I appeared this morning on MSNBC to discuss the parallels between the Penn State case and the Don Peters banning. Watch it here. Key points made, I suppose.
Whole thing was very odd to do from a remote studio. You sit in a dark room by yourself. No one to look at. No one tells you where to look. And then you get questions in your ear. No warning as to what those questions might be. All said, went ok considering. Except for the fact that I look like Morticia Adams.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Salon debate
There seems to be a debate raging on salon.com after my piece, Why My Coach Got Away With Sexual Abuse, appeared on Friday. Check the comments section. It's a little nasty. Anyway, just to clarify, he wasn't my coach. He was the national team coach. And I did travel with him and compete under his tutelage in several major international meets - most notably the 1985 World Championships and the 1986 Goodwill Games. That said, I didn't spend my day in day out training with him. Ok this is besides the point, I just didn't want to mislead.
The debate which seems to have missed the point of the piece is around - Should we compare the anal raping of a 10 year old (by Sandusky) to the somewhat less overtly violent sexual abuse of a 16 year old (by Peters)? I say somewhat less overtly violent because clearly the anal invasion of a child is a horribly obvious coercive and violent act; no 10 year old boy would do this willingly. That said, knowing Doe personally, I know there was nothing consensual about the abuse that she suffered. It wasn't sex. It was rape (and now I sound like a "Take Back the Nighter" ala 1989 but it's true.)
Someone posting under the name of Dr. Owens suggests that Doe was complicit. That all teenage girls are misdirected horny sexpots spewing pheromones everywhere with no sense or distinction as to who might be a good target. That teenage girls go around seducing teachers and parents of friends and any adult who might be able to stick it to em because they are just so damn horny! And this may be partially true. Teenagers' hormones can take over. But this is not what happened. She was a 16 year old girl, who physically and emotionally was likely closer to 11 (that's how we all were); and, not to belabor the point, THERE WAS NOTHING CONSENSUAL ABOUT THIS SITUATION. He used his power and authority to take something from her that was not his to take. Period. Assuming it wasn't sexual abuse is paramount to assuming that there is no such thing as rape. That if a girl or a woman is of age or at least close to it, she's always willing. It reminds me of the age old (not so old really) laws that held that a woman could not be raped by her husband. All marital "sex" is consensual. No. Not so.
But comparing "which abuse is worse" was not the point of the piece. And doesn't really serve much point regardless (tell it to the abused!). The point of it was to explain why the microcosmic world of elite competitive athletics allows for abuse. (And please, no comparisons to the local little league or soccer coach directing a rag tag group of 7 year olds. I'm talking about seriously intense internationally or nationally competitive athletics. When the stakes are high, the rules are different.) The abuse laid out in both instances was brushed aside by people who knew. If not allowed, it was certainly not exposed. Here's why: the coach is all powerful. The athletes and parents and sports officials serve HIM and the sport, not the kids. Not always, but all too often. The kids who get abused are simply casualties of war. And in some instances, it's not even viewed as abuse, at least not abuse that is bad enough to have to do anything about.
Doe is a case in point here. Dr. Owen's point of view is probably not all that dissimilar to that of those who may have known about it back then. And for those commenters who argue: rumors are not enough to have done anything about it. I ask you: if it were your child, and there were rumors of a teacher abusing kids in her classroom, would you not go to the principal, to a law enforcement official and say - please look into this! I think you might.
So argue all you want about the finer points of molestation vs rape vs misdirected teenage lust. They aren't fine points really. They are major distinctions that have legal implications. And I wasn't trying to have that debate anyway. I was merely trying to explain, from an athlete's insider perspective, why, perhaps, Paterno didn't do all that he could have, why the girls that Peters abused didn't come forward sooner. And why the reasons in these two instances are likely kind of similar.
The debate which seems to have missed the point of the piece is around - Should we compare the anal raping of a 10 year old (by Sandusky) to the somewhat less overtly violent sexual abuse of a 16 year old (by Peters)? I say somewhat less overtly violent because clearly the anal invasion of a child is a horribly obvious coercive and violent act; no 10 year old boy would do this willingly. That said, knowing Doe personally, I know there was nothing consensual about the abuse that she suffered. It wasn't sex. It was rape (and now I sound like a "Take Back the Nighter" ala 1989 but it's true.)
Someone posting under the name of Dr. Owens suggests that Doe was complicit. That all teenage girls are misdirected horny sexpots spewing pheromones everywhere with no sense or distinction as to who might be a good target. That teenage girls go around seducing teachers and parents of friends and any adult who might be able to stick it to em because they are just so damn horny! And this may be partially true. Teenagers' hormones can take over. But this is not what happened. She was a 16 year old girl, who physically and emotionally was likely closer to 11 (that's how we all were); and, not to belabor the point, THERE WAS NOTHING CONSENSUAL ABOUT THIS SITUATION. He used his power and authority to take something from her that was not his to take. Period. Assuming it wasn't sexual abuse is paramount to assuming that there is no such thing as rape. That if a girl or a woman is of age or at least close to it, she's always willing. It reminds me of the age old (not so old really) laws that held that a woman could not be raped by her husband. All marital "sex" is consensual. No. Not so.
But comparing "which abuse is worse" was not the point of the piece. And doesn't really serve much point regardless (tell it to the abused!). The point of it was to explain why the microcosmic world of elite competitive athletics allows for abuse. (And please, no comparisons to the local little league or soccer coach directing a rag tag group of 7 year olds. I'm talking about seriously intense internationally or nationally competitive athletics. When the stakes are high, the rules are different.) The abuse laid out in both instances was brushed aside by people who knew. If not allowed, it was certainly not exposed. Here's why: the coach is all powerful. The athletes and parents and sports officials serve HIM and the sport, not the kids. Not always, but all too often. The kids who get abused are simply casualties of war. And in some instances, it's not even viewed as abuse, at least not abuse that is bad enough to have to do anything about.
Doe is a case in point here. Dr. Owen's point of view is probably not all that dissimilar to that of those who may have known about it back then. And for those commenters who argue: rumors are not enough to have done anything about it. I ask you: if it were your child, and there were rumors of a teacher abusing kids in her classroom, would you not go to the principal, to a law enforcement official and say - please look into this! I think you might.
So argue all you want about the finer points of molestation vs rape vs misdirected teenage lust. They aren't fine points really. They are major distinctions that have legal implications. And I wasn't trying to have that debate anyway. I was merely trying to explain, from an athlete's insider perspective, why, perhaps, Paterno didn't do all that he could have, why the girls that Peters abused didn't come forward sooner. And why the reasons in these two instances are likely kind of similar.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Safe4Athletes
I've just joined up with an organization called Safe4Athletes. We aim to protect athletes, children in particular, from sexual abuse and bullying by coaches. And here's the part where I ask for money. If you want to donate, any amount, no matter how small, go to this link . Find "Safe4Athletes" in the drop down menu.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Ban Has Been Issued
Don Peters has been banned from the sport of gymnastics for life. To add insult to injury, the USAG also revoked his Hall of Fame membership. Certainly that's the part that had to hurt the ego a bit. And, lets be clear, a man who purportedly said, in the throes of all of this horror, "This will all blow over, like the Tiger Woods thing" has a big ego.
Let's not celebrate just yet though. The USAG did the right thing. But their hand was forced by Mr. Scott Reid of the OC Register , proving that solid investigative journalism can provoke change. I'd also argue that the USAG had no choice with the goings on in Pennsylvania at the moment. Do they want to appear to be another Joe Paterno, protecting the university or institution at the expense of children? No. Better to stand up as bold protectors of the athletes. And...the good news is this: if you act that way, you become it. (It's like if you smile enough you feel happy!) Now they are holding themselves to this standard. Now they must staunchly defend the athletes. The cat is out of the proverbial bag, they have nothing left to hide, and they've put the word out that abusers won't be tolerated. They have to walk that walk. This is great news!
I'm still hoping that: 1) the definition of "abuse" is broadened as we look to protect the athlete - there is widespread physical and emotional abuse and bullying in sports that needs to be tackled; 2) that future witnesses will be moved to action.
We are all "heroes in waiting" as Phillip Zimbardo would say. If we are prepared to do the right thing, when the moment presents itself, we will. We won't pull a McQueary. We'll go right in that shower and say: What the fuck are you doing? Get off the kid! We'd get physical if needed, then find the closest security guard or police officer. We wouldn't tell university officials or other gym parents. We'd tell the police! Because pedophiles deserve to be punished by law, not just by ban. And until coaches are held to the same standards as teachers and other state childcare workers - obligated to protect the child and report any suspected abuse - we won't fix this problem.
So this is just a start. It makes a statement, to be sure. It is the right thing, to be sure. And for this, I'm grateful. I honestly thought I'd never see this happen. I've known about the abuse this man inflicted for nearly 20 years. I tried my damnedest to be a good friend to my girl Doe ... standing by and trying to help her figure it out, resolve it, in her own way. Rather than just knock the door down and scream and yell from the rooftops and make Peters apologize and pay and cry in denial then beg for forgiveness (hah) ... which would have been MY way. And maybe not so effective. And certainly not in Doe's best interest. Patience paid off. Truth won out. Even if it was 25 years after the fact.
But it's all just getting' started.
Let's not celebrate just yet though. The USAG did the right thing. But their hand was forced by Mr. Scott Reid of the OC Register , proving that solid investigative journalism can provoke change. I'd also argue that the USAG had no choice with the goings on in Pennsylvania at the moment. Do they want to appear to be another Joe Paterno, protecting the university or institution at the expense of children? No. Better to stand up as bold protectors of the athletes. And...the good news is this: if you act that way, you become it. (It's like if you smile enough you feel happy!) Now they are holding themselves to this standard. Now they must staunchly defend the athletes. The cat is out of the proverbial bag, they have nothing left to hide, and they've put the word out that abusers won't be tolerated. They have to walk that walk. This is great news!
I'm still hoping that: 1) the definition of "abuse" is broadened as we look to protect the athlete - there is widespread physical and emotional abuse and bullying in sports that needs to be tackled; 2) that future witnesses will be moved to action.
We are all "heroes in waiting" as Phillip Zimbardo would say. If we are prepared to do the right thing, when the moment presents itself, we will. We won't pull a McQueary. We'll go right in that shower and say: What the fuck are you doing? Get off the kid! We'd get physical if needed, then find the closest security guard or police officer. We wouldn't tell university officials or other gym parents. We'd tell the police! Because pedophiles deserve to be punished by law, not just by ban. And until coaches are held to the same standards as teachers and other state childcare workers - obligated to protect the child and report any suspected abuse - we won't fix this problem.
So this is just a start. It makes a statement, to be sure. It is the right thing, to be sure. And for this, I'm grateful. I honestly thought I'd never see this happen. I've known about the abuse this man inflicted for nearly 20 years. I tried my damnedest to be a good friend to my girl Doe ... standing by and trying to help her figure it out, resolve it, in her own way. Rather than just knock the door down and scream and yell from the rooftops and make Peters apologize and pay and cry in denial then beg for forgiveness (hah) ... which would have been MY way. And maybe not so effective. And certainly not in Doe's best interest. Patience paid off. Truth won out. Even if it was 25 years after the fact.
But it's all just getting' started.
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Hearing
There was a hearing today led by the USAG. Its focus: whether or not to ban Don Peters, the former national team coach circa 1980-1987 and Olympic Team coach in 1984, from the sport of gymnastics for good. He is retired so it is kind of beside the point. But it matters a great deal nonetheless. Especially to those who suffered because of him.
He is accused of sexually abusing any number of girls that he coached. One of whom is a very close friend of mine. A woman that is honest and true. Kind and protective. Goes out of her way not to inflict harm. To live in peace. And finally she has stood up for herself and the others that he hurt. Go Doe.
What choice do they have - the USAG? In light of the fact that 1) he did it and there are a host of girls willing to come forward and speak to it; 2) the Penn State disaster (no one did anything!!!!!)...doesn't the USAG HAVE to act? They have a unique opportunity to appear as if they are taking the lead here. To position themselves as proactively protecting athletes by ridding the sport of abusive coaches. It is the right thing to do.
I'm waiting patiently for the verdict.
He is accused of sexually abusing any number of girls that he coached. One of whom is a very close friend of mine. A woman that is honest and true. Kind and protective. Goes out of her way not to inflict harm. To live in peace. And finally she has stood up for herself and the others that he hurt. Go Doe.
What choice do they have - the USAG? In light of the fact that 1) he did it and there are a host of girls willing to come forward and speak to it; 2) the Penn State disaster (no one did anything!!!!!)...doesn't the USAG HAVE to act? They have a unique opportunity to appear as if they are taking the lead here. To position themselves as proactively protecting athletes by ridding the sport of abusive coaches. It is the right thing to do.
I'm waiting patiently for the verdict.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
A Welcome Change
It seems USAG has felt the pressure. There has been an adjustment to the "rules", a closing of the loophole, so to speak. I do love how they present themselves as having wanted to have closed it all along. Who was stopping you, Mr. Penny? Really? Aren't you the guy that gets to make the rules?
Check out the article...
Check out the article...
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
On the Penn State Fiasco
It's easy to be disgusted when you read
about the Penn State sexual abuse. Why, one might ask, would someone
willingly ignore reports of heinous, despicable sexual abuse of a
child? Someone as “good” as Joe Paterno is reported to be? The
hero coach, a model of highly invested and supportive, team building
and winning behavior. As a thinking, feeling adult, it seems so
obvious what the right choice would be. Report it to the police. No
matter what university officials might have you do.
So why didn't it happen? Why are good
people likely to do not so good things? Well, when it comes to
protecting friends, protecting programs and sports and instituions
that their lives have been dedicated to, when it comes to winning...
sometimes the “right thing” goes out the window. And it all seems
justifiable. I mean, what if the reports weren't true? Then you'd
have potentially ruined a man's reputation and blighted the nearly
flawless reputation of an institution – Penn State football.
It happens all the time. The sport, the
institution, takes precedence over the health and well being of human
beings, even if they're children. It happened in the Catholic Church.
Wall Street. Enron. Government agencies. Abuse in other sports
abounds. There are 79 permanently banned coaches in the sport of
gymnastics. Recent investigative reports in the OC Register identify
two revered coaches who have long standing histories of sexual abuse
of their athletes. One, Doug Boger, was actually on the banned list and found
himself a job at an unaccredited gym. The owner coach didn't care
about his history. The parents either didn't know or didn't care.
Because they thought he'd take their daughters to Olympic glory and
Wheaties boxes. Winning mattered more. USA Gymnastics was slow to act
amidst reports of abuse, again, protecting the coach and the sport
from “bad PR” rather than investigate within the fullest extent
of the law. To protect the children.
Pediatricians and other health care
workers are required by law to report any suspected abuse of
children. They are punishable under the law if they fail to do so.
They can lose their licenses to practice. They can lose their
livelihoods. Teachers are held to a similar standard. So why aren't
coaches? They arguably spend more time with the kids they coach than
doctors or school teachers. But they somehow exist outside the law.
Reporting the issue to the university president was enough? He pushed
it aside. It wasn't enough. I'm sure Paterno feels somehow “covered”
by that reporting. But it led to nothing. Ethically, he is not in the
clear, even if he is in the eyes of the law.
The solution therefore must be legally
mandated guidelines regarding the treatment of young athletes by
coaches. Adults cannot be compelled to “do the right thing”. We
have more than enough proof of this. They must be legally required
to. And children themselves must be educated and encouraged to speak
up when there is inappropriate or abusive behavior. All too often a
child in a coach/athlete (mentor/mentee) relationship feels
powerless. He questions his own rights in the situation, his own
take on the experience. He is threatened by the power, enthralled by
the coach, is unable to come to his own defense. And the lingering
affects will last a life time. And it's not ok.
Parents must demand it. The good
coaches must come to the defense of their beloved sports by requiring
that the “bad coaches” are held to task. And we all – all of
those of us who believe in the absolute protection of the child -
must insist that coaches are developers of children first, champion
builders second.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Happy Girl
I haven't been writing much lately. Mostly because I'm busy. And happy. I tend to write when I'm angsty so when I fail to put words on paper it is generally because I am enjoying myself. But then I get mad at myself for not writing and that prompts dissatisfaction and a little grumpiness and so on and so on blah blah. What a dumb cycle.
The busy-ness is from all kinds of things. Good things. I've agreed to get involved with an organization called Safe4athletes; their mission is to protect young athletes from abusive, bullying coaches. It was started by an Olympic swimmer who suffered abuse at the hands of a coach, understands the long term affects and the pervasiveness of this behavior and is now committed to being the advocate that the athlete doesn't seem to have in her parents or her sport's governing body. At least not in any sort of systematic way. I'm not sure what this will entail for me but I'm eager to formalize what I've informally been a part of for the last few years since becoming an accidental advocate through Chalked Up.
I've also been approached about writing a series of young adult books focused on the dark side of gymnastics. I'm mulling that one over. I want to do it. I'm scared to do it (dramatic structure is not really my thing). Which means I should do it. Things that scare me are the things that have ultimately made me most proud of myself in the end. So I'm trying to make sense of the jumbled mess of untethered, unconnected ideas floating and sometimes racing and often colliding in my head. And hoping I don't embarrass myself by writing a piece of total drivel. We shall see.
And there's the boy. Or man, I should say - if you're in your 40s you definitely deserve the "man" moniker. I have been debating whether or not I should write about him. Not because I don't want to reveal anything too personal to the four people that read this thing. I'm an over-sharer by nature. All four of you are welcome to read about my romantic exploits!
More so because he reads it. (Which makes me happy by the way.) And he's probably reading it right now and writing about him when I know he will read it and trying to be honest prompts that age old question regarding documentary films... is the filmmaker really capturing authentic behaviors, recording reality? Doesn't the behavior of the subjects change simply by virtue of the fact that they are being filmed? Won't what I write change simply because I know he will read it? The answer is most definitely yes, because if this were my journal I wouldn't have started with this preamble. I would have simply written this:
I met someone I really like. The whole thing is unexpected and charming and lovely. I had no hard fast rules going in other than "not an idiot". Preferably has been in a serious relationship - ideally involving marriage (so he understands what that commitment is and what it feels like to have it not work). Preferably has kids - so he gets the whole parenting thing. But I was even loose on these other than the "not an idiot".
What's unexpected about this? I'd kind of given up. Not in a bad depressing way. Just in a "I need a break from this dating thing because these guys are lame and I'd really rather spend a night with my friends or with my kids than going on yet another bad date." Like that. But then I had a good date. A lunch date, in fact. He was easy to talk to. Funny. Smart. All those cliche things that seem like normal things to want but are oh so hard to find. Beyond that... he listens. He makes me feel seen in a way I'm pretty sure I maybe never have.
The other unexpected part is that he is fairly religious. A conservative Jew. I am Jewish, it's true. But utterly un-religious. He's not at all pious, completely un-judgmental and seemingly it is his Judaism that grounds him in this life and keeps him present and grateful rather than something he uses to feel superior to others while pining for the after-life. I'll admit, I would not be comfortable with someone as religious that was a Christian. I'm a Jew by birth and culture, after all. And while I never thought I'd find myself with someone that was religious, his approach to his is one of the things that draws me to him.
What else? He's considerate. He brings flowers. He has strong hands and a big smile and brown eyes. He can fix things and likes to. He laughs at Louie CK even (especially?) the most offensive bits. He has three kids whom I have met and they are all clever and charming and lovely as well. (I'm not always a kid fan... but these were good ones. Really.) He calls, he texts, he communicates in all manner and modes. He can make fun of himself. He realizes when and how he has done wrong in his life (note to the daters out there... if the guy you're dating says the divorce was "all her fault"... run. He's not done the work yet). And he is striving to be a better human.
He is open and honest and I really have never experienced anything like it. So much so that the "L" word floats somewhat uncomfortably through my head from time to time. I say "uncomfortably" only because it is new and lacks the weight of familiarity and knowing and how on earth can I be having these thoughts already?
Oh yeah... and the fooling around is pretty darned great too. There you have it. I'm in deep like. I am hopeful and happy and looking forward not skittishly sideways or regretfully backwards. Just forward. Eyes on the road. But not too far ahead.
It's my clear eyes, full heart moment. And clear eyes, full hearts can't lose, as we all know.
The busy-ness is from all kinds of things. Good things. I've agreed to get involved with an organization called Safe4athletes; their mission is to protect young athletes from abusive, bullying coaches. It was started by an Olympic swimmer who suffered abuse at the hands of a coach, understands the long term affects and the pervasiveness of this behavior and is now committed to being the advocate that the athlete doesn't seem to have in her parents or her sport's governing body. At least not in any sort of systematic way. I'm not sure what this will entail for me but I'm eager to formalize what I've informally been a part of for the last few years since becoming an accidental advocate through Chalked Up.
I've also been approached about writing a series of young adult books focused on the dark side of gymnastics. I'm mulling that one over. I want to do it. I'm scared to do it (dramatic structure is not really my thing). Which means I should do it. Things that scare me are the things that have ultimately made me most proud of myself in the end. So I'm trying to make sense of the jumbled mess of untethered, unconnected ideas floating and sometimes racing and often colliding in my head. And hoping I don't embarrass myself by writing a piece of total drivel. We shall see.
And there's the boy. Or man, I should say - if you're in your 40s you definitely deserve the "man" moniker. I have been debating whether or not I should write about him. Not because I don't want to reveal anything too personal to the four people that read this thing. I'm an over-sharer by nature. All four of you are welcome to read about my romantic exploits!
More so because he reads it. (Which makes me happy by the way.) And he's probably reading it right now and writing about him when I know he will read it and trying to be honest prompts that age old question regarding documentary films... is the filmmaker really capturing authentic behaviors, recording reality? Doesn't the behavior of the subjects change simply by virtue of the fact that they are being filmed? Won't what I write change simply because I know he will read it? The answer is most definitely yes, because if this were my journal I wouldn't have started with this preamble. I would have simply written this:
I met someone I really like. The whole thing is unexpected and charming and lovely. I had no hard fast rules going in other than "not an idiot". Preferably has been in a serious relationship - ideally involving marriage (so he understands what that commitment is and what it feels like to have it not work). Preferably has kids - so he gets the whole parenting thing. But I was even loose on these other than the "not an idiot".
What's unexpected about this? I'd kind of given up. Not in a bad depressing way. Just in a "I need a break from this dating thing because these guys are lame and I'd really rather spend a night with my friends or with my kids than going on yet another bad date." Like that. But then I had a good date. A lunch date, in fact. He was easy to talk to. Funny. Smart. All those cliche things that seem like normal things to want but are oh so hard to find. Beyond that... he listens. He makes me feel seen in a way I'm pretty sure I maybe never have.
The other unexpected part is that he is fairly religious. A conservative Jew. I am Jewish, it's true. But utterly un-religious. He's not at all pious, completely un-judgmental and seemingly it is his Judaism that grounds him in this life and keeps him present and grateful rather than something he uses to feel superior to others while pining for the after-life. I'll admit, I would not be comfortable with someone as religious that was a Christian. I'm a Jew by birth and culture, after all. And while I never thought I'd find myself with someone that was religious, his approach to his is one of the things that draws me to him.
What else? He's considerate. He brings flowers. He has strong hands and a big smile and brown eyes. He can fix things and likes to. He laughs at Louie CK even (especially?) the most offensive bits. He has three kids whom I have met and they are all clever and charming and lovely as well. (I'm not always a kid fan... but these were good ones. Really.) He calls, he texts, he communicates in all manner and modes. He can make fun of himself. He realizes when and how he has done wrong in his life (note to the daters out there... if the guy you're dating says the divorce was "all her fault"... run. He's not done the work yet). And he is striving to be a better human.
He is open and honest and I really have never experienced anything like it. So much so that the "L" word floats somewhat uncomfortably through my head from time to time. I say "uncomfortably" only because it is new and lacks the weight of familiarity and knowing and how on earth can I be having these thoughts already?
Oh yeah... and the fooling around is pretty darned great too. There you have it. I'm in deep like. I am hopeful and happy and looking forward not skittishly sideways or regretfully backwards. Just forward. Eyes on the road. But not too far ahead.
It's my clear eyes, full heart moment. And clear eyes, full hearts can't lose, as we all know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)