IceCreamMan Posted June 3 Share 23 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said: Because you cannot by law name/mention a minor. For good reason. Meant the independent chair person. Not the victims. That would be the second party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted June 3 Share 3 hours ago, DieselnDust said: No other SASCOC branch will ( we would hope) take him on basis the CSA sanction. the criminal proceedings would need to be initiated by the children’s parents. Do they have the money to do so? We don’t know. No, criminal prosecution is carried by the state, sometimes with the cooperation of private participation. In any case regarding minors, the state can opt to press charges depending on the balance of evidence and other factord. ChrisF and DieselnDust 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted June 3 Share 35 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said: Meant the independent chair person. Not the victims. That would be the second party. “It’s a difficult one unfortunately. Because any statement has to balance out sensitive information in both the protection of minors and possible criminal investigation, along with a duty of care to inform the public.” This could include the individual appointed, by which there was also an appeals panel from SASOC. The federation also name Guardian as the appointed entity. The Safeguarding Policy is widely adopted by sporting codes and ties in with legislation, which includes the direction of reporting to SAPS. justinafrika, ChrisF and DieselnDust 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselnDust Posted June 3 Share Well imagine we didn’t have this public announcement. the social media feeds would still be celebrating the weekends racing results and people would still be lining up for coaching, training plans etc. i just don’t how thick skinned these narcissists are JohanDiv, JM Rides Bikes, Red Robin and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BumblingBuffalo Posted June 3 Share 5 hours ago, Spafsack said: Its scary how CSA just posts this, its really sensitive in nature, normally its not just blurted out in the open. But jeez, that's hectic, his career is over, poor victims as well. I doubt he can appeal this for a second time. There were in fact three investigations spanning from May 2023, each with independent chairs. They all found exactly the same results. Including an investigation by Sascoc. Cycling SA has done their due diligence, perhaps we can do the same by reading the statement released and understanding the processes that have been followed. Such serious allegations would not have been released without due process and investigations being conducted. It’s extremely commendable what cycling SA has done in handling this sensitive issue. Red Robin, justinafrika, Rudi Pollard and 14 others 14 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BumblingBuffalo Posted June 3 Share 5 hours ago, Bl4d3 said: Sure, but should this not be tied to a criminal investigation? Putting something out in the open like this without having substantial evidence can open CSA up to being sued, quite heavily in fact. However, should they react by giving a ban in reaction to a criminal proceeding that found him guilty is a completely different story. This is a private entity with 0 criminal investigation experience who have just created a ton of **** for someone and if they can not substantiate their claims, they are in deep ****. I would trust an actual criminal investigation over that of a private entity. In saying this, I do not condone any form of abuse what so ever. Should what has been said about him be true, he should suffer the consequences. I do however think a criminal investigation should've been run. Just read the statement. Three independent investigations were conducted over the span of a year. There is significant evidence as all three investigations came to the same conclusion. As this is a sexual offense, including the exploitation of minors I don’t think there’s an option to not prosecute. I’m sure there will be a state run case against the guy. DieselnDust, justinafrika, Kylie and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted June 3 Share CSA’s detailed Safeguarding Policy document can be found here, it even covers notification of SAPS/relevant authorities and the extremely sensitive processes around dealing with minors. https://www.cyclingsa.com/about-us/constitution-and-policies/ DieselnDust, justinafrika, Kylie and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted June 3 Share 21 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said: CSA’s detailed Safeguarding Policy document can be found here, it even covers notification of SAPS/relevant authorities and the extremely sensitive processes around dealing with minors. https://www.cyclingsa.com/about-us/constitution-and-policies/ I notice they recommend that all clubs should have two DSOs (one male and one female). Something I wasn’t aware of, prior to today, that this was/is “recommended”. Danger Dassie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted June 3 Share 2 minutes ago, Frosty said: I notice they recommend that all clubs should have two DSOs (one male and one female). Something I wasn’t aware of, prior to today, that this was/is “recommended”. Saw that, pragmatically I can understand it. So many clubs and people, it would be difficult to implement as a requirement. Especially given the nature of the policy. Frosty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewbacca Posted June 3 Share Reading some of the replies, it seems as though a lot of the posters made posts without reading the statement. Or, my favourite, reading it to reply, not reading it to understand it. Most of the questions here are in fact already answered in the release, or at least explained why they are not covered. JM Rides Bikes, ChrisF, gemmerbal and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandatron Posted June 3 Share 13 minutes ago, Jewbacca said: Reading some of the replies, it seems as though a lot of the posters made posts without reading the statement. Or, my favourite, reading it to reply, not reading it to understand it. Most of the questions here are in fact already answered in the release, or at least explained why they are not covered. Still waiting on @IceCreamMan to walk his weird take backwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCreamMan Posted June 3 Share On 6/3/2024 at 5:46 PM, Pandatron said: Still waiting on @IceCreamMan to walk his weird take backwards Oh, I have perused the press statement. maybe you misconstrue my point here. The hub is filled with posts maligning the CSA organisation. While I realise this is a very emotive topic, I have seen the damage done in the past even when the accused has been innocent. While the press release is not in any detail, the collective want to draw and quarter him. a man is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a criminal case and let’s await the outcome as surely there must be an investigation culminating in it going to court. Until then, I believe naming someone as a groomer is shaky ground. To our knowledge he has not been charged with anything yet most have already found him guilty. Edited June 5 by IceCreamMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Albert Cycles Posted June 3 Share 4 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said: Oh, I have perused the press statement. maybe you misconstrue my point here. The hub is filled with posts maligning the CSA organisation. While I realise this is a very emotive topic, I have seen the damage done in the past even when the accused has been innocent. While the press release is not in any detail, the collective want to draw and quarter him. a man is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a criminal case and let’s await the outcome as surely there must be an investigation culminating in it going to court. Until then, I believe naming someone is shaky ground. To our knowledge he has not been charged with anything yet most have already found him guilty. The CSA panel did not find him guilty of a crime but guilty of transgressing its policy . That is what their statement says . Suggest you read the full article on CSA’s website before commenting again. eddy, BumblingBuffalo, mazambaan and 8 others 10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted June 3 Share 3 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said: maybe you misconstrue my point here. a man is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal position, but an oft made one so I don't blame you. The true application of the "deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is that it is a legal fiction that ONLY applies in the criminal prosecution of an accused. It merely describes where where the burden of proof lies. In other words the JUDGE must treat him as innocent until the prosecution provides the required evidence. In other words, you are guilty as soon as you commit the offence, but are entitled to a hearing where the prosecution has to prove your guilt. In the disciplinary hearing SNB was subjected to he was entitled to a similar PRESUMPTION, and based on the outcome of the review, this took place appropriately. Akon, Owen_DJ, mazambaan and 7 others 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCreamMan Posted June 3 Share On 6/3/2024 at 6:08 PM, Prince Albert Cycles said: The CSA panel did not find him guilty of a crime but guilty of transgressing its policy . That is what their statement says . Suggest you read the full article on CSA’s website before commenting again. 100%. Maybe you should read it. And then rationalise the reaction on this thread and in social media of this guy transgressing CSA policy. Did you know that grooming is illegal and a crime? why did CSA then not just state he has fallen foul of their policy and sanction him. On 6/3/2024 at 6:15 PM, eddy said: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal position, but an oft made one so I don't blame you. The true application of the "deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is that it is a legal fiction that ONLY applies in the criminal prosecution of an accused. It merely describes where where the burden of proof lies. In other words the JUDGE must treat him as innocent until the prosecution provides the required evidence. In other words, you are guilty as soon as you commit the offence, but are entitled to a hearing where the prosecution has to prove your guilt. In the disciplinary hearing SNB was subjected to he was entitled to a similar PRESUMPTION, and based on the outcome of the review, this took place appropriately. I fully understand this. my point is that by naming as a groomer look at the reaction on this thread and in social media. The lynch mob are getting agitated. I don’t believe this is fair in the scheme of things. grooming is specifically mentioned, grooming is illegal. CSA do not mention it but it must be taken up with the authorities. Because essentially, anything less leaves him free to carry on. Edited June 5 by IceCreamMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleedToWin Posted June 3 Share 1 minute ago, Prince Albert Cycles said: The CSA panel did not find him guilty of a crime but guilty of transgressing its policy . That is what their statement says . Suggest you read the full article on CSA’s website before commenting again. They have found him guilty of misconduct and then proceeded to declare the nature of the misconduct which happens to be criminal. They gave no details on criminal proceedings. They say lifetime was not appropriate, what are the mitigating factors then? @IceCreamMan is right. In a parallel universe CSA would've given the details of the ban, stressed that serious misconduct has occurred and that criminal proceedings is underway, given no further information regarding the findings, and urged the public to wait for due process. Some on this forum are ready for statutory rape verdicts! IceCreamMan and Bl4d3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts