Shaun Nick Bester - Cycling SA announcement

[IceCreamMan]

4 hours ago, RobynE said:

 

I just feel like there’s an awful lot of men saying what should have been done and to be quite honest barring a few comments most really seem to be leaning towards SNB and how he should have enjoyed a “softer” outcome. This is a really difficult thread to read and digest. 

 

I reckon you have misread the vast majority of comments. I don’t think anyone commented on a softer outcome. 
 

 

[Holmsie]

I'm proud of the way that CSA handled this. Give credit where credit is due. Thoughts are with those impacted by SNB's actions. 

[Jaytriathlon]

11 hours ago, DieselnDust said:

7 @ level 1

8@ level 2

3 @ level 3

 

low numbers

I believe CSA will only list coaches that currently have active coaching licenses. 
I am certain there are alot more unlicensed coaches in the country with UCI certificates. People should encourage their coaches to go through the admin of getting their license with CSA as then the federation is able to act on allegations such as this very case. 

It would also ease my mind to approach a new coach that has gone through the vetting process (Safeguard checks, police clearance and CSA approval). 

[Skubarra]

11 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

I reckon you have misread the vast majority of comments. I don’t think anyone commented on a softer outcome. 
 

 

For one you are very vocal that he shouldn't have been named (though I doubt the parents of the other minors he coached share this sentiment) - I would consider that protection given the seriousness of the charges a much softer outcome

In line with above most of your concerns seem to center on "What if he turns out to be innocent?" Not regurgitating that debate but for most here the bigger concern is the impact on the victims and other potential victims.

[Mamil]

3 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

For one you are very vocal that he shouldn't have been named (though I doubt the parents of the other minors he coached share this sentiment) - I would consider that protection given the seriousness of the charges a much softer outcome

In line with above most of your concerns seem to center on "What if he turns out to be innocent?" Not regurgitating that debate but for most here the bigger concern is the impact on the victims and other potential victims.

Exactly

[Quagga]

15 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

For one you are very vocal that he shouldn't have been named (though I doubt the parents of the other minors he coached share this sentiment) - I would consider that protection given the seriousness of the charges a much softer outcome

In line with above most of your concerns seem to center on "What if he turns out to be innocent?" Not regurgitating that debate but for most here the bigger concern is the impact on the victims and other potential victims.

I was thinking the same thing, so I am glad you said it. 

 

This is excatly how I read his comments also

[lechatnoir]

25 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

For one you are very vocal that he shouldn't have been named (though I doubt the parents of the other minors he coached share this sentiment) - I would consider that protection given the seriousness of the charges a much softer outcome

In line with above most of your concerns seem to center on "What if he turns out to be innocent?" Not regurgitating that debate but for most here the bigger concern is the impact on the victims and other potential victims.

I think the 'what if he's innocent' boat has sailed. This has taken a long time to get to this point, and it's not a knee-jerk reaction for CSA to post this. Main stream media has taken it up and you can bet that questions like 'should we be posting this?' have been asked and answered. The answer is 'yes'.

 

[DieselnDust]

1 hour ago, Jaytriathlon said:

I believe CSA will only list coaches that currently have active coaching licenses. 
I am certain there are alot more unlicensed coaches in the country with UCI certificates. People should encourage their coaches to go through the admin of getting their license with CSA as then the federation is able to act on allegations such as this very case. 

It would also ease my mind to approach a new coach that has gone through the vetting process (Safeguard checks, police clearance and CSA approval). 

Totally agree. There are certainly more people practicing as coaches on various forms but so few have registered which is shameful. 
In the recent past CSA made the courses available through the UCI at a massively discounted rate with quite a good uptake. I recall missing out on a slot due to the popularity of the course. The. I had to wait 2 years before they ran it again because, in the words of the learning and development official “ we wanted to ensure that for the next uptake we will be providing the course to people who want to coach and develop their clubs and others. We had over 60 participants in the last course and less than 10 actually registered with the CSA for their licenses. Hence we want the first aid certificate, active membership and liability insurance in place before you can register for the course.” It didn’t quite work line that in the end but it was disappointing to see that so many opportunities were taken and not used through registering with CSA. I’m mighty impressed to see Johns name on that list because he really doesn’t need it to be there or for his job but there you have it, one of the worlds top coaches is humble enough to take out his coaching license with his governing body. Even if there’s no immediate personal benefit the upside is that someone looking for a coach can find one on the CSA website and that may very well be “you”.

the upsides to cycling community are numerous and one such case has played out in this thread 

[IceCreamMan]

1 hour ago, Skubarra said:

For one you are very vocal that he shouldn't have been named (though I doubt the parents of the other minors he coached share this sentiment) - I would consider that protection given the seriousness of the charges a much softer outcome

In line with above most of your concerns seem to center on "What if he turns out to be innocent?" Not regurgitating that debate but for most here the bigger concern is the impact on the victims and other potential victims.

Where did I say he shouldn’t be named? Edit: (in hindsight I realise this may have been misconstrued, my apologies. While I may have used the word naming it should be read in conjunction with naming him as a groomer. ) 

I have not once said that. Not.even.once. 

seems a lot of folks don’t read too good. 

what I did say was that CSA are skating on potentially thin ice by labelling someone a groomer. By all means sanction him for life , work with SAPS to get this guy in gaol. By labelling him a groomer you also potentially affect those that were in his care. Those that have been affected by him can now be identified. This is serious in my books. 
 

you see, nothing happens in a vacuum, and the press release is all we really have to go on. Did the CSA suspend him when these allegations surfaced? I don’t think so as it appears one of his accreditations were achieved AFTEr the allegations. The CSA by knowing the situation allowed him to carry on until Monday morning the 3rd of June 2024. Sorry to say, but I suspect there is lot more to this story and in time it might come out.

The CSA should have suspended him back in early 2023 under violation of code and sanctioned him while concurrently working with SAPS. this is a CRIMINAL matter, get it? 
 

is this clear? 
 

according to a missive previously posted the matter is sub judice, now whether this is true or not we do not know. If it in fact is, then the CSA have potentially affected the outcome with this press release. 
 

 

Edited June 5 by IceCreamMan

[PygaSchmyga]

this is worn out now

[Nick]

2 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

Where did I say he shouldn’t be named?

I have not once said that. Not.even.once. 

seems a lot of folks don’t read too good. 

what I did say was that CSA are skating on potentially thin ice by labelling someone a groomer. By all means sanction him for life , work with SAPS to get this guy in gaol. By labelling him a groomer you also potentially affect those that were in his care. Those that have been affected by him can now be identified. This is serious in my books. 
 

you see, nothing happens in a vacuum, and the press release is all we really have to go on. Did the CSA suspend him when these allegations surfaced? I don’t think so as it appears one of his accreditations were achieved AFTEr the allegations. The CSA by knowing the situation allowed him to carry on until Monday morning the 3rd of June 2024. Sorry to say, but I suspect there is lot more to this story and in time it might come out.

The CSA should have suspended him back in early 2023 under violation of code and sanctioned him while concurrently working with SAPS. this is a CRIMINAL matter, get it? 
 

is this clear? 

Hi IceCreamMan,

Your ongoing debate is tedious. It is detracting from the serious nature of the issue at hand. We urge that you contribute constructively to the discussion.

If this continues, we will have no choice but to issue a temporary "cooling off" suspension to ensure the conversation remains productive and focused.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

[IceCreamMan]

Just now, Nick said:

Hi IceCreamMan,

Your ongoing debate is tedious. It is detracting from the serious nature of the issue at hand. We urge you that contribute constructively to the discussion.

If this continues, we will have no choice but to issue a temporary "cooling off" suspension to ensure the conversation remains productive and focused.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Thank you Nick. 
 I agree.

fetching my pitch fork as I type this. 
 

have a groovy day. 

[Frosty]

3 hours ago, Jaytriathlon said:

I believe CSA will only list coaches that currently have active coaching licenses. 
I am certain there are alot more unlicensed coaches in the country with UCI certificates. People should encourage their coaches to go through the admin of getting their license with CSA as then the federation is able to act on allegations such as this very case. 

It would also ease my mind to approach a new coach that has gone through the vetting process (Safeguard checks, police clearance and CSA approval). 

A conviction for child protection and sexual offences remains on a person’s record for life, whereas a criminal record can be expunged after 10 years (for minor offences). This is why it’s important that those found guilty are added to the register.

[wessie12]

My grandfather was a wise man , he used to say " If it walks like a duck , looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it's probably a duck". 

All jokes aside this is very serious.  Having experience in disipline and criminal investigations I trust the decision/ outcome of the CSA hearing. It only takes a very minor discrepancy to throw out a case like this. I will not be surprised if other complainants come forward. 

Cases like this is extremely tough mentally on victims.  They will be judged and scrutinized for the rest of lives for labeling a man when infact they are the victims. Society baffles me sometimes

[eddy]

22 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

eddy, I know exactly what it means. 
 

I refer you to exhibit A. As posted yesterday. Presumably the above has been completed based on this missive. 

I don't wish to argue with you, but I strongly doubt that you know what the sub judice rule means.

Bester, like many before him, is trying to shut down the matter by falsely calling the situation sub judice.

It isn't. 

Midi TV (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] SCA 56 (RSA) is the authority on the matter. Nugent JA and 4 other appellate judges disagree with Bester (and you).

It is clear that answering speculation about pending or ongoing legal proceedings will not breach the sub judice rule, and the rule should not be invoked just to avoid answering a question which is embarrassing or difficult.

Furthermore, even if the rule (which has never been involved after the enactment of the constitution as it is in conflict with freedom of expression guarantees) was miraculously relevant, there is NO PENDING OR ONGOING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A JUDGE which, even in the olden days, was the ONLY time the rule ever applied.

Happy to be proven wrong ( and to learn from you)  if you provide convincing authority for your understanding.

 

 

 

[FaizelSalie_01]

On 6/4/2024 at 5:48 PM, Barry said:

So this makes 3

Seems USN one date is out with a year? CSA press release was 03 June 2024 not 03 June 2023 ....