Can you coach with a felony. Coaching with a Felony: Challenging NCAA’s ‘No Felons’ Rule and Background Check Policies in Sports

Can individuals with past felony convictions coach in sports organizations. How do background check policies affect volunteer participation in youth sports leagues. What are the legal implications of denying coaching positions based on criminal records. How do sports organizations balance safety concerns with opportunities for rehabilitation.

The NCAA’s ‘No Felons’ Rule: A Controversial Policy Under Scrutiny

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has long maintained a strict policy prohibiting individuals with felony convictions from coaching at member institutions. This rule has recently come under scrutiny as a successful basketball coach with a 15-year-old drug conviction challenges its validity and fairness. The case raises important questions about redemption, second chances, and the long-term consequences of criminal records in the sports world.

The coach, whose name has not been disclosed, has built an impressive career despite his past conviction. His success on the court and positive influence on players have led many to question whether the NCAA’s blanket ban on coaches with felonies is overly restrictive and potentially counterproductive.

Background Check Policies in Youth Sports: Balancing Safety and Opportunity

While the NCAA case focuses on college-level coaching, similar issues arise in youth sports organizations like Little League. These organizations must carefully balance child safety concerns with providing opportunities for community involvement and rehabilitation. Little League International, for example, requires background checks for all volunteers with regular access to children.

How do youth sports organizations determine which offenses disqualify volunteers? Little League’s policy automatically disqualifies individuals convicted of crimes against minors. However, other offenses are subject to board review and discretion.

The Case of John: A Volunteer’s Legal Challenge

A real-world example from a Georgia Little League illustrates the complexities of these decisions. John, a long-time volunteer with past approval, was denied a position after a background check revealed a DUI conviction. When John sued the league, the case was dismissed based on the volunteer nature of the position and the league’s annual appointment process.

This case highlights the importance of clear policies and procedures for reviewing volunteer applications and criminal records. It also demonstrates the potential legal risks organizations face when making these decisions.

Legal Considerations for Sports Organizations Conducting Background Checks

Sports organizations must navigate a complex legal landscape when implementing background check policies. What legal obligations do these organizations have regarding volunteer screening? Several key considerations include:

• Compliance with state and federal laws governing background checks and volunteer organizations
• Consistency in application of policies to avoid discrimination claims
• Proper handling and protection of sensitive personal information
• Clear communication of policies and procedures to applicants
• Documentation of decision-making processes

Organizations should consult legal counsel to ensure their policies are both effective and legally sound.

The Impact of Criminal Records on Coaching and Volunteer Opportunities

The long-term consequences of criminal convictions extend far beyond the initial punishment. How do these records affect individuals seeking to contribute positively to their communities through coaching and volunteering?

For many with past convictions, sports offer a path to redemption and positive community engagement. Coaching provides an opportunity to mentor young people and make a meaningful impact. However, strict background check policies can create significant barriers to entry.

Are blanket bans on individuals with felony convictions justified, or do they unfairly exclude potentially valuable contributors? This question lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the NCAA’s policy and similar rules in other organizations.

Rehabilitation and Second Chances in Sports: A Broader Perspective

The controversy surrounding coaching with a felony raises broader questions about rehabilitation and second chances in society. Sports have long been viewed as a vehicle for personal growth and transformation. Do policies that permanently exclude individuals with past convictions contradict this ethos?

Advocates for reform argue that individuals who have served their sentences and demonstrated rehabilitation should be given opportunities to contribute positively to their communities. They contend that blanket bans fail to account for the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and the individual’s subsequent conduct and achievements.

Opponents, however, emphasize the paramount importance of participant safety, particularly in youth sports. They argue that any risk, no matter how small, is unacceptable when it comes to protecting children.

Best Practices for Background Check Policies in Sports Organizations

Given the complex issues surrounding background checks and criminal records, what are some best practices for sports organizations to consider? Here are some key recommendations:

1. Develop clear, written policies outlining which offenses are disqualifying and which require case-by-case review
2. Ensure consistent application of policies to all applicants
3. Provide a process for applicants to explain past offenses and present evidence of rehabilitation
4. Regularly review and update policies to reflect current legal standards and best practices
5. Train board members and decision-makers on proper policy implementation
6. Maintain thorough documentation of all background check results and decisions
7. Communicate clearly with applicants about the background check process and results

By implementing these practices, organizations can create fair and effective screening processes that prioritize safety while also providing opportunities for rehabilitation and community involvement.

The Role of Transparency and Communication in Background Check Processes

Transparency is crucial when implementing background check policies in sports organizations. How can leagues and institutions effectively communicate their processes to volunteers and the broader community?

Clear communication about background check requirements and decision-making criteria can help applicants understand expectations and reduce potential conflicts. Organizations should consider the following steps:

• Publish background check policies on the organization’s website and in volunteer materials
• Provide applicants with information about their rights and the specific checks being conducted
• Offer a point of contact for questions or concerns about the background check process
• Explain the rationale behind disqualifying offenses and review procedures
• Be prepared to address community concerns about volunteer screening practices

By prioritizing transparency, sports organizations can build trust with volunteers and demonstrate their commitment to both safety and fairness.

The Importance of Consistent Policy Application

Consistency in applying background check policies is essential to avoid accusations of discrimination or unfair treatment. How can organizations ensure equitable implementation of their rules?

Standardized procedures and clear guidelines for decision-makers are crucial. Organizations should consider implementing the following measures:

• Develop a rubric for evaluating different types of offenses
• Establish a review committee to assess borderline cases
• Provide training to board members on proper policy application
• Regularly audit background check decisions to ensure consistency
• Document the rationale for all approval and denial decisions

By maintaining consistent practices, organizations can defend their decisions if challenged and demonstrate their commitment to fairness.

Evolving Perspectives on Criminal Justice and Community Reintegration

The debate over coaching with a felony reflects broader societal discussions about criminal justice reform and reintegration. How are changing attitudes toward rehabilitation and second chances influencing policies in sports and beyond?

In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the barriers faced by individuals with criminal records in various aspects of life, including employment, housing, and civic participation. This has led to initiatives such as “Ban the Box” campaigns, which aim to reduce discrimination against job applicants with criminal histories.

Sports organizations are not immune to these shifting perspectives. Some argue that overly restrictive policies not only deny opportunities to deserving individuals but also perpetuate cycles of marginalization and recidivism. Others contend that the unique position of trust held by coaches and volunteers in sports necessitates stricter standards.

As this debate continues, sports organizations may need to reassess their policies to strike a balance between safety concerns and the potential benefits of providing second chances to qualified individuals with past convictions.

The Role of Time and Rehabilitation in Policy Decisions

One key factor in the debate over coaching with a felony is the role of time and demonstrated rehabilitation. Should policies consider the age of a conviction and an individual’s subsequent conduct?

Many argue that a one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the potential for personal growth and change. Factors that organizations might consider when evaluating applicants with past convictions include:

• The nature and severity of the offense
• The amount of time that has passed since the conviction
• Evidence of rehabilitation, such as completion of treatment programs or community service
• Professional accomplishments and character references
• The specific responsibilities of the position being sought

By taking a more nuanced approach, organizations may be able to identify individuals who have genuinely turned their lives around and have valuable contributions to offer.

The Future of Background Check Policies in Sports: Potential Reforms and Innovations

As the debate over coaching with a felony continues, what potential reforms or innovations might we see in background check policies for sports organizations? Several possibilities are worth considering:

1. Tiered systems that distinguish between different types of offenses and their relevance to coaching roles
2. Provisional approval processes that allow individuals to demonstrate their character and skills under supervision
3. Partnerships with reentry programs to create pathways for qualified individuals with past convictions
4. Use of AI and advanced analytics to provide more nuanced risk assessments
5. Increased emphasis on ongoing monitoring and training rather than relying solely on initial background checks

As organizations grapple with these complex issues, we may see a shift toward more flexible and individualized approaches to volunteer screening and approval.

The Role of Education and Training in Mitigating Risks

While background checks are an important tool for risk management, they are not foolproof. How can sports organizations supplement these checks with education and training to create safer environments?

Comprehensive training programs for all coaches and volunteers, regardless of background, can help reinforce appropriate behaviors and create a culture of safety. Key components of such programs might include:

• Child protection policies and reporting procedures
• Appropriate boundaries and communication with youth participants
• Recognition of signs of abuse or misconduct
• Conflict resolution and positive coaching techniques
• Ethical decision-making and leadership skills

By investing in ongoing education and training, organizations can create multiple layers of protection and support for participants.

Balancing Community Involvement and Risk Management in Youth Sports

Youth sports organizations play a vital role in communities, providing opportunities for children to develop physical skills, teamwork, and character. How can these organizations balance the need for community involvement with effective risk management?

Encouraging broad participation from diverse volunteers is essential for the vitality of youth sports programs. At the same time, organizations have a responsibility to create safe environments for participants. Strategies for achieving this balance might include:

• Creating a range of volunteer roles with varying levels of responsibility and participant contact
• Implementing robust supervision and mentoring programs for new volunteers
• Fostering a culture of transparency and open communication about safety policies
• Engaging parents and community members in safety initiatives and policy development
• Regularly reviewing and updating risk management strategies based on best practices and community feedback

By taking a holistic approach to volunteer engagement and risk management, organizations can create inclusive and safe environments for all participants.

The Importance of Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Background checks provide a snapshot of an individual’s history, but how can organizations ensure ongoing safety and policy compliance? Implementing systems for continuous monitoring and evaluation is crucial.

Effective strategies for ongoing risk management might include:

• Regular re-screening of volunteers at defined intervals
• Anonymous reporting systems for participants, parents, and other volunteers to raise concerns
• Periodic policy reviews and updates based on emerging best practices and legal requirements
• Performance evaluations that include adherence to safety protocols and ethical standards
• Collaboration with law enforcement and child protection agencies for information sharing and support

By maintaining vigilance beyond initial screenings, organizations can create more comprehensive and effective risk management systems.

The Global Perspective: International Approaches to Background Checks in Sports

The debate over coaching with a felony and background check policies is not limited to the United States. How do other countries approach these issues in sports organizations?

Practices vary widely across different nations, influenced by cultural, legal, and social factors. Some countries have centralized systems for vetting sports coaches and volunteers, while others rely more heavily on local organizations. Examining international approaches can provide valuable insights and alternative models to consider.

For example:

• The United Kingdom’s Disclosure and Barring Service provides different levels of background checks for various roles in sports and youth work
• Australia’s Working with Children Check system includes ongoing monitoring and allows for risk assessment of individuals with criminal records
• Canada’s Police Record Checks Reform Act sets standards for what information can be disclosed in background checks for various purposes

Studying these diverse approaches can help inform policy discussions and potential reforms in the United States and other countries grappling with these complex issues.

The Role of Technology in Enhancing Background Check Processes

Advancements in technology are transforming many aspects of sports management and administration. How might these innovations impact background check processes and policies?

Emerging technologies offer potential benefits and challenges for organizations conducting background checks:

• Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms could provide more nuanced risk assessments
• Blockchain technology might offer secure and transparent record-keeping for background check results
• Biometric identification systems could enhance identity verification processes
• Data analytics tools may help organizations identify patterns and trends in volunteer screening
• Mobile apps could streamline the application and background check process for volunteers

As these technologies evolve, sports organizations will need to carefully consider their implementation, balancing potential benefits with privacy concerns and ethical considerations.

Don’t Let This Happen: Approving a Volunteer With a Criminal Record

At Little League® International Headquarters and in our Regional Offices, calls and emails come in all year long about situations that are happening at one of our 7,000 local leagues. Many of these calls and emails inform us of some very positive initiatives spearheaded by our millions of volunteers. However, there are also negative situations.

“Don’t Let This Happen to Your League” details a real world scenario, how it has impacted a league, and how you might learn from it.

The names have been changed in the following scenario, but the situation is real.

The Situation

In Georgia, a local league completes its election and a new Board of Directors is seated. During registration, the league begins to publicize and encourage volunteers to participate for the upcoming season. John, a volunteer, who had been approved in past seasons and was among those responsible for the league’s facility and fields, completes a volunteer application for the upcoming season.

Upon completing the volunteer application and conducting the required background check necessary for any league volunteer with regular service and/or repetitive access to children, the league discovers that John has a conviction for driving under the influence (of alcohol) and reckless driving. The crime is not against a minor, which would be an automatic disqualifying offense. However, the new League President, following consultation with the Board of Directors, decides to appoint other candidates to fill the positions.

Upon hearing the decision of the Board, John elects to retain legal counsel and sues the league.

The Outcome

A lawsuit is brought against the local league, but the case is later dismissed. The dismissal is based on the facts that John was not terminated from the position. All positions within the Little League program are volunteer in nature and potential league volunteers must apply annually, receive approval, and then be appointed by the local league’s Board of Directors. The Little League Volunteer Application form, which is signed by each applicant, states that all positions are annual appointments. The League President retains the right to nominate coaches, managers, and other volunteers within the league and all nominees require majority vote of the local league’s Board of Directors.

The Solution

Local league officials must carefully review EVERY volunteer application. Background checks are required for all volunteers with regular service and/or repetitive access to children. Any conviction, guilty plea or no contest plea for crime against a minor or minors automatically disqualifies a person from participation in the league. Other crimes that do not involve children will not restrict a person from volunteering in a local league, but it is in the best interest of the league to recognize and understand the charges against an individual when considering their application and position within the league. The Board has final approval on all nominations and appointments. Be aware that each state may have specific laws and requirements governing participation in volunteer organizations.

If a local league votes to appoint a person with a criminal record to a position within the league, the Board of Directors must be accountable to its constituents (parents and other volunteers) if the appointment is called into question. This situation is an example of how an applying volunteer can be forthcoming and transparent with this sort of information. If such an incident is brought to the league’s attention prior to the background check, a discussion amongst the Board members may have provided a greater understanding and impacted the opinion of the Board.

Frequently Asked Background Check Questions

Below are frequently asked background check questions and answers that a District Staff and local Board of Directors should be aware of.

What type of background check is required by the new regulations?

A local Little League must conduct a background check that at a minimum meet the standard of a nationwide criminal search, a national sex offender registry search, and a review of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database and the Little League International Ineligible list.  Little League Baseball and Softball will require each league to sign an agreement on the charter application that they will comply with Regulation I (b) and I(c) 8 & 9. The first 125 checks through JDP are paid for by Little League International and are free to each chartered Little League. If additional checks are necessary, they will cost the league only $.95 per background check conducted. More information can be obtained by going to LittleLeague.org/LocalBGChecks.

Each local league must also be aware of its state laws, which may require other separate and additional background check processes to be completed before individuals would be permitted to assume local league volunteer responsibilities. Several states also require (by law) additional background procedures to be completed above those required by Little League International. At present, Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have such background laws in place. Although mandatory, these laws DO NOT by themselves meet the Little League regulation. More information can be found at LittleLeague.org/StateLaws.

Please Remember: Additional background checks may be required to be completed to comply with State and/or local laws/statutes.

What type of offenses will result in termination of a volunteer under these regulation?

Any background check that reveals a conviction for, guilty plea, no contest plea, or admission to any crime involving or against a minor must result in immediate termination from the league. If a potential volunteer appears on the National Sex Offender Registry, the league must contact the Security Manager at Little League International prior to appointing the volunteer to participate in any capacity in the league. Individuals that are listed on either of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database  and/or Little League International Ineligible list are prohibited from participating as a volunteer in any capacity.

Additionally, volunteers who refuse to submit a fully completed Little League Volunteer Application, including their Social Security Number and a government-issued photo ID, must be immediately terminated or eliminated from consideration for any position.

What if offenses involving or against minors are pending prior to or after appointment to a position in the local leagues?

We suggest the individual not be appointed or should be suspended from his/her current position pending the outcome of the changes.

What if a potential volunteer is listed on the National Sex Offender Registry?

If a potential volunteer appears on the National Sex Offender Registry, the league must contact the Security Manager at Little League International prior to appointing the volunteer to participate in any capacity in the league. Call 570-326-1921 and ask to speak with the Security Manager.

Why is Little League changing the background check minimum requirement?

With the introduction of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database and Little League International Ineligible list it has been determined to take additional steps to prohibit individuals that are included in either list to protect minors in our Little League programs. This is in addition to the requirements to complete a nationwide background check and a search of the National Sex Offender Registry.

Why JDP?

Little League has partnered with JDP to provide local Little League programs a criminal background check tool. Through this partnership, each league and District is given 125 free background checks (paid for by Little League International) and any additional checks will only cost $.95 per check. The JDP National Criminal File database contains more than 600 million records, which include criminal records and sex offender registry records across 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Also, JDP is the only background check provider at this time that provides a search of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database and USA Baseball’s Ineligible Participation list in all of their packages. Lastly, JDP has a unique integration with Little League’s preferred official technology provider, Sports Connect. Sports Connect has integrated their ability with JDP to conduct national background checks on local and district volunteers through the Sports Connect platform.

Our league is required by the property owner (city, town, municipality, county, etc.) where we play our games and practices to conduct background checks approved by them on all of our volunteers and/or hired workers before we can use their fields. Are these checks acceptable and do they meet Little League’s minimum requirements of Regulation I(c) 8 and 9?

No. Most checks required by these entities are local or state only checks which do not meet the Little League requirements. Also, the local league is responsible for conducting and reviewing the background check data and making their own personnel decisions per the regulations. Although the property owner has the right to determine who uses their facility, any decision they make as a property owner may or may not meet the Little League Regulations. Little League regulations require the league to annually conduct a nationwide search that contains the applicable government sex offender registry data to be completed on all Board Members, managers, coaches and other volunteers or hired workers who provide regular service to the league and/or who have repetitive access to players or teams.

What if an individual has previously had a background check?

Each league must conduct its own background check on the appropriate individuals annually.

What is the timetable for completing the screening of each individual?

The league must complete the annual screening process prior to the individual assuming his/her duties for the current season. This includes the individual submitting a completed volunteer application and the league completing an appropriate background check. The applicant must also submit a government issued photo ID, usually a driver’s license, for the league to verify that the information on his/her volunteer application is correct, i.e., spelling of name, address, date of birth, etc.

Does Little League require background checks on volunteers under the age of 18?

Little League states that if an individual can apply for a job in their state then a background check can be completed. If they fall under the employment age and would like to volunteer, then a volunteer application is still required but they do not need to provide a Social Security number on the application. Anyone under the age of 18 still must have parental consent (which can be completed through the JDP QuickApp).

What resources are available through Little League Baseball and Softball to assist this process?

A local Little League must conduct a nationwide background check utilizing JDP or another provider that is comparable to JDP in accessing background check records for sex offender registry data and other criminal records. The first 125 checks conducted through JDP are paid for by Little League International and are free to each chartered Little League. If additional checks are needed, they will cost the league only $.95 per background check conducted. JDP can be accessed by going to LittleLeague.org/LocalBGChecks.

Ex-felon wins case to coach high-school football in Ohio – News – The Columbus Dispatch

The state Board of Education defied a state hearing officer’s recommendation and decided yesterday to grant an ex-offender a permit to continue coaching football – with conditions.

The state Board of Education defied a state hearing officer’s recommendation and decided yesterday to grant an ex-offender a permit to continue coaching football – with conditions.

In a 15-3 vote, board members decided to grant a three-year pupil permit to Jeffrey Cargile Sr., requiring that he also undergo a criminal background check after a year and coach only at Taft High School in Cincinnati.

Cargile, 51, spent several years as a volunteer coach at Taft when the Ohio High School Athletic Association began requiring coaches to obtain a state permit.

Cargile’s criminal past became an issue when he tried to obtain the permit because of repeat offenses – including a 2003 felony conviction for abduction that automatically would disqualify him from obtaining a license or permit from the state.

A Hamilton County judge granted Cargile a “certificate of qualification for employment,” or CQE, which lifts the state’s automatic bar and essentially tells officials to consider a license even when they normally wouldn’t.

This is the first time the state board has encountered a CQE since the legislature approved them in 2012.

A hearing officer with the state Department of Education recommended that the board deny Cargile’s bid for a permit, citing his repeat offenses as “conduct unbecoming” of an educator.

But several board members said during the meeting that they were swayed by recommendations from Cincinnati school educators and coaches who described Cargile as a respected member of the football team who has been a positive role model for players.

“When the local school says he’s doing all right (and we say no), we’re taking away that local control,” said board member A.J. Wagner, a retired Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge.

Wagner crafted the amendment to grant Cargile his license with the caveat that he undergoes a criminal background check. Two other members, Roslyn Painter-Goffi and Ron Rudduck, said Cargile must coach only at Taft.

“These are the people who have vouched for him,” Painter-Goffi said.

C. Todd Jones commended Cargile’s turnaround but sided with the state hearing officer’s position.

“I want to be slightly more restrictive than necessary to ensure we protect students,” he said. Jones, board President Tom Gunlock and Joseph Farmer voted against granting Cargile his educator’s permit.

Cargile, 51, spent a year in prison starting in 2004 for failing a drug test while on probation. He had multiple convictions between 1996 and 2003, including domestic violence, possession of drug paraphernalia and unauthorized use of property.

According to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court records, Cargile’s abduction conviction stems from a 2002 incident in which he forced a woman into a vehicle and drove her away. He told her he was going to kill her and attempted to hit her with a car. He pleaded guilty.

Cargile has not had an offense since he left prison in 2005. A judge granted him a CQE for his education permit in 2013.

According to a transcript of his meeting with the state hearing officer in January, Cargile said “his life spiraled out of control and he no longer wanted to live the life he was living.”

He completed a drug-abuse and education program in Georgia and returned to Ohio in 2009, where he began working for his father’s contracting business. He also became a volunteer assistant coach for Taft, where he mentored students, feeding those in need and driving teens to college recruiting visits, according to records. He also let students stay in his home when they had nowhere else to go.

Cincinnati school officials are pleased with the board’s decision and their consideration of the district’s recommendations of Cargile and the district will make sure he fulfills the conditions of the permit, spokeswoman Janet Walsh said.

“The Taft football team will be delighted that he has been granted the permit that will enable him to be a coach,” she said.

[email protected]

@cvrboss

Policies – Trusted Coaches

TRUSTED COACHES

BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY AND DISCLAIMER

Trusted Coaches (TC) is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to educating coaches on best practices in youth sports. The TC program includes screening for coaches who might present a threat or do harm to children and TC reserves the irrevocable right to exclude coaches from membership based on criteria listed above.  TC’s background check provider (InCheck) performs a criminal record check based on national criminal records.  TC does not perform a credit report for financial information, such as bankruptcies or assets and liabilities; or verify employment or education claims.

Trusted Coaches is NOT an employer of youth sports coaches and makes no determination on whether or not an individual is allowed to coach within a purchasing member organization.

Printable version – Trusted Coaches Background Check Policies and Procedures

Persons who apply to become a member of Trusted Coaches may not have engaged in any action which, within the discretion of the Trusted Coaches Review Board or their representative or member association, gives rise to a concern over the safety of minors or others involved in Trusted Coaches sponsored programs. If a national background screen indicates that the applicant cannot satisfactorily qualify as a youth coach or otherwise is inconsistent with the Trusted Coaches’ responsibilities, policies and procedures to its member associations, the participants, or the parents of participants, the candidate will not be allowed to become a member of Trusted Coaches.

Nationwide criminal background checks will be conducted on all applicants if requested by their member organizations through the creation of the Organization Season and Role. This background check will verify the applicant’s social security number and address history, and check their criminal conviction history.

Trusted Coaches has the sole discretion to deny membership to potential coaches that may pose a threat to vulnerable subjects, such as children, game officials, administrators, opposing players/coaches and spectators regardless of whether or not the results of the Background Check directly violate any of the listed criteria in this Policy and Disclaimer.

Special Note: Any applicant that submits a background screen application through Trusted Coaches is subject to the listed Policies and Procedures.

WHAT WE SCREEN FOR:

A) A MINOR
Screening includes but is not limited to crimes such as:

– Indecent solicitation of a child
– Abandon/Endanger of a child
– Sexual abuse of a child
– Child molestation
– Child abuse
– Furnishing alcohol to a minor
– Sexual conduct with a minor
– Aggravated sexual abuse/assault of a child
– Indecency with a child
– Kidnapping
– Child Neglect

B) THE USE, POSSESSION, OR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
Screening includes but is not limited to crimes such as:

– Possession
– Possession with intent to distribute
– Trafficking
– Possession of drug paraphernalia
– Drug Manufacturing and Cultivation

C) THE USE OR THREATENED USE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST A PERSON OR PROPERTY
Screening includes but is not limited to crimes such as:

– Murder
– Theft/Burglary/Armed Robbery/Larceny
– Breaking & Entering
– Assault (Simple and Aggravated)
– Disorderly conduct
– False Imprisonment
– Escape from penitentiary
– Domestic violence/abuse
– Manslaughter
– Harassment

D) A SEXUAL OFFENSE
Screening includes but is not limited to crimes such as:

– Prostitution
– Rape
– Sexual Assault
– Solicitation
– Indecent Exposure
– Statutory Rape
– Child Pornography
– Pimping and Pandering

E) ILLEGAL GAMBLING AND/OR FINANCIAL CRIMES
Screening includes but is not limited to crimes such as:

– Embezzlement
– Fraud
– Identity Theft

UNDER REVIEW / “PRE-ADVERSE ACTION” PERIOD

Applicants are placed “Under Review” and into a “Pre-Adverse Action” period when the results of the background screen return any violation to the listed criteria below.

The preliminary results of the background check will be shared with both the applicant and the applicant member organization. The applicant will be allowed 5 business days to dispute the findings (see below).

The results will be shared with the applicant via encrypted email that will provide access to the documentation.

Crimes that violate the Trusted Coaches criteria for membership include but are not limited to:

• ANY Felony level conviction in last ten (10) years (Statute of Limitations begins as of “Date of Disposition”)
• More than one (1) Felony on Lifetime Criminal Record
• ANY crime of a sexual nature
• ANY crime resulting in loss of life
• Multiple violent offenses (minimum of 3) on Lifetime Criminal Record
• ANY Felony level Domestic Abuse convictions on Lifetime Criminal Record
  • More than one (1) lesser level domestic abuse convictions in last ten (10) years
• Some convictions involving children including Child Endangerment

DENIAL OF MEMBERSHIP: PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

• Coaches that have been put into a pre-adverse action period will be required to supply additional LEGAL DOCUMENTATION in order to dispute the background screen results. See below for more information.
  • Letters of Reference will NOT be accepted
  • Letters of Appeal are NOT be accepted
• Crimes of all levels (reckless misconduct, misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor and felonies) will be considered when screening a coach applicant.
• Upon receipt of information that indicates that an applicant will be denied membership, an email notification will be sent to the applicant.
• A copy of the screening report with be sent to both the applicant AND the applicants member organization via encrypted email.
• The applicant will have 5 business days in which to dispute any information that is inaccurate or incomplete.
• If the applicant does not provide adequate LEGAL DOCUMENTATION to dispute the findings in the background screen:
  • The information reported in the screening report will be deemed true and accurate.
  • The applicant will be sent notification via email that their application to be become a member of Trusted Coaches has been denied.
  • The organization will be sent an email notifying that the applicant has not met the eligibility standards for inclusion into the Trusted Coaches membership program.

MANDATORY REPORTING

The applicants purchasing member organization will be made aware of any crimes resulting in conviction that may cause alarm or jeopardize the applicant’s ability to execute the role of a youth sports coach. The Mandatory Reporting policy does not always result in the applicant being placed into the “Pre-Adverse Action” period.

Trusted Coaches reserves the right to share the results to the applicant’s purchasing member organization at any time.

Purchasing member organizations may request the Background Screen results for ANY coach at ANY time.

Trusted Coaches will report the following crimes to both the applicant and an applicant’s organization.
They include but are not limited to:

• ANY Felony conviction on Lifetime Criminal Record
• Any Crime involving a minor on Lifetime Criminal Record
• Crimes resulting in the conviction of a lesser level offense that may cause harm to minors

Disclaimer

A Summary of Your Rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies. There are many types of consumer reporting agencies, including credit bureaus and specialty agencies (such as agencies that sell information about check writing histories, medical records, and rental history records). Here is a summary of your major rights under the FCRA. For more information, including information about additional rights, go to http://www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore/ or write to: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street N.W., Washington, DC 20006.

• You must be told if information in your file has been used against you. Anyone who uses a credit report or another type of consumer report to deny your application for credit, insurance, or employment – or to take another adverse action against you – must tell you, and must give you the name, address, and phone number of the agency that provided the information.
• You have the right to know what is in your file. You may request and obtain all the information about you in the files of a consumer reporting agency (your “file disclosure”). You will be required to provide proper identification, which may include your Social Security number. In many cases, the disclosure will be free. You are entitled to a free file disclosure if:
  • a person has taken adverse action against you because of information in your credit report;
  • you are the victim of identity theft and place a fraud alert in your file;
  • your file contains inaccurate information as a result of fraud;
  • you are on public assistance;
  • you are unemployed but expect to apply for employment within 60 days.

In addition, all consumers are entitled to one free disclosure every 12 months upon request from each nationwide credit bureau and from nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies. See http://www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore/ for additional information.

• You have the right to ask for a credit score. Credit scores are numerical summaries of your credit-worthiness based on information from credit bureaus. You may request a credit score from consumer reporting agencies that create scores or distribute scores used in residential real property loans, but you will have to pay for it. In some mortgage transactions, you will receive credit score information for free from the mortgage lender.
• You have the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information. If you identify information in your file that is incomplete or inaccurate, and report it to the consumer reporting agency, the agency must investigate unless your dispute is frivolous. See http://www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore/ for an explanation of dispute procedures.
• Consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. Inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information must be removed or corrected, usually within thirty days. However, a consumer reporting agency may continue to report information it has verified as accurate.
• Consumer reporting agencies may not report outdated negative financial or credit information. In most cases, a consumer reporting agency may not report negative information that is more than seven years old, or bankruptcies that are more than ten years old.
• Access to your file is limited. A consumer reporting agency may provide information about you only to people with a valid need – usually to consider an application with a creditor, insurer, employer, landlord, or other business. The FCRA specifies those with a valid need for access.
• You must give your consent for reports to be provided to employers. A consumer reporting agency may not give out information about you to your employer, or a potential employer, without your written consent given to the employer. Written consent generally is not required in the trucking industry. For more information, go to http://www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore/
• You may limit “prescreened” offers of credit and insurance you get based on information in your credit report. Unsolicited, “prescreened” offers for credit and insurance must include a toll-free phone number you can call if you choose to remove your name and address from the lists these offers are based on. You may opt-out with the nationwide credit bureaus at 1-888-5678688.
• You may seek damages from violators. If a consumer reporting agency, or, in some cases, a user of consumer reports or a furnisher of information to a consumer reporting agency violates the FCRA, you may be able to sue in state or federal court.
• Identity theft victims and active duty military personnel have additional rights. For more information, visit http://www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore/

Trusted Coaches (TC) is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to educating coaches on best practices in youth sports. The TC program includes screening for coaches who might present a threat or do harm to children and TC reserves the irrevocable right to exclude coaches from membership based on criteria listed above. TC performs a criminal record check based on national criminal records. TC does not perform a credit report for financial information, such as bankruptcies or assets and liabilities; or verify employment or education claims.

Trusted Coaches is NOT an employer of youth sports coaches!

Criminal Background Checks for Youth Sport Coaches | Law Review | Parks and Recreation Magazine

In general, absent a “special relationship,” there is no legal duty to protect others from the conduct of third parties. A special relationship may exist when a plaintiff is particularly vulnerable and dependent on a defendant who, correspondingly, has some control over the plaintiff’s welfare. In general, a greater degree of care is owed to children because of their lack of capacity to appreciate risks and avoid danger. Courts have frequently recognized a special relationship between children and their adult caregivers, giving rise to a legal duty to prevent harms caused by the intentional or criminal conduct of third parties.

In the case of Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Association, Inc., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 148 (2/22/2017), the question before the court was whether a special relationship existed between youth sports organizations and a child participating on a youth soccer team. Specifically, the court considered whether youth sports organizations had a legal duty to “conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in their programs.” (Courts may allow the use of the “Jane Doe” pseudonym to protect the privacy and actual identity of a plaintiff, in this case the victim of sexual childhood sexual abuse.)

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, was sexually abused by her former soccer coach (Fabrizio). Fabrizio sexually abused the plaintiff from May 2011 until March 2012 when she was 12 years old. After Fabrizio pleaded no contest to continuous sexual abuse of a child and lewd and lascivious acts on a child under age 14, he was sentenced to 15 years in state prison.

The trial court had held that the youth soccer league and association defendants (Association) owed no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party. Accordingly, on appeal, the issue was whether the Association had a legal duty to “conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in their programs.”

Defendant US Youth is a national youth soccer association. Defendant Cal North is US Youth’s designated state association; defendant West Valley is an affiliated league of Cal North. Under US Youth’s bylaws, Cal North and West Valley were required to comply with US Youth’s rules for the operation of US Youth soccer programs. Fabrizio was employed by West Valley and was a member of US Youth. The plaintiff participated in US Youth soccer programs and played for West Valley’s soccer teams.

As the plaintiff’s coach, Fabrizio violated several of the US Youth safety guidelines by making “excessive and disproportionate physical contact with plaintiff,” including driving the plaintiff to and from practices and games alone. Fabrizio also helped the plaintiff “put away equipment after practices as the other players were leaving or had left, and they could not be seen from the field.”

Fabrizio had spent extensive time alone with the plaintiff on June 11 and 12, 2011. He drove her alone to and from a tournament in Santa Cruz, even though her parents attended 30 minutes of the final game. During the tournament, Fabrizio took the plaintiff alone for two walks.

After parents and girls speculated about whether there was romantic or sexual activity between the plaintiff and Fabrizio, the plaintiff became upset by the girls’ comments and told the coaches and a team parent. The coaches later held two team meetings to discuss the comments and tried to get the girls to apologize to the plaintiff.

On November 12, 2011, Scott Hughes, a member of the West Valley Board of Directors was informed that there had been “rumors” about Fabrizio having “some bad intentions” toward some of the players on the team. Later that day, Fabrizio was notified that he was suspended from coaching duties at West Valley.
Fabrizio’s suspension, in part, was based on his spending one-on-one time with players, including the plaintiff. West Valley subsequently notified team parents that Fabrizio had been suspended from coaching, but provided no reasons for the suspension. West Valley never interviewed the plaintiff, other players or their parents about Fabrizio.

Following his suspension, it became more difficult for Fabrizio to have contact with the plaintiff, but he continued to do so. West Valley did not inform the plaintiff’s parents that Fabrizio had been suspended due to inappropriate touching of the plaintiff and one-on-one contact with the plaintiff. Moreover, West Valley withheld information that would have put the plaintiff’s parents on notice that they needed to be “extra vigilant” in keeping Fabrizio away from the plaintiff. West Valley chose not to interview the plaintiff and her parents, because it did not want a scandal or lawsuit.

A week after his suspension, Fabrizio was informed that West Valley had conducted an investigation which had found that he had not followed several Cal North rules, including the physical contact rules. Fabrizio was then informed that his coaching privileges would not be reinstated.

Voluntary Disclosure
US Youth bylaws required its state associations and each affiliate league to collect and screen criminal conviction information on its coaches, trainers, volunteers and administrators who would have contact with US Youth child members, including those like the plaintiff. US Youth permitted its state associations and leagues to collect this information by means of a “voluntary disclosure” form.

US Youth did not require criminal background checks by independent third parties. US Youth, however, had negotiated a discounted rate with an online vendor to permit state associations, leagues or teams to obtain nationwide criminal background checks on an applicant for $2.50 per search.

By 2010, nearly all of the state associations within West Valley’s region used third-party independent sources to run annual criminal background checks on their volunteers, coaches and trainers. US Youth kept records regarding which state associations did and did not conduct these background checks. US Youth also distributed monthly reports indicating which individuals had been disqualified from participation in US Youth soccer programs due to prior convictions.

Although US Youth knew that voluntary disclosure by an applicant of his or her criminal convictions was ineffective, US Youth did not require its affiliates to conduct criminal background checks. While the risk management committee of US Youth recommended requiring mandatory criminal background checks, it was concerned that such a requirement could increase exposure to potential liability for negligence. A memorandum to US Youth stated as follows:

From a risk management standpoint, it certainly makes good sense to conduct criminal background checks of all volunteer and paid adults that have contact with US Youth Soccer players. But, from a negligence standpoint, regularly conducting criminal background checks of volunteers and paid adults creates a self-imposed duty to do the same for all that serve in a similar capacity. The failure to conduct such a check would be considered as a breach of duty, which, in turn could mean liability.

When Fabrizio applied for a coaching position with West Valley in 2010, he was required to fill out a form that asked whether he had been convicted of a felony, a crime of violence or a crime against a person. The disclosure form stated that US Youth might deny certification to any person who has been convicted of these types of offenses. Though Fabrizio had been convicted in 2007 of battery against his spouse, he answered no to each of these categories and authorized Cal North and West Valley to confirm this information. Neither Cal North nor West Valley conducted a criminal background check to verify Fabrizio’s denial of any violent criminal behavior. West Valley knew that a criminal background check would identify applicants who had lied about their background on the self-disclosure form, but it failed to conduct criminal background checks.

Special Relationship Duty
In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged her injuries were caused by the negligence of defendants US Youth, Cal North and West Valley. In so doing, the plaintiff claimed the defendants had a duty to protect her from Fabrizio’s criminal conduct. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged the defendants had “breached their duties to her by failing to conduct criminal background checks.”

In response, US Youth claimed it “lacked physical custody and control, and thus had no special relationship with plaintiff.” The appeals court acknowledged that “defendants had no duty to plaintiff unless they stood in a special relationship to her.” However, under the circumstances of this case, the appeals court found a special relationship did indeed exist between the defendants and the plaintiff.

While “parents were present at games and social events,” the court noted the presence of parents at practices was usually limited to when “they dropped off the players or arrived to pick them up.” As a result, the court found players typically spent far more time at practices with their coaches than at games or soccer social events attended by their parents. Accordingly, by assuming responsibility for the safety of the players during these practices, the court found the Association’s coaches acted as “quasi-parents,” similar to adults employed in school, day care and scouting settings. Having “entrusted their children to defendants,” in the opinion of the court, the parents had a reasonable expectation that their children “would be kept physically safe and protected from sexual predators while they were at soccer practices.”

Since the plaintiff was a member of US Youth and played on a West Valley team, a local affiliate of US Youth and Cal North, the appeals court concluded “West Valley was required to comply with the policies and rules of US Youth.” These US Youth rules included established standards under which coaches were hired, including screening for criminal conviction information on coaches.

Having determined which individuals, including Fabrizio, had “custody and supervision of children involved in its programs,” the appeals court concluded US Youth had a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and hiring of coaches. The court then considered whether reasonable care under this special relationship between the Association and youth soccer participants, like the plaintiff, should have included a criminal background check of Fabrizio.

Foreseeable Abuse
As noted by the appeals court, a legal “duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party will be imposed only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” In making this determination, the court would consider whether “the degree of foreseeability is high enough to charge the defendant with the duty to act on it.” According to the court, “Heightened foreseeability can be shown by evidence of prior similar criminal incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults.”

In this particular instance, the specific issue before the court was “whether it was foreseeable that a soccer coach would sexually abuse a player.” The plaintiff had contended there was “heightened foreseeability of sexual abuse by a coach based on the defendants’ knowledge of prior incidents and other indications of risk.” In response, Cal North and West Valley argued that the plaintiff has shown only “a mere possibility of the risk of sexual abuse.”

US Youth also maintained there was “no foreseeability as a matter of law, because it did not have actual knowledge of Fabrizio’s assaultive propensities.” Specifically, US Youth claimed it had “no knowledge that Fabrizio had previously sexually or physically abused anyone or had a propensity to do so.” The appeals court rejected this argument.

As noted by the appeals court, US Youth was “aware of incidents of physical and sexual abuse of US Youth Soccer’s members by its coaches at a steady yearly rate of between 2 and 5 per year.” Moreover, the court found US Youth had adopted the KidSafe Program “in recognition of the risks of sexual abuse to its players.” 

Moreover, the court noted that the KidSafe Program included a pamphlet that acknowledged the following:

One out of every 4 girls and one out of every 6 boys will be sexually abused before the age of 18….Pedophiles are drawn to places where there are children. All youth sports, including youth soccer, are such places.

In the opinion of the appeals court, these facts were indicative of “an acknowledgement by US Youth that children playing soccer were at risk for sexual abuse.” Similarly, Cal North and West Valley had adopted the KidSafe Program, effectively acknowledging their soccer programs attracted those who might sexually abuse their players, including past incidents of sexual abuse. Further, the appeals court noted “the year before Fabrizio submitted his application, both Cal North and West Valley were aware of multiple sexual abuse incidents involving the founder of West Valley.”

Based on these facts, the appeals court concluded “it was reasonably foreseeable to defendants that a child participating in their soccer program would be sexually abused by a coach.”

The present case involved criminal conduct by a member of an organization that provided activities exclusively for children. More importantly, here, defendants were aware that sexual predators were drawn to their organization in order to exploit children and that there had been prior incidents of sexual abuse of children in their programs.

Fabrizio was an employee of West Valley and a member of US Youth, and these organizations controlled which individuals had access to the children in their programs.

Background Check Burden
Having found sexual abuse by a coach was reasonably foreseeable, the appeals court also considered “the burden to defendants of requiring and implementing criminal background checks.”

US Youth had argued that it would “impose a tremendous burden to mandate criminal background checks for employees and volunteers in defendants’ programs, because the availability of criminal background checks varies among the states.”

Further, US Youth claimed “volunteers working with children in the majority of states are not required to undergo criminal background checks and private entities are not allowed to obtain national criminal background checks on volunteers in many states.” The appeals court disagreed.

As noted by the appeals court, “the American Youth Soccer Organization, another national youth soccer organization, has required criminal background checks for its volunteers and coaches in these jurisdictions.” Moreover, the court found US Youth had “required criminal background checks for all coaches and referees participating in its youth Olympic development program in the state associations since 2008.”

In addition, the appeals court noted US Youth had “kept records of which state associations did and did not obtain these criminal background checks and distributed reports of individuals who had been disqualified from participation in its youth programs.”

In the opinion of the appeals court, these facts demonstrated US Youth had “the administrative ability to ensure compliance with mandatory criminal background checks.” As a result, the court concluded “the burden would not have been significant” to require criminal background checks.

Similarly, the appeals court concluded criminal background checks would not have been overly burdensome to Cal North and West Valley. In reaching this determination, the appeals court noted “nearly all of the state associations in Region IV had been conducting criminal background checks on all volunteers, coaches and trainers since 2010.”

US Youth had also argued that “the cost of mandating criminal background checks would be substantial.” According to US Youth, if criminal background checks cost $2.50 per check, registration for “over 900,000 administrators, coaches and volunteers” annually would “amount to $2.25 million.”

The appeals court, however, found the defendants would not have borne the cost if “members of a team or the applicant had paid for the criminal background check.” More importantly, the appeals court noted “there was and continues to be no cost for criminal background checks in California pursuant to Penal Code section 11105.3.” In particular, the court found this statute provides that “no fee shall be charged to nonprofit organizations for criminal background checks.” (Similar cost-free online resources for criminal background checks are available in a number of jurisdictions.)

Duty to Protect Children
As noted by the appeals court, the “parties agree that the plaintiff was injured by Fabrizio’s conduct.” Further, the appeals court found the “connection between the plaintiff’s harm and defendants’ failure to conduct a criminal background check was close.”

According to the court, it would have been highly unlikely that Fabrizio would have been hired had the defendants conducted a criminal background check of Fabrizio. Specifically, in a criminal background check, the court found defendants could have discovered Fabrizio’s prior conviction for domestic violence.

As a result, in the opinion of the court, Fabrizio would have had far fewer, if any, opportunities to sexually abuse the plaintiff if the defendants had conducted a criminal background check prior to his having been retained as a youth soccer coach.

More importantly, under the circumstances of this case, the appeals court found imposition of a legal duty to conduct criminal background checks on defendants would assist in the achievement of a “paramount goal” in society to prevent future harm, viz., “the protection of children from sexual abuse.”

The appeals court, therefore, concluded the “defendants had a duty to conduct criminal background checks of adults who would have contact with children in their soccer programs.”

As a result, the appeals court reversed the earlier determination by the trial court that the youth soccer league and association (Association) owed no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party (Fabrizio). On remand, the trial court would conduct further proceedings to determine whether negligence liability should be imposed on Association defendants for their failure to conduct criminal background checks prior to hiring Fabrizio as a youth soccer coach.

James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D., is an Attorney and Associate Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism at George Mason University in Manassas, Virginia. Click here to link to a webpage with law review articles archive (1982 to present).

SEE ALSO:

“Duty To Educate Youth About Risk Of Sexual Abuse By Voluteers,”
James C. Kozlowski. Parks & Recreation, Dec 2000, Vol. 35, Iss . 12

“Molestation Liability Examines Scope Of Employment & Foreseeability,”
James C. Kozlowski. Parks & Recreation, Feb 1997, Vol. 32, Iss . 2; P. 36 (6 Pages)

Agency Liability for Sexual Misconduct (Kozlowski Vimeo Video Lecture)

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqualifying Criteria

USA Basketball considers many elements to determine eligibility for a coach license.  In order to receive and maintain a valid coach license, individuals must meet the eligibility standards outlined below.  Individuals who do not meet these eligibility standards will be notified through the contact information provided to USA Basketball. USA Basketball receives monthly background screen updates to ensure all licensed coaches maintain good standing throughout the duration of the license season.  If a licensee is found to be ineligible at any point during the season, his or her license will automatically become invalid. 

An individual may be disqualified for the reasons below, whether discovered through a background search or through other sources.

Automatic Disqualifiers

• Section 1: An individual will be automatically ineligible for licensing by USA Basketball if a background search reveals that such individual has been convicted of, received a deferred sentence or adjudication for, or pled guilty or no contest at any time for, or has been charged with (a diversion agreement will be considered a charge unless and until the agreement is fulfilled and the charge(s) dismissed), any of the following:

(a)  Any felony involving:

(i)  Murder or homicide.
(ii)  Sex crimes, involving violence, lack of consent, or inability to consent, including rape and sexual assault.
(iii) Sex crimes involving a minor
(iv) Child endangerment, neglect or abuse.
(v) Violent crimes involving weapons (e.g., armed robbery v. unlawful possession)
(vi)  Animal abuse.
(vii)  Drug use or possession within the previous five years.*
(viii) Other drug-related crimes including distribution, intent to distribute, manufacturing, trafficking, or sale within the previous seven years.*

(b)  Any misdemeanor involving:

(i)  Sex crimes involving violence, lack of consent, or inability to consent, including rape and sexual assault.
(ii) Sex crimes involving a minor
(iii) Child endangerment, neglect or abuse.
(iv) Drug use or possession within the previous three years.*
(v) Other drug-related crimes including distribution, intent to distribute, manufacturing,
trafficking, or sale within the previous seven years.*

(c)   Multiple alcohol- and/or drug-related offenses within the previous three years.*
  
* Period of ineligibility calculated based on offense disposition date.

• Section 2: An individual will also be automatically ineligible for licensing by USA Basketball if (i) USA Basketball receives notification that the individual is currently subject to any sanction, whether temporary or permanent, by (1) the U.S. Center for SafeSport; or (2) another national governing body, for SafeSport-related violations; or (ii) the individual is currently subject to any ineligibility sanction, whether temporary or permanent, by USA Basketball. 

USA Basketball will mirror and apply any sanction issued by the U.S. Center for SafeSport, or by another national governing body for SafeSport-related violations, and will enforce its own sanctions.

Potential Disqualifiers

1.   Section 1: An individual may be ineligible for licensing by USA Basketball if a background search reveals that such individual has been convicted of, received a deferred sentence or adjudication for, or pled guilty or no contest at any time for, or has been charged with (a diversion agreement will be considered a charge unless and until the agreement is fulfilled and the charge(s) dismissed), any of the following:

(a)    Any felony involving:

(i)  Non-violent sex crimes, including lewd conduct, indecent exposure, public indecency, prostitution, voyeurism, pandering and offender registration violations.
(ii) Violence against a person not included in the Automatic Disqualifiers above.
(iii) Any other felony.

(b)  Any misdemeanor involving:

(i)  Non-violent sex crimes, including lewd conduct, indecent exposure, public indecency, prostitution, voyeurism, pandering and offender registration violations.
(ii)  Violence against a person within the previous five years, including harassment and stalking.*
(iii) Animal abuse.
(iv) Financial crimes, including financial fraud, forgery, and embezzlement.

(c)  Multiple alcohol and/or drug-related offenses not otherwise included in Section (c) of the
      Automatic Disqualifiers above.

(d) Multiple felony and/or misdemeanor offenses not otherwise included in the Automatic
      Disqualifiers.

* Period of ineligibility calculated based on offense disposition date.

• Section 2: In addition to the criteria above, an individual may also be disqualified for the following reasons, where USA Basketball has received appropriate notification:
  • A violation, or charge of a violation, of the USA Basketball Coach Code of Conduct: https://www.usab.com/youth/development/coach/coaches-code-of-conduct.aspx.
  • A violation, or charge of a violation, of any of USA Basketball’s Bylaws, rules, policies, or procedures, including without limitation its SafeSport policy, to the extent not otherwise included in Automatic Disqualifiers Section 2 above, including instances where an individual is in the process of having a hearing before USA Basketball’s SafeSport Panel.
  • Being currently subject to any sanction, whether permanent or temporary, against an individual by another national governing body, for violations other than SafeSport-related violations.
  • Having been previously subject to any sanction, whether temporary or permanent, by (i) the U.S. Center for SafeSport; (ii) another national governing body; or (iii) USA Basketball.
  • Being adjudged liable for civil penalties or damages involving sexual or physical abuse.
  • Being subject to any court order involving any sexual abuse or physical abuse, including but not limited to domestic order or protection.
  • Having had their parental rights terminated.
  • Having a history with another organization (volunteer, employment, etc.) of complaints of sexual or physical abuse. 
  • Having resigned, been terminated or been asked to resign from a position, whether paid or unpaid, due to complaint(s) of sexual or physical abuse.

Tougher background checks disqualify longtime coaches in Deerfield Beach

Sixteen people here are wondering whether they will ever live down their pasts.

Until recently, some of them were volunteer coaches for kids’ sports teams, and their fellow coaches and team moms thought they were good influences on the kids they coached.

But they can’t coach anymore, thanks to a new and stricter background check law in Deerfield Beach that affects volunteers who work with kids and the elderly in organizations that use city parks or facilities.

It requires a national criminal background check and automatically disqualifies anyone found guilty at any point in their lives of a violent felony or sex crime, and it means the city’s little league teams are looking for sixteen new volunteers.

But many of these people had become good role-models who had formed family-like bonds with their teams, said Servant Wesley, a coach who has not been disqualified and works with the 9- to 12-year-old Deerfield Beach Raiders in the Pop Warner Football League.

“When do you ever make up for it?” Wesley asked “These were good people, people of God, some of them.”

Bobby Cooper was caught trying to steal a lawn mower from a Target store in Deerfield Beach while high on crack cocaine 24 years ago. He went to jail for it, got clean in 1994 and has spent his time since then volunteering at prisons, churches, homeless shelters and sports fields. He’s raised three kids. In 13 years of coaching, he said, he’s become a father figure for a lot of boys who don’t know their dads.

Rosalind Smith, a Raiders team mom, was arrested for possession of cocaine and solicitation in 1993. Since then, she’s earned multiple college degrees, raised a family and mentored dozens of kids in Broward County schools.

Bill Dixon was speeding 20 years ago when he hit another car and killed its driver, an act for which he was convicted of manslaughter. He knows he shouldn’t have been speeding, but he doesn’t think that makes him a violent criminal. He’s a family man, Preston and other coaches said.

The new rules also disqualify those convicted of any other type of felony in the past 10 years, any violent misdemeanor in the past seven years, any two drug or alcohol offenses in the past 10 years, or any misdemeanor in the past five years that might be considered a potential danger to children.

It’s a change that may save some children from molestation or from being led astray. Some of the volunteers disqualified by the new checks had recent convictions for sex crimes, violent assaults, murder and battery, Deerfield Vice Mayor Bill Ganz said.

But it’s also a change that points to a common tension between cities, counties and school districts who want to keep kids safe and volunteers who want to help kids despite imperfect pasts.

“I know the goal of this commission is to protect kids from those who would do them harm,” said Deerfield Commissioner Ben Preston. “And for that reason some stringent requirements were put in place. But because of that, there have been some good, highly involved people not allowed to coach, and that’s a tragedy.”

The National Recreation and Park Association recommends the guidelines that Deerfield Beach uses, but it does not recommend that there be no appeals process. That’s up to the organization, city, county or school system, a spokeswoman said. Appeals processes are pretty common, though, she said.

Some governments in Broward and Palm Beach counties do have an appeals process. They’ll disqualify volunteer applicants for things uncovered by background checks, but allow applicants to appeal the decision.

In Broward County, human resources personnel consider applicants depending on what crimes they’ve committed in their past and what position they hope to hold. Only one thing is an automatic disqualification no matter what: failing to disclose past crimes.

Boca Raton considers every volunteer applicant on a case-by-case basis.

Tamarac automatically disqualifies some applicants based on past crimes, but an appeals committee made up of HR and risk management personnel will hear anyone’s case.

Deerfield has no appeals process, and at a recent city meeting decided it didn’t want one.

Preston asked that the commission and city staff develop an appeals process for people who don’t pass their background test but still might be assets to the city’s sports leagues.

No one seconded the motion and the issue fell flat.

“Some mistakes have consequences that never go away,” Vice Mayor Ganz said. “I have no doubt good people have been ensnared in this. But if you commit a crime, there will be repercussions. You might say you’ve paid your debt to society, but there will still always be repercussions.”

People who have been down the road of crime and reformed are often better at keeping kids from going astray, Coach Wesley and others said.

“It would be very difficult to teach a class on pregnancy when I’ve never been pregnant,” he said. “You have kids in these inner cities playing football and growing up without fathers, we can be that positive male role model in their life. The vice mayor, he don’t know this. He’s not from the quote, unquote other side of the tracks. He’s not from the hood. When we try to make a difference, the door’s just shut. We need the support of the community — black, white, Spanish, Asian. This divides us, and as long as we stay divided, we can’t be productive.”

Cooper plans to start a petition to get an appeals process started, he said. He wants to work inside the laws of the city, but doesn’t understand how he can be barred from working with children.

“I don’t want to go outside the law. The children are still watching my example. But the city is saying, you can’t do this and you can’t do that. All I want to know is why,” he said. “How much do I have to do to be forgiven?”

[email protected] or 954-356-4451

90,000 How to train at home to gain muscle mass: tips from the champion

https://rsport.ria.ru/20200428/1570645378.html

How to train at home to gain muscle mass: tips from the champion

How to train at home, to gain muscle mass: tips from a champion Stanislav Lindover, European champion in classical bodybuilding, talks about how without… RIA Novosti Sport, 28.04.2020

2020-04-28T08: 00

2020-04-28T08: 00

2020-04-28T08: 00

healthy

health

sports in the context of the coronavirus pandemic

/ html / head / meta [@ name = ‘og: title’] / @ content

/ html / head / meta [@ name = ‘og: description’] / @ content

https: //cdn22.img .ria.ru / images / 151000/65 / 1510006571_0: 181: 3465: 2130_1920x0_80_0_0_9906fbf3b2b3f1cf6ae386d4e158014c.jpg

You can create a better version of yourself without leaving your apartment.Stanislav Lindover, European champion in classical bodybuilding, talks about how to make your muscles more prominent and your body more attractive without a gym. Muscle building is a process that is based on the progression of loads. The bottom line is that you are placing increased demands on your body. The body has a negative attitude towards this, but you are its master: the nervous system transmits an impulse to the muscles at the moment you perform the exercise. Muscles do not have a brain and are forced to respond to a signal.And it doesn’t matter in which room the process takes place – at home or in the gym. Push-ups or barbells? There is no scientific evidence that a specific exercise or a specific equipment is needed to grow muscle mass. The most important thing is to work to failure and increase the load over time. If in the gym this is expressed in the number of disks on the bar – for example, you squeezed 100 kilograms, then 120 – then at home you can increase the number of repetitions. “Now most of them do not have the opportunity to perform approaches to the bar,” says Stanislav Lindover, “but if you today you press 15 times, tomorrow you will press 16 times, and the day after tomorrow – 19, this will be a progression of loads that will allow you to build up muscles.Say, yesterday you squatted ten times on one leg, and today – 11? So you have progressed. “Workout Example Absolutely all muscle groups can be trained at home, especially if you have a set of dumbbells, TRX loops or the simplest tool is a rubber band.” A good way to build muscle is circuit training, “explains the athlete. – For example, you do push-ups with a wide grip. Did 18 reps and can’t do more. Next – rest. Then squat on both legs or on one.Did 12 repetitions – rested. Then you change the target muscle group: push-ups with a narrow grip and rest again. The next exercise is pull-ups or dumbbell curls. After that, rest and exercise on the shoulders – press up. “Thus, in total, five to six exercises are done in a circle. For most people this will be enough for a one-day program. For example, if you train three times a week, then on the pectoral muscles you can do one exercise with one set on Monday, on Wednesday – two sets, on Friday – one or two sets.If your training experience is serious and is five to six years, you can do up to 10-12 approaches for one muscle group. In this case, they train four times a week or during one workout they perform not one circle, but two. The principle of regularity “At home there is one big advantage: the opportunity to exercise at any time,” Stanislav continues. “People visit the gym irregularly: traffic jams, bad mood, not everyone has money for a subscription, and so on. At home, these obstacles disappear. …Another thing is that one cannot become a world champion while practicing in an apartment. A professional athlete, whose muscle mass is already overdeveloped, will not be able to increase it further – he will only work to maintain it. ” that a medicine in one dosage heals, in a slightly larger dosage it stops working, but if you take it even more, it can harm the body.At some point, excess load does nothing. “Let’s say you do six sets in a week and decide to increase this figure to ten. The volume will be more, but the efficiency (efficiency. – Ed.) Will remain at the same level. When the workout starts to go badly, it is difficult to predict, and thanks to your zeal, you can get the opposite effect: instead of building up muscle mass, a person will begin to part with it. ” The best option “Ten to twelve approaches per week per muscle group is the upper limit,” explains Stanislav Lindover.- Therefore, amateurs will need three to four workouts per week and one or two approaches per muscle group in 99 percent of cases. In addition, you need to start small: a set of five to six exercises. Exercise for a week and a half – analyze your health, recovery, reflection in the mirror. If necessary, you can add. “Thus, any exercise that you perform to failure will help build muscle mass. Therefore at home you can swing, lose weight, improve functionality – do almost anything.The main thing is to observe the principle of gradualness and progression of loads.

https://rsport.ria.ru/20200423/1570421288.html

https://rsport.ria.ru/20200421/1570374452.html

https://rsport.ria.ru/20200423/1570438163. html

https://rsport.ria.ru/20200415/1570082580.html

RIA Novosti Sport

[email protected]

7 495 645-6601

FSUE MIA “Russia Today”

https : //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/

2020

RIA Novosti Sport

internet-group @ rian.ru

7 495 645-6601

FSUE MIA “Russia Today”

https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/

News

ru-RU

https: // rsport. ria.ru/docs/about/copyright.html

https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/

RIA Novosti Sport

[email protected]

7 495 645-6601

FSUE MIA “Russia Today”

https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/

https: // cdn22.img.ria.ru/images/151000/65/1510006571_193 0:3273:2310_1920x0_80_0_0_0da748c40b51e0c7eb567daa359a4f8c.jpg

RIA Novosti Sport

[email protected] 950003-6000602 7 4

https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/

RIA Novosti Sport

[email protected]

7 495 645-6601

FSUE MIA “Russia Today”

https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/

health, sports in the context of the coronavirus pandemic

You can create the best version of yourself without leaving your apartment.Stanislav Lindover, European champion in classical bodybuilding, talks about how to make muscles more prominent and body – more attractive without a gym.

Muscle building is a process that is based on the progression of loads. The bottom line is that you are placing increased demands on your body. The body has a negative attitude towards this, but you are its master: the nervous system transmits an impulse to the muscles at the moment you perform the exercise. Muscles do not have a brain and are forced to respond to a signal.And it doesn’t matter in which room the process takes place – at home or in the gym.

Push-ups or barbell?

There is no scientific evidence that a specific exercise or specific equipment is required for muscle growth. The most important thing is to work to failure and increase the load over time. If in the gym this is expressed in the number of discs on the bar – for example, you squeezed 100 kilograms, then 120 – then at home you can increase the number of repetitions.

“Nowadays most people do not have the opportunity to do approaches to the bar,” says Stanislav Lindover, “but if you did 15 push-ups today, tomorrow you will push 16 times, and the day after tomorrow – 19, it will be a progression of loads that will allow you to build muscle.Say, yesterday you squatted ten times on one leg, and today – 11? So you’ve progressed. ” simple remedy – rubber band

“Circuit training is a good way to build muscle,” explains the athlete. – For example, you do push-ups with a wide grip.Did 18 reps and can’t do more. Next – rest. Then squat on both legs or on one. Did 12 repetitions – rested. Then you change the target muscle group: push-ups with a narrow grip and rest again. The next exercise is pull-ups or dumbbell curls. After that, rest and exercise on the shoulders – press up. “

Thus, in total, five or six exercises are done in a circle. For most people this will be enough for a one-day program. conditions: exercises from the fitness model

How many sets to do

It is important to remember: for each muscle group you need from three to five sets per week.For example, if you train three times a week, then on the pectoral muscles you can do one exercise with one set on Monday, two sets on Wednesday, and one or two sets on Friday.

If your training experience is serious and is five to six years, you can do up to 10-12 approaches for one muscle group. In this case, they train four times a week or during one workout they perform not one circle, but two.

Principle of regularity

“There is one big advantage at home: the ability to practice at any time,” Stanislav continues.- People visit the gym irregularly: traffic jams, bad mood, not everyone has money for a subscription, and so on. At home, these obstacles disappear. Another thing is that one cannot become a world champion while practicing in an apartment. A professional athlete, whose muscle mass is already overdeveloped, will not be able to build it further – he will only work to maintain it. ” harm

More often than three or four times a week, you do not need to do it.There is such a term – “dose-dependent effect”. It is known that a medicine in one dosage heals, in a slightly higher dosage it ceases to work. But if you take it even more, it can harm the body. This is also true for gaining muscle mass. At some point, excess load does nothing.

“Let’s say you do six approaches per week and decide to increase this figure to ten. The volume will be greater, but the efficiency (coefficient of performance. – Ed.) Will remain at the same level.When the workout starts to be harmful, it is difficult to predict, and thanks to your zeal, you can get the opposite effect: instead of building up muscle mass, a person will begin to part with it. “

April 15, 2020, 16:00 on the hips at home

The best option

“Ten to twelve sets per week per muscle group is the upper limit,” explains Stanislav Lindover. – Therefore, amateurs will need three to four workouts per week and one or two approaches per muscle group in 99 percent of cases.In addition, you need to start small: a set of five to six exercises. Exercise for a week and a half – analyze your health, recovery, reflection in the mirror. If required, you can add. “

Thus, any exercise that you perform to failure will help build muscle mass. Therefore, at home you can swing, lose weight, improve functionality – do almost anything. The main thing is to observe the principle of gradualness and progression of loads

Probable waste of budgetary money at the mine in Selidovo has been investigated for 2 years.The suspects were not found

The court gave the investigators another year to collect all the evidence and establish the facts of substandard work.

Background. Back in early 2020, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office announced that they were investigating a possible abuse of office by officials of the SE “Selidovugol”.

According to law enforcement officials, in 2018-2019, officials of the state-owned enterprise ordered from private entrepreneurs the supply of low-quality equipment for mines, and also carried out an unsatisfactory overhaul of the conveyor at the Kurakhovskaya mine.

The press service of the prosecutor’s office is not informed about the specific amounts of losses.

In the case, which the journalists of the Vchasno newspaper found, it is said that the equipment was supplied by the enterprise Smart Company LTD, Donremtekhmash LLC and others. Which ones are not specified in the court document.

Our journalists analyzed the enterprises that are involved in production.

According to the analysis of the YouControl platform, Smart Company LTD is a company from Zaporozhye, which is engaged in non-specialized wholesale trade.The owner of the company is Olesya Taranenko, registered in the occupied Donetsk.

The second company – Donremtekhmash LLC – registered in Kharkov. It is engaged in the repair and maintenance of industrial machines. Its owner, Valery Zhmursky, is also registered in the occupied territory – in Horlivka.

According to law enforcement officers, Smart Company LTD supplied the coal state-owned enterprise not only with low-quality equipment, but also counterfeit equipment that was already used

And the repair of the conveyor, which was carried out by “Donremtekhmash”, seemed to be carried out superficially and carried out without any permission at all.The details made by the company did not fit. Therefore, the mine conveyor repeatedly broke down, and money from the budget of the state-owned enterprise was spent on its repair.

There are no suspects for 2 years of investigation. According to data from the USRSR, the case began to be investigated back in October 2019. Since then, law enforcement officers have conducted about 10 searches and seized low-quality equipment.

At the end of August this year, the investigators of the Serious Crimes Department asked the court to give them more time to investigate.After all, they still do not have suspects, and there is not enough evidence in the case.

Therefore, the court extended the preliminary investigation period for another 12 months. Investigators will collect all the necessary facts and evidence by September 6 next year.

Read also:

90,000 When the vaccinated “Sputnik V” can enter Finland without a test

Despite the fact that earlier Finnish scientists pointed out the need to lift restrictions on entry to Finland for people vaccinated with the Russian anticancer drug, the country’s Ministry of Health was not ready to help ease the restrictions.

TALLINN, 25 Sep – Sputnik Meedia. The Ministry of Health of Finland has spoken out against the proposal of its compatriots from the National Institute of Health and Social Welfare (THL) to let those vaccinated with the Russian Sputnik V vaccine into the country without tests.

Medical officials stressed that the vaccine must first get approval from the European Union, YLE reports.

According to Kirsi Varhil, Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Health, her country has committed to approve and use only those vaccines that are approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

“The Sputnik vaccine is only at the stage of obtaining an EMA license. The verification is going on thoroughly and, obviously, the agency does not yet have comprehensive information regarding the production of the drug,” she said.

The Finnish government also chose a more cautious line in relation to the Russian vaccine and did not include it among the approved ones. On September 21, the Finnish government decided to extend the current travel restrictions by the end of the year.

As Sputnik Meedia wrote, explaining its position, THL noted that Russia, as a neighbor of Finland, has a special position.The institution also recalled the passenger traffic between the countries.

“If the Russian vaccine is not approved, the testing load at the eastern border crossing points will be exorbitant. In addition, people vaccinated with Sputnik V and traveling a lot will find themselves in an uncomfortable position,” the institute explained.

The “inconvenient position” in THL means that people vaccinated with the Russian vaccine, who want to avoid passing the test in the future, will have to be re-vaccinated with one of the drugs legalized by the Finnish authorities.

How they are entering Finland now

According to the current Finnish law, only those vaccinated with vaccines licensed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or certified by the World Health Organization (WHO) have the opportunity to cross the external border of the country without the obligation to undergo a coronavirus infection test.

Now, all arriving in Finland must, upon entry, document that they have completed a full vaccination course or that they have had an illness in the last 6 months, or have a negative coronavirus test result.Otherwise, the border test is mandatory. Some travelers may limit themselves to one test; many have to repeat it.

To date, only four anticancer vaccines have been registered with the European Medicines Agency – Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer / BioNTech.

As for the Russian vaccine “Sputnik V” – the drug is approved for use in 70 countries of the world with a total population of about four billion people, or half of the world’s population.The application for registration in the EMA was submitted at the beginning of March this year. The decision has not yet been made by the European regulator.

You may also be interested in:

90,000 Creedence Clearwater Revival’s Creedence Clearwater Revival

Creedence Clearwater Revival’s Cosmo’s Factory disc hits the song “Who’ll Stop The Rain”

What do you know about country rock? And about the synthesis of country and hard rock? Our next tale of iconic and most famous music records celebrating their anniversaries in 2020 is dedicated to the style legends Creedence Clearwater Revival and the 50th anniversary of their best-selling and best-selling 1970 album, Cosmo’s Factory.

Before paying tribute to the talents of Creedence Clearwater Revival (hereinafter CCR), it does not hurt to remember the history. For the musical style “country” (also called “bluegrass”) is, in fact, the folk music of the white population of America. The music is sometimes cheerful, not too intricate, moderately melancholic and sentimental, drawn-out and even, as someone might say, “mournful”. Experiments with this style began back in the 1940s-1950s, where the work of a group like The Carter Family can be a good starting point for its transformation into real works of musical art.

But, as the sharp-eyed readers of Nasha Versiya can guess, it could not do without a groovy rocker vein! In the 1950s and 1960s, style gurus such as Hank Williams and Bakersfield boogie boys Merle Haggard and Buck Owens had a hand in the development of country music. The famous Graham Parsons of The Byrds (for example, on “Sweetheart Of The Rodeo”) has done a tremendous job of bringing folk and country together. His synthesis, which was undoubtedly influenced by Bob Dylan’s research , allowed first to disassemble the country genre into its constituent parts, and then reassemble it, like the pattern of the famous Rubik’s cube together with the monsters from The Flying Burrito Brothers.The final solo album of Parsons called “Grievous Angel” (1973) I strongly recommend for listening to everyone interested in the topic, especially considering that many of the songs from him, like the heartfelt “Love Hurts”, were very soulfully interpreted by the same Nazareth.

Parsons’ example inspired many talented musicians to in-depth exploration of emerging musical trends that unexpectedly emerged at the intersection of country and other musical styles. Parsons was followed by such rock giants and former CSNY and Buffalo Springfield bandmates as Neil Young (Harvest album) and Stephen Stills (Manassas record), former vocal partner of Graham Parsons named Emmylou Harris (Elite Hotel “,” Pieces Of The Sky “), former soldier, actor, English teacher Chris Kristofferson (work” Me And Bobby McGee “).

Rockers in cowboy boots named Poco (“Crazy Eyes”) shone beautifully, not far off was the advent of such a radiant phenomenon as The Eagles with their otherworldly “Hotel California”, which began as an accompaniment of Linda Ronstadt, as well as the extremely talented Jackson Brown … The musicians from Black Oak were flirting with country and heavy rock styles, and the Greatful Dead themselves could indulge in musical experiments on the verge of folk, psychedelia, hard and blues, mixing them with country elements.Elders of the genre like Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Randy Newman and Wayne Jennings kept themselves somewhat apart from this motley country-folk-blues-hard rock company, playing the roles of harsh, incorruptible, deliberately fostered outlaw guys. And as always, I felt great in the country-mainstream States, where figures like Kenny Rogers or the already mentioned Linda Ronstadt are famous.

Here on such a “lively”, if I may say so, the star CCR has risen.At the origins of the formation were guitarists, the Fogerty brothers. The eldest of them, John, also played the harmonica, saxophone, keyboards, sang and arranged arrangements perfectly, while the youngest, Tom, was still fond of composing lyrics. They were joined by Stuart Cook (bass) and Douglas Ray Clifford (drums). The brothers weren’t new to music. They began performing back in 1959 under the name Blue Velvets, later changing to Golliwogs. The team acquired the sought-after name Creedence Clearwater Revival (its abbreviated name CCR was often allowed) in 1967.

Their trick was that they managed to bring the message of real rock music with its intriguing sounds to the country. Before their famous “Cosmo’s Factory” in 1970, CCR’s musicians released 4 albums, were remembered for their bright performance at the Woodstock festival and were able to pick up the keys to the hearts of listeners, and not only rednecks, but also hooked on to a wider population. In my opinion, their success was predetermined by the release of the pre-Cosmo’s Factory album, Williy And The Poor Boys, published in late 1969 and early 1970.Let’s talk about it before discussing the enchanting beauty of Cosmo’s Factory.

Despite the fact that the album “Williy And The Poor Boys” did not become the best in CCR’s discography, it deserves warm words. There is no pretentiousness in it, the compositions go one after another, like well-fitted wagons in a train. The songs, at first glance, are simple, but fascinate with their honesty and brightness of performance in the style of root (English “root”) country, competently mixed with the aromas of blues of the southern Mississippi Delta.Take, for example, the rework of Cottonfields and Midnight Special, or John Fogerty’s caustic satire on American society in Don’t Look Now, his derision of the Vietnam War hypocrisy in Fortunate Son. The younger Fogerty also showed himself to the full, creating a constellation of brilliant compositions: “Down On The Corner”, “It Came Out Of The Sky”, “Poor Boy Shuffle”.

“Cosmo’s Factory”, as if inheriting “Williy And The Poor Boys”, undoubtedly, was one of the brightest and most notable releases of the early seventies.There is absolutely no pathos in it. All songs, starting with the title track “Ramble Tamble”, a cover of Bo Diddley’s “Before You Accuse Me”, inspired by “Travelin ‘Band”, “Lookin’ Out My Back Door”, the punchy “Run Through the Jungle”, melodic “Up Around the Bend “,” Who’ll Stop the Rain “,” Long as I Can See the Light “, turned out to be strong, excellent in form and content. The album won many awards, almost immediately topping the English, American and Australian charts, becoming the best-selling CCR album.In 2003, the album entered the list of the 500 Best Albums of All Time by Rolling Stone magazine at number 265.

It so happened that the next hit album “Pendulum”, released in December 1970, “breathed” in the back of his head. Hits such as “Molina”, “Have You Ever Seen The Rain” and other pearls are known from him. I will quote the famous Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aitmatov, who in his epoch-making novel “And the day lasts longer than a century” wrote that (quote): “there are individual cases, individual destinies of people (I would say music albums – ed.) which become the property of many. For the price of his lesson is so high, so much is contained in the story that what was formerly such a person (musician – author) seems to apply to everyone who lived at that time and even to those who will come much later … Why suffer as if he himself was in his place? .. This is what music and true singing mean, thought Edigei, they will say: die and be born again – and for that I am ready at that moment … fire, from which a person clearly and freely thinks about himself in the best way … ”.Well said!

In 1972, the CCR disbanded. Tom Fogerty left first, followed by the others. The most successful career subsequently developed for John Fogerty, who again managed to please his fans and music lovers with two solo albums released in the mid-eighties (“Centerfield” 1985 and “Eye Of The Zombie” 1986). In the 2000s, John traveled to Moscow, having played an unforgettable concert in all respects at Crocus City Hall.

The country style continued its collaborations with rock, periodically moving into rather heavy hard rhythm and blues, both in Little Feat and in tex-mex, rockabilly, “gangster” country, which was very talented by Joe Eli (to for example, on the albums “Joe Ely” or “Honky Tonk Masquerade”).The result of their hard work was the emergence of an alternative kind of country in the 1990s. Therefore, the answer to the question in the title of the article “For whom is it raining?” Can draw parallels with the similar title of Ernest Hemingway’s famous novel For Whom the Bell Tolls ?, dedicated to the civil war in Spain in the 1930s. You can always familiarize yourself with the answer given by the author himself by refreshing the work in memory. Therefore, perhaps, sometimes it is better not to specify again (or, on the contrary, to specify?) “For whom the bell is ringing”.For, it may well be that he “calls” just for you …

.

Our Version congratulates John Fogerty (born May 28, 1945) on his 75th birthday! The editors wish the musician health and new excellent recordings.

.