Shaun Nick Bester - Cycling SA announcement

[Vaultboy]

2 hours ago, justinafrika said:

The fact remains that less than 4% of formal police complaints of alleged sex assault offences are prosecuted and less than 1% result in a conviction, in both SA and the UK.  That low percentage has almost nothing to do with false allegations...Multiple false accusers against one person is unheard of.

It really is this simple. If you get accused of sexual misconduct, you should get suspended with immediate effect until due process is completed, with reasons for the suspension. It is vital, to allow potential other victims to come forward. I find it strange how we hush up sexual misconduct, but if you are accused of financial misconduct, the whole world can know, because God forbid we employ a thief. 

[Skubarra]

34 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said:

This seems contradictory? 
They've still named and shamed him, so in essence labelled him. 
The only difference is they've done so ahead of the Safeguarding Policy investigation, which essentially follows the same process as CSA. 

Thought the same.

As I understand he feels CSA should have suspended him immediately after the initial allegation but also not name him - slightly curious how these anonymous immediate bans would play out in real life but also this is getting off point.

[Shebeen]

12 minutes ago, Vaultboy said:

It really is this simple. If you get accused of sexual misconduct, you should get suspended with immediate effect until due process is completed, with reasons for the suspension. It is vital, to allow potential other victims to come forward. I find it strange how we hush up sexual misconduct, but if you are accused of financial misconduct, the whole world can know, because God forbid we employ a thief. 

It's not really as simple as you think. By your plan, I could (anonymously of course) accuse you of sexual misconduct and you're on the sidelines till the hearing takes place?

We've come a little bit of a way since this:

 

 

 

 

[Vaultboy]

31 minutes ago, Shebeen said:

It's not really as simple as you think. By your plan, I could (anonymously of course) accuse you of sexual misconduct and you're on the sidelines till the hearing takes place?

We've come a little bit of a way since this:

 

 

 

 

Sadly, real life isn't monty python. I used to conduct disciplinary investigations. Sexual misconduct is tough on the accuser. Typically they are women, in a male-dominated workplace. They typically get shamed more than the alleged perpetrator; These things take months or years to play out - and they have to show up for work every day in an environment that turns against them. These cases are also difficult to prove, because sexual predators are clever, and cover their tracks. Invariably, it comes down to he-said-she-said; and men, in a male-dominated workplace, have layers of social protections. But the worst of it all, as an investigator, is when i had to take evidence from accusers - I could visibly see them shrink into themselves and fade away as they had to recount every detail of their experience. Not just once, but multiple times (because I do my work thoroughly), and that's not even going to hearings and getting torn apart under cross-examination. This thing of being falsely accused is just a red herring. Peak Male Fragility.

 

Also, if you go to my manager and accuse me of financial misconduct, he will contact HR within the day. Within 24 hours, my account will be locked. I will be required to hand in my laptop, and I will be sent home. Suspension will follow within 48 hours. If you went to my manager and reported me of sexual harassment, he will first laugh and ask if you're serious. Then he will ask you if you didn't maybe misinterpet something. Then he will deal with it 'internally' by talking to me, and tell me that I need to behave more appropriately. On paper, the procedures for dealing with both these offenses are the same. But that's not how things play out in real life. 

Edited June 4 by Vaultboy

[DieselnDust]

5 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

Yes. 

The term misconduct could be used or contravened their code. Just to be clear he probably could still coach but not under the organisational banners. He is still free to do as he pleases. CSA do not have the authority to ban him carte Blanche from coaching. 

He could but would you use his services for yourself, wife or kids….?

no school will take on his services, and certainly not his business no matter how pretty the face running it. He’s involved so it’s a poisoned chalice 

4 hours ago, Barry said:

Yes he would be free to coach but not under CSA. Does he still keep the UCI level 4 qualification or does it fall away with the ban? His sponsors have not reacted to the ban and he is still listed as an ambassador on sponsors sites. So I am guessing it will be business as usual in 6 months. 

Can’t keep something you don’t have. As pointed out , level 4 doesn’t exist. He can coach privately but the question remains, why would you ?

 

4 hours ago, shaper said:

Yet he seems to have already put a plan in place to be fronted by his wife to continue the coaching according to that statement posted earlier in this thread. 

Let’s see how that works out. 

2 hours ago, dave303e said:

The other big one is being banned vs enforcing it?

Website, current clients, social media are all looking like it is business as usual. Delete the negative comments and raise away. Still on Training peaks as well as a coach.

 

What is CSA going to do about that? Can they do anything?

TP is a commercial platform. Anyone can register a coaching account and start a coaching business if they like. Reputation is not so easy to buy though…

2 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

A far better approach I reckon. 

How so, he’s named as well. There’s a case of a rugby coach up the west coast where it was handled the legal route and 4 years later the guys is still interacting with minors while the case drags on. I’m keen to hear your theories and proposals for a better way

[eddy]

2 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

No arguments. Of course it must be reported to the authorities and they must investigate ( which seeing as the matter is sub judice appears to be happening.).

sexual grooming is a crime, and justifiably so. I trust CSA took it up with the relevant authorities

 

Again, sub judice does not mean what you appear to think it does; there is nothing sub judice in this matter. We don't even know if a criminal report has been made.

Further, I don't know what you expect CSA to do further. To the extent that the matter is to be dealt with by the criminal justice system, all that is required in the first instance is that the victims (via their guardians) open a criminal case at a police station. Thereafter the cops must conduct an investigation, prepare a docket for the NPA to consider, and for the prosecution authorities to build the case and bring it to court.

If you think they are likely to do so by the end of the decade you clearly have not been following the State Capture prosecutions - happy to be proven wrong on this last statement but won't bet against it.

[Shebeen]

5 minutes ago, Vaultboy said:

Sadly, real life isn't monty python. I used to conduct disciplinary investigations. Sexual misconduct is tough on the accuser. Typically they are women, in a male-dominated workplace. They typically get shamed more than the alleged perpetrator; These things take months or years to play out - and they have to show up for work every day in an environment that turns against them. These cases are also difficult to prove, because sexual predators are clever, and cover their tracks. Invariably, it comes down to he-said-she-said; and men, in a male-dominated workplace, have layers of social protections. But the worst of it all, as an investigator, is when i had to take evidence from accusers - I could visibly see them shrink into themselves and fade away as they had to recount every detail of their experience. Not just once, but multiple times (because I do my work thoroughly), and that's not even going to hearings and getting torn apart under cross-examination. This thing of being falsely accused is just a red herring. Peak Male Fragility.

I totally get where you are coming from, and with extensive real world experience your view has a lot of credibility.

You've really described why it can't be that simple. I don't think we're going to agree on this.

 

[IceCreamMan]

14 minutes ago, eddy said:

Again, sub judice does not mean what you appear to think it does; there is nothing sub judice in this matter. We don't even know if a criminal report has been made.

Further, I don't know what you expect CSA to do further. To the extent that the matter is to be dealt with by the criminal justice system, all that is required in the first instance is that the victims (via their guardians) open a criminal case at a police station. Thereafter the cops must conduct an investigation, prepare a docket for the NPA to consider, and for the prosecution authorities to build the case and bring it to court.

If you think they are likely to do so by the end of the decade you clearly have not been following the State Capture prosecutions - happy to be proven wrong on this last statement but won't bet against it.

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. 

Edited June 4 by IceCreamMan

[Frosty]

4 hours ago, J Wakefield said:

UCI only have 3 levels or Tiers of coaching. Not sure how he has a level 4, but then again, also as per this guy to many people, what do I know. 

In the CyclingSA statement, they mention level 4, so it's not just this guy saying it.
Alasdair Garnett is listed as a level 4 coach too (on his profile on the CSA website).
I also though it was level 1-3.

[ChrisF]

1 hour ago, Vaultboy said:

Sadly, real life isn't monty python. I used to conduct disciplinary investigations. Sexual misconduct is tough on the accuser. Typically they are women, in a male-dominated workplace. They typically get shamed more than the alleged perpetrator; These things take months or years to play out - and they have to show up for work every day in an environment that turns against them. These cases are also difficult to prove, because sexual predators are clever, and cover their tracks. Invariably, it comes down to he-said-she-said; and men, in a male-dominated workplace, have layers of social protections. But the worst of it all, as an investigator, is when i had to take evidence from accusers - I could visibly see them shrink into themselves and fade away as they had to recount every detail of their experience. Not just once, but multiple times (because I do my work thoroughly), and that's not even going to hearings and getting torn apart under cross-examination. This thing of being falsely accused is just a red herring. Peak Male Fragility.

 

Also, if you go to my manager and accuse me of financial misconduct, he will contact HR within the day. Within 24 hours, my account will be locked. I will be required to hand in my laptop, and I will be sent home. Suspension will follow within 48 hours. If you went to my manager and reported me of sexual harassment, he will first laugh and ask if you're serious. Then he will ask you if you didn't maybe misinterpet something. Then he will deal with it 'internally' by talking to me, and tell me that I need to behave more appropriately. On paper, the procedures for dealing with both these offenses are the same. But that's not how things play out in real life. 

 

Thank you for a very real post of how these things play out in real life.  (sadly so)

 

 

In your experience - what is "better" ?

1. Immediately suspend the "potential sexual predator", and then start the investigation ?  Surely this creates the atmosphere you spoke of ... one has to wonder how conducive this is to really getting to the truth.

 

2. Start investigating immediately, while the "system remains in play" for a short period ?  Is it easier to get to the truth in such a situation ?  Obviously the risk of "abuse" needs to be considered as well with such an approach ....

 

 

It SUCKS that we are even discussing stuff like this.  But as case after case is noted, these predators ARE part of the real world !!

[RobynE]

1 hour ago, Vaultboy said:

Sadly, real life isn't monty python. I used to conduct disciplinary investigations. Sexual misconduct is tough on the accuser. Typically they are women, in a male-dominated workplace. They typically get shamed more than the alleged perpetrator; These things take months or years to play out - and they have to show up for work every day in an environment that turns against them. These cases are also difficult to prove, because sexual predators are clever, and cover their tracks. Invariably, it comes down to he-said-she-said; and men, in a male-dominated workplace, have layers of social protections. But the worst of it all, as an investigator, is when i had to take evidence from accusers - I could visibly see them shrink into themselves and fade away as they had to recount every detail of their experience. Not just once, but multiple times (because I do my work thoroughly), and that's not even going to hearings and getting torn apart under cross-examination. This thing of being falsely accused is just a red herring. Peak Male Fragility.

 

Also, if you go to my manager and accuse me of financial misconduct, he will contact HR within the day. Within 24 hours, my account will be locked. I will be required to hand in my laptop, and I will be sent home. Suspension will follow within 48 hours. If you went to my manager and reported me of sexual harassment, he will first laugh and ask if you're serious. Then he will ask you if you didn't maybe misinterpet something. Then he will deal with it 'internally' by talking to me, and tell me that I need to behave more appropriately. On paper, the procedures for dealing with both these offenses are the same. But that's not how things play out in real life. 

As one of the few (or maybe the only) women on this thread, thanks for this. 
 

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. 
 

As a woman, and mother of a girl child, there are many things I teach her and coach her in. Life stuff, mainly. I can’t coach her in cycling (or any other sport). I rely on ethical, stand-up people to do this.
 

Sadly, I rely on my relationship with my daughter to let me know if things go weird, because the reality is you really can’t trust anyone outright.

 

I am thankful that the custodians of the victims in this case had enough wherewithal to believe their wards and come forward with the information. As a woman I cannot stress enough how hard it is to be taken seriously about this kind of thing. Even when you are speaking out to another female. 

 

What SNB did is disgusting, immoral and despicable. He deserves his lot. His misconduct has been proven, and wherever this may lead, I’m proud of those kids and their custodians, and find myself thinking about those who perhaps weren’t believed or whose custodians didn’t want to act on it for whatever reason, or who brushed it off as some sort of “misunderstanding” or imagined scenario. 
 

 

[DieselnDust]

31 minutes ago, Frosty said:

In the CyclingSA statement, they mention level 4, so it's not just this guy saying it.
Alasdair Garnett is listed as a level 4 coach too (on his profile on the CSA website).
I also though it was level 1-3.

CSA lists the coaching licenses as

1. Club and Skill level

2. Level 1

3. Level 2

4. Level 3

 

Club and Skill level is someone with experience and knowledge and nominated by their club to be the "coach".

Levels 1 through 3 are for indivuduals with experience, knowledge and have passed a UCI exam and have taken the WADA training, have first aid level 1, and have pased police clearance and Safeguarding checks.

These licenses are only available to non sanctioned, CSA members

[Frosty]

10 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

CSA lists the coaching licenses as

1. Club and Skill level

2. Level 1

3. Level 2

4. Level 3

 

Club and Skill level is someone with experience and knowledge and nominated by their club to be the "coach".

Levels 1 through 3 are for indivuduals with experience, knowledge and have passed a UCI exam and have taken the WADA training, have first aid level 1, and have pased police clearance and Safeguarding checks.

These licenses are only available to non sanctioned, CSA members

(Personal) Public Indemnity Insurance is also required; not the add-on that one gets through home and car insurance (labelled as public liability cover). The cover required is R2.5m.

[Barry]

18 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

CSA lists the coaching licenses as

1. Club and Skill level

2. Level 1

3. Level 2

4. Level 3

 

Club and Skill level is someone with experience and knowledge and nominated by their club to be the "coach".

Levels 1 through 3 are for indivuduals with experience, knowledge and have passed a UCI exam and have taken the WADA training, have first aid level 1, and have pased police clearance and Safeguarding checks.

These licenses are only available to non sanctioned, CSA members

I had a look at the list on CSA and seem to be a small community of coaches in SA level 1 through 3. A little dissapointing would have thought more would be involved in development. 

@J Wakefield i see you on the list level 2 all good was not giving you a hard time about the level 4 thing.

Edited June 4 by Barry

[Jewbacca]

Dude gets caught being a sexual predator with minors..... Internet spends days arguing semantics and which man is more correct in his depiction of the events and how he agrees/disagrees with CSA.

In this case, a few people need to take a few steps back and just look at the situation and think about the big picture.

This is so much bigger than a bunch of one uppers taking a stance on the proceedings

[DieselnDust]

7 minutes ago, Frosty said:

(Personal) Public Indemnity Insurance is also required; not the add-on that one gets through home and car insurance (labelled as public liability cover). The cover required is R2.5m.

Minimum is 2.5 bar. 5 bar recommended 

sorry I forgot about that one

The list is also short because 

a) the course are expensive so most will wait till it’s available through CSA at a discounted rate

b) that availability is also subject to demand so annual availability isn’t guaranteed.

c) demand is low because of several factors including 

“ i do t need a coach im not a pro” to “why would I pay for a coach when i can get free training advice on bikehub”

Edited June 4 by DieselnDust