Right and if you a national organization and you aren’t all in on safe sport policies you are only basically setting yourself up for safe sport issues in today’s climate. Like you have to doubly CYA at this point in sports and lawsuits.
That’s probaly the biggest reason why you want to separate the 2 groups (adult vs non-adult).
I just looked up UCI’s own policy:
UCI’s policy within their safeguarding policy is that basically all members must sign and follow their policy (riders, coaches, mechanics, board members, pretty much any “member” of the organization). So if they then allowed members to compete not following safesport (that you are saying is happening), those athletes and UCI would be in hot water.
Adults + non adults competing isn’t an issue in and of itself. The issue is then you are merging 2 very different groups and the potential for something to happen increases. Thus why it’s pretty easy CYA “no minors” at X level. You protect young people, and you don’t have to worry about adults being put in that position of being around minors, etc.
Years ago there was a famous MLB player who started to allow his 13 year old son in the clubhouse. 2 of his teammates hated the idea, because the locker room is sorta a sacred place. You can curse and drink beers and put a dip in and not worry about your actions around anyone. Suddenly you got a 13 year old in a locker room with guys walking out of the shower naked, etc. It just wasn’t a good idea even though in theory it’s good “dad/son time”. No one on that team was going to harm the kid, but it was more that this is an area for “adults to be adults”.
And like I said within WTCS, this is what a 1 in 10,000 athlete ratio of being u 18 and racing WTCS level? We aren’t now suddenly stunting athlete’s development with that rule.
it might be more that she races so often that she does not have enough time to get the base miles in. she must have done at least 13 high level triathlons and running races last year and there might be some i have missed.
and of course one has to bear in mind that she was 16, racing 18 and 19 year ollds last year
my bigger fear is that she trained too hard too soon as her run progression has already slowed down quite a bit
at the same time she seems to love what she does. and she has a good team around her.
I agree that it leaves them more open for liability but it also seems unrealistic to disqualify people for not having done safesport.
TTown has a few UCI events as part of friday night track racing. You don’t even need a UCI license to race them, unless you’re from outside the US. Harrie Lavreysen even showed up a few years ago. Is it required that every domestic cyclist racing has safesport (I didn’t at the time and no one said anything about it) as well as every cyclist coming in from other countries?
To further complicate, track racing almost always has multiple categories in the same day in the same pit area. If juniors are racing junior races and adults are racing adult races, but they occupy the same pit area are all the adults required to be safesport?
So the reality is that in today’s world it’s not unrealistic to disqualify people if they aren’t going to do safesport. That’s just the reality that organizations have to do in order to protect it’s own members.
The current rules for both USAT and USA Cycling is that anyone that comes into “regular” contact must be safesport certified. I also will say this. If your trying to “nit pick” safesport to an governing body person, I don’t think you are going to win that argument. If your saying you do 1 race 1 time and you are in the above situation, no I’m guessing there are people who aren’t safesport certified. But if you are racing regularly and in that situation, I’m guessing you will be requried.
Long response to say, safesport requirements isn’t one of those “nit picky” arguments I’d probaly have with officials in today’s world and climate.
I believe you said you are a first year pro or someone very new to the pro ranks. The best piece of advice I’d give you is to make sure you are safesport certified, simply on the off chances you interact with public by way of clinics/ meet and greets, you are “covered” so to speak. Also allows you the more freedom if you went into coaching/advising, and you coach some HS kids, etc.
Yeah I’ve got no issues with Safesport, probably a good idea. Surely will get banned as DEI soon.
But it seems the disconnect was the “regular contact” verbiage. There’s a lot of room there. Surely World Triathlon could have just sidestepped the age rule by saying competition doesn’t constitute “regular contact”.
Then again triathlon is in a different position than cycling. Any cycling federation that disallows 17/18y juniors from competing with elites is severely hamstringing their development. I don’t see the same degree of development harm in triathlon.
And yes, already safesport here from doing USACycling officiating on and off. A good thing to have in the sport world for sure, even if just as a CYA
The actual race isn’t the issue. WTCS has so many on site requirements, I think at this point in the schedule, they do pre-race required meeting now 2 days before the race. And then you have course fams, which is why it’s basically a 3-5 day “circus” stop these days. WC and below sorta have a much tighter schedule so from a “PR” prospective I can see why they put this on WTCS and sorta opened it up at lower levels. Again this rule does almost nothing for stunting athlete development, so it’s kinda an lay up rule to put one more barrier of safety for all.
And again I’m not saying juniors and adults can’t race together. You just have to jump through more hoops so to speak to protect all individuals. So if you can sorta separate the 2 and not really impact the actual racing, you probaly can separate the 2. Again not allowing U18 to race WTCS pretty much won’t stop anyone’s development or ability to race / have a career in ITU.
Agreed and I think that’s the biggest difference. No real disadvantage not racing elite triathlon at 17. But not allowing 17/18 into elite cycling events is really bad for development.
Every 18+ member of USA Swimming must be SafeSport. I’m surprised USAC hasn’t required that yet, especially since most events have junior races. Simply by having juniors at the same venue they should have to be SafeSport.
I haven’t kept up with the latest on safe sport, but a few years ago it didnt matter what age you were, everyone was subject to their rules if the NGB signed on. What I mean is that a coach driving his 45 year old client(who he is dating) could get the shit kicked out of him in a bad break up. Is that still the case, or did they finally change the rules to focus on their intended mission??
The rules of “imbalance of power” are still in place regardless of age. So to your question…you can still get a “safesport” violation with 2 consenting adults *if there is an imbalance of power within the intimate relationship.
Obviously your not in violation just because, you have to also be prosecuted so to speak once it’s investigaged, so would the “investigation” be dropped in the 2 43 year olds dating each other probaly. It’s sorta a “wasted resource” to go after those types of imblances of power imo.
But again the way the rules are written if you as a bystander know about said imbalance of power and you don’t then at min report it, you are also liable to be in violation. So to the letter of the law, it’s still very “holy shit the rabbit hole they opened up actually is holy shit”, but the reality is you’d hope all parties would have some *common sense. But again cus it’s on the books as it is, they can sorta throw the book at you for even 2 full grown ass adults being in a relationship unless it started prior to the power imbalance. You must wait 2 years in order to “date” your ex athlete.
So “safesport” is generally geared towards protecting minors (and no one doesn’t want that). However, with how they have written imbalance of power into the rule book for athletes of any age, that rabbit hole of “wow” can get deep, if it so wanted too.
(to Monty too) Yes, a balance of power relationship among adults is a SafeSport violation even though they’re of age. And my understanding is that it stays on your SS record, even if it can’t be litigated. Like every well-intended mission there are holes. This relationship could be perfectly above board yet you can be reported (a jilted client e.g.) for being in that relationship.
And monty, not sure you were looking for clarification, but in swimming, your USAS is not in good standing as an 18+ if you aren’t up to date on SafeSport certification. And yes, minors are subject to SS too but do not have to take the certification.
Well that sucks that they haven’t updated from that old paradigm of adults on adults. Being that I know of someone that went through this and spent over 20 grand to fight it(and eventually won), makes me want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If Trump throws out the whole thing as DEI I will not be that upset, they had their chance to fix it and get back to the mission they were created for…
And I do believe in that mission, but sometimes you just have to punt and start all over if you cannot change your plan mid game…
I would actually be very curious if someone was kept on the SS list in the event, it’s investigated and is deemed no issue. That’s sorta a very serious offense of basically you could literally make it up just so it stays on the record of the person if what you are saying is true.
I think the one thing with safesport is that covers actual actions that are law breaking and therefore serious (sexual acts with a minor), but also covers actions that are breaking no laws, just more of a “bad behavior” (emotional abuse from 1 coach over an adult athlete…IE Mary Cain / Salazar case). Protecting minors is basically always going to be the main priority for SS. However there are real cases of “emtional abuse” that have zero law breaking actions, but those athletes still need protection; IE Mary Cain vs Salazar (Salazar was never accused of a crime, he was simply accused of emotional abuse towards athletes all of legal age). So then it starts going down of a slippery slope of what is and isn’t then covered by SS, so in that aspect it’s simply any imbalance of power. Which then means because it’s such a massive umbrella and not just with minors, then suddenly the cases of random people dating each other and one is a coach suddenly “oops” also falls under that. To my knowledge you don’t have a SS stain if you are investigated and found innocent or charges/allegations are drooped (I’ve had a coaching friend have a Salazar type of “emotional abuse” put against him with an pissed off former athlete; he was found innocent after lengthy investigation…and no the coach wasn’t worried, he knew he was innocent but being accused of anyting like that is always stressful as hell, just goes to show what can happened with “scorned” relationships).
Well except for the years your are presumed guilty, your coaching license and ability to coach frozen, and the 10’s of thousands of dollars you had to spend to prove your innocence. Not to even mention the emotional toil to yourself and your friends and family during this time. Other than that I suppose “no stain”.
things like womens tennis would not be as popular if they didnt allow under 18 years old, allows the field to be more competitive for the viewers to stay entertained. remember anna kournikova? he career only ended thanks to stress fracture when she was already an adult
A previous poster said you are stuck on the SS list whether you are prosecuted or not. That’s not correct if you are found to be innocent. Which matters, because the SS list is a “permanent” list of coaches who have be found guilty of SS violations. And I already mentioned all that coaches go through during the investigation until found guilty. So yes it’s very important that if you are innocent and found to be innocent, that you are removed from the SS list.
I wonder if you had to go through this personally, that you would feel that eventually getting taken off the list would be so important. Like I said, you go on the list once a claim is made, you lose your ability to coach while it is being adjudicated, and of course most everyone just assumes you are guilty. Because you are treated as guilty from the initial accusation, and funny how that is the thing most people remember, not the little retraction at the end that oops, we made a mistake…But ok, you eventually come off their list once you have gone through hell and back..
So while I am not speaking from direct experience, I’ve have 2 coaching friends go through this in the last 18 months at the professional elite level. ZERO sexual nature, ZERO minors involved mind you, so let me say that again there were zero allegations within minors nor anything of sexual nature. Simply cases of “emotional abuse” basically.
Within triathlon you don’t really lose your ability to coach unless your only coaching is as a federation coach. “Private” coaches can continue to coach usually. Now if your coaching gymnastics for some gym, yes you probaly are going to lose your job atleast temporary until the allegations are resolved. But *most triathlon coaches are still able to coach. Hell the most famous tri coach in the world has been a triathlon coach for what now 30+ years after the most serious allegations he’s gone through and he’s “banned” from being a coach by almost every 1st world triathlon federation.
Actually most people didn’t assume guilt according to the 2 coaches I was friends with. It was obviously scary as hell cus you never know, but there is also some comfort in kowing if your innocent, your innocent…and that “scorned” athletes will eventually not win. And unless your refreshing the SS page, you may not even know said coach is temporarily suspended.
And guess what nothing “negative” has happened to him long term. They were “frozen” from being allowed to work within the federation if something came up (IE being paid to coach an federation athlete as example, but they weren’t coaching anyone at that time so it didn’t apply anyways).
Ok so your friends were lawyers and represented themselves, most people have to pay the 10’s of thousands of dollars for their lawyers to fight this stuff. Paying $20k+(or whatever) seems like a negative to me, not to mention not working for the 6 months to couple years it takes to adjudicate. Really Brooks, sounds like you are defending this obvious flaw in the SS program, not sure why either. Perhaps your need to always be on opposite sides of me.. (-;