Allegation of Coerced Kiss Leads to Victim’s Helplessness, Leading to Contact with Olympics Abuse-Fighting Authority

30

Kirsten Hawkes, a former elite fencer, sought counsel from her childhood coach when contemplating the establishment of her own fencing club. However, their meeting took an uncomfortable turn from the outset.

According to Hawkes, during their encounter at a Minneapolis bar last October, which occurred during a fencing tournament, it began with an unwanted kiss on the lips. Later that evening, as they bid each other farewell, Hawkes alleges that the coach forcibly kissed her, inserting his tongue into her mouth, as detailed to investigators.

In response to this incident, Hawkes lodged a complaint against the then-assistant coach with the U.S. Paralympic team, directing her concerns to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. This institution’s primary objective is to combat instances of sexual abuse in Olympic sports. Nevertheless, Hawkes quickly realized she was not only challenging her coach but also one of the most distinguished sports attorneys in the United States.

The entire experience left Hawkes, now 36 years old, feeling helpless and disheartened. She expressed her frustration, stating, “The whole point is, it shouldn’t be an undue burden for a victim to come forward. But that’s how it ended up.”

In Hawkes’ perspective, this ten-month ordeal exemplifies why the Denver-based SafeSport Center has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics, including athletes and high-ranking Olympic officials, argue that the organization’s process is opaque, perplexing, and often too protracted in resolving cases.

A draft report from a congressionally appointed commission in September, which the AP obtained, declared that the center was “in potential crisis.” Over half of the 1,756 individuals in the Olympic movement who participated in the survey believed that SafeSport was falling short of its objectives, with nearly 25% expressing disagreement or strong disagreement regarding the center’s effectiveness in addressing sexual abuse in Olympic sports.

Established in 2017 during the revelation of former gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar’s extensive crimes, SafeSport is tasked with handling abuse cases involving not only Olympians but also all athletes in Olympic-related sports, even at the grassroots level. This jurisdiction encompasses over 11 million athletes, including individuals like Kirsten Hawkes.

Since its inception, SafeSport has placed over 1,900 offenders on its disciplinary database, showcasing its success in addressing abusers who might otherwise evade consequences.

Nonetheless, Hawkes’ former coach did not appear on that list. This was the case even after SafeSport imposed a three-month probation in May, six months after the initial hearing in December, and his immediate removal from the Paralympics coaching role by USA Fencing. Subsequently, an eight-hour arbitration hearing in August overturned the probation and other sanctions.

The arbitrator’s decision cited the “different and contradictory messages” conveyed by the initial kiss as a factor in her ruling.

The AP has refrained from disclosing the coach’s identity, as his name never appeared on SafeSport’s disciplinary database. His probation simply required him to disclose his status to anyone he worked for and entailed more severe consequences in case of another violation.

Hawkes’ complaint also included allegations of abuse against the coach during her childhood in Huntington, New York. She reported to SafeSport investigators that he had touched her inappropriately when she was 12, including instances of physical contact with her legs and breasts using his fencing foil, along with inappropriate comments about her body.

SafeSport informed Hawkes that these allegations were not pursued due to the absence of charges or sanctions under New York state law and fencing regulations at the time.

This policy contradicts one of SafeSport’s main strengths – its authority to pursue cases without considering statutes of limitation. According to Hilary Nemchik, the center’s communications director, it can be frustrating for both the center and claimants when past conduct that SafeSport rules would penalize today was not prohibited by the rules or laws in place at the time.

Nemchik added that SafeSport is continuously exploring ways to enhance its processes, with forthcoming changes aimed at making them more timely, comprehensible, and trauma-informed.

Hawkes asserted that the center’s response only reinforced her belief that the process is flawed, especially when older allegations like hers are not taken into account. She emphasized the need for consistency, stating, “If it doesn’t work for everybody, then it doesn’t work for anybody.”

Reflecting on her childhood experiences, Hawkes admitted that, in her younger years, she had reacted less strongly to her coach’s alleged behavior due to her father’s absence and a sense of awkwardness.

She explained that she had been reminiscing about her positive memories from her childhood fencing days when she decided to meet with the coach to seek advice for her potential fencing center in San Diego.

Both parties acknowledge that the evening began with a kiss on the lips. However, during arbitration testimony, they disagreed on who initiated it.

Hawkes testified that the coach began discussing her sex life and engaged in physical contact under the bar, making her uncomfortable. She felt compelled to make the best of the situation because they were expected to meet again at the tournament. According to Hawkes, when the coach asked if she would invite him to her hotel room, she responded with a firm “No.” As they parted ways in front of her hotel, she reached out for a hug, but the coach forcibly kissed her again, prompting her to push him away.

The arbitration decision revealed that the coach “acknowledged kissing claimant that evening, stating he thought she wanted him to kiss her.” Hawkes vehemently disagreed with this interpretation, asserting that it did not align with her intentions.

In an attempt to demonstrate that the kiss was unwanted, Hawkes sought surveillance video footage from the hotel, which she was informed had captured the incident. However, the hotel refused to provide the footage without a subpoena.

Hawkes reported the incident to the Minneapolis police but was informed that an unwanted kiss did not meet the threshold of sexual misconduct required for an investigation, even amidst recent headlines about similar incidents during Spain’s Women’s World Cup soccer victory.

SafeSport, while chartered by Congress and functioning as a quasi-legal entity, lacks the authority to compel the hotel to release the surveillance video. Hawkes realized that accessing the footage would necessitate hiring an attorney and initiating a civil proceeding, a course of action she could not afford.

Nemchik explained that SafeSport’s role is not to function as a criminal or civil court system, which limits the ability to call witnesses and subpoena evidence. She emphasized that such powers could potentially inflict further trauma on those involved.

For Hawkes, the arbitration hearing prompted by the coach’s appeal of SafeSport’s sanctions proved to be traumatic. It involved cross-examination and what she described as “slut-shaming” by the coach’s lawyer, Howard Jacobs, a prominent sports attorney who has been involved in around 100 SafeSport cases over the past six years.

In arbitration cases, a SafeSport attorney is tasked with defending the agency’s sanctions. While claimants like Hawkes are not obligated to participate, she felt it was important to make her voice heard.

The coach’s appeal led to challenging but necessary questions during the hearing, including inquiries about Hawkes’ sexual history and her actions on the night they met.

Hawkes expressed regret that she had not retained her own attorney, as she believed it was unnecessary based on SafeSport rules and guidance from a center intake coordinator.

USA Fencing also played a significant role, as they removed the coach from his Paralympic team position and restricted his one-on-one contact with athletes following Hawkes’ complaint.

This case is one of several instances where a national agency overseeing an Olympic sport has clashed with SafeSport, which holds primary jurisdiction over abuse cases. In this scenario, SafeSport imposed sanctions that were less severe than those implemented by USA Fencing. While the coach did not regain his previous position after arbitration, other penalties from USA Fencing were lifted, allowing him to resume training athletes aspiring to make the Paralympic team.

Phil Andrews, CEO of USA Fencing, expressed frustration with cases in which SafeSport rules occasionally limit his agency and others from acting in the best interests of safety and abuse prevention for their members, due to jurisdictional constraints.

During a September hearing in Washington, a congressionally appointed committee investigating the Olympics focused on criticism of SafeSport’s arbitration process.

Marci Hamilton, representing the advocacy group Child USA, remarked that the arbitration process had often resulted in the re-traumatization of victims and the overturning of well-founded claims.

SafeSport CEO Ju’Riese Colon acknowledged that arbitration was a complex aspect of their work, describing it as one of the most challenging aspects they had to deal with.

Even Howard Jacobs, who estimated that about two-thirds of the 40 cases he had taken to arbitration resulted in overturned or reduced sanctions, voiced concerns about the flaws in the SafeSport system.

While he acknowledged that the arbitration process was not perfect, he emphasized the importance of affording those accused a reasonable process to challenge allegations.

Hawkes, reflecting on her experience, described the arbitration as the final, frustrating step in a process that left her feeling overwhelmed and unheard.

She expressed her disillusionment, saying, “I didn’t feel like I could trust anyone. I felt like I was dealing with this useless, for-show organization that didn’t solve anything.”

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about SafeSport Flaws

More about SafeSport Flaws

• U.S. Center for SafeSport
• Larry Nassar’s crimes
• Child USA advocacy group
• USA Fencing
• Ongoing criticism of SafeSport