Most Recent News
NO. 25-1150
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
THOMAS NAVARRO; JAMES GIORGIO; NINA SHAFFER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
– v. –
UNITED STATES CENTER FOR SAFESPORT; UNITED STATES OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE; UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
Oral Argument Transcript—December 10, 2025
Good morning. May it please the court. My name is Tamara Tucker from Charlottesville, Virginia, and I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs Tom Navaro, Jim Giorgio, and Nina Schaefer.
The principle that Congress cannot delegate away its vested powers exists to protect liberty. Our constitution, by careful design, prescribes a process for making law. And within that process, there are many accountability checkpoints. It would dash the whole business, the whole scheme. If Congress could give its power away to an entity that is not constrained by those checkpoints. The Constitution’s deliberative process was viewed by the framers as a valuable feature, not something to be lamented.
You are arguing that this is a, uh, government actor. Is that what you are there is a non-Ele there is a non-delegation state the non-delegation basically. Therefore, it is state acting.
Correct. There’s overlap between the two concepts for sure. Um that quote was from Justice Alto in Amtrak 1 um which is one of the quintessential uh non-legation cases. He also goes on to say that one way the government can regulate without accountability is by passing off a congressional operation as an independent private concern. And given the incentive to regulate without saying so, everyone should pay close attention when Congress sponsors corporations that it specifically designates not to be agencies or establishments of the United States government. The United States Center for SafeSport is exactly the type of entity, private entity that Justice Alo described. In the 2018 amendments to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, Congress granted to the center quote, “exclusive jurisdiction to make rules and policy and investigate and adjudicate the conduct of millions of Americans both in and outside of school.”
What would you have us do with the Supreme Court’s uh opinion in San Francisco arts and athletics? That is very distinguishable from this case. In what way? Well, I mean, if the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee is not a state actor, how could we hold that safe sport is? Well, for a number of reasons. Number one, the center um was not in existence during the San Francisco Arts Athletics case. Number two, and more importantly, the center sits above the US Olympic Committee. It does Congress’s bidding. The statute is far more complex now than it was before from the 2018 and 2020 amendments. Um, and the center is doing things that are well beyond the conduct and coordination of amateur sports. So, in San Francisco Arts and Athletics, that is what they talked about. And we are not here because somebody is unhappy with a referee’s call. We are not here over a trademark issue like in San Francisco.
We are here because Congress has delegated to a private entity sweeping authority over millions of Americans. And the conduct that it regulates does not have to have a nexus to sport. It can be conduct. It can be me in this courtroom because I am a member of Yousef. I am under the jurisdiction of the senator as we speak in addition to being under the jurisdiction of this court. And there is no oversight. So, Congress has passed this sweeping legislation giving the center rule making and policymaking authority, giving it enforcement authority. What enforcement authority does it have except for enforcing the rules of the game? Well, I mean, it basically says you cannot be doping, you cannot engage in sexual abuse, and we have all these problems in the Olympics that have shown up with sexual abuse and doping uh and other such things. That’s really what uh is the purview is to make amateur sports uh fair and moral and uh and San Francisco sort of said these are not core government functions. they uh granted that authority to this uh federally chartered corporation. Well, Congress has gone beyond that now. Congress has gone beyond eligibility. That is for sure the change in status under the fifth amendment. But Congress has Tell me what be specific.
What do you mean? It seems to me they do not have subpoena power. They do not have enforcement power in a court except as private individuals. It seems to me they have the power to enforce their own membership, their own events, uh enforce the rules of the game. Well, one way they enforce it is by putting your name on the worldwide web. If you are I understand, but that is their way of announcing. I mean, the idea that somebody could be competing who has been doping it is part of that effort to make the game clean. But uh question I have is really uh does not look like Congress wanted to get involved in that. Well, it looks like Congress wanted to have the Olympic Committee and Safe Sport take care of that. Actually, Safe Sport was a spin-off initially of uh the Olympic Committee, wasn’t it? That is correct. It was or organized and formed by the US Olympic Committee and then um you know spun off into its own board of directors. Yes. But rulemaking and policy are separate functions from enforcement make from enforcement authority. So, enforcement is still it is not once somebody if somebody did not want to be subject to these rules they just did not have to engage in the games. In other words, these games are it regulates members its people engage subject to amateur uh competitions. It is not regulating professional sports. Uh and basically saying you guys, not you guys, the uh the corporations uh set the rules and you can enforce the rules, but they do not enforce the rules by uh taking liberty and property apart from their membership. The only enforcement they have is uh to expel you and exclude you from games. Uh that is the ultimate authority. That is the ultimate action that they can take, and they can suspend you and they can take away medals and things like this. But right this is all related to enforcing the rules of the game. But it is not that they are not just enforcing the rules of the game because there is no nexus to sport. They are regulating people’s conduct outside of sport and saying because you did this in you know Miss Tucker you went to Thailand and you did something bad in Thailand. You are just not good enough to be a member now of Well, it is not that general. It is that it No, it seems to me if you did something that reflects your participation in the sport, if you started using drugs in Thailand, the question is does that reflect on the sport you’re a member of sport team organization, you’re a member uh it only regulates members and enforces rules. Now, the question is the scope of a rule. uh you know every sport talks about uh you cannot be assaulting your wife and then still play sports. It is a bad image for the sport. But that does not make this a government uh action. That is exclusively within the government. These are these are sport rules. These are beyond sport rules. They are governing conduct. This is not field of play rules. This is not controlling the calendar, which is really what the Ted Stevens Act was designed to do was to that Olympic NGBS would control the calendar, would set qualifying events. This is regulating conduct of a very personal private nature in private settings. Well, in this case, we are talking about uh at least in a couple cases, we are talking about private conduct that is just simply unacceptable to sports competitors, right? You would agree. I do not want to go into the details of that. Right. Private conduct occurred well before the sport code. I know, right? And uh you know could have been a factor, but I would think everybody would agree that you would be a person engaged in those conduct should be disqualified from the sports. I do not necessarily agree with that. I think that there are I think that is why you have a hearing. I think that is why you have a hearing before you ban somebody without notice. I think there are factors that could be brought up in many of those cases and have been brought up in many of those cases. It is not an automatic decision. Um and that is exactly the point of having perseverance or a name clearing hearing. Well, how do you how do you are in a competition, and it has four rounds and in the second round they test the competitor uh and the person is doped. Do they have to have a hearing before excluding that person from the game? They do not. They exclude the person from the game in order to protect the sport and then the person can challenge that and does challenge it and uh oftentimes takes a long time in a lot of levels. But the notion that you cannot automatically exclude somebody from the game because of a violation does not make sense.
USADA gives a hearing before. So, the safe sport code has nothing to do with doping. USADA is the center of the private entity that deals with doping and USADA follows the same model that the NGBS followed be before the safe sport code which is you can impose temporary measures you can run a B sample and then you can uh you have your arbitration hearing before the determination of ineligibility. So, it is absolutely not correct that you can test positive for doping and that you’re automatically out and you can talk about not automatically, but you can’t automatically can eliminate them from the competition until they uh I mean, it’s tentative, but you can’t have somebody competing uh who sexually abuses a competitor. He is a coach and he sexually abuses a competitor during the competition, you are going to let him continue. That is why there are temporary measures and we are not here on the interim measures. There is a big distinction between imposing an interim measure and then there is a process for having a hearing after an interim measure. It is not what we are here about. We are talking about the final determinations that the center makes and the NGBS enforce, and they do it before a hearing. In order to find an improper delegation, we need to there needs to be some delegation of a governmental function or task. And I still have not heard from you what exactly is the governmental function or task that you are arguing has been improperly delegated here. I heard you say that the names were posted on the worldwide web. Um that does not seem to me necessarily a governmental function or task. Um what exactly are you arguing is was improperly delegated? Investigation power, adjudication power. Uh the HISA cases talk exactly. They are exactly one point to your question, your honor. They say these are traditionally government powers. This is the legislative function. This is the executive function. Um I would direct your attention to the 2024 uh fifth circuit case on HISA after the FTC made the amendments and fixed the rulemaking part but did not fix the enforcement part. Um those are the governmental functions. Justice Thomas also in his concurring opinion in Amtrak talks about the binding fashion rules is legislative in nature and that’s really focuses on the governmental nature of that particular um industry. And I think in the in the context of sports and Olympic sports specifically, the Supreme Court’s made clear that that is not the same. I disagree. I think San Francisco talks about the conduct and coordination of sports, not investigating people, not here. What is the conduct and of sports and the and separate from who can participate and how can there be a determination of who can participate if there’s not some kind of adjudication? Here are some of the other changes that were brought about by the 2018 and 2020 amendments. They uh are instructed to investigate. They work with are instructed to work with law enforcement to investigate people. They adjudicate the conduct. They made all members of NGB mandatory federal reporters. So, under the 1990 uh victim of child abuse act, that act traditionally is for professionals who work on federal land and in federal facilities. Um but now NGB members are subject to that act. There are federal criminal penalties. That is in the safe sport act. Um it prohibits other members from transacting business with guard individuals even outside of the context of Olympic sport. For example, I cannot take a lesson, a riding lesson from somebody who’s been barred on my own private property, on my own horse as an adult. I would be considered aiding in a betting um and subject to penalties under the code. These are sweeping powers. This is not who is going to participate in sport today. This is more than that. And your honors, I see that my time is up. Thank you.
Yes. And rebuttal, right?
Yes. All right. All right. Mr. Zanis.
Good morning. May I please the court? My name is Joe Zonies. I am here uh on behalf of the defendants in the case. There is one crucial thing missing from Plaintiff’s case. The government. It’s totally absent from plaintiff’s case. There are no governmental actors here and there is no delegation of governmental power and as these are the prerequisite for plaintiff claims all of the claims fail. So, on the governmental actor front to be clear plaintiffs uh conceded in the district court that neither the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee nor the United States Equestrian Federation are governmental actors. So, they have already conceded that. So that leaves the question as the uh court said below of whether or not the center is a state actor. And for plaintiff Navaro, we already know the answer because plaintiff Navaro arbitrated that issue. And at his arbitration, he argued that the center was a state actor and the arbitrator determined that the center was not a state actor. And so, as the district court said he’s barred here from arguing that based on res judicata that res judicata finding is not appealed. For plain of Schaefer the question was already waved because Plaintiff Schaefer chose not to arbitrate and chose not to raise that question in an arbitration as she should have and therefore, she has no standing to make that argument here. So that leaves us with Plaintiff Georgia, and we start and I think can end with San Francisco arts conduct and coordination of amateur athletics is not a traditional nor exclusive governmental function. Therefore, at the time the United States Olympic Committee now the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee is not a state actor. And the court went even further to say the ASA, the America, the Amateur Sports Act, merely authorized the USOPC or the USOC at the time to coordinate activities that have always been performed by private entities. So since 1978, those entities, the USOPC and the national governing bodies have had the power to do exactly what the center does now and have had the power to draft the policies in the procedures to determine who can and cannot be eligible to participate in their private membership organizations and have had the power to uh pull membership from individuals for whom eligibility was no longer proper. What about how do you respond to you’re the arguments of your friend on the other side that the safe uh sport act actually goes much further and regulates allows the private entity or the quasi private entity to regulate activity that goes beyond uh sports private for example equestrian lessons on private land coordination with police investigation the list that she gave before she sat down that does sound like activities that go far beyond and participation in amateur sports. Yes. Uh to so a couple of different pieces there. I will start with the broader p the broadest piece of that which is does uh safe sport look when it is assessing uh safe sports mission is to assess fitness to participate in sport as it says in the code. And when assessing fitness to participate in sport um does the center look at activities outside of sport? Absolutely. So, for example, well her argument is not that she also says that, but what my question is not about what it looks like to determine whether somebody is fit to participate. My question is whether the reach of the authority of the organization extends beyond participation in amateur sports and actually controls individuals’ participation in society in other realms. No, no. I mean the most that the center can do is say you cannot be a member. You can no longer participate in our private organization over here. They can still, for example, their clients can and I believe do train individuals in uh equestrian sports. You can own horses. You can do you just cannot do it with the five rings above your head anymore. That is all the limitation is. And so much like the court said in uh NCAA with Tarcanian said UNLV, you can drop out of the NCAA. You do not have to be a member of the NCAA. If you do not want to be bound by these rules, bail. And the same could attain here, which is if your clients do not want to be bound by the rules of fair play and the rules of safe sport, they need not be members of these organizations. It does not impact uh whether or not they can still ride horses, for example, or swim or any of the other sports or they could still gamble. I mean if they were found to gamble and then disqualified they could still gamble if as long as uh there would be may be laws relating to that but uh 100% and to take your doping is true that the safe sport doesn’t handle doping the USADA handles doping but to take your doping example your honor in the doping example you can dope all you want if you’re not in the Olympics go ahead plenty of actors do it to look really good for their movies so you’re allowed to dope you just can’t dope with the Five rings over your head. That is all.
And the Pan-American Games and a few other things. Right. Correct. So, these private organizations had the power to determine their membership. They had the power, for example, your honor, to run a criminal background check, and still have this power themselves. And if the criminal background check popped up something that made gave them concern, they could ban someone from participating in their member organization. In 2017, the center was formed because these organizations came to a conclusion uh given what I think we all know how things were going in the movement at the time that this needed to be a centralized organization among these 50 private entities. It needed to be centralized and focused on the welfare of athletes in sport and particularly minor athletes in sport and hence the creation of this US center for safe sport and prior to any legislation safe sport operated for a year. Uh it did create its rules all under private agreements and because the bylaws of these individual private organizations said we’re going to allow SafeSport to do this. And so it was all under private agreement and all Congress really did when they came in with uh the safe sport act was say okay USOPC and the national governing bodies you used to do this we understand that you want the center to do this and we also agree with you that that’s a good idea and so we’re going to we’re going to bless that it did not give the center any subpoena power congress did not give the center any other governmental powers unlike the cases there’s no subpoena power no ability to levy taxes, no ability to uh execute searches on private land, uh no way to levy fines. In fact, the center cannot even enforce its own decisions. It requires the end the national governing bodies in enforcing those decisions through their private agreements with their membership. The center has none of these powers, none of these governmental powers, nor any power to enforce its own decisions. And at most all it can do is say, “Hey, national governing body, this person can no longer be a member of your national governing body. They can go do whatever sports they want, just not with the five rings above their head.”
As far as the uh due process arguments, at the heart of these claims is this uh this denial of a predetermination hearing. I will just uh briefly address that to say that um the center is obviously not a state actor. There is no requirement for predetermination hearing and as your honor was discussing earlier there is frankly no time and it is an example that I put in the brief which is if the center has allegations that someone’s engaging in inappropriate behavior for example a coach with a minor and that coach is about to get on an airplane the center is not going to wait around for when they get back to give them a hearing before they bar that person from sport and prevent them from getting on that plane with that minor. That is the center’s mission. And to suggest that the center should wait around to do the hearing first, I think I am not going to weigh in on that. Um the center has no obligation to provide that hearing beforehand and more importantly, the center provides these hearings fairly quickly afterwards. So, the process comes when it is due. Um as far as the um I’ll touch on the two other issues uh before you which is the uh Miss Schaefer’s arbitration uh under the safe sport code arbitration is a sole and exclusive method to resolve any challenge to the cent’s eligibility decisions or its processes.
Here Miss Schaefer uh is attempting to argue that the center does not provide due process in its processes. that is something that she was required to arbitrate in the first instance as Mr. Navaro did in his arbitration. She failed to do so. Here, Miss Schaefer argues that um she has excused herself from arbitrating uh issues regarding statutory construction and excused herself from uh arbitrating issues of constitutionality. This very circuit has in uh McDonald said that statutory interpretation does not justify bypassing arbitration and in nation’s bank that constitutional claims are not exhausted are not exempt from exhaustion requirements. So, um the court’s decision that Miss Schaefer failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and her claims are therefore barred should likely be affirmed. All right. And finally, uh, the USOPC, uh, standing issues. The district court concluded that plaintiffs failed to, uh, allege any causation for redressability. I think as the, as the district court found that it’s true. Uh, they did not allege that the US OPC had any role in the eligibility decision. It didn’t. Did not allege that the USOPC had any role in imposing the sanctions. It did not. Did not allege that the USOPC published their names. It did not. Those were all acts taken by the center. Nor did they allege that uh the USOPC handed any uh any involvement in enforcing the sanctions. Again, USOPC did not. Those were those were enforced by uh the US Equestrian Federation. Um Congress noted that uh it so it is unclear in this instance what the USOPC could have done on the red addressability front. The USOPC has no power to uh do anything in those circumstances, particularly now under the new legislation which prohibits it from interfering in the cent’s operations. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Cobble.
Good morning, your honors. May I please the court? I am Josh Cppel for the United States. I want to start with plaintiff’s uh private non-delegation claim. That claim fails at step one because safe sport is not exercising governmental power. The US Olympic and Paralympic Committee created safe sport on its own without governmental direction to coordinate oversight and response to the problem of abuse in amateur sports affiliated with the Olympic movement. Congress recognized and memorialized safe sports functions a few years later, but that does not change the fact that safe sport is fundamentally a private actor and is not uh not exercising government power. The Supreme Court recognized in San Francisco Arts and Athletics that the coordination and conduct of amateur sports is a private function, not a governmental one. And neither is the development of policies related to uh the prevention of abuse within a private organization. Many private organizations have policies and procedures to deal with abuse. Many of those will reach uh will recognize conduct that occurs outside of the organization because it’s identifies the type of person or people that they don’t want within their organization and they will exclude the person from their organization on that basis and that is all the safe doing. In those circumstances, are there statutes that codify those rules as essentially mandates or binding? Is there any other statute like this one, like the safe uh amateur sports act? Is this unique? Uh I am not sure if there are others like that. There are other statutes that recognize uh not conduct standards, but other kinds of standards developed by private organizations. For instance, there are statutes that recognize but these are this is the not recognizing standards developed by private organization. This has actually the procedure and the standards set forth in in at length and in detail articulated and then in fact there’s a provision that says the policies and procedures developed under the subsection shall apply as though they were incorporated in and made part of the act. And so, it does seem to be a different kind of statute than anything else at least that I am aware of. So, the act does not say private individuals must comply with the policies and procedures developed by SafeSport. What it does is it says it re references section 22524 which is the general duties of national governing bodies. So, in that section congress has regulated the national governing bodies that are authorized to represent the United States in international competition. And it says one more obligation of the national governing bodies is they have to agree to abide by the safe sport uh policies and procedures if they want to be national governing body. If Yousef decides it does not want to abide by the procedures of safe sport, it does not have to. You, the US Olympic Committee simply will not recognize it anymore as a national governing body authorized to send individuals to the Olympics. But you can continue to organize amateur athletic sports. And there are organizations, amateur athletic organizations that do not abide by safe sports policies and procedures. They organize sports. They are just not recognized national and governing bodies. They do not choose uh who to nominate to go to the Olympics uh or other international competitions. Um and uh and when state sport sanctions an individual the sanction is again you cannot compete with the national governing body that individual can compete with other athletic leagues can train individuals outside of the parameters of the national governing body and the Olympic movement. And so, in that way what safe sport is doing is fundamentally a private function. It is regulating who can be within this private organization. It is not real there is no criminal liability. There is no civil liability. Um, and that is what really distinguishes this, for example, from the HISA uh cases. And if Safe Sport oversaw a different kind of uh entity that was not amateur sports, I take your argument to be that because this is amateur sport, it is not a governmental function. If it was, for example, overseeing who can fly up an airplane or who can drive a train, then that might be a governmental function and there could potentially be a non-delegation issue there. No, I do not think that that it is that the problem is that it is just I am sorry. I do not think that the distinction is that this is amateur sport as opposed to something else. The distinction is that it is regulating conduct within a private organization. There is no civil or criminal liability for violating SafeSport’s policies and procedures. You are not excluded from the entire industry. Uh you are just excluded from the private organization, which the Supreme Court has recognized continues to be a private organization. Um well, I think your colleague on the other side says this is like Amtrak. So, why is it not like Amtrak? Uh so the Congress set up uh safe sport set up the US Olympic committee as a se as an independent corporation. The Supreme Court recognized that uh the US Olympic Committee continues to be a private actor and the US Olympic Committee then on its own created SafeSport to as an independent body to govern to create policies and procedures to deal with abuse. Those policies and procedures continue to be private policies and procedures even after the Congress has recognized and memorialized the role of SafeSport. Safe sports uh the sanctions the safe sport can impose are no different now than they were in 2017 before the amendments to the amateur sports act. uh they continue to simply be exclusion from the private the private organization that the national governing bodies and the US Olympic Committee. Uh, just very quickly on the issue of the due process claim uh in the due process clause of course protects individuals only from governmental action not from private action. SafeSport’s a private as we discussed SafeSport’s a private entity that does not exercise any governmental function and the government has not coerced SafeSport into not giving a pre-deprivation hearing. Uh Safe Sport on its own determines whether it wants to give a hearing before or after it imposes a sanction. And so, the choice not to give a pre-deprivation hearing in these circumstances can only be attributed to safe sport. It cannot be attributed to the government. Uh and so there is no due process violation. Happy to answer any other questions. Otherwise, we ask the court for the decision below. Thank you, Mr. Cob. All right. Uh, Mr. Tucker, you ask for a rebuttal.
Thank you, your honor. I want to take this point by point. First, we have not discussed count five, which is a facial challenge to the statute under the due process clause. Um, Congress is a state actor, obviously. So, when Congress passes a statute that on its face violates a person’s due process rights, it is unconstitutional. And in this case, well, that is pretty broad. What about the National Bank Act? I mean, uh, we charter banks, private banks all across the country. Here is how they’ve here is how they violate here is how it is facially invalid. Congress has mandated that once the center makes a decision to bar an individual, and I am not talking again about temporary measures. We keep hearing the airplane example. That has nothing to do with this case. When Congress bars somebody and makes them ineligible permanently or for a period of time, I am sorry. When the center does that, Congress has said their name goes on the worldwide web. That is the wall of shame. It is stigmatic. It is a liberty interest. The change in status is the stigma plus. Congress has not required you know that when you become a member. In other words, the idea part of enforcing exclusion from sport is to make sure that the person who has been excluded does not re-engage in the sport in some context where they do not know about it. And uh your honor, respectful. I mean, maybe that you could sue them for defamation of tors uh but that is not state action. Well, you do not need state action because you have Congress that’s passed a statute that has authorizes the corporation. It is a state-chartered corporation, a federally chartered corporation that charters a private corporation and tells them to make the rules and tells them to enforce the rules and the ultimate sanctions exclusion from the sport. That is not what’s happening. Congress has directed the Senate to put their names on the wall and change their status and has not told the center to give a pre-deprivation hearing. Leaving it up to the center, as my colleague just argued, makes it worse, not better. Leaving it up to the center is not the way to fix the facially invalid statute. Congress leaving it up to the center undercuts your delegation argument. No, I do not think it does. This is kind of one of those rare things. Normally there is sort of a conflict between the fifth amendment and non-delegations. It is a little bit of an either or. This is one of those situations whereas my colleague just said, Congress blessed this arrangement. Congress came in after the fact and said, “Hey, this is great.” And then it added a bunch of stuff that I listed earlier with regard to the subpoena power. It is irrelevant. The EEOC does not have subpoena power. It is governmental, clearly governmental. So that’s kind of a red herring. Um, and I think it is important to remember uh to Judge Neim’s point that uh in uh when Congress blessed this arrangement, Congress also granted civil immunity to the center. So, you know, on the one hand, it has no governmental oversight. On the other hand, it offers significant governmental protection, and it offers significant government governmental mandates that I listed earlier. And so, it is almost as if in this case they wrote the worst possible statute where they went too far in some ways and not far enough in another. But here is how it works. Either there’s oversight or there is a pre-deprivation hearing. It is not hard to fix this. But for whatever reason, seven years down the road, we cannot seem to get this fixed. Um I would also mention that with regard to um my colleagues’ comments that my clients can still teach writing. Again, they cannot teach on private land to people who are members of USEF. When you say they cannot, uh the sanction uh for everything is membership. The sanction is not a criminal or civil sanction. There is no civil system basically it’s a rule that uh leads ultimately the most severe sanction that they can impose is exclusion of membership. Well, they do not teach uh they are severely limited in their employment now because people who take lessons for them from them who happen to be members of you will be uh liable potentially for aiding and abetting. So, this notion of oh we are just not under the five rings anymore but everything else is hunky dory is simply not the case. Um and in fact the center extends sanctions and uh interim measures and other types of punishments. If persons do not want to be members uh because and don’t intend to participate in the Olympic movement or the Pan-American games or whatever uh these national games that involve the membership they don’t have to belong, and they can do whatever they want. I mean in this regard the idea is that people do want that membership because they do want to be have the participation or the potential discipline uh participation in the activities that lead to uh participation in Olympic games. But I uh I do not understand the argument that all of this is government action uh simply when the sanction the ultimate sanction is exclusion of membership from a private corporation. Your honor, which is premised on some factual misunderstandings. So, this is not simply prospective in nature. This statute was not passed on a prospective basis as was HISA. His Congress specifically said, “Look, you’re going to investigate and adjudicate and do all of these things, you being the authority, and you’re going to do it on a prospective basis.” These con this conduct has been investigated going back to long before when somebody signed up their membership agreement, there was a safe sport. Let us take just the hypothetical. If it is private, you have your private poker club and all of a sudden you decide you don’t want a member of the club because one member uh it was uh 10 years ago engaged in embezzlement and you say he’s out. The club says he is out because we do not want somebody who engaged in embezzlement. Now where is the where the courts come in and say the poker club cannot do that? Well, because if Congress writes a statute that says, “Hey, the uh poker enforcement embezzlement center is now in charge of the poker club and gets to write the rules for the poker club and tell the poker club what participants can and cannot be.” The poker club already is making its rules, and it does then why do Congress act? So, that is the problem here. Congress stepped into it. Congress waited in this area of regulation well beyond what it had ever done before. It is a lengthy statue. To Judge Burner’s point, it is a statute like no other. That is why we are here because there is no other statute that anyone can find that does what this one OES. It has not simply said, “Oh, you’re the National Veterans War thing and you can have your bylaws and go forth and you’re a patriotic organization.” I’m sorry. May I finish my answer?
30 seconds. It goes well beyond that. If you look at the length and breadth of the entire Safe Sport Act, those two amendments, you will see that this is not simply some Congress, you know, letting the poker club decide who’s going to be in the poker club. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We’ll uh take a short recess, come down, and greet counsel.
[Music] This honorable court will take a brief recess.
Athletes Re-Victimized: An Investigation into the U.S. Center for SafeSport
Dec 16, 2025, Victoria Manning, Science & Health | Investigations
NO. 25-1150
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
THOMAS NAVARRO; JAMES GIORGIO; NINA SHAFFER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
– v. –
UNITED STATES CENTER FOR SAFESPORT; UNITED STATES OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE; UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AT CHARLOTTESVILLE
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/reply-court-of-appeals.pdf
SafeSport paid investigator’s way to training, socials despite knowing he had legal problems
Motion To Intervene
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS NAVARRO; JAMES GIORGIO;
NINA SHAFFER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES CENTER FOR SAFESPORT;
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC
COMMITTEE; UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN
FEDERATION, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Ropes & Gray; Gray Nassar Investigation Paints Damning Picture Of USOC And USA Gymnastics [Update]
https://deadspin.com/ropes-gray-nassar-investigation-paints-damning-pictur-1830994055
PRESS RELEASE
U.S. Center for SafeSport fires CEO Ju’Riese Colón
Associated Press
Apr 22, 2025, 07:17 PM ET
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/44806087/juriese-colon-ceo-us-center-safesport
The Federalist Article
U.S. Center For SafeSport Shows The Dangers Of Delegating Power To Private Entities
By: George M. Perry
April 10, 2025
AP News – SafeSport knew of allegations against former cop before hiring him as investigator
By EDDIE PELLS
Updated 9:41 PM EDT, April 2, 2025
People at the U.S. Center for SafeSport knew a former police officer was the subject of an internal investigation at his former job but hired him anyway, according to details released Wednesday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is looking into the matter.
Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter this week to the center’s CEO, Ju’Riese Colon, asking more questions about why the organization hired Jason Krasley as an investigator even though it had knowledge of his potential legal trouble.
“You conceded that this was ‘concerning information’ but hired him nonetheless after being unable to ascertain additional information,” Grassley wrote to Colon, who had revealed that information to the senator in response to his original request in February, which stemmed from reporting by The Associated Press about Krasley’s arrests.
“I find this deeply troubling,” Grassley wrote.
Krasley has been charged with multiple sex crimes, including rape, sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, from episodes that occurred during his time at the Allentown, Pennsylvania, police department, and before he was hired by the center in 2021.
The center, which investigates sex-abuse cases in Olympic sports, fired Krasley in November, two months after learning of his initial arrest for allegedly stealing money the Allentown police vice team had seized in a drug bust. Later came Krasley’s arrest for sex crimes and, in June 2024, an arrest for harassment that was resolved in December.
Grassley’s letter recounts what Colon wrote to him: that one of Krasley’s references during the hiring process “shared with you that he was the subject of an internal investigation by the Allentown police department.” The case, the letter said, was based on statements from an alleged victim that the person later recanted.
The center provided the AP with its response to Grassley, dated March 14, in which Colon writes that the case has triggered several changes in the center’s vetting process. Under the new rules, she wrote, “this disclosure would have raised a red flag and prompted additional scrutiny into the alleged conduct that led to the internal investigation.”
Colon outlined enhancements of the center’s code of ethics and the addition of an ethics clause employees must adhere to. She said she is now personally interviewing all final candidates for jobs and that the center plans to contract with an outside consultant to review its recruiting and hiring process.
She also said the center now checks the National Decertification Index (NDI), which keeps track of discipline related to officer misconduct.
The center’s letter said Krasley handled 124 cases, 15 of which were open when he was terminated.
The center said there were no complaints of sexual misconduct while Krasley worked there.
The ex-cop is free on bail awaiting trial. His attorney has asserted his client’s innocence in the sex-crime cases, which date to 2015, most recently calling them “meritless and uncorroborated allegations from drug-addled and impaired prostitutes.”
The center has also hired a third-party firm to reach out to people whose cases were handled by the former cop.
That carried potential to retraumatize victims, one of whom, Jacqui Stevenson, told the AP the center’s outreach about a case that had long been resolved triggered “a total panic attack.”
In her letter, Colon explained that the two-month delay in firing Krasley was because of a concerted effort not to take steps that would compromise the criminal investigation — reasoning that did not sway Grassley.
“I imagine you appreciate that impressions regarding SafeSport’s judgment in hiring and firing decisions impact impressions of SafeSport’s ability to properly investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct in the sports community,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley sent a separate letter to the center’s chair, April Holmes, saying there “appears to be a lack of oversight by the Board to adequately supervise the CEO … and other officers and directors in their duties to the organization.”
The senator questioned whether an increase in funding — something Colon has asked for — from its current budget of around $21 million a year would solve its problems, some of which he suggested are rooted in the complex nature of resolving sex-abuse allegations.
He said “there is concern that SafeSport is not prioritizing serious sexual and child abuse cases over other cases, which is causing more serious cases to languish without proper investigation.”
There was criticism of the center’s spending, including its $2.4 million in billing for legal services in 2023.
Also, Grassley pointed out $50,000 on dues and subscriptions, $36,000 on bank fees and credit cards and more than $390,000 on travel, all “expenses that seem excessive for a non-profit organization and financial decisions that seem counter-productive to the organization.”
Grassley asked Holmes to answer a series of questions, including how the board determined salaries for executives, including Colon, who made more than $400,000 in 2023, which included a $58,000 bonus.
Holmes said the board received the letter and would respond by Grassley’s May 1 deadline.
https://apnews.com/article/safesport-arrested-investigator-7706c88d1b788f1987a4cd7906c4e9a1
March 31, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Ju’Riese Colón
U.S. Center for SafeSport
Denver, CO 80246
Dear Ms. Colón,
I write in follow-up to your March 2025 response to my February 2025 letter regarding reports that former U.S. Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) investigator Jason Krasley faces criminal charges1 for theft, rape, sexual assault, involuntary servitude with the threat of serious physical harm, and patronizing prostitutes. (2)
Your letter was not entirely responsive to my inquiries, and the information you did provide caused additional concerns and prompted additional questions.
You informed me that, prior to Mr. Krasley’s hire, one of his references shared with you that he was the subject of an internal investigation by the Allentown police department. More specifically, you stated that the reference indicated that “a defendant in one of Mr. Krasley’s trafficking cases coerced victims into making false allegations” and that “after interviews and prison
phone records were reviewed, the victims’ statements were recanted.” You conceded that this was “concerning information” but hired him nonetheless after being unable to ascertain additional information. I find this deeply troubling. I imagine you appreciate that impressions regarding SafeSport’s judgment in hiring and firing decisions impact impressions of SafeSport’s ability to
properly investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct in the sports community. Congress designated SafeSport to protect athletes from abuse in sports and expects the organization to serve as a faithful guardian of public trust and a steward of taxpayer funding. You also indicated that you received information about the May 2019 allegations against Mr. Krasley (“theft by unlawful taking – movable prop[erty],” “receiving stolen property,” and
1 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024 (Nov 15, 2024),
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31102-CR-0000486-
2024&dnh=3lto4Jsv31F8axMQIsd%2FRA%3D%3D
2 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31103-CR-0000010-2025 (Jan. 10, 2025),
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31103-CR-0000010-
2025&dnh=azUf5wu6OkgBZJrTEn5%2FWA%3D%3D.
“tamper[ing] with/fabricat[ing] physical evidence”3 ) and June 2024 allegations against him (“criminal mischief – damage property,” “harassment – subject other to physical contact,” and “harassment – comm[unicating] lewd, threatening, etc. language”4
). However, you neglected to tell me a key detail I asked for regarding how or from whom you learned of these allegations. I
am disappointed that you remained silent on this point, and I expect to learn about this in your next letter. Worse, SafeSport retained Krasley for two months after learning of these allegations as well as an ongoing criminal investigation against Krasley.
You admitted that there were individuals who reached out to SafeSport to express concerns about Mr. Krasley’s abilities as an investigator. These individuals “express[ed] concerns about [Mr. Krasley’s] communication style, professionalism, and investigation tactics.” You did not elaborate further. This ought to have inspired SafeSport to quickly inquire further and take appropriate action to ensure that Mr. Krasley, and all of SafeSport’s investigators, were carrying out their duties thoroughly and professionally – and to make appropriate employment decisions to that effect.
Please answer the sets of questions below by May 1, 2025.
- You referenced a third-party recruitment firm that was involved in Mr. Krasley’s hiring. (a) Which third-party recruitment firm was SafeSport working with at the time of Mr. Krasley’s hiring?
(b) What criteria were considered by SafeSport in its selection of this firm to carry out
recruitment efforts?
(c) What criteria did the firm consider as it sought to recruit candidates for the role of
investigator?
(d) Is this the same firm that conducted Mr. Krasley’s reference checks?
(e) Who were Mr. Krasley’s references? Please include their titles and organizations. - You stated that a “reputable third-party provider” conducted background checks for
prospective employees.
(a) Who was the “reputable third-party provider” with whom you contracted to perform criminal background checks on prospective employees at the time you hired Mr. Krasley?
(b) Is this the same provider with whom you contract for this purpose currently?
(c) If not, who is the current provider, and what prompted the change in providers? - On any application form for candidates seeking employment as SafeSport investigators,
does SafeSport directly ask applicants if they have ever been the subject of any internal or external investigation in the context of any prior employment and the result of any such investigation?
3 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024,
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31102-CR-0000486-
2024&dnh=3lto4Jsv31F8axMQIsd%2FRA%3D%3D. Quote is cleaned up.
4 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. CP-39-CR-0004245-2024 (Nov. 14, 2024),
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-39-CR-0004245-
2024&dnh=uopLzu4SsCKQiYlQGHa6Rw%3D%3D.
- Why didn’t SafeSport apply additional scrutiny into Mr. Krasley’s alleged conduct that was the topic of the police department’s internal investigation regarding him? Why did SafeSport hire him despite the troubling information it did have at its disposal at that time?
- You did not answer my question regarding how SafeSport became aware of the May 2019 and June 2024 allegations against Mr. Krasley. Please do so now.
- You fired Mr. Krasley more than two full months after you became aware of the May 2019 and June 2024 allegations against Mr. Krasley. (a) Why didn’t SafeSport suspend Mr. Krasley immediately?
(b) Why didn’t SafeSport fire Mr. Krasley sooner?
(c) Did law enforcement ask SafeSport to refrain from taking action against Mr. Krasley
for any period of time?
(d) What were the nature of SafeSport’s internal deliberations about the allegations
against him?
(e) What safeguards did SafeSport implement during the two months Mr. Krasley
worked for SafeSport despite being the subject of criminal charges and a pending
criminal investigation? - You shared that there were individuals who reached out to SafeSport to express concerns
about Mr. Krasley as an investigator.
(a) How many individuals reached out “expressing concerns about [Mr. Krasley’s] communication style, professionalism, and investigation tactics”? To which specific employees at SafeSport were these concerns communicated initially and subsequently?
(b) What was the status of the individuals who shared concerns about Mr. Krasley as an investigator? (I.e., victims, parents of victims, fellow SafeSport investigators or other colleagues)
(c) What were the precise concerns regarding his communication style, professionalism, and investigation tactics?
(d) How, if at all, did SafeSport respond to and address these concerns? Why didn’t the concerns become grounds for a performance evaluation and corrective measures, suspension, and/or termination? - You commissioned Aleta Law, a third-party firm, to audit Mr. Krasley’s cases “to ensure fairness and adherence to the Center’s investigative protocol” and promised that “a report on the findings w[ould] be made publicly available upon completion.”5 Please share the report directly with me as part of your response to this letter, or as soon as it is completed.
5 “Arrest of a Previous U.S. Center for SafeSport Investigator,” SafeSport (Feb. 4, 2025),
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/important-update/.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
THOMAS NAVARRO; JAMES GIORGIO; NINA SHAFFER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
– v. –
UNITED STATES CENTER FOR SAFESPORT; UNITED STATES OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE; UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AT CHARLOTTESVILLE
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/Navarro-Opening-Brief-Stamped.pdf
Congress’ Sex Abuse Enforcement Body Nailed For Fraud, Pattern Of Misconduct
By: George M. Perry
March 11, 2025
Dear colleagues:
You are receiving the attached order issued by Judge Woodard of Florida as it pertains to his experiences and findings against the US Center for SafeSport. As one can imagine, the frustrations were many of SafeSport’s clear ignoring of court orders and subpoenas such that the judge wrote this detailed order.
This order comes on the heels of learning the US Center for SafeSport were derelict in their hiring processes such that a former police officer with sexual assault charges made his way to being an investigator who investigated SafeSport cases for sexual assault victims for over three years. He is one of many bad hires by SafeSport.
It is imperative that each of you heed notice of what is happening at SafeSport, which is operating with little to no oversight.
In the 2023 990 forms one can see revenue of $24.7 million, expenses at $21.6 million, assets of $15.9 million and liabilities of $1.75 million.
Ask yourself how SafeSport has made the Olympic Sports movement safer after spending over $150 million since 2018. In 2023 the US Center for SafeSport’s annual report touts handling of 24,000 cases and finding 2,000 athletes to have violated the code such that they are placed on a national database. The CEO of this organization is earning over $400,000 per year, while other salaries on the executive level exceed $150,000 each. Executive compensation is $1.5 million and other salaries and wages $10 million +. All of this to locate 2,000 athletes the Center believes to be at risk.
We thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule actually read and digest this information. Change is necessary and after eight years, it is needed now!
FEDERAL COURT ORDER STAMPED SAFESPORT
USA TODAY
Senator Grassley letter to CEO of the Center for Safesport
AP article.
Senate response to Safesport Investigator with sex crimes. questions of vetting & multiple failures of background checks at Safesport.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2025/02/27/safesport-withheld-evidence-athletes-case/80757404007/#e5hy2oaht8amvuvzxe3ne9wvbb4fmav6
AERC
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
AES
AthletesforEquity.org
Diane Carney
847-922-6167
≡ U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT ≡
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: a) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the Court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant; b) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; c) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice; and d) that the court finds the evidence of fraud, collusion, pretense, and similar wrongdoing to be clear, convincing, intentional, and beyond doubt.”
/Updated/That direct language came from a Supplemental Order filed on Tuesday, 25 February, by Seminole County (Fla.) Court Judge John Woodard, pertaining to a 2022 case involving one or more Florida female water polo players, with at least one filing a complaint with the U.S. Center for SafeSport and others participating as witnesses.
A Florida prosecution in 2022 concerning the incident was contributed to by a SafeSport investigator, which the Court described as “provided to influence the present case prosecution.”
However, in August 2022:
“the State learned that SafeSport filtered information, attempting to influence the Sheriff’s investigation. The State learned that SafeSport provided an incomplete file, withholding exculpatory information and withholding witness statements potentially favorable to the defendant.”
The Court then asked for production by SafeSport of all materials related to the case in January 2023, which was promptly refused by SafeSport’s counsel. Subsequent requests were made in December 2023 and February 2024, also refused by SafeSport. Requests from the Seminole County Sheriff in March, April and May 2024 were also refused.
The Sheriff then sent criminal subpoenas for the requested evidence in May, July and August 2024, and in September:
“Complaining witness [name withheld at SafeSport request] admitted that she reported the wrong date, wrong time, and wrong location. She admitted that SafeSport knew the information was false. [Name withheld at SafeSport request] admitted her Sheriff sworn affidavit was not accurate and that she had made no attempts to amend those nor speak to the prosecutors to explain her mistakes. The court makes a credibility determination and finds that the SafeSport reports and [name withheld at SafeSport request] reports are unreliable, unbelievable, and false.
“The exculpatory information is and was within the knowledge, custody, and control of SafeSport.
“The exculpatory information is and was within a SafeSport file that was the subject of numerous court orders and properly issued subpoenas.
“The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defense counsel went above and beyond any duty, and made every reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the exculpatory material and compliance by SafeSport to no avail.”
That led to this conclusion:
“Therefore, the court finds that it is clear, convincing, and beyond doubt:
“A. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant;
“B. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; and
“C. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice.”
It added in its Conclusions of Law (citations omitted):
“The United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., violated defendant’s constitutional right to due process, intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence from the court, the State’s Attorney, and the defendant. Suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
“Here, the court, the State, and the defendant operated in good faith, but was repeatedly blocked for over two years. SafeSport repeatedly and knowingly interfered with the investigation.”
Woodard’s order noted that his Court has authority to impose sanctions, but did not do so in this order, but he closed the underlying criminal case in view of the statements made by witnesses and left only his Order from Tuesday on the record.
A request for comment was made to SafeSport and will be added to this post if/once received.
¶
SafeSport has been under fire for more than a year and especially in view of the 1 March 2024 report of the Congress’ Commission on the State of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, which criticized the lengthy period of investigation and judgement on many cases submitted to it. Two Congressional hearings followed in March 2024, also focusing on SafeSport performance.
A bill introduced last December by U.S. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-North Carolina) and others – H.R. 10326: “Safer Sports for Athletes Act of 2024” – did not progress and has not been re-introduced so far in 2025.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a 10 February letter to SafeSport, asking for details of its hiring procedures in view of the arrest of a former SafeSport investigator for alleged criminal activities undertaken at his prior job as a police officer in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
And the Arizona-based Athletes Equity Resource Center has created a Web site with a running log of actions filed against SafeSport, including Judge Woodard’s order.
All of this continues to be a bad look for the Center for SafeSport, which was created by the Congress in 2017 as a means to get bad actors out of Olympic sport in the U.S., and funded in part by a required $20 million payment each January by the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee.
Judge Woodard’s order now makes SafeSport out as a bad actor – it is also being sued elsewhere – and will only increase pressure for reform within it and the U.S. Olympic Movement
“Florida judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that SafeSport interfered and obstructed a criminal investigation.”
Filing # 217527824 E-Filed 02/25/2025 01:48:01 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE: UNITED STATES CENTER A FOR SAFESPORT, INC
CASE NUMBER: 2022-MM-002950 & CASE NUMBER: 2022-MM-001423-A
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
This matter being heard on a Motion to Expunge pursuant to Florida Statutes s. 943.0585(4)(c), due notice having been given, the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the court conducting a hearing on January 10, 2025, considering the testimony, evidence, court record, and being fully advised, the court finds as follows.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., is established under 36 USC § 220541 (SafeSport). It represents itself to the public as a private entity organized under the laws of Colorado. SafeSport conducts business and intentionally submits itself to the jurisdiction of every state. SafeSport maintains a Registered Agent in Florida. At relevant times in 2022 and 2023, SafeSport’s General Counsel, Heather O’Brien, was also an active member of the Florida Bar.
2. April 15, 2022, SafeSport’s “Investigator” Scott Tripp provided information to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department (the Sheriff) in support of an investigation opened in February, 2022. The information purported to be related to details on behalf of a complaining witness, Emily Cummings and an events witness, Maddie Shea. SafeSport’s report and information was provided to influence the present case prosecution.
3. Between 2022 and December, 2023, SafeSport conducted an independent investigation resulting in multiple recorded interviews of witnesses and hundreds of pages of documents related to SafeSport’s report to the Sheriff.
4. In August, 2022, complying with the good faith obligation to provide discovery, the State learned that SafeSport filtered information, attempting to influence the Sheriff’s investigation. The State learned that SafeSport provided an incomplete file, withholding exculpatory information and withholding witness statements potentially favorable to the defendant.
5. January 23, 2023 the court issued an Order requiring the production of “evidence currently … in the possession of SafeSport in 10 days from the date of this Order or provide a sworn, written response showing good cause why this Order cannot be complied with.”
6. Also on January 23, 2023, a subpoena duces tecum issued concurrent with the Order of production to SafeSport. Among other requests the subpoena noted in part that:
The SafeSport file is missing the following:…
e. Any and all reports prepared by SafeSport for the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department …
i. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness]
E.C. that occurred prior to April 14, 2022.
j. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and ANY alleged witness that occurred prior to April 14, 2022.
k. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness] Tiana Boule.
l. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness] Kerstyn Farley.
m. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness] Marina Karman.
n. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations that occurred after August 3, 2022 …
SafeSport files are identified by the following case numbers: 2022-00947, 2022- 00544, 2022-00497, 2022-00495, 2022-00496, 2022-00409, 2022- 00498.
7. In a letter dated January 26, 2023, counsel for SafeSport, Mr. Joe Zonies acknowledged receipt of the Order and the subpoena. Counsel attempted to object, refused any cooperation, and refused compliance.
8. December 8 and 11, 2023, SafeSport conducted a recorded JAMS “arbitration” hearing, presenting some of the witness testimony and some of the investigation documents related to SafeSport’s report to the Sheriff.
9. This court issued an Order that SafeSport produce, under seal, the audio/video recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 & 11, 2023, involving defendant and some or all of the witnesses identified in paragraph 6 above. SafeSport is the custodian of those audio/visual recordings or transcripts.
10. On February 1, 2024, this court issued another Order that SafeSport produce the audio/video recording or transcript of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 and 11, 2023.
11. On February 8, 2024, SafeSport counsel, Mr. Zonies, replied to the Order via e-mail, wherein he declared his refusal to comply with this court’s Order. Mr. Zonies compounded his contempt for the court by sending a similar e-mail letter to the State, also indicating his refusal to comply with the Order.
A. Mr. Zonies made a material misrepresentation to this court, specifically mis-citing: “As required by federal statute, the [SafeSport] Center’s files are considered “confidential” and not subject to civil subpoena. 36 U.S.C. § 220541(f)(4)(C)(i).” (emphasis added). Mr. Zonies intentionally failed to represent that the Order was issued by this court, vested with criminal court authority, and not as a civil court matter. Mr. Zonies intentionally failed to reference or adhere to the dictates of 36 U.S.C. § 220541(f)(4)(C) (ii), which provides: Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to prohibit the [SafeSport] Center from providing work product described in clause (i) to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of assisting in a criminal investigation.
12. On March 1, 2024, a new report was filed with the Sheriff by the defendant to commence investigation into potential falsification of a police report by witnesses Marina Karman, Maddie Shea and complaining witnesses, Emily Cummings and Kerstyn Farley.
13. On March 18, 2024, the Sheriff opened another investigation into the report of false information being submitted by SafeSport and witnesses referenced above.
14. On April 24, 2024, Sheriff’s Detective Mike Pivowar, e-mailed SafeSport’s attorney Mr. Zonies a letter requesting records and information in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation, specifically seeking the audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration, noting that while SafeSport’s work product may be confidential, there is a clear exception to cooperate with law enforcement to assist with a criminal investigation.
15. On May 3, 2024, Detective Pivowar sent another e-mail to Jessica Perrill, SafeSport’s General Counsel and Vice President of Response and Resolutions, again requesting records and information in connection with SafeSport’s investigation, specifically the audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 220541(f)(4)(C)(ii).
16. Neither SafeSport, Mr. Zonies, nor Ms. Perrill acknowledged or responded to Detective Pivowar’s communications. Thereafter, on May 20, 2024, Detective Pivowar issued a criminal subpoena for the audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 and 11, 2023.
17. On May 28, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served via Certified Mail to SafeSport’s Colorado Registered Agent.
18. On July 24, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served via personal service on the Colorado Registered Agent for SafeSport.
19. On August 1, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served on SafeSport’s Florida Registered Agent.
20. On August 22, 2024, defense counsel issued another subpoena to SafeSport in accord with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, also requesting SafeSport’s file and audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 and 11, 2023.
21. On August 26, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served via personal service on SafeSport’s Florida Registered Agent.
22. Dated September 3, 2024, the court received affidavit testimony confirming that complaining witness Kerstyn Farley was wrong in the details submitted to the Sheriff’s Office and that SafeSport knew the details were wrong.
23. Complaining witness Kerstyn Farley admitted that she reported the wrong date, wrong time, and wrong location. She admitted that SafeSport knew the information was false. Farley admitted her Sheriff sworn affidavit was not accurate and that she had made no attempts to amend those nor speak to the prosecutors to explain her mistakes. The court makes a credibility determination and finds that the SafeSport reports and Kerstyn Farley’s reports are unreliable, unbelievable, and false.
24. The exculpatory information is and was within the knowledge, custody, and control of SafeSport.
25. The exculpatory information is and was within a SafeSport file that was the subject of numerous court orders and properly issued subpoenas.
26. The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defense counsel went above and beyond any duty, and made every reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the exculpatory material and compliance by SafeSport to no avail.
27. Therefore, the court finds that it is clear, convincing, and beyond doubt:
A. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant;
B. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; and
C. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
27. The court has jurisdiction as SafeSport is present in the State of Florida by operation of 36 U.S.C. § 220541, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and SafeSport Authorization Act of 2017, which mandates that SafeSport operate and conduct business in each of the fifty United States.
28. The court has jurisdiction as SafeSport intentionally inserted itself into, initiated, and interfered with a criminal investigation conducted by duly authorized law enforcement officers in the State of Florida.
29. The court has jurisdiction as SafeSport did purposely, knowingly conduct business within Seminole County, the State of Florida, and maintains a registered agent office within the State of Florida.
30. The United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., violated defendant’s constitutional right to due process, intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence from the court, the State’s Attorney, and the defendant. Suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Floyd v. State, 902 So. 2d 775, 777-778 (Fla 2005). Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Also see Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (Intentionally withholding presentence investigation material is violation of due process). Here, the court, the State, and the defendant operated in good faith, but was repeatedly blocked for over two years. SafeSport repeatedly and knowingly interfered with the investigation.
31. SafeSport withholding exculpatory evidence is akin to an intentional destruction of evidence. SafeSport’s actions raise a rebuttable presumption that the hidden evidence was adverse to the claims. Seaway Biltmore, Inc. v. Abuchaibe, 348 So. 3d 23 (Fla DCA 3d Dist. 2022). Here, SafeSport not only failed to dispute the presumption, it intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence. Moreover, the court has clear, convincing, unrebutted testimony that SafeSport had specific knowledge that its reports to the Sheriff were false and fraudulent. Accord, League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 390-392 (Fla. 2015) (Systematic destruction of evidence the court may infer unconstitutional intent).
32. Under the circumstances of SafeSport’s conduct here, the court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions and enter these supplemental findings when fraudulent conduct is perpetrated upon the court. Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. DCA 2d Dist. 2008). The court’s power to address SafeSport’s conduct is indispensable to the proper administration of justice because no litigant has a right to trifle with the courts, but “only on a clear finding of fraud, pretense, collusion, or similar wrongdoing.” Id. “[T]ampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society”. Id at pages 1020-1021, citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944), receded from on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976). WHEREUPON IT IS
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: a) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the Court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant; b) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; c) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice; and d) that the court finds the evidence of fraud, collusion, pretense, and similar wrongdoing to be clear, convincing, intentional, and beyond doubt;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition to expunge and the petition to seal filed concurrently is hereby granted. Other than this Supplemental Order pertaining to “In Re United States Center for SafeSport, Inc.,” all court records pertaining to the above-styled case shall be sealed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692;
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Supplemental Order pertaining to “In Re United States Center for SafeSport, Inc.” and only this Supplemental Order, shall remain in the public record; and
The Court thanks and acknowledges the good faith effort and contributions by the State Attorney’s Office, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, the defendant, and all the defense counsel that provided services pro bono supporting and assisting the court under unnecessarily difficult circumstances.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at the Seminole County Courthouse,
Sanford, Florida, on Tuesday, February 25, 2025.
John Woodard, County Judge
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_safesport_-_hiring_practices.pdf
TO READ THE FULL FOUR PAGE LETTER CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE
United States Senate
Washingtn, DC 20510
February 10, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Ju’Riese Colón
U.S. Center for SafeSport
Denver, CO 80246
Dear Ms. Colón,
I write regarding reports that a former U.S. Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) investigator faces criminal charges1 for theft, rape, sexual assault, involuntary servitude with the threat of serious physical harm, and patronizing prostitutes.
Congress created SafeSport to investigate sensitive cases of sexual abuse and harassment. Claimants share deeply personal information with SafeSport investigators. For some, the memories they share with SafeSport are among their worst. Claimants and respondents alike deserve impartial, fair investigators who have not been accused of sexual misconduct of their own. Investigators must be professionally and morally qualified to perform their duties. Accusations of rape and other sex crimes against any SafeSport investigator are especially concerning given SafeSport’s mandate to protect athletes from similar abuse. Charges of that
nature seriously call into question the quality of SafeSport’s vetting processes of its own officials.
In May 2019, Mr. Krasley was serving as a police detective in Allentown, Pennsylvania, when he allegedly stole $5,500 from a crime suspect. Theft in this context also constitutes the crime of tampering with evidence. SafeSport hired him around 2021 to investigate allegations of
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024 (Nov 15, 2024), https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31102-CR-0000486-024&dnh=3lto4Jsv31F8axMQIsd%2FRA%3D%3D Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31103-CR-0000010-2025 (Jan. 10, 2025), https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31103-CR-0000010-
2025&dnh=azUf5wu6OkgBZJrTEn5%2FWA%3D%3D. 3 When SafeSport receives a report of abuse or misconduct in sport, establishes proper jurisdiction, and subsequently determines that a formal investigation is appropriate, its investigators conduct interviews of claimants and respondents as well as gather evidence for the case. They then compile the evidence in a formal investigation report, which they share with a committee of reviewers, including their supervisor and the legal team. See Response and Resolution Process Overview, at 1 (July 2024), U.S. CTR. FOR SAFESPORT, https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/07/SafeSport-Process-Factsheet.pdf. 4 DA: Former Allentown police officer charged with stealing money from drug suspect, WFMZ 69 NEWS (Nov. 15, 2024), https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/lehighvalley/da-former-allentown-police-officer-charged-with-stealingmoney-from-drug-suspect/article_f3ec0208-a367-11ef-b073-db61de6426e0.html.
Current litigation or investigations against Safsport as of 2/5/2025
January 2025
Here is an account of a reporting athlete to Safesport and what she endured for 2 years in an unresolved Safesport case.
A gymnast working extra hours at a gym was sexually assaulted by a highly respected coach and gymnastics official in 2018.
The assaulted individual contacted the police and filed a report with Safesport in 2018. The police could not find details beyond what he said she said.
Safesport having the report on their desk for 1 ½ years never contacted the reporting sexually assaulted athlete after the first call. The assaulted athlete grew frustrated by having to see her assailant at the gym and horrified at the no action by the gymnastics NGB contacted an attorney to seek action where Safesport had taken no action to protect her or other athletes.
It takes immense courage to file the
Safesport report and continue with her gymnastic training while the accused coach continues training and coaching as if nothing had occurred. Gathering her courage again and thinking what if her assailant is assaulting other athletes, she and the attorney set out to get some answers or movement from Safesport. The attorney and the assaulted individual saw general sports news regarding Safesport articles on cases that reached back decades, yet no investigator was available to a current case and current threat in sports!
Finally in 2020 some movement. A Safesport investigator was assigned to the 2018 Safesport report.
How can Safesport in good conscious investigate decades-old cases while current reports of sexual predators are being ignored in current sports?
Who decides where Safesport distributes funding and their focus?
Did Congress intend with the amendment of the Ted Stevens Act creating The Center for Safesport to have the center focus to be retrospective or prospective cases?
September 2024
Case 3:24-cv-00030-RSB-JCH Document 45 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 59 Pageid#:527
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division
Thomas Navarro, James Giorgio, and Nina Shaffer,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Center of SafeSport, United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, and United
States Equestrian Federation, Inc.,
Defendants
Athletes Equity Resource Center
7942 W Bell Rd, Suite C5-472
Glendale, AZ 85308
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
AERC Update
August 2024
Thank you very much for your donations and your dedicated interest in the mission of Athletes Equity Resource Center.
Listed below are updates regarding AERC’s work over the past year. More details can be found on the AERC website at AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
• AAA Arbitration Ruling
Summary: Back in 2015-2016, national governing board (NGB) USEF saw the conflict regarding suspending their members without a hearing. At that point in time, they should have asked the declaratory judgment question presently being presented for clarification in 2024. USOPC, USEF, and IOC all have said that they have no jurisdiction to resolve this problem (question). So, after exhausting all administrative remedies over the past five years, the AAA ruling paved the way for the federal court complaint to be filed in Virginia.
• Western District of Virginia Federal Court Complaint
Summary: Members of the NGB USEF were injured by the NGB when they were suspended from their sport before a hearing. That lack of due process in the SafeSport resolution process is the question to be resolved by the federal court.
In addition, there are constitutional questions: Congress created the Center for Safe Sport and gave it far-reaching authority, yet SafeSport is not a federal agency; it is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity.
An appeal process does not currently exist for an individual caught up in a SafeSport case. Furthermore, handling evidence — as well as what is considered to be evidence — in SafeSport cases also is in question in the federal court complaint.
To reach the federal court stage has taken five years. Thanks to your contributions, AERC and AES have been able to pay the court-related procedural fees necessary to achieve placing documents in court records. The subsequent AAA arbitration then paved the way for the declaratory judgment question to be filed in the case submitted to the Western District of Virginia Federal Court.
A press release with more information is expected from the attorneys this month (August). That press release will be sent to you and also available on the AERC web site.
• Public Meeting
AERC and AES held a public meeting in Wellington, FL, in February of 2024. Seventy-five people attended the meeting in person along with a limited number of attendees via Zoom. attendance. This was the first such this meeting to reach and include the West Coast.
• Looking Ahead to 2025
AERC and AES will continue to hold an in-person meeting in Wellington in February or March 2025 and will expand availability through Zoom. The Board of Directors for both nonprofit organizations, along with those who have contributed to either or both nonprofits, will continue to be invited to attend that meeting in person or via Zoom. As AERC’s audience grows, so will our communications outreach. Invitations and a notification for the Zoom call will be sent early in 2025.
In the meantime, updates will be posted on our websites:
AthletsEquityResourceCenter.com
Please feel free to contact me at any time.
Sincerely, Diane Carney
President AERC
Current Federal litigation Pending vs SafeSport
Walker v. SafeSport, Fed Dist. Ct. NJ, No. 2:24-cv-05650 Gymnastics
Strine v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. S. Dist. FL, No. 9:24-CV-80733, Equestrian
Navarro, et. Al. v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct., W. Dist. VA., No. 3:2024cv00030, Equestrian
Doe v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. W. Dist. WA, No. 3:2023cv06067, Swimming
Sanderson v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. CO, No. 1:2021cv01771, Shooting
French v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. CO, No. 1:2024cv02138,
Bennani v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct, CO No. 1:2023cv03160, Equestrian
Moore v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct, E. Dist. MI, No. 1:2023cv11681
At least three other cases about to be filed in federal district courts in Colorado and Texas.
Current State litigation Pending vs SafeSport
USA Swimming v. SafeSport, Co. Dist. Ct., No. 24 CV 30728, Swimming
FEDERAL COMPLAINT
Case 3:24-cv-00030-RSB-JCH Document 1 Filed 04/28/24 Page 1 of 39 Pageid#:1
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Charlottesville Division
Thomas Navarro, James Giorgio, and Nina Shaffer,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Center of SafeSport, United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, and United
States Equestrian Federation, Inc.,
Defendants
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/Federal-Case-with-case.pdf
American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Tribunal, Final Decision
Case Number: 10-20-0015-8031
James Giorgio, Estate of Robert Gage, Mitchell Steege; Eduardo Zavala Sanchez; Dylan Harries, Thomas Navarro; Thomas Serio, Claimants,
v.
United States Equestrian Federation, Respondent
Final Decision
Athletes Equity Resource Center
1202 SW 17th St, Suite 201-172
Ocala, FL 34471
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
Athletes Equity Resource Center (AERC) held its fourth public meeting on February 19, 2024, in Wellington, FL, and Beverly Hills, CA. Presentations by attorneys and investigators handling disciplinary cases on behalf of both complainants and respondents in NBG and SafeSport resolution proceedings. AERC board members were also in attendance.
Several key speakers shared their comments, knowledge, and insights:
Bonnie Navin, our longtime legal stalwart, outlined the need for more due process in SafeSport’s disciplinary procedures. She also stated that the goals talked about in previous meetings have been attained. Having exhausted administrative remedies, the next step is Federal Court. We are now at that point.
Russell Prince of Prince Sports Law, described his experiences as an attorney in 38 different NGB SafeSport cases. One thing stands out in all of these cases: although it is clear that the Center for SafeSport is needed, weaponization of the SafeSport code was never the intent of Congress. Yet reviews of their issues have not protected athletes from false and weaponized claims. Mr. Prince has cases pending in the near future that include a criminal court factor.
His sports law firm, Bryan & Prince PA, also offers a SafeSport training seminar for coaches and parents. It educates them on how to avoid SafeSport code issues that make it easy for someone to misuse the code. For more information about this, go to BryanPrincePA.com.
Tamara Tucker of Tucker Law PLC spoke as the lead attorney heading the federal court case that will be filed within the next few weeks. She is a tough, smart, articulate legal advocate with decades of experience, and she is the right attorney to take this issue to federal court.
Steve Silvey of Patterson Law Firm in Chicago discussed the American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitration findings that support bringing this matter to federal court. He presented the exact language from the ruling, which suggests that if the question regarding conflict of interest between NGBs and SafeSport issues is asked, due process procedures will prevail, and change will be required.
Bruce Tucker Smith discussed his time as an investigator for SafeSport and the prevailing administrative disinterest in handling cases fairly. He identified a clear sport bias and suggested that equestrians in particular are targeted. Furthermore, such serious administrative malfeasance indicates that an entire change of leadership is needed at the Center for Safe Sport.
Michael Romm addressed the pending IOC case. He explained that the IOC requires hearings before sanctions in its charter, which oversees each country’s National Olympic Committee (NOC). In the USA, that’s the USOPC. A number of cases will be brought together to address the IOC with regard to this violation by NGBs in the USA.
Donations were received at both locations of AERC’s public meeting. Thank you.
AERC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, so all contributions are tax deductible.
Donations may also be made via AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com. If you’re asking, “How can I help?”, the answer is to please go to the AERC website and donate. We are 75% of the way to covering the federal court costs, which Diane has negotiated with a capped amount that AERC will be responsible for paying. AES will be contributing to the declaratory judgement federal court filing.
_______________________________________________________________________
AERC 501(c)(3) donations are tax deductible
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com – AERCsports@gmail.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2024
ARBITRATION PANEL FINDS THAT SAFESPORT MAY VIOLATE OLYMPIC LAW
In a first of its kind case, a panel of three arbitrators has decided that the process used by the US Center for SafeSport (CSS) likely violates the rights of Olympic Movement participants under the Ted Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act. A group of equestrians challenged the process alleging that the United States Equestrian Federation had violated the Sports Act when it imposed the decisions by the Center. As a result, the equestrians contended, the Federation was no longer eligible to serve as the National Governing Body for Equestrian Sport. Issued on December 27, 2023, the complete written determination is waiting public posting by the USOPC.
The equestrians were represented by Tamara Tucker of Charlottesville, Virginia, Michael Romm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and Steve Silvey of Chicago, IL.
Ms. Tucker filed the first non-compliance complaint for lead claimant, James Giorgio, in August 2019. Additional claimants were represented by Mr. Romm. Mr. Silvey joined the case prior to the arbitration trial.
Ms. Tucker explained, “Mr. Giorgio’s first contact with the Center for SafeSport was a letter out of the blue permanently banning him. He did not receive any notice that he was under investigation prior to that. But even when notice is properly given, the process still violates the Sports Act because you only get a hearing after a final sanction is imposed, and then in order to get the hearing, you have to pay close to $6,000.00. That is just wrong.”
Mr. Romm added, “our position was that not only does the Center’s process violate the Sports Act, it violates the IOC Charter and jeopardizes the standing of US athletes to participate in the Olympics. There is no reason for the Center to operate this way when the right of athletes to get a hearing before being declared ineligible has been part of the Olympic Movement for over 50 years.”
The arbitration panel leveled harsh criticism at the USOPC, the USEF, and the Center for SafeSport:
“For nearly ten years, Respondent and the USOPC have failed to take the steps necessary to address the conflict between the due process rights provided by the CSS/SafeSport Code and the PDH right identified in Section 220522(a)(8) and potentially Section 22054l(a)(l)(H)of the Ted Stevens Act. This case only scratched the surface regarding the reasons why Respondent and the USOPC agreed to remove the longstanding right that an accused Olympic participant was afforded a pre-determination hearing (PDH) under Section 220522(a)(8) when the SafeSportsystem was implemented after the Dr. Larry Nasser scandal in women’s gymnastics. The limited evidence presented appears to indicate that the USOPC was either directly responsible or complicit in eliminating this predetermination hearing right when the SafeSport system was created. Whether proper or not, the longstanding right that an accused Olympic participant was afforded a pre-determination hearing under Section 220522(a)(8) was eliminated when the SafeSport system was created by the USOPC.”
“The CSS only doubled down on this pre-determination hearing issue in 2018 when it assumed full control and responsibility for all cases involving sexual misconduct or abuse in sport. To add to the problem, CSS also used its exclusive authority to create SafeSport Rules that prevented an accused Olympic participant from legally challenging its adjudication procedure allowing CSS to issue final decisions against an accused Olympic participant before ever providing a· pre-determination hearing.”
“The issue is whether Claimants could prevail in federal court regarding the legal conflict between the rules and procedures of CSS and the SafeSport Code and the conflicting due process protection identified in Section 220522(a)(8) and other sections of the Ted Stevens Act. As discussed in the analysis above, Claimants clearly have a valid procedural due process claim to adjudicate and this Panel agrees that Claimants could prevail when this conflict of law issue is eventually addressed in federal court.”
“The USOPC and CSS efforts to diminish or minimize this right to procedural due process has been set up for a rebuke by a federal court since the passage and implementation of the original version of the SafeSport Code in 2017 … In the meantime, hundreds of accused Olympic participants may continue to be inappropriately deprived of a legal right to a PDH in their cases.” Ms. Tucker and Mr. Romm confirmed that the equestrians intend to pursue this case further in federal court and with the IOC.
2022 Year-in-Review
Athletes for Equity in Sports’ 2022 year-end review will bring concerned sports enthusiasts up
to date on the progress of our two nonprofits:
- Athletes for Equity in Sport (AES) – 501(c)(6)
- Athletes Equity Resource Center (AERC) – 501(c)(3)
The AES Mission
AES’ mission is twofold:
- Achieve oversight of the SafeSport resolution process
- Initiate much-needed changes at the U.S. Center for Safe Sport
Both objectives are essential to the safety of athletes in Olympic and Paralympic sports.
Since 2019, AES and our lobbyist team in Washington, DC, have conducted weekly calls on the Hill. This year, we spent more than 50 hours in conversations with Senators and members from the House of Representatives.
The goal is to have direct, factual, one-on-one communication with those Senators and members of the House of Representatives who have jurisdiction and oversight powers regarding the U.S. Center for Safe Sport: namely, the Judiciary and Energy & Commerce committees.
In 2022, these conversations on the Hill concerned details of SafeSport case procedures, including
serious flaws in the resolution process. These flaws harm athletes and weaken confidence in the SafeSport process. This is not what Congress intended.
During their weekly meetings with AES attorneys; athletes and coaches going through the SafeSport resolution process; individuals reporting and respondents languishing while waiting months to years for a SafeSport investigator to be assigned; and individuals with direct internal knowledge of how cases are handled at the U.S. Center for Safe Sport, Senators and congressional representatives heard detailed accounts directly from those involved in SafeSport cases — and in case after case, serious damage was done.
Over and over again, these meaningful discussions pointed out the lack of judicial principles in SafeSport’s resolution process as well as the erosion of athletes’ confidence in SafeSport’s ability to accomplish its mission, which is to safeguard athletes from abuse. That’s why Congress created the U.S. Center for Safe Sport and what they intended it to do.
AES supports Congress’ intent in amending the Ted Stevens Act in 2017-18 and creating the U.S. Center for Safe Sport. However, Congress did not go far enough; they neither created procedures nor set boundaries with regard to authority. Instead, procedures were created following the failed methods of the Title lX sexual abuse resolution model initially used by universities.
The single investigator process was revoked by the Department of Education in 2017 as being seriously flawed and incomplete. But now that same model is used by SafeSport, and it is still seriously flawed.
AES has brought SafeSport case information directly into conversations on the Hill, drawing
Congress’ attention to four areas of concern at the U.S. Center for Safe Sport:
- Due process
- Management and operational integrity
- Weaponization of SafeSport
- Lack of transparency, oversight, and accountability
In addition to pointing out these specific areas that need immediate congressional oversight, AES also suggested four solutions:
First, to establish the legal boundaries intended by Congress in amending the Ted Stevens Act as it pertains to using the U.S. Center for Safe Sport to protect amateur athletes against abuse.
Second, to create a dialogue with the U.S. Center for Safe Sport, USOPC, and its related NGBs and affiliates, addressing the current status of SafeSport policies and procedures that lack legal equity and making recommendations for a fairer process for all parties involved.
Third, to obtain congressional support for agreed-upon policy changes that achieve equity in SafeSport procedures, both proactively and retroactively.
Fourth, to press for judicial and congressional remedies compelling equitable policy changes to SafeSport, the USOPC, and its related NGBs and affiliates — including legal filings to the appropriate level of the law if negotiations are unsuccessful.
In the Courts
AES supports the upcoming legal filings that attorneys are bringing forward in 2023 to remedy their clients’ damages caused by the SafeSport resolution process and administrative mismanagement by the U.S. Center for Safe Sport.
In the Press
AES has offered factual information to the mainstream media, which is becoming painfully aware of issues with SafeSport’s resolution process and the subsequent negative effects on sports and athletes’ lives. Linked below are a few articles highlighting the growing body of public evidence that supports the need for congressional review and oversight of SafeSport.
https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/sports-misconduct-watchdog-faces-crisis-confidence-82949055
Sports Supporting AES
Athletes, coaches, parents, and other stakeholders in the following sports support the AES mission: badminton, boxing, cycling, equestrian, fencing, gymnastics, soccer, swimming, track & field, water polo, and wrestling plus Paralympic basketball, equestrian, and hockey.
Every week, AES receives calls and emails asking for support, information, and/or assistance. To date,,
AES has helped more than 100 athletes and coaches who called us asking for free advice and guidance on how to navigate the SafeSport process. These individuals were directed to pro bono attorneys who could answer their questions and assist them wherever possible.
This has added up to some 250 pro bono hours so far, thanks to the attorneys assisting everyone who’s asked for help. Thus AES serves as a point of contact for individuals on both sides of a SafeSport report who are looking for some understanding — sadly, not easily obtained in the SafeSport process.
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
Athletes Equity Resource Center (AERC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides the Athlete Assistance Program℠ to insurance carriers and NGBs (national governing bodies) of Olympic and Paralympic sports. AAP℠ promotes athlete safety and mental health by giving athletes access to professional counselors and other well-being resources through innovative mental health leader Canopy Inc. AERC funds a 24/7 hotline (CALL 855-639-3009) to Canopy for athletes and their families, who may be struggling with SafeSport’s process.
Thanks to the vision and support of AERC presidents Susan Schoellkopf and Mason Phelps (RIP), AERC volunteers with expertise in insurance and mental health secured a registered service mark for AAP℠ through the US Patent & Trademark Office. AES commends the commitment of AERC members to improving athletes’ lives by offering this tangible assistance from mental health professionals.
AERC also maintains a growing list of experienced attorneys well versed in navigating SafeSport’s daunting procedures and complex code. They stand ready to assist individuals who find themselves in need of legal assistance with SafeSport. AERC’s curated list can be found on the Legal Resources page at AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com.
In Conclusion
AES operates through the generous support of contributors. Thank you to those who have financially contributed toward the success of AES’ mission. AES accepts stock or cash donations. Donations to AES, a 501(c)(6) nonprofit, are not tax deductible.
These contributors understand that AES is making progress. We are addressing the resolution process at SafeSport, and we are educating Senators and members of the House of Representatives about the need for congressional oversight.
Attorneys working on SafeSport cases have seen a direct correlation between AES’ efforts and certain changes at the U.S. Center for Safe Sport — albeit none to which the center will admit.
AES’ purpose is to improve safety for athletes in Olympic and Paralympic sports; support Congress’ intended mission in creating the U.S. Center for Safe Sport; and instigate SafeSport code and procedural revisions. We must put an end to the weaponization of SafeSport — i.e., misusing a SafeSport report to handle what is all too frequently a labor dispute or vendetta.
AES operates with pro bono attorneys and a volunteer Board of Directors. Your donation in support of AES’ mission can be made via the Donate page.
Media contact
Diane Carney
Athletesforequity@gmail.com
SOURCE Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc.
Executive Group
Athletes for Equity in Sport
AthletesForEquity.org
Facebook: Athletes for Equity in Sport
GoFundMe: Athletes for Equity in Sport
Previous Updates
-
2021 Year-In-Review| News Update
-
Safe Sport Crisis of Confidence-ABC| News Update
-
Safe Sport Setbacks – ESPN| News Update
-
Safe Sport Failures – Sports Illustrated| News Update
-
Athletes Equity Resource Center Collaboration| News Update
-
Judiciary FBI Hearing Transcript| News Update
-
Unsparing Account of FBI’s Failures| News Update
-
Simone Biles’s Decision| News Update
-
Welcoming Appointments| News Update
-
A Case of Mistaken Identity| News Update
-
2020 A Year in Review| News Update
-
SafeSport’s Cybersecurity Breach| News Update
-
SafeSport Letter to SS re Data Breach| News Update
-
The Weaponization of SafeSport| News Update
-
AES Athletes Advisory Council| News Update
-
Athletes for Equity in Sport Supports S. 2330| News Update
-
Bullying & Sexual Harassment SafeSport Case Study| News Update
-
SafeSport Case Study Scenario| News Update
-
Athletes For Equity In Sport’s Response to Recent SafeSport Actions| News Update
-
The Three Components Of Our Strategy To Strengthen SafeSport| News Update
-
Interested In Learning About Our Goals?| News Update
-
Letter to USEF| News Update
-
Newsletter 005| News Update
-
April 1, 2020| News Update
-
March 21, 2020| News Update
-
Honor Patrick “Packy” McGaughan| News Update
-
Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019 | News Update
-
February 2020| News Update
-
AES Newsletter 2| News Update
-
Progress Report | News Update
-
Chronicle of the Horse | News Update
-
January 16, 2020 | News Update
-
U.S. Center for SafeSport | News Update
-
I’ve Been Inside the SafeSport Process | Testimonial Update
A review of SafeSport’s inadequate system is long overdue. Athletes for Equity in Sport is here to help facilitate that discussion and bring about positive change in the SafeSport process. Please read our ongoing updates and join Athletes for Equity in Sport at:
AthletesForEquity.org
Facebook: Athletes for Equity in Sport
Thank you.
Athletes of Equity in Sport, Inc.
Join Us
Instagram
Facebook
Our Mailing Address is:
Athletes For Equity in Sport, Inc.
7942 West Bell Road, STE C5-471
Glendale, AZ 85308-8705