this dynamic among consenting adults as you put it, but I dont believe this has been addressed sufficiently to give all those coaches peace of mind..


And once again, this is pertaining to adults involved with each other, the kid thing is completely separate and I agree that safesport is badly needed to balance a long, tipped scale against them..

Wait are you trying to define the definition of authority? Yesterday I used an poor example and today you are doing the inaccurate example. Your take on "authority" is inaccurate and nothing you have said is anywhere in the safe sport policies, so I'd suggest your making very inaccurate statements...Hey we all do, I made a incorrect assessment yesturday...your turn today.


Let me give you a hint.....safe sport already defines what an power imbalance relationship is and it’s not what you say it is. It defines it as coach / boss / employer / medical professional.

No where in safe sport does it say “coaching” imbalance applies only to a certain coaching demographic.

Your whole incorrect interpretation of the rules is the very reason why I’m pushing for more specifics. Especially if your saying it doesn’t apply to AG coaches. Safe sport most certainly does. Your assessment is very misguided. I admitted my mistake on my observation, yours is simply wrong today.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

. I've dabbled in coaching myself, I understand the perception of power, but know it is an illusion.

——-
Based on this statement that you have just made, it highlights to me your lack of understanding of the issues with safe sport.

Safe sport is a very real issue and there is no illusion about the power that a coach or any authority figure can have. It’s the very real issue I’m sorry there is no “illusion” there.

It may have been in your instance as a coach but by the rules of safe sport there is zero perception or illusion. That’s the whole point of the coach / athlete relationship. I didn’t realize that was debatable cus it’s not by the rules is safe sport.

And safe sport can ruin a coach like myself. Correction it can ruin ANY coach or person in authority. If they deserve it then please throw the book at them. But if they can now be ruined because I have to “tell on them” or they have to tell on themselves because they are in an consenting happy relationship.....that’s bullshit in my view.

So I think your assessment is 100% wrong and safe sport already defines it and a coach is an authority figure that creates an power imbalance.

And with that I’m out! The debate is done.

(Sorry for 2 replies, I wanted to highlight that specific statement that to me pretty much shows the lack of understanding of the issue I'm bringing up with how the current rules are written within adult to adult participants.....Good luck if you get back with the coaching bug, and good luck this season *covid willing*!)

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I guess all I can say is if you took some extra Safesport training where they said age group coaches working with adults automatically create a power imbalance, then they are not keeping to the letter of their own code already and that would indeed be concerning. Perhaps they should define authority if they mean it in a different way than what is in the dictionary and common understanding of the English language (and btw, that up there was not ME "trying" to define authority, but was literally the definition of authority straight out of the dictionary). But as far as I can tell, they chose their words carefully and defined anything that isn't commonly understood.

I will stand by that you have no authority unless you can say something to the effect of "do this, OR ELSE" to another functioning adult and it mean something, and the typical age group coaching relationship does not include anything of the sort. You don't have authority if someone chose to listen to you when they didn't actually have to. I don't think USAT would even be putting this up to a vote if this seriously meant they expected to be informed of who everybody in the community is dating, nor are they so out of touch with what is going on between people in the sport. It wouldn't be sustainable for them to expect these scenarios to be reported, and if they have failed to anticipate causing harm to healthy relationships, I think clarifications would certainly be made because it clearly is in no one's interest. Many, many, many other sports have already adopted Safesport where these same types of relationships exist and so far I have not heard of an epidemic of false alarms.

To borrow a phrase you used earlier- not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

You've written a lot of things that don't really matter when it comes to this. SafeSport already defines who a Mandatory Reporter is.

USAT is basically trying to extend that, for whatever reason I have no idea. All members are all currently bound by the SafeSport code as it stands, you commit a violation and they substantiate, you get suspended from the organization.

The issue is that you can't make everyone a mandatory reporter. So is USAT going to make every adult member take SafeSport online training every year? Because that is what this bylaw amendment would require. In addition, that specific portion of the amendment like the 18 other things encapsulated in one of the two voting options needs to be separated out and to stand on it's own.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I'll leave it with this. Straight from the safe sport policy on power exchange. The source of the jurisdiction, not some dictionary definition that has ZERO bearing on the issue we are discussing. You are very much incorrect with your paragraphs of explanations, and that's ok. But your incorrect.


https://uscenterforsafesport.org/...rt-Code-04.01.20.pdf


(Page 6 of the pdf file),
K.
Power Imbalance


Once a coach-Athlete relationship is established, a Power Imbalance is presumed to exist throughout the coach-Athlete relationship (regardless of age) and is presumed to continue for Minor Athletes after the coachAthlete relationship terminates until the Athlete reaches 20 years of age. A Power Imbalance may exist, but is not presumed, where an Intimate Relationship existed before the sport relationship (e.g., a relationship between two spouses or life partners that preceded the sport relationship).



No where do I see age group / elite as the coach that has authority or doesnt have authority.

Your whole response is my issue. You are incorrect in your assessment. I'd also kindly ask you to not put words on me that I have never used. I have never used the analogue "baby and bathwater" phrase. Good thing this is just an discussion, because you've incorrectly put words on me I've never said.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Sorry that was "monty" who used that phrase about baby and bathwater. I got you two confused.

We clearly are not going to change each other's minds. To you this is a draconian nightmare, and to me, I know most efforts to prevent abuses do not actually amount to much and rarely get enforced. Like I am a female software engineer and every company I have worked at has had very formal, very "serious" policies about sexual harassment and discrimination, alongside mandatory periodic training and yet.... I could tell you stories that would leave your jaw on the floor and not a single one of those dipshits faced any consequences. So I guess that is the source of my skepticism and that USAT cannot possibly be going with this where ya'll are saying it's going.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com

The whole explanation is basically the whole point I'm bringing up. She's using definitions of words and then trying to apply it to coaching situations....when guess what...Safe Sport has already told us a coach is in a position of power in the coach-athlete relationship. So that's my issue, is that when you are talking about an subject as serious as this with the consequences it has, "common sense" doesn't apply.....The rule book applies.


Do I agree with her that the people safe sport is going after is the national level staff etc etc, yes. I'm proving the point however that by the rulebook they've written, now EVERY coach and person in authority is by SAFE SPORT's own policy creating a violation if that relationship also includes dating. And that EVERY member of USAT has to report those very relationships to safe sport if they are aware of them. I think that's dumb as fuck, and I think we all agree to that. But that's the responsibility that we all have and the rules that we all must follow now. I think it's stupid that a coach can be banned from coaching if they are some part time coach and then date an athlete....I dont think they should date, but if it's 2 adults in a consenting happy relationship, I dont think that should be a safe sport violation. If an sexual assault issue or hazing or physical assault, then throw the book at him. But if 2 adults date in a coach/athlete good happy consenting relationship and aren't committing a crime, I dont see how that can then be an safe sport violation.

Now does USAT want to know that? Hell no they dont care that joe blow in Iowa City is having intimate relations with an athlete. They want to know that their top ITU coaches aren't having relations with national team athletes, and that medical staff isn't "pressuring" athletes into decisions they dont want to make.



So I'm with her that in "reality" none of this applies to the part time coach who's maybe dating an athlete. But by the direct definiton that have on the record, it applies to any coach in a coach-athlete relationship. That can't be debated.


We can all agree that it's not really meant to be that, and that we really aren't suppose to tattle tell on that coach who's dating an athlete in a good healthy adult relationship. I'm just making the point by Safe Sport's own rules, that is in fact an infraction, and that if you know about it and don't report it...that also is an infraction.

So what I'm showcasing is just how easy an "safe sport" violation likely is now in the current climate. And that many of those violations aren't what we really consider safe sport violations. But now that EVERYONE is required to follow safe sport and be on the hook for reporting, it should be known just what we are dealing with.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

All of this is still subject to reasonability standards on the part of USAT and Safesport. That something is technically in one part of the rule book and contradicted with respect to our sport in another place, does not mean everyone is going to be found guilty of this. They were quite clear that the spirit of "power imbalance" is about authority, but I will concede that the letter is contradictory to the typical environment in triathlon, was written with other sports in mind, and USAT should probably formalize a clarification. It is common when adopting new laws and procedures to revise them as issues arise. Demanding perfection before moving in a direction whose benefits outweigh hypothetical cons seems silly to me still. Unnecessarily alarmist and prioritizing consequences in a way I just don't understand. Like if we agree Safesport is a really good thing for kids, we are going to hold this up because we think USAT is suddenly going to go hardcore on a thing we all agree wouldn't make sense for our sport? When they don't hold people to the literal rules we already have about really fundamental aspects of competition?

You also must have much much much more faith that triathletes follow rules to the very tippy top of the T than I do, and have clearly never watched the bike portion of an Ironman. :D

I tried reporting the winner of my age group at a 70.3 who I *witnessed* draft off a pack of guys for the last hour of the bike and I had race photos proving it. Pretty universally the response I got was STFU, nobody cares. So where this reverence for rules is coming from, and expectation everyone is going to care deeply about reporting people when it isn't even wrong, I don't get.

---

Independent Council on Women's Sports - Triathlon Working Group Lead

http://www.iconswomen.com