I just want a point of clarification. Has the safe sport guidelines already been established, irregardless of how the voting turns out?

I left ST for a year over a heated discussion on this very topic. I had *assumed* already that all members of USAT had to follow safe sport guidelines (whether they went through the training or not). I read the rules and regulations back in '19 and that was how I read it....which I brought up some very real and serious "scenarios" of adult v adult that would be considered "violations".

So is it being voted on to include all members or are all members already without your knowledge having to follow safe sport.

(I agree that safe sport should be geared toward personal in adult v child scenarios; rank and file members shouldn't be held to that standard unless dealing with minors).

---

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

the last i researched this, USAT considered its annual members "covered individuals", but i felt it was a huge legal exposure for them to do so. what USAT is doing now is shoring up that legal exposure by placing it in its bylaws that you're a covered individual. which i don't think it needed to do. it just needed to place it in its waiver and/or its sanctioning agreement.

but all that is moot. my issue is not the health and safety of the org, but the health and safety of the people the org serves. the purpose of safesport, and its value, is in protecting minors from adults who are in positions of power. all of its training modules, when i took them all, had this in mind. were designed this way. i'm sure you found that to be the case.

here is the difference between safesport and usada. with usada, the "accusation" is usually a positive test in a WADA lab. i pretty much trust that process. you might be falsely accused, but not likely. the "accusation" in safesport is made by some other adult (in the case of most of us in triathlon). i know of 2 cases in my small circle where accusers were jilted, crazy or damaged people, using safesport as a weapon of revenge. yes, once you get out the other side of this, and you prevail in arbitration, the arbitrator finding that the accused has failed to present a believable case, your reputation is gone and you're $40,000 poorer. i was recently talking with the industry's leading anti-doping defense lawyer, and about a third of his business (and growing) is now defending those in a safesport process.

safesport is not equipped for adult-on-adult processes. or they weren't the last i looked. so, i really need USAT to protect is members here, not abandon its members, not offload its members to an extrajudicial process that is not designed for our population.

and if i'm wrong about this, fine, but then USAT should have explained all this up front. there's nothing in this election that speaks to our agreeing to come under safesport's jurisdiction. this was slid in in the dark of night. of course USAT said nothing. if this was all explained to the members the vote would be a resounding no.

in the bylaw change, it says that everyone who participates in an event, whether annual member or not, is bound by safesport's jurisdiction. you took safesport training. your training equips you for the jurisdiction. with this bylaw change we'll have a quarter million people a year, almost none of which have taken the training, bound by a process they don't even know they're bound by.

beyond this is the notification issue. if you get popped for doping in an IM, for the protection of others you are not allowed to race until your hearings are exhausted. you win or lose. if you lose, your name goes public. if you win, nobody knows what happened. in safesport, if you get accused by somebody of a violation, for the protection of others your name is made public. before any hearings. then your hearings start. yes, there is a fact finding process before your name is made public, however, if the posture of investigators is to believe accusers, you're sort of screwed.

all this makes sense if your remit is to protect a 13 year old swimmer from a coach. i'm not convinced safesport is equipped to deal with adult-on-adult issues. this is a huge weapon you've handed the crazies, or those who need some revenge. if i hadn't seen this process abused it - twice - among my own close friends i might not appear as alarmist.

if i'm running USAT, and i want to place all the members under my care under safesport's jurisdiction, i make double darned sure safesport is ready to accept this jurisdiction. has USAT done that? if it has, i want to see it; and i want to see it before i'm asked to vote on it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I just think it’s really opening an can of worms once safe sport becomes all it’s members must follow. By the definition of safe sport issues anything more than an high five then likely is an violation. As I said 2 years ago if I’m at the track and 2 ppl yards away from me suddenly finish and embrace, guy holds her arm, guy and gal “hug it out”.....that isn’t only an violation; if you DONT report it, you violated the law.

There is going to be huge consequences of this and yes it’s going to open up everyone.

And from an book keeping standpoint. Usada and safesport imo don’t need to be booked together. They are entirely separate issues and I see this as just being shoved together past the members.

---

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

I guess I'm trying to understand what an yes or no vote will do. If it gets shut down will safe sport be left with the adult v minor situations?

---

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

safesport had jurisdiction over adult-on-minor before these new bylaws. so, it remains that, afaik. i was just told that the bylaw change expanding safesport to all members was already enacted, in 2019. but i don't know about that. i guess i question that. if so, then why is this among the new bylaws measures? i have more investigating to do.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I just don’t think ppl understand how like in the sand a safe sport violation is. Pretty much any contact w another person that isn’t a spouse / family that isn’t an high five is basically a violation.

The kicker is that safe sport is designed on any issue. Ppl are suppose to report the act and let the authorities decide if it’s an issue. If you and a buddy hug it out after a race I’m suppose to report that or else now I’m in violation. Irregadless if it is an actual violation or not. The mere act of embracing is now wrong initially.

How many times have we seen at end of races the athletes embracing. How do I know one doesn’t want to be embraced. I have to report it

---

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

Under SafeSport there is also mandatory reporting responsibility with Adult-on-Adult interaction. But that, at least in other sports, only applies to members who fall into: Coach and Administrator roles. Making the rank and file mandatory reporters is not what other NGBs are doing.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Thanks for the write up. Whenever I get one of these emailed from USAT I'm never really sure what the measures mean or how to vote. It's nice to read a breakdown from those who have been more intertwined in the sport and USAT

---

Matt

i heard from a boardmember last night that he was pretty sure he was going to hear from me, but about the OTHER stuff. not the safesport thing. so, there's other stuff in these bylaw changes to which you may object. but the safesport thing is the blinking red light.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The problem I see is that of course common sense approach will occur with most ppl. But this is creating 1984 type of lives.

Just go watch the end of any pro race. How many hug it out....:that now is an issue. Cus I don’t knew e if X athlete wanted to hug or not, we are now required to report that and authorizes determine if violation occurred.

---

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

As a board member, I'm concerned that most people receiving the ballot will not see nor will they be aware that these changes include the elimination of a member's right to vote on future bylaw changes. That's a significant change to the type of organization that USAT is.

Before voting, be certain that you are in favor of all the changes. They are significant and they alter "member involvement", e.g., members will only have 4 of 12 board members whom they elect (as opposed to 6 now and 8 a few years back). The remainder of the board will be elite athletes (this is the single change mandated by Congress and USOPC) and "independent directors", or those who are not permitted to have had any previous experience or affiliation with USAT or multisport. If they are a USAT member, they are ineligible. If they participate in the sport, they are ineligible. And they will not be elected but appointed. The four will also not be elected from their regions, but nationally based upon a slate put forward by a sub-committee of the board. I'll bet more people in the Northeast know who I am and what I've done to give back to the sport than in the Northwest. And I'd bet someone bringing a regional voice to the board can better ensure that a true cross-section of our members is being heard.

Certainly, vote for what you believe. I've been a member of USAT since about 1986 because I wanted to be "part of something", and that something was a membership organization, in which I was welcomed and had a voice. I have voted no on both questions on the ballot, and will hopefully be able to revisit the serious issues with these changes again so that another proposal can be put to the members, which would not diminish their role or importance as members.

Whoever wrote the bylaw amendment to have independent directors to have no involvement with the sport really doesn't know about how the Ted Stevens Act amendment applies. It really only applies to the increase in representation of International Athletes. Other NGBs have independent directors that are still tied to the sport but went through the independent process rather than being tied to a constituency. Then you have board members whom are tied to a constituency. Moving to less directors tied to a constituency is dumb in a general sense.

USA Rugby once had a board that was basically IAs, Independent Directors, and one Member elected directly by their Congress. The Independent Directors didn't leverage any connections to help the Union, they may have done a lot of work, but on the surface it seems a lack of connection led to a lack of oversight.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Agreed with every point. Thank you Dan.

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub

Where exactly are you getting this "if I see people hug at the end of a race I must report it" thing? I read the Safesport code and I found a blurb about "excessively hugging a participant", and I would think rational adults can tell the difference between excessive hugging and normal, acceptable, consensual behavior. If there is some other thing I should read so that I can also come to understand Safesport as the draconian nightmare you guys are painting it out to be, please cite sources, because the code itself seems quite focused on legitimately concerning behavior only.

When weighing the possible abuse of Safesport to damage someone's reputation against possible sexual abuse- I sure hope most USAT members can recognize the greater evil and greater threat. Jilted exes don't need Safesport to come after your reputation anyway, and if you are falsely accused is there not also a benefit to having a real investigation to help prove one's innocence?

---

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

http://www.iconswomen.com

That's not a remotely good hypothetical (I think you know that?).

I'm all for general pushing back on and testing the application and rules and their consequences, but I wish people wouldn't use "problems" like these that are so easily dismissed by a quick reading of the code.

I’ve read the code and taken all the safe sport tests / programs. I have a junior program and the adult it’s designed for to follow.

Eta: they have included the physical regs with a person and the kicker is under physical misconduct an clause “examples may include without limitation”.

The thing with safe sport isn’t that the person calling the infraction. They are bound to report violations and it’s up to the authority to then investigate it. It’s not the reporters duty to determine intent etc. they simply have to report it.

So when you tell me every single person is now bound by an safesport code and you don’t think “hugging” can create issues......

---

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

I have highlighted the problematic parts.

In the legal society we live in, there are plenty of other legal and more threatening ways to come after sexual abuse in a public environment.
I don't see how a federation should be tasked with the primary investigation of such misconduct of ALL PARTICIPANTS in an USAT sanctioned sport (it already does, if you are a coach or administrator).
It would certainly put additional strain on an already limited resources and would have no additional benefit for those affected (as records of such misconduct could always be obtained by other legal means).
So are you are willing to pay for that redundant service?

Lastly, I am sure the punishment of being expulsed from USAT is a real threat to those irrational sexual predators out there.
.

.

The reporter isnt suppose to figure out intent. It’s designed to see an infraction to report an infraction. The authorities then are suppose to investigate the issue.

So I want every word defined completely because it can ruin ppl lives .

And again if you don’t report a violation you are hen breaking safesport code. “Intent” is not part of the reporting code. Your not suppose to go up and ask the person “did you want that hug....did they hold you too tight”?

It’s designed to report infractions. Which again I think is absolutely great for what it’s *truly* designed for- adult v minor interactions. I think simple CYA has it now with every member.

---

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

Because of my job I'm a mandated reporter. I've not done the safesport training but I've done others. I'll assume the safesport training is not very effective.

The Physical Misconduct section is about "behavior that causes, or reasonably threatens to cause, physical harm to another person." Do you think that finish line hugs will be interpreted to be an attempt to physically harm someone, or do you mean to worry that finish line hugs need to be reported as Sexual or Gender-related Harassment?

It seems pretty clear (to me) from the code that if you are by the finish line and see people hugging, no problem. ln fact, even the reporting language distinguishes the (relatively) objective difference between instances of physical harm and instances of sexual misconduct... while you as an adult participant "are required to report" emotional and physical misconduct, sexual misconduct must be reported "If an adult participant reasonably suspects that an incident(s) of sexual misconduct has occurred" (italics and lack of caps mine).

It would have to be a pretty extreme situation in which a finish line hug gave you reasonable suspicion that it was part of sexual misconduct, no?


Like I said, maybe safesport just needs better training materials, I don't know. I've done mandated reporter trainings that had a good focus on just these sorts of things. And I'm not nitpicking to minimize the need and benefit of reporting potential misconduct: poor implementation reduces the positive effect of such things.

(And, I voted no on the first bylaw question).


[Edited to delete my opinion of the response]

No I’m a 38 year old coach that uses USAT sanctioning w some itu funding and also coaching USAT camps. I have to coach for likely 25+ years so I’m here for the long haul as I own my own business, pay my own health care....so in general I’m “poor”. This job is important to me and I want every i dotted and t crossed so that I know the rules of the road. I see a whole lot of potential issues with this even though the theory behind this is sound. As I said safe sport is truly geared toward adult v minors but now with CYA society it’s simply opening an bigger can of worms imo.

So when you can be in violation for not reporting an incident and the rules are as they are with now every member, I’m having a hard time seeing issues not come up.

And finally I have a big problem with an forum such as this on this topic with people posting unnamed. I find it in pretty piss poor form honesty when it’s dealing with an topic that can ruin someone’s reputation and you make the personal comment you do.

Eta: if your trying to make some accusation because I’m bringing up some concerns, that I’m anti safesport, we are going to have to have a discussion with Dan about that. I’m far from it, in fact I’m 100% in the right context.

---

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

Wow, look what happens when you highlight certain words and completely ignore the context and argument being made. What a neat little obnoxious tactic.

Calling this redundant to legal routes is just not accurate. There are numerous examples in the news recently of sexual abuse going on unchecked in sports because of the power dynamics and isolation athletes face in that environment, and numerous examples of our legal system not taking sexual and child abuse seriously. Apparently "redundancy" is very much needed and heck yes I am willing to help pay for it.

"Lastly I am sure the punishment of being expulsed from USAT is a real threat to those irrational sexual predators out there." This is a joke right? Or do you seriously think the legitimacy of this issue boils down to whether this is accomplished? You think the only people who abuse others are self-aware pedos and predators who are fully intentional in their behaviors which are abusive or inappropriate? It doesn't have anything to do with enablers looking the other way either? Safesport isn't just about sexual abuse either, it's also about just plain old bullying and harassment.

I kinda wish everyone on this thread would just come out and admit that as people unlikely to ever face sexual abuse, the status quo is fine and that any method of addressing these problems head on seems like it will present *some* amount of risk to you personally for no benefit, and that is unacceptable. I will not argue with you that the selfish, individualistic weighing of pros and cons for the average man in triathlon comes out overwhelmingly against Safesport. Its pretty transparent that's what's happening when the argument against it involves blatant hysterics and misrepresentation, and prioritizing reputations of the majority over abuse of minorities.

---

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

http://www.iconswomen.com

You are accusing others of being malicious, ignorant and make assumptions/generalizations.

And then In turn employ the same maliciousness, ignorance and generalization (such as being against Safesport and worse, being complacent towards rapists and child molesters).

Funny how actually that represents the irrationality of adults living in a dysfunctional social setting with dysfunctional people, where nobody (Male or Female) seems to be able to adhere to any decency standards of co-existence and respect, and everything needs to be weaponized.
Have fun with that war of yours!
.

I'm not accusing you--or trying to accuse you--of not being in favor of protecting minors, etc. You've posted to the effect that you support the protection for adult-child interactions, etc., and that you object to the way it is extended generally [edit: due to the potential situations created by mandated reporting and penalties for failure to report].

I've edited to delete the sentence I assume you're referring to. I apologize for including it and stressing you out. If there is something else about the post that you feel is potentially mis-characterizing you or is harmful to your reputation, I would be glad to edit (or big dan, obviously, can edit).

Like I said, I think there is nothing wrong with questioning and testing rules (that are intended to do good). It's in everyone's interest to have them work well. And to be clear, I think that one can be in favor of protecting children and anyone else from harm and abuse and be critical of a particular policy or its implementation.

But I do think that the entire issue would benefit from more precise discussion about the rules and their interpretation. The illustration you chose -- that one who witnesses competitors hugging it out at the finish line could be accused of failure to report -- is not what I consider a productive one (i.e. it doesn't read like something that would be a consequence of these rules). I felt this was pretty clear from the reading of the code I offered in that post.

I think the big issue is that the current safe sport policies are written in a way to protect the obvious - minors. I think the gray area extends to then include all members. For example what is power exchange within adults? Is there no power exchange if your an adult? Is it adult coach vs adult power exchange (obvious), but not in an adult "athlete" vs adult "athlete". Does it occur in male adult vs female adult but not male small body adult vs large body adult?

So when I and you and any "member" suddenly is on the hook for "safe sport" policies that cover ALL members, I know need much more clarification. Like is it really only for the minors and it's being poo poo'd with adults so they can CYA by saying "all members" are now covered....but most instances that adults do won't be an violation?

---

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