A one-year ban is the “death penalty“ in college team sports. Ivan Desyatov’s career, and the Desyatov-Flores ice dancing team, could not survive a few months.
Amazing work! Thank you for the insight in this complex and important matter, that is not given enough visibility. A reform is very much needed and hope those in the power of change take action on this issue and actually protect ALL the athletes regardless their position, acting and investigating fairly and properly. Would love to read more of your work!
Thank you for diving into SafeSport. There is nothing “Safe” about it. It has ruined many athletes and coaches careers by making accusations without a just tribunal. They need to be sanctioned and governed by a set of rules. No more accusations with the accused being unable to publicly speak out against their accuser. Keep up the great reporting.
This situation really is a mess. Why is SafeSport such a debacle? Is it understaffed? Underfunded? Or just stupid? There should be a timeline in which cases must be brought to legitimate law enforcement authorities. Lumping in child predators with lack of consent same-age interactions doesn't seem correct. I am not trying to undermine consent, but the current situation puts athletes into a very tricky situation when anyone can make an accusation and that accusation is by default presumed to be accurate and correct.
I think there's a lot of reasons for why it's such a debacle. One of the macro / upstream reasons is that it can cloak itself in its unassailable founding mission: protecting youth athletes from predators in sporting environments. Of course everyone wants that. The Center says "We do that," so any criticism gets met with "Oh, so you want to go back to days of Larry Nassar?!? Why are you protecting predators?" A corollary of that is that the popularity of due process and protections for the accused are at an all-time low in our culture and society.
Another, lesser known reason is that the Center has a pay-to-play model. They bill each sports federation for each report they receive about someone in that federation, with the amount they charge based on the disposition of the case. So the Center has a financial incentive in the number of complaints / accusations, which seems to cut against their ostensible mission of *reducing* abuse.
I'll limit myself to three, so third, is the the basic dynamics of mission creep and every institution's desire to expand their remit / power. Those dynamics are facilitated by social crises and moral panics, of which we've had plenty in the eight years of the Center's existence.
Thanks for this explanation. I am appalled to learn that it is a pay-to-play model. I could envision a tax/fee on each federation, but pay-to-lay is ridiculous given that it creates the exact wrong incentives (as you have mentioned). Listen, I am a big ol' lliberal, feminist, woke lady. But I am also a parent who has seen young men's lives very negatively impacted by false accusations in college that are adjudicated without due process. And when the careers of elite athelets are taken down, it raises the stakes to a whole new level. I also know that serious mental illness is on the rise in our young people and that disability (or substance use disorder) can play a part in contributing to the chaos of the situation as well. [None of this is meant to protect coachers or adults in power who prey on underaged people in their care, especially when evidence is uncovered. That is a completely different situation.]
I'm libertarian-ish, and my work on these topics has made me a due process and defamation extremist. Not that I fully trust the criminal justice / court system, but it's the best we've got. Definitely better than physical or digital mobs! I wish we still had the culture where we understand and respect John Adams defending the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre and the ACLU representing the Illinois Nazis.
Your comment only reinforces the point of his article, as if anyone following this case would be remotely shocked that this initial ruling had the outcome it did. They were likely ready and waiting for it and can now move forward with really getting down to things. He was punished by the process itself long before he ever got to tell his side of the story or respond to unverified information, then subjected to a year long abuse of process; that is highly consequential and harmful. Once that happens, the damage is already done.
A year-long suspension and public naming came first. Any opportunity to respond came later, if it came at all. With allegations of this seriousness, a fair process can't be pushed aside. Due process is not optional, nor is meaningful oversight and transparency. Without those protections, what follows is not accountability but damage, and it is most often borne by the most vulnerable.
It has become mob justice to reduce these situations to a crude binary in which men are presumed culpable and women are presumed vulnerable. That framing may be convenient, but it is overly simplistic and deeply flawed. Power dynamics are not something to be assumed. They must be examined. In this case, gender intersects with multiple factors that place him at a disadvantage under any serious social equity analysis. Treating power as self evident rather than situational is not justice. It is ideology.
Unless you would accept the same lack of notice, the same absence of a meaningful defense, and the same reliance on untested claims if you were in his position, it is difficult to see how this process can be defended. I would not accept it. Normalizing this standard means accepting that it can be applied to anyone.
Finally, the public record matters. Documented and verifiable digital facts that directly bear on the broader context do not become irrelevant simply because they complicate a narrative constructed while only one side was loudly and professionally promoted for over a year. This documented information is not just relevant to public discussion, it would almost certainly be relevant in any court proceeding, especially if SafeSport has knowingly ignored exculpatory material and there is any attempt to hide or suppress it. That exact issue has already come up before, including in the fraud ruling handed down to SafeSport last February. If you’re dismissing digital facts as spin, then you’re not interested in getting to the truth. All you are doing here is showing your interest in keeping one narrative alive as "the truth", when no one has a grasp on what that is yet.
Even if Desyatov admitted that—and whether he did so is disputed—it does not change the fact that the Center's temporary suspensions are based solely on accusations. They are not based on any finding of fact or weighing of evidence, not even an admission / "confession" if there is one. And even if you want to interpret XII.A.2(ii) of the SafeSport Code to say that there is an evaluation as part of the decision, there is no standard for that evaluation.
That may all sound really wonky and lawyerly, but as I said in a nearby reply to another commenter, my work on these topics have made me a due process extremist.
If you read any future articles I post here (or elsewhere), I ask that you pay attention to whether I weigh in on the "guilt" or "innocence" of anyone wrapped up in a SafeSport matter. The Center is wholly insufficient to make any such determination. Yet they can inflict a level of damage on an accused individual that is almost unheard of outside of (a) our criminal and civil court systems, which have due process protections and centuries of institutional knowledge; and (b) physical and digital cancelation mobs, which I would hope are not the Center's touchstones.
And that's part of why I chose this case as an example. As I quoted in the article, hard cases make bad law. Perhaps I should start paraphrasing it to something like "Hard cases reveal bad law."
Your comment stating that part of the allegation as fact only illustrates his point. Where is that information verified? Have you seen the texts? Where has she shared the physical copies? Have both sides of the texts been verified for accuracy, contexts and completeness? I’ll finish a final point - the texts that were written about by the French journalist* 1)- a publication which the complainant’s lawyer is a contributing writer to 2) -an article written in French behind a paywall and then translated into English by the complainant herself and then shared in a series of screenshots with verifiable discrepancies- * is the only place we’ve been given this alleged information. The journalist did not make clear he verified these texts himself. Perhaps one day we will see the texts. Until then, the allegation, as presented, by one side only, over and over again through multiple mediums throughout the course of the year while the other side has been silenced- remains unproven and unverified. It is a reasonable to question why any of the PR campaign was necessary, especially since it began before the complaint was even made.
Amazing work! Thank you for the insight in this complex and important matter, that is not given enough visibility. A reform is very much needed and hope those in the power of change take action on this issue and actually protect ALL the athletes regardless their position, acting and investigating fairly and properly. Would love to read more of your work!
A very important piece. It’s a piece of investigative work that shows the need for a spotlight.
Thank you for diving into SafeSport. There is nothing “Safe” about it. It has ruined many athletes and coaches careers by making accusations without a just tribunal. They need to be sanctioned and governed by a set of rules. No more accusations with the accused being unable to publicly speak out against their accuser. Keep up the great reporting.
This situation really is a mess. Why is SafeSport such a debacle? Is it understaffed? Underfunded? Or just stupid? There should be a timeline in which cases must be brought to legitimate law enforcement authorities. Lumping in child predators with lack of consent same-age interactions doesn't seem correct. I am not trying to undermine consent, but the current situation puts athletes into a very tricky situation when anyone can make an accusation and that accusation is by default presumed to be accurate and correct.
I think there's a lot of reasons for why it's such a debacle. One of the macro / upstream reasons is that it can cloak itself in its unassailable founding mission: protecting youth athletes from predators in sporting environments. Of course everyone wants that. The Center says "We do that," so any criticism gets met with "Oh, so you want to go back to days of Larry Nassar?!? Why are you protecting predators?" A corollary of that is that the popularity of due process and protections for the accused are at an all-time low in our culture and society.
Another, lesser known reason is that the Center has a pay-to-play model. They bill each sports federation for each report they receive about someone in that federation, with the amount they charge based on the disposition of the case. So the Center has a financial incentive in the number of complaints / accusations, which seems to cut against their ostensible mission of *reducing* abuse.
I'll limit myself to three, so third, is the the basic dynamics of mission creep and every institution's desire to expand their remit / power. Those dynamics are facilitated by social crises and moral panics, of which we've had plenty in the eight years of the Center's existence.
Thanks for this explanation. I am appalled to learn that it is a pay-to-play model. I could envision a tax/fee on each federation, but pay-to-lay is ridiculous given that it creates the exact wrong incentives (as you have mentioned). Listen, I am a big ol' lliberal, feminist, woke lady. But I am also a parent who has seen young men's lives very negatively impacted by false accusations in college that are adjudicated without due process. And when the careers of elite athelets are taken down, it raises the stakes to a whole new level. I also know that serious mental illness is on the rise in our young people and that disability (or substance use disorder) can play a part in contributing to the chaos of the situation as well. [None of this is meant to protect coachers or adults in power who prey on underaged people in their care, especially when evidence is uncovered. That is a completely different situation.]
I'm libertarian-ish, and my work on these topics has made me a due process and defamation extremist. Not that I fully trust the criminal justice / court system, but it's the best we've got. Definitely better than physical or digital mobs! I wish we still had the culture where we understand and respect John Adams defending the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre and the ACLU representing the Illinois Nazis.
Your comment only reinforces the point of his article, as if anyone following this case would be remotely shocked that this initial ruling had the outcome it did. They were likely ready and waiting for it and can now move forward with really getting down to things. He was punished by the process itself long before he ever got to tell his side of the story or respond to unverified information, then subjected to a year long abuse of process; that is highly consequential and harmful. Once that happens, the damage is already done.
A year-long suspension and public naming came first. Any opportunity to respond came later, if it came at all. With allegations of this seriousness, a fair process can't be pushed aside. Due process is not optional, nor is meaningful oversight and transparency. Without those protections, what follows is not accountability but damage, and it is most often borne by the most vulnerable.
It has become mob justice to reduce these situations to a crude binary in which men are presumed culpable and women are presumed vulnerable. That framing may be convenient, but it is overly simplistic and deeply flawed. Power dynamics are not something to be assumed. They must be examined. In this case, gender intersects with multiple factors that place him at a disadvantage under any serious social equity analysis. Treating power as self evident rather than situational is not justice. It is ideology.
Unless you would accept the same lack of notice, the same absence of a meaningful defense, and the same reliance on untested claims if you were in his position, it is difficult to see how this process can be defended. I would not accept it. Normalizing this standard means accepting that it can be applied to anyone.
Finally, the public record matters. Documented and verifiable digital facts that directly bear on the broader context do not become irrelevant simply because they complicate a narrative constructed while only one side was loudly and professionally promoted for over a year. This documented information is not just relevant to public discussion, it would almost certainly be relevant in any court proceeding, especially if SafeSport has knowingly ignored exculpatory material and there is any attempt to hide or suppress it. That exact issue has already come up before, including in the fraud ruling handed down to SafeSport last February. If you’re dismissing digital facts as spin, then you’re not interested in getting to the truth. All you are doing here is showing your interest in keeping one narrative alive as "the truth", when no one has a grasp on what that is yet.
Desyatov was banned permanently - I do am waiting for his apologists to try playing cheap spin doctors further, as I find it very amusing.
Why are you leaving out the fact that Desyatov admitted he SA her? While organization needs reform, why would you choose this one case as an example?
Even if Desyatov admitted that—and whether he did so is disputed—it does not change the fact that the Center's temporary suspensions are based solely on accusations. They are not based on any finding of fact or weighing of evidence, not even an admission / "confession" if there is one. And even if you want to interpret XII.A.2(ii) of the SafeSport Code to say that there is an evaluation as part of the decision, there is no standard for that evaluation.
That may all sound really wonky and lawyerly, but as I said in a nearby reply to another commenter, my work on these topics have made me a due process extremist.
If you read any future articles I post here (or elsewhere), I ask that you pay attention to whether I weigh in on the "guilt" or "innocence" of anyone wrapped up in a SafeSport matter. The Center is wholly insufficient to make any such determination. Yet they can inflict a level of damage on an accused individual that is almost unheard of outside of (a) our criminal and civil court systems, which have due process protections and centuries of institutional knowledge; and (b) physical and digital cancelation mobs, which I would hope are not the Center's touchstones.
And that's part of why I chose this case as an example. As I quoted in the article, hard cases make bad law. Perhaps I should start paraphrasing it to something like "Hard cases reveal bad law."
Your comment stating that part of the allegation as fact only illustrates his point. Where is that information verified? Have you seen the texts? Where has she shared the physical copies? Have both sides of the texts been verified for accuracy, contexts and completeness? I’ll finish a final point - the texts that were written about by the French journalist* 1)- a publication which the complainant’s lawyer is a contributing writer to 2) -an article written in French behind a paywall and then translated into English by the complainant herself and then shared in a series of screenshots with verifiable discrepancies- * is the only place we’ve been given this alleged information. The journalist did not make clear he verified these texts himself. Perhaps one day we will see the texts. Until then, the allegation, as presented, by one side only, over and over again through multiple mediums throughout the course of the year while the other side has been silenced- remains unproven and unverified. It is a reasonable to question why any of the PR campaign was necessary, especially since it began before the complaint was even made.