![MyKayla Skinner Safe Sport](https://cdn.statically.io/img/www.sportico.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/GettyImages-1331774930-e1720359841129.jpg?w=1280&h=720&crop=1)
The firestorm created by former Olympic gymnast MyKayla Skinner’s YouTube diatribe last week has once again placed the U.S. Center for SafeSport into the spotlight of controversy.
In Skinner’s since-deleted video, the 2020 vault silver medalist criticized the work ethic of the current generation of Team USA gymnasts and blamed SafeSport–a supervisory organization authorized by Congress that was created in the wake of the Larry Nassar sex abuse scandal–for making coaches too frightened to effectively train world-class athletes.
“Because of SafeSport,” Skinner said, “coaches can’t get on athletes. They have to be really careful about what they say, which in some ways is really good but at the same time, to get where you need to be in gymnastics, you have to be … a little aggressive and a little intense.”
Skinner’s comments drew swift and broad condemnation from both gymnasts and athlete advocates. In a Threads post that appeared to allude to Skinner, Simone Biles wrote: “not everyone needs a mic and a platform.”
Skinner subsequently took down the video and took to social media to walk back or explain her remarks, an effort that did little to tamp down the controversy.
In a post on X, former Olympic gymnast Rachael Denhollander, who was the first of Nassar’s victims to go public, called out Skinner’s particular criticism of SafeSport, saying that it was advancing an argument that “winning is worth abuse.”
But Skinner is not alone in her suggestion that SafeSport—long condemned for being too lenient with abusive coaches—has overcorrected.
“The backlash to Ms. Skinner’s comments is understandable, but I am sympathetic to one point she was attempting to make,” said Florida attorney Russell Prince, who is currently representing plaintiffs in three separate lawsuits against SafeSport. “Coaches are rightfully afraid of the U.S. Center for SafeSport and USA Gymnastics, because the governing rules at both organizations require coaching conduct to be evaluated under an objective standard.”
SafeSport, which did not respond to a request for comment, was established in 2017 through bipartisan legislation signed into law by then President Donald Trump, as a direct response to the Nassar scandal. The center’s original charge was is to investigate allegations of sexual abuse against athletes in the US Olympic movement and impose suspensions or bans against perpetrators.
Over time, SafeSport’s dominion was expanded to include other forms of athlete abuse, including emotional and physical.
According to its 2023 annual report, which was released last month, SafeSport received 15,631 abuse allegations between 2021-23, of which 5,879 dealt with emotional/physical conduct compared to 3,660 which addressed sexual misconduct.
“The Center has proven incapable of fairly investigating and adjudicating allegations of coaching misconduct,” Prince said. “Complaints arising from sport-specific coaching decisions should rightfully be handled by the national governing bodies in all situations where there’s not a clear conflict of interest. Sadly, the Center continues to drastically increase its case load with physical and emotional misconduct cases while failing to adequately and timely investigate and resolve sexual misconduct cases – again, failing victims and respondents alike.”
For much of its eight-year history, SafeSport has been criticized for letting coaches off easy. A 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that, over a one-year period, the center imposed sanctions in 262 out of 2,460 cases it had “resolved.” In 2022, an 18-month investigation by ESPN and ABC News found a number of instances in which SafeSport allowed serial sexual abusers to return to coaching without a blip on their official records.
Earlier this year, the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics called attention to SafeSport’s “many shortcomings” in a 277-page report analyzing USOPC governance. According to the commission, the inadequacies of SafeSport—which included its financial reliance on USOPC, large case backlog, and “policy of closing many cases administratively”—explained why “many athletes continue to hold little trust in the system meant to protect them against abuse.”
That familiar criticism is now being joined (and complicated) by a small but growing chorus of voices arguing that Olympic movement coaches similarly need to be protected against abuse–from SafeSport.
One of Prince’s clients is Alexis Moore, a former Nassar abuse victim who now coaches gymnastics and competitive dance in Michigan. Last July, Moore and her mother Nanci filed a federal lawsuit against SafeSport after being placed on probation due to complaints of physical and emotional misconduct. SafeSport later reduced the mother-daughter duo’s penalties, but by then, their lawsuit claims, the reputational damage had already been done.
“Alexis was abused for 10 years by Dr. Nassar, and she and her family endured the civil and criminal process that followed,” the lawsuit stated. “Now, they have been harmed by the very organization that is meant to serve individuals in sport …”
In April, New Jersey gymnastics coach Roger Walker sued SafeSport and USA Gymnastics after he received a three-month suspension for emotional conduct on the eve of Regional Championships. In his suit, filed in federal court, Walker accused SafeSport of being a “predator rather than protector,” through a four-year investigation that led to “the equivalent of an irretrievable business death sentence.”
According to Walker: “The United States Congress designated the U.S. Center for SafeSport as an entity assigned to safeguard amateur athletes against abuse by following due process standards. In practice, however, SafeSport routinely issues sanctions and sentences without any pre-deprivation hearing.”
In court, SafeSport has defended itself as having “absolute immunity” from having its eligibility rulings subjected to judicial review.
“Membership in the Olympic and Paralympic Movement is a privilege and not a right,” SafeSport wrote in a November motion to dismiss the Moores’ lawsuit. “All determinations by the Center regarding an individual’s eligibility to participate in the Olympic and Paralympic Movement fall within the exclusive authority Congress granted to the Center by Congress.”
Whether that argument ultimately prevails in court, it has yet to stem the tide of litigation. Prince said that he plans to file three more lawsuits against SafeSport in next few months. The trial lawyer argues that his clients’ position that SafeSport is doing too much is not mutually incompatible with others who argue that SafeSport hasn’t done nearly enough.
“Our athletes, coaches, and participants desperately need the U.S. Center for SafeSport to work and protect our communities,” Prince said. “Currently, it doesn’t, and it isn’t improving. The problems are far beyond the Center being a paper tiger or a rudderless ship. They are vast and systemic and will require the entire organization to be reorganized if it is to survive.”
For now, SafeSport is arguing that it needs to expand at least budget-wise. In its latest annual report, the organization advocated for an additional $10 million in annual funding on account of the economic inflation and continued rise of its abuse cases.
(This story has been updated in the eighth paragraph to clarify Prince’s lawsuits.)