Lack of Accountability in Youth Sports Abuse

This is a follow up to the reporting of an abuse case that occurred in March of 2025 within a major Colorado club. An initial report was posted on Faster Skier earlier this summer. This subsequent article is an attempt to keep all such issues front and center so that athletes and coaches will feel safe, so that families will feel faithfully represented, and so that governing bodies will stand behind their responsibility to protect all participants in our sport. 

As time goes on, there is a lack of accountability for NGBs and affiliated club programs for the abuse of minor athletes. They all follow the same course of action, making repeated claims that all required policies were in place and implemented, taking protecting youth seriously, and refusing to talk further because “there is a SafeSport investigation ongoing,” which may, or may not, be true. In the case of SafeSport, those who have filed a compliant—or are subject to a complaint—are the only ones not allowed to talk.

As often occurs within SafeSport (whose role is to investigate individual claims), there is a lack of Accountability or Responsibility taken for abuse in youth sports. This lack of organizational oversight and policy failures are the primary reasons abuse remains prevalent in youth sports. The accused perpetrator can be sanctioned by SafeSport and held accountable in criminal or civil proceedings, but that is the extent of the accountability. There have been a few high-profile cases—like USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming—where organization were held accountable, but that was not through SafeSport process.

In the case in Colorado (referenced in an earlier FasterSkier article), a late-summer update from Team Summit (recently distributed to club members) underscores the issue. Team Summit now claims all the SafeSport-mandated policies were in place. This statement then calls into question why the Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (MAAPP) were not implemented if they were in place and are inconsistent with prior statements made by club officials in both local and regional media. The following statement was given to the media when the abuse case was first reported in April.

“Since we became aware of Mr. Hedges’ alleged conduct earlier this year, we have had dozens of work sessions on our athlete safety policy, with a specific focus on team travel,” said CB Bechtel, Executive Director of Team Summit Colorado. “We are currently vetting our policies through child safety advocacy groups and operating under these practices in the interim: The minimum age for team travel is 12 years old; two adults per accommodation are required; at least one adult of each athlete’s gender must be represented; a special form must be completed by all participants if there are exceptions to the above policies. Team Summit is currently operating under these requirements while it completes the process to officially adopt them as policy,” Bechtel wrote.

The problem with the above statement is that, except for the minimum travel age, every policy listed here has already been required for several years under the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (MAAPP). Framing them as “interim” or “new” measures is misleading and can only mean that the required polices were not previously in place. The Executive Director clearly stated Team Summit is in process of officially adopting these policies.

In recent reporting by local media, Team Summit is presenting a false narrative around what constitutes the MAAPP threshold requirement that all interactions must be “Observable and Interruptible.” They all fall back on a total misrepresentation of the SafeSport polices and MAAPP protocols, not to mention they fail to understand how the policies are actually implemented as required by SafeSport. In this case Team Summit has made the case that one coach living in a house with several minor athletes is acceptable MAAPP practice, and meets the needs that all interactions between an adult and minor athlete be observable and interruptible. Falsely claiming that minors can act to interrupt adult behavior. This is a gross mischaracterization of the MAAPP policies in addition to suggesting that minors can act as observers and interrupters in a process designed to protect them.

From SafeSport training modules (Coach/Athlete Education):

“Observable and interruptible means another adult can see, hear, or enter at any time. Being around other minors does not meet this requirement.”
— U.S. Center for SafeSport Core Training for Coaches (2023)

Two additional anchor references from the Center, itself:

U.S. Center for SafeSport One-Pager: “ALL one-on-one interactions must be at an observable and interruptible distance from another adult.”

MAAPP Manual: Even if other minors are present, certain activities still require another Adult Participant in the room.

Why: Policy Rationale

• The “observable and interruptible” requirement exists to mitigate the power imbalance between adults and minors. That’s the foundational principle of the SafeSport framework.
• The rule ensures that another adult, one not directly involved in the interaction, can see, hear, or intervene if misconduct or grooming risk occurs.

A minor observer cannot fulfill that safeguard because:

• They lack authority or confidence to interrupt an adult.
• They are still a protected class, not a responsible party.
• Having one minor “observe” another could create secondary exposure risk or dual vulnerability rather than protection.
• Therefore, under SafeSport and MAAPP interpretation, the “observer” and “interrupter” roles must be filled by an adult capable of recognizing and acting on boundary violations.

Even in the Team Summit abuse case, if one was to assume the policies were in place, there was a gross breakdown in implementation of MAAPP. If there was administrative oversight, it failed to identify significant issues with the housing plans and violation of MAAPP requirements.  A nine-year-old boy was abused: MAAPP requirements were not implemented in two lodging situations at the Taos training camp. So, if the required policies and oversight for compliance were in place, the Taos event would not move forward as it did, and the abuse would not have occurred or—at a minimum—it would have been preventable.

This situation represents a total lack of accountability for the program’s failures and their responsibilities for the abuse. The club in this case cannot have it both ways. If the legally required MAAPP polices were in place, there was a  failure by the head coach and the executive director to have oversight in place. If the policies were not in place, it reflects and organizational failure to comply with MAAPP policies required by U.S. Ski & Snowboard.

The omissions are equally troubling. According to police reports of the initial investigation, two male coaches were on the trip, one rooming with the boys, and one with the girls. According to the police report the two coaches were the only adults present, one in a cabin with the girls the other in a cabin with the boys.  If all coaches were SafeSport certified, the second coach, should have recognized the violation of MAAPP and reported it to SafeSport, U.S. Ski & Snowboard, and Team Summit leadership. It is unknown if the second coach was reported to SafeSport.

Yet, instead of acknowledging this breakdown, Team Summit continues to issue carefully crafted statements that obscure accountability. The following is an excerpt from an email sent to their members.

“Athlete safety is and has always been our priority. As we reviewed our Team Travel Policy, our process included consulting our governing body, U.S. Ski & Snowboard, as well as independent, local organizations outside of sport that specialize in mental health and child safety.”

“Although the policies Team Summit already had in place comply with the requirements established by the U.S. Center for SafeSport, we have adopted additional requirements as part of our official Team Travel Policy.”

The glaring inconsistencies between these claims and the actual requirements of MAAPP highlight why abuse persists in youth sports: policies may exist on paper, but without proper enforcement, oversight, and accountability, they fail the very athletes they are meant to protect.

Lack of Accountability Exposed by MAAPP Violations

In a recent member update (late this summer), Team Summit claimed that their “interim” athlete safety policies— requiring two adults per accommodation, at least one adult of the athlete’s gender, and forms for exceptions—were newly put in place after awareness of Mr. Hedges’ alleged abuse. But all of these were already required under SafeSport’s MAAP, the overriding policy that all coaches’ interactions with minor athletes be observable and interruptible.

Moreover, regardless of intent, there was a complete breakdown in implementation. Team Summit could not have provided oversight compliant with MAAPP for this event in Taos, if they had they would not have allowed the program to move forward as planned. The simple reality is,  the lodging situation that existed failed to meet the most basic of SafeSport MAAPP requirements, with only one coach in the living situations with the boys and one with the girls.

This balancing act by Team Summit—getting close to the truth without admitting negligence—underlines the persistence of abuse across youth sports: policies on paper mean nothing without clear enforcement, oversight, and accountability. It must be clear that the Board and the Leadership of Team Summit are covering up for organizational failures of the staff and failure to have in place or implement mandated policies.

In any credible organization that cares about protecting youth, the leadership would be held accountable for this level of failure. People should ask themselves, in any other organization would this level of administrative failure go unanswered by the Board of Directors? If Team Summit really cared about protecting youth and taking care of the kids in their program, they would take responsibility and support this family NOW. They would apologize to the family, and they would admit their fault.

You know who loses in these cases? Not the NGB, not the club, but the family . . . in this case, the mother and the victim. Seven months of no explanation and no answers. No financial support to address the victims’ needs. Nothing. The victims are left hanging for months and years, and the only possibly relief is through again another civil legal process that will cost a lot of money, time, and additional traumatization.