June 15, 2016
USA Gymnastics response to questions from the Indianapolis Star
What is your policy on background checks for coaches? How often does that
occur? Is it a local or national check? How far back do you go?
USA Gymnastics requires criminal background screenings to be performed upon
application for membership and every two years thereafter. Additionally, during the 24month period that an individual’s background screening authorization is valid, the
National Center for Safety Initiatives (NCSI) conducts an automatic rescreen at or about
one year from the applicant’s initial screening date. All background screenings include
national and county level checks in all jurisdictions of residence for the past seven years.
USA Gymnastics' Criminal Background Screening Policy can also be found here:
https://usagym.org/PDFs/Member%20Services/BackgroundCheckPolicy.pdf
How many complaints about coaches do you receive each year? How many of
those complaints are related to allegations of sexual misconduct?
Complaints come to USA Gymnastics with a variety of concerns about coaches, ranging
from the coach conducting a tough practice session to sexual abuse allegations.
What is your policy when you receive a complaint about sexual misconduct? What
criteria do you use when deciding what action to take?
USA Gymnastics seeks to substantiate the claim from the parties directly involved, and
consults with legal counsel to determine the legal reporting requirements. A formal
complaint is investigated and/or USA Gymnastics monitors the progress of law
enforcement if it proceeds on the matter.
Why do you charge nonmembers $250 to file a complaint?
This filing fee is only charged for Administrative Complaints as defined in our bylaws and
is not charged to athletes who may file an Administrative Complaint. Misconduct
complaints are not Administrative Complaints, thus there is no charge.
Why do you place a time limit on when a complaint must be filed?
As with all investigations, time is of the essence and it becomes increasingly difficult to
investigate complaints beyond one year. However, there is no time limit for reporting
allegations of sexual misconduct, as indicated under Article10.04 of our Bylaws.
Technique magazine in May 2013 had an article that said “Making a report can
make all the difference for a child being abused. … It is always best to err on the

 side of the child.” Do you report all allegations of sexual misconduct to law
enforcement or child welfare services? Why or why not?
While we frequently communicate with law enforcement, we are also working to educate
our community to report alleged misconduct directly to law enforcement as a first step.
Do you feel as if you are following Indiana law, which says that “any person who
has reason to believe that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect must report” to
police or child protective services?
We do.
In depositions, officials from your organization said you don’t investigate or
report complaints unless they are signed by a victim or victim’s parent. Is that still
your policy?
USA Gymnastics' grievance process requires that a formal complaint must be filed by
those directly involved or if the aggrieved party is a minor, the parent may sign the
complaint. USA Gymnastics does not begin an investigation unless a grievance has
been filed that includes a formal complaint. Our legal reporting practices do not start and
end with our members, but the formal USA Gymnastics grievance process (Article 10 of
the Bylaws) does, and to initiate that process a signed complaint is necessary.
Why don’t you look into and report complaints from other sources?
USA Gymnastics is not a law enforcement agency, but we try to obtain information about
alleged misconduct received from other sources. In the process of investigating a
grievance, our investigators will seek information from other sources, but the formal
steps that can be taken are limited.
What is the purpose of the “banned coaches” list?
The list’s purpose is to prevent permanently ineligible former professional members,
inclusive of coaches, from being involved in the sport of gymnastics, to the extent
possible, and to make their identity known to our membership. USA Gymnastics can
ban a former member from participating in a sanctioned event and our Member Club
compliance policy states that banned members cannot be associated with the club’s
business activities. However, USA Gymnastics has no jurisdiction over independent
clubs that are not members of the organization.
In 1990, USA Gymnastics was the first National Governing Body to implement the list,
and it has proven effective on a global level. The list is published on our website and in
our membership publications each time a name is added to the list.
What is the process and threshold for adding an individual on the list? Does the
individual need to be convicted?

 No. Not all individuals on the list have been convicted.
Why does it sometimes take years after a conviction for an individual to appear on
the banned list?
In 2007, USA Gymnastics implemented an expedited process to address additions to the
permanently ineligible list. As an organization, we rely on the timing of law enforcement
and the judicial system in our efforts to update the list when criminal investigations are
involved.
Is it important to balance the interests of the coaches and athletes when
considering complaints against a coach?
Our governance model requires USA Gymnastics to consider the interests of all of its
members when evaluating a complaint, while remaining especially sensitive to the
athlete’s concerns.
Did USAG or any of its staff receive any complaints about Marvin Sharp?
USA Gymnastics was directly involved in reporting Mr. Sharp to law enforcement. We
cooperated with law enforcement, provided information they requested and identified
people who might assist their investigation.
May we view the 54 coaches complaint files that are referenced in the lawsuit in
Georgia?
USA Gymnastics does not release any member’s personal information, current or
former, and keeps complaint files strictly confidential. This policy protects victims and
those falsely accused.
Are there other files like those from after 2006? May we see those?
USA Gymnastics does not release any member’s personal information, current or
former, and keeps complaint files strictly confidential.
Do you feel like you are doing enough to protect children from predatory
coaches?
Yes. Protecting children is an important issue for every youth-based organization.
Ensuring the safety of our athletes continues to be a top priority for USA Gymnastics.
Over the last decade, USA Gymnastics has introduced a number of initiatives to refine
its policies, enhance the screening process, implement best practices and educate the
gymnastics community. This has included offering Safe Sport trainings at Regional and
National Congresses; making criminal background screenings every two years
mandatory; creating a Participant Welfare Policy; and launching the “We Care” and

 “Clubs Care” campaigns that are education initiatives for athletes, parents and clubs to
raise awareness of abuse in sports.
You can learn more about these initiatives here:
https://issuu.com/usagymnastics/docs/wecarewrap2016-4pg, usagym.org/ClubsCare, or
usagym.org/WeCare.
Do you think the sport of gymnastics is especially susceptible to pedophiles?
How prevalent is sexual misconduct in gymnastics?
Any activity where adults are teaching, mentoring, or closely interacting with children is
susceptible to this issue. It moves well beyond sports and the athlete-coach relationship.
This is a societal issue and problem.
In a court filing, you argue that USA Gymnastics does not have an obligation to
investigate reports of sexual abuse.
That statement is incorrect. The court filings on behalf of USA Gymnastics address our
legal obligations, which are specific and defined by appellate court decisions that vary by
jurisdiction.
Why is there a procedure for doing just that in your bylaws? Why did you hire a
retired FBI agent to investigate complaints? Isn’t that a contradiction? Do you still
have someone designated as an investigator?
USA Gymnastics is not a law enforcement agency and we currently use trained
investigators as necessary. USA Gymnastics has relied on experienced investigators,
including former law enforcement officers, who have been instrumental in helping to
obtain information, examine facts and identify situations involving potential misconduct.
Why not require clubs to conduct background checks on all employees, like the
US Association of Independent Gymnastics Clubs? USAIGC’s website says that
partial background checks are an “unsafe practice … that fail to meet the
standards of care pertaining to child safety.” What is your reaction to that?
Gymnastics clubs are independent businesses, and USA Gymnastics strongly
encourages clubs to conduct background checks on their entire staff through NCSI.
USA Gymnastics cannot oversee the private business practices of the clubs other than
through their relationship to the organization.
Do you currently receive taxpayer or local philanthropic support such as grants
from the Indiana Sports Corporation or the Lilly Foundation? If so, how much?
No.

 Indy Star Follow up Questions
---Did USA Gymnastics receive complaints about sexual misconduct by
Marvin Sharp? If so, what was the complaint? When was it received? How
many were received?
---Did USA Gymnastics initiate a report to law enforcement about Marvin
Sharp BEFORE knowing law enforcement was investigating him? What was
the report? When was it made?
USA Gymnastics’ policy has always been to keep the details of these matters
strictly confidential.
As we mentioned previously, USA Gymnastics was directly involved in reporting
Marvin Sharp to law enforcement.
---How many sexual misconduct complaints has your organization received
since 2010? A deposition indicated that you received an average of two to
three per month. When were they received?
The individual that provided that answer is not involved in these matters and her
response was corrected by Errata. In the last 10 years, USA Gymnastics has
placed 69 people on the banned list.
---Why do your required background checks only go back seven years?
USA Gymnastics background screening criteria follows that recommended by the
U.S. Olympic Committee and NCSI.
USA Gymnastics background screening protocol includes the search
components listed below.
• Two independent national databases;
• Sex offender registries of all available states;
• Social Security Number validation;
• Name and address verification related to the last 7 years;
• Federal terrorist database search; and
• Non-database direct searches of county criminal records of all jurisdictions
of residence in the past seven years.
Regarding the length of criminal history obtained, USA Gymnastics receives
criminal history information covering at least seven years, but often longer based
upon whether legal restrictions or county court reporting limitations are
applicable. Some states such as California, Massachusetts, Maryland and New

 York limit the reporting of public record criminal conviction information to seven
years, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) limits the reporting of public
record non-conviction information to seven years. When these restrictions are
applicable we only receive seven years of criminal history. When these
restrictions do not apply, we generally receive information beyond seven years.
In addition some counties and/or states limit the number of years of records that
they retain for public record reporting (i.e. 10 year limit). Importantly, these
restrictions do NOT apply to the reporting from sex offender registries, so if an
individual is a currently registered sex offender (even if the offense giving rise to
their registration is older than 7 years), USA Gymnastics will receive a report of
their status as a Registered Sex Offender.

Regarding the next 3 questions, legal counsel has advised USA Gymnastics to
not answer any questions relating to the Georgia lawsuit at this time because the
presiding Judge is currently considering USA Gymnastics’ motion seeking
dismissal of all claims alleged by the Plaintiff. The Judge conducted a hearing
with counsel for the parties on April 25, 2016, to discuss the summary judgment
motion, and a decision is expected soon.
---How does USA Gymnastics “seek to substantiate the claim from the
parties directly involved” after receiving a complaint? Do you speak with
every alleged victim? If not, why not?
---Kathy Kelly said in a deposition that she could not recall ever initiating a
report to law enforcement about sexual abuse. You said USA Gymnastics
“consults with legal counsel to determine the legal reporting
requirements.” Did legal counsel give the opinion that you had no duty to
report on ANY of the sexual abuse complaints to which Kathy Kelly
referred in her deposition?
---Did Lisa Ganser call USA Gymnastics around 2003 to ask whether any
complaints had been filed against William McCabe? In an interview with
IndyStar, she said she called your organization and was told that no
complaints had been filed against McCabe and that he was a coach in good
standing. She also said she asked USA Gymnastics what she should do
with the packet she had received, and the official just reiterated that he was
in good standing. How would you respond to that?


 ---You said we were incorrect to say USA Gymnastics argued that it does
not have an obligation to investigate reports of sexual abuse. Yet USAG’s
Statement of the Theory of Recovery and of Undisputed Material Facts in
Dec 2015 said, “Nothing in Either the Act or the Bylaws provides that USA

 Gymnastics has any role to play as an investigative body.” Please clarify.
Which is correct?
USA Gymnastics is a membership organization, not a law enforcement nor
investigative agency. The organization’s actions are limited to that governed by
the Amateur Sports Act, the Olympic Charter and its bylaws. The grievance
process exists to address grievances between members and the process for
doing so is outlined in our bylaws. More often than not, USA Gymnastics learns
of issues pertaining to sexual misconduct once an arrest has been made. When
that happens, USA Gymnastics supports the investigative and judicial processes
of law enforcement authorities in all respects.
 

 LESLIE KING 7/12/16 
 
Regarding inquiry process for handling sexual misconduct 
USA Gymnastics relies on information from those directly involved in matters related to 
sexual misconduct in order to proceed with the member misconduct, disciplinary, and 
grievance process contained in the USA Gymnastics Bylaws. This process lies within 
our governance model, which is subject to requirements of the Ted Stevens Olympic 
and Amateur Sports Act of 1978 and oversight of the U.S. Olympic Committee.  
  
Regarding inquiry about Marvin Sharp 
USA Gymnastics’ policy is to protect the confidentiality of all people involved in matters 
where misconduct has been alleged.  USA Gymnastics’ CEO Steve Penny initiated the 
report of Marvin Sharp to law enforcement. Following that initial report, the organization 
supported IMPD in their investigation. We were assured by law enforcement that USA 
Gymnastics handled the situation appropriately. 
  
Regarding “probation” 
The process for addressing member misconduct and grievances is subject to rights 
afforded by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act and oversight by the U.S. 
Olympic Committee, and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard (including an 
investigation) before disciplinary sanctions can be imposed, including suspension 
and/or probation.  However, USA Gymnastics proactively suspends any professional 
member arrested for conduct that directly or indirectly involves sexual misconduct, child 
abuse, or conduct that is a violation of any law or regulation specifically designed to 
protect minors. These suspensions are subject to further legal proceedings that are 
monitored by USA Gymnastics.   
 

 From: Leslie Kins --

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2015 4:40:52 PM
To: Alesia, Mark

Cc: Michael J. Athens; Evans, Tim
Subject: USA Gymnastics followrup information

Mark et al:

USA Gymnastics appreciates your organizing yesterday's call and providing us with
insight on some of the questions you felt needed clarification. This overview is intended
to help clarify the points raised by the Indianapolis Star editorial staff on yesterday's
telephone call. We have inserted some hyperlinks to make it easy for you to locate the
referenced documents on our website. A letter is attached to serve as background
information, as explained below. Also, we have included the requested comment
regarding the Georgia lawsuit in this missive.

I would appreciate your confirming receipt of this email with the attachments because I
recently have had some attachments not make the trip through cyberspace or end up in
the "junk" folder. Thanks again for your time yesterday.

Leslie

Clarifying information based on the July 19 call between the Indianapolis Star and
USA Gymnastics

USA Gymnastics policies and procedures regarding its grievance process and
addressing sexual misconduct have evolved over time. (Please see the attached
timeline.) There has been a concerted step-by-step effort over the last 10 years to
remain at the forefront of best practices, while still complying with requirements
mandated by the U.S. Olympic Committee and the Amateur Sports Act.

Certain elements have been consistent throughout policy development such as the
process for filing a grievance including those directly affected. As we have previously
communicated, our jurisdiction is to address grievances from one member to another.

USA Gymnastics estimates that we receive 3-5 grievances per year related to sexual
abuse that require independent investigations or are not a matter of public record for
whatever reason. Some of these may go back many years because some people are

only now comfortable coming forward.  Others may be related to matters whereby 
individuals have been found innocent in a court of law, have pled to a lesser crime, or 
were reported to authorities who ultimately chose not to pursue the matter, all of which 
can still be subject to USA Gymnastics review.  Any grievances concerning sexual 
abuse that are brought forward by parties directly involved are investigated and typically 
involve some research into any legal proceedings that may have taken place regardless 
of when they occurred. In 1990, the USA Gymnastics Board of Directors approved the 
formation of the ​banned list​.  In the last 10 years, 70 individuals have been added to the 
banned list of former professionals who are no longer eligible for membership. 
  
The process for filing a grievance is specifically outlined in our ​bylaws​ and referenced in 
USA Gymnastics ​Code of Ethical Conduct​, and both are available on our website along 
with our ​Participant Welfare Policy​.  The Participant Welfare Policy and Bylaws provide 
a detailed outline of the steps involved when USA Gymnastics receives a complaint and 
should answer your questions regarding how complaints are handled. 
  
Recently, most of our information regarding sexual abuse and/or sexual misconduct 
comes from public arrest reports.  If we receive a report of sexual abuse that requires us 
to contact law enforcement, we determine the appropriate party or jurisdiction by 
consulting with legal counsel.  Our policies are based on the notion that due process in 
the legal system takes precedence to our investigative process for two reasons: 
∙​         ​The legal system is designed to provide due process and has the authority to do so; 
and 
∙​         ​Law enforcement has consistently requested we not proceed with independent 
investigations while they are conducting their own. 
  
If a parent suspects that his/her child has been abused, we advise them to contact local 
law enforcement.  If they require or request assistance, USA Gymnastics will provide 
that assistance. Reporting guidelines can be found on the USA Gymnastics website 
at​http://usagym.org/pages/education/ClubsCare/reporting.html​. 
  
Our practice has been to respond to each and every complaint that USA Gymnastics 
receives.  These responses may indicate that USA Gymnastics does not have 
jurisdiction or that we need additional information to pursue an allegation. 
  
Over the years, there have been times when it took longer than expected or desired to 
resolve matters.  Some of these instances involved waiting on the legal system to run its 
course.  Even after a guilty verdict and/or incarceration, USA Gymnastics was required 
to provide a hearing process due to oversight by the U.S. Olympic Committee and 

 compliance with the Amateur Sports Act.  We are providing a letter that USA 
Gymnastics sent to the USOC in 1999 concerning this very topic as background and an 
example of some of the challenges encountered in refining our polices and procedures. 
This letter was part of the documentation used in the Georgia lawsuit filing. 
  
In the case of Neil Frederick, USA Gymnastics had suspended Frederick from any 
chance of membership and were advised there was a pending appeal.  Upon learning of 
an update to this issue, we quickly reviewed the file and addressed the issue 
accordingly.  
  
In the cases of James Bell and Mark Schiefelbein, there were a variety of circumstances 
involving law enforcement and the legal system that made it challenging to reach a 
conclusive point. 
  
Effective November 2006, the USA Gymnastics Board of Directors endorsed a revision 
to the bylaws that allowed expediting convicted offenders to the banned list, which has 
helped this situation immensely. 
  
It appears as though the Indianapolis Star has erroneously categorized all complaints 
that USA Gymnastics receives as those of a sexual nature.  We receive complaints that 
deal with other issues such as customer dissatisfaction, coaching practices, judging, 
etc. USA Gymnastics relies on those directly involved in all matters because we have 
an obligation to all members of the organization, inclusive of coaches and athletes. We 
always encourage those who come forward with information to contact law enforcement 
directly if circumstances warrant. 
  
USA Gymnastics is recognized within the U.S. Olympic Movement as a leader in 
addressing Safe Sport issues.  We have been directly involved in the creation of an 
independent agency that is now coming to fruition as the U.S. Center for Safe Sport. 
Our best practices have exceeded those required by the U.S. Olympic Committee for 
many years, and in the past we have been challenged by the USOC for being too 
aggressive in banning coaches.  
  
USA Gymnastics takes its responsibilities very seriously regarding these matters.  Over 
the years, we have repeatedly demonstrated our desire and intent to be proactive.  Our 
policy is to protect the privacy of those involved and we treat information with a high 
degree of confidentiality.  Our top priority has been to get to the right conclusion, no 
matter how long it takes or if encumbered by a variety of challenges. 
  

 USA Gymnastics by definition and nature is a membership­based organization.  USA 
Gymnastics strives to be thorough and careful in addressing Safe Sport matters, but we 
have no legal authority to act as a law enforcement agency. We continue to address 
areas of compliance with best practices as recommended by agencies that specialize 
on this topic (Darkness to Light, Stop It Now!, The Childhelp National Abuse Hotline, 
and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children).  ​USAGymClub.com​ is 
provided as a resource to parents and has a wealth of information, including the 
WeCare Campaign and the organization’s Safe Sport strategies. 
  
Response to question on growth 
USA Gymnastics has experienced a steady stream of growth over the last 10 years in 
the sport across all levels, including new athlete members, new clubs, and new 
professional members (i.e., coaches).  While the Olympics can be a catalyst, growth it is 
not necessarily proportional to the results at the Olympic Games. 
  
Clarification on Penny Statement regarding “obligation” from deposition. 
Mr. Penny stated in his deposition that USA Gymnastics would follow the reporting 
guidelines for any state laws that exist. 
  
Regarding Marvin Sharp 
USA Gymnastics is confident that it met all of its reporting requirements in the Marvin 
Sharp matter, which was confirmed by legal authorities.  USA Gymnastics went above 
and beyond to work with law enforcement and provided full support during the reporting 
and investigative process. 
  
Response on Georgia lawsuit and Star motion 
The judge for the Georgia lawsuit is expected to rule at any time on USA Gymnastics’ 
motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against USA Gymnastics.  Bill McCabe, a former 
gymnastics coach, was convicted for publishing secret videotapes on the internet of the 
plaintiff changing clothes in the locker room, and he is currently serving his sentence in 
a federal prison.  McCabe’s criminal conduct is responsible for any injury suffered by the 
plaintiff. 
  
As part of its motion to dismiss, USA Gymnastics submitted confidential documents to 
the judge, who placed those documents under a Confidentiality and Protective Order 
because the judge and involved parties intended for the private documents to be kept 
under seal.  USA Gymnastics opposes the Indianapolis Star’s motion to obtain copies of 
said confidential documents because the Star’s request is not based on an accurate 
depiction of the facts in the Georgia lawsuit. 

   
Statement attributed to Steve Penny 
USA Gymnastics has a long and proactive history of developing policy to protect its 
athletes and will remain diligent in evaluating new and best practices which should be 
implemented.  We recognize our leadership role is important and remain committed to 
working with the entire gymnastics community and other important partners to promote 
a safe and fun environment for children. 
 

 From: Leslie King--
Sent: Friday, July 22' 2016 11 PM

To: Kwiatkowski, Marisa

Cc: Mike Athans

Subiect: Re: USA Gymnastics followrup information

Marisa, thanks for your patience Below are the answers to the questions you senl earlier today
Have a nice weekend, Leslie

1. You mentioned in your note that the organization estimates it receives "3-5
grievances per year related to sexual abuse that require independent
investigations or are not a matter of public record for whatever reason." Our
question has been the total number of allegations of sexual misconduct that the
organization receives each year, not just those that require independent
investigations or aren't public record. What is the total number of allegations of
sexual misconduct USA Gymnastics receives each year?

Approximately five allegations are received annually that are not part of public
record, but not all of them become a formal grievance. (This is our best estimate
because we do not keep count.)

2. Our questions about James Bell and Mark Schiefelbein related to whether USA
Gymnastics ever initiated a report about them to law enforcement. Your answer
appears to address their placement on the banned list. Did USA Gymnastics ever
initiate a report about James Bell to law enforcement or child protective sen/ices?
It so, when and to which agency did you make the report(s)?

While we not at liberty to discuss details of these files, law enforcement officials
were initially notified about allegations against Bell and Schielelbein by persons
not affiliated with USA Gymnastics, to the best of our knowledge.

3. Did USA Gymnastics ever initiate a report about Mark Schiefelbein to law
enforcement or child protective services? If so, when and to which agency did
you make the report(s)?

Same as above

4. Can you please explain what you meant by it appearing that 
"erroneously categorized all complaints that USA Gymnastics receives as those

of a sexual nature?” We are aware that your organization receives many types of 
allegations, but our questions have been specific to those that are of a sexual 
nature. Please help us understand what you meant, because we want to be 
accurate. 
  
Our goal was to make sure the Indy Star was clear that the answers we have 
given to you only apply to matters of alleged sexual misconduct. 
  
5.   In your note and the 1999 letter to the U.S. Olympic Committee, you mention 
that the USOC challenged USA Gymnastics for being too aggressive in banning 
coaches. What was the outcome of that letter? Is that agreement you reached 
with them (referenced in the 1999 letter) still in place? If not, when and how did it 
change? 
  
  At the time, the USOC’s Membership and Credentials Committee was 
threatening USA Gymnastics with decertification as a national governing body 
because it believed that our stance on this issue was too aggressive towards its 
professional members.  Specifically, USA Gymnastics had been immediately 
suspending a member based upon knowledge of a criminal indictment or 
conviction for sexual misconduct without conducting an independent, NGB­based 
due­process hearing.  The result was that we had to change our policy which 
provided for an expedited suspension.  After the USOC was restructured and the 
Membership and Credentials Committee disbanded, USA Gymnastics reinstated 
the practice of expedited suspension as outlined above. 
  
6.   Does the U.S. Olympic Committee impede your ability to report allegations of a 
sexual nature to law enforcement or child protective services? If so, how? 
  
No.  The USOC’s best practice has always been consistent with legal 
requirements.  USA Gymnastics is recognized as a leader in the NGB world 
related to sexual misconduct and in the creation of the U.S. Center for Safe 
Sport.  The advantages of the new independent agency, which is being created 
by the USOC, are:  a consistent set of principles and guidelines for all NGBs to 
address and resolve allegations of sexual misconduct; and once the U.S. Center 
for Safe Sport is operational (tentatively in January 2017), all sexual misconduct 
allegations and complaints received by any NGB must be forwarded to the 
Center for handling and resolution.