# Suspension but still coaching ?



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

Arrowstrong said:


> I am in Gainesville at Trials and VERY confused. In these days where so many are being fired, resigning and worse for sexual misconduct or even misrepresentation in a sexual manner why is this not the case with one of our own? We all have been informed of Mel Nicholas suspension for alleged misconduct, but here he is at Trials coaching. Am I wrong that our sport is now ok with a man who is suspended for a 6 month time period to be on the floor coaching? What message is this giving the victims? What message is this giving our sport? He was tried and convicted, but authorities do nothing?
> Asked why this comment is my first post, why not? I think FITA JOAD is Just pretending nothing happened, maybe no one will notice. Well the wrong message is being sent by allowing this to happen.


Maybe the suspension is over.

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## fita_chick (Jan 29, 2009)

https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/About-USA-Archery/Suspensions

maybe he wasn't coaching?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

That says he is suspended until March 18 2018.


You would think he would not be at any sanctioned USA Archery event in any capacity during the 6 months.

Otherwise, what is the suspension. 

But to be honest, i had been told his suspension was a slap on the wrist, and the suspension only 6 months through the winter months when not much goes on. I have no idea if that is true but it does match the facts.




Chris


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

The suspension is from the organization only. I suspect that there is no rule in place requiring anyone to be a member in good standing in order to coach on or off the field. The archer can probably have anyone as "coach" with them, certified or not, and member or not.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

If he can coach at a sanctioned USA archery event, then what is the suspension? 

Chris


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

This is my point, so he gets suspended but struts around as if nothing happened. I personally know of an archer who is suspended in my opinion for doing less then Mel and that archer is NOT ALLOWED to step into the facilities to even watch. I feel this slap on the wrist is a slap in the faces of his victims. While Mel has been allowed to be coaching and participating at this event it shows that he is above the laws of FITA and JOAD. I am also just as disappointed with the athletes that he is there for, they know the rules, the suspensions and yet they also find it ok for him to be there.


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

He should NOT be allowed on the field, and YES he is coaching. Sitting here watching this makes me sick to my stomach


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

It is very true, this was an on going investigation and the 6 months is not long enough when Zak got 12 months. Mel, an adult mentor knew what he was doing and used his power to influence MINORS ! This is NOT how our organization should be run.


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

As with so many other situations,, It's all about who you know or who you are associated with!


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> If he can coach at a sanctioned USA archery event, then what is the suspension?
> 
> Chris


I'm not in any way defending the person (I have no idea what the details were) but I'm just suggesting that the rules regarding such a suspension are simply not comprehensive enough, and there's no legal basis to bar him from the field. The suspension seems to only apply to membership in USArchery and likely suspension of his credentials, so he can't rightfully call himself a "Level X" certified coach.

Obviously something needs to be addressed in terms of sanctions, but you can't really do that retroactively.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Hm. I’ve been here the whole time (morning and afternoon sessions) and can say that he’s been sitting there just watching things in the spectator area, which is perfectly legal. 

This is a public event and is not an event that requires credentials to attend. USA Archery can’t restrict anyone from watching the Trials.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Arrowstrong said:


> He should NOT be allowed on the field, and YES he is coaching. Sitting here watching this makes me sick to my stomach


well here is the issue. If I am an archer I have a right to contract with anyone I please to coach me. Mr Nichols, during the suspension is probably prohibited from participating as an athlete in a sanctioned USAA event. Mr Nichols as a coach cannot be part of a USAA team that represents the USA in international competition. Mr Nichols probably cannot serve as an instructor at a coaching certification event hosted under the auspices of the USAA. If an archer wants to hire Mr. Nichols to coach him or her I do not believe that the USAA can prevent that. and I believe that the archer would have good grounds to file suit or demand arbitration against the USAA if he or she was told that his or her choice of a coach was not permitted. Now, the point you make-should he be allowed in a building hosting a USAA event is one that is worth discussion and I have no position one way or another. 

BTW are you familiar with the factual background of Mr. Nichols suspension and why exactly are "you sick to your stomach"? 

Just curious what you actually know about this matter


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> Hm. I’ve been here the whole time (morning and afternoon sessions) and can say that he’s been sitting there just watching things in the spectator area, which is perfectly legal.
> 
> This is a public event and is not an event that requires credentials to attend. USA Archery can’t restrict anyone from watching the Trials.


well that sort of puts an end to all the speculation 
good post Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Mel and I spent part of yesterday talking about WA rules and Brady’s boots, which included the infamous letter about how it is the opinion from WA powers that be that “Rodeo is not a sport”. At no time during the 4 hours we literally sat next to each other did any coaching occur. 

Today he has been sitting in a spot next to the DOS stand, in plain view of the COJ and DOS. I’ve been nearby. 

I do understand that this is a confusing issue. Let me simplify it - for the time being, he is the same as any private person. He can attend public functions. He can be a spectator. He can talk to anyone he wants to. 

Since the Newberry Facility is public, and the tournament is a public tournament, anyone can come and watch. 

USA Archery, like every NGB, is operating under what the Center for Safesport is having them do. Anything beyond that is not allowed per the contract between the NGB and Safesport. 

So, if someone is not liking what is going on, they really need to contact the Center for Safesport. Posting on here about it isn’t going to be useful at all. 

-Steve


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

Ok so you bring up safe sport. I will take it one step further, IF a person is convicted of a sexual misconduct act ( which at this time Mel has not been officially convicted of, nor do I anticipate will happen with the same victims ) he gets placed on a sexual predator list..... which makes it illegal for him to be in a public building, park or grounds where minors are located. It then becomes a legal matter and that sticks with sexual predators for their life. 
Since he is suspended from USAA I would have thought he would NOT be allowed in the venue. Having him present with the facts of his case is cause to make some females which he has had contact with uneasy, resulting in fear and the mental makeup of their shooting. 
Yes I do know this case, way too well, yes the sight of him does upset me, as if he is mightier than a slap on his wrist. Sorry for the rant but some should have to pay for past actions


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Arrowstrong said:


> Ok so you bring up safe sport. I will take it one step further, IF a person is convicted of a sexual misconduct act ( which at this time Mel has not been officially convicted of, nor do I anticipate will happen with the same victims ) he gets placed on a sexual predator list..... which makes it illegal for him to be in a public building, park or grounds where minors are located. It then becomes a legal matter and that sticks with sexual predators for their life.
> Since he is suspended from USAA I would have thought he would NOT be allowed in the venue. Having him present with the facts of his case is cause to make some females which he has had contact with uneasy, resulting in fear and the mental makeup of their shooting.
> Yes I do know this case, way too well, yes the sight of him does upset me, as if he is mightier than a slap on his wrist. Sorry for the rant but some should have to pay for past actions


do you know who brought the complaint and when did the incident in question take place?


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

Yes I do know the facts. 


Also well versed in our code of conduct in safe sport. You can review them on team USA. Google safe sport USA archery nd become familiar


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Arrowstrong said:


> Yes I do know the facts.
> 
> 
> Also well versed in our code of conduct in safe sport. You can review them on team USA. Google safe sport USA archery nd become familiar


well unlike you I am not some anonymous poster with a few posts and a couple days on this forum. I am a retired DOJ attorney who during my 24 year career handled hundreds of cases of sexual harassment, discrimination, Title VII cases and I recently completed a 6 year term as the Chairman of what USAA would call the board of justice and As SAFE SPORT chairman for another national governing body. Most of the people who post on this forum know who I am, have met me in person and have seen me, either as a competitor, a coach or a judge at one of approximately 40 national events I have attended over the last 22 years. So what I say here is attributable to me, not some nameless handle that most people have no idea who is saying that. 

I am not taking any position on what Mr Nichols is accused of doing. I know Mr. Nichols, we sat together and interacted during the USOC "coach of the year" dinner and weekend in Colorado springs 6 years ago when I was the USAA "coach of the year" recipient and a finalist for the USOC volunteer coach of the year. I also know Mr. Nichols because two of the finalists for the 2016 team are archers from my club and through them I have interacted with Mr. Nichols. Based on that interaction, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Nichols based ONLY on my interaction with him and the interaction and help he has given to these two boys

that in no way mitigates or accentuates whatever alleged wrongdoing Mr. Nichols is accused of but I am mainly noting the legalities of a "ban" and what it cannot do

so perhaps your advice to me as to what I need to do to become familiar with this issue is a bit misplaced.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I know nothing of the details of the case, only what USA archery posted about the suspension. And i do not know Mel personally. 

But i think if you are suspended by USA Archery for some infraction, then you shouldn't be at a sanctioned USA archery event. It may be allowed, but it doesnt look good for you in my opinion. 

Chris


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

I am impressed with your history. Can you enlighten us then what does a suspension for sexual harassment actually mean? 

Many many people have been put on pedestals for their wonderful attributes..... Bill Cosby, Rubin Kihuen, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein to name some. All of these famous people were once thought of as wise, loved individuals by their past actions. Well all of these also now have been brought to light as sexual hassassment charges are coming out. Do you still as a retired DOJ attorney feel that these individuals should only receive a 6 month slap on the wrist?

For the record, I know you, I know Mel, I have been in many good conversations with Mel, that was about 5 years ago. But I also have spoken with the girls / young women who were brave enough to speak up. He was on trial in the eyes os USAA and was handed a 6 month suspension. What does a suspension mean? I have a photo of him talking and working with equipment of a young female archer today outside. Is it made public what he was suspended for? Do these young individuals know or are they mesmerized by the fact that Mel wants to help them?

In no way am I here to ban him forever, but I would like to see OUR professional organization be just that, professional. If this helps one person see that our system might be broken then I have done all I can do.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I don't think the USAA has the power to prevent him from working on someone's equipment "outside". Since I don't know ALL the facts in this case I am only going to comment in general: I do know that many claims of harassment have legitimacy-such as that doctor who abused and now is going to do LWOP for his assaults on girls on the US Gymnastics team/ But I have also seen many cases of bogus claims of harassment that even if true, didn't rise anywhere near being criminal actions. and in some cases, I have issues with claims being made years after the alleged actions take place.


----------



## Demmer3 (Apr 23, 2017)

Gotta love people hiding behind screen names. I believe next to nothing I hear and only half I see. And I believe 0 I hear from someone who is only an internet ghost.

Carry on. Like Beast said, rather pointless posting here if you have issues with this. This ain't the NFL and he isn't a hired employee directly by US Archery.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer3 (Apr 23, 2017)

Also, if scores are being suffered because someone shows up, maybe this needs to be a mail in where everyone shoots by themselves at their own local club, because competition also hurts scores for many people. So, that is a pointless argument.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

This is a very interesting and contentious topic. I think many of us feel beat up by the additional costs, effort, scrutiny, and risks posed by Safe Sport, and are alarmed that a violation may have had no apparent significant impact. I think we are equally alarmed by the prospect of false accusation and/or being sanctioned for something that is not against the law or adequately proven. On the other hand, USA Archery is a private organization with a right to affiliate or un-affiliate with anyone they want based on their published membership and participation criteria.

I do think that Jim has great experience and an excellent view of the situation, both professionally and via his very extensive involvement in the archery community. I am not sure who the ghost is who more or less just created an AT account to slam the coach in question, however I do think they are genuinely concerned and bring up a great point about suspension and what it means. I imagine it is shocking to see someone who was suspended showing up at an event and more-or-less carrying on like nothing happened. But then again, maybe this coach's view is that he did not actually do anything wrong (or bad enough to suspend), has not been proven to any reasonable standard of evidence, and can and should carry on in the face of injustice. What a horrible pickle this is!

I do wonder if this is reaching witch hunt proportions, with all the crazy allegations and how fashionable it is to point the finger at prominent people. On the other hand, I think it is pretty clear that alot of monkey business occurred and people looked aside. Some of it is just changing social norms and some of it is undoubtedly bad people who took advantage of the situation.

I will say that it seems Safe Sport is out to get coaches, definitely not there to protect them. I would like to see them adopt policies to protect both coaches and athletes, and provide mandatory athlete training to complement the mandatory coach training.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

j.conner said:


> This is a very interesting and contentious topic. I think many of us feel beat up by the additional costs, effort, scrutiny, and risks posed by Safe Sport, and are alarmed that a violation may have had no apparent significant impact. I think we are equally alarmed by the prospect of false accusation and/or being sanctioned for something that is not against the law or adequately proven. On the other hand, USA Archery is a private organization with a right to affiliate or un-affiliate with anyone they want based on their published membership and participation criteria.
> 
> I do think that Jim has great experience and an excellent view of the situation, both professionally and via his very extensive involvement in the archery community. I am not sure who the ghost is who more or less just created an AT account to slam the coach in question, however I do think they are genuinely concerned and bring up a great point about suspension and what it means. I imagine it is shocking to see someone who was suspended showing up at an event and more-or-less carrying on like nothing happened. But then again, maybe this coach's view is that he did not actually do anything wrong (or bad enough to suspend), has not been proven to any reasonable standard of evidence, and can and should carry on in the face of injustice. What a horrible pickle this is!
> 
> ...


some of it is well meaning, some of it is needed, and some of it is overreaction and hyperventilating. The sorry example we all have seen from what has happened with that now jailed for life doctor in Gymnastics has caused frenzy of both justified concern and hyperbolic over reaction in many NGBs where the insurance carriers often dictate policies.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

from a legal standpoint, a NGB's main power is that of contract. You join USA Archery and you agree to follow certain codes of conduct. If you violate those codes of conduct in a way that does not rise to a criminal action, you essentially have committed a "breach of contract" and in most cases the only sanction the NGB can impose is to suspend or terminate your membership in that organization. Now if you are suspended as a member of the USAA that means several things including you cannot participate in activities that require USAA membership-representing the USA in an archery event where the USAA is the governing body. Holding office in the USAA. Being part of a USAA selected team. But there is nothing that requires you to be a USAA certified coach to coach others in archery. You might not be listed on their matrix of certified coaches, but if someone is willing to pay you to coach them, there is nothing the USAA can do to stop that. In archery events held on public property such as a state part or a municipal park its difficult to prevent someone from watching if non-members are allowed to watch. 

So that is the legal explanation. Ask yourself what someone who is a non-member can do in relation to a USAA event. that is essentially what someone under suspension can do because the only thing USAA can do to a member is to suspend or terminate their membership. Now if a member causes tortious harm to the organization, then the organization can file a law suit in the appropriate civil court and pursue satisfaction that way and that might be parallel to suspending the individual's membership. But a tort suit can be instigated against a non-member for the same cause as well.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

"Ask yourself what someone who is a non-member can do in relation to a USAA event. that is essentially what someone under suspension can do because the only thing USAA can do to a member is to suspend or terminate their membership."

This is an excellent analysis. One thing USAA can also do, however, is publish the suspension, which they have done. It suprises me that USAA does so directly instead of just referring to SafeSport and having them publish it. It seems like they are risking a defamation law suit.

LOL, hyperventilation and hyperbole... great description for where this is headed, like some grand morality play. I was on the path to become an archery superstar but Weinstein blacklisted me and my scores suffered terribly. I got all the bad lanes and inattentive judges, registration kept mixing up my name, and the score keepers transposed numbers - all because I rebuked his furtive gaze.

"Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit and lost without deserving."


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

(1) Not saying Nichols is a predator but are we really setting the precedent that sanctioned events, including ones run by and for USA Archery like Trials, are public access and beyond control of the organizer? [I get people don't agree with the slapped on label here but it is what it is at present.] I hear John and other coaches on here like I control this space, in terms of people trying to participate in JOAD.
(2) I can understand where a disciplinary board might say an athlete who got in trouble at campus/event should be banned from campus/events. But surely this then lays out a rationale/sets a precedent for how to handle a coach. And I cannot believe that an entity that certifies you to coach cannot dictate whether you can do so in even the more informal senses, if you want to stay certified. Coach and athlete get into heated confrontation, coach manhandles athlete and gets suspended. You really telling me we can't tell coach, "you can't coach" in any sense of the word?
(3) Are you really trying to tell me that we can police athletes strictly using a broad definition of what it means to be an "athlete" (access to national facilities, events, sanctioned competition), but coaches can go to those same events and places as "private citizens" and act as a coach, because we will narrowly define "coach" as holding out the USAA certificate to new students and representing an athlete in particular spaces at particular credentialed (outdoor mostly) sanctioned events.
(4) Except, when's the next event requiring a credential, did they basically hit him with a suspension limited to events that aren't taking place, that expires before another one happens. Is this basically saying you can't go to USATs during indoor season, wink wink?
(5) I understand losing cases or appeals you thought you should win but it's odd to be using convictions as a basis for "witch hunt" arguments without even saying, look, here's how what happened was a witch hunt. All John Q. Public (like me) knows is accused of misconduct and found guilty. If you think he was railroaded, explain. I understand people are concerned about false positives and crazy allegations but unless you can explain how this was railroading it comes across like wagon-circling. This is the era of Weinstein and a US Gymnastics coach going to jail, after all.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

gymnastics coach = team doctor


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Maybe it's not in the bylaws but in my profession there are private and/or public reprimands independent of suspension or permanent removal from the profession. I think some of those responding are reacting to "this is a public reprimand dressed as a suspension." The scarlet letter is applied but what's he suspended from?

I think the other part people are reacting to is that part of the function of disciplinary publicity -- rather than say, a private reprimand in your file -- is alerting the rest of us to participate in community enforcement. They can't be everywhere so let me let you all know that he's suspended so you know if he's there he's not supposed to be competing or coaching. And then he shows up at the official event and coaches. At which point I'm like if you're going to parse it that way and make it public then give us a more elaborate (and parsed) communication of the resolution. Otherwise you're not just playing with the "suspension" part, you're running afoul of the "public" part where you made a point of telling us this. Whole idea is transparency and feeling like if we saw an infraction of the suspension that's also part of the community enforcing their decision.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

A few comments:

1) This is new territory for USA Archery. Being very blunt, I don’t think anyone envisioned a scenario like this. I sure as heck haven’t. 

Being that, no one really knows what the ground rules are supposed to be. This, frankly, is where SafeSport should be leading us, and they aren’t. 

2) Like Jim, I have a problem with someone speaking up years after the fact. If it’s not okay now, then it wasn’t okay then. Why wait? 

3) Times change. What we used to do then (like transport oodles of kids on our own as coaches, for example) isn’t kosher now. Will something like that bite us? 

4) I do feel this will get better. Hopefully in the future we will be given ground rules on what we can and cannot do. 

From a personal take on this: Mel knows the ground rules as they stand now. At least in Arizona, all of the major events know the ground rules as well. He’s welcome to spectate and be there for the upcoming State Indoor and State JOAD Indoor while staying in the spectator area. He can watch his kids, his private students, and talk with his friends. He just can’t be a coach in an official, USA Archery team capacity. 

-Steve


----------



## jwrigley (Nov 8, 2012)

Beastmaster said:


> A few comments:
> 
> 
> 2) Like Jim, I have a problem with someone speaking up years after the fact. If it’s not okay now, then it wasn’t okay then. Why wait?


I wanted to stay out of this debate as I don't know the facts but I have to take issue with the above statement. 

Victims of abuse are by their nature vulnerable. Predatory abusers know this and prey on the fact that their victims are unlikely to come forward. As a childhood victim of abuse by a coach myself (not in archery) I can tell you that the 13 year old me neither understood what was happening nor would have had the first idea of what to do about it - during or after the fact. By the time I was mature enough to understand my abuser was dead. But you may be sure that if that wasn't the case and I had knowledge that he had access to children I would have come forward albeit many years after the incident had occurred.

I applaud the people who have found the courage to come forward. Many victims of abuse try to put their trauma behind them and get on with their lives. I see it as an unselfish act for those to come forward and stand in support of their fellow victims.

I'll make one more point to any who want to downplay or defend actions which have be deemed inappropriate enough to earn a suspension. You would do well to take a lesson from a recent courtcase In Ireland where two prominent sports personalities provided character references for a well known sports journalist accused of grooming and sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl. When said journalist was eventually found guilty both sports stars found their own careers destroyed. Be careful whose star you hitch your wagon to.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I will stay out of this debate except to say that this kind of crap is the reason I'm stepping away from USArchery both as a coach and archer, and frankly, why I'm also taking a break from AT. I've had enough of the hyper-PC reactionary drama associated with both USArchery and AT. 

Everyone these days is a victim. Give me a friggin' break.


----------



## jwrigley (Nov 8, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Everyone these days is a victim. Give me a friggin' break.


Maybe I was a victim back then. I'm not anymore BTW. 

I do seem to remember a quote from you on another thread on this topic complaining about how you were the victim of helicopter parents who tried to destroy your reputation. But hey, if you can't stand up for vulnerable people maybe stepping away isn't such a bad idea.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL. 

"if you can't stand up for vulnerable people..." 

You have no idea what or who you are talking about. But hey, you don't have to. This is the internet right?


----------



## jwrigley (Nov 8, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> LOL.
> 
> "if you can't stand up for vulnerable people..."
> 
> You have no idea what or who you are talking about. But hey, you don't have to. This is the internet right?


True. I don't know you but have read enough of your posts to know who you are John. Up to some of your comments on the suspensions issue I held you in high regard. Equally, You have no idea who I am nor what the 'victims' that you seem to find so insignificant have been through. 

I didn't come here to pick a fight with you nor anyone else but if you think that victims should just suck it up and get over themselves then I'm certain coaching isn't a good fit for you no matter how talented and archer you used to be.

That's me done on this subject. You can have the last word....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You can have the last word....


LOL of course.

Ahh, the internet.


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

Arrowstrong said:


> This is my point, so he gets suspended but struts around as if nothing happened. I personally know of an archer who is suspended in my opinion for doing less then Mel and that archer is NOT ALLOWED to step into the facilities to even watch. I feel this slap on the wrist is a slap in the faces of his victims. While Mel has been allowed to be coaching and participating at this event it shows that he is above the laws of FITA and JOAD. I am also just as disappointed with the athletes that he is there for, they know the rules, the suspensions and yet they also find it ok for him to be there.


And WHAT did he do exactly? Do you know, if so send me a private message. Dont post it here please.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

I have been out of touch with the organization for a couple of decades, so I never met Mel before this weekend in Gainesville, and I was not aware that he was the focus of the controversy and suspension that I heard about vaguely earlier. I only met the man briefly and did not know who he was but when I asked if he was coaching a certain athlete, the answer he gave was yes.

So regardless of what happened, the suspension appears to be ineffective, and has generated confusion and yet another controversy that festers among the membership. Too bad, because that kind of thing is part of why I lost interest years ago. As an organization, if we are going to send a message about how to treat athletes it needs to be clear and effective. But then, clarity and unity in purpose has never been something the organization has sought in leadership. More, it has gravitated to leadership that just doesn't risk pissing too many people off. 

Most of the people that I have encountered in the NAA/USA Archery organization over the years are outstanding people. There will always be a small part of any population that is not up to some standard. In the case of being inappropriate or abusive of athletes, I would draw a hard line and send a clear message. Not an ambivalent one.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lcaillo said:


> I have been out of touch with the organization for a couple of decades, so I never met Mel before this weekend in Gainesville, and I was not aware that he was the focus of the controversy and suspension that I heard about vaguely earlier. I only met the man briefly and did not know who he was but when I asked if he was coaching a certain athlete, the answer he gave was yes.
> 
> So regardless of what happened, the suspension appears to be ineffective, and has generated confusion and yet another controversy that festers among the membership. Too bad, because that kind of thing is part of why I lost interest years ago. As an organization, if we are going to send a message about how to treat athletes it needs to be clear and effective. But then, clarity and unity in purpose has never been something the organization has sought in leadership. More, it has gravitated to leadership that just doesn't risk pissing too many people off.
> 
> Most of the people that I have encountered in the NAA/USA Archery organization over the years are outstanding people. There will always be a small part of any population that is not up to some standard. In the case of being inappropriate or abusive of athletes, I would draw a hard line and send a clear message. Not an ambivalent one.


I realize that interjecting legal realities in a conversation like this can be problematic but based on the fact that the suspension is one based on contract, how can USAA prevent the execution of a contract between Mr. Nichols and another individual? that would be interference with a contract which has tortious ramifications. The USAA can prevent Mr. Nichols from serving as a USAA coach in USAA sponsored trips. They can suspend his coaching credentials meaning he cannot claim to be a USAA certified coach in good standing during the suspension. However, they cannot prevent him from coaching a willing archer nor can they instigate any actions against an archer who chooses Mr. Nichols as a coach, just as they cannot tell an athlete that his or her "non certified" coach is not able to coach the athlete.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Suspension from duty? or Suspension from any archery activities? 

Anyway, As long as the order stands, it shall be respected. 

Fighting the system abuse culture, instead of becoming part of it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

chang said:


> Suspension from duty? or Suspension from any archery activities?
> 
> Anyway, As long as the order stands, it shall be respected.
> 
> Fighting the system abuse culture, instead of becoming part of it.


suspension of his membership. Just like someone who lets his membership lapse and fails to pay dues. its a contract issue


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

Jim C said:


> suspension of his membership. Just like someone who lets his membership lapse and fails to pay dues. its a contract issue


Jim,
Does USA archery have a “duty” to warn or make safe for people that have been suspended? Or does the notice in the newsletter satisfy that duty? Similar to a school district having a duty to report an employee with improper conduct. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Tbarkeriii said:


> Jim,
> Does USA archery have a “duty” to warn or make safe for people that have been suspended? Or does the notice in the newsletter satisfy that duty? Similar to a school district having a duty to report an employee with improper conduct.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



that's a really good question and I think by listing it on its website its done "due diligence" AKA CYA. now the problem is that we may run into is actionable defamation as a counter attack by the person suspended. I know that a couple universities/colleges are looking at very expensive law suit defenses (and if they lose 7-8 figure verdicts) where students were expelled pursuant to their anti sexual harassment codes and in one case (at least) the "victim" admitted on social media that she had drugged the "rapist" and so forth but he was still expelled. I wouldn't want to be Amherst's insurance carrier right now.

the process by which someone's membership can be suspended or terminated is generally one of contract and if that is the only damage to someone who claims the process did not meet proper standards of due process etc, damages aren't going to be high. However, if a coach is labeled a "sexual predator" by an organization (without any criminal conviction) that could cause substantial damages and could subject the NGB to some rather spectacular damages. 

its a minefield these days for NGBs on two fronts-one is counter suits for defamation etc by those accused of misconduct by the NGB, and the other is NGBs being sued by victims if the NGB doesn't take action against an individual who the NGB knows, or should have known, is an abuser (Sort of like the massive suits that hit the Roman Catholic Church a decade or more ago)


----------



## Lumis17 (Jun 9, 2003)

jwrigley said:


> I wanted to stay out of this debate as I don't know the facts but I have to take issue with the above statement.


Just wanted to say that I had the same issues with these statements, but I feel that, and am hoping, something got lost in translation. I’d like to think that everyone knows victim shaming is bad. The issue is that knowing when assault/harassment/etc actually occur is not always straight forward nor apparent to those outside looking in. I don’t envy USArchery, or any large entity, right now. Erring on the side of caution is not always correct; you can be damned if you do and damned if you don’t regardless of what you do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don’t envy USArchery, or any large entity, right now. Erring on the side of caution is not always correct; you can be damned if you do and damned if you don’t regardless of what you do.


Bingo


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The timing of all these recent suspensions and the previous CEO's departure makes a person go "hmm..."


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

What is the impact of a “suspension” on the background check system? In other words, once suspended can that individual pass the background check going forward?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Tbarkeriii said:


> What is the impact of a “suspension” on the background check system? In other words, once suspended can that individual pass the background check going forward?


they should since that is not a criminal issue. good question though


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Again, I think Jim is point-on from a legal perspective. SafeSport had better start protecting coaches too or it will end up being sued out of existence for defamation. The only thing saving them now is that the stakes are low enough that the accused is unlikely to sue or be awarded much. I also think that USA Archery is taking a big risk by publishing the suspension list themselves instead of referring inquiries directly to SafeSport and let them take it on the nose. Likewise, referring all complaints directly to SafeSport and letting them handle it.

I also really feel for Limbwalker's point of view. It is terrible to be unjustly on the receiving end of the wrath of helicopter parents, who now have a powerful weapon against coaches. Many coaches are retired, just trying to promote the sport and help kids, working on a volunteer basis, and then get slapped in the face for it. There seems to be a presumption of guilt and no defense. It is easy to understand why someone would just walk away from it.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Re whether people know what they are talking about, half the point here is other than a punchline in the USAA newsletter most of us know nothing. That cuts both ways. Maybe good coaches accused of inaccurate things don't need to be smeared. But don't you kind of want people to know what they are dealing with when someone gets "dinged?" If it's something serious, then the "sunshine" alerts people. If it's not serious but they call it "sexual harassment," well, that might be useful information in terms of institutional reform. Ditto if someone who feels messed over sheds light on the process. OK, that's fair. Or, wow, that's jacked up, you didn't get due process really. But we don't really know and so it's like one set defending the person and the other set concerned about that category of accusation being taken seriously. Somewhat Rohrschach psychologically but from a due process and informing the constituents level it's an opaque black box spitting out a single sentence.

Isn't the middle ground here a well-running internal due process? I think people are taking my posts as the pitchfork brigade but it's really, far as I can tell, they had due process and they lost. I am open to them being guilty. I am open to them having been railroaded. But unless people want to explain how the system is jacked or offer an explanation what happened or how their process was jacked, all I know is they got found guilty. At which point, when people are found guilty, I want appropriate punishment.

There is a risk of wrongful smearing. So you do a process. There is also a risk of exposing others to harm. Ditto. If there are problems with the process you fix the process, not back away from responsibility.

There is a conundrum on "waiting for the DA" where maybe the DA thinks there is some evidence but isn't going to risk losing at this time. Or maybe there isn't really a criminal law on the subject. Or maybe the victim won't move forward. Or maybe it's a small thing to the criminal justice system but enough to matter to us. So you have someone the authorities won't try and they want to participate in your sport. At least some of these scenarios it's like, you can't just slough the effort onto government authorities as "better due process" or CYA. You may need your own house in order.

Re the "contract" discussion, why can't I say that, while I cannot control you outside the credential sphere, that as the entity that controls whether you get back in the credential sphere, our terms are you shouldn't be coaching for 6 months, even unofficially. Or if someone actually was a predator, we wash our hands of you, we do not sanction you coaching anyone, ever. And if you have a coaching contract and can't fulfill it, that sounds like somewhere between your own fault and force majeure. I don't know if, depending on the offense, I would be comfortable with "but this is my job and I have a contract." Presumably the gymnastics team doctor had a deal, too. Yeah, we'll consider that one broken.

Not saying it should be universal, but it should be a tool in the tool box. In certain heinous cases I think you want the option to literally say, x can't be at public events, can't even informally participate or coach, that the power is not limited to credentialing and past that point it's private lives and contract. Even if we can't enforce it.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I mean, yes, we can't stop x from coaching in certain contexts. But why can't we say, x, if you ever want credentials in the contexts we can control, these are our terms. For example, they can't make a drunk or addict go to rehab and stay there for a period, but maybe that's what's appropriate if someone with those problems, that spill over in a context within their control ("drunk parent/coach at competition screams at judges"), wants to come back and coach or compete.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I agree with Azurri's posts. 

And i also take USA Archery and Safe Sport at thier decision. They found someone guilty and dealt out a suspension. 

I am not inclined to believe first that prople were railroaded. If the offense was serious enough for USA archery to send it to Safe Sport and they investigated and found it true. Thats good enough for me. If they hand down a suspension or punishment and USA Archery posts it to the membership. I have to take it at face value.

I dont need to know every detail. I also believe if someone were falsely accused or railroaded, there are avenues to address that as well, including this public forum. No one has come forward to publically offer any version of false accusation or railroading.

There are enough real victims of predatory people that you cant just tell people to have a backbone. Tell that to the girls on the USA gymnastics team. 

The situations in USA archery with the recent suspensions may not Have risen to that abusive level, but they were violations of rules and /or Safe Sport. And the punishment should be treated seriously by the membership. Such violations should not be tolerated. 

And false accusations can be dealt with by our civil justice court system. 

No one is saying innocent until proven guilty. These are clear cut cases where guilty was the verdict under USA Archery. 

Chris


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> I agree with Azurri's posts.
> 
> And i also take USA Archery and Safe Sport at thier decision. They found someone guilty and dealt out a suspension.
> 
> ...


what is the standard of proof that was used in this case? Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or merely a preponderance of the evidence?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Jim C said:


> what is the standard of proof that was used in this case? Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or merely a preponderance of the evidence?


to be honest, I have no idea. But i have to take at face value the investigation and verdict. I also never know the case or Jury findings in any other situation. I have to take the verdict at face value. Much like the recent illegal immigrant case in San Francisco, where the guy was acquitted of the charges. Or the Doctor accused of abusing the USA gymnasts. He was found guilty, got a punishment.

when i don't know the details, I have to go by the verdict and punishment rendered. 

These two USA archery suspensions weren't tried in public opinion or the membership. I have to believe they were handled professionally and the verdict reached was fair, just and in the best interest of the parties involved. While they do not appear to be criminal with charges, Safe sport and or USA archery found them guilty in their court. Right or wrong. What else am i or anyone else supposed to do with the findings and punishment dealt???

I actually really like the young man who was suspended. Personally i felt the female should also have been suspended. Two in that situation knew the rules. Two broke the rules. Only one was sanctioned. I hope that the young man returns to the sport after his suspension is up. It will be a shame if he does not. 

For the coach, i feel he has shown poor character during his suspension, and while i have recommended him to my JOAD students in the past, i will no longer do so. One for the actual violation, and also for ignoring the spirit of the sanction and portraying an attitude that he is above the suspension and not bound by it. Finding loop holes to benefit and skirt a suspension is not a moral attitude i expect from a National coach. 

Thats my personal opinion based on no evidence of either suspension situation. But if you only give me minimal facts, i will make my own conclusions. and i think most everyone else will also. 

And i will add one last point. My opinion may be right or wrong. People may like me or not. But i do not hide behind an anonymous screen name. I sign my name on every post i make. I stand behind all my posts. Sometimes i have to apologize or admit I'm wrong. I think if you are going to call out a person or situation, you should sign your name to it and stand behind it publicly. 

Chris


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

Arrowstrong said:


> Ok so you bring up safe sport. I will take it one step further, IF a person is convicted of a sexual misconduct act ( which at this time Mel has not been officially convicted of, nor do I anticipate will happen with the same victims ) he gets placed on a sexual predator list..... which makes it illegal for him to be in a public building, park or grounds where minors are located. It then becomes a legal matter and that sticks with sexual predators for their life.
> Since he is suspended from USAA I would have thought he would NOT be allowed in the venue. Having him present with the facts of his case is cause to make some females which he has had contact with uneasy, resulting in fear and the mental makeup of their shooting.
> Yes I do know this case, way too well, yes the sight of him does upset me, as if he is mightier than a slap on his wrist. Sorry for the rant but some should have to pay for past actions


You seem to be going on like he has been convicted of something I personally like to know a little bit more of what happened because in this day and age of PC Justice Warriors a lot of stuff that goes out into the world is not exactly true or is exceptionally one-sided . If whatever happened is serious enough to Warrant legal action I would understand your attitude. If not then I'm a little confused exactly what happened if it's not serious enough for legal action that is serious enough to get him removed from his position for a while then I think a little more explanation of the terms is due.



Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## moomooholycow (Sep 15, 2016)

Slightly off topic; but is Mel some brand of Asian-American? I ask as an Asian American who professionally studies Asian Americans (really) </slightly off-topic>


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> to be honest, I have no idea. But i have to take at face value the investigation and verdict. I also never know the case or Jury findings in any other situation. I have to take the verdict at face value. Much like the recent illegal immigrant case in San Francisco, where the guy was acquitted of the charges. Or the Doctor accused of abusing the USA gymnasts. He was found guilty, got a punishment.
> 
> when i don't know the details, I have to go by the verdict and punishment rendered.
> 
> ...


again, the suspension is of his membership-pure and simple. what does that entail. The other athlete in question can certainly continue to train because you don't have to be a member to practice archery


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

moomooholycow said:


> Slightly off topic; but is Mel some brand of Asian-American? I ask as an Asian American who professionally studies Asian Americans (really) </slightly off-topic>


IIRC he is of Hawaiin ancestry


----------



## moomooholycow (Sep 15, 2016)

Jim C said:


> IIRC he is of Hawaiin ancestry


Thanks tons.


----------



## jwrigley (Nov 8, 2012)

moomooholycow said:


> Slightly off topic; but is Mel some brand of Asian-American? I ask as an Asian American who professionally studies Asian Americans (really) </slightly off-topic>


Not that I think race belongs in this discussion even academically but there are certainly plenty of pictures of him in Hawaii on his facebook page. Interesting to see how many sponsors he has for a coach too. I wonder what they are making of all of this?


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

I don't disagree with Jim on the legal aspects. My point is that regardless, the suspension appears to be meaningless. Did the response to whatever happened leave archers feeling more confident in the organization's commitment to keeping them safe, or not. My guess is not. That is my criteria for effectiveness. Now, if under the by-laws and/or law there was nothing else that could have been done, perhaps we need to look at changing those. The bottom line is, does the accuser feel confident that the organization takes the matter seriously? All this assumes, of course, that there was something deserving sanction. If there was not and this was a purely CYA action, then that would be nearly as bad as an ineffective response.

Regardless, I hope for the best for the victim(s) and that they remain in the sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

People who are confused and outraged need to understand exactly what he was suspended FROM. There is precious little comprehension to go around. I guess folks really do think USArchery has more authority than they do.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Personally I'd like to see transparent process and if guilty a proportionate and sincere punishment. I don't think I get that here. Despite the label no one knows what happened, and I don't think either the "I know Mel" or the "this is serious stuff" crowds are happy with that. And to suspend someone from coaching but it's done in a way he's right back at it unofficially the next day and officially at the next point the credential matters, that doesn't feel sincere. If you're going to do that call it a public reprimand and let him get back to work. If you're going to suspend from coaching do it for real like you mean it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Azzurri said:


> Personally I'd like to see transparent process and if guilty a proportionate and sincere punishment. I don't think I get that here. Despite the label no one knows what happened, and I don't think either the "I know Mel" or the "this is serious stuff" crowds are happy with that. And to suspend someone from coaching but it's done in a way he's right back at it unofficially the next day and officially at the next point the credential matters, that doesn't feel sincere. If you're going to do that call it a public reprimand and let him get back to work. If you're going to suspend from coaching do it for real like you mean it.


how does the USAA get the power to do that. there are lots of people out there coaching archery who don't have current USAA certifications and yet people will pay them for coaching. and some of those coaches are really good. They don't have USAA memberships. You have to understand that the USAA is not a governmental entity and its power is mainly through that of contract.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Re "like you mean it," we can debate the part where they might try to control things outside their credential sphere, my argument there is you probably can condition access to credentials by people with disciplinary issues on activity or refraining from activity that is not necessarily their power. Like I said, telling a drunk to go to rehab before you will even consider licensing them to coach. The license is their power and discretion, and the carrot to change or require behavior. That can be used creatively and not just, all I can do is passively ban/suspend. I mean when I hear people say they can't even control the space at their own tournaments?

But my real point on "like you mean it" is even taking your argument that they control the credential sphere and everything else is contractual, if you're going to punish someone by taking the credential do it in a way where it actually takes place. The Garrett deal effectively boots him from world cups and OTC for a season, if I understand right. Probably also USAT series. That's like you mean it. If the suspension is a wink wink thing where we don't control him doing the job unofficially and the time period doesn't cover any events the credential is relevant to, don't waste our or his time, give him the wrist slap public reprimand you really mean.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jay, I'm trying to understand how either suspension is different from the other, as you suggest by your "like you mean it" conversation. In my view, it's the same suspension, with very different affects due to the two individual's situations/positions. IOW, same authority, varying impacts.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't know any specifics that aren't public but my assumption is Garrett can't step foot on OTC, can't represent USA, can't compete in official or sanctioned events. He could practice someplace else than OTC, but as I understood it OTC was where he was training. So even though they don't control him going to Momnpop Range the space restriction would have an impact. It means he's not RA and has to practice someplace public/less elaborate, pay to live someplace, etc.

Relative to that, read narrowly, the coach's restriction would only affect his ability to have the certificate and to hold himself out as having same, and to expressly register and appear as "coach" at the level of events where coaching access is limited or you can have a coach in the "box."

I think your point is they're not the same and I'm kind of saying, yeah, true. My point on "meaning it" is if you're suspended credentials to make a point, suspend them in a way and for a period where it sends the same sort of message. Otherwise it is "different" and not in what I see as a sincere way. The athlete really gets it put to them. The athlete doing his or her job needs tournament entry. We act like that's within the ambit even if the event is "sanctioned" and not expressly USAA. The coach, meanwhile, those same "sanctioned" events, people want to say that's a private matter and he's a private citizen unless he holds out the certificate or has to do coach registration, which is basically a short list of outdoor events. 

And even if you wanted to leave the structure as is, and act like coach x is private while athlete y is within control, shouldn't the suspensions adjust to reflect that Garrett is immediately hit in a variety of ways but you're not really affecting Nichols til outdoor season? This doesn't even have to be "punitive," but part of the function of "criminal law" is "punishment" and/or "penitence." If they're going to bother with a suspension shouldn't it limit the coach in some way? Otherwise reprimand the guy, let him back after it, no suspension for us all to yack about, on to the next case. I don't get a suspension that has limited impact. Why bother. And without the facts it then gets hard to say whether he merited nothing, reprimand, "fake" suspension, real one, ban. But I understand where people are coming from where it's like "I thought x was suspended and he's here in front of me coaching two months later." Or however long it's been.

I don't think we disagree USAA and/or Nichols seem to be viewing there as a real difference between player and coach suspensions. But given the nature (broadly defined it may be) of the offense, I'm not sure I am comfortable with coach suspensions that are this swiss cheese, and in particular swiss cheese because some want tournament attendance and/or private coaching interactions completely off limits. In at least the extreme cases, violent people, drunks, sex criminals, I want USAA to be able to draw some bright lines pretty far into the private sphere. No you can't be on the premises. No you can't be coaching archers. Now whether any of the people recently suspended are anywhere near there, another question. But I understand where it's like "I thought he was suspended, doesn't that mean what it says....."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nah, same suspension. One is an "employee" of USArchery, while the other is not. That's the difference, and what some folks are missing.



> I will stay out of this debate...


Guess I blew that one.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

having been told "hearsay" the situation that lead to the Coach suspension, and the situation of who filed the complaint. 

I have to say my opinion is still the same. I will not repeat the hearsay as it could be false and just gossip. 

But if true, he should not be coaching at a USA sanctioned event while suspended from USA Archery. It may not be possible to enforce that, but as a coach he crossed a line and got a deserved suspension. 

Chris


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

???? Is which state were these suspensions, or should I say trials held against These men? Reason I ask is that is has been brought to my attention that many states have mandate reporting for sexual misconduct to local authorities. If what I have been informed correctly the athlete that was suspended was wrong, it was consenstual with both parties, however he was the only one suspended. He coach which I term as an adult figure of power and importance to conduct in a manner of inappropriate touching along with allegations found to be true by the board to label as a Violation of the United States Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code and Sexual Harassment, not by just one individual party but by multiple females. 
With mandate reporting this should have been reported to the judicial system. These reports are under the guidelines to be FOID, or be reported under the Freedom of Information Act, which is searchable and free for any party to obtain copies of. 
What has to be done to keep our athletes safe, and what has to be put into place to make sure our coaches especially ones bearing the USA on their uniforms follow a code of conduct

Signed by not a ghost,
Kelly......


----------



## Arrowstrong (Dec 16, 2017)

Sexual Harassment Defined
Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual physical or verbal conduct. There are two categories of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment. Understanding the differences in the two categories is important because they have different liability implications.

Federal Law

Federal law forbids sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. Title VII covers employers who employ, or have employed, 15 or more employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

State Law

Sexual harassment is illegal under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Sexual harassment protections extend to applicants, employees, unpaid interns, professional relationships and independent contractors.

Determining if a Hostile Environment Exists

Sexual harassment can include all types of conducts, such as asking for sexual favors, sexual touching, offensive language or posters. Generally, the conduct must be so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive working environment or results in an adverse employment decision (such as a firing).

Who Is Liable?

Sexual harassment law covers the actions of supervisors, coworkers, customers and vendors. Depending on the actions, or inaction, of you and your employees, you may be held liable.

Mandated Sexual Harassment Training
California employers of 50 or more employees, including those outside California, are required to provide supervisors within the state of California with two hours of sexual harassment training every two years. Training must include a component on the prevention of abusive conduct.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Are there different level of suspensions? does it depends on the type of accusation? 

How were similar cases handled by other sports in the past? 

for example:
gymnastics-coach-suspended-banned-from-facility-after-sexual-abuse-allegations
3-football-players-1-coach-michigan-state-suspended-due-sexual-assault-investigation


The "suspension" in these 2 cases were actually "banned from the sport".


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Limbwalker has a great point - one is an employee and the other is not. This is why one suspension has teeth and the other does not. USAA cannot descriminate against people attending public events unless allowed by law, nor can they control what private individuals do besides their membership. Anyone can purchase a coach pass to sit in the coach section, no USAA membership required. I find it interesting that some want to pound the suspended guy based on limited information and no ruling of law. These suspensions (except for the employee, but in other aspects them too) are a modern day scarlet letter. Everyone is free to shame and poo poo them as much as they want, but that's about it. I think SafeSport will ultimately run into some real trouble for their opacity and lack of due process, and USAA would be best off keeping them at arm's length, referring their suspension results directly to SafeSport.


----------



## jwrigley (Nov 8, 2012)

j.conner said:


> I find it interesting that some want to pound the suspended guy based on limited information and no ruling of law.


I find it interesting that some continually defend him based on limited information and in spite of the fact that he has had due process (such as it is), found guilty and suspended.

by alluding to the fact that USAA should steer clear of responsibility lest they be sued for defamation you're saying in a roundabout way that there is no real merit to the allegations or he really didn't do that much, if anything, wrong. I hope for the sake of all his future students that the facts don't match the heresay that I have heard.

To put it another way - what would happen if there is a re-offence? Would USAA be liable to a lawsuit if they had known about past behavior and given him an ineffective slap on the wrist before returning him to coaching? 

It has all the hallmarks of the church moving priests to another parish when allegations of abuse surface.


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

jwrigley said:


> I find it interesting that some continually defend him based on limited information and in spite of the fact that he has had due process (such as it is), found guilty and suspended.
> 
> by alluding to the fact that USAA should steer clear of responsibility lest they be sued for defamation you're saying in a roundabout way that there is no real merit to the allegations or he really didn't do that much, if anything, wrong. I hope for the sake of all his future students that the facts don't match the heresay that I have heard.
> 
> ...


And this is the issue I have had with this the whole time. In a former life I was fairly high general business manager. I sent a female administrative assistant to a project meeting because she was the most qualified from our business unit to serve on the committee. When she returned she told me half joking about a clearly inappropriate comment the committee chair, a high ranking manager, had said to her at a group dinner the night before the meeting “Who did you have to sleep with to get to attend this meeting?” Clearly not criminal, just unprofessional.

My response was to take action against this manager for his misconduct and to prevent any further harassment. I felt I had a duty to protect the company from a hostile work environment as well as any other employees this person would make similar comments to and potentially create a quid pro quo harassment situation. It was the right thing to do to get in front of this situation.

Same sitiation here in USA archery. Who has the duty to protect other students? Who will be the “sheepdogs” and protect the vulnerable from the wolves. Depending solely on safesport is not adequate. Maybe all parents should be taking the safesport 2.0 on how to prevent their child from getting into a similar situation and what to do if the unthinkable happens. Clearly what we have now does not prevent this situation and even now once suspended likely would not show up on a background check because of the lack of criminality. “Sport” is so much more complicated now than just shooting arrows, hitting a ball or swimming.

(Incidentally the offending manager was not fired, but reprimanded for his inappropriate behavior, apologized to the secretary and it never happened again.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Maybe all parents should be taking the safesport 2.0 on how to prevent their child from getting into a similar situation


I was thinking almost the exact same thing this morning Tom. That the parents have some responsibility here in protecting their children. At least, as a parent I feel I do. I learn about some of these scenarios and go "whaaaa?"



> and even now once suspended likely would not show up on a background check *because of the lack of criminality*.


As a former LEO, this is also something I have a real problem with. In this country, it is our right and privilege to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. These suspensions represent some "quasi" court of law that lends itself to public shaming and opens the organization up to lawsuits that we ALL will end up paying for as members. And what really gets accomplished, since as you point out - nobody has been found guilty of breaking any law.

If and when they are, then they should be suspended from the sport. Until then, I have no idea what USArchery is thinking.


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

Good points John. Merging these with those other thoughts on the “two”different cases reinforces another conundrum in this sitiation. One case is for a quasi emplyeee. The other for a “volunteer” or technically an independent contractor. With the independent contractor the NGB has little leverage for improper conduct and sanctions like demotion, firing, etc. About all the NGB can do is deny official work to the offending individual and during the suspension notify potential customers that this independent contractor might come in contact with that they have been suspended for a safesport violation. I think that standard has been met, maybe not as vigorous as some of us want, but in any event it has been publicized. And depending on the remorse and attitude of the suspendeded party going forward might be a factor in any future work as an independent contractor. Personally, an apology and personal accountability for any misconduct would go a long way towards professional redemption. Absent those two conditions, I don’t see them being a part of the organization going forward.

Until this mine field is mapped out, the real casualty is good coaches and volunteers will flee this organization and the sport will suffer. I view the politics arena the same way. Good people would never want to subject themselves to the abuse, liability, and self pimping that it takes to be successful. So, we are left with self serving opportunists only interested in themselves. The good ones will be beat down and take the talent and energy somewhere else where they feel they can make a difference at.


----------



## jwrigley (Nov 8, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> These suspensions represent some "quasi" court of law that lends itself to public shaming and opens the organization up to lawsuits that we ALL will end up paying for as members.


Now I see where you are coming from John. I understand and respect your thinking on this and I apologise for my earlier remarks. BTW the j is for Jason and I'm not hard to look up especially if you google me with archery. I wouldn't like anyone to think that I was a keyboard warrior. As someone put it so well earlier "I'll stand up for my comments or apologise if I was wrong. This post is about both.

To put it this way.. I have a 9 year old son. He does archery but his heart in in playing soccer. Every Saturday I'm not away I bring him down to soccer training with 50 other kids his age. there are 5 or 6 coaches there and parents aren't required to stay so I rarely do. I run an archery club here and most of my time is taken up between that, my own training and work. I'm very careful not get roped into helping so I try not to look too interested. I've got to trust that my son is safe while he is under the care of those coaches. Equally, I want the parents of all the kids I coach to be able to trust that my national organisation has certified me to coach, and has vetted me and, if I have been suspended from the organisation for whatever reason I think the parents have a right to be reasonable informed of why the suspension was imposed so they can make an informed decision about the suitability of an adult with direct personal access to their children. I don't think that's unreasonable. Do you?

I don't want to bash Mel. I don't know the man to talk to though I have seen him from time to time at events I've attended. If the grapevine is wrong and there really is nothing to the suspension then it sucks that he has to be the one having to bite his tongue while us archers sit gossiping in our knitting circle. I think Tebarkiii is right



> "an apology and personal accountability for any misconduct would go a long way towards professional redemption. Absent those two conditions, I don’t see them being a part of the organization going forward."


There's been a lot of well thought out reasoned posts on this thread. I hope good sense will prevail over the CYA. The only way I see that happening is if enough members demand it. It's a tough one alright, hope it works out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Jason. Good post.



> Until this mine field is mapped out, the real casualty is good coaches and volunteers will flee this organization and the sport will suffer.


Got two here. One of whom (myself) "might" return someday, if it does get mapped out. The other is gone for good I'm afraid. Both of us had a combined 38 years invested as volunteers.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Tbarkeriii said:


> Good points John. Merging these with those other thoughts on the “two”different cases reinforces another conundrum in this sitiation. One case is for a quasi emplyeee. The other for a “volunteer” or technically an independent contractor. With the independent contractor the NGB has little leverage for improper conduct and sanctions like demotion, firing, etc. About all the NGB can do is deny official work to the offending individual and during the suspension notify potential customers that this independent contractor might come in contact with that they have been suspended for a safesport violation. I think that standard has been met, maybe not as vigorous as some of us want, but in any event it has been publicized. And depending on the remorse and attitude of the suspendeded party going forward might be a factor in any future work as an independent contractor. Personally, an apology and personal accountability for any misconduct would go a long way towards professional redemption. Absent those two conditions, I don’t see them being a part of the organization going forward.
> 
> Until this mine field is mapped out, the real casualty is good coaches and volunteers will flee this organization and the sport will suffer. I view the politics arena the same way. Good people would never want to subject themselves to the abuse, liability, and self pimping that it takes to be successful. So, we are left with self serving opportunists only interested in themselves. The good ones will be beat down and take the talent and energy somewhere else where they feel they can make a difference at.


excellent points!


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

The New York Times had a very good article on the situation as it pertains to many colleges regarding sexual misconduct. The reason so many colleges are being sue by the accused is that they go by a preponderance of evidence. Not by " beyond a reasonable doubt."

50.01 percent guilty against 49.99 percent not guilty is being used to destroy the lives on a number of people, both student and faculty.

I do not know which method Safe Sport uses.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Not sure if this is the same article, but interesting to note that this has also become a substantial industry and occupation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/...aucracies-to-deal-with-sexual-misconduct.html


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So we've entered the era of the victim industry leeching off the Olympic industry. SMDH It might be funny if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> I was thinking almost the exact same thing this morning Tom. That the parents have some responsibility here in protecting their children. At least, as a parent I feel I do. I learn about some of these scenarios and go "whaaaa?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is my concern too. " These suspensions represent some "quasi" court of law that lends itself to public shaming and opens the organization up to lawsuits that we ALL will end up paying for as members. And what really gets accomplished, since as you point out - nobody has been found guilty of breaking any law."

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> So we've entered the era of the victim industry leeching off the Olympic industry. SMDH It might be funny if it wasn't so sad.


I think that is the real goal.

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

teebat said:


> I think that is the real goal.
> 
> Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


looking to be offended has become a big bucks industry in the USA


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Don't want to enter in this discussion, but I have to note that without a public process, with all acts available to media and observers, and sentence published with detailed motivations, no trail can be considered fair, at all. 
Apart if everything is NOT a process, but an internal decision of your company. At least in the western democratic world.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"a planned/orchestrated pattern of repeat abuse/betrayal of trust" is an insight into someone's 'settled life view' ,,, not "a mistake" to be atoned for with an apology and a 'time out in the corner for awhile'


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise Larry. But the process is flawed. Heavily flawed. I think everyone including the OP can agree on that. Until it gets sorted out, I'm afraid there will be a lot of collateral damage on both sides of the issue.

There are only so many things USArchery has control over. People need to recognize this. As a JOAD program leader, I had to explain to a set of parents who were out for blood, that if it's not a sanctioned event or practice, then USArchery has no authority to do anything to anyone. If they are not satisfied with that, then too bad. I suppose they can take legal action if they think they have a case and a law was broken.

Having said that, anytime an organization suspends someone who is making their living from an activity, they had better be prepared for a lawsuit. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise Larry. But the process is flawed. Heavily flawed. I think everyone including the OP can agree on that. Until it gets sorted out, I'm afraid there will be a lot of collateral damage on both sides of the issue.
> 
> There are only so many things USArchery has control over. People need to recognize this. As a JOAD program leader, I had to explain to a set of parents who were out for blood, that if it's not a sanctioned event or practice, then USArchery has no authority to do anything to anyone. If they are not satisfied with that, then too bad. I suppose they can take legal action if they think they have a case and a law was broken.
> 
> Having said that, anytime an organization suspends someone who is making their living from an activity, they had better be prepared for a lawsuit. It's just a matter of time.


Agree with your points. The whole discussion is muddled and obtuse/opaque, for various reasons (most of them necessary reasons). 

Probably my post just added to the muddle. Trying again, my raised eyebrow is specifically aimed at "the 6-month suspension". I don't see it as fitting either a mistake or a revealed pattern. If a one-time error and innocent outcome (good intentions in chaotic circumstances/in retrospect the wrong judgment call made) then my personal opinion is 6month suspension not warranted, but rather some painful short-lived 'smack on the butt' of some kind (I have no idea what that would be - something painful and private). But, if it was a pattern of repeated strategy, then a permanent boot from USA certification seems to me the only justice consequence. 

Ugh. I'd rather be talking about form or equipment - even about how my 13 year old student Aurora was tanning my hide in head-to-head elimination matches all morning ... talk about conflicting emotions!


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> So we've entered the era of the victim industry leeching off the Olympic industry. SMDH It might be funny if it wasn't so sad.


I think this is at least partially accurate and applies to other aspects of modern life too. Incentives matter. When it pays to be a victim, we get more victims. Companies scramble for indemnification and outsource their governance, hence the rise of companies like SafeSport and many others in the HR/legal/compliance fields. What we get is a giant morality play with lots of hand-wringing and money passing around to demonstrate earnest. Hopefully, all the drama fends off the low-level offenders and provides enough awareness that people are less likely to look the other way when it happens, but I doubt it will stop the determined predator. And there will be collateral damage on both sides. Oh yeah, and now there are sides where there used to be a team. Hopefully this will all pass and we learn as a society that it is not ok to look the other way and victims should not stand there and take it. I think many of us already get it and think that way and give no quarter to such things, but it is taking time to permeate the rest of society and this is an interim period of overcompensation. I hope it does not take too much longer as we are losing good people to it, probably both coaches and athletes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Trying again, my raised eyebrow is specifically aimed at "the 6-month suspension". I don't see it as fitting either a mistake or a revealed pattern. If a one-time error and innocent outcome (good intentions in chaotic circumstances/in retrospect the wrong judgment call made) then my personal opinion is 6month suspension not warranted, but rather some painful short-lived 'smack on the butt' of some kind (I have no idea what that would be - something painful and private). But, if it was a pattern of repeated strategy, then a permanent boot from USA certification seems to me the only justice consequence.


You're probably right. When you back up and think about it, if the allegations are all true, then how do you get to 6 months? I mean, what's the formula for that?



> What we get is a giant morality play with lots of hand-wringing and money passing around to demonstrate earnest. Hopefully, all the drama fends off the low-level offenders and provides enough awareness that people are less likely to look the other way when it happens, but I doubt it will stop the determined predator. And there will be collateral damage on both sides. Oh yeah,* and now there are sides where there used to be a team*.


I think the first part of that is spot-on. Been going on in the political arena for decades, and now it's a full-fledged, no apologies, industry. However, the second part about "used to be a team" I'm not sure I can agree with. There have been the occasional true teams in our sport, but not as many as people might think. I can think of a few world class competitors who were intentionally pushed out of the sport by their "teammates." Remember, the majority of the time, archery is still an individual sport. And when it comes to money, companies don't sponsor "teams", they sponsor individuals. The incentive to be a good teammate only comes around once every few years in archery, and for a very brief period even then.


----------

