Anyone hear something crazy recently?

[CHROMEBIRD]

3 hours ago, BAC said:

Here I'm just annoyed because even accepting that Safesport is allowed to look at original solicitation charge, there's nothing in the charge that is remotely within Safesport's proper purview, as there's no victim, and no conduct showing it's harmful for him to be in the sport. It's just moral judgment, nothing more, and hypocritical moral judgment at that.  Our world team is going to be worse because of their idiocy.

SafeSport investigates all charges & allegations of athletes under its umbrella for Code violations as standard practice. People often think of the SafeSport Center as some sort of federal agency or criminal court system, but they're an independent NGO. The absence of criminal charges or a conviction doesn't always indicate that there are no SafeSport Code infractions.

The standard of proof SafeSport uses in its investigations ("preponderance of the evidence", as in civil proceedings) is not the same as standard that criminal courts use ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). There's also no statute of limitations. Conversely, SafeSport doesn't have the teeth to actually throw someone in jail, fine them, or impose penalties beyond revoking an athlete's eligibility or membership in their national/affiliated sports org. SafeSport definitely has lots of room for improvement, and I totally agree that they're slow, overburdened, and bureaucratic but at the end of the day they're an administrative nonprofit, not a court or justice system. 

For the Snyder investigation, we know from the criminal charge that there was a Code violation. SafeSport will likely do their own due diligence to ascertain its extent and contact the Columbus Police for details of their case (ensure that there were no minors, illegal substances, violence, trafficking, etc. involved); then will seek assurances that he's accountable and not a risk to anyone else participating in the sport. Who knows how long this will all take, but unless there's something serious we don't know about Snyder, I expect that he'll check all the boxes and will receive a warning or probation. 

[BAC]

20 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

SafeSport investigates all charges & allegations of athletes under its umbrella for Code violations as standard practice. People often think of the SafeSport Center as some sort of federal agency or criminal court system, but they're an independent NGO. The absence of criminal charges or a conviction doesn't always indicate that there are no SafeSport Code infractions.

The standard of proof SafeSport uses in its investigations ("preponderance of the evidence", as in civil proceedings) is not the same as standard that criminal courts use ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). There's also no statute of limitations. Conversely, SafeSport doesn't have the teeth to actually throw someone in jail, fine them, or impose penalties beyond revoking an athlete's eligibility or membership in their national/affiliated sports org. SafeSport definitely has lots of room for improvement, and I totally agree that they're slow, overburdened, and bureaucratic but at the end of the day they're an administrative nonprofit, not a court or justice system. 

For the Snyder investigation, we know from the criminal charge that there was a Code violation. SafeSport will likely do their own due diligence to ascertain its extent and contact the Columbus Police for details of their case (ensure that there were no minors, illegal substances, violence, trafficking, etc. involved); then will seek assurances that he's accountable and not a risk to anyone else participating in the sport. Who knows how long this will all take, but unless there's something serious we don't know about Snyder, I expect that he'll check all the boxes and will receive a warning or probation. 

All good points and I agree.  

My issue is this shouldn't be a Safesport violation at all.  Excluding someone who engages in a consensual sexual act with an adult, compensated or no, isn't making anyone safer.

I'm not familiar with the typical penalties, but if it's true that this sort of violation only results in a warning or probation, then that's all the more reason they shouldn't have this mandatory "interim suspension" which is deeply harmful to both the athlete and to USA Wrestling, which is going to fare worse at Worlds as a direct result of Safesport's ill-considered policies, delays, and unjustified "interim suspensions."

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

On a happier note, the sight of Snyder in "John School" must be sort of hilarious.

Getting handcuffed with your want out has to be up there too.   

[BAC]

3 hours ago, fishbane said:

You are misinformed.  Both prostitution and soliciting a prostitute are explicitly violations of the Safe Sport code.    From section IX.C.4.f - Prohibited conduct, sexual misconduct, Sexual Exploitation. link

I read the same section but I interpret it differently.  Since there is no comma after "prostituting," I interpret that word as linked with "trafficking" and modifying "another person."  In other words:  "Engage(s) in (1) solicitation of prostitution, or (2) prostituting or trafficking another person" (numbers mine).  So if you're a john or a pimp, you're in violation, but if you're an escort, you're cool.

3 hours ago, fishbane said:

Whilst stealing money from a drug bust is not explicitly against the Safe Sport code a conviction for it would likely fail a USAW background screening and trigger a review to determine the appropriate level of involvement for the person in USAW activities.  So it would be a violation of the USAW Safe Sport Code.  USAW Safe Sport policy

Sounds like you're assuming he had a felony conviction, and I don't think that's the case.  You may be right though.  FWIW, I don't think theft should be a Safesport violation (because, while more problematic than solicitation, it still lacks a nexus to safe participation in sport), but it certainly should keep you from being an investigator.

Edited 6 hours ago by BAC

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, BAC said:

All good points and I agree.  

My issue is this shouldn't be a Safesport violation at all.  Excluding someone who engages in a consensual sexual act with an adult, compensated or no, isn't making anyone safer.

I'm not familiar with the typical penalties, but if it's true that this sort of violation only results in a warning or probation, then that's all the more reason they shouldn't have this mandatory "interim suspension" which is deeply harmful to both the athlete and to USA Wrestling, which is going to fare worse at Worlds as a direct result of Safesport's ill-considered policies, delays, and unjustified "interim suspensions."

It literally says it’s a violation in their docs.   You should re phrase your comments.  You don’t think it’s a violation.  They sure as shyte do 

 

consider the timing of Mr Snyder.  Instead of concentrating on training and wrestling for these worlds you’re so concerned about….. he’s concentrating on getting hookers and BJs
 

I don’t think the general fan cares if we get a gold via Snyder or 0-2 bbq from some tomato can.     Whoever wins the wtt is likely to do just fine if he goes.   

Edited 6 hours ago by Caveira

[BAC]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

It literally says it’s a violation in their docs.   You should re phrase your comments.  You don’t think it’s a violation.  They sure as shyte do   

What do you want me to rephrase?

I literally wrote, "The Safesport Code is pretty clear that solicitation for prostitution is a violation."  Then I made the point (repeatedly) that it shouldn't be.  

Am I really being that unclear?

[BAC]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

i did the dishes and cleaned the kitchen yesterday too  

Hope you didn't get any "reward" for it from the missus.  Cuz that's "sexual exploitation" if you haven't heard. 

Edited 6 hours ago by BAC

[CHROMEBIRD]

9 minutes ago, BAC said:

I read the same section but I interpret it differently.  Since there is no comma after "prostituting," I interpret that word as linked with "trafficking" and modifying "another person."  In other words:  "Engage(s) in (1) solicitation of prostitution, or (2) prostituting or trafficking another person" (numbers mine).  So if you're a john or a pimp, you're in violation, but if you're an escort, you're cool.

There's a section in the Code about inappropriate closely personal relationships  outside the family, or something like that, which is based on a number of factors which include quid pro quo situations. I remember someone brought it up long ago in one of the AJF threads. I'm just stating the Code btw, and am in agreement with you about consenting adults and such. 

[MidniteToka]

The history of hypocrisy and philandering by its leaders is pretty much as old as Christianity itself.  For anyone needing a refresher course, check the story of David and Bathsheba.  What Snyderman did wasn't vaguely as bad as what David did and David was and is revered by Christians.  Of course David realized his errors, repented, begged God for forgiveness, etc, etc, etc.  I'm guessing maybe he wrote the playbook for that now standard M.O.  Does anyone really believe that Snyder won't follow the centuries old path and not only survive but flourish?
I couldn't write these stories if I were being paid.  I'd say to myself, No one would believe that, yet here we are, and have been for a loooong time. 

[happyvalet]

1 hour ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

The absence of criminal charges or a conviction doesn't always indicate that there are no SafeSport Code infractions.

The standard of proof SafeSport uses in its investigations ("preponderance of the evidence", as in civil proceedings) is not the same as standard that criminal courts use ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). There's also no statute of limitations. 

For the Snyder investigation, we know from the criminal charge that there was a Code violation. SafeSport will likely do their own due diligence to ascertain its extent and contact the Columbus Police for details of their case (ensure that there were no minors, illegal substances, violence, trafficking, etc. involved); then will seek assurances that he's accountable and not a risk to anyone else participating in the sport. Who knows how long this will all take, but unless there's something serious we don't know about Snyder, I expect that he'll check all the boxes and will receive a warning or probation. 

The standard of proof is an important point. 

[fishbane]

36 minutes ago, BAC said:

I read the same section but I interpret it differently.  Since there is no comma after "prostituting," I interpret that word as linked with "trafficking" and modifying "another person."  In other words:  "Engage(s) in (1) solicitation of prostitution, or (2) prostituting or trafficking another person" (numbers mine).  So if you're a john or a pimp, you're in violation, but if you're an escort, you're cool.

Sounds like you're assuming he had a felony conviction, and I don't think that's the case.  You may be right though.  FWIW, I don't think theft should be a Safesport violation (because, while more problematic than solicitation, it still lacks a nexus to safe participation in sport), but it certainly should keep you from being an investigator.

I see what you are saying about the phrasing.  It's possible that's what it means.  Still I wouldn't recommend that anyone trying to stay eligible under safe sport engage in prostitution.  It does seem like a prostitution conviction would be a problem under USAW Safe Sport Policy.  Of the misdemeanor sexual offense explicitly listed prostitution is there with a comma before and after, which I think clearly means the prostitute and not the john or pimp.  Though those would also be a problem under the catch all at the start of the section.

I agree there is a lot of stuff that should disqualify someone from participating in the Safe Sport organization and/or USAW that doesn't fall under the mission of "preventing emotional, physical, and sexual misconduct and abuse" in the Olympic movement. Common fraud and theft come to mind.   If the investigators crimes did not rise to a felony that may still be in violation of USAW Safe Sport policy as a misdemeanor that is a drug related offense.

[Dogbone]

30 minutes ago, BAC said:

Hope you didn't get any "reward" for it from the missus.  Cuz that's "sexual exploitation" if you haven't heard. 

I get your point, but whether you like it or don't or Kyle Snyder doesn't like the rule, it is the rule.  We may not like the speed limit laws but if we get caught breaking them, we have to pay the fine.

At some point, Snyder has to understand the rules of the game and face the consequences for his actions.  

[MJD]

They'll let him wrestle...he's too big a star. Snyder will hire publicist/adviser and turn this into "I fell and sinned, then got even closer to Jesus and now all is well."  He'll be even more a hero. There will be a standing ovation when he takes the mat (which will make his wife seeth). I don't know what church he belongs to, but a lot of these evangelical Churches thrive here. My cousin belongs to one, and I went to this huge stadium church. And I swear for everyone there, it was a contest on who ***ducked** up more before Jesus caught them. This sorta thing is like its own genre now. Standby. Clap your hands...the redeemed hits the mat!

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, BAC said:

My issue is this shouldn't be a Safesport violation at all.

^^

[BAC]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

I see what you are saying about the phrasing.  It's possible that's what it means.  Still I wouldn't recommend that anyone trying to stay eligible under safe sport engage in prostitution.  It does seem like a prostitution conviction would be a problem under USAW Safe Sport Policy.  Of the misdemeanor sexual offense explicitly listed prostitution is there with a comma before and after, which I think clearly means the prostitute and not the john or pimp.  Though those would also be a problem under the catch all at the start of the section.

I agree there is a lot of stuff that should disqualify someone from participating in the Safe Sport organization and/or USAW that doesn't fall under the mission of "preventing emotional, physical, and sexual misconduct and abuse" in the Olympic movement. Common fraud and theft come to mind.   If the investigators crimes did not rise to a felony that may still be in violation of USAW Safe Sport policy as a misdemeanor that is a drug related offense.

All very good points, and I agree.  Thanks.  

[BAC]

1 hour ago, Dogbone said:

I get your point, but whether you like it or don't or Kyle Snyder doesn't like the rule, it is the rule.  We may not like the speed limit laws but if we get caught breaking them, we have to pay the fine.

At some point, Snyder has to understand the rules of the game and face the consequences for his actions.  

I hear you brother.  The rules are the rules, even the dumb ones, and it's his job to know them -- and you'd have hoped he'd avoid criminally risky behavior so close to a competition.

Funny thing is, I doubt Snyder himself agrees with a word of what I'm saying. I'm not personally bothered by what he did, I don't think any of it should be prohibited by USAW or Safesport or the law, but I'm guessing Snyder himself absolutely agrees it should be a Safesport violation and illegal, and that he'll say as much.

[ionel]

Crazy news of the day:

https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/cyclo-tech-electric-aircraft-evtol-flight/

[Caveira]

4 hours ago, BAC said:

I hear you brother.  The rules are the rules, even the dumb ones, and it's his job to know them -- and you'd have hoped he'd avoid criminally risky behavior so close to a competition.

Funny thing is, I doubt Snyder himself agrees with a word of what I'm saying. I'm not personally bothered by what he did, I don't think any of it should be prohibited by USAW or Safesport or the law, but I'm guessing Snyder himself absolutely agrees it should be a Safesport violation and illegal, and that he'll say as much.

If he’s super Christian.  He believes he should not be banging hookers.  It’s hard to have any other opinion.  Ask his wife her opinion. Or his kids.  Or his mother.    He knows he is morally weak in the eyes of his faith.  That’s just that.  
 

what you or I believe other than that is irrelevant.  If he’s Christian.  He believes he did wrong.  

edit.  I’m not religious.  Before someone comments.  

Edited 12 minutes ago by Caveira