U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–804 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025

S. HRG. 115–882 

STRENGTHENING AND EMPOWERING 

U.S. AMATEUR ATHLETES: MOVING FORWARD 

WITH SOLUTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

PRODUCT SAFETY, INSURANCE, 

AND DATA SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

JON TESTER, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, 

INSURANCE, AND DATA SECURITY 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas, Chairman 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, 

Ranking 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 24, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 3 

Article posted August 11, 2014 from USA Gymnastics ................................. 58 

Article dated July 24, 2018 from the Orange County Register entitled 

‘‘Suspended coaches still working at Southern California gymnastics 

slub’’ ............................................................................................................... 86 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 47 

Joint statement from The Sister Survivors to President John Engler 

and Members of the MSU Board of Trustees ............................................. 49 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 52 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 61 

WITNESSES

Hon. Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator from Iowa ..................................................... 5 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California .......................................... 6 

Hon. John Engler, Interim President, Michigan State University ...................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Presidential Directive 2018-5 issued on June 19, 2018 by John Engler, 

Interim President, Michigan State University ........................................... 65 

Article dated July 21, 2018 from the Midland Daily News entitled ‘‘No 

ore shame: Midland gymnast discusses Nassar case’’ by Kate Carlson ... 67 

Article dated July 19, 2018 from the Bleacher Report entitled ‘‘The 

Woman Coming for Larry Nassar’s Job’’ by Alexandria Neason, Senior 

Staff Writer, Columbia Journalism Review ................................................ 69 

Susanne Lyons, Acting Chief Executive Officer, United States Olympic Committee .................................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Kerry Perry, President and Chief Executive Officer, USA Gymnastics .............. 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Han Xiao, Chairman, U.S. Olympic Committee Athletes’ Advisory Council ...... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John Engler by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 93 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 93 

Response to written questions submitted to Susanne Lyons by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 101 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 102 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 114 

Response to written questions submitted to Kerry Perry by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 115 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 116 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 128 

Response to written questions submitted to Han Xiao by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 130 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 130 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 136 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 136 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING AND EMPOWERING 

U.S. AMATEUR ATHLETES: MOVING FORWARD 

WITH SOLUTIONS 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT

SAFETY, INSURANCE, AND DATA SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:58 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jerry Moran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Moran [presiding], Blumenthal, Grassley, 

Feinstein, Peters, Cortez Masto, and Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. I call the Subcommittee meeting to order. We’re 

going to recess in just a moment. I’m calling it to order so that Senator Young can go vote and return. That makes his presence here 

and puts him in order of questioning the witnesses. So I hope to 

have helped you. 

Senator Blumenthal is on his way. We’re also awaiting the arrival of Senator Feinstein and Senator Grassley. 

So the Committee will stand in recess until the sound of the 

gavel. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator MORAN. Our Subcommittee will come to order. Again, 

the Ranking Member, Senator Blumenthal, is en route. We’ve been 

joined by a couple of our colleagues. I’m going to begin with my 

opening statement. I apologize to our witnesses and to our audience for our tardiness in the start time. 

We had two votes on the Senate Floor. I don’t think there are 

further votes this afternoon. So I doubt that we would be intruded 

any additional time from the Committee. 

So good afternoon. Welcome to today’s Subcommittee hearing. 

In January, this Subcommittee launched an investigation to examine cultural and systemic issues regarding abuse in the Olympic 

movement following the horrific revelations that former USA Gymnastics Team doctor, Larry Nassar sexually abused and assaulted 

hundreds of athletes over a span of two decades, even well after 

numerous survivors alerted authorities about his actions. 

2 

This Subcommittee, which exercises jurisdiction over the U.S. 

Olympic Committee and Amateur Sports, is fully committed to ensuring the health and safety of all American athletes, and today 

marks the third hearing in our ongoing investigation. 

I’d like to first acknowledge that the incredible statement made 

at last week’s ESPY Awards watching over 100 survivors take the 

stage to accept the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. If any of you 

haven’t had a chance to see that ceremony, I encourage you to do 

so. 

The actions, these brave actions of our young athletes who shed 

light on their painful past have invigorated a national calling for 

change, and I’m glad to have so many of them with us this afternoon. 

Since initiating our bipartisan investigation, this Subcommittee 

has held two critical hearings in which the members of the Committee and the American public heard from distinct witness panels 

on their experiences related to procedural missteps and cultural inaction experienced within these troubled organizations. 

In the first hearing, we heard testimony from four survivors of 

abuse across different Olympic sports who shared personal experiences about the systemic practices that have safeguarded perpetrators, have safeguarded perpetrators, have both inhibited victims 

from coming forward and have prevented victims’ reports from 

coming to light. 

All the survivors we’ve met have highlighted the institutional 

failures that have allowed these heinous acts to continue, which we 

recommit ourselves to fixing by being here today. 

Once again, I’d like to echo my appreciation for those survivors 

and the many others who’ve spoken to us and to our staff regarding their painful experiences. 

Their insightful recommendations on what needs to be done to 

correct these failures are certainly appreciated and continue to be 

considered as this Committee works toward thoughtful and lasting 

change. 

In the second hearing, we called on former USA Gymnastics 

CEO, Steve Penny, former Women’s Program Director of USA 

Gymnastics, Rhonda Faehn, and former Michigan State University 

President, Dr. Louann Simon, to provide testimony and to answer 

questions on how rampant abuse that took place in the hands of 

Nassar was able to perpetuate for as long as it did. 

I would also like to note that Scott Blackmun, the former President of U.S. Olympic Committee, and Martha Karolyi, the former 

National Team Coordinator for USA Gymnastics, were invited to 

attend but declined for medical reasons. 

There were a number of significant details that came to light 

from the questions this Committee posed in that hearing, including 

USA Gymnastics mishandling of critical medical records, lack of 

communication to and within Michigan State University related to 

sexual abuse reports against their employees, and, most significantly, the complete lack, a complete lack of cooperation demonstrated by Mr. Penny in his refusal to answer questions. 

From these findings, along with continued analysis of lengthy 

documentation produced by USA Gymnastics, U.S. Olympic Committee, and Michigan State University, we continue to pursue anVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
3 

swers to many serious questions that remain with the current executives of these organizations. 

Most importantly, we expect to hear today which aspects of their 

systems and cultures have changed and how they plan to implement serious reforms moving forward. 

Joining us today is Mr. John Engler, Interim President of Michigan State University; Ms. Susanne Lyons, the Acting CEO of the 

U.S. Olympic Committee; Ms. Kerry Perry, President and CEO of 

USA Gymnastics; and Mr. Xiao, Chair of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Athlete Advisory Council. 

It is my expectation we will receive full cooperation of today’s 

panel in answering the Subcommittee’s questions to the best of 

their abilities. 

We are also honored to welcome the Chairman and Ranking 

Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, to the Subcommittee to provide opening testimony. 

Given their leadership and work with Chairman Thune of the 

Commerce Committee to enact the Protecting Young Victims from 

Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, let me also 

add that the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Nelson, their testimony today will be invaluable in helping 

this subcommittee further raise awareness and identify solutions 

that will make a difference. 

We have explored the U.S. Center for Safe Sports in our conversations and we appreciate the role that they do and may play. 

Let me thank you, Senators, Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein, for your efforts in this regard in the past and the time you’ve 

taken to prepare and present your testimony today. 

I conclude my opening remarks by emphasizing the bipartisan 

approach that this Subcommittee has taken in its comprehensive 

investigation. 

With the consultation of law enforcement, survivors and advocates, we have worked closely together to identify meaningful reforms in the best interests of athletes and their families. 

During Aly Raisman’s powerful speech last week at the ESPY 

Awards, she reminded survivors of abuse. She said, ‘‘You are not 

alone.’’ We are here today to remind all survivors of this. We are 

listening. We’re committed to change, and we’ll make certain the 

next generation of athletes are free to compete and represent our 

nation without fear of abuse. 

In regard to that bipartisanship, I want to recognize my Ranking 

Member, Senator Blumenthal, and his willingness to work closely 

with me and members of this committee to see that our work is 

well done. 

With that, I recognize Senator Blumenthal for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Moran, and thank 

you for your leadership on this Subcommittee and most particularly on this issue. 

4 

We had a remarkable event this morning. We heard voices and 

saw faces of young athletes of all different ages, all different parts 

of the country, who suffered at the hands of Larry Nassar but 

equally so at the hands of the United States Olympic Committee 

and USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University. 

Not only was Nassar the immediate perpetrator of this unspeakably cruel and brutal criminal conduct, but also all of the organizations and individuals who were complicit by their silence or by 

their looking the other way, which was much easier to do. 

Last week, similarly in a remarkable display of unity, resilience, 

strength, more than a 140 heroic survivors came to the ESPY 

Awards and they were honored with the Arthur Ashe Award for 

Courage. No one better deserves it than they. 

These young women have come forth bravely, sacrificing their 

privacy, fighting through efforts to silence them directly and overtly to stop their voices, and then, in effect, revictimize them. That’s 

a term of scientific art that has very apt application here. 

They have been revictimized by this whole process and they have 

risked their athletic careers and reputations to shed light on the 

heinous crimes committed by Nassar but he is only one of numerous perpetrators here, and the main point is that USOC and 

USAG, in effect, prioritized medals and money over athlete safety. 

They concealed the shocking pervasiveness of abuse across many 

sports as well as their own woefully inadequate systems to address 

and prevent it and Michigan State University officials looked the 

other way while athletes reported abuse over two decades. 

I am concerned that there has been continuing failure, loopholes, 

and lapses, and I am also concerned about the efficacy and independence of the U.S. Center for Safe Sports, the lack of transparency and responsibility on the part of USOC and USAG at the 

most basic level, the amount of empathy and support that officials 

at MSU have shown for survivors. 

At the last press conference we had before this one, one of the 

survivors said to me when I asked her what she would ask if she 

were sitting here, and she said she would want to know why wasn’t 

one enough? Why was it two or three or a hundred forty-one, or 

more hundreds around the country? Why wasn’t one enough for 

these organizations to take action? The fact is that there were 

many, many more than one. 

These institutions have to answer to themselves, their own constituencies. They have to answer to history for their glaring failure. 

The system continues to be badly broken and now we are at a turning point. 

I said this morning when 80 of these wonderful, smart, accomplished athletes each said in introducing herself, ‘‘USOC and 

USAG and MSU failed me,’’ that I don’t want to be at an event in 

a year or three or 5 years from now and have the refrain be ‘‘and 

Congress failed me.’’ 

We have an obligation to do more and do better. So we’re going 

to continue with these hearings and we’re going to support action 

more than words. Action is necessary. As the saying goes, actions 

speak louder than words. In fact, in this instance, words are not 

enough. You are not alone, but we need to honor your pain with 

action. 

5 

And I want to thank all of you. I look out at this audience and 

I see many of you, the survivors, here again. You have not only 

been brave and passionate but you have been so patient and energetic in this cause. 

I also want to mention again, as I did this morning, the role of 

the press in giving voice to the survivors. Organizations like the 

Indy Star, the New York Times, USA Today, deserve our thanks 

at a time when we need that free press more than ever. 

And, finally, my thanks again to Senator Moran for his leadership, Chairman Thune, and Ranking Member Nelson, and, of 

course, to the two of our colleagues who will begin today because 

Senator Feinstein and Senator Grassley have helped to lead this effort. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much. 

We do now turn to the two Senators from the Judiciary Committee, the Chairman, Senator Grassley, and the Ranking Member, 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Grassley, you’re recognized for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, of course, good afternoon and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and giving Senator 

Feinstein and me the opportunity to participate. 

For my part, as a parent and as a grandparent, I can think of 

no issue of greater importance than keeping children safe from sexual predators. The abuse scandal that’s the focus of today’s hearing 

is a grim reminder of that fact. 

Unfortunately, USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University 

aren’t the only institutions that have made headlines over the 

years due to sexual abuse of young athletes. Other institutions also 

have struggled with this issue. 

Sexual abuse in any form is an especially troubling crime because its victims suffer both physical and mental trauma that can 

last a lifetime. When the abuse if by a coach or a team doctor and 

the victim is a minor, the betrayal of the trust is even greater. 

When, as here, there were adults who were in a position to intervene but they failed to act, it’s a particularly tragic situation. The 

doctor you’ve referred to, Dr. Nassar, the former National Team 

doctor for USA Gymnastics, abused hundreds of victims over the 

period of years. The significant sentences he received ensure that 

he’ll never again hurt a young gymnast or any other child, but we 

must do more to prevent these horrific crimes from happening 

again. 

Congressional oversight of the FBI falls within the jurisdiction of 

Senator Feinstein and my committee and after hearing one gymnast complaint about the FBI’s handling of the allegations against 

Nassar, I wrote the FBI Director to request a briefing on the Bureau’s involvement in this case. 

My committee staff spoke with the FBI yesterday and we were 

advised that the FBI’s handling of this investigation has been referred to the Justice Department, Office of Inspector General, and 

where I have, particularly in this office, respect for the Inspector 

6 

General, sometimes I see this as a move maybe to protect the FBI 

from some embarrassment, at least the immediate embarrassment. 

Our committee convened its own hearing on the importance of 

protecting amateur athletics last year. Also last year, I joined Senator Feinstein in introducing the bill entitled ‘‘Protecting Young 

Victims from Sexual Abuse in Safe Sports Authorization Act.’’ 

This new law requires amateur athletics governing bodies to immediately report suspected sexual abuse to the authorities. Our Judiciary Committee approved this measure and then worked closely 

with your committee and Chairman Thune on additional changes 

before the President signed the final version in February, and I 

thank this committee for that cooperation. 

The new law also authorizes the U.S. Center for Safe Sports to 

respond to instances of sexual misconduct within the U.S. Olympics 

and Paralympics Community and since its inception, Safe Sports 

has fielded more than 1,200 misconduct allegations and issued 

sanctions against 300 individuals. Its website, safesports.org, has a 

searchable data base that enables the public to find out if someone’s been banned from a sport or otherwise disciplined. 

Just in the last month, I’ve convened two other Judiciary Committee hearings on the topic of sexual violence. I’ve learned that we 

still need to do more to educate adults who are in a position to protect children. We also must reduce opportunities for predators to 

exploit victims. 

For example, in many or most instances, adult coaches, trainers, 

and doctors shouldn’t be left alone while working with young athletes. 

I’ll conclude by thanking you again, Chairman Moran, for your 

leadership on the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee and holding several hearings on this issue. You’ve given a voice to people that until 

lately didn’t have a voice, our sexual abuse victims. 

Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Grassley, thank you very much. Thank 

you for your appearance today and your words. 

Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Members, 

thank you for being here. 

It was well over a year ago that I had a meeting in my conference room with a group of women and I walked in and Senator 

Grassley. I looked at the faces with expressions that I had never 

seen before, and I realized that it was something really serious, 

and in the course of that discussion, events were related. 

We did a bill. Others joined. That bill has passed, and we have 

taken a giant step forward. Last week, in an extraordinary moment, broadcast for the whole world to see, USA Olympic Gymnasts Aly Raisman, Jordyn Wieber, Jamie Dantzscher, along with 

a hundred athletes, took the stage at the ESPY Awards to accept 

the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. 

It was an incredibly moving presentation, and I thought about 

that time in my office when these frightened faces were in front of 

7 

me and the survivors, many of whom are here today, radiate today 

remarkable grace, beauty, and strength. 

I wonder if they would stand so that we might recognize them 

in this hearing room. 

[Applause.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. These sister survivors took the stage after 

having endured hellish abuse over many years. This abuse was 

compounded by the toll it has taken on them to come forward to 

tell their story, tell their truth, despite certain institutions’ repeated attempts to silence them. Their solidarity and courage in 

coming forward, I marvel at it. 

I’ve worked with Chairman Grassley, Chairman Thune, Ranking 

Member Nelson to protect future victims through the Protecting 

Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, and I so appreciate the support of 

my colleagues. 

But the fact is revelations regarding institutional failures continue to force these victims from having to relive their experience 

over and over again. There must be a full and transparent accounting of what Michigan State University, the U.S. Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics, and the FBI all knew and did about Dr. 

Larry Nassar while he continued to abuse young girls. 

Earlier this month, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Senator 

Blumenthal, and I wrote a letter to the FBI Director Chris Wray 

requesting information about why, after the FBI received information about Dr. Nassar in July of 2015, the FBI failed to intervene 

while dozens of athletes continued to be treated and abused by Dr. 

Nassar. 

Similarly, despite reports that officials within Michigan State 

University, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and USA Gymnastics 

knew that Dr. Nassar was alleged to have abused athletes he was 

allowed to continue to treat and molest young victims. Even after 

Dr. Nassar was finally arrested and prosecuted, hundreds of victims and their parents were never notified, contacted, or informed 

by these institutions about how they could obtain information 

about all that had happened to their children. 

To this day, many families of these survivors have yet to be contacted by officials at these institutions. Indeed, it appears that 

these institutions undertook massive public relations campaigns to 

preserve themselves rather than rallying to the side of these survivors and their families and let me say that is unacceptable. 

Last year, when we worked on the Protecting Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, the overarching principle for me was the question 

of how can we best support and empower survivors. I believe each 

of the bill’s supporters had the same intention. 

Tragically, it does not appear that Michigan State, the USOC, 

USA Gymnastics, or even the FBI adhered to the same guiding 

principle. Instead, there have been disturbing revelations of coverup and trying to silence vulnerable victims. 

Some victims were pressured to sign nondisclosure statements to 

silence them from coming forward. I and other Senators are looking 

closely at this issue. 

Ultimately, these institutions must all continue to re-examine 

their mission and focus to truly serve as a beacon to lift up the 

8 

well-being of athletes rather than to profit off them and protect the 

bottom line. 

Who can forget when Jessica Howard testified last year in our 

committee, Mr. Chairman, that USA Gymnastics officials stated its 

priority was ‘‘money and medals’’ and not the well-being of young 

athletes in their care. 

As lawmakers, we must make sure, Mr. Chairman, that these institutions are held accountable. So, again, I would like to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and particularly 

those members who have taken the time to be here today, and to 

the sister survivors here with us again, I want to say thank you 

to them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Feinstein, thank you very much. I know 

you and Senator Grassley have a lot on your plate today and I appreciate the emphasis you’ve placed on the topic that this Subcommittee—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN.—is paying a lot of attention to. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much. 

Senator MORAN. You’re welcome. 

We’ll call our other witnesses to the table, please. I call the Honorable John Engler, the Interim President of Michigan State University; Ms. Susanne Lyons, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of 

the United States Olympic Committee; and Ms. Kerry Perry, President and Chief Executive Officer of USA Gymnastics; Mr. Han 

Xiao, the Chairman of the Athletes Advisory Council. 

Welcome. President Engler, Governor Engler, we’ll start with 

you. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENGLER, INTERIM PRESIDENT, 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Blumenthal, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

your invitation to discuss the important matter of protecting athletes. 

For me, next week will mark 6 months of service as Interim 

President of Michigan State. When I arrived on campus, Nassar 

was already behind bars. His crimes had shocked the MSU community and the Nation. 

The statements and testimony of survivors before your subcommittee and the courts have saddened all of us. Our hearts go 

out to them and we are truly sorry for that. A former faculty member perpetrated these crimes through his associations with MSU, 

USA Gymnastics, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and others. We all 

failed the survivors. 

At MSU, my commitment is to make sure this never happens 

again. We are seeking to simultaneously deliver what justice and 

healing we can for the survivors and put strong accountability 

measures in place to ensure that MSU is safe. 

As Senator Blumenthal just stated, actions are critical. I made 

clear from day one that we would do everything we could to cooperate with the several investigations and to seek to resolve the numerous legal claims. 

9 

In May, I was pleased to announce that the MSU Board of Trustees and the many law firms representing more than 300 survivors 

had agreed to an historic $500 million global settlement. The MSU 

parties have signed the agreement and it is now being finalized 

with the signatures of the survivors. 

We are proud of the settlement, but we have always believed 

that the legal settlement is only one part of the necessary response. 

From the start, we’ve made organizational changes geared toward 

improving safety and accountability. 

Our goal is to make Michigan State a campus that works aggressively to prevent sexual misconduct and assault and if prevention 

fails has appropriate procedures in place to respond. 

My written testimony details many of the actions we have taken 

and the progress we are making. Today, I’ll touch on some of the 

most salient points. Very early on, and as a direct response to the 

abuse Nassar perpetrated, we put strong emphasis on ensuring the 

protection of minors and, indeed, everyone that comes to our clinics. 

We strengthened the standardized protocols for patient consent, 

for informing patients and parents of their rights, and for requiring 

chaperons in the examination room. 

In my first week, I acted to revoke the tenure of William 

Strampel, the former Dean who failed to supervise Nassar and 

failed to ensure compliance. Earlier this month, we reached an 

agreement and severed all of the former dean’s ties to our university. 

We realigned our Medical Education and Clinical Operations to 

foster a healthy culture of safety and accountability. One important 

change, for example, the athletic trainers now report to the medical 

staff. 

In the area of prevention, while MSU policies were found to be 

comprehensive and robust, we have followed through on a number 

of expert recommendations to improve the Title IX program as detailed in again my written testimony. 

Early on, I appointed a Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert Advisory Working Group consisting of nationally 

recognized faculty and staff, subject matter experts on our campus. 

The work group has been soliciting inputs from across the university community, assessing ideas for improving services, and 

making very specific recommendations that we have already implemented, including strengthening our policy on mandatory reporting 

obligations. 

Most recently, I created a new Office of Enterprise Risk Management, Ethics, and Compliance. It is charged with overseeing the development of a framework for identifying, prioritizing, and managing risk and ensuring that those who are in charge of compliance 

are doing their job. 

For new students, we’ve improved our Summer Orientation Programs to focus on the prevention of sexual misconduct. Over 7,400 

incoming students have already been trained. We also hope to 

reach into Michigan’s high schools with prevention programs in the 

coming school year. 

In terms of personnel, we’ve added or budgeted for more than 30 

new staff positions at the Title IX Office, counseling and psyVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
10 

chiatric services, the MSU Sexual Assault Program, Campus Police, and our new Office of Enterprise Risk Management, among 

others. 

Let me just close by saying I’m proud of the way Michigan State 

community, my alma mater, have come together in this unbelievably difficult time to respond not only in support of the survivors 

but also to address the urgent issue of sexual misconduct and assault that is a serious challenge not just on every campus but in 

so many work places across America. 

MSU is a great global institution, more than 50,000 students, all 

50 states, 133 countries. This fall, we will welcome our largest, 

most diverse freshman class in our university’s history. While 

they’re settling in, the Board of Trustees Search Committee will be 

moving forward to identify a new president. 

In my remaining time, I pledge to continue to implement meaningful reforms, administrative changes that increase safety, accountability, and respect on the Michigan State campus. 

I hope that our experiences, the lessons we have learned, and the 

solutions we have identified may help other institutions, a reckoning with the persistent problems of sexual assault and harassment is clearly at hand for many institutions. 

We owe it to all survivors of abuse everywhere to dedicate ourselves to finding effective solutions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members for 

the opportunity to be with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ENGLER, INTERIM PRESIDENT, 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Michigan State University (‘‘MSU’’) as we work together to identify solutions that will strengthen, empower, and protect our student athletes. 

In January, the MSU Board of Trustees appointed me to serve as Interim President. As an alumnus of the school, I returned to MSU with a heavy heart, recognizing the gravity of the situation and the number of lives tragically affected by 

Larry Nassar’s abuse. I accepted the position without salary because I owe the University for the positive role it played in my success and in order to address the crisis 

and lay a positive foundation for a new president. 

Nassar’s crimes shocked the MSU community and the Nation. The statements 

and testimony of the survivors, before your Subcommittee and the courts, have saddened all of us. I have apologized publicly to the survivors on behalf of the University for the harm Nassar caused. The survivors have our sympathy, our respect, and 

our sincere hope for recovery. Our hearts go out to them, and we are truly sorry 

that a former faculty member perpetrated these crimes through his associations 

with MSU, USA Gymnastics, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and others. 

Next week, I will mark six months as Interim President. It has been a challenging 

six months, and there are things I could and should have done differently and better. I regret my errors and have publicly acknowledged them. I recognize that there 

have been frustrating periods during that time, but I am also confident that we 

have accomplished much. 

Most importantly, we have entered into an historic $500 million settlement with 

the survivors. From the outset, I felt my first priority was to achieve a legal settlement with the survivor plaintiffs. This just and equitable settlement will avoid 

years of litigation for the survivors, and we hope it will allow them to continue their 

recovery and healing. 

We have always understood that the settlement is only part of the needed response. From the moment that I arrived at MSU, we moved decisively to make the 

organizational changes necessary to ensure that a monster like Nassar could never 

again hide on our campus. We are working to prevent sexual misconduct on and 

11 

off our campus and to create a safer and more respectful community for all who attend, work at, or visit the university. 

To do that, we have to hold those responsible for ensuring the safety of our students accountable for their actions and results. Accountability is the most significant change that we are implementing in a culture of ‘‘shared governance’’ where 

there had been less emphasis on actual responsibility for achieving specific outcomes. We recognize that our reforms and our actions are our legacy, and we pledge 

to the survivors and to the community at large that we will do all we can to protect 

students, patients, athletes, and others. 

Below, I detail some of the most significant steps we have taken. I have also attached a document we have developed—‘‘Michigan State University: Taking Action 

to Foster a Safer Campus’’—that describes in more detail these and many other actions MSU has taken since Nassar’s crimes were discovered. This document is updated regularly and is available, along with additional materials about our response 

to Nassar, on MSU’s ‘‘Our Commitment’’ website, https://msu.edu/ourcommitment/ 

. 

* * * 

Providing Assistance to Survivors. MSU recognized that before the healing process 

could begin in earnest, it would require more than policy changes. For the survivors 

and for the University to truly move forward, we would need to resolve the litigation 

and secure an equitable settlement for the survivors. 

In May, I was pleased to announce jointly with the survivors that the MSU Board 

of Trustees and attorneys representing more than 330 survivors had agreed to a 

$500 million global settlement. All of the MSU parties have now signed the agreement, which is in the process of being finalized with the signatures of the survivors. 

We are confident this settlement was the right thing to do. The early and successful conclusion of mediation will be beneficial to those who have suffered at the 

hands of Nassar, and their families, by avoiding years of litigation and allowing 

them to begin the recovery and healing they seek. The settlement also allows MSU 

to turn our full attention to the institutional reforms and improvements already 

well underway. 

Removing Those Who Enabled Nassar. Within days of taking office, I took action 

to revoke the tenure of William Strampel, the former dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine who supervised Nassar and failed to ensure compliance with patient contact requirements. I felt his lack of oversight, combined with other issues 

that came to my attention, merited his immediate removal. Even before the formal 

tenure revocation process could be completed, we were able earlier this month to 

reach an agreement under which all of Strampel’s ties to the University were severed. While that was the most significant and public change, we have also taken 

other personnel actions related to the Nassar crisis, consistent with our expectation 

that faculty and staff be held accountable for their responsibilities. 

Protecting Patients and Improving Patient Care. MSU has implemented improved 

patient safety, privacy protocols, and quality of care recommendations following an 

external review of all MSU clinics. We have also reorganized the health colleges, 

clinical practices, and student wellness programs and created two new leadership 

positions to ensure improved oversight of the health system. 

Enhancing Student-Athlete Medical Care. Following a comprehensive external review, we have added new positions for athletic trainers, changed their reporting 

structure, and standardized chaperone and ‘‘consent to treat’’ policies. The manual 

for athletic trainers is being revised and will be reissued this summer. 

Improving Student Counseling and Psychiatric Services. We have acted on recommendations from another external review to support the Counseling and Psychiatric Services office created last year. A new permanent director was hired in 

June, temporary counselors were retained, and licensed counseling providers have 

been embedded in certain campus neighborhoods to provide local counseling services. We have also adopted a single point-of-entry service and are this month 

launching integrated services for domestic and international students via a 24-hour 

phone and text hotline. 

Strengthening Protections for Youth Participants in Campus Programs. The University hosts numerous youth visits and programs. MSU has updated policies to require that all individuals with unsupervised access to minors, including those associated with external organizations using our facilities, to undergo annual criminal 

background checks within the prior 12 months. We have also expanded our training 

for employees to recognize and report child abuse and added new requirements for 

training and transportation of minors. 

12 

Enhancing Title IX Policies and Communications. MSU commissioned an independent review of our Title IX policies and procedures from the respected law firm 

Husch Blackwell. That firm concluded that MSU’s ‘‘policies and procedures are 

among the most comprehensive and robust we have seen’’ and included ‘‘a number 

of leading-edge practices that other schools would do well to consider as models for 

their own programs.’’ Husch Blackwell determined that the University’s ongoing 

work on its Title IX program ‘‘reflects a strong and genuine institutional commitment to combatting sexual misconduct, creating a safe campus environment, as well 

as compliance with Title IX and Violence Against Women Act requirements.’’ 

A report on the second phase of the firm’s review, released in May, challenged 

MSU to improve internal communications to raise awareness of relationship violence and sexual misconduct prevention resources, policies, and procedures. We have 

taken that recommendation to heart, and a variety of education and training improvements have been adopted or are scheduled for the academic year ahead, including updates to the orientation for incoming students and a comprehensive 

Title IX campus climate survey. 

Convening the MSU Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert Advisory 

Workgroup. In February, I formed a new expert advisory workgroup to formalize 

recommendations drawn from the input of survivors, students, faculty, and staff 

from across campus. Chaired by a professor of psychology who is a nationally-recognized expert and who has conducted community-based research on violence against 

women and children for 25 years, the workgroup has collected feedback from more 

than 200 members of the community and has made numerous recommendations for 

improvements thus far, including many of those listed here. 

Creating an Office for Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance. In response to feedback from the community and the recommendations of the workgroup, 

this new office oversees the Office of Institutional Equity (‘‘OIE’’), which investigates 

complaints, as well as the Title IX Prevention, Outreach and Education Office, 

which is also a new office, focused on increased knowledge and awareness. We have 

created six new positions under this office, adding service coordinators, a case manager, and an additional investigator, among others. 

Strengthening Mandatory Reporting Obligations. As part of an annual review of 

its Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy, MSU enhanced the policy 

to address violations of mandatory reporting obligations. Employees who fail to report sexual assault allegations as required by the policy are subject to discipline, 

up to and including termination. 

Improving the Investigation of Sexual Assault Reports. MSU has adopted a new 

protocol to ensure coordination between various MSU entities. For example, the 

MSU Police Department now notifies OIE when it is investigating relationship violence, stalking, and sexual misconduct complaints. The MSU police also works with 

area police departments, sharing its expertise on sexual assaults. In addition, we 

have hired Kroll, a leading independent, third-party investigative services firm, to 

assist with Title IX investigations and reduce the response time for complaints. 

Creating an Office of Enterprise Risk Management, Ethics and Compliance and 

Establishing the Position of Chief Compliance Officer. The University is subject to 

numerous national, state and local regulations. In a shared governance environment 

where many units of the University operate independently, it is difficult to ensure 

enterprise compliance with all of them. In June, to address this issue, I established 

a new office to improve accountability for monitoring legal, ethical, and regulatory 

requirements. This office will oversee development of a consistent ethics and compliance program, improve recordkeeping, and develop campus-wide training and communications strategies. Earlier this month, I appointed an MSU law professor and 

authority on organizational compliance to launch and lead this office and to serve 

as our first Chief Compliance Officer. The position will report to me but will also 

work independently with the Board of Trustees’ newly-established Committee on 

Audit, Risk, and Compliance. 

* * * 

In conclusion, I never expected to serve as Interim President of MSU, and I deeply 

regret the circumstances that brought me back to campus. But despite the crimes 

of Nassar and the tremendous pain caused by him, MSU remains a great institution. 

We are the Nation’s pioneer land-grant university and one of the top research universities in the world—one of 62 members of the prestigious American Association 

of Universities. The University’s 50,000 students come from all counties in Michigan, all 50 States, and 133 other countries. This fall, we will welcome our largest 

freshman class in the University’s history. Teaching and supporting them will be 

13 

more than 5,600 faculty members and academic staff and more than 7,000 other employees. When those students complete their studies, they will join a vibrant and 

supportive group of more than 500,000 living alumni. 

I am proud of the institution and particularly proud of the way the MSU community has come together in this difficult time to support the survivors and to improve 

our campus. Our efforts continue, and a search committee is moving forward to 

identify a new president. In my remaining time as Interim President, I pledge to 

continue to implement meaningful reforms that increase safety, accountability, and 

respect on our campus. 

I also believe that our experiences, the lessons we have learned, and the solutions 

we have identified may be able to help other institutions in the future. A reckoning 

with the persistent problems of sexual assault and harassment is clearly at hand 

for many institutions that have fallen short of their obligations. We owe it to the 

survivors of abuse everywhere to dedicate ourselves to finding effective solutions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

* * * 

Attachment: Michigan State University: Taking Action to Foster a Safer Campus 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: TAKING ACTION TO FOSTER A SAFER CAMPUS

MSU is committed to achieving the highest standards in assuring patient care 

and safety; preventing relationship violence and sexual misconduct; providing supportive services to students, staff, and faculty experiencing these issues; and responding in a trauma-informed manner to reports of such incidents. The university 

is working with internal and external experts to improve policies, procedures, programs, and operations. 

As an indication of its resolve, the 2018–2019 budget includes funding for 13 new 

Title IX and related positions, including preventive and investigative staff; 10 positions in Counseling and Psychiatric Services; six new positions including advocacy, 

crisis intervention, and counseling staff in the Sexual Assault Program; four new 

MSU Police officers; two new Employee Assistance positions; two new Freedom of 

Information Act Office positions; and two positions in the new Office of Enterprise 

Risk Management, Ethics, and Compliance. 

Protecting Patients and Improving Patient Care 

Michigan State holds the medical profession in high regard, but its trust must be 

backed by supporting policies, procedures, and verification. Health care at MSU has 

been reorganized and new positions added to ensure accountability and policy adherence. Model patient safety and privacy protocols have been instituted, along with 

quality of care recommendations from an external review. More resources are being 

directed toward student mental health services. Third-party quality and safety assurance reviews are planned for July 30 to August 1, 2018 as we continue our commitment to achieving the highest quality of patient care and safety standards. 

• Interim President John Engler in February, 2018 announced a reorganization 

of the university’s health colleges, clinical practices, and student wellness programs to increase safety and quality of care across all MSU health care offerings. Two leadership positions were created to ensure proper oversight of the 

health system. 

» Norman J. Beauchamp, Jr., dean of the College of Human Medicine, was appointed to the newly created position of associate provost and assistant vice 

president for health affairs. In this role, he works to increase safety and quality practices across all of MSU’s health care services. 

» Anthony M. Avellino assumed the role of assistant provost and chief wellness 

officer and MSU HealthTeam chief medical officer. Avellino assists with strategic development of initiatives and programs, assuring compliance, best practices, and exemplary care. He oversees core sports medicine and health care 

providers, guiding the ongoing reorganization of student health and wellness. 

• David Weismantel in July, 2018 was named executive director of Student 

Health and Wellness, a new position. Reporting to Avellino, he will be in charge 

of all health and wellness services for students provided in Olin Health Center, 

designated Neighborhood residence halls, and the Student Services Building. 

• Andrea Amalfitano, director of MSU’s Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, provides new leadership to the College of Osteopathic Medicine as interim 

dean. 

14 

• A triage protocol to review all reported allegations or concerns of inappropriate 

practitioner-patient and practitioner-student interactions has been implemented. 

A multidisciplinary team reviews allegations within 24 hours of receiving a report to determine if there is a risk to patients, students, or staff. If there is any 

concern, the practitioner is immediately removed from the care setting pending 

further investigation. 

» The team consists of representatives from all three health colleges, the chief 

nursing officer, the chief medical officer, the Office of Institutional Equity, 

and individuals from legal and human resources. 

» This measure is in addition to the required review by the Office of Institutional Equity and the MSU Police Department. The combined processes ensure a timely, transparent review meant to be one of the Nation’s most responsive. 

• Policies on sensitive examinations and chaperones have undergone extensive reviews by the medical and nursing college deans and HealthTeam staff to ensure 

MSU’s policies are stringent and uniform across MSU’s clinical practices. They 

are now considered national exemplars and epitomize the commitment to protecting all involved with sensitive examinations necessary to promote optimal 

health. 

» Although initially developed over a year ago, the MSU HealthTeam chaperone 

policy was revised in February 2018 to ensure uniform patient workflow and 

documentation requirements. 

» Changes have been made to the electronic health record to document the presence of a chaperone for sensitive exams, and training for providers and staff 

was conducted. The system went live in March 2018. 

» A ‘‘consent to treat’’ form was adopted for patient registrations. It gives consent to the provider for treatment and also informs the patient of her or his 

right to a chaperone, making it clear minors can have a chaperone present. 

» MSU’s health colleges’ leadership reviewed policies and procedures governing 

simulated patients or models and faculty assisting with sensitive exams training. MSU’s safety policies and procedures for sensitive exams that occur in 

the educational setting are now among the most stringent in the Nation. 

• Other changes to MSU HealthTeam policies and procedures include: 

» Audits are to be conducted quarterly, or as needed. 

» A practice location policy identifies approved HealthTeam practice locations. 

» The patient satisfaction survey system is being reviewed to obtain better and 

more timely patient feedback. 

» Uniform clinic signage for wayfinding and to inform patients of their rights 

is in development. 

• MSU is enhancing student-athlete medical care based on a comprehensive review 

by external sports medicine physicians. 

» Two athletic trainers will be added to the 13 currently employed, and all will 

report to medical supervisors instead of athletic department staff. 

» Chaperone and ‘‘consent to treat’’ policies now are aligned with those of MSU 

HealthTeam clinics, as is on-site signage raising awareness of such policies. 

» ‘‘360’’ peer evaluation will be applied for sports medicine and training staff. 

» Athletic trainers’ manual is being revised. 

• The university is following through with a number of recommendations for improvements to student counseling and psychiatric services outlined in the 2016 

report from Keeling & Associates. Improvements to date include: 

» Counseling and Psychiatric Services (CAPS) provides a multi-disciplinary, 

inter-professional model of care and services for students. After a national 

search, Mark Patishnock was appointed director June 1, 2018. 

» Single point-of-entry service now is accessible for students by referral, phone, 

or in person. Counseling services are generally short-term without explicitly 

defined limits. Any student registered for one or more credits is eligible for 

an initial consultation. The first three psychiatry appointments are prepaid 

for enrolled MSU students, after which, charges are billed to students’ insurance. 

» Temporary counselors were retained while several new positions were posted. 

15 

» Two licensed counseling providers were embedded within the South and East 

Neighborhoods as part of a pilot project funded through Residence Education 

and Housing Services. A total of three embedded staff in residential neighborhoods and another within the Graduate School are planned. 

» A secondary CAPS location will open on the third floor of the MSU Student 

Union in September, housing eight to 10 counselors to expand counseling capacity. 

» In total, CAPS will grow from 42.8 staff last year to a budgeted 59.8 positions 

in 2018–19. 

» MSU is participating in the JED Campus Program for support in comprehensive systems, program, and policy development—building on existing student 

mental health, substance abuse, and suicide prevention efforts. 

» All MSU students now have 24-hour access through a phone app to talk or 

instant message a counselor for emotional or mental health services as part 

of an integrated student support program. Available in multiple languages, it 

also connects students to resources including articles about anxiety, stress, 

and relationships. Students with less severe conditions and lower risk can receive counseling without the typical 2–4 week waiting time for services. 

Prevention of Relationship Violence, Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Assault 

MSU’s Title IX policies are compliant with all applicable legal requirements. The 

law firm of Husch Blackwell reviewed MSU’s Title IX policies and procedures and 

in addition to finding them compliant with all applicable legal requirements, the review found MSU to be at the forefront of a number of practices. MSU is implementing a number of recommendations stemming from the review. 

• A second phase of the Husch Blackwell review, released in final form in May 

2018, assessed awareness and outreach, prevention and education programs, 

and crisis and advocacy support services. The report recommended improving 

internal communications to promote awareness, increasing mental health support services, improving alignment of training, awareness, and prevention programs and clarifying responsibilities and accountability within the Title IX office. 

» MSU hired a new communications manager in December 2017 to support communication and outreach related to Title IX programs. Work is underway to 

further enhance and implement strategic communication plans for fall 2018. 

» The Office for Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance are collaborating with IT Services and with Communications and Brand Strategy to 

explore new avenues for communication and outreach to students and employees. 

» MSU’s Office of Institutional Equity held five campus climate forums prior to 

the release of the second phase final report to solicit feedback from students 

and employees. Suggestions for improving communications, education, and 

training, with consideration of special populations, were incorporated into the 

report. 

» Other education and training improvements underway include: 

» developing and implementing stronger and more impactful education programs for students who live on campus and their residential hall resident assistants; 

» reviewing online and in-person prevention education programs to improve effectiveness while continuing to meet compliance obligations; and 

» planning for a comprehensive Title IX campus climate survey for students, 

staff and faculty during the 2018–19 academic year. The survey results will 

provide important insights to improve resources and responses and fuel creation of prevention, outreach, and education programs. 

• Public input focused on prevention is being solicited and received by the interim 

president’s Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert Advisory 

Workgroup through its online contact channel and through consultation with diverse campus and community groups. The workgroup is using the feedback to 

develop recommendations for improving MSU’s programs and practices. 

• To institute clear institutional lines of accountability for monitoring legal, regulatory, and ethical requirements, Interim President Engler established a new 

Office of Enterprise Risk Management, Ethics and Compliance in June, 2018. 

The office is charged with overseeing development of a consistent ethics and 

16 

compliance program and a framework for identifying, prioritizing and managing 

risk. 

» Nicholas Wittner, a national authority on compliance programs and professor 

in residence at the MSU College of Law, was named acting director and chief 

compliance officer. 

• Other enhancements to education and training programs currently in planning 

include: 

» new education and outreach programs for student-athletes as well as Intercollegiate Athletics coaches and staff. In collaboration with Intercollegiate 

Athletics, these programs will include new MSU-developed educational programs and ongoing peer-facilitated dialogues; 

» new education and outreach programs to support the complex and unique 

needs of graduate students and graduate student employees; 

» a new high school outreach program to provide prevention education to high 

school students and their parents; 

» alignment of Academic Orientation Program with Title IX prevention education efforts, inclusion of resource and training materials in AOP materials, 

and addition of AOP sessions focused on connecting incoming students with 

real-life stories of students and the importance of living our Spartan values 

to foster a culture of safety and respect; and 

» collaborating with the Residence Hall Association and Residence Education 

and Housing Services to develop education programs for on-campus residents 

and enhance programs provided to resident assistants and other REHS employees. 

• All students and employees are required to complete an online training program. Both the student and employee programs focus on: 

» information to identify sex discrimination and sexual harassment, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual misconduct; 

» awareness of the impact of these issues on the campus community and encouraging community members to end these types of violence; 

» advising members of the MSU community about their rights and reporting responsibilities under the Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy; 

» communicating behavioral expectations for all members of the MSU community; 

» connecting community members with support and resources that are available 

when issues or assaults occur; 

» and training employees on their roles in administering the policy. 

• The Office for Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance, in partnership with Academic Human Resources and Human Resources, launched a new 

leadership development training program in March 2018 for MSU supervisors 

and administrators focused on prevention and response to harassment and discrimination. New protocols for information sharing between campus units were 

introduced as part of the session content. 

• MSU is training employees how to recognize and report child abuse. The university introduced enhanced training in March 2017 for individuals managing 

youth programs that includes information about mandatory reporting requirements and recognizing signs of child abuse. This training was expanded to a 

full-day workshop in March 2018. 

• MSU established a Youth Programs Policy in 2013, which has evolved over time 

with multiple revisions that are detailed online. 

» In May 2017, MSU strengthened protections for youth participating in campus 

programs. The university’s youth program policy has been updated to mandate that all individuals who have unsupervised access to minors are required 

to undergo criminal background checks within the past 12 months. This extends to any external organization using MSU facilities. New requirements 

are in place regarding annual trainings, reporting protocols, and transportation of minors. 

• MSU hired a Youth Program Director to help manage and oversee all youth 

programs. David Chupak joined MSU in November 2017 to oversee youth programs including any class, camp, program, or other learning activity held on 

and off campus that includes participation by minors. 

17 

» A Youth Programs Advisory Board was established in January 2018, from 

multiple campus units, to consult on youth program policies and procedures. 

» Training was expanded for youth program coordinators and directors, including presentations from subject experts in policy compliance, identifying maltreatment, reporting requirements, gender equity, police response, and mental 

health. 

» Youth program policy revisions are in process, covering topics that include 

one-on-one adult/youth exposure and electronic communications. New requirements will include application of industry guidelines for supervisor-to-youth 

ratios. Consequences for non-compliance with youth protection policies will be 

clarified. 

» Handbook templates containing uniform program requirements also will be 

developed, including the topics of central policies, communication processes, 

and conduct rules for program participants. 

» Program compliance audits commence in summer 2018. 

» Director Chupak provides ongoing consultations with youth program directors. 

• MSU’s Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Prevention Program is using 

a grant from the office of Gov. Rick Snyder to implement the ‘‘Greeks Take the 

Lead’’ program, which focuses on sexual assault awareness training for students 

affiliated with fraternities and sororities. 

• The campus-wide ‘‘It’s On Us’’ campaign held a Spring Week of Action April 2– 

6, 2018. MSU faculty, staff, and students participated in a series of awareness 

activities to lead off national Sexual Assault Awareness Month. 

• Interim President Engler wrote to college deans, program directors, and department chairpersons in April 2018 to clarify the responsibilities of MSU leaders 

and managers with respect to employee evaluations. He urged diligence in documenting workplace behavior of concern among subordinates in personnel performance reviews. 

• MSU coordinated a working group to ensure consistent and connected messages 

about relationship violence and sexual misconduct (RVSM) are sent as new students transition, beginning at Academic Orientation Program sessions and continuing throughout the academic year. 

» New RVSM resources were added to the Spartan Resource Guide and Planner 

distributed to students. 

Responding to Relationship Violence, Sexual Misconduct and Sexual 

Assault 

The University Policy on Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct is clear: 

MSU is committed to maintaining a learning and working environment for all students, faculty, and staff that is fair, humane, and responsible—an environment that 

supports career and educational advancement on the basis of job and academic performance. Relationship violence, stalking, and sexual misconduct are not tolerated 

at MSU. 

• The MSU Sexual Assault Program (MSU SAP) and MSU Safe Place have assisted thousands of people impacted by violence in accessing resources and support. The university has dedicated significant new resources to strengthen these 

programs and improve our efforts to combat sexual and relationship violence. 

• Interim President Engler in February 2018 convened the MSU Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert Advisory Workgroup, composed of campus 

leaders with deep expertise in the areas of sexual assault and relationship violence. The workgroup gathers input from students, faculty, staff, alumni and 

community members and works closely with other organizations, committees, 

and units on campus. The workgroup advises the president on best practices 

and makes recommendations about trauma-informed policies and programs to 

ensure that MSU is responsive to survivors. The Workgroup was expanded in 

June 2018 with the addition of two new members. 

» The workgroup quickly recommended increasing the number of therapists and 

victim advocates in the MSU Sexual Assault Program. MSU SAP, which last 

year served more than 650 clients and provided individual therapy to nearly 

300 MSU students, is a primary resource on campus for student sexual assault survivors. The demand for services has risen sharply in recent years. 

The workgroup collaborated with the Michigan Department of Health and 

Human Services to secure grant funding through the Victims of Crime Act 

18 

(VOCA) to create four full-time positions for MSU SAP, including two therapists and two victim advocates. MSU is also funding an additional full-time 

crisis counselor and a new clinical supervisor. 

» In April 2018, MSU SAP added a ‘‘canine advocate’’ named Justice, to lend 

emotional support to sexual assault survivors in police interviews and court 

proceedings. 

• Increased resources directed to response in recent months include expansion of 

MSU’s Title IX office from 15 to 30 employees, and authorized growth of the 

MSU Sexual Assault Program from 11 to 17 employees. 

• The Office for Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance was created 

upon recommendation by the workgroup to align all Title IX-related functions 

in one organizational structure. The office oversees the Office of Institutional 

Equity (OIE) and the Title IX Prevention, Outreach, and Education office. 

» Two service coordinators are being hired as primary points of contact for 

claimants and respondents throughout the investigation and adjudication 

processes, ensuring that individuals are connected with the supports and resources needed. 

» Four additional positions have been created to support the work of the Office 

for Civil Rights and Title IX Office and OIE. 

» Additionally, an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator—previously combined with the Title IX coordinator role—will now be a dedicated, 

full-time position. 

» An additional OIE investigator will bring the total number of OIE investigators to 10. 

• The new Title IX Prevention, Outreach, and Education office will be dedicated 

to prevention of sex and gender discrimination, relationship violence, stalking, 

and sexual misconduct. The office will also focus on outreach—in alignment 

with MSU’s land-grant mission—emphasizing our commitment to cultural 

change through increased knowledge and awareness. 

» The office will be staffed by a director, full-time clerical support, and five prevention specialists with the intention of addressing gaps in programming. 

» Specialist focus areas are based on feedback from the MSU community and 

recommendations from the Husch Blackwell phase 2 report. The specialists include: 

» a faculty/staff education and community outreach specialist; 

» a Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence (SARV) Prevention Program and 

specialized workshop specialist; 

» a bystander network specialist; 

» a graduate and professional student outreach and education specialist; 

» and a male engagement specialist. 

• MSU strengthened its policy on mandatory reporting obligations as part of an 

annual review of its Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy. Employees who fail to report sexual assault allegations as required by the policy 

are subject to discipline, up to, and including, termination. 

• MSU has hired Kroll, a leading global independent, third-party investigative 

services firm, to assist with investigations and reduce the response time for complaints filed under MSU’s Title IX Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy. Investigators are used, as needed, to handle complex complaints 

and to reduce the time between filing and finding. 

• The MSU Police Department and the Office of Institutional Equity implemented 

new protocols to ensure that police notify OIE when investigating relationship 

violence, stalking, or sexual misconduct complaints. 

» The new reporting protocol will enable full communication and accountability 

between these two MSU units. The protocol will also ensure all victims receive information about campus resources and options from OIE. 

» Additionally, interlocal agreements bring local police agencies in East Lansing, 

Meridian, Bath, and Lansing townships and the Michigan State Police into 

MSU’s system so that MSU gains awareness of off-campus misconduct or assaults. 

• MSU Police are taking over incident reporting at the Eyde MSU HealthTeam 

clinical buildings from the Meridian Township police department to prevent 

19 

gaps in complaint reporting and increasing patrols and training staff in other 

clinics. 

» The MSU HealthTeam is obtaining proposals from independent peer review 

experts to assist with the review of sensitive cases. 

» The MSU HealthTeam also is evaluating replacement systems for its incident 

reporting system to have the ability to follow up and ‘‘close the loop’’ for reporting purposes. 

• MSU created a Healing Assistance Fund, which has disbursed more than a half 

million dollars in payment or reimbursement for counseling and mental health 

services to victims of Larry Nassar. The fund was set up by the Board of Trustees in December 2017. A 24-hour phone line is available to connect victims with 

qualified care providers close to where they live. 

https://msu.edu/ourcommitment/our-actions 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. Ms. Lyons. 

STATEMENT OF SUSANNE LYONS, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 

Ms. LYONS. Good afternoon, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 

Blumenthal, and the members of the Subcommittee. 

Last February, I agreed to serve as the Acting CEO of the U.S. 

Olympic Committee because I felt an obligation to help the organization address the critically important issues of athlete safety and 

empowerment. 

Two weeks ago, we announced that Sarah Hirshland will be the 

next CEO of the Olympic Committee. She’s joining us in the audience today because of the importance of this issue and she looks 

forward to working with Congress as she leads and implements the 

reforms and the initiatives that the Olympic Committee has currently begun. 

Like all of you, I was deeply saddened and angered by Larry 

Nassar’s abuse. I heard the stories of victims and survivors in 

court, before this Committee, and last week in the moving ceremony at the ESPYs and as recently as the press conference today, 

and many of those same athletes, as you know, are joining us in 

this room. 

Some survivors shared stories of seeking help from the Olympic 

community and finding it unresponsive, needlessly complex, and 

fraught with risks to their Olympic dreams. This is appalling and 

unacceptable. 

The Olympic community failed the people it was supposed to protect and I apologize again to each and every one of them and their 

families. I want you to know your voices have been raised and we 

hear you. We have an obligation to do better and we will do better. 

When I became the CEO, I announced a series of initiatives to 

address issues of abuse and other structural weaknesses and I’d 

like to update you on our efforts. 

First, we accelerated our efforts with the Center for Safe Sport 

and our own Athlete Safety Programs. We doubled our grant to the 

center, enabling it to build on its investigative capabilities. 

We also instituted new reporting requirements of our own, requiring national governing bodies to report to us on ongoing investigations, unresolved complaints, and banned and suspended members. 

Second, we are working to increase the voice and the power of 

athletes. We engaged with the Athletes Advisory Council to underVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
20 

stand its priorities and recommendations. We are proposing 

changes to the role of the Athlete Ombudsman and we are creating 

a new Athlete Services Department to assist with athlete grievances. 

Third, we announced a governance review and launched a commission to study and report on engagement with athletes and with 

the national governing bodies. This commission is headed by 

WNBA President Lisa Borders. 

The commission will provide recommendations on potential 

changes to the Ted Stevens Act, the Bylaws of the Olympic organizations, as well as other policies. 

Rebuilding USA Gymnastics is our fourth category of focus and 

after we insisted that the previous CEO and then the entire Board 

resign, we helped USA Gymnastics implement governance changes 

and elect a permanent Board with a majority of independent directors. 

USA Gymnastics has now completed all of the immediate requirements that we set in January for it to maintain its certification as a national governing body. They know they still have a 

long way to go. 

We will continue to support USA Gymnastics on its way to implementing a true change in culture. 

A fifth category will develop when we receive the report of the 

independent investigation. The investigation focuses on both the 

Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics and we will make the report public in its entirety and take whatever actions are appropriately based on whatever the findings may be. 

As Congress considers additional solutions, I’d respectfully ask to 

offer some input. 

First, Congress can support further funding of the Center for 

Safe Sport. The Center’s independence is critical to its success and 

expanding its sources of funding will strengthen that independence. 

Second, the Olympic Committee encourages the Congress to look 

closely at the recommendations that will come from the Athlete 

and NGB Engagement Commission. 

Third, the Safe Sport Act provides the Center with liability protection for sharing information on bans and suspensions. We ask 

Congress to consider extending those protections to bans and suspensions imposed by national governing bodies. 

We have begun to make significant progress in strengthening 

protections for athletes but our collective efforts must not cease. 

We must support the victims and survivors and honor those who 

have stood up against abuse. We promise to lead the Olympic community to bring real and lasting change. 

I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lyons follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSANNE LYONS, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

Good afternoon Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Senators of 

the Subcommittee. Last February, I agreed to serve as the acting CEO of the U.S. 

Olympic Committee because I felt an obligation to help the organization address the 

critically important issues of athlete safety and empowerment. Two weeks ago, we 

announced that the Olympic Committee had selected Sarah Hirshland to serve as 

the organization’s next chief executive officer. We expect that Ms. Hirshland will asVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
21 

sume her role in late August, after she concludes her current obligations with the 

U.S. Golf Association. Ms. Hirshland is joining us in the audience today, and she 

asked that I convey to you that she looks forward to working with you as she continues to implement the reforms and initiatives that the Olympic Committee currently has underway. It has been an honor to serve as acting CEO during this important period in the Olympic Committee’s history. 

Like all of you, I was deeply saddened to hear the statements of the girls and 

women who were the victims of Larry Nassar, and I was devastated and angered 

to find that he was able to perpetuate his abuse for so long. I heard the powerful 

and compelling stories of victims and survivors in court, in testimony before this 

committee, and just last week in the moving ceremony at the ESPY Awards. Most 

concerning, some survivors shared stories of seeking help from people in the Olympic community and finding the system unresponsive, needlessly complex, or fraught 

with risks to their Olympic dreams. This is appalling and unacceptable. The Olympic community failed the people it was supposed to protect, and I apologize again 

to each and every one of them, and their families, for the Olympic community’s 

failings. We have an obligation to do better, and we will do better. 

When I became acting CEO, I announced a series of initiatives to strengthen our 

handling and response to issues of abuse and address other structural weaknesses 

within the Olympic community. We have made significant progress on those initiatives, and at the same time, we have continued to refine our plans for reform, adding new initiatives and efforts as we identified additional areas in need of attention. 

Our reform efforts fall generally into four categories. I would like to update the 

Committee on our efforts in each area. In addition, attached to my written testimony are further details on the actions that we have taken in connection with this 

effort, which we call our Athlete Safety and Advocacy Action Plan. 

1. SafeSport and Athlete Safety Programs 

First, we are redoubling our efforts with the Center for SafeSport and athlete 

safety programs. The Center launched just last year as an independent entity, and 

it is already clear that it is serving an essential role. The Center has experienced 

a significant increase in the number of reports of abuse. Although any report is disheartening, this is precisely the reason that we need the Center: It provides a safe 

and independent path for athletes to report concerns so that the Olympic and 

Paralympic community can address them. We fulfilled our commitment to double 

the Olympic Committee’s funding of the Center, adding $1.55 million to our existing 

annual grant to enable the Center to hire more staff, conduct more investigations, 

and undertake additional educational activities. The NGBs have also committed to 

increasing their funding for the next Fiscal Year. At its launch, the Center focused 

on sexual abuse cases, as that was the most pressing need. Now we are supporting 

their work to find ways to investigate other abuses such as bullying and hazing in 

appropriate cases, and assisting them with the development of database systems. 

Additionally, after more than a year of experience, the Center is working hard on 

its policies and procedures to identify potential improvements, and we are working 

hard to support that effort as well. 

We have also made reforms within the Olympic Committee, including updating 

our Athlete Safety Policy to reflect the SafeSport authorization legislation enacted 

this year, and hiring a new senior director of athlete safety. In our leadership role 

in the Olympic and Paralympic community, we have instituted new reporting requirements on national governing bodies, requiring them to report on ongoing investigations, unresolved grievances and ethics complaints, and banned and suspended 

members not submitted to the Center for SafeSport. We have an ongoing effort to 

improve the coordination and information sharing among the Center, the Olympic 

Committee, and the national governing bodies regarding individuals on banned or 

suspended lists. We need to make it easier for parents, athletes, and potential employers to access information about coaches and athletes on banned and suspended 

lists. 

2. Athlete Advocacy 

Second, we are listening to and enhancing the voices of athletes in Olympic Committee governance and the Olympic and Paralympic community. The Ted Stevens 

Act already requires all Olympic governing bodies to include a significant number 

of athletes in their governance, and we want to increase the involvement of the 

broader community of athletes in providing feedback and assistance in strengthening our policies and procedures. The cornerstones of this effort are a number of 

athlete surveys and a series of athlete working sessions that we have begun and 

will continue this year. Initial survey results have been shared with the Athletes’ 

Advisory Council, national governing bodies, and the Center for SafeSport. We are 

22 

also launching leadership training for athletes who are part of the governance process at the Olympic and Paralympic Assembly. We have worked with the Athletes’ 

Advisory Council to identify its priorities and recommendations, including seeking 

its input on athlete representation on the Olympic Committee’s board. We also 

added a position within the office of the Athlete Ombudsman dedicated to increased 

communication with athletes about services and resources available to athletes, and 

we are creating a new athlete services department that will focus on assisting with 

individual athlete grievances. Finally, we are planning an athlete symposium to 

bring together a diverse set of athletes and provide a forum for raising concerns and 

identifying issues in need of attention by the Olympic Committee. 

3. Olympic Committee Engagement with National Governing Bodies and Athletes 

Third, we announced a governance review to inform our engagement with national governing bodies and athletes, and our oversight of the Olympic and 

Paralympic movements in the United States. In recent years, the relationship between the Olympic Committee and the national governing bodies has evolved, particularly with respect to the Center, which removed the national governing bodies’ 

authority to investigate and resolve issues of sexual abuse. More recently, the Olympic Committee took a very active role in the reform of USA Gymnastics. We need 

to make sure we are organized and empowered to take appropriate steps like this 

especially where needed to protect athletes. 

Because of the critical importance of this issue and the need to seek input from 

independent sources, the Olympic Committee elected to create a formal commission 

to study and report on the manner in which the Olympic Committee engages with 

national governing bodies and athletes. The Olympic Committee created a charter 

for an Athlete and NGB Engagement Commission and selected Lisa Borders, the 

president of the Women’s National Basketball Association, as the chair of the commission. The commission will include athletes, representatives from national governing bodies, and individuals with governance expertise in relevant organizations. 

The commission is tasked with reviewing the Olympic Committee’s interaction with 

and oversight of national governing bodies and its engagement with athletes. The 

commission will also provide recommendations, including whether changes are needed to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, the bylaws of the Olympic 

Committee or national governing bodies, and other policies and procedures. Even before getting input from the commission, the Olympic Committee is also creating a 

new committee of its board of directors dedicated to athlete and national governing 

body engagement, which will include the chairs of the Athlete Advisory Council and 

the National Governing Bodies Council. 

4. Reform of USA Gymnastics 

Rebuilding USA Gymnastics is the fourth category of our ongoing focus. We com- mitted to a $1.3 million grant to the National Gymnastics Foundation, for athlete 

assistance programs, medical support, and counseling, matching USA Gymnastics’ 

commitment to that effort. The Olympic Committee’s leadership is in nearly constant contact with CEO Kerry Perry, the USA Gymnastics board, and others at USA 

Gymnastics. After we insisted that the previous CEO and then the entire board resign, we worked closely to advise USA Gymnastics on seating the interim board 

composed of new voices with more independence. We supported the interim board 

as they implemented governance reforms consistent with best practices. We provided financial assistance for USA Gymnastics to engage outside assistance in the 

seating of a new board and training in board best practices. On June 20, 2018, 

ahead of the deadline the Olympic Committee had set, USA Gymnastics seated a 

permanent board with a majority of independent directors. I am pleased to report 

to the Subcommittee that USA Gymnastics has now completed all of the requirements contained in the Olympic Committee’s January 25 letter to the organization. 

Independent Investigation 

Even as we push forward on these four categories, there is an important fifth category that will develop in the coming months when we receive the report of the 

independent investigation being conducted by Ropes & Gray. The Olympic Committee’s board of directors retained Ropes & Gray to conduct a fully independent investigation into Nassar’s abuse. We instructed the investigators to identify who knew 

about the abuse, what they knew and when, and what they did or did not do with 

this information. Importantly, Ropes & Gray will also investigate the circumstances 

that allowed the abuse to continue for so long. They are authorized to report on any 

other findings on abuse in other sports or related information that they deem important. The investigation covers both the Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics. 

We have been resolute in ensuring that Ropes & Gray has independence in the conduct of the investigation and the resources needed to carry it out fully and effecVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
23 

tively. We will make the report public in its complete and unabridged form. The 

Olympic Committee’s board has committed to taking whatever actions are appropriate based on the facts that emerge from the investigation and the report. 

Role of Congress 

As the Committee and others in Congress consider moving forward with additional solutions, as the title of this hearing indicates, I respectfully want to offer 

some brief input. 

First, Congress can support further funding for the Center for SafeSport, as it has 

done historically for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency by contributing approximately $10 

million per year. As the Committee knows, funding for the Center was a significant 

challenge in its launch. Additionally, the Olympic Committee believes that the Center’s independence from the Olympic Committee is critical to its success. Although 

the Olympic Committee elected to provide the bulk of the Center’s funding in an 

effort to get the Center launched as soon as possible, it would be preferable for the 

Center’s independence if it had additional sources of funding. In the 2018 omnibus 

spending bill, Congress established a grant program directed at athlete safety, and 

we expect the Center will compete for this grant. This is an important development 

and we support consistent and dedicated Federal funding for the Center. To be 

clear, the Olympic Committee is committed to ensuring that the Center has the resources necessary for its important mission, and we will continue to provide significant funding for the Center. We believe that expanding its sources of funding with 

strengthen its independence. 

Second, the Olympic Committee encourages Congress to look closely at the recommendations that may come from the Athlete and NGB Engagement Commission. 

Although the Olympic Committee believes that the Ted Stevens Act provides it with 

the authority to take the actions we are taking today, the commission may identify 

areas for potential clarification or expansion of the Olympic Committee’s authority, 

or other needed reforms, including outside of the Act. 

Third, in the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, Congress provided the Center with liability protection for the exercise 

of certain of its official functions, including protection against lawsuits for defamation, libel, or slander. This liability protection has proven to be important for the 

Center’s ability to provide information on people banned or suspended from Olympic 

sports. Neither the Olympic Committee nor the national governing bodies are covered by these provisions. Congress should consider whether these protections should 

be extended to other Olympic and Paralympic organizations or whether the language should be clarified to encompass information published by the Center that relates to a national governing body adjudication, to help enable broader and more 

comprehensive information for athletes, parents, and others. 

The Olympic Committee and the broader Olympic and Paralympic community 

have made significant progress in strengthening protections for athletes, but our collective efforts must never cease. We must support the victims and survivors, and 

honor those who have stood up against abuse. We promise to lead the Olympic community to bring real and lasting change. 

U.S. Olympic Committee and National Governing Bodies 

The Olympic Committee was founded in 1894. It serves as both the National 

Olympic Committee and National Paralympic Committee for the United States. The 

Olympic Committee is responsible for the training and funding of the United States’ 

teams for the Olympic, Paralympic, Youth Olympic, Pan American, and Parapan 

American Games, and serving as a steward of the Olympic movement throughout 

the country. 

In 1978, the Amateur Sports Act (now called the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act) appointed the Olympic Committee as the coordinating body for all 

Olympic athletic activity in the United States. Pursuant to the statute, the Olympic 

Committee supports athletes through funding, health insurance, tuition grants, 

marketing opportunities, and career services. The Olympic Committee supports the 

Olympic Training Centers and Olympic Training Sites for athletic training, conditioning, sports medicine, and nutrition assistance. The Olympic Committee also 

oversees the process by which U.S. cities bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic 

Games, the Youth Olympic Games, and the Pan/Parapan American Games. 

The Ted Stevens Act also authorizes the Olympic Committee to recognize a national governing body for any sport that is included in the various Olympic Games. 

The Olympic Committee may recognize only one such governing body for each sport 

(except as it may relate to the Paralympics). Once selected, that organization takes 

on a number of obligations related to amateur athletic activity in that sport in the 

United States, including sanctioning and conducting competitions, and recomVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
24 

mending teams to represent the United States in the Olympic Games. The national 

governing bodies also oversee the training and development of athletes in their respective sports. 

Today, there are 50 organizations that have been recognized by the Olympic Committee as a national governing body. There is a large degree of variation among 

these organizations. For example, U.S. Soccer manages national soccer activities 

that range from local recreational soccer programs for children to the U.S. National 

Men’s and Women’s soccer teams. These diverse soccer programs include thousands 

of coaches and officials and hundreds of thousands of athletes. Olympic activity, 

therefore, is a small part of U.S. Soccer’s focus and activities. Conversely, USA Pentathlon is a smaller organization and Olympic activities are a primary focus of the 

organization. 

Because each national governing body is the primary organization that manages 

and oversees the activities of coaches and athletes, each organization has its own 

rules and procedures related to athletes and coaches. On key areas of governance, 

however, the Olympic Committee uses its designation authority under the Ted Stevens Act to require each national governing body to adopt certain standards. And 

in challenging areas that affect the entire Olympic and Paralympic community, we 

have gone even further to establish entities that are independent of any individual 

national governing body and dedicated to addressing specific challenging topics. This 

is the approach that we took in response to doping issues in the late 1990s, and 

it is the approach we have taken with the Center for SafeSport. 

U.S. Center for SafeSport 

The Olympic Committee has long worked with the national governing bodies on 

efforts to protect athletes from sexual and other abuses. In 2010, the Olympic Committee determined that the issue warranted renewed attention following public reports of sexual abuse cases concerning swimmers. The Olympic Committee convened 

a working group to study the problem and make specific recommendations for improvements to the Olympic Committee board. Nina Kemppel, a four-time Olympic 

skier and current board member of the Olympic Committee, chaired the working 

group. The working group produced six comprehensive recommendations for action 

by the Olympic Committee: Increase its leadership role; lead by example; develop 

training materials; develop resources for use by local clubs and organizations; standardize services that promote safe training environments; and encourage national 

governing bodies to adopt policies to address sexual and physical misconduct. 

Since then, the Olympic Committee has implemented each of the working group’s 

recommendations. As it was implementing the working group’s recommendations, 

the Olympic Committee concluded that the Olympic sports program would benefit 

from an independent entity dedicated to protecting youth athletes’ safety. In June 

2014, the Olympic Committee’s board approved the creation of an independent 

SafeSport entity and began the process of establishing the Center for SafeSport. In 

September 2015, the Olympic Committee established the Center’s nominating and 

governance committee. In January 2016, the first board of the Center was seated 

and held its first meeting. In June 2016, the Olympic Committee’s board approved 

the launch of the Center. In November 2016, the Center selected its first chief executive officer, Shellie Pfohl, who previously served as the executive director of the 

President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition. In March 2017, the Center 

officially opened. 

The Center’s activities are guided by a SafeSport Code that covers everything 

from harassment and hazing to physical and sexual misconduct. In addition to the 

Code, the Center for SafeSport has adopted practices and procedures and procedural 

rules for arbitration that govern its investigation and resolution of alleged violations. These important procedural improvements centralize and clarify the process 

by which allegations of abuse are investigated and resolved. By adopting clear procedures that apply to all investigations by the Center, we seek to ensure a fair process that permits swift actions to protect children. 

The Olympic Committee requires each national governing body to participate in 

the Center for SafeSport as a condition of being recognized by the Olympic Committee. Specifically, under section 8.7(l) of the Olympic Committee’s bylaws, each 

national governing body must comply with the Olympic Committee’s policies related 

to SafeSport and, additionally, the policies and procedures of the Center for 

SafeSport. These provisions require all national governing bodies and their personnel to report suspected sexual abuse to the Center and to law enforcement. The 

Center has exclusive authority within the Olympic and Paralympic community to 

investigate and resolve violations involving sexual misconduct. Additionally, the 

Center has discretionary authority to assume responsibility for the investigation and 

25 

resolution of other violations of the Code; if not exercised, the applicable governing 

body retains the authority and obligation to investigate and resolve the allegation. 

The Olympic Committee’s regular and periodic audits of the independent national 

governing bodies include auditing of the organizations’ compliance with the requirements of SafeSport. In 2017, the Olympic Committee engaged a third-party auditor, 

Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, to audit the compliance of the Olympic Committee and 

all the national governing bodies with SafeSport policies and procedures. The audit 

focused on compliance with the Athlete Safety Policy and the policies associated 

with the then-new Center for SafeSport. After the initial audit, each organization 

(including the Olympic Committee) was required to address deficiencies, and the 

Olympic Committee is monitoring and reviewing follow up. The audit results are 

available on our website. The Olympic Committee is now undertaking rolling audits 

of national governing bodies throughout the year, using its internal audit division 

supplemented by outside assistance. 

The Center for SafeSport seeks to address the barriers and disincentives that victims may face when seeking to report abuse. The Center creates an independent 

path for reporting and an independent system for investigating and resolving cases 

of sexual abuse. With the Center, we have created a system that removes the investigation and resolution of allegations of sexual abuse from the control of any national governing body, including USA Gymnastics, and a resource dedicated to education and awareness of the importance of reporting abuse. We believe that these 

changes will significantly improve the protection of youth athletes from sexual and 

other abuses. 

The approach that we have taken with the Center for SafeSport is similar to the 

approach that we previously adopted in establishing the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 

in 1999. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has been very successful at concentrating expertise and ensuring independence in investigations of doping issues. By following 

this model in the creation of the Center for SafeSport, we will also bring expertise 

and independence to our efforts to prevent abuse of youth athletes. 

Recently, Congress and the President enacted the Protecting Young Victims from 

Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, which complements and further 

strengthens the reporting requirements of the Olympic Committee and the Center. 

The law imposes a mandatory reporting requirement on any adult authorized by a 

national governing body or member to interact with a minor or amateur athlete at 

an amateur sports organization facility or at an event sanctioned by a national governing body or member. The legislation also provides Federal authorization for the 

Center. The Olympic Committee supported this legislation and worked with Congress on its passage. The legislation helpfully brings the force of Federal law behind 

the mandatory reporting requirements of the Center’s rules. 

USA Gymnastics 

Over the months since the launch of the Center in March 2017, we have unfortunately continued to see new and concerning revelations about the Olympic community’s failure to protect athletes, particularly with respect to USA Gymnastics, and 

in other sports as well. In June 2017, Deborah Daniels issued a report that examined USA Gymnastics’ bylaws, policies, procedures, and practices related to handling sexual misconduct matters. After conducting more than 160 interviews, Ms. 

Daniels recommended a number of structural and policy changes within USA Gymnastics. The USA Gymnastics board voted unanimously to accept her recommendations. 

Most significantly, in January 2018, the entire Olympic community was shocked 

and horrified to hear the powerful statements from the victims of Larry Nassar. On 

January 24, 2018, the Olympic Committee issued an open letter to all Olympic athletes announcing that it would launch an independent investigation into the detection and reporting of Nassar within both USA Gymnastics and the Olympic Committee. On January 25, 2018, the Olympic Committee issued a letter to the board 

of USA Gymnastics outlining six specific steps that the Olympic Committee is requiring of USA Gymnastics. In the letter to USA Gymnastics, the Olympic Committee specifically indicated that completion of these actions was necessary for USA 

Gymnastics to retain its recognition as the national governing body for Olympic 

gymnastics. 

First, the Olympic Committee required all members of the USA Gymnastics board 

to resign. That process was completed on January 30, 2018. Second, the Olympic 

Committee required USA Gymnastics to seat an interim board, consistent with its 

current bylaws, with all new membership (except that the athletes may reelect their 

representatives) by February 28, 2018. That process was completed on February 27, 

2018. Third, USA Gymnastics was required to create a new permanent board within 

one year, which it completed on June 20, 2018. Fourth, for the next year, an OlymVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
26 

pic Committee representative must participate in each board meeting of USA Gymnastics, the USA Gymnastics board must discuss and report on progress instituting 

reforms, and USA Gymnastics must cooperate with the independent investigation, 

among other requirements. Fifth, all USA Gymnastics staff and board members 

were required to complete SafeSport training within three months, which they have 

now completed. And, sixth, all USA Gymnastics staff and board members must complete ethics training within six months, which they have now completed. 

The Olympic Committee took these unprecedented actions because it concluded 

that an entirely new leadership structure was needed to rebuild USA Gymnastics. 

The Olympic Committee offered to assist USA Gymnastics with its rebuilding effort. 

Indeed, officials of the Olympic Committee have been working closely with USA 

Gymnastics’ new CEO, Kerry Perry, on supporting the selection and seating of new 

board members, the other reforms required by the Olympic Committee, and revisions to USA Gymnastics’ bylaws to provide a more independent board. Again, the 

Olympic Committee explicitly stated that if USA Gymnastics fails to implement 

these reforms, the Olympic Committee will pursue termination of USA Gymnastics’ 

designation as a national governing body. 

On February 2, 2018, a special committee of the board of the Olympic Committee 

announced that it had hired the law firm Ropes & Gray to conduct the independent 

investigation announced on January 24. The investigation is now examining the 

decades-long abuse by Nassar to determine when individuals affiliated with USA 

Gymnastics or the Olympic Committee first became aware of any evidence of 

Nassar’s abuse of athletes, what that evidence was, and what they did with it. Joan 

McPhee and James Dowden, both former Federal prosecutors, are leading the investigation. The investigators have full discretion to carry out the investigation and 

make findings as they deem appropriate. The Olympic Committee directed Ropes & 

Gray to prepare and issue a public written report at the conclusion of the investigation. The Olympic Committee pledged its full support to the investigation, including 

access to relevant documents and witnesses. USA Gymnastics has also confirmed its 

cooperation. 

Most recently, the Olympic Committee has assisted USA Gymnastics with governance reforms, including the selection of a new permanent board containing a majority of independent directors. USA Gymnastics seated that new permanent board on 

June 20, 2018. USA Gymnastics has now completed all of the requirements contained in the Olympic Committee’s January 25 letter. 

* * * 

Thank you for the opportunity to address these critically important issues. We 

owe it to the victims and survivors of abuse in sports to ensure that our efforts to 

improve the safety and security of Olympic athletes never cease. I would be happy 

to answer your questions. 

COMMITMENT TO A SAFER U.S. OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC COMMUNITY

The United States Olympic Committee is deeply focused on critical initiatives and 

collaboration across the entire U.S. Olympic and Paralympic community to protect, 

support and empower America’s athletes. 

Across the world, girls and women in particular are bravely sharing the egregious 

sexual abuse, harassment and discrimination they have faced for too long. This behavior has no place in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic community, and now is the 

time for organizations, institutions and individuals alike to reignite a culture of athlete empowerment and competitive excellence—one that is a safe, respectful and 

supportive environment. The USOC has made significant progress to strengthen 

protections for athletes, and the collective efforts to improve athlete safety must 

never cease. 

Athlete Safety & Advocacy Action Plan 

Building upon actions taken starting in 2010, the USOC created and implemented 

the overarching, multi-disciplinary Athlete Safety & Advocacy Action Plan in 2018 

to provide a safer environment for athletes and enable the organization to more effectively achieve its mission. Through the Action Plan, the USOC is both examining 

the past, and taking short-and long-term action to create a safer and more empowering environment now and in the future. 

1. Important Lessons Learned 

The USOC is at a critical point in its history. The U.S. Olympic and 

Paralympic community has an obligation to find out how the Nassar tragedy 

27 

and other instances of sexual abuse happened, and take the necessary steps to 

help prevent such atrocities from ever recurring. 

2. Commitment to Change 

While awaiting the findings of an independent investigation, the USOC is taking important actions now based on what is already known. 

3. The Path Forward 

Moving forward, the USOC is reviewing the culture of elite sports in the U.S. 

to determine what safeguards must be strengthened and modernized to ensure 

the safety of the athletes it serves. 

The Action Plan involves four major workstreams, which each involve several 

projects aimed at addressing shortcomings. Project lifespans range from six months 

to one or more years and beyond. 

Action To Date (as of July 20, 2018) 

1. SafeSport & Athlete Safety Programs 

This pillar is intended to improve the USOC’s athlete safety policies and procedures, while also increasing the capabilities of the U.S. Center for SafeSport via additional funding and support. 

• Originally enacted in December 2012, the USOC Athlete Safety Policy was updated in April 2018 to comply with the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual 

Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. Per the Act, any knowledge 

of possible sexual misconduct must be reported to both law enforcement and the 

U.S. Center for SafeSport within 24 hours. Following the formation of an Athlete Safety Advisory Group, the policy will be further reviewed and modified as 

necessary. 

• The USOC hired a senior director of athlete safety in May 2018 to ensure that 

best practices are regularly reviewed, and athletes and survivors are fully supported. A director of ethics and safe sport was originally hired in April 2011, 

with the role transitioning to the U.S. Center for SafeSport in 2017. 

• The USOC doubled its annual funding of the U.S. Center for SafeSport to enable it to hire more investigators and staff, improve the speedy resolution of 

cases, enhance ongoing communication for survivors and their families, provide 

age-appropriate training to recognize and prevent abuse, and offer better and 

more accessible resources via SafeSport.org. 

• In exercising increased NGB compliance engagement, the USOC has required 

NGBs to disclose all designated committee members related to funding and 

team selection, ongoing investigations, unresolved grievances and ethics complaints, permanently banned members, and suspended members not submitted 

to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 

• All USOC employees and board members have completed safe sport and ethics 

trainings, and an independent partner is being identified to provide broader cultural training for all NGBs. 

• With the aim of educating a broader audience, safe sport training resources are 

being expanded to include agents and representatives. Safe sport training became mandatory for the USOC and NGBs on January 1, 2014. 

• Planning has begun for an athlete assistance fund that will extend to all sports 

within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movements to provide support and assistance to victims of all types of abuse. 

• The USOC is supporting efforts to strengthen the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s 

website, and produced and launched a pair of public service announcements that 

resulted in a 30 percent increase in traffic to SafeSport.org. 

• The USOC is working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport to investigate a case 

management system to track grievances (including non-sexualized cases of bullying and harassment) that will be accessible and integrated with NGB, USOC 

and center data. We are also working on ways to use the data in that system 

to create a comprehensive information resource on banned and suspended individuals, across the USOC, NGBs, and the Center. 

• The USOC and the U.S. Center for SafeSport have established bi-monthly meetings with leadership from both organizations to ensure alignment on key issues. 

• The USOC has created a charter for an Athlete Safety Advisory Group to provide 

strategic direction on the actions the USOC is taking to create a safe environment across all sport. The process is underway to identify a chairperson to lead 

the group. 

28 

2. Athlete Advocacy 

This pillar is aimed at empowering athletes to shape key USOC and NGB policies 

and programs, and improving education and communication to set athletes up to be 

successful leaders. 

• The USOC sought input from its Athletes’ Advisory Council to identify top 

issues requiring action by both the USOC and NGBs. 

• A total of 939 athletes provided feedback via a survey, allowing the USOC to 

gather insights into improving policies, programs and services, and to better understand athletes’ priorities and issues. The survey results are being shared 

with the Athletes’ Advisory Council, NGBs, the U.S. Center for SafeSport and 

athlete respondents, along with immediate actions that the USOC is taking to 

address feedback. 

• The USOC is evaluating and reconstructing portions of its website—including 

the ombudsman and athlete safety sections—to enhance and highlight the resources available to athletes. 

• A position was added within the athlete ombudsman office with the specific responsibility to increase communication with athletes regarding services, resources and issues. 

• The USOC is working with its Athletes’ Advisory Council to review athlete representation on the USOC board. 

• Plans are being developed to host an athlete symposium with the aim of engaging a diverse set of athletes in a dialogue around key issues and actionable response to areas of concern. 

3. Evaluate and Reform USOC Engagement with NGBs and Athletes 

This pillar addresses how the USOC interacts with and oversees the 49 NGBs, and 

how the organization can better engage with the athletes it serves. 

• The USOC drafted a charter for the Athlete & NGB Engagement Commission 

and selected WNBA President Lisa Borders as chairperson. The commission, 

which is currently being populated, will be comprised of at least seven members, including athlete, NGB and independent board representation, plus one or 

more individuals with governance expertise in relevant organizations. The commission will specifically review how the USOC interacts with and oversees the 

50 diverse NGBs, and how the organization can better engage with the athletes 

it serves. The commission is expected to make a series of recommendations that 

will be implemented over the coming months, including examining whether 

changes are needed to the Amateur Sports Act, the USOC or NGB bylaws, or 

other policies and procedures. 

• A board review of the USOC’s mission statement was initiated to ensure it is 

aligned with the responsibilities of the organization. 

• An Athlete & NGB Engagement Committee is being formed by the USOC board 

with the aim of providing leadership to address issues of greatest importance 

and concern to key athletes and NGBs. The committee will provide input on the 

governance, policies and procedures that may impact stakeholder groups, and 

will review or suggest the implementation of best practices, bylaws changes, 

communications or other actions deemed appropriate. The committee will act as 

the board-level method for discussing and addressing athlete issues raised to 

the USOC. 

• The USOC is developing a plan to better align activities within the organization 

related to support for athletes and NGBs. 

4. Reform USA Gymnastics 

This pillar focuses on the stabilization of USA Gymnastics by way of structural 

and cultural changes aimed at creating a safe and supportive training environment 

for its athletes. 

• The USOC performed a forensic evaluation of USA Gymnastics to determine the 

NGB’s ability to support its athletes, and identify the resources required to undergo the necessary changes. Recommendations were offered for options to supplement the executive leadership team in supporting management transition 

and focusing on organizational transformation. 

• The USOC is requiring that USA Gymnastics complete 70 specific actions related to the recommendations made in the Daniels Report, and is regularly auditing the organization for compliance. To date, USAG has completed 31 of the 

70 actions. Of the remaining 39 actions, 24 are in process, and plans are being 

29 

developed for an additional 12. The final three are culture-related, with current 

and ongoing efforts. 

• Among the leadership changes at USA Gymnastics, Chris Tebo was hired as 

general counsel, Tom Forster was hired as women’s national team coordinator, 

and searches for a chief financial officer and chief marketing officer are in 

progress. Prior to the action plan, the USOC forced the resignation of both the 

CEO and full board of directors. 

• The USOC has had representation at all of USA Gymnastics’ interim board 

meetings and supported the scheduling of the first meeting of the new permanent board in July 2018. 

• Following a mandate by the USOC to reseat its board of directors by July 1, 

2018, the USA Gymnastics interim board of directors confirmed the election of 

the organization’s new board at its meeting on June 20. Additionally, each of 

USAG’s five competitive disciplines selected two representatives to serve on the 

newly created Programs Council, which will provide a forum for its representatives to provide input, perspective and guidance on a variety of relevant topics, 

including operations, strategic planning, and developing best practices and uniform criteria and guidelines for program administration. 

• The independent investigation was promoted on the USA Gymnastics website to 

encourage individuals with relevant information to speak with the independent 

investigators. 

• USA Gymnastics expanded its safe sport department to include five new positions—four of which will be regionally based—to better support, train, educate 

and serve its members. 

• The USOC made a $1.3 million grant to the Athlete Assistance Fund established 

by the National Gymnastics Foundation to provide resources to survivors of sexual abuse. 

• USA Gymnastics issued broad communication to its current adult athletes, parents/guardians of minor athletes, professional members, member clubs and survivors’ legal counsel regarding medical risks from sexual assault and resources 

available. 

• USA Gymnastics is being required to review and update its ethics and conflict 

of interest policies, and has conducted ethics training with its board and staff. 

• USOC and other NGB policies are being provided to USA Gymnastics to assist 

in identifying best practices. 

• The USOC is working with USA Gymnastics to identify alternative training 

sites following the removal of Karolyi Ranch as the USA Gymnastics National 

Team Training Center. While a permanent solution is identified, the USOC has 

offered the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as an 

interim solution. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Perry. 

STATEMENT OF KERRY PERRY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USA GYMNASTICS 

Ms. PERRY. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

I want to commend the Subcommittee for their excellent work 

aimed at preventing amateur athletes from abuse. 

This is your third hearing in the series and it is incredibly important because today, we focus on what we are doing to provide a 

safe and empowered environment for our athletes. 

As I have said before the House, I will say again today. On behalf of USA Gymnastics, I apologize to our athletes, many of whom 

are here today. What Larry Nassar did to these incredibly brave 

women is unconscionable. 

I joined USA Gymnastics in December 2017 from outside the 

sport and the Olympic movement. My primary focus is to transform 

30 

USA Gymnastics into an athlete-centered organization with a supportive and empowering culture that helps our athletes achieve 

their gymnastics dreams in a safe environment. 

I have heard the heart-wrenching stories of these courageous 

athletes who have been harmed by those that they should have 

been able to trust. I commit to you that I will keep their words and 

experiences at the core of every decision I make every day as the 

leader of this organization. Their stories have broken my heart but 

also strengthened my resolve. 

USA Gymnastics is on a new path with new leadership and a 

commitment to creating a culture that puts athletes first. Here are 

just a few of our decisive actions to put USA Gymnastics on a new 

course in the past months. 

We closed the National Training Center at the Karolyi Ranch 

and we are seeking proposals on a new high-performance training 

and wellness facility. 

We hired a new high-performance team coordinator for the Women’s Program through a selection process that involved both athletes and coaches. 

We created an Athlete Task Force where our former athletes are 

helping to shape our organization’s future. Just last week, we announced the five core members, one of whom is a survivor of sexual 

abuse. 

We expanded our Safe Sport Department to include new regional 

positions to better support, train, educate, and serve our members. 

We are extensively revising our Safe Sport policy. We are educating and training our staff, Board, and members on the new Safe 

Sport policy and a new Ethical Code of Conduct. 

I am pleased to report that our staff and Board are 100 percent 

compliant with both and beginning this season, all professional 

members must be Safe Sport-certified as a condition of membership. 

We continue to implement the Deborah Daniels recommendations. 86 percent of the recommendations are either implemented 

or in progress. Today, I’m announcing that we are making publicly 

available on our website exactly what we have done to implement 

these recommendations. 

We’ve made reporting of abuse easier with a dedicated toll-free 

number and online reporting. We are participating in mediation in 

order to resolve the athletes’ claims fairly and expeditiously. 

We created an Athlete Assistance Fund in cooperation with the 

National Gymnastics Foundation that provides the survivors of 

abuse with the needed financial resources for counseling and medical services. 

These changes and others we have made are part of a cultural 

shift that reflects our commitment to prioritize the safety of all of 

our athletes and members and to become the standard bearer of 

change. 

At the same time, I have ideas that I would be happy to share 

with the Subcommittee regarding what changes Congress might 

consider to help USOC and all national governing bodies do more 

to further protect athletes. 

I have traveled the country listening to athletes, listening to survivors, listening to parents and listening to coaches. My mission is 

31 

to ensure that USA Gymnastics emerges as a stronger, more empowered organization that is focused on our athletes so that generations to come will be able to share their stories of how gymnastics positively impacted their lives. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the new USA Gymnastics. Our 

incredible athletes have always been and will continue to be a 

great source of national pride. 

We will be there for them to help them realize their potential in 

a safe and supportive environment. Athlete safety must be at the 

forefront of everything we do every day. 

Thank you, and I’m happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KERRY PERRY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

USA GYMNASTICS

Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, members of the Subcommittee 

on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data Security, thank you 

for inviting me to testify today. 

I want to commend the Subcommittee for its excellent work aimed at protecting 

amateur athletes from abuse. This is your third hearing in the series, and it is incredibly important, because today we focus on what we are doing to provide a safe 

and empowered environment for our athletes. As I have said before the House, I 

will say again today; on behalf of USA Gymnastics, I apologize to our athletes and 

everyone who was hurt by Larry Nassar. What he did to these incredibly brave 

women is unconscionable. As the new leader of this organization, I refuse to let any 

of our survivors, our athletes from the past, our athletes today, or our athletes tomorrow to be defined by the actions of one despicable human being. We have a responsibility to all of our athletes and an opportunity to demonstrate that we are 

committed to transforming to a highly empowered organization, one where all of our 

athletes have a voice and are part of a future that all can be very proud of. To that 

end, USA Gymnastics is moving forward with a strong commitment to safety with 

a smarter, more focused governance and organizational structure; new policies and 

procedures that are designed to help prevent, spot, and punish misconduct; creating 

a culture that encourages speaking up; and providing our athletes with a new place 

to train. 

I joined USA Gymnastics in December 2017 from outside the sport and the Olympic movement. My primary focus is to transform USA Gymnastics into an athletecentric organization with a supportive and empowering culture that helps our athletes achieve their gymnastics dreams in a safe environment. I have heard the 

heart-wrenching stories of the courageous athletes who have been harmed by coaches, doctors, and adults they should have been able to trust. I commit to you that 

I will keep their words and experiences at the core of every decision I make, every 

day, as the leader of this organization. Their stories have broken my heart, but also 

strengthened my resolve. 

USA Gymnastics is on a new path, with new leadership, and a commitment to 

implement a culture that puts athletes first. To that end, we are working hard to 

regain the trust and confidence of our athletes, their families, and all who are a part 

of the gymnastics community. Here are just a few of our decisive actions to put USA 

Gymnastics on a new course: 

• We closed the National Team Training Center at the Karolyi Ranch, and we 

have sought and received information on a new training facility. We will soon 

issue requests for proposals as part of our aggressive effort to find a new permanent training and wellness facility. 

• We hired a new High Performance Training Coordinator for the Women’s Program through a selection process that involved both athletes and coaches. Tom 

Forster, the new coordinator, believes in coaching through inspiration. 

• We created an Athlete Task Force where our former athletes are helping to 

shape our organization’s future in its strategic and operating decisions, including participating in the process to identify the new permanent training and 

wellness center. Just last week, we announced the five core members, one of 

whom is a survivor of sexual abuse. 

32 

• We expanded our Safe Sport department to include seven new positions; five of 

which will live in the regions they cover throughout the United States to better 

support, train, educate and serve members. 

• We are extensively revising our Safe Sport Policy with input from representatives throughout our gymnastics community. You will see results from this effort by late summer. 

• We are incorporating expert ideas and strategies to enhance our Safe Sport education and create a best-in-class, customized curriculum. 

• We are educating and training our staff, Board, and members on the new Safe 

Sport Policy and a new Ethical Code of Conduct. I am pleased to report that 

our staff and Board are 100 percent compliant with both. Beginning this season, 

all professional and club members must be Safe Sport certified as a condition 

of membership. 

• We fully support both the U.S. Olympic Committee and Congressional independent investigations that we hope will shed light on how Larry Nassar was 

able to commit these horrific crimes so that we can ensure this never happens 

again. 

• We fully support Federal legislation—now a law—that will help safeguard amateur athletes. 

• We continue to implement the Deborah Daniels recommendations stemming from 

an independent evaluation of USA Gymnastics’ policies. As of today, eighty-six 

percent of the recommendations are either implemented or in progress—and we 

intend to implement all of them. 

• We made reporting of abuse easier with a dedicated toll-free number (833–844– 

SAFE), e-mail address (safesport@usagym.org), and online reporting. 

• We have and will continue to amend our bylaws to support the cultural commitment to athlete safety and provide a basis for further developing our safe sport 

programs and governance, including by: 

» Mandating compliance with the policies and procedures of the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport; 

» Acknowledging that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport has exclusive jurisdiction 

over all complaints of sexual misconduct; 

» Instituting interim measures to protect the community during ongoing investigations; and 

» The establishment of a standing Safe Sport Committee. 

• We are continuing our Listening Forums and outreach to as many of our survivors, athletes and member clubs as possible to help guide USA Gymnastics 

policies and procedures. 

• We made important structural and staff changes and reorganized the Board of 

Directors in order to have a streamlined and more focused group of leaders 

aligned with USA Gymnastics’ cultural transformation. 

• We are participating in mediation in order to resolve the athletes’ claims fairly 

and expeditiously. 

• We created an Athlete Assistance Fund, in cooperation with the National Gymnastics Foundation, that provides the survivors of abuse with the needed financial resources for counseling and medical services. 

These necessary changes are part of a cultural shift that reflects our commitment 

to prioritize the safety of all our athletes and members. They also reflect our commitment to becoming the standard-bearer for change. 

As I have traveled the country, listening to athletes, parents, and coaches, one 

thing has stood out to me. I am inspired every day by the stories of how gymnastics 

has changed their lives in such a positive way. There are a lot of really great people 

volunteering their time each and every day to make lasting memories for our athletes. My mission is to ensure that USA Gymnastics emerges as a stronger, more 

empowered organization that is focused on our athletes, so that generations to come 

will be able to share their stories of how gymnastics positively impacted their lives. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the new USA Gymnastics. We have taken decisive action to grow into a more athlete-centered organization, committed to helping 

our athletes fulfill their dreams. Our incredible athletes have always been, and will 

continue to be, a great source of national pride. We will be there for them to help 

them realize their potential in a safe and supportive environment. Athlete safety 

must be at the forefront of everything we do, every day. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

33 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Han Xiao. 

STATEMENT OF HAN XIAO, CHAIRMAN, U.S. OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE ATHLETES’ ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Mr. XIAO. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and 

members of the Committee, good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to testify here today. 

My name is Han Xiao, and I’m the elected Chair of the U.S. 

Olympic Committee Athletes’ Advisory Council, also known as the 

AAC. 

In 1978, the U.S. Congress enshrined the AAC into U.S. law and 

designated it as the voice of the athletes of the United States. 

I’m here before you today as the official spokesperson for elite 

athletes under the USOC umbrella, including U.S. Olympians and 

Paralympians. 

My testimony will reflect what I believe is the most accurate 

opinion of the athletes who comprise Team USA. On behalf of these 

athletes, I want to thank you for exercising oversight of the Olympic and Paralympic system during this critical juncture. 

America’s gymnasts and their courageous testimony at the 

Nassar hearings have brought the national media and all of you in 

the Senate here today. While establishing the U.S. Center for Safe 

Sport is an important step in the right direction, it should not be 

the only outcome of their suffering. 

First, we cannot allow the U.S. Center for Safe Sport to fail in 

its mission. The athlete abuse problem is far bigger than the USOC 

or any of us anticipated. The center received its 1,000th complaint 

of sexual abuse after just 15 months of opening its doors. 

The center needs increased funding so that it has the capacity 

to handle this caseload as well as embark on critical education efforts. 

To be successful, Safe Sport must have the technical expertise to 

conduct investigations and hearings and it must be able to preserve 

its full independence to retain the trust of athletes and the public. 

The adjudication process for complaints must improve with input 

from subject matter experts. Right now, I fear that none of those 

criteria are being fully met. 

The sexual abuse of athletes is just one symptom of broader systemic issues that must be addressed to substantially empower and 

protect U.S. athletes moving forward. 

Individual athletes have almost no power in our system. Instead, 

the USOC and national governing bodies hold the dreams of our 

athletes in their hands and athletes fear these coaches and administrators armed with congressionally granted monopoly power will 

retaliated if they protest or dissent. 

One failure to be compliant or obedient could mean the end of 

that athletic future. There is no other Olympic committee or 

Paralympic committee to appeal to to get a chance to compete for 

America. 

Our athletes aren’t just powerless to remedy sexual abuse. 

They’re also powerless to address financial injustices and many serious governance issues. To combat this problem, I have made two 

major recommendations. 

34 

First, I recommend establishing an autonomous inspector general’s office reporting to Congress and the AAC. The role of this office would be to hear athlete concerns confidentially without fear 

of retaliation about the governance and operation of the USOC and 

NGBs, to independently investigate issues in the Olympic and 

Para-Olympic movement, and to determine necessary corrective actions. 

Establishing this office and providing additional oversight would 

contribute greatly to a necessary cultural shift within our movement toward a focus on serving our country’s athletes. 

I also recommend the establishment of an athlete advocate. In 

1998, Congress amended the Sports Act to require a new position, 

the Athlete Ombudsman. The position was meant to solve the recurring problem of athlete conflicts with their NGB or the USOC. 

However, the Ombudsman’s Office currently only advises athletes of their rights, directs them to available resources, and provides mediation services in most individual athletes’ cases. These 

are essential and valuable functions for the athlete body. However, 

individual athletes and the AAC need independent legal advice and 

sophisticated professional athlete advocacy. 

The athlete advocate’s role would be to provide confidential legal 

advice to athletes and actively advocate for their rights and interests on a full-time basis. 

In addition to directly representing athletes when necessary with 

an attorney-client relationship, the athlete advocate would work 

with other athlete representatives in the movement to raise repetitive issues with the USOC, NGBs, and other organizations. 

I presented several other governance problems in my written 

statement, along with more detailed information supporting my remarks today. 

I’d like to note, however, that we’ve been down this road many 

times before. In 1978, the Amateur Sports Act was established in 

part to provide athletes with rights. However, it also set up an unregulated monopoly. 

In the 40 years since the 1978 Act, we have seen a cycle of scandals followed by internal USOC reforms. Now is the time to implement significant structural reforms to increase transparency and 

accountability, limit unnecessary bureaucratic expansion, and shift 

power to athletes. 

The USOC must reorient its primary missions for its supporting 

the Nation’s Olympic and Paralympic athletes in service to this Nation. Today’s problems are not merely bad PR for the Olympic and 

Paralympic movement. Instead, it is time for Congress to enact 

structural changes that can bring about a cultural change. 

If, in another decade, with the Olympic and Paralympic Games 

coming back to the U.S., we find ourselves here again asking the 

same questions and searching for the same answers, we will have 

failed Team USA athletes again, including the heroic gymnasts 

who will have brought these issues to our attention for naught. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Xiao follows:] 

35 

1 36 U.S.C. Sec. 220501 et seq., available at: https://www.teamusa.org/Footer/Legal/Governance-Documents 2 Id. 36 U.S.C. Sec. 220501 et seq., available at: https://www.teamusa.org/Footer/Legal/Governance-Documents 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAN XIAO, CHAIR, ATHLETE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Han Xiao, and I am the elected Chair of the U.S. Olympic Committee 

Athletes’ Advisory Council, also known as the AAC. I have served in this position 

since January 2017. Prior to that, I served as a representative for the sport of table 

tennis in the AAC from 2013–2016, and served on the board of directors of USA 

Table Tennis from 2008–2016. 

In 1978, the U.S. Congress enshrined the AAC into law and designated it as the 

voice of the athletes of the United States.1 As the Chair of the AAC, I am providing 

this testimony as the official spokesperson for elite athletes under the USOC umbrella, including U.S. Olympians and Paralympians. My testimony will reflect what 

I believe is the most accurate opinions of the athletes who comprise Team USA. On 

behalf of these athletes, I want to thank you for exercising oversight of the Olympic 

and Paralympic system during this critical juncture. 

To be clear; we believe athlete sexual abuse is a symptom of broader systemic 

issues that must be addressed to empower and protect U.S. athletes moving forward. Sexual abuse is the canary in the coal mine. I will highlight some of the key 

concerns of athletes in this testimony and provide some possible solutions. 

1. The U.S. Center for SafeSport must succeed 

National media and Congress have rightly focused on the sexual abuse of athletes 

throughout the past year. It is vitally important that we continue to make substantive improvements to the SafeSport system. The problem is far bigger than the 

USOC anticipated; the U.S. Center for SafeSport received its 1000th complaint of 

sexual abuse after just 15 months of opening its doors. 

But even after the heroic testimony of our gymnasts, the Center could still fail 

in its mission to protect athletes. For example, SafeSport efforts could be derailed 

by the stories we’re hearing suggesting that the rights of the accused are not being 

appropriately protected. In other cases, we hear that SafeSport complaints are being 

used by staff against athletes, as yet another way to exercise power over them. If 

the Center does not have buy-in from the stakeholders, including athletes, coaches, 

club owners and officials, it will not be able to protect athletes. 

The prevention arm of the U.S. Center for SafeSport, its education and training, 

varies in thoroughness and effectiveness greatly from sport to sport. Athletes have 

informed me that in some sports, receiving a SafeSport ‘‘certification’’ for completion 

of training is a mere formality that can be granted upon viewing a video or having 

someone pick up their certificate for them. 

To be successful, SafeSport must have the technical expertise to conduct investigations and hearings, and it must have independence from the USOC. Congress 

must increase funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport so that it has the resources 

to adequately fulfill its mission and reduce the Center’s reliance on funding from 

the USOC and national governing bodies (NGBs). The firewall between the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport and NGBs’ legal counsel must be ironclad. Subject matter experts, including prosecutors, academics, abuse survivors, victims’ advocates, and 

parties interested in protecting the due process rights of all the parties involved 

should all be engaged to improve the adjudication process. 

2. Insufficient Reporting Channels for Athlete-Whistleblowers 

Retaliation against athlete-whistleblowers has been a concern within our movement for many years. This problem is exacerbated when the whistleblower is a currently-competing athlete, who has issues that they need to report, yet are still dependent on their NGB for future Team USA membership, funding and support. The 

set-up is unfair; it is unrealistic to expect athletes to require their NGB comply with 

the Sports Act or to enforce good corporate governance. Below is a summary of what 

an athlete must do to resolve a dispute with their NGB. 

Under current procedures, athletes must file a formal grievance under their 

NGB’s prescribed procedures. If the issue still has not been resolved after exhausting their remedies within the NGB, the athlete can file what’s known as a ‘‘Section 

10 Complaint’’ with the USOC, alleging NGB noncompliance with the Sports Act.2

The complaint is then heard and adjudicated by a three-person hearing panel. I 

have sat personally on one of these hearing panels. The ultimate sanction in a Section 10 complaint process is decertification of the NGB. In other words, the athlete’s 

36 

remedy is to remove recognition from the NGB entirely, with a new governance 

group and organization potentially taking over as the new NGB. Understandably, 

the NGB staff sees the athlete as a problem. This is a precarious and impossible 

position for any Olympic or Paralympic hopeful. 

To make matters worse, the Section 10 process has no anonymity; even if the athlete prevails through the process and corrective changes or sanctions against the 

NGB are prescribed, their conflict often leads to tensions between the athletes initiating the complaint and staff or even other athletes within their sport. 

Additionally, the process does not allow whistleblowers to raise issues that are not 

explicitly addressed by the Sports Act. For example, if an athlete is concerned that 

his/her NGB is prioritizing staff compensation above supporting elite athletes, this 

is not a complaint that the athlete can have adjudicated through a Section 10 complaint, because staff compensation, consistent with other similar-sized non-profits, 

or fair distribution of NGB resources between staff and athletes, is not part of the 

Sports Act. Similarly, if an athlete is concerned that athletes are being intimidated 

by coaches and staff members to remain quiet about staff incompetence, that too is 

not explicitly listed in the Sports Act, and cannot be resolved with the remedy provided in the Sports Act. However, given a trend of similar complaints regarding an 

NGB or the USOC itself, it would be prudent to have an improved method to investigate such concerns in a timely fashion. 

Finally, under the Sports Act, an athlete cannot recover their attorney’s fees in 

bringing a Section 10 complaint. Some of these Section 10 complaints take a year’s 

work or more, and can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and 

costs. Even an athlete who prevails 100 percent on the merits of their case is still 

responsible for these legal fees. Meanwhile, the NGBs generally have far more resources to combat these complaints. NGBs and the USOC are not reliant on probono legal care, as many athletes are. For these reasons, the athlete should not be 

responsible for guaranteeing that the USOC and NGBs comply with the Sports Act. 

3. Instituting an Office of the Inspector General 

To address these problems, Congress should establish an autonomous authority 

to receive complaints confidentially, investigate facts, and report on necessary corrective action for the USOC, NGBs, and other actors within the Olympic and 

Paralympic movement, such as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport. The role of this authority would be like that of an Office of 

Inspector General that would oversee a Federal or state agency. While the Inspector 

General would communicate with the USOC, ideally the position would report to the 

Senate Commerce Committee and the AAC, rather than directly to the USOC. Most 

of the same qualifications, authorities, and responsibilities outlined in the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 and subsequent amendments in 2008 should also apply to this 

new office. Congress may wish to further examine some of the key questions regarding who appoints the Inspector General, what authorities are given to this position, 

and the reporting mechanisms for the position. One potential model, for example, 

would have the Inspector General appointed and removed by the Chair of a separate 

Senate committee, most likely the Senate Judiciary Committee, and require the Inspector General to report on its operations to the Senate Commerce Committee on 

an annual basis. I would be happy to have follow-up conversations with appropriate 

members and staff to discuss these specifics. 

The benefits of the establishment of an Inspector General’s Office would include, 

but not be limited to: 

• Preserving the anonymity of athletes raising legitimate concerns about their 

NGBs and the USOC; thereby providing protection for whistleblowers; 

• Allowing for the investigation of other issues that arise outside the protections 

afforded by the Sports Act; 

• Assisting in proactively identifying issues within NGBs and the USOC, including possible corrective actions; 

• Contributing to more routine and proactive oversight of the USOC and the entire Olympic and Paralympic system; 

• Improving the athletes’ and the American public’s trust in USOC and NGB governance; 

• Reducing legal costs for all parties due to the reduction in necessary Section 10 

hearings and their binding arbitrations when the Inspector General intervenes. 

I will reiterate some of these same themes in other observations and recommendations below, which further highlights the potential advantages of establishing this 

office. 

37 

3 In ‘‘right to compete’’ grievances, the athlete is typically arguing that the NGB did not properly comply with their own Team USA selection criteria, or that the NGB unfairly imposed a 

discipline on them. 4See attached memo from The Committee to Restore Integrity to the USOC, on the Sports 

Act and USOC Bylaws that provide the USOC with the authority to audit and oversee NGBs, 

submitted March 12, 2018. 

4. Instituting Professional Athlete Advocacy; The Athlete Advocate 

The growth and professionalization of Olympic and Paralympic sports has caused 

a shortage of athlete advocacy services. These services are needed for many reasons. 

First, in many types of grievances, such as the right to compete 3 or suspected 

doping violations, the athlete may need legal advice before deciding upon a course 

of action. Currently the Athlete Ombudsman’s Office only advises athletes of their 

rights, informs athletes of available resources, and provides mediation services; the 

Athlete Ombudsman is not able to represent an athlete, or advocate for the athlete 

in a dispute. In addition, resolving these disputes are expensive; as stated earlier, 

there is no attorney’s fee provision in the Sports Act. Considering the time, effort 

and expense of pursuing the rights granted to them by Congress, athletes may decide against pursuing their case altogether. To truly protect athletes’ rights, Congress should fill the current void of competent and affordable athlete advocacy. 

Currently, the AAC is the primary body actively advocating for athletes’ rights. 

The AAC is structurally limited; it can only effectively address policy and governance issues and has no authorities beyond its ability to nominate representatives 

to various boards and serving as a communication channel. In addition, the AAC 

is comprised solely of volunteers, whereas USOC and NGB staff members are fulltime employees. In general, the AAC is better suited to providing feedback for policy 

proposals and procedures and advocating for athlete interests’ at a high level; it is 

not the resource to advocate for the rights of individual athletes or to provide legal 

advice to athletes. 

To address many of these concerns, Congress should establish a new position, an 

Athlete Advocate. The Athlete Advocate’s role would be to provide confidential legal 

advice to athletes and actively advocate for their rights and interests on a full-time 

basis. In certain cases, especially those that impact many athletes or those that 

have the potential to set important precedent in the Olympic movement, the Athlete 

Advocate’s office could choose to directly represent the athletes involved, or to assist 

the athletes in hiring competent representation. For cases that exceed the capacity 

of the office, the Athlete Advocate could provide preliminary legal advice, recommend competent representation, have a budget for outside legal counsel, and follow up after the case is adjudicated. In addition to directly representing athletes, 

the Athlete Advocate would work with other athlete representatives in the movement to raise observed issues with the USOC, NGBs, and other organizations and 

advocate for athletes’ rights; to give the 20,000 foot view of athlete-issues. 

There are several funding and reporting models that could potentially work for 

the Athlete Advocate’s office. However, for the office to be effective, it must be able 

to maintain attorney-client privilege when working with athletes. In addition, the 

Athlete Advocate position must come with enough autonomy from the USOC and 

the NGBs so that athletes can trust that the Athlete Advocate will always put their 

best interests first in any situation. The Athlete Advocate cannot be beholden to the 

USOC CEO or an NGB. As with the Inspector General’s office, Congress may wish 

to further examine questions regarding who appoints the Athlete Advocate, what 

authorities are granted to this position, and the reporting mechanisms for the position. A potential structure here would be authorizing the AAC to appoint and/or remove the Athlete Advocate directly with the approval of the Senate Commerce Committee. 

5. Improving NGB Oversight for Sports Act Compliance 

Congress has given the USOC the power to investigate and adjudicate noncompliance complaints and influence NGBs to comply with the requirements of the Sports 

Act.4 Historically, USOC staff took the approach that the NGBs were independent 

organizations and that the USOC had limited leverage to affect their behavior, the 

main levers being reduction in funding, probationary status, and decertification. 

Their argument in support of their ‘‘hands off’’ approach was that any of these behaviors had the potential to hurt athletes and impact athlete support. 

In fact, the USOC can and must hold NGBs accountable while continuing to directly support elite athletes in cases of noncompliance. We have seen this in practice; recently the USOC flexed its muscle as the parent organization, when the 

USOC demanded the resignation of the CEO of USA Gymnastics, as well as its 

38 

Board of Directors, as the depth of Dr. Larry Nassar’s sexual abuse became known, 

including the NGB’s failures to protect some of the country’s best gymnasts. 

Congress should leave no doubt that the USOC must proactively provide NGB 

oversight and serve as the main point of adjudication for NGB compliance with the 

Sports Act. This can be done by giving the USOC the tools and authority to provide 

NGB oversight as the Sports Act currently does, and probably more importantly, 

also holding the USOC responsible within the Sports Act for continuing to recognize 

NGBs that are not appropriate fulfilling their requirements under the law or are 

failing to protect and support athletes. 

USOC oversight of NGBs should be focused on organizational governance as well 

as functions critical to athletes’ interests, such as more objective team selection criteria, ethical codes of conduct for coaches and staff, and conflict of interest policies. 

In addition to responding to Section 9 and Section 10 complaints, the USOC should 

periodically audit each NGB and follow up on recommendations from institutions 

such as the Athlete Ombudsman’s Office as well as the Inspector General and Athlete Advocate, as they are established. Providing effective NGB oversight and enforcing best practices in many of these key areas will contribute to better support 

for athletes, more fairness in team selection, fair athlete funding, and fewer situations where athletes are placed in vulnerable situations without recourse. In turn, 

this will cultivate trust between the athlete body and the entire USOC family. 

It is also important to note the special importance of the Inspector General in this 

initiative if Congress were to establish that office. As mentioned previously, the Inspector General would contribute substantially to improving the oversight of NGB 

operations, especially in areas where systemic issues arise. The ability for the Inspector General to identify threats and weaknesses in the system would allow the 

USOC to hear what the problems are and where additional audits and corrective 

actions should be focused. The Inspector General would also be able to ensure that 

the USOC is fulfilling its mandate to provide NGB oversight and allow Congress 

to hold the USOC accountable if it is not performing this function in a satisfactory 

manner through its routine reporting on USOC and NGB issues. 

6. Consistently Defining Paralympic Governance and Management 

Paralympic athletes currently are governed and managed in a variety of different 

ways; there is very little consistency in approach. Some Para sports and disciplines 

are fully integrated into an NGB structure. Other Para sports are only managed by 

an NGB but do not have defined Para governance. Still other Para sports are managed completely by non-NGB entities. Yet another group of Para sports are operated 

and governed by the U.S. Paralympics. Depending on the sport, Para athletes may 

or may not have defined representation within the governance of the sport. This inconsistency makes it particularly difficult for Para athletes to know how or if they 

are being represented and heard within their respective sports. 

In addition, it can be extremely difficult for the same representatives who represent able-bodied athletes to represent the interests of Para athletes, not only because of differences between sporting disciplines, but also because the Paralympics 

are a maturing brand with unique characteristics compared to the Olympic Games. 

In short, Para athletes have a very different set of challenges and often have significantly different priorities than their Olympian counterparts. In boardrooms where 

Paralympic interests are integrated with those of the rest of the organization, there 

is often little to no voice advocating for the interests of Para athletes on a routine 

basis. In others, where there happen to be one or more board members who are 

aware of Para athlete priorities, the question ‘‘But what about Para athletes?’’ can 

often be heard after discussion of key topics affecting athletes. 

It is my opinion that Congress should begin working with stakeholders and Para 

athletes to determine the course of action that is in the best interest of Para athletes moving forward. A possible approach would be to more clearly define the responsibilities and governance requirements of the existing Paralympic sport organizations (PSO) as defined in the Sports Act. There is currently no requirement for 

these organizations to provide any sort of board or oversight committee to govern 

the management operations of each of these programs, which should be a requirement of each PSO. NGBs that have integrated Para athletes under their governance 

should work collaboratively to determine how best to ensure that Para athletes can 

be adequately represented within those sport governance structures. 

In general, we must have a clear and consistent approach to the governance and 

management of Para athletes moving forward so that the system serves their needs, 

especially as the Paralympics continue to grow in profile. 

39 

5See section 2 and 3 for a more thorough discussion of structural changes to the Sports Act. 

7. Routine Oversight of the Olympic and Paralympic System 

Since the last amendment to the Sports Act in 1998, we have seen increasing 

professionalization of Olympic and Paralympic sports, as significantly more funds 

move into the system. In the past decade, we have also seen several obstacles, including the sexual abuse scandals, and bloated executive compensation and bureaucracy. Several systemic concerns must be addressed.5 As these concerns grow, adjusting the governance system to correct systemic flaws becomes more complex and difficult. The USOC suffers from organizational inertia, primarily due to its size, and 

its monopoly-status, as granted by Congress. The Olympic and Paralympic system 

are uniquely immune from market pressures. While this inertia may have provided 

stability at one time, it has also proven to slow the organization’s response to both 

current and potential threats and weaknesses within the movement. 

The Olympic and Paralympic movement need more routine oversight, as well as 

consistent evaluations of systemic and governance flaws that must be corrected. The 

Inspector General’s office would provide to more independent oversight, but routine 

USOC Board oversight would also allow the USOC to react more swiftly to situations and more readily question policies, procedures, and behaviors that seem problematic or suboptimal. I recommend one of two potential solutions: the first would 

be for Congress to establish an oversight committee in the same model as the U.S. 

Service Academies. An independent USOC Oversight Committee should consist of 

well-respected non-profit or civic leaders with the requisite expertise to evaluate the 

business practices of the USOC, provide recommendations to the USOC Board of Directors, and report directly back to Congress periodically. Alternatively, Congress 

could appoint several members of the USOC Board of Directors in a bi-partisan 

manner. Both models would provide more outside perspective to the USOC’s governance structure without significantly impacting the stability of the organization. 

Ideally, the reports from Congressional appointees overseeing the USOC would be 

combined with reports from the Inspector General’s office, reports from the USOC 

CEO, and information from other stakeholders to provide a balanced view of the 

current health of the Olympic and Paralympic ecosystem in the U.S. as well as the 

crucial issues facing the movement. Congress would be able to use this information 

to more iteratively and accurately amend the Sports Act when necessary. 

8. Establishing a truly Athlete-First culture within the USOC 

To fully protect and empower athletes within the Olympic and Paralympic system, 

there must be a shift to a truly ‘‘athlete-first’’ culture throughout the movement. Although many staff members are inspired by Team USA athletes and provide excellent service and support, there are examples of employees, policies, procedures, and 

behaviors that would suggest the USOC does not have a culture of doing whatever 

it takes to maximize athlete support and protection. These examples include: 

• The USOC’s lack of urgency protecting athletes’ safety and well-being: the USOC 

response to athlete sexual abuse has been delayed. Only under hell-hot temperatures from the public, media and you, the Congress, has the USOC sped 

up its response. As mentioned previously, SafeSport training within each sport 

is too often ineffective, inconsistent and seen as a formality and a box to check. 

Fewer than half of the NGBs have easily accessible online disciplinary records 

listing any suspended and banned members. In another well-documented issue 

involving athlete well-being, post-Games depression, the Athlete Career and 

Education Program provides some resources to some athletes, but the issue does 

not seem to be a demonstrable priority for the USOC and the NGBs. 

• The movement’s excessive and wasteful spending: I was elected to serve as one 

of two athlete services coordinators providing services to Team USA for the 

2016 Rio Olympics. Several months before the Games, we participated in an exercise called the ‘‘high-performance strategy meeting.’’ Around 70 staff members 

from the USOC and various NGBs flew to Rio de Janeiro to participate in this 

multi-day meeting, which included venue visits, high performance training site 

visits, and several strategy sessions to plan for both success and adversity at 

the Games. The trip was fun and it added some value, but I am skeptical that 

so many people needed to travel to Brazil to participate. Most athletes who hear 

the story agree, and some athletes have recounted similar excessive travel by 

their NGB staff, especially around international competitions and preparation 

for major international competitions. This leads the athletes to question the fiscal decisions and expense policies of the USOC and NGBs, asking whether the 

USOC assets are truly are being managed and controlled appropriately. As deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
40 

scribed earlier, there is no remedy in the Sports Act for athletes to challenge 

wasteful spending. 

• The USOC underutilizes many resources: By my understanding, the Olympic 

Training Center in Colorado Springs has seen a substantial reduction in residency programs over the past few decades. I have been told that there are currently just over 100 resident athletes and coaches, even though the training 

center has a capacity of 500. With the facilities, staff, and infrastructure already in place, the marginal cost of adding additional resident athletes is minimal compared to the cost the same athletes would bear on the open market to 

secure food, shelter, and appropriate training conditions. There are elite, Olympic and Paralympic level athletes that would greatly benefit from these training 

facilities and support services. Although some of the unused capacity of the Colorado Springs training center is rented out to campers and foreign teams to 

generate additional revenue, by all accounts the training center is nowhere near 

capacity in terms of its operation, even with these other users. Unless the 

USOC plans to hand off ownership and management of the Colorado Springs 

training center as it did with its Chula Vista, California training center, increasing the center’s utilization with high-performance athletes in the development pipelines of various sports would certainly indicate a greater commitment 

to athlete support. 

• The USOC rewards staff with medal bonuses: In 2016, several athletes discovered that staff members were delighted to be receiving high medal bonuses due 

to the excellent performances of our athletes at the Rio Olympics and 

Paralympics. I was told by a staff member that part of their compensation included bonuses based on whether Team USA reached certain medal counts during the Games. Naturally, the athletes found this extremely troublesome and 

some of us questioned this practice. The explanation we were given was that 

staff were more responsive to athletes’ needs if they had at-risk compensation 

based on athlete performance. This is problematic on several levels, not least 

because one would think that supporting athletes should already be the primary 

motivation of USOC employees. 

• Imbalance of power between USOC/NGB staff and athletes: Athletes report to 

me they are put into inherently vulnerable situations and feel that they have 

little or no recourse. This is especially true for those in sports with subjective 

team selection criteria, where the coaches and administrators hold even more 

power over an athlete’s future. In some sports, coaches and other staff members 

have absolute power over athletes by completely controlling both team selection 

and funding decisions, with minimal checks over this unconditional authority. 

This has led to situations where athletes feel they must sacrifice their own 

physical and mental well-being to comply with the wishes of NGB staff. The 

athlete must be hyper-obedient and compliant to have the opportunity to succeed athletically. This can even be an issue if the athletes are successful and 

winning medals, since the NGB often credits the staff members overseeing the 

program with the success of the program, rather than the hard work and sacrifice of the athlete. In some extreme cases, staff members see athletes as expendable pieces that can be easily replaced. One athlete representative mentioned overhearing a staff member saying that athletes come and go, but the 

staff and administrators are always there. Under these conditions, it should be 

no surprise that our athletes cannot report abuse. 

• NGBs that intentionally circumvent athlete representatives: In the past five 

years, several AAC representatives have reported that their NGBs attempted 

to circumvent their authority using a variety of tactics. These have included, 

but are not limited to: 

» Using appointed rather than elected athlete representatives to sign documents; 

» Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on file to sign documents; 

» Giving an AAC representative a document with very little time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature; and 

» Circumventing athlete representation by scheduling meetings such that competing athlete representatives cannot attend, or unilaterally removing what 

the NGB perceives to be a problematic athlete representative. 

Issues have included team selection criteria and funding decisions, among others, 

which are vital athletes’ rights issues. 

41 

These are just a few reasons why the culture within the Olympic movement is 

not an athlete-first culture. Although there are staff members that do want to support athletes, it does not appear that the system is prioritizing the support of athletes above all other concerns. The recommendations that have appeared in this testimony should contribute to changing this organizational culture through effective 

and more routine oversight. 

In addition to those initiatives, some adjustments can be made to further 

strengthen athletes’ voices within the USOC and NGBs. For example, the 20 percent athlete representation rule within the Sports Act should be revisited. The statute should specify that athlete representation within USOC and NGB boards, committees, and entities should be elected by athletes, just as AAC representatives 

must be elected by athletes. In addition to the Athlete Advocate, Congress should 

also strengthen the athlete voice in the Olympic movement by extending the eligibility requirements for an athlete representative. Currently under the Sports Act, 

elite athletes are eligible for up to ten years after their last qualifying international 

competition. Although this requirement ensures that these athletes have more recent experience competing internationally, older retired athletes can receive relevant current information from currently competing athletes while bringing more 

professional experience, stability, and time to the position. Extending the eligibility 

requirement has the potential to greatly strengthen athlete advocacy within the 

movement and bring more engaged athlete voices into critical discussions and decision making processes. 

9. Conclusion 

The sexual abuses that have emerged within Olympic and Paralympic sport are 

a tragedy that has shed light on the movement’s cultural deficiencies. Athletes have 

minimal power to report injustices, especially while they are competing, due to governance design flaws. More resources must be made available to support a properly 

running U.S. Center for SafeSport, to address the unprecedented avalanche of sexual abuse reports, and to assure that these cases can be handled properly. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Center for SafeSport itself is not enough to combat the 

systemic issues that I see within our system. The Olympic movement is inherently 

reactive, and athlete-whistleblowers still have far too little recourse. Congress can 

give a voice to those who have legitimate concerns about how our sport organizations are governed and operated. Congress must create an independent Inspector 

General position, as well as an Athlete Advocate, in order to protect our athletes 

by shifting power. 

Even after the Nassar victims have spoken up so bravely, and so eloquently, it 

is still too difficult for individuals who are passionate about improving the USOC 

family to have their opinions heard and heeded. I’m therefore asking you, as the 

Chair of the AAC, and as the leader of Team USA athletes, to amend the Amateur 

Sports Act so that the USOC can become a model non-profit organization in service 

to our athletes and so that the Olympic and Paralympic system can protect the interests of Team USA athletes long into the future. 

I appreciate this Committee’s continued efforts to provide oversight, and I thank 

you for considering the perspectives of American athletes in that process. 

I am happy to respond to any questions members of the Committee may have. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Xiao, thank you very much. 

I think your testimony was very valuable to me. You and I’ve not 

met. I’ve not had a conversation. I didn’t know what you were 

going to say till I read your testimony, and I find it valuable and 

useful and a good admonition that it’s not a path we want to go 

down again. We need to solve the problems today. Thank you for 

being here. 

Let me start with Ms. Lyons. Congress gave the Olympic Committee, the NGBs, and the U.S. Center for Safe Sport immunity 

from defamation lawsuits unless a witness or entity speaks or acts 

with malice. 

Congress clearly wants Safe Sport to be able to publish the 

names of banned members who abuse children and I believe if athletes and parents are to know they are safe, the knowledge of who 

has been banned is absolutely essential. 

42 

When will USOC require that all NGBs make the list of their 

banned members public? 

Ms. LYONS. We also agree that one of the most powerful things 

that we can do is get the names of people who are banned and suspended in the public domain for parents, for potential employers, 

for anyone who works with the athlete community. 

The Center for Safe Sport is beginning serious work on this. 

They already have a searchable database for the cases that they 

personally have adjudicated. 

One of the things that I mentioned in my opening statement, and 

perhaps there’s misunderstanding about this, is the NGBs do not 

believe that they have that same limited liability that would protect them if they make their names public and that’s causing a bit 

of a roadblock at the moment. 

So I think we need to investigate is that true and perhaps Congress can assist by ensuring that the NGBs feel that they do have 

that liability protection, as well. They are, in general, very, very 

willing to make this information public and transparent and 

they’re working right now with us and with the Center to figure 

out how the data base systems will work to allow us all too 

seamlessly share that information, but that is a stumbling block 

we’d like to overcome. 

Senator MORAN. So today, the database only includes at U.S. 

Safe Sport those individuals that are involved in cases that have 

been referred to U.S. Safe Sport since its creation? 

Ms. LYONS. That’s correct. What we also have that the Center is 

publishing on a bi-weekly basis is what they’re calling an adjudication log. That’s actually a written log of all of the banned and suspended individuals that the NGBs have reported. We know who 

they are and that’s being updated every 2 weeks but it’s not yet 

public. 

Senator MORAN. So there is a list of banned coaches and employees? 

Ms. LYONS. Correct. 

Senator MORAN. And who knows about that list? 

Ms. LYONS. At the moment, that’s an internal list between the 

NGBs and the Center for Safe Sport, but the system that we’re 

hoping to develop would allow that to become public. 

Senator MORAN. Would there still be coaches who are on that 

banned list who are coaching or employees who are still employed? 

Ms. LYONS. Well, there certainly should not be and I think we 

just discovered just in the past few days that there are still some 

weaknesses in the communication system that, when someone is 

banned, not only does that individual need to be notified immediately but anywhere where they are currently employed that we 

could possibly be aware of also needs to be simultaneously advised. 

We’ve discovered that there has been some lag in timing in that 

system and that needs to be closed, close that loop. 

Senator MORAN. So the point you are making is that if someone 

is banned, only the banned person, the coach or employee, gets notified, not simultaneously is the employer notified? 

Ms. LYONS. The employer should be notified simultaneously. I 

read an article, and I don’t know if this is factual, that the employer of one of those individuals did not receive notification until 

43 

a few days later and that individual was still coaching in that interim period. 

Senator MORAN. To your knowledge, what FBI checks have been 

run on current coaches or employees? 

Ms. LYONS. Current—— 

Senator MORAN. Current process by which someone is investigated by the FBI. 

Ms. LYONS. Well, we have background checks. All of these individuals go through standardized background checks and we have a 

standard list of things that needed to be checked. I’m not entirely 

sure if the FBI is a part of that background check. 

Senator MORAN. And when you say all these folks, does that 

mean every coach? I don’t know what the category would be of 

what type of employees but all NGBs? 

Ms. LYONS. For all NGBs, anyone who is authorized to have contact with athletes. It could be medical staff, it could be coaches, or 

it could be trainers. They are all required every 2 years to undergo 

a background check. 

Senator MORAN. Has there been any anonymous inquiries requesting anonymous information from athletes in which they can 

provide information about experiences they’ve had that are inappropriate? 

Ms. LYONS. I’m sorry. Could you rephrase your question? 

Senator MORAN. Has the athletes involved in the U.S. Olympics 

been—has there been an inquiry by which they can anonymously 

respond about any experiences they’ve had that would reflect sexual abuse or other bad behavior? 

Ms. LYONS. Right. Within the USOC and adjacent to the AAC, 

there’s an Athlete Ombudsman who has a strong relationship with 

the AAC. Any information that’s provided to them is confidential. 

It does not have to be shared with the USOC as an entity, and an 

athlete has the opportunity to reach out to the Ombudsman and 

make known to them any information they have. 

If that information involves sexual abuse, the Ombudsman is required by law to report that to the Center immediately. 

Senator MORAN. The questions I just asked you about banning 

coaches, investigations, background checks, and anonymous ability 

to report something to an ombudsman, when did that come into existence? 

Ms. LYONS. Well, the Ombudsman has been in existence for quite 

a long time. It has been—— 

Senator MORAN. Including the times in which Nassar was doing 

the things he was doing? 

Ms. LYONS. Yes. One of the issues that I think we need to all 

work on is education amongst the athlete population to even know 

that there is an Ombudsman. We recently did some research that 

showed that many athletes are unaware of that position, not necessarily sure how to reach out to them. 

Similarly, they need to know how to reach out to the Center. 

Senator MORAN. Ms. Perry, at our last hearing, Rhonda Faehn 

testified that Amy White, an employee of USA Gymnastics, was directed by Steve Penny, her boss, to go to the Karolyi Ranch and 

to take documents from the National Training Center back to 

44 

USAG Headquarters in Indianapolis. Have you seen those documents? 

Ms. PERRY. Thank you, Senator Moran. So what I know is that 

instruction, it was told to me that that instruction was given to Ms. 

White and that Ms. White came back to the office with a suitcase 

and some boxes. Where those documents went from there, I don’t 

know. 

I was also told that there was not a sort of logging-in, if you will, 

of those documents in the organization, but those documents were 

given to the CEO. Steve Penny. 

Senator MORAN. Do you know that those documents were given 

to Mr. Penny? 

Ms. PERRY. Of course, I wasn’t there, Senator Moran, but that’s 

what I was told. 

Senator MORAN. And we’ve made inquiry of USA Gymnastics, so 

an extensive request for documents. Those documents have not 

been provided. 

Ms. PERRY. I know we’ve produced close to a million documents 

in production. So those documents could be in there, they may not 

be, but I don’t know. I don’t know where those documents are. 

Steve Penny would know where those documents are. 

Senator MORAN. There would be no chance that those documents 

exist within your custody at USA Gymnastics, unless they were 

provided to us, unless they’re included in the list that—the million 

documents that you provided us. 

Ms. PERRY. Right. 

Senator MORAN. Otherwise, you can assure me that they don’t 

exist within your custody? 

Ms. PERRY. To my knowledge, they do not exist in our custody. 

Senator MORAN. OK. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Engler, are you familiar with Kaylee Lorincz? 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. She’s here today, and she remembers a 

conversation with you in which you said, and I’m quoting her, ‘‘Mr. 

Engler then looked directly at me and asked ’’right now if I wrote 

you a check for $250,000, would you take it? When I explained that 

it’s not about the money for me and that I just want to help, he 

said, ‘‘Well, give me a number.’’ That’s accurate, correct? 

Mr. ENGLER. No, sir, it is not. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, you offered her money, did you not? 

Mr. ENGLER. No, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You never spoke to her about money? 

Mr. ENGLER. No, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you meet with her absent her attorney? 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes, at her request and her mother’s request. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And there was no discussion of money at 

that meeting? 

Mr. ENGLER. There was not any discussion of any settlement. 

She is not part of the settlement that has been reached—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Was there in another meeting discussion 

about paying her individually—— 

Mr. ENGLER. There was—— 

45 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—in connection with her silence? 

Mr. ENGLER. No. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you, Ms. Lyons. You know, 

I’ve listened to your apologies and I would have found them more 

credible if today were Thursday before the filing of an Answer by 

your organization in court. That Answer in effect disclaimed any 

and all responsibility. 

Did you authorize the filing of that Answer? 

Ms. LYONS. I did, and—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And are you aware that in effect it denies 

that USOC had any responsibility for Larry Nassar? 

Ms. LYONS. That is not our intent. I’ve publicly stated and I will 

state again that we believe we do have responsibility and accountability, along with the rest of the movement, in failing these athletes. 

The questions in the Motion to Dismiss are a different set of 

questions about the legal liabilities and our relationship with Larry 

Nassar is different than the relationship—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, the contention in your—excuse me 

for interrupting, but my time is limited. 

In those court papers, your organization stated that there was no 

legal grounds to sue because Nassar never worked for the Federation nor were his crimes foreseeable. In other words, you couldn’t 

anticipate, couldn’t expect or suspect any crimes by him. Is that the 

position of your organization? 

Ms. LYONS. Yes, and I’m not a lawyer. That is a legal term, 

whether something can be foreseeable, and I think that the courts 

will have to determine if we have legal liability. We certainly have 

social and ethical liability. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, in effect, you have said you have no 

reason—the Plaintiffs have no reason to hold you accountable in a 

court of law. That’s correct, right? 

Ms. LYONS. That’s correct, from a legal perspective and the court 

can determine if that’s true. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So, in effect, you’ve washed your hands of 

it? 

Ms. LYONS. I’m sorry if it would appear that that’s the impression you’ve gotten. That is certainly not our intent. We are actively 

engaged in everything we can do to help keep athletes safe. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Except being part of the legal process that 

will impose any sort of court orders, impose any kind of accountability or responsibility. 

Ms. LYONS. I think the court will determine if we need to be part 

of those proceedings and if they determine we should be, we absolutely will be. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you, Ms. Perry, because your 

organization filed a similar filing and I think in your case, it was 

a Motion to Dismiss and that was on behalf of the new USA Gymnastics. 

You said in one of the parts of that Motion to Dismiss when the 

issue was whether Nassar was a certified athletic trainer, osteopathic physician, national medical director, and national team physician, the response was denied, is that correct? 

46 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, I am not sure what Motion to 

Dismiss you’re referring to or the timing of that or the timing of 

that statement. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, it may have been an Answer. I’m 

not sure whether it was an Answer or a Motion to Dismiss, but in 

either event, you denied that contention, correct? 

Ms. PERRY. I don’t—I’m not familiar with that. If there’s a document that I can look at, I’m happy to read that and provide answers to you. 

I do know, Senator Blumenthal,—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, then, let me ask you a different way. 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Isn’t it true that he was a certified athletic trainer, osteopathic physician, national medical director, and 

national team physician? 

Ms. PERRY. I don’t know all of his designations, but I will 

say—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But he worked there, correct? 

Ms. PERRY. Yes, he was a volunteer and he had—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, when you say he was a volunteer, he 

was compensated, correct? 

Ms. PERRY. He was compensated for—from what I’ve been told, 

he was compensated for expenses and travel and things like that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And he received fringe benefits? 

Ms. PERRY. I don’t know what fringe benefits that would have 

been but—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And he received the stature and prestige 

of being announced as, and I’m quoting, ‘‘part of the USA Gymnastics Medical Task Force to provide leadership and oversight of 

USA Gymnastics practices, procedures, and protocols.’’ 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, that was before my time, that 

designation, but here’s what I think is important is that from day 

one when I came onboard, I made it very publicly known that this 

organization is going to be making every attempt we can to resolve 

this situation. 

The survivors are the most important thing and the reason that 

I took this job is because their voices and their courage moved me 

so much. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’m out of time. 

Ms. PERRY. But I—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I accept your words. 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But just last Friday, you filed this Answer 

that strikes me as a blatant falsehood. 

Ms. PERRY. I’m not familiar with that action, Senator 

Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you authorize it? 

Ms. PERRY. I’m not familiar with that. I would like to see that 

and be able to answer your question. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well,—— 

Ms. PERRY. A Motion to Dismiss? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—are you here with counsel today? 

Ms. PERRY. I am. 

47 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would suggest that maybe your counsel 

should show it to you because you’re testifying here and both you 

and Ms. Lyons are responsible for those filings in court, not just 

for the legal position but the factual assertions, and I hope that 

you’ll review them before you leave here. 

Ms. PERRY. I will. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, Mr. Engler, I am not sure how to follow up on your denial of any conversation with Ms. Kaylee Lorincz, 

but I’m going to do so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Peters. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 

Thank you again for this hearing, putting together this hearing. 

You know, this morning, I had an opportunity to hear directly 

from a number of very courageous survivors and many of them are 

here in the audience for this hearing right now. 

Mr. Engler, in talking to them, they feel very strongly that you 

have not listened to them, that if you have listened to them, you 

certainly haven’t heard what they have to say and the concerns 

that they’ve expressed, and today as their Senator, I want to amplify their voices and ask some of the questions that they raised. 

First off, the Detroit News has reported that in the past 20 

years, 20 years, at least 14 people, most of whom are or were MSU 

employees, were notified of Nassar’s behavior. 

So in the interest of time, I’m just going to ask some yes or no 

questions. If you’d answer yes or no, I’d appreciate it. 

First, yes or no, have you subjected any of these individuals to 

any disciplinary action? 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes, the immediate action that I took with regard 

to Dean Strampel was an indication of my assessment that his 

leadership as the Dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine fell 

far short of appropriate performance standards. 

Senator PETERS. So you have one—just in time, you have one individual you took the disciplinary action, Mr. Strampel? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think all of these happened—I arrived in 

February of 2018. 

Senator PETERS. So, no, you haven’t. That’s fine. So, no, no is the 

answer. Mr. Strampel, I understand you called in in February for 

revocation of his tenure—— 

Mr. ENGLER. That’s correct. 

Senator PETERS.—but that did not happen. He is actually allowed to retire according—— 

Mr. ENGLER. No. His tenure—that’s correct. His retirement has 

separated him from the university and so he is no longer connected 

in any way with the university. 

Senator PETERS. Right. So he was allowed to retire and he received a $175,000, as well, as part of the severance, I understand. 

Mr. ENGLER. That was the settlement that we judged as more in 

the interests of the university and the survivors to have him gone 

and separated versus a tenure proceeding which administrative 

48 

procedures could run more than a year and cost much more than 

a $175,000. 

Senator PETERS. Right. So that was that situation. Yes or no, beyond Nassar and Strampel, so none—no other person has been 

fired? 

Mr. ENGLER. And there is an ongoing investigation, I would remind the Senator, by the Attorney General of the State of Michigan 

at the request of the Board of Trustees to see if anyone else should 

be subject to sanctions. 

Senator PETERS. So all these individuals will be interviewed? 

Mr. ENGLER. I believe they have been. 

Senator PETERS. And that’s done by the Attorney General’s Office? 

Mr. ENGLER. That is correct. 

Senator PETERS. Yes or no, do you believe that there was a culture of enabling and covering up the actions of a predator over 20 

years at MSU? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I wasn’t there until February of 2018, but 

when I arrived, I felt that there were weaknesses in procedures 

and protocols. I felt that the shared governance model at the university didn’t lead to specific accountability and so I thought those 

weaknesses—— 

Senator PETERS. So there were problems? I need to keep moving, 

if I could, President. 

Mr. ENGLER. OK. But I will try to—if I can answer the questions. 

Senator PETERS. Well, that was a yes or no and if you were not 

there, you think, yes, there were some issues, you will answer. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, there are issues for sure. 

Senator PETERS. So you answered it yes. Do you believe there’s 

a job as to instill trust? 

Mr. ENGLER. Oh, absolutely. I think trust and trust is done by 

accountability and people accepting responsibility for their roles, be 

that as someone in charge of compliance in a medical school or 

someone in charge of, you know, assuring that an investigation is 

done properly in a department. 

Senator PETERS. And I appreciate that. In addition to making 

sure there’s accountability, it’s also the people you put in place to 

instill trust. One thing that the survivors feel very strongly about 

and I think many of us believe is true is that you should bring outside perspective into leadership. Fresh eyes are very important. 

Having national searches to bring in folks who are going to bring 

a different view on how things are happening at Michigan State is 

important. We have seen—you have pledged or you pledged to do 

that for your athletic director, have a national search. That didn’t 

happen. You hired somebody from within the university. 

You also hired the Head of the Office for Civil Rights and Title 

IX, someone who is actually assigned to defend Michigan State 

University against sexual assault lawsuits as opposed to being 

someone traditionally in many universities, someone who works 

with diversity and working with students, is really a defender and 

a champion for students, as opposed to the university. 

So I think for what came out very clear to me is, in addition to 

some of your hiring decisions that I mentioned briefly, your lack of 

empathy and respect of survivors, especially for Kaylee Lorincz, 

49 

which I think Senator Blumenthal in your remaining time are 

going to ask more questions about that. 

We also have a situation with Rachael Denhollander, who you accused of receiving kickbacks for manipulating other survivors. 

Are you willing to apologize to her? 

Mr. ENGLER. Oh, I’ve already done so. 

Senator PETERS. Have you done that publicly verbally? 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes, I have. 

Senator PETERS. So, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter into the 

record a letter signed by over a 120 survivors written to members 

of the MSU Board of Trustees into the Committee record, if I may. 

Senator MORAN. Without objection. 

[The letter referred to follows:] 

A JOINT STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT JOHN ENGLER AND SELECT MEMBERS OF THE

MSU BOARD OF TRUSTEES

We, the Sister Survivors of Larry Nassar’s horrific sexual abuse, stand together 

against the recent character attacks made towards us and derogatory statements 

aimed at all survivors of sexual abuse by Michigan State University President John 

Engler. While our hope had been that President Engler would bring accountability, 

transparency, and change to MSU, it is clear to us that he cannot. 

We recognize that the greatest measure of an abusive culture is how survivors 

are viewed, and whether perpetrators and enablers will be held accountable and the 

environment in which they thrive remediated. On all these metrics, President 

Engler has only reinforced the culture of abuse at MSU. Our deepest concern is the 

impact his statements and behavior will have on survivors who are still living in 

silence, and in creating an unsafe environment on campus by communicating a demeaning and derogatory attitude towards survivors of abuse who still seek the confidence to speak up. This is not leadership. President Engler’s statements and behavior are subtle threats against anyone who dares to speak up against their abuser 

and the environment that enabled their predatory conduct, lest they be ridiculed, 

lied about, and shamelessly mocked by a person of immense power. 

President Engler’s abhorrent behavior—including gaveling down a survivor who 

only wanted him to listen and belligerently abrasive statements unmasking a survivor who only sought the comforts of confidentiality—has sent a chilling message 

across MSU’s campus, causing damage that cannot be repaired until he is gone. 

The most recent public disclosure of e-mails only further reveals the damaging 

minds he has towards sexual abuse survivors who come forward. President Engler 

clearly views sexual abuse survivors as either manipulators out to use people for 

personal gain (having the same minds as our abuser), or as themselves manipulated 

into being used by someone for personal gain (victims yet again). 

To President Engler, board members who support him, and other leaders at MSU 

who agree with his position, we say ‘‘no’’. We have not become like our abuser-manipulating for self-gain. We chose to speak up at great personal cost because it was 

right. Because we care about those still silenced. Because we stand to protect those 

who are still at risk. Future and c1ment survivors who have not yet spoken up need 

to know that they will not be attacked and assigned the same motivations as their 

abuser when they demand justice. 

And we are not being revictimized, manipulated for the benefit of someone else. 

We chose this fight. We chose to speak up because it was clear that no one at MSU 

would. We chose to speak up because it was the right thing to do. Future and current survivors who deserve justice should know they can raise their voice without 

being characterized as pawns too foolish to know they are manipulated. 

We have made our motivations clear at every turn: we never want there to be 

another survivor of sexual abuse on MSUs campus who fears to speak up against 

their abuser and whose cries go unheard by its adminislration. The environment 

which will allow this dream to become a reality requires leadership whose statements and behavior engenders trust and models exemplary conduct—not leaders 

who destroy trust and set a bad example. In his e-mails, President Engler suggested 

a debate on who is doing more for survivors. We are here to tell you that all the 

organizational changes and policy and procedure enhancements in the world mean 

nothing if there is not leadership that creates an environment where survivors feel 

safe to speak up. 

50 

On the point, there is no debate: President Engler has failed miserably. President 

Engler and leaders at MSU have refused to listen. They persist in attacking our 

character, our integrity and our intelligence. These attacks send a clear message 

that survivors who speak up will likewise be attacked. They send a clear message 

that perpetrators and enablers will not be held accountable. They send a clear message that nothing at MSU—none of the mindsets that allowed Larry Nassar to 

abuse children for decades—have changed. Therefore, it is our position that MSU 

cmmol move forward and become an institution of integrity and safety until John 

Engler is no longer President, and a new interim leader who will stand against an 

abusive culture is found. 

Each member of the MSU board of trustees who chose President Engler and have 

refused to stand against his attacks and characterizations of sexual assault survivors is complicit in his abusive mindset and in continuing the culture of abuse at 

MSU. 

We call on Trustees Melanie Foster, Brian Breslin, Milch Lyons, Joel Ferguson, 

Dan Kelly and George Perles to stand against this mindset and these attacks. We 

call on them to stand for what is right by demanding President Engler’s immediate 

resignation, and removing him if he refuses to resign. The lack of courage these 

trustees have displayed to this point is discouraging, and their silence is deafening. 

To Trustee Melanie Foster: Your choice as a woman to stand by in silence while 

hundreds of female sexual abuse victims are attacked and vilified—some of us 

as young as 15 years old—is appalling. You are aligning yourself with misogyny, and against not only women, but even children. Until you find the courage 

to speak up like so many funs survivors before you, it is clear you value political 

loyalty and cronyism over personal integrity. 

To Trustee Brian Breslin: Your silence and complicity—protecting John Engler 

over sexual assault survivors, over what is best for MSU, and over the current 

students and children who attend and visit your campus—is horrifying. Your 

refusal lo stand against these attacks is an alliance with them, putting cronyism and self-protection ahead of what is right, and ahead of human beings. 

To Trustee Mitch Lyons: Your willingness to fight hard on the football field has 

been duly noted. We are deeply disturbed at your unwillingness to fight over 

something that matters so much more: the safety of women and children. Your 

refusal to stand against these attacks and the culture of abuse puts every survivor and potential victim on MSU’s campus at risk. We arc asking you to bring 

the tenacity and determination you brought to a sport to something much bigger: Leading a university. You have six months left in your term. Please don’t 

lose your willingness to fight hard for what is right at the end of the fourth 

quarter. 

To Trustee Joel Ferguson—Your alliance with John Engler and his positions me 

unsurprising, given how you have spoken of the survivors in the past, and the 

way you clearly believe fundraising and sports centers outrank little girls. But 

it is never too late to do the right thing, and we are asking you to do it now. 

To Trustee Dan Kelly: Your position on sexual abusers, pedophiles, and assault 

survivors as a defense attorney makes your lack of moral integrity clear. Your 

position remains clear in your alliance with a leader who characterizes survivors of sexual abuse as manipulators and pawns. Until you stand against 

these abusive mindsets in a position of leadership, your inability to lead at 

MSU is obvious. 

To Trustee George Perles: We know you arc undergoing serious call issues— 

please know that our thoughts and prayers are with you. However, we also 

must recognize that yon still have authority and a responsibility in this situation. We are asking you to do the right thing, to stand against an abusive culture and do what is neccssa1y to restore integrity and safety to MSU’s campus. 

President Engler has refused lo apologize for his attacks and lies, und instead 

issued a public statement which referred to these attacks and lies as ‘‘tensions’’ 

which existed in the ’’past.’’ Yes, we may have settled the lawsuits. However, our 

determination to make sure that no child, student, or anyone else is ever abused 

on MSU’s campus or by one of its employees again will not cease until MSU has 

a leadership who creates an environment where no child, student or person fears 

to speak up and their tears are wiped away while a comforting car listens to their 

cries. 

President Engler was correct when he said that ‘‘actions matter, and that is how 

the success of our work will be determined.’’ President Engler’s actions are clear. 

Now the Board must be clear. Our actions as survivors have been clear. We stood 

51 

against an abuser. We stood against an abusive culture. Now we are asking you to 

stand against it too and lead MSU forward into real change. 

Sincerely, 

The Sister Survivors 

Abigayle Bergeron Grace Schneider Lisa M. Johnson 

Alaina Bamfield Gwen Anderson Louise Harder 

Alex Neil-Sevier Hannah Morrow Lyndsy Gamet 

Alexandra Bourque Jade Capua Madeleine Jones 

Alexandro Romano Jaime Doski Margaret Renee Twitty 

Alexis Alvarado Jane 115 Doe Marion Siebert 

Alexis Moore Jane A12 Doe Marta Stern 

Alison Chauvette Jane A2 Doe Megan Ginter 

Aly Raisman Jane A38 Doe Megan Halicek 

Alyssa Avery Jane B10 Doe Melissa Hudecz 

Amanda Barterian Jane B12 Doe Melissa Vigogne 

Amanda Cormier Jane B49 Doe Michael & Zsuzsanna Mahon 

Amanda Green Jane B56 Doe Morgan Margraves 

Amanda Smith Jane B59 Doe Morgan McCaul 

Amanda Thomashow Jane B60 Doe Morgan Valley 

Amy Labadie Jane B7 Doe Natalie Venuto Hawkins 

Anna Ludes Jane B77 Doe Nicole Reeb 

Annette Hill Jane B92 Doe Nicole Soos 

Arianna Castillo Jane Doe 92 Olivia Venuto 

Ashley Yost Jane Doe B8 Parents of Jane A38 Doe 

Becca Boeving Jenelle Moul Rachael Denhollander 

Bethany Bauman Jennica Lurie Rebecca Mark 

Bree Randall-Gay Jennifer Bedford Reed Anderson 

Brittany West Jennifer Hayes Samantha Ursch 

Carrie Hogan Jessica Schedler De Rodriguez Sara Teristi 

Catryina Brown Jessica Smith Sarah Klein 

Chandler Lynn Jessica Tarrant Savannah Coomer 

Charla Burill Kaitlyn Basel Selena Brennan 

Chelsea DeLamielleure Kara Abigail Stephanie Robinson 

Chelsea Zerfas Kara Johnson Sterling Reithman 

Christina Barba Kate Mahon Steve and Judy Brady 

Christina Holmes Katie Lovellette Survivor 11 

Courtney Faynor Kayla Galecka Tamera Bourque 

Danielle Moore Kayla Spicher Taundra Mitchell-Faynor 

Elizabeth Heilman Kaylee Lorincz Taylor Stevens 

Emily Goetz Kourtney Weidner Tiffany Dutton 

Emily Meinke Larissa Boyce Tiffany M. Lopez 

Emma Ann Miller Laura Scudder Trinea Gonczar 

Erin McCann Leslie R. Miller Valerie Webb 

Eve Petrie Lindsey Schuett Victim 13 

Grace French Lisa Hovey Whitney Burns 

Senator PETERS. I would like to read a couple brief passages. The 

first passage in this letter, signed by 120 survivors, ‘‘We recognize 

that the greatest measure of an abusive culture is how survivors 

are viewed, and whether perpetrators and enablers will be held accountable and that the environment in which they thrive is remediated. On all of these metrics, President Engler has only reinforced 

the culture of abuse at MSU,’’ and they go on to say, ‘‘We are here 

to tell you that all the organizational changes and policy and procedure enhancements in the world mean nothing if there is not leadership that creates an environment where survivors feel safe to 

speak up and it is our position that MSU cannot move forward and 

become an institution of integrity and safety until John Engler is 

no longer president and a new interim leader who will stand 

against the abusive culture is found.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I just have one last question and this is a question that came from Jessica Smith, who I met with this morning, 

52 

another one of the courageous survivors, and she had one question 

for you, and I would like you to ask, especially after hearing excerpts from this letter from 120 survivors, and there’s much more 

in that letter. 

Her question was, if your presence is so harmful to survivors, 

why should you keep your job? Would you answer that, please? 

Mr. ENGLER. Absolutely. Be happy to. Under my leadership, accountability is being instilled across the university. We’re seeing 

the number of complaints coming forward. People are being willing 

to bring complaints. The Office of Institutional Equity, our Title IX 

Office of Investigation. We have fixed the problems in the Medical 

Clinic now by strengthening the protocols, strengthened the chaperone policy, strengthened the building and reporting procedures in 

the department, strengthened the evaluation of deans and gatekeepers themselves, arrived at a $500 million settlement to put the 

litigation behind, fully cooperated with all the investigations, and 

we are also starting a process to bring a new president in. 

You mentioned earlier appointments. You mentioned only two, 

but there is a national search underway for the Head of the Title 

IX Office. You neglected to mention that. The man is an interim 

there. 

The Athletic Director was somebody chosen from outside the Athletic Department. Yes, he was part of the university, but he was 

chosen with the strong support of your constituents in Michigan, 

constituents who include not only the football and the basketball 

and the soccer and the golf coaches of the men’s and the women’s 

side, but alumni supporters and everybody who feels that this man, 

who has a legal degree and a Master’s degree from Northwestern 

University, has a strong commitment to compliance, is exactly the 

right person to come in and be strong as a leader in the department, and in having a national search, we would have found an 

outsider just as I found an outsider of the department, but we 

could not do a better job and he deserves your support and mine. 

Senator PETERS. So the national search wasn’t conducted. You 

said you will do one for this other individual. 

Mr. ENGLER. I said it’s being done, Senator. 

Senator PETERS. It is being done. Yes, that is being done, and 

there is now a national search for a permanent president. 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator PETERS. My understanding, you will not be part of that 

search and if offered the position, you will not take it? 

Mr. ENGLER. I am not a candidate and I strongly support the 

Board’s decision to move forward. They’re in the process of hiring 

a search firm and compiling a search committee. I would hope that 

they would have somebody very quickly and when that person arrives, you’ll give them their support. 

Senator PETERS. Very good. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ranking 

Member Blumenthal. Thank you for continuing your work and 

53 

leadership to bring witnesses before this Committee that can provide us real answers. 

I know that members of this Committee take this very seriously 

and are hard at work to provide more structured safeguards for our 

Olympic athletes and then to the survivors in this room, I want to 

personally thank those who have stood together to present an 

image for the world and are standing up and telling their story. I 

know it’s not easy, but you are athletes with unimaginable 

strength and courage, and I thank you for everything you do every 

day, for using your voices. 

As elected leaders, we must remain committed to our obligation 

to demand reforms and provide for real thoughtful solutions that 

will make positive change. I remain committed to working with my 

colleagues, survivors, advocacy groups, and many others to make 

fundamental changes to the governance and oversight of amateur 

sport in this country. 

And so, Ms. Lyons, let me start with you, and I want to follow 

up on a conversation with the Chair that you started with regarding the ban list. 

Can I ask you, what are the consequences that the USOC outlines if a member club hires a coach or an individual on the banned 

list? 

Ms. LYONS. That is an excellent question. To my knowledge, we 

do not—we at the USOC do not have anything that is written as 

to what would happen if an outside club hired someone on the 

banned list. 

Typically, the USOC is not aware of which coaches are at which 

clubs. That’s generally something that the NGBs are much more 

aware of, but I think you point out a structural issue. That is something that we should look at. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So, Ms. Perry, let me ask you this. What 

actions is USA Gymnastics taking to identify and remove coaches, 

athlete directors, employees, and officials who witnessed emotional 

and physical abuse of athletes and did not report child abuse to the 

authorities and did nothing to stop it? 

Ms. PERRY. So we have made both our permanently ineligible list 

and our suspension list public on our website. There are several 

ways that we communicate that information out. 

Of course, we provide notice to the adverse party and we provide 

notice to the club owners and we also ask the club owner to provide 

notice to the membership in their club area and so—— 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So let me ask you this. So you are actually taking action to identify and remove coaches, athlete directors, 

employees, and officials who witnessed emotional and physical 

abuse of these athletes and did not report the child abuse to authorities? 

Ms. PERRY. As long as we have a report and we’re made aware 

of it, we are going to follow our Safe Sport policy and our Bylaws, 

which allows us to take action and again, depending on the nature 

of the misconduct, if it’s sexual misconduct, that goes to the Center. 

If it’s non-sexual misconduct that stays presently with the national 

governing body and so we have specific processes that we follow. 

Some of that, of course, is governed by not only our Bylaws and 

our Safe Sport policy but by the Ted Stevens Act and so we follow 

54 

all of those processes to find at the end of a hearing panel, for example, what their decision is and, based on their decision in that 

hearing panel, the action is taken. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So are you currently taking any actions 

to identify and remove current employees who knew about the sexual abuse and didn’t do anything to report it but stay silent? 

Ms. PERRY. Did you say current employees? 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. PERRY. So right now, we are going through an independent 

investigation, the Ropes and Gray, and that information, I think, 

is not only critical for this body and all of the investigations that 

are going on but it’s very critical for us because it’s important that 

we learn the facts around this and so, you know, if there are—— 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. All right. So let me stop you there. 

Ms. PERRY. Sure. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. I hate to filibuster but I only got 5 minutes and will follow up with you. 

In the testimony offered by Mr. Rick Adams of the USOC in 

March 2017, he testified that there was ‘‘an environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’ at NGBs, including the 

USAG. 

Do you agree with Mr. Adams’ assessment of the culture at USA 

Gymnastics prior to your tenure? 

Ms. PERRY. Senator, I saw immediately that we had to become 

an athlete-centric organization. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Does that mean yes? 

Ms. PERRY. I saw immediately that this organization and probably very many other organizations need to focus their priorities on 

the safety of the athletes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So let me ask—is it Mr. Xiao? 

Mr. XIAO. Yes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you very much. 

You’ve heard the opening statements of the individuals that are 

on the panel with you. Let me ask you this. Is there anything that 

they have said that satisfies your concern that structural change 

is going to occur? 

Mr. XIAO. I think that we’re engaging in this process in good 

faith on the Athletes’ Advisory Council and will continue to provide 

our suggestions for structural changes, but in the end, as I said in 

my testimony, I do think that we’ve done this before. I think we’ve 

done independent commissions. We’ve done sweeping governance 

changes. We’ve done the Tagliabue Commission not too long ago 

and here we are today. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. That’s my concern. So did you hear anything different today that’s going to change your mind or at least 

satisfy concerns that changes will occur? 

Mr. XIAO. Personally, I don’t think so. I think that it’s not a failing, necessarily, even of the organization. I think it’s a failing of 

the entire system the way it’s set up. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I know my time has run out. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

55 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Xiao, Ms. Cortez Masto went down a path 

that I was intending to go and let me take what you just said a 

step further. 

My question was and perhaps is so we’ve heard testimony from 

Mr. Engler, Ms. Lyons, and Ms. Perry. I would summarize their 

testimony and what we’ve heard from them in other meetings is 

that things are different today than they were. We take sexual 

abuse seriously. We put protocols in place. We have reporting requirements. We’ve created Safe Sport. 

You weren’t on the advisory committee, I would guess, prior to 

Ms. Lyons or about the same time of her arrival, but is the world 

of Olympic athletes and the relationship between USA Olympics 

and the governing bodies, is it different today than it was at the 

time of Larry Nassar or is the only thing that’s different today is 

that Larry Nassar is in prison? 

Mr. XIAO. I don’t think that the only thing that’s different is that 

Larry Nassar is in prison. I do think that in many cases the presence of Safe Sport has pushed certain national governing bodies to 

do more to protect athletes, but I don’t think that there has been 

necessarily a sea change in the relationship between athletes and 

the NGBs or the athletes and the USOC. 

Senator MORAN. And my understanding of your testimony, and 

this may be putting words in your mouth, but part of that significant problem is the monopolistic nature of the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

So when you say that there are things wrong, it hasn’t changed 

in the way that it needs to. The structure is flawed. The problem 

is the relationship between athletes and the U.S. Olympic Committee, which is their only option to compete and to perform. That’s 

the story? I mean that’s your testimony? 

Mr. XIAO. I think that’s accurate. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask Ms. Lyons. Former President Scott Blackmun of the 

U.S. Olympic Committee stated in his written responses to questions for the record that ‘‘a confidential memo summarizing the 

chronology of events relating to the athletes’ report of abuse in the 

summer of 2015 and the actions taken by USA Gymnastics, including its engagement with the FBI, was drafted by USAG and forwarded to USOC in September 2015.’’ 

So Mr. Blackmun’s written response, his testimony was that 

there was a report forwarded from USAG to the U.S. Olympic Committee in September 2015 and that report indicated referral or conversation, engagement with the FBI. 

This document has not been provided to the Subcommittee for 

our review. Are you aware of the existence of this document, and 

why was it not provided in our request to the USOC for documentation? 

Ms. LYONS. I am not aware of the existence of that document. I 

have not seen it. My understanding was that the initial—it was a 

conversation that informed Mr. Blackmun that USAG was informing the FBI and that was back, I believe, in July. 

I have not seen any document that would be a chronology of 

events that was produced in September. 

56 

Senator MORAN. If that document exists, would you know about 

it? If that document exists within your custody of the U.S. Olympic 

Committee, would you know about it? 

Ms. LYONS. You would think from all of the search that we have 

done on keywords and the like that something that contained any 

of those keywords about gymnastics, Nassar, et cetera, should have 

been revealed, if it existed. 

Senator MORAN. Just like with the documents that were retrieved from the Karolyi Ranch, we’ve yet to see—this is a document that I think would be very valuable to us, and I would ask 

you to pursue the possibility that it exists within your custody and 

provide it, if it does. That I assume you’re willing to do. 

Ms. LYONS. Absolutely. We are willing to do that. 

Senator MORAN. Ms. Perry, do you know anything about that 

document? 

Ms. PERRY. I do not. 

Senator MORAN. So I suppose a copy could exist that was forwarded from U.S. Gymnastics to the U.S. Olympic Committee. One 

would think there might be a document. Again, same story with 

the Karolyi Ranch documents. If it’s in your custody, I assume you 

will look—you will pursue it further and provide it, if it exists? 

Ms. PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Ms. LYONS. Senator Moran, may I add, because my attorney has 

just advised me of which document we’re talking about. 

Senator MORAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LYONS. I believe there was a document sent from Steve 

Penny to us at the time Chief of Security, Larry Boondorf, and my 

understanding is that that document has been provided. 

Senator MORAN. That is the document that was provided to your 

security director, your security chief. I don’t believe we have that 

document and again I would ask you if you’d provide it, if it does 

exist, and apparently it does. 

Ms. LYONS. This one I have. 

Senator MORAN. So thank you for checking with your attorney—— 

Ms. LYONS. Yes,—— 

Senator MORAN.—and we would appreciate you providing it—— 

Ms. LYONS.—we will ensure you have. 

Senator MORAN.—to the Committee. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Engler, I want to be fair to you and give you a chance to go 

back to your previous answer. The comments made by Kaylee 

Lorincz were in a public comment session. She recounted that conversation and you denied that the meeting with her, without her 

attorney, in which you offered money took place, correct? 

Mr. ENGLER. I did not deny there was a meeting. She waited 

some 45 minutes with her mother to meet with me and I, along 

with two women who were on my staff, Carol Lavente and Emily 

Garonte, did meet with her. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But there was no discussion—you deny 

any discussion of a payment? 

57 

Mr. ENGLER. No, our discussion was about what is it among all 

of the actions that we’ve taken, many of which were in my written 

testimony, is there anything else that, from the survivor perspective, could be done and the discussion was how do we hear from 

people about what is it that might help. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So no discussion of money? I want to be 

absolutely clear. 

Mr. ENGLER. No discussion. We were in settlement talks. There’d 

be no point in having a settlement with a single victim. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you consider it proper to meet with 

her without her attorney present? You knew she was represented. 

Mr. ENGLER. That was up to her. I asked that question to her 

and her mother, if they could meet with me. It’s appropriate. I 

could meet with them but could they meet with me and they asked 

that would this be done privately that nothing be said. They could 

get in big trouble. It was not a problem on my side. It was an issue 

for them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And—— 

Mr. ENGLER. And I have met with others. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—you made no offer of money, as she very 

specifically said you did? 

Mr. ENGLER. No, I was not doing settlement negotiations with 

one plaintiff. That would be—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So are you saying—— 

Mr. ENGLER.—silly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—that she lied when she made that comment? 

Mr. ENGLER. I have said publicly that we have very different 

recollections. The people in the room that were part of the university have different recollections of that conversation than she has. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you comment on Dean William 

Strampel in that meeting with her? 

Mr. ENGLER. I don’t remember. I might have because I think I 

might have mentioned the fact that we’d already begun the tenure 

revocation. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you say about the charges of misconduct against him that they were ‘‘no big deal?’’ 

Mr. ENGLER. No. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You deny that you said that? 

Mr. ENGLER. Absolutely. I mean, we’re revoking a gentleman’s 

tenure, that’s a big deal, and the actions that—you know, the failures of his leadership were a very big deal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Perry, earlier, I referred to the Answer filed on Thursday and I also made mention of the Motion to 

Dismiss filed by the United States Olympic Committee. 

I want to be clear. You were saying that Larry Nassar never 

worked for USA Gymnastics in a way that would make you in any 

way legally responsible? 

Ms. PERRY. No, Senator Blumenthal, I am not saying that at all. 

What I’m saying is that he was not an employee of USA Gymnastics. Of course, as the team doctor, there was definitely a relationship there with USA Gymnastics at the time, and, of course, I 

wasn’t there, but he was known as the team doctor for USA Gymnastics. 

58 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But that seems contrary to what you have 

said in court. I mean, in court, you said he in effect was like a volunteer who just happened to be there and you have no responsibility for anything he did. 

Ms. PERRY. Senator,—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. By the way, that contention is belied by 

your own documents. 

I’m going to ask that the Chairman put in the record a statement 

of July 11, 2014, which describes, quote unquote, services. I mentioned it earlier. 

Senator MORAN. Without objection. 

[The statement referred to follows:] 

USA GYMNASTICS SOLIDIFIES LEADERSHIP FOR PROGRAM SERVICES

posted on 08/11/2014 

INDIANAPOLIS, Aug. 11, 2014—Athlete care is one of the top priorities for USA 

Gymnastics, and in 2013, the USA Gymnastics Medical Task Force was established 

to provide leadership and oversight of USA Gymnastics’ practices, procedures and 

protocols regarding athlete care. USA Gymnastics has an experienced and dedicated 

cadre of medical and training professionals who give their time and expertise to support the country’s top gymnasts. Each of the disciplines has a primary staff for its 

athletes and events. 

• Women’ s gymnastics: Dr. Larry, D.O., Holt, Mich., and Debbie Van Horn, 

A.T.C./D.P.T., Huntsville, Texas 

• Men’s gymnastics: Dr. David Kruse, M.D., Huntington Beach, Calif., and Don 

Rackey, A.T.C., Gilbert, Ariz. 

• Trampoline and tumbling: Dr. George Drew, D.O., Three Rivers, Mich., and Van 

Horn 

• Rhythmic gymnastics: Beth Darling, A.T.C./D.P.T./P.T., Erie, Pa. 

• Acrobatic gymnastics: Dr. Jay Binder, M.D., Metairie, La. 

• USA Gymnastics National Team Training Center: Van Horn 

The members of the USA Gymnastics Medical Task Force are: Binder, chairman 

of the task force; Darling; Dr. Drew; Dr. Kruse; Dr.; Ralph Reiff of Indianapolis, 

Ind., the executive director of St. Vincent Sports Performance; Alicia Sacramone of 

Winchester, Mass., 2008 Olympic team silver medalist; and Van Horn. 

The steady and continued growth of each of the five disciplines has resulted in 

an increased demand for medical support. USA Gymnastics and the Medical Task 

Force have recognized that to meet these needs, the national office will provide more 

support, and each discipline must play a bigger role in this area. To help manage 

this, Dr. Kruse has been appointed as the athlete care coordinator and will assume 

some of the responsibilities previously overseen by Dr., who will continue to serve 

as the medical lead for the U.S. Women’s National Team. 

‘‘Larry’s leadership and hard work provided the foundation for our medical system,’’ said Dr. Binder. ‘‘With the five disciplines evolving and expanding, we recognized the need to reallocate responsibilities to provide more administrative support, 

streamline our procedures, and utilize our medical professionals’ time, expertise and 

strengths efficiently and effectively.’’ 

‘‘David is a good fit for this role and responsibility at this time,’’ said. ‘‘There have 

been many rewarding moments for me over the years, and I am proud of the 

progress and system we have created. I am looking forward to being able to focus 

on providing support to the women’s national team and serving on the Medical Task 

Force.’’ 

Kruse will serve as the primary liaison between the Medical Task Force and USA 

Gymnastics staff and assist with the implementation of athlete care protocols, policy, assignments for the network of medical professionals working with the organization, and prioritizing and addressing health and safety matters for the gymnastics 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, I joined USA Gymnastics in December 2017. So I’ve been with USA Gymnastics for 7 months. The 

legal actions and the statements that I believe you refer to, based 

59 

on the date, were made prior to my becoming the CEO of USA 

Gymnastics. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, the court filing was on Thursday. 

Ms. PERRY. I have to look at that, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I would look at it really hard—— 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—and I would decide, and I’m being very 

serious, whether your organization really wants to stand by that 

representation, which in my view is entirely disingenuous and 

false, and I want to add one more point. 

I don’t know how athletes, parents, or communities can trust an 

organization that says Larry Nassar wasn’t employed when in fact 

he was the team doctor. 

Ms. PERRY. No. Absolutely. He was. The only clarification I made 

was that he wasn’t an employee. He was an employee of Michigan 

State, but I will find out about that. I have counsel here. I’m not 

aware of a Motion to Dismiss by USA Gymnastics, but I will get 

to the bottom of that. 

And I do want to say this, Senator Blumenthal, that really from 

day one—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I want to correct your misimpression 

just to be clear. USA Gymnastics filed an Answer. I’m not familiar 

with Michigan Civil Procedure. 

Ms. PERRY. OK. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And apparently it was in Federal court, 

but just so the record is clear, it was an Answer. U.S. Olympic 

Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss about that. 

Ms. PERRY. OK. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Perry, in a letter, dated February 9, 

2018, to Chairman Moran and me, you denied that USA Gymnastics used nondisclosure agreements as part of your investigations. Do you recall that letter? 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, I would have to look at that letter, but I don’t recall denying—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I have copies of it. I’m sure your 

counsel does. 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. So there was a nondisclosure agreement that I 

think everybody is aware of that was put in place a few years ago, 

prior to my being the CEO, and when I found out about that nondisclosure, I immediately instructed our legal team to release that 

individual from any nondisclosure agreement, as I will not tolerate 

silencing of any sexual abuse victims, and from that point, as well, 

as I’m the new CEO, I said there will not be any nondisclosure 

agreements that silence sexual victims as long as I’m leader of this 

organization. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. There was, in fact, with McKayla Maroney 

a nondisclosure agreement which contained a clause that would 

fine her a $100,000 if she were to speak out about her abuse, and 

are there any others? 

Ms. PERRY. I am not aware of any others prior to my being CEO, 

Senator Blumenthal, but, again, it’s very important that everybody 

understands that that is not acceptable, and I released and made 

very public that this organization will not stand by that. 

60 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And you would commit here that if there 

are any other agreements, you will release on behalf of your organization those individuals from that commitment? 

Ms. PERRY. I will not allow a survivor or a victim of sexual abuse 

to be silenced, to be able to speak out about their sexual abuse. I 

absolutely commit to that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Going forward and retrospectively? 

Ms. PERRY. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Have you ever discussed with Mr. Parilla, 

Paul Parilla, the former USAG Board Chairman, his involvement 

in the use of that nondisclosure agreement? 

Ms. PERRY. I was aware that he was involved in that situation, 

but to the extent that he made the decision or who made the decision, I’m not aware. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you ever talk to him about it? 

Ms. PERRY. I asked him about it. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What did he say? 

Ms. PERRY. It was his recollection that that was something that 

was agreed upon by both parties and that’s pretty much the information he shared with me. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I have one last couple of questions, 

one last—— 

Senator MORAN. One last couple of questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MORAN. Just so you know you’re not pulling one over on 

me. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I told the survivors this morning that I 

had a lot of questions, but I warned that we had only limited 

amounts of time. So I thank the Chairman for allowing me unlimited remaining questions. I’m just kidding, Mr. Chairman. 

Are you familiar with a report in the Orange County Register of 

yesterday with regard to two coaches, two suspended coaches still 

working in Southern California Gymnastics Club? Their names are 

Colden Raisher and Terry Gray. 

Ms. PERRY. I am. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Can you explain how they can be suspended but USA Gymnastics still permits them to work? 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, I believe that the individual 

that wrote the article was absolutely correct in that—and I think 

to Mr. Xiao—am I pronouncing your name—— 

Mr. XIAO. Xiao. 

Ms. PERRY. Xiao. His point is this illustrates a systemic and 

structural challenge that we have and again I look at it from outside the Olympic movement, but here’s what happened with Mr. 

Gray. 

Mr. Gray was a U.S. Center for Safe Sport case and when the 

USA Gymnastics was instructed of the allegation, USA Gymnastics 

acted swiftly and put that individual on an interim suspension. 

That interim suspension is on our website, so it’s public. 

I was told there was notice given to the parties that should have 

been given to. Under the Ted Stevens Act, when you take anybody 

out of the field of play, that individual is entitled to a hearing 

panel. That hearing panel heard the—so he was on interim suspension and USA Gymnastics acted swiftly. So the hearing panel ocVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
61 

curred and they reduced the consequence, if you will, down to no 

contact with a minor child. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. They are coaching minors then? 

Ms. PERRY. I’m sorry? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. They are coaching minors, aren’t they? 

Ms. PERRY. So this illustrates, Senator Blumenthal, one of the 

areas where I think Congress can really help us. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And Mr. Xiao highlighted one of those 

areas. 

Mr. Xiao, have you talked to Ms. Lyons about the structural reforms that you’ve suggested? 

Mr. XIAO. Some of them. Some of them are issues that the AAC 

has raised before and continues to brainstorm solutions. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And how has the U.S. Olympic Committee 

received those suggestions? 

Mr. XIAO. Ms. Lyons has engaged on many of those reforms. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Have they adopted any? 

Mr. XIAO. Not fully. I think we’re waiting for the Athlete and 

NGB Engagement Working Group to begin, which has been assembled but I have not received information about when it’s going to 

start work. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So nothing’s happened? 

Mr. XIAO. Not that I have seen on most of the large-scale reforms. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Hassan. 

We’re going to try to conclude this hearing in the near future 

and, Senator Hassan, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want 

to thank you and Ranking Member Blumenthal for your continued 

attention to the issue of sexual abuse in the Olympic system, and 

I also just want to thank all of the survivors again for not only 

being here today but for everything you’ve done to really focus the 

greater public on this horror and on the treatment you’ve all experienced, and I am grateful that your extraordinarily harrowing stories are finally being heard. Thank you. Thanks to the persistence 

of these young men and women. 

I’ll start with a question to you, Ms. Perry. Thanks to the tireless 

work of journalists, like those at the Indianapolis Star-Tribune, 

they made sure that these stories were heard when they published 

their expose in 2016. 

But let’s not forget that these athletes and their families have 

been trying to protect themselves and each other for a long time 

and even today, certain individuals are still attacking these men 

and women for sharing these incidents and for pursuing legal action. 

USA Gymnastics engaged in an egregious response over the 

course of decades, keeping a file of the complaints against more 

than 50 coaches hidden away in a drawer and refusing to report 

these complaints of sexual abuse, misconduct, and potential child 

abuse to authorities. 

62 

Now your testimony today focused on the very many things 

you’re doing to reorganize leadership and structure, but I would 

like to hear from you, Ms. Perry, what exactly are you planning to 

do to ensure that transparency, reporting, and disclosure policies 

are in place so young athletes are protected from this kind of 

abuse? 

So not just reorganizing but how are you going to make sure that 

when somebody comes forward not only are they respected and not 

only is there a process but that there is the kind of transparency, 

reporting, and disclosure that we all know is so necessary in this 

area? 

Ms. PERRY. Thank you, Senator. I think that it is not only incredibly important that we address all of the things in an organization, 

the structure, as you mentioned, the systems, the policies, but also 

the culture, and it’s unacceptable, it’s absolutely unacceptable that 

our athletes at any point in time could feel that their voices weren’t 

important. 

And so one of the things that—a lot of the things that we’ve done 

in a very short period of time is we’ve not only through just the 

actions that I’ve taken, speaking to survivors, asking them what do 

we do, and, quite frankly, I’m very hopeful that more survivors will 

join our efforts, but we are looking at everything from top to bottom. 

One of the things that I noticed right away is that there was 

very inadequate tracking mechanisms in place. So we began keeping track in a database of all complaints that came into the organization and then we went and we’re not going to wait. We’re not 

going to wait for others. We’re not going to wait whether the Center takes on all forms of misconduct, which, quite frankly, I think 

is a great idea. 

We started looking and investing in software programs similar to 

the Center to say we’ve got to get our handle on this. So we are 

launching the Maxient Software Program, which is similar to 

what—it’s exactly what the Center’s using, and it’s my hope that 

they will talk because I think one of the greatest challenges we 

have as a national governing body is our ability to understand 

what’s going on at the Center. 

Senator HASSAN. So I thank you for that, and I’m going to stop 

you there—— 

Ms. PERRY. Sure. 

Senator HASSAN.—because I have one other question I want to 

ask and I’m sensitive to the length of the afternoon for everybody. 

But it’s also really important that adults understand that they 

will be held legally responsible—— 

Ms. PERRY. Absolutely. 

Senator HASSAN.—if they fail to report and disclose and take action—— 

Ms. PERRY. Absolutely. 

Senator HASSAN.—and that is at the core of much of this, right? 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. 

Senator HASSAN. So that it’s not just about tracking, it’s about 

letting people know that they have an obligation, it’s not optional, 

right,—— 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. 

63 

Senator HASSAN.—and that even if it damages the institution or 

other people’s reputations, it’s not optional because protecting our 

athletes has to be the priority. 

Ms. PERRY. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Ms. PERRY. And I want you to know that the things that we’re 

doing as an organization to make sure that that is not only our actions but each time a member, a professional member, for example, 

is registering for either a new application or renewing, as a condition of their membership, they go through the Safe Sport course, 

which talks to them about those kinds of things. 

Senator HASSAN. All right. Thank you. 

I want to just turn, and with a little bit of indulgence from the 

Chair, last question to Mr. Engler, please. 

One of the things that concerns me the most, it has been shocking and saddening, is that the individuals have come forward and 

they’ve not only had to relive their worst nightmares to tell their 

stories but when they do, they are often still not being believed or 

their motives and personal character are attacked, and I am sorry 

to say that you recently made remarks doing just that. 

I am appalled by the e-mail you sent earlier this year disparaging Ms. Denhollander, a gymnast who was abused by Dr. Larry 

Nassar under the watch of Michigan State and others. 

Your treatment of this issue raises concerns about how MSU will 

move forward here. Even with all the evidence, why did you doubt 

Ms. Denhollander? 

Mr. ENGLER. The e-mail, of course, was in the midst of our very 

difficult negotiation and it was private. It was never public and it 

reflected, I guess, just the passions of the moment about whether 

or not there were referral fees being paid. 

The reality is that our actions today, I think, have consistently 

shown our support for the survivors and that is what we have to 

create. We have to have a culture—— 

Senator HASSAN. I’m going to interrupt you, Mr. Engler. I’m 

sorry. 

When you write an e-mail referring to athletes as being manipulated, not only are these strong, accomplished, smart athletes who 

have overcome enormous barriers in their lives to reach the pinnacle of their sport, they have survived unspeakable abuse,—— 

Mr. ENGLER. Right. 

Senator HASSAN.—and the notion that you would think they 

could be manipulated by trial lawyers and that you would speak 

of them that way is just deeply, deeply offensive. 

Private e-mail or not, it reflects an attitude at the top of the institution that you’re asking this committee, your current students, 

your current athletes, your alumni to trust, and I think you have 

some repair work today to put it mildly. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think you’re right. That’s why I apologized. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you for the apology. I just want to 

note that we keep applauding survivors of abuse for coming forward and then, even though we say the right words, we haven’t yet 

really taken a look at the adults and institutions who were in 

charge and held them accountable and what we do is we keep tryVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
64 

ing to make excuses for this unbelievable horror that these young 

people have experienced and it really needs to stop. 

We need to take responsibility here. Michigan State needs to 

take responsibility. The committees need to take responsibility, and 

we need to change laws and hold people accountable, and I know 

that that’s what this hearing is about. I know that that’s what 

we’re trying to do here, but at the end of the day, private e-mail 

or not, disparaging these survivors takes all of the good work that 

so many people are trying to do to make sure this never happens 

again and moves us backward. 

Mr. ENGLER. Senator, I appreciate that and, as I said, that is 

why I apologize. I have three daughters, age 23, exactly the same 

age as many of the survivors, and I know exactly what you’re talking about. I recognize in my own family what, you know, could 

have happened and I feel very deeply. 

That’s why we worked so hard over the nearly six months I’ve 

been at Michigan State to fix the problem. When you’re in litigation with 11 firms, emotions do get high. It’s an adversarial process. I confess to getting very frustrated, but at the end of the day, 

we did get the settlement done. We have fixed the policies. We’ve 

strengthened accountability. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to submit for the record an Executive 

Order that I did to create the Office of Risk Management, Ethics, 

and Compliance. 

It’s exactly—it’s part of the actions that—as Senator Blumenthal 

said, there’s a lot of talk out there. There’s a lot of support but at 

Michigan State, we are fixing the problem and you could not have 

a Larry Nassar again at Michigan State. 

You’ve got a challenge, I think, on the part of all universities and 

a lot of organizations to fix the relationships between sexes and 

how do we deal with assault and misconduct, but I would argue 

that when we’re done, we hope that what we’ve done at Michigan 

State can be a model for others. 

I brought also two articles that are excellent articles, one from 

Midland Daily News, the local paper of my own old district, one 

from The Bleacher Report. These are survivors’ testimonies, just as 

you said, where the media told the story. They got it out and it 

helps to explain how challenging this is to fix, but I feel this deeply 

from a personal standpoint and my actions have been consistent 

with my belief that this should never ever happen again. None of 

these women should have to—no future woman should have to go 

through what these women have gone through. 

Senator HASSAN. And one might suggest that they never should 

have needed to sue the university in the first place. 

Thank you,—— 

Mr. ENGLER. I would agree with that. 

Senator HASSAN.—Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ENGLER. Mr. Chairman, may I submit these for the record? 

Senator MORAN. Senator Hassan, thank you. 

The documents will be submitted for the record without objection. 

Mr. ENGLER. All right. 

65 

[The information referred to follows:] 


724FIRE1.eps
66 


724FIRE2.eps
67 

Midland Daily News 

NO MORE SHAME: MIDLAND GYMNAST DISCUSSES NASSAR CASE

Kate Carlson, kcarlson@mdn.net Updated 8:41 am EDT, Saturday, July 21, 2018 

Helena Weick poses for a portrait on July 10 in downtown Midland. (Katy Kildee/ 

kkildee@mdn.net) 

Minutes before she was supposed to give her victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing for a once-respected USA Gymnastics doctor, Helena Weick was still 

unsure about going public with her story. 

The January 2018 sentencing where 156 women shared how Dr. Larry Nassar 

sexually abused them under the guise of medical treatment lasted seven days. Helena is a Midland native who was sexually abused by Nassar when she was 12, and 

spoke publicly about her abuse for the first time. The former gymnast, now 19, ultimately decided she did not want to hear her story read anonymously in court. 

‘‘I said to him, this isn’t my shame anymore, it’s yours,’’ Helena said. ‘‘It just 

didn’t feel right to read that anonymously, it felt like I was hiding, keeping that 

shame.’’ 

Helena grew up in Midland and started training at Midland Gymnastics Training 

Center when she was a toddler. Her sisters and brothers were in the sport too, and 

like all serious gymnastics families, knew Nassar as the doctor to go to. Helena remembers their family had a cupboard with important phone numbers listed on it, 

and Nassar’s number was among them written on a sticky note. 

‘‘The fact that he was so admired and trusted, I felt like it was an honor to go 

see him, so I would never question him,’’ Helena said. 

Helena saw Nassar at his MSU office for the first time when she was 8 for her 

feet, then four times when she was 12 for back issues. The last time Helena saw 

him was when Nassar digitally penetrated her. She quit gymnastics about a year 

later because her back issues made it too hard for her to continue practicing gymnastics. Helena didn’t realize at the time that she was sexually abused by the doctor, but knows now that could have subconsciously contributed to her decision to 

leave the sport. 

Reading Rachael Denhollander’s story of how she was sexually abused by Nassar 

in the Indianapolis Star in March 2016 was the first time Helena was able to recognize herself as a survivor of sexual abuse. 

‘‘The way I always put it in my mind was, ’It was a weird doctor’s appointment,’ ’’ 

Weick said. 

As a 12-year-old, there was ‘‘no category’’ in her mind for sexual abuse or molestation, which only contributed to the fact that Nassar had such an excellent reputaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE

724MIDLA1.eps
68 

tion at the time for helping gymnasts. Her mother was also in the room with her 

when it happened, adding another layer of confusion to the situation. 

‘‘This admired, trusted doctor is there telling you it’s OK,’’ she said. ‘‘Telling you 

it’s OK that it feels weird, telling you that it’s normal that it feels weird, and that 

he knows what he’s doing and you’re the child, he’s the doctor.’’ 

Nassar was sentenced Jan. 24, 2018, to 175 years in prison after Helena and more 

than 150 others came forward alleging they were sexually abused by the former 

gymnastics doctor. 

Lawsuits are still ongoing related to the decades of abuse Nassar inflicted on a 

growing number of survivors coming forward. 

What needs to change 

On July 18, the Arthur Ashe Courage Award was presented to more than 140 survivors of abuse from the former sports doctor on the 2018 ESPYS stage in Los Angeles. 

The fact that it took over 150 women during the January sentencing to repeat 

back the abuse that happened to them in front of their abuser for so many people 

to pay attention is a hard pill to swallow, Helena said. The sexual abuse Nassar 

inflicted on gymnasts and other clients was first brought to public attention with 

the first Indianapolis Star story in March 2016, but was not in the forefront of the 

Nation’s attention until the sentencing at the beginning of this year. 

As one of the hundreds of survivors of sexual abuse at the hands of Nassar, Helena wants people to know that when someone reports being sexually assaulted or 

abused, it needs to be taken seriously. 

‘‘At Michigan State University there were policies in place, it’s not like we need 

to come up with this whole big new system on how to stop sexual assault, it was 

there,’’ she said. ‘‘The people in charge just decided to look the other way.’’ 

People were reporting sexual assault to authority figures and were having their 

situation judged before it was reported to the top, she explained. 

‘‘If somebody comes to you saying they were sexually assaulted, you need to report 

it,’’ she said. ‘‘It’s not your judgment call whether or not they did it, you just need 

to report it. It’s that simple.’’ 

Can MSU come back from covering up for Nassar? Helena thinks it still can, but 

only with an overhaul of leadership, and different people in charge of choosing the 

new leaders of the university. 

‘‘I think there’s a lot of good people at MSU and a lot of the students are very 

good people that want change,’’ she said. ‘‘That’s why a lot of them are fighting for 

change because they care about the university.’’ 

Helena also wants people to realize that Nassar was just one of many ‘‘untouchables’’ in power at MSU and in society in general that need to be taken off their 

pedestal. The problem is not removed from Midland, she said, because it happens 

everywhere. 

‘‘Nobody should just be allowed to do whatever they want just because of their 

status,’’ she said. ‘‘Unfortunately that’s what happened. The reputation of these people has been put in front of the welfare of children, which is ridicules.’’ 

Message to survivors 

There are still people who victim blame, shame and deny survivors of sexual assault, Helena explained, but she hopes that does not stop survivors from coming forward. 

When Helena was abused by Nassar and did not understand initially what happened, she was confused and felt shameful because she thought there was something wrong with her. Victim shaming only makes it easier for abusers, because 

they can hide behind their victim’s shame, she explained. 

‘‘But I would hate for anyone to ever be silent about this because they don’t think 

they are going to be supported,’’ she said. ‘‘We’re here for you and we’re going to 

fight for you.’’ 

The intensity of Nassar’s sentencing was emotionally hard to handle, Helena said, 

but at the same time it was refreshing to be around so many people who knew what 

she was going through. Through the difficult process of speaking in court and to 

news outlets about her abuse, Helena is glad she has been able to connect with a 

community of gymnasts along the way that continue to serve as some of her biggest 

role models. 

‘‘Whether you’re public or not, whether you still feel broken and ashamed, we’re 

going to be here for you and we’re going to fight for you,’’ she said. 

69 

Aftermath of abuse 

Years from now, Helena hopes she can look back on the sport of gymnastics, and 

MSU, and it will be unrecognizable from the toxic environment that has surrounded 

the institutions. 

Helena’s own gym in Midland was rare because of how supportive the coaches 

were. 

‘‘There were obviously times that were frustrating and people got upset, but my 

coaches genuinely cared about me. They were excellent coaches,’’ Helena said. 

This is not the case at all gyms, she said. 

‘‘It was kind of an open secret in gymnastics that there was abuse,’’ Helena said. 

‘‘We all know that stuff happened but I never really witnessed it firsthand. Hearing 

all of these other girls’ stories from their gym, I just felt so lucky to be at that gym. 

There was none of that I ever experienced.’’ 

There was no question of Helena’s parents believing her when she told them years 

after the fact that Nassar had sexually abused her, but they still felt shocked and 

betrayed. 

Helena’s parents and family continue to be her biggest support system. She is 

glad she can speak out about her abuse and be an advocate for others, but also feels 

sometimes it distracts from her own personal healing. 

Helena is now a freshman at Taylor University in Indiana studying psychology. 

She still thinks about Nassar every day. 

‘‘It all starts small in gyms with parents learning warning signs in their gyms 

and outside,’’ she said. ‘‘Gymnastics definitely needs to change for it to be safe for 

everyone.’’ 

Part of the problem is how intense the sport is, Helena explained, because usually 

gymnasts peak at 14, so they are treated years older than they are. Children need 

time to just be kids, feel empowered, and be able to know they have authority over 

their own body and life, she said. 

Despite its current problems, Helena still has love for the sport that was such a 

big part of her childhood. ‘‘It was very important to me, it still is. It is a beautiful 

sport,’’ Helena said. ‘‘Larry is not going to ruin that.’’ 

Bleacher Report 

THE WOMAN COMING FOR LARRY NASSAR’S JOB

ALEXANDRIA NEASON—JULY 19, 2018 

B/R 


724WOMAN1.eps
70 

Michigan State University, known locally as State, is a sprawling campus in East 

Lansing marked by a series of roads that wind into each other like irrigation channels. On the drive to the school, green plains dot the landscape and the backs of 

passing cars and trucks almost universally announce their collegiate loyalty in 

green and white. 

When Selena Brennan and I arrive on a sunny day in mid-May, the bustle of the 

spring semester has ended, but students wearing backpacks still fill the sidewalks. 

Selena has just finished up her freshman year at MSU—enough time to know her 

way around. Not today, however: To get us there, she sheepishly plugs the street 

address into her cell phone, trusting the omniscience of an app over her own memory. After a quick re-route, and later, some directions from Dad, we pull into a nondescript parking lot near an off-campus apartment complex that will, come fall, be 

her new home. 

I hadn’t asked her to, but Selena, 19, brought us here anyway—here, in front of 

a tall, silver and blue building. This was it. A year earlier, during a visit to the 

school with friends, just being within eyesight of this building had reduced her to 

tears. MSU was her dream school, but the possibility of having to spend time on 

this side of campus had been a concern. Her counselor intervened, suggesting that 

she come back here to learn how to separate the building from the trauma she’d 

endured in it, how to separate the man responsible for the pain from the dream 

she’d come to MSU to chase. Today, Selena is in control. Her hands relax on the 

steering wheel of her mother’s SUV as she stares intently at a sign that announces 

the building’s occupants: Michigan State University Health Team. 

‘‘Now I can sit here. It’s still weird, but I know nothing is going to happen,’’ she 

told me. ‘‘I’ll be in there one day. Running that show.’’ 

The ‘‘show,’’ as Selena calls it, had been headed by disgraced sports physician 

Larry Nassar for years. MSU had been his professional home since 1997; he had 

run shop out of his office here, at this building, until the university fired him in 

the wake of numerous allegations of sexual abuse being publicized. 

Nassar’s fall from grace began out of the public eye in 2014, when he was on the 

faculty at Michigan State’s College of Osteopathic Medicine. That April, MSU graduate Amanda Thomashow filed a Title IX complaint against him, alleging sexual 

misconduct. She said she had been sexually assaulted by Nassar during treatment 

for a hip injury, and a criminal investigation was opened. But Nassar continued to 

see patients at MSU for 16 months before the university alerted local prosecutors 

on July 1, 2015. That summer, Nassar dodged the spotlight again, when USA Gymnastics, which had received formal complaints of abuse a year earlier, dismissed him 

without alerting his other employers or law enforcement. 

Nassar during a hearing. JEFF KOWALSKY/Getty Images 


724WOMAN2.eps
71 

It would be another year before the world caught wind of Nassar’s crimes. In August of 2016, the Indianapolis Star published a landmark investigation revealing the 

chronic, systemic failure by USA Gymnastics, the sport’s governing body, to report 

the allegations of abuse of children by their coaches. Just a few weeks after the 

story was published, Rachael Denhollander, a former gymnast, filed a criminal complaint with police against Nassar, alleging that he had sexually abused her as a 

teenager, when she was his patient. She was the first to publicly accuse him. The 

Indianapolis Star again ran the story. 

Over the next several months, hundreds of women and girls, including several 

Olympians, were emboldened to step forward, one by one, both publicly and anonymously, with stories of abuse by Nassar. He’d worked as the team physician for the 

women’s Olympic team for four seasons and treated hundreds of underage athletes 

over a decades-long career working at MSU, Twistars—an elite gymnastics training 

facility in Lansing—and at Holt High School. 

Selena had been Nassar’s patient for six years while nursing a back injury. Her 

last appointment with him was in late August, right before he was arrested and 

charged. 

Like many kids, Selena got her start in gymnastics in a toddler class. She was 

a sports girl from a sports family in a budding sports powerhouse town called 

Clarkston. Her father, Tim, had been an athlete; he had both played and coached 

high school football, so he was invested in his daughter’s progress. By the time 

Selena was 5, she had moved up to a recreational gymnastics program, taking hourlong classes once weekly. When her coaches opened a new gym, Stars and Stripes 

Kids Activity Center, and announced the beginning of a competitive program, 

Selena was selected as an inaugural athlete. 

Brennan, 8, smiles after winning every event and all around at a level 4 event. Courtesy of 

Selena Brennan 

As the number of hours she spent in the gym increased, it became clear that this 

wasn’t just a phase; gymnastics was Selena’s sport. She took her training seriously, 

performing the best on floor and vault, and she never had to be convinced to go to 

practice. 

Tim watched his daughter move from level to level, and like any good coach, he 

threw himself into the numbers. ‘‘I started tracking it a little bit to get an idea of 

what percentile she was [in],’’ he said. ‘‘Those first three years [that she competed], 

she was always in that top 3–10 percentile. Regardless of where the meet was, who 

it was against, what state we were in. And I got a better idea of whether it was 

real. I saw that she had the focus to maybe do really well in the long haul.’’ 

By the time Selena was 11 years old and in the fifth grade, she was competing 

on a level 7 team at Stars and Stripes. The training was grueling and repetitive. 


724WOMAN3.eps
72 

Her craft, artistic gymnastics, required a delicate combination of strength, flexibility, power and speed. So she structured her life almost entirely around gymnastics practice: After school, she ate and changed in the car on the way to the gym, 

where she trained until 9 p.m. four days per week. On Saturdays, she spent up to 

six hours practicing. 

One day, while executing a front walkover, a basic skill, Selena cracked two 

vertebrae in her back. ‘‘I was in a lot of pain,’’ Selena said. ‘‘And I thought I just 

pulled a little muscle or something, I didn’t think it was a big deal.’’ 

She continued to practice through the pain for four months—it was competition 

season—before finally seeking medical treatment. Doctors diagnosed her with stress 

fractures, and prescribed that she wear a rigid, plastic back brace that, using velcro 

straps, would wrap around Selena’s torso. She was to wear it at all times, and doctors even suggested that Selena consider quitting sports altogether. 

Where other kids might have tired of repeat appointments, growing frustrated 

with the pain and lack of answers, Selena was resolute. During one visit, a nurse 

walked her through the intricacies of the MRI process, showing Selena images of 

her own spine as the machine hummed and rotated around her. Seeing her own 

anatomy fascinated Selena. She had found a second dream. 

Brennan, 10, gets ready before a level 6 event. Courtesy of Selena Brennan 

Selena took some time off before returning to the gym, but the brace, bulky and 

imposing on her short frame, was clearly not a solution. And neither was quitting. 

‘‘It was really awkward. If I had to bend down and pick something up, I had to keep 

a straight body or I had to do the drop-and-squat,’’ Selena said. ‘‘We all kind of realized how ridiculous it was.’’ 

The constant immobilization was weakening her core strength, a hindrance in a 

sport that relies so heavily on it. So a trusted coach at her gym suggested they 

make an appointment with a star gymnastics doctor she had heard of, to get a second opinion and a more realistic assessment of rehabilitation time. His name was 

Larry Nassar. 

Selena’s parents quickly made her an appointment. 

‘‘He worked with athletes all the way up to Olympians. And he’s looking for ways 

to rehabilitate and strengthen things that may have been a weakness, that may 

have caused the injury,’’ Tim said, remembering his daughter’s first appointment. 

‘‘So it made a lot more sense. It sounded a lot better. You go to his office, all the 

impressive letters and pictures. And you know, looking back on it, the guy had the 

perfect setup for being the nutty pervert that he was. It’s crazy.’’ 

(Unbeknownst to the Brennans, court records show that at that point, in 2010, 

at least four victims had reported abuse against Nassar, including at MSU. Later, 

it would be revealed that around this time, Nassar also kept computer files containing thousands of images of child pornography. Additional court records say he 


724WOMAN4.eps
73 

had begun abusing a six-year-old girl—a daughter of a family friend—in 1998, the 

year Selena was born.) 

Selena was seeing Nassar for treatment regularly, and her interest in medicine 

began to build. 

Finally, here was a doctor with whom she shared a vocabulary, someone who did 

not need to be taught what a front walkover was. Here was a doctor who understood 

what was expected of her in the gym and who could treat her injury in a way that 

catered to that. It was through that lens that she started to see a future in sports 

medicine for herself. 

‘‘Just being able to be with a doctor who understood the sport made it a lot easier. 

It was like I could take a deep breath, and I didn’t have to explain how [I do] what 

I do. Sometimes primary care doctors give you some type of way to cope with the 

pain. But when you’re practicing that much in a gym, you’re constantly putting 

pressure on your back,’’ Selena said. ‘‘Those things don’t necessarily work, because 

there’s a ton more pressure on your body than the average person. It was nice to 

have reasonable tools be given and be like, ‘OK, this is something I can actually 

do, this might actually make a difference.’ After my [first] visit I was like, ‘I’m doing 

this.’ I ended up telling him, ’I want to do what you do.’ ’’ 

Brennan, 12, competes on the balance beam during a regional event at level 8. Courtesy of 

Selena Brennan 

Among friends, Selena was the doctor of the crew, quick to offer an amateur diagnosis whenever anyone got hurt. By age 12, she decided she would not only study 

to become a physician, but would do so at MSU, where Nassar worked and where 

two of her uncles had once been students. She became familiar with the hour-long 

drive to MSU from Clarkston, and despite the vertebral fractures, she returned to 

the gym for training and was eventually cleared to compete again. 

Just before the start of what would have been her level-nine season—gymnasts 

compete until level 10 before earning the designation ‘‘elite,’’ which qualifies them 

to compete internationally—Selena quit gymnastics. Despite having returned to 

training and being cleared to compete, she finally tired of the constant pain and 

other interests she couldn’t pursue. Freed from the demands of the gym, she got 

more involved in her school community and joined a dance team. But she continued 

seeing Nassar to treat her back. (She had developed spondylolisthesis, a spinal disorder exacerbated by sports like gymnastics, and also suffered from upper back 

problems.) 

Throughout this time, over the course of six years, Nassar groomed and repeatedly abused Selena. For the first two years, he groped her during treatment. She 

was 13 when the molestation began. 

Selena was too young to understand what was happening when it started, and 

as is common among victims of sexual abuse, it was near impossible to clearly arVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE

724WOMAN5.eps
74 

ticulate that something was wrong. She made attempts, though. After one appointment, Selena described to her friends what she knows now was abuse, telling them 

that he made her feel uncomfortable. 

‘‘When something would happen, I had a couple close friends that I said something to, like ’Isn’t this weird?’ But they were just as young as I was and we didn’t 

know, so it wasn’t like they were pointing it out like ‘You need to tell somebody.’ 

Everybody just was like, ‘It’s your doctor,’ ’’ Selena said. 

‘‘I just assumed, like, this is my doctor, that must have been an accident. I kind 

of justified it in my head because my parents were in the room, and to me, it was 

weird, but it didn’t send off an extreme red flag, I didn’t know any better. For so 

long, I was so tricked by [Nassar]. Even though I felt uncomfortable, I didn’t think 

anything was seriously wrong. I was never by myself with him, so I was just like, 

What could be [wrong]? If something was really wrong, somebody would know besides me.’’ 

Tim and Angie, Selena’s parents, remember their daughter mentioning that she 

felt uncomfortable on one occasion. But at the time, and given the nature of her injuries, they never suspected that Selena’s discomfort was a warning sign. Doctors 

enjoy a certain amount of public trust, which is a necessary precondition for patients to make themselves vulnerable when they receive care. Doctors are good people, conventional wisdom goes, so we show up and we trust them with our bodies, 

with the bodies of our children, and we wait for them to heal us. Nassar and predators like him exploit this social contract, taking advantage of our desire to be 

healthy, and of our reliance on them to help make it so. 

The summer before her senior year, in 2016, Selena was, by all accounts, a normal teenager: She hung out on her family’s boat, swam in the many lakes that surround Clarkston and spent time with a crew of her best friends. She visited her 

grandparents and daydreamed about the basketball team’s chances in the upcoming 

season. (Her high school was a perennial contender.) She also managed her chronic 

back pain. 

Larry Nassar appears in court to listen to impact statements prior to being sentenced after 

being accused of molesting about 100 girls while he was a physician for USA Gymnastics and 

Michigan State University, where he had his sports-medicine practice on January 16, 2018 in 

Lansing, Michigan. Nassar has pleaded guilty in Ingham County, Michigan, to sexually assaulting seven girls, but the judge is allowing all his accusers to speak. Nassar is currently serving 

a 60-year sentence in Federal prison for possession of child pornography. Scott Olson/Getty Images 

Nassar became a household name very suddenly that fall. When the news of his 

crimes broke, Selena was at powder puff football practice. Meaghan Mulvihill, one 

of Selena’s closest friends, vividly remembers the moment she heard the reports. A 


724WOMAN6.eps
75 

friend of the crew, Isabel, who was also a gymnast, rushed into practice late, visibly 

shaken. 

‘‘She went right to Selena and was like, ‘I need to talk to you.’ We were like, 

‘What is going on?’ Once practice ended, we kind of figured it out. The articles were 

coming out and we knew he was her doctor. I remember she stayed in the parking 

lot for a long time. She was too hysterical to even drive herself home,’’ said 

Mulvihill. ‘‘I was reading every article, talking to my parents about it. Not knowing 

what to say to her.’’ 

‘‘Once the story broke, I instantly knew and I was so in shock, but there was not 

a single hint of doubt in my mind because I was like, How can I be reading something that happened to me, that nobody else knows?’’ said Selena. ‘‘And I came home 

really, really, really upset.’’ 

Selena tried to tell her parents on the day the news broke, but she was overwhelmed and couldn’t get it out. ‘‘I thought I had said enough, but I didn’t. In my 

head. I was thinking I was, but I really wasn’t saying much at all,’’ she said. 

Her parents remember things similarly. ‘‘I remember her coming into our bedroom 

and I was talking about it,’’ Tim said. ‘‘And of course [we were] like, ‘How can that 

be?’ Keep in mind, every time we were there for six years, one of us was there. 

Selena was never with that guy without one of us there. So it still doesn’t register 

in your mind as a parent that that happened to your daughter. One, you don’t want 

to believe it did. And two, you were there. And it doesn’t compute. 

‘‘I’m sure her subconscious blamed us. Like, maybe she didn’t sit there and go, 

‘It’s my parents fault,’ but subconsciously—how do you digest all that as a young 

kid? I think she had a huge amount of resentment and fought with us and hid up 

in her room and we’re going, ‘What the hell?’ I didn’t even connect the dots. Looking 

back, you wonder why I didn’t know that’s what was going on.’’ 

In a matter of weeks, the news became the biggest sports story in the country 

as more and more women stepped forward to tell their stories. On Sept. 20, 2016, 

Nassar was fired from MSU. On Nov. 21, he was charged with three counts of criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13, and by Dec. 15, he had been charged 

with possession of child pornography. He was stripped of his medical license in January of 2017. Denhollander and 17 additional, anonymous victims sued MSU, USA 

Gymnastics and Twistars the same month. 

Through all of this, Selena was left to navigate the terms of her own trauma amid 

a cloud of confusion and speculation. The people closest to her knew her desire to 

be a sports physician. They also knew that she had built a desire for the profession 

and learned the ins and outs of it because of her injuries and her visits with Nassar. 

So Selena found herself doing the painful work of coming to terms with the reality 

of her abuse—with an audience. 

As is the case with many survivors of abuse, it would be months before she could 

clearly articulate what had happened. During this time, her parents—with whom 

she normally had a close-knit relationship—and friends noticed a change in her demeanor. Angie remembers Selena seeming persistently angry. Mulvihill recalls an 

occasional emotional outburst. 

‘‘Selena is always the strong one. She’s always the one that. . .when something 

is wrong, you go to Selena and she knows what to say,’’ Mulvihill said. ‘‘She would 

talk about it sometimes to me. Last summer, we were at one of our friends’ graduation parties, we were all hanging out and she was really upset. She was hysterically 

crying about it and she was like, ‘I don’t want to have to deal with this all year.’ ’’ 

76 

Courtesy of Selena Brennan 

The public conversation about Nassar was intensely painful for Selena at times. 

Her friends did the best they could, offering her compassion and sensitivity at arguably the most difficult point of her life. But the larger school community sometimes 

unwittingly caused her pain. One time, in an AP U.S. government class, a teacher 

incorporated a news article about Nassar into a class discussion, which caused speculation among her peers about whether she had been assaulted. 

‘‘They would be reading it and looking at me, and reading it and looking at me. 

And it was really hard. Because without saying anything, everybody was looking at 

me, people who had heard me say his name before. I just had to sit there, because 

if I get up and leave the room, I’m just confirming it for everyone in this room,’’ 

Selena said. ‘‘I knew that it was going to get brought up at one point, but it was 

hard to make a decision. Do I get up so I can go do what I need to do to relax, 

or do I just sit here and try to hold it all in?’’ 

The pressure of the questions weighed on her. 

‘‘The smallest things would be triggers for me. And I would just shut down and 

freak out, just crying, hyperventilating and having really bad panic attacks,’’ Selena 

remembered. ‘‘Anytime I’d go anywhere or do anything [with] my friends, anytime 

I felt like I was like having a good time, it was weird. I felt like I shouldn’t be [having a good time], like why are you happy right now? And then I’d start thinking 

about everything and just get out of control.’’ 

Mulvihill recalled that once, she had to bring an inconsolable Selena into a dark 

closet in the middle of a party, huddling together with her until she could breathe. 

Another time, on a St. Patrick’s Day trip to visit Mulvihill’s sister at MSU, they 

drove past Nassar’s old office and the color drained from Selena’s face. 

After one particularly bad panic attack, Selena’s brother, Maxx, went to his parents, scared and concerned for his big sister. A conversation finally ensued. Selena 

tried her best to articulate what she had been feeling. 

‘‘It wasn’t just hard for me to get it out, but it was hard for me to see my parents 

finding out. For months, I hadn’t looked at them and been like, ‘This and this and 

this happened.’ They knew that I was upset about it because we had been with him 

for so long, but it was like they were finding out [that Nassar was a sexual predator] for the first time again,’’ said Selena. 

The conversation was difficult not just in the obvious ways. Tim and Angie were 

present during Selena’s visits with Nassar, but they weren’t aware of the abuse taking place under their noses—a fact they struggled with. 

‘‘Initially I’m thinking, Oh, my God, for all this time she thinks that we knew and 

we didn’t do anything,’’ Tim said. ‘‘Then also it dawns on me, Wait a minute! This 

guy did this and I’m there. So now I’m going, My one and only thing is to protect 

my kids, and I’m sitting there while this guy’s doing this? It’s beyond tough to deal 


724WOMAN7.eps
77 

with. . . . Like, how could this happen? Especially with us there. And you feel like 

you know a person, you know?’’ 

Selena and her father, Tim, after a 2006 competition. Selena Brennan 

After Nassar was arrested, Angie started looking for a new doctor for her daughter—this time, a woman, because Selena didn’t want to see male doctors anymore. 

For at least a year, Nassar had been unable to find the source of the pain. But the 

next sports physician Selena saw administered a single MRI and immediately offered a new diagnosis: a degenerative disc. 

‘‘And that’s all it took,’’ Selena said. 

Soon thereafter, Tim and Angie enrolled Selena in therapy. (When I asked if they 

had sought therapy as a couple, Angie told me that they hadn’t, but that they probably should. Their focus right now is entirely on Selena.) In her sessions, Selena 

thought hard about the decision to attend MSU, given that the university had several opportunities to address concerns about Nassar before it finally acted. 

‘‘I questioned going to State because of [worrying about] being able to mentally 

handle being in the same area where everything happened,’’ Selena said. ‘‘I had put 

State on a pedestal for so long because I wanted to go there so badly.’’ 

Her parents reassured her that she wasn’t beholden to her childhood dream, that 

it would not be a failure to pick a different school. But Selena worked hard to build 

her courage. When it came time to make a decision, she declined to let Nassar rob 

her of her dream. She enrolled at MSU. 

In some ways, Selena’s freshman year was like any other. She arrived last fall, 

like other teens. She roomed with Mulvihill—a number of her girlfriends from her 

hometown had chosen MSU for college—in student housing. (They stayed on the 

sixth floor of Holden Hall in a room they nicknamed ‘‘the cubicle,’’ and made friends 

with their suitemates.) Selena threw herself into her studies—her major is kinesiology—and she joined a sorority, Sigma Kappa. She also got a moped to get around 

on campus. 

But in other ways, the experience couldn’t have been further from the norm. The 

campus was at the center of a national scandal, and midway through the fall semester, the #MeToo movement caught on. Students around campus were rallying 

around Nassar’s survivors—and loudly so. They shamed the university’s administration for its inaction, which they saw as complicity. 

Amid the campus activism—marches and protests, teal ribbons tied around trees, 

therapeutic fitness classes exclusive to survivors—Selena worked hard to untangle 

her love of sports medicine from Nassar. He was at once an example of what she 

wanted to be and exactly the type of person whom she did not want to become. She 

questioned her ambitions and worried she had been misled. 


724WOMAN8.eps
78 

What if he was leading me down the wrong path, career-wise? She thought. What 

if he wasn’t giving me real advice, or what if he was setting me up to fail in my 

education because I was listening to what he was saying? I’ve based years off of this, 

so what am I going to do now? 

The calls for change kept crescendoing and plateaued for seven extraordinary 

days in mid-January, when 156 survivors of Nassar’s crimes showed up in court 

ready to confront their assailant. They brought with them their devastating stories—stories that demonstrated the impossible scope of Nassar’s crimes, the sickening deception and repeated violation of trust they suffered. Thousands tuned in 

to bear witness. 

Selena followed the news coverage of the trial diligently, and when she heard survivors were being allowed to speak, she made the careful decision to go. The first 

day, Jan. 16, as 29 women spoke, Selena was in the courtroom watching with her 

mom. She made it through two hours of testimony before feeling so drained from 

the experience that she had to leave. (Mulvihill remembers running into her later 

that day and described her face as blank.) 

Scenes from Nassar’s court hearing. JEFF KOWALSKY/Getty Images 

‘‘It was just really, really weird seeing him again. Especially like that, it was really odd and hard. But then when I saw girls get up there and speak, and speak to 

not only the court and Judge Aquilina, but to him. . .I was sitting there and I could 

feel their anger, and it made me feel better,’’ Selena said. ‘‘Watching them get angry 

at him made me angry too. It felt good to put it on him. Right after the first day, 

when I got back to my dorm, I typed up everything that I would want to say to 

him.’’ 

Selena wanted in, so she filed a police report with a detective, who contacted the 

attorney general and got her a time slot to make a victim impact statement. She 

returned to the courtroom two more times to build up her courage. She was scheduled to speak on the sixth day of the hearing, and Selena made one request of her 

father, who had driven to East Lansing with Angie. 

‘‘She said, ‘I want to try not to get emotional today. I want to be strong today. 

We all need to be strong,’ ’’ Tim said. ‘‘She made that comment in the car and I 

thought, Yes, we need that.’’ 

In the courtroom, Tim and Angie gripped Selena’s hands as they waited for her 

turn to speak. When it came, Selena stood at the podium and did not waver as she 

described to the court how Nassar had earned her trust and then violated it, potentially misdiagnosing her. 

‘‘The last few years, I was seeing him for another back problem that he, for some 

unknown reason, couldn’t figure out. Now, I sit here and wonder if that was on purpose. I got one MRI after he was fired, and from that one MRI, I figured out what 


724WOMAN9.eps
79 

was wrong with me. And it turns out I was exactly right. So tell me, how does someone as educated as Larry not figure that out? Did he want to keep me around for 

his own use? This is something I may never know,’’ she said. 

In watching their daughter speak, Tim and Angie saw that she had made a turning point in her recovery. 

‘‘She did what the intention of an impact statement is supposed to—which is to 

give the girls a chance to take control back to a degree, and start healing from it,’’ 

Tim said. 

An emotional moment in the courtroom. JEFF KOWALSKY/Getty Images 

‘‘[She was] taking control. That’s what I felt. Like she was telling him she’s in 

charge,’’ Angie added. 

Then, Selena turns and quickly looks at him, taking a subtle breath before glancing back down at her notes. Her long, black wavy hair is draped across her shoulders, like armor. She demands that he look her in the eye as she speaks: 

‘‘It’s really unfortunate to me that even now, standing here today, seeing you 

upset, for some sick reason, makes me upset,’’ she says. ‘‘This week has been my 

time to face you. But today is your time to face me.’’ 

Her gaze grows more stern, and her tone drips with anger as she continues, 

speaking slowly and deliberately: 

‘‘I want you to continue to look at me while I speak, because that is the attention 

I deserve. I trusted you for six years and so did my family. I have listened to a lot 

of other brave survivors tell their stories to get you the worst possible punishment, 

but no punishment will ever be enough for the pain and suffering you have caused 

everyone. I want you to know that you have not defeated me. I am joining the 

strongest force of women making change so this type of sexual abuse is never tolerated or ignored. I was inspired by the field of sports medicine because of you unfortunately, but that is one thing I will not let you take from me. Today, I am more 

determined than ever to actually become a respected, knowledgeable, helpful, caring 

and successful sports medicine physician and person, the kind of doctor and person 

people only thought you were. I plan on taking your job, Larry, and making sure 

no patient of mine ever feels the way I do.’’ 

When Selena finished her remarks, she thanked the judge, grabbed her piece of 

paper and returned to the rear of the hearing room, where her parents awaited her. 

She didn’t know how few or how many people were tuned in. Who had seen what 

she said. Mulvihill was watchingfrom the screen of a laptop a few miles away on 

campus. Selena had practiced her speech out loud three times the night before in 

a spate of nerves and anticipation. She cheered as Selena spoke. 

‘‘I was like, ‘Oh, my God. That’s my best friend! That’s the strongest girl I’ve ever 

met.’ It made me proud. She tore him apart,’’ said Mulvihill. 


724WOMAN10.eps
80 

Not long after Selena got back to MSU, President Lou Anna Simon and athletic 

director Mark Hollis resigned. William Strampel, Nassar’s boss and a dean at MSU, was charged with propositioning and groping medical students some months later. 

By the time of our campus visit, someone had written the names of 150 of Nassar’s 

survivors on The Rock, a campus landmark, in black Sharpie. Brennan’s name was 

among them. Next to the names, a ‘‘Thank You,’’ was written with a heart and a 

hashtag, #TimesUpMSU. 

Women from the Michigan based victim advocacy groups End Violent Encounters and Firecracker Foundation cheer for women as they leave the courthouse after the sentencing of disgraced doctor Larry Nassar in Ingham County Circuit Court on January 24, 2018 in Lansing, 

Michigan. The former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor was sentenced to 

up to 175 years in prison for sexual assault after more than 150 women and girls confronted 

him in court and spoke of their abuse. Anthony Lanzilote/Getty Images 

It was clear where she would go from here: She would return to MSU ready to 

work. She would keep pressing forward. She’s already thought ahead to medical 

school, where she wants to be, who she wants to become. She has considered staying 

at MSU, an act of ownership that feels in defiance of a man who desecrated the 

school’s importance in her life and that of so many others. 

She would also dedicate herself to remedying the conditions that made the Nassar 

situation possible in the first place—increase the ranks of women doctors in gymnastics. I asked her if she ever felt like sports medicine was a field that harbored 

too many painful memories for her to linger in. 

‘‘I did question it for a while,’’ she said. ‘‘Before I knew what kind of person 

[Nassar] was, I wanted to be him. But now I can be better than him, I can do what 

he should have done. Not only can I help athletes with injuries, I would be the 

woman doctor to be there. I realized that I didn’t need him to help me figure out 

what I was going to do. I trusted my gut on it and said I can still do what I’ve wanted to do. He doesn’t have to take that away from me, too.’’ 

Alexandria Neason is a senior staff writer at Columbia Journalism Review. 

Senator MORAN. I’m going to try to ask just a couple of questions. 

Senator Blumenthal has agreed that I have now equal time to his 

excessive questions. 

But, first of all, let me go back to Senator Blumenthal’s question 

to you, Ms. Perry. I don’t understand the flaw in the system that 

the two people that are coaching in Southern California. The flaw 

that allows them to do that is what? 

Ms. PERRY. So the example that I gave, Senator Moran, is with 

the coach, his last name is Gray, and we have—our Bylaws allow 


724WOMAN11.eps
81 

us to invoke immediate action, called interim suspension, when we 

feel that our membership is in harm’s way. 

In the Ted Stevens Act, anybody that is removed from the field 

of play is entitled to a hearing. So we invoked the interim suspension immediately. The hearing panel heard the interim suspension 

and said we come back with this finding. We’re going to reduce it 

from suspension to no contact with minor children. 

So you’ve got that at play and you also have the Center, which 

also is problematic in terms of this whole scenario that is in charge 

of investigating and has complete jurisdiction over sexual misconduct. 

So the information they give to us to present to the hearing 

panel is very limited. So you’ve got this system that’s in place—— 

Senator MORAN. So it is a gymnastics club in Southern California 

that has allowed these coaches to coach? 

Ms. PERRY. That’s correct. It’s a member club. 

Senator MORAN. A member of the USA Gymnastics? Is that the 

way to say that? 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. 

Senator MORAN. OK. Apparently not. You were hesitant to agree 

with me. 

Ms. PERRY. Member of USA Gymnastics. 

Senator MORAN. OK. 

Ms. PERRY. The coach, right. 

Senator MORAN. So they’ve been notified that the restrictions on 

the coach is reduced to no contact with minors, but they’re still 

coaching and, at least according to Senator Blumenthal, they’re 

coaching minors. 

Ms. PERRY. They have to be—according to the hearing panel recommendation, that individual is still allowed to coach but has to 

have supervision. 

Senator MORAN. With supervision. 

Ms. PERRY. Right. 

Senator MORAN. So they coach with supervision. Why would any 

gymnastics group want that circumstance to be the case? 

Ms. PERRY. And this is exactly, Senator Moran, why we have 

such challenges, is that, Number 1, we’ve got the U.S. Center for 

Safe Sport who has jurisdiction but cannot tell us the facts in great 

detail about that situation. So if it’s sexual misconduct it goes right 

to the Center. They inform us about it. USA Gymnastics makes a 

decision based on the limited information that the Center has given 

to us and we’re going to err on the side of athlete safety every time. 

So we made a decision as an organization to put that individual 

on interim suspension, so they get removed from coaching, right. 

Senator MORAN. I understand the scenario. 

Ms. PERRY. Right. 

Senator MORAN. I don’t understand why the person is still coaching at the gymnastics club in Southern California, having been censured in a way that prohibits him or her from having contact without supervision with young athletes. 

Ms. PERRY. But that’s one of the challenges with the Ted Stevens 

Act, is that prior to our ability to invoke interim measures, that an 

individual that goes through the process, if you will, an adverse 

party, is entitled to a hearing. 

82 

Senator MORAN. All of which I understand. The hearing occurred. 

The findings were held in the sense that—— 

Ms. PERRY. Right. 

Senator MORAN.—something bad had happened or some reason 

for restricting this coach’s capabilities to have contact with minors. 

Ms. PERRY. So the hearing panel found that they lessened the 

consequence from suspension—am I not answering? 

Senator MORAN. I understand all the facts—— 

Ms. PERRY. OK. 

Senator MORAN.—as you described them. 

Ms. PERRY. Right. 

Senator MORAN. But what keeps you from making certain that 

that group—first of all, I don’t understand why a group would take 

the risk of hiring somebody in that circumstance, but, secondly, 

what is your authority to do something about it when they do, and 

the answer to that is nothing because the person presumably is 

being supervised? 

Ms. PERRY. No. So our answer, USA Gymnastics’ answer, is to 

put an individual on interim suspension. This is a sexual conduct 

case. So there are a lot of things that fall under sexual misconduct. 

So when the Center tells us about this case, the case went to the 

Center and the Center tells us about a case, we have very limited 

information given from the Center and we have to make a decision 

at that point in time. Our decision is do you put that individual on 

interim suspension or do you wait until the hearing process goes 

through at the Center because that’s where it occurs and once the 

investigation and the disciplinary hearing takes place, then the 

Center comes back and says we’re done with our finding. This is 

how we resolved this situation. 

All throughout that process, we don’t know what’s going on and 

for the most part we have no idea how long it’s going to take. So 

in the meantime, we have this—— 

Senator MORAN. So these individuals or this individual can be 

there until there is a final determination by—— 

Ms. PERRY. By the Center. 

Senator MORAN.—the Center for Safe Sport? 

Ms. PERRY. That’s true. 

Senator MORAN. And that’s what you’re waiting on now? 

Ms. PERRY. And they’re still in that process. 

Senator MORAN. And when that finding occurs, then what’s your 

enforcement against the clubs? 

Ms. PERRY. So then depending on the facts, and I don’t know the 

facts—— 

Senator MORAN. Make this one more hypothetical. So you have 

somebody who has been determined to be—it’s inappropriate for 

them to be coaching. The Center for Safe Sports hypothetically has 

determined that. What prohibits a club from continuing to hire people who they should not hire? 

Ms. PERRY. So there are two things. One is as a requirement of 

their membership, they have to—for example, in this case, if another club looks at hiring this individual and they’re on the permanently ineligible list or they’re on the suspension list, they have to 

look at those lists. That’s a requirement of their continued membership. 

83 

They have to do background screening. They have to get references. There are a series of things that that club owner has to 

do and if, for any reason, they’ve hired somebody on a permanently 

ineligible list in this situation, the organization has the right to revoke their membership as a club owner. 

Senator MORAN. And the consequence of being a club that no 

longer has membership with USAG is what? 

Ms. PERRY. Membership is a privilege. That club still can operate 

their business. They just can’t participate in USA Gymnastics-sanctioned kinds of events. 

Senator MORAN. You were asked, Ms. Perry, about nondisclosure 

agreements. 

Ms. Lyons, any nondisclosure agreements at work at the U.S. 

Olympics? 

Ms. LYONS. No. I’ve asked that question and none to our knowledge. 

Senator MORAN. And, Mr. Engler, President Engler, at Michigan 

State? 

Mr. ENGLER. No nondisclosure agreements. Everything we don’t 

disclose is leaked. 

Senator MORAN. And in regard to reports about next steps, Ms. 

Lyons, the U.S. Olympic Committee has hired outside folks to review process procedure, find out the facts, I assume make recommendations to improve the circumstance. Is that all accurate? I 

mean, I’m describing that correctly? 

Ms. LYONS. Yes, we have a number of initiatives, including outside folks. 

Senator MORAN. And when will we, the public, be able to see the 

results of that study or those studies? 

Ms. LYONS. Well, there are a lot of interim things that will happen before those studies are completed. As you know, we are doing 

a lot of interim steps, but the commission that is looking at the 

governance will begin and probably begin early September. We finalized or pretty much are finalizing the membership of that committee and I know that seems slow. We’re moving as quickly as we 

can, but we want to make sure we have the right people on that. 

Senator MORAN. Is this the Committee that Mr. Xiao is speaking 

of? 

Ms. LYONS. Yes, and he will be a member of that committee, as 

well. 

Senator MORAN. But you’ve hired a law firm to evaluate—— 

Ms. LYONS. Oh. 

Senator MORAN.—process and procedure and when we last visited, I think we were expecting a report from that effort this summer. 

Ms. LYONS. I think you’re referring to the Ropes and Gray investigation,—— 

Senator MORAN. I am. 

Ms. LYONS.—which is not so much looking at policies and procedures. It’s looking at who knew what when,—— 

Senator MORAN. Yes. 

Ms. LYONS.—and we expect probably in September. Our understanding is they’ve pretty much completed their investigations at 

the USOC and I think also at the USAG. They’ve a few more interVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
84 

views to do at the Center for Safe Sport. I believe they’re almost 

close to finishing their investigation and then they would write 

their report. They’ve given us to understand probably early September is when we would look at it. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Engler, if there was conversations about the 

Michigan State Attorney General, the State of Michigan’s Attorney 

General, I also think was there a legislative inquiry? 

Mr. ENGLER. There were a couple of different committees. 

They’ve wrapped up their work. 

Senator MORAN. So your who, what, when, and where reports 

have been completed and are known publicly? 

Mr. ENGLER. That’s correct. The Attorney General, we think, is 

nearing the end. They’ve interviewed, I believe, more than a hundred people on campus. We don’t know when that report will be 

done. We hope soon, and that should be it for the state level reporting. 

Senator MORAN. And Michigan State didn’t hire anybody separate from the state efforts to—— 

Mr. ENGLER. We did not. 

Senator MORAN. OK. And, Ms. Perry, at USA Gymnastics? 

Ms. PERRY. There are several investigations that are ongoing. 

One includes the Ropes and Gray independent investigation. There 

are, of course, the congressional investigations and others, and according to Ms. Lyons and what we’ve been informed, the Ropes and 

Gray should near its end around beginning of the fall. 

Senator MORAN. We, in my view, certainly would not be able to 

conclude our work until we see the who, what, when, and where 

reports from your organizations. 

I think this is it, Senator Blumenthal, for me. Center for Safe 

Sports, just want to give you further license. Center for Safe 

Sports, I want to talk about it for a moment, and this would be to 

Mr. Xiao and Ms. Lyons. 

One of the primary concerns that we’ve heard through my conversations with athletes and our investigation is the belief or concern that the center is not truly independent from USOC and 

there’s a resulting lack of trust on the part of the athletes. 

So they see the center as something created by the U.S. Olympic 

Committee and I’d like to hear—let me start with you, Mr. Xiao. 

Is that an accurate assessment of where we are, and what can we 

do about it? 

Mr. XIAO. As a collective, I think there is a little bit of a concern 

not necessarily with the Board of the Center for Safe Sport but a 

little bit of the funding model because, to be honest, not many entities have been interested in funding the Center for Safe Sport, as 

I understand, and so a lot of the funding comes from the USOC 

and the national governing bodies. 

Senator MORAN. And athletes I’ve talked to have expressed concern because the funding of the U.S. Olympic Committee of Safe 

Sport, but I also would say what you just said, which is in the absence of the funding of the U.S. Olympic Committee, I doubt that 

the funding is there for Safe Sport, is that fair? 

Mr. XIAO. And that’s certainly a challenge and I think that’s fair. 

The other issue that we’re concerned about is the presence of 

former USOC staff members still operating in a staff capacity at 

85 

the Center for Safe Sport, which raises some concerns for some 

people. 

Senator MORAN. Say that sentence again, make sure I understand you. 

Mr. XIAO. There are staff members at Safe Sport who were formerly staff members at the USOC Committee. I can think of one. 

I don’t know if there are others, but that certainly raised concerns 

within the community, as well. 

Senator MORAN. Ms. Lyons? 

Ms. LYONS. Just comment on the same question? 

Senator MORAN. Yes. 

Ms. LYONS. Let me first say I separate two parts of independence. In terms of the investigations of the Center for Safe Sport is 

100 percent independent. We have no insight into that. It is all 

completely confidential and there is no USOC employee who has 

any involvement with any of the ongoing investigations in any way. 

There are areas where I think in the interest of all of the athletes, the NGBs, the USOC, and the Center need to collaborate and 

that is things like creating these data bases so that we can provide 

information and I think it is in helping to find additional funding 

because they don’t have enough to be successful at their mission 

and much like USATF, which had its origins within the USOC but 

then became a fully independent organization with not just funding 

from the USOC but also from the government, we think that that 

is really the evolution that the center needs to have so that it can 

truly become independent of any influence from us or anyone else. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, that we put 

in the record the article I referenced earlier from the Orange County Register, dated yesterday. 

Senator MORAN. Without objection. 

[The news article referred to follows:] 

86 

SPORTS 

SUSPENDED COACHES STILL WORKING AT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GYMNASTICS CLUBS

USA Gymnastics accused of policy loopholes and not notifying clubs about 

suspended coaches 

By SCOTT M. REID / sreid@scng.com / Orange County Register 

PUBLISHED: July 23, 2018 at 7:20 pm / UPDATED: July 24, 2018 at 12:12 pm 

Southern California gymnastics coaches Colden Raisher, left, and Terry Gray, right, continue 

to work with underage gymnasts even though the sport’s national governing body has suspended 

them while it conducts investigations into alleged rules violations. Photos courtesy of Instagram 

and USA Gymnastics. 

Two Southern California gymnastics coaches continue to work with underage 

gymnasts even though the sport’s national governing body has suspended themwhile 

it conducts investigations into alleged rules violations, the Southern California 

News Group has learned. 

Colden Raisher is coaching at The Klub Gymnastics, a gym club near the Silver 

Lake area of Los Angeles where the top director was unaware of his suspensionby 

USA Gymnastics on Friday. 

Similarly, former U.S. national team coach Terry Gray has continued to work 

with young athletes at SCEGA, a club in Temecula, despite his suspension by 

USAGymnastics and the U.S. Center for Safe Sport. Gray was placed on USA Gymnastics’ suspension list on June 29, and the list was updated on the organization’s 

website that day. 

‘‘No notice was given to us nor Terry from USA Gymnastics prior to the list going 

out on online,’’ said Kathy Strate, an SCEGA director. 

SCEGA officials actually had to call USA Gymnastics to find out information on 

Gray’s suspension after it was brought to the club’s attention by members of the 

gymnastics community. 

‘‘We were told by USA Gymnastics that we would be receiving a letter in the 

mail,’’ Strate said. SCEGA received a letter from USA Gymnastics the following day. 

Failure to notify clubs 

SCNG has learned that USA Gymnastics has routinely failed to notify clubs and 

gyms when it suspends coaches and other employees under investigation for alleged 

sexual misconduct. 

Under terms of their suspensions, Gray and Raisher can continue to coach, but 

can have ‘‘no unsupervised contact with minors.’’ 


724SUSPE1.eps
87 

The Gray and Raiser cases highlight loopholes in USA Gymnastics and the Safe 

Sport center’s policies and the complexity of balancing the protection of young athletes and the rights of accused coaches and officials, according to longtime observers 

of American gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic movement’s struggles to address sexual abuse. 

The cases also raise questions about USA Gymnastics commitment to protecting 

young athletes months after USA Gymnastics President Kerry Perry vowed the organization would be more transparent and accountable in pursuing sexual abuse 

cases in the wake of the Larry Nassar/Karolyi Ranch scandal, say former gymnasts 

and athlete rights advocates. 

‘‘It’s still not providing protection from alleged predators for our kids,’’ Jessica 

O’Beirne said of USA Gymnastics and Safe Sport policies that allow some coaches 

and officials to continue to work with young athletes while under investigation. 

O’Beirne is the founder of the podcast GymCastic. 

‘‘But you also can’t prevent a person from working and making a living,’’ O’Beirne 

continued. ‘‘So what do you do? But this doesn’t protect kids. Period.’’ 

Raisher denies any wrongdoing 

Raisher said last week he didn’t have time to go into the specifics of the allegations against him. 

‘‘There was no physical or sexual abuse,’’ Raisher said. ‘‘I’ve never done anything 

questionable. I’m one of the good guys in the sport. USA Gymnastics is trying to 

cast a very wide net. They’re trying to catch a lot of bad guys. I agree with that. 

But now anybody can report anything.’’ 

He said the allegations were made by officials at another gym. He previously 

worked at Golden State Gymnastics in Burbank. 

‘‘This has nothing to do with Safe Sport or anything sexual,’’ Raisher said. ‘‘I 

changed gyms a couple of months ago and they’re retaliating against me.’’ 

Golden State said in a statement that it ‘‘has not made any complaints against 

Colden Raisher.’’ 

Raisher said he would be willing to talk about his case and explain why he was 

innocent of the allegations when he had more time, but did not respond to subsequent requests to do so. 

While USA Gymnastics has not publicly described the nature of the allegations 

against the two coaches, Gray’s suspension is based on USA Gymnastics bylaws 9.3 

and 10.5, according to the organization. Raisher’s suspension is based on 10.5, USA 

Gymnastics said. 

Bylaw 9.3 states that USA Gymnastics ‘‘shall report and refer all allegations of 

sexual misconduct to the (U.S. Center for Safe Sport), and all such matters will be 

within the Center’s exclusive jurisdiction. The Center shall investigate such allegations or reports, issue any interim suspension or other measures pending the conclusion of the investigation and any hearing(s), make recommendations of sanctions or 

disciplinary action as a result of such investigation, and fully adjudicate such matters.’’ 

Bylaw 10.5 reads, ‘‘At any point before a complaint is resolved under the provisions of this Article 10, interim measures may be imposed to ensure the safety and 

well-being of the gymnastics community or where an allegation is sufficiently serious that an Adverse Party’s continued participation could be detrimental to the 

sport or its reputation.’’ 

4 others under investigation 

Raisher and Gray are two of six coaches with California ties currently under investigation by USA Gymnastics and/or Safe Sport. Stephen Graham, Ron Manara, 

Antoine Billingsly and Michael Ujin Sanders are suspended from ‘‘all contact’’ pending their hearings, according to USA Gymnastics records. 

Billingsly and Graham are suspended under bylaw 9.3, Manara and Sanders 

under 9.3 and 10.5. 

Manara is a former UC Davis assistant women’s gymnastics coach and member 

of the university’s physical education faculty. A university spokesperson said 

Manara is no longer employed at the school. The university has no record of inappropriate behavior by Manara, the spokesperson added. 

Graham, a former assistant coach at Eastern Michigan, worked at a series of California clubs and camps, including Gymnastics Olympica in Van Nuys, Pasadena’s 

Vernon Lee Gymnastics Amateur Gymnastics Academy, SoCal Training Center in 

San Marcos, Monarchs National in Newbury Park and Woodward West in 

Tehachapi. 

Billingsly previously worked at American Kids Sports Center in Bakersfield. 

SCNG was unable to find any employment records for Sanders. 

88 

USA Gymnastics issued the following statement to SCNG: ‘‘The safety and wellbeing of our athletes is USA Gymnastics’ top priority, and the USA Gymnastics Safe 

Sport Policy and other policies and procedures are in place for that reason. USA 

Gymnastics Safe Sport Department sends a letter to a suspended member at his/ 

her last known mailing and e-mail addresses, as well as to the respective club 

owner. Member clubs are informed of any suspension restricts and are responsible 

for enforcing those restrictions. If a parent is aware of a coach violating the terms 

of a suspension, they should report it. The list of members placed on the interim 

suspension (and permanently ineligible individuals) is posted on usagym.org’’ 

Even when officials at local clubs and gyms are able to contact USA Gymnastics 

and Safe Sport about suspensions, the organizations share only minimal information 

about allegations against coaches or employees. This often leaves gym and club owners with incomplete data when making decisions about allowing a suspended employee to continue working with young athletes. 

In Gray’s case, USA Gymnastics told SCEGA the allegations were cited in bylaws 

10.5 and 9.3, Strate said. USA Gymnastics told SCEGA ‘‘these allegations did not 

take place in our facility, and dated back to a 2012 allegation.’’ 

‘‘We have been given no other information,’’ Strate said. 

Gray, a U.S. national team coaching staff member from 1995 to 2005, worked for 

Brown’s Gymnastics in Las Vegas in 2012. Gray also is under investigation for inappropriate behavior at a gym in Ohio, according to those familiar with the investigation. He previously worked under Olympic team coach Mary Lee Tracy at Cincinnati 

Gymnastics, where he coached two Olympians. 

Brown’s officials declined to comment. Gray did not respond to requests for comment. 

‘‘In Mr. Grays case, a third party made an allegation to the Center,’’ Russell 

Prince, an attorney for Prince, said in an e-mail to SCNG. ‘‘USAG made an immediate full ‘no contact’ suspension as an Interim Measure. Mr. Gray was allowed an 

interim measures hearing and the panel looked at the allegations and facts and did 

not believe a no-contact suspension to be appropriate. During that hearing Mr. Gray 

was willing to stipulate to a duty change that would allow him to continue to coach 

under supervision and allow the Center, the independent body, to finalize their investigation. 

‘‘A complete investigation by the Center is in the best interests of Mr. Gray.’’ 

Parents complain they weren’t informed 

Some SCEGA parents have complained that they were not informed of Gray’s suspension by the club. 

‘‘We notified all the families of the gymnasts that are coached by Terry, as these 

were the only families impacted,’’ Strate said. 

Strate said the decision to allow Gray to continue to coach was made after USA 

Gymnastics ‘‘informed us that Terry was cleared to come back to the gym under an 

interim measure.’’ 

SCEGA’s decision to allow Gray to continue coaching came shortly after the club 

sent out an e-mail limiting parents viewing access to training sessions for top boys 

and girls training groups. 

Under the policy, there is ‘‘no viewing’’ from 3:30–7 p.m. Monday through Thursday, a primary training period for top groups. Parents are allowed to view training 

on Friday and Saturday. 

‘‘In an effort to to help with traffic congestion and viewing room crowding, the following policy is in effect,’’ the e-mail said. ‘‘We will be meeting with families who 

are not adhering to the policy. This also applies to watching on the bleachers at the 

Temecula location.’’ 

Scott M. Reid 

Scott M. Reid is a sports enterprise/investigative reporter for the Orange County 

Register. He also covers Olympic and international sports as well as the Los Angeles’ bid to host the 2024 Olympic Games. His work for the Register has led to investigations by the International Olympic Committee, the U.S. Department of Education, the California Legislature, and the national governing bodies for gymnastics 

and swimming. Reid’s 2011 reporting on wide spread sexual abuse within USA 

Gymnastics and the governing body’s failure to effectively address it led to Don Peters, coach of the 1984 record-setting Olympic team, being banned from the sport 

for life. His reporting also prompted USA Gymnastics to adopt new guidelines and 

policies dealing with sexual abuse. Reid’s 2012 and 2013 reporting on sexual abuse 

within USA Swimming led to the banishment of two top level coaches. Reid has won 

11 Associated Press Sports Editors awards for investigative reporting since 1999. 

89 

He has also been honored by APSE for game writing, and enterprise, news, and 

beat reporting. He was an Investigative Reporters and Editors award finalist in 

2002 and 2003. Prior to joining the Register in 1996, Reid worked for the Atlanta 

Journal-Constitution and the Dallas Times Herald. He has a B.A. in the History of 

the Americas from the University of Washington. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And just point out that, Ms. Perry, it says 

that no notice of these individuals’ suspension was provided, is that 

true? 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, I checked into that this morning and I was told that notice was given through both an e-mail 

and a first-class mail. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So you’re saying that Terry Gray worked 

with the SCEGA Club in Southern California and did so with notice, despite Cathy Strait, the director of that club, saying, ‘‘No notice was given to us nor Terry from USA Gymnastics prior to the 

list going out online?’’ 

Ms. PERRY. That individual—yes. I’m sorry. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That’s a lie? 

Ms. PERRY. I apologize, Senator. I was told this morning because 

I quickly checked into that to make sure that notice was because 

that’s part of our procedure and I was told positively that both an 

e-mail and a letter was sent out. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So that’s just not true, that statement? 

Ms. PERRY. I was told that—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Her statement? 

Ms. PERRY. I was told that they were sent out. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You know, we seem to have differences in 

accounts here. 

Mr. Engler, I’m not going to let this issue go. I think it goes to 

the heart of why we’re here in part because these survivors were 

disbelieved for so long and I just want to say for the record I believe Kaylee Lorincz and her account. 

[Applause.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I regret that we’re at this point in the testimony where there are differences in factual accounts of what happened and I want to say, and I mean this as a lawyer and as a 

trial lawyer, there are all kinds of defenses that parties can make 

in court, but there’s also a moral responsibility here and if the U.S. 

Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics are really serious and 

sincere, they will put aside these characterizations of Larry 

Nassar’s relationship to your organization that, very respectfully, 

let me say disingenuously, disclaim any legal responsibility. 

If you’re serious and sincere, you will withdraw that Answer and 

Motion to Dismiss because you need to be part of the legal solution, 

not just come here and apologize and say there’s a new USA Gymnastics because it is the new USA Gymnastics that filed that Answer and Motion to Dismiss on the part of the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Blumenthal, I am not aware of a Motion to 

Dismiss and I think you corrected that, that it wasn’t USA Gymnastics, but I will be very—and I want to reassure all of the Senators and all of the survivors and everybody in this room that USA 

Gymnastics is absolutely dedicated and committed to legal resolution and we’ve gone through mediation. We’re going to continue 

90 

until we get resolution and you’re absolutely right. We have a 

moral obligation. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You have a moral obligation but you also 

have a legal obligation. 

Ms. PERRY. And we have a legal obligation. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And you will withdraw that Answer and 

correct it or amend, whatever the correct procedure is under those 

Rules, and you will accept that Larry Nassar worked for, was employed by, was an agent of, and therefore imposes that legal responsibility on USA Gymnastics. 

Ms. PERRY. And, Senator Blumenthal, Larry Nassar was absolutely an agent of USA Gymnastics, I’ve never said any different 

than that, as a team doctor, and I will find out what that is that 

you’re referring to. I don’t know what legal action. I know that 

there wasn’t a Motion to Dismiss, but I will find out what that was 

about. It could be—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Yes. I’m not saying it was a Motion to Dismiss. 

Ms. PERRY.—a lot of different things. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It was an Answer, and I want to make 

clear I’m not trying to impose pressure on you from this position 

because you’re entitled to your legal rights. Your lawyer is entitled 

to advise you as to those rights. You’re entitled to assert those 

rights. 

But as part of your moral responsibility, in my view, with all due 

respect, it is also to accept legal responsibility because that will 

make you a part of the solution. It will make you part of any court 

order. The same goes for the United States Olympic Committee. 

Ms. PERRY. And I—Senator Blumenthal, I want to reinforce to 

you again that this organization under my leadership has and will 

continue to be committed to legal resolution with our survivors. 

These are our athletes and we will do whatever it takes to get to 

that point. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. And, again, I want to thank 

the survivors who are here today. Your presence sends a powerful 

message and is an important statement and, again, my thanks to 

the Chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much. 

Let me, as I have in every hearing that I’ve chaired, ask the witnesses if they have anything they’d like to put on the record that 

they were unable to do so, that they want to correct something they 

said or felt like there’s something we need to know that we didn’t 

ask about. 

Mr. ENGLER. I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate the opportunity to come here to clarify the issues. I understand there might be differences in interpretation but the opportunity to come here and talk about the changes we’ve made, to put 

those on the record, to talk about a $500 million settlement that’s 

part of the healing is an opportunity that we very much appreciate. 

We’re proud of what we’ve done, we’re proud of what we’re doing, 

and we think when we’re done, universities around the country are 

going to look to Michigan State to say what policies did you put in 

place and how might they help us. 

Senator MORAN. Anyone else? 

91 

Ms. PERRY. Senator Moran and Senator Blumenthal and all Senators, I want to thank you. This is an incredibly important time for 

our organization and we take it very seriously. These are our athletes and we’re going to do whatever we can to earn back their 

trust and I want to say that coming from outside the Olympic 

movement, there are things that I think we can address moving 

forward with the help of Congress and the funding of the Center 

that will help us do everything we can in our power to prevent 

what happened. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I am coming 

to the end of my tenure as the CEO at the USOC, and I hope that 

in some way we have begun a journey that will get us to a new 

culture that is all about the athletes, that they are the center of 

that, and the reason that’s happening is because of the brave voices 

of the women behind me in this room, and I hope that small 

amount of time that I’ve been able to devote to them yields some 

results in the future. 

Thank you. 

Mr. XIAO. I’d just like to say from the Athletes’ Advisory Council, 

we will continue to do our job. We’re going to continue to engage 

in good faith in all of the reform efforts here, but I also wanted to 

point out that the core problem here, until that’s solved, there are 

just going to be more problems, more different symptoms that are 

going to arise, and the core problem being athlete representatives 

have heard administrators, staffers, coaches, sometimes express 

the same sentiment, which is athletes come and go, and athletes 

are replaceable. Until that changes we’re never going to get anywhere. 

Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Again, we thank you all for being here today. I 

thank you for testifying. We appreciate those in the audience 

today, including the survivors. 

The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During that 

time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. 

Upon receipt, this would be questions to you, our witnesses, the 

witnesses requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible but no later than August 21 of 2018. 

This concludes the hearing and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(93) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

HON. JOHN ENGLER

Question. Last month it was reported that the MSU attorney who defended the 

institution against sexual abuse lawsuits has now been placed in charge of the University’s Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance. Given the 

nature of this newly created office and its important role in developing education 

and outreach programs as it relates to sexual assault, do you think it is proper to 

appoint someone who has defended the University from claims of sexual assault to 

run this office? Do you think actions such as this undermine the public’s confidence 

on whether the focus of the MSU Title IX office is on protecting students and athletes versus liability issues? 

Answer. In June, the head of MSU’s Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Education 

and Compliance accepted a new job outside of Michigan. Rob Kent, a member of 

MSU’s Office of General Counsel, was appointed to serve in that role in an interim 

capacity, and a national search for a permanent associate vice president is underway. We do not believe that Kent’s interim service in this role will undermine public 

confidence in the office. He was instrumental in establishing the University Policy 

on Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct and has worked closely with the 

U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights during their reviews of MSU’s 

handling of sexual assault cases. Moreover, as I testified, we have taken many actions to strengthen the Title IX office, including providing increased resources to 

allow it to grow from 15 to 30 employees, creating a new Title IX Prevention, Outreach, and Education Office, and hiring a leading third party investigative services 

firm to assist with investigations and reduce response times for Title IX complaints. 

All of these demonstrate the importance we place in the Title IX office and its work. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HON. JOHN ENGLER

Question 1. Is there anything from your oral testimony on July 24, 2018 that 

you’d like to retract or further clarify (especially with respect to your responses on 

questions regarding your interaction with Ms. Kaylee Lorincz)? 

Answer. No. 

Question 2. Over 120 survivors joined together and penned a letter to the MSU 

Board of Trustees, calling for your resignation. Did you read the letter sent by the 

survivors, and if so, do you have any response to it? Several U.S. Senators—including myself—have also called for your resignation. Do you believe that you are still 

the right person for the job? Do you think you can help the University heal? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the letter. I was hired by the Board of Trustees to address the crisis caused by Nassar’s massive crimes. I have responded by initiating 

the reforms and actions that I outlined in my testimony to this committee. 

Question 3. The MSU Residence Halls Association (RHA), MSU student groups 

and MSU Faculty Senate—the representative body of the faculty at the University— 

have all issued emphatic votes of no confidence in the Board of Trustees for their 

selection and support of you as Interim MSU President. Two members of the Board 

of Trustees have publically voted for you to be ousted. What do these votes mean 

to you? Do you believe that the support of these University groups matter? What 

have you done during your tenure to engage in faculty and student groups at the 

University that have clearly objected to your selection and your actions toward survivors during your brief tenure? 

Answer. The voices of University groups absolutely matter to me. Since arriving 

at the University, I have sought to engage faculty, staff, and students to make organizational changes geared toward improving safety and accountability. As just one 

example, I appointed a Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert AdviVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
94 

sory Working Group consisting of nationally-recognized faculty and staff who are 

subject-matter experts on our campus, and the Group has been soliciting input from 

across the University community. Many of the changes we have implemented have 

been the result of that input. 

Question 4. Do you have any empathy for the survivors of abuse? 

Answer. Yes. My heart goes out to the survivors, and we are truly sorry that a 

former faculty member perpetrated his crimes through his associations with the 

University, USA Gymnastics, U.S. Olympic Committee, and others. The best way to 

show genuine empathy is by actions. My goal is to make those reforms necessary 

to ensure that nothing like this happens again on MSU’s campus. 

Question 5. What is the appropriate way to follow up on a Title IX complaint? 

Answer. We have put into place a wide array of reforms to ensure that any complaint is investigated and assessed under the University’s Relationship and Sexual 

Misconduct Policy (RVSM), which is available at https://www.hr.msu.edu/policiesprocedures/university-wide/RVSM_policy.html. All of our employees are annually 

trained on the requirements of RVSM, and we have expanded the list of employees 

who are mandatory reporters to ensure that a complaint of any form of sexual misconduct is promptly reported not only to the Office of Institutional Equity as well 

as to the MSU Police Department. Employees who fail to adhere to their reporting 

obligations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 

Question 6. Do you believe that it was appropriate to take a meeting with a plaintiff involved in ongoing litigation against Michigan State without her attorney 

present? Do you believe that it was appropriate to suggest that a survivor of 

Nassar’s horrific abuse was merely looking for money and could be easily paid off? 

Answer. I met with Ms. Lorincz and her mother at their request. They waited 

hours demanding the meeting and requesting that it be kept confidential. There was 

no discussion of a settlement of her ongoing litigation during that meeting. 

Question 7. How do you believe that you handled Michigan State’s overall relationship with the survivors of Nassar’s abuse? 

Answer. I am proud of the way the entire University community has come together to not only support the survivors, but to also address the urgent issues of 

relationship violence and sexual misconduct on our campus. It has been a challenging six months, and there are things I could and should have done differently 

and better. I regret my errors and have publicly acknowledged them. I recognize 

that there have been frustrating periods during that time, but I am also confident 

that we have accomplished much. 

Question 8. As the head of a University that was unquestionably complicit in the 

most abominable, horrific sexual abuse scandal in modern history, do you believe 

that behaving in a confrontational and cavalier manner is helpful for either the University or for survivors? 

Answer. Since arriving at MSU six months ago, I have tried to address the crisis 

and lay a positive foundation for a new president. I do not believe that I have been 

confrontational or cavalier, but I have made errors which I regret and for which I 

have apologized. I do believe that the many actions we have taken, detailed in my 

testimony, and including the historic $500 million settlement, have been helpful to 

the University and the survivors. 

Question 9. Nassar was close friends with many coaches and trainers. These 

friendships influenced the judgement of these staff members, and allowed Nassar 

to manipulate decisions even as he abused scores of athletes. Do you feel that relationships or friendships between MSU doctors and coaches can compromise or influence doctors decisions, diagnoses and treatment of student athletes? 

Answer. I am personally unaware of Nassar’s friendships and influence. At the 

University, however, medical decisions are made by team doctors and athletic training staff. No member of any coaching staff has hiring or supervisory responsibility 

for any team doctor or any member of the athletic training staff. Coaching staff do 

not determine the assignment of team doctors, nor is their input sought in the process. All medical and athletic training staff are instructed to report any inappropriate 

attempt to influence their treatment of a student-athlete to the Office of Compliance 

Services to ensure that coaching staff do not adversely affect the healthcare services 

that student-athletes receive or the decisions of healthcare providers concerning 

such services. 

Question 10. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the University to absolve 

itself of blame in the Larry Nassar scandal, or other sexual assault cases, in order 

to reduce liability? 

Answer. We have not attempted to ‘‘absolve’’ the University of anything. Instead, 

as stated in my testimony, we have launched a number of reforms to ensure that 

95 

no future Nassar could shelter on our campus. We have also achieved an historic 

settlement with over 300 survivors. 

Question 11. Do you believe that these same relationships or friendships between 

coaching and medical staff can impede a mandatory reporter’s ability to objectively 

report wrongdoing or abuse involving a student athlete? 

Answer. No. Pursuant to the University’s Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy, coaches are mandatory reporters and, therefore, are obligated to 

bring reports of relationship violence, stalking, and sexual misconduct to the Office 

of Institutional Equity and the MSU Police Department. Failure to do so will lead 

to disciplinary action, including discharge. 

Question 12. MSU Healing Assistance Fund: Do you think this fund was set up 

as quickly as it could have been? 

Answer. I was not serving as Interim President when the Healing Assistance 

Fund was established; therefore, I cannot comment on the timing of the establishment of the Healing Fund. On July 27, 2018, it was reported that Michigan State 

University has suspended payments from a $500 million fund set up to pay the victims of former sports doctor Larry Nassar due to allegations of fraud. A notice on 

MSU’s Healing Assistance Fund website states, ‘‘Due to an investigation into fraudulent claims made to the Healing Assistance Fund, the university is suspending 

payments until the investigation is complete. Please check back to this website for 

future updates.’’ 

Question 13. Are payments to survivors still suspended? How long were payments 

to survivors suspended? 

Answer. The Healing Fund was established before the University’s settlement 

with over 300 survivors, and the Fund is not and never has been a part of the settlement. The Fund was created to provide immediate and temporary support for 

survivors until a settlement could be achieved. The Healing Fund vendor that distributed reimbursements for survivor mental health treatments reported that it believed that more than 10 percent of the funds it disbursed were on fraudulent claims 

of treatment. Payments have been suspended since July 26, 2018. The investigation 

into the scope of fraudulent claims is ongoing. 

Question 14. Have you reported the fraud to law enforcement? Which law enforcement? 

Answer. Yes. The MSU Police Department is involved in the investigation and 

will determine what additional criminal referrals need to be made once the investigation is completed. 

Question 15. What do you know about the scope and nature of the fraud? 

Answer. See answer to Question 13. 

Question 16. How do you expect survivors to pay for their treatment (i.e., medication or counseling) while payments are or were suspended? 

Answer. See answer to Question 13. 

Question 17. What assistance will you provide to survivors whose payments are 

[sic] may be in arrears as a result of the unforeseen interruption in payments? 

Answer. See answer to Question 13. 

Question 18. How will you notify victims when the Healing Assistance Fund is 

operational again? 

Answer. See answer to Question 13. 

Question 19. Athletic Director: When you took over as Interim President of Michigan State, you promised that during your search for a new permanent Athletic Director, no internal candidates from the department would be considered, and a ‘‘national search’’ would take place. However you broke that promise in naming ActingAthletic Director Bill Beekman as the permanent Athletic Director for MSU. 

Given the major challenges that MSU—and its athletic program in particular— 

face moving forward following the Nassar scandal do you believe that Beekman, an 

MSU official with no previous experience in athletic administration, crisis management, or expertise in Title IX is the appropriate choice? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 20. Beekman has worked for MSU since 1995. Why did you opt for a 

deeply entrenched, internal hire for this position, as opposed to conducting a national search for an outside candidate, as you originally promised? 

Answer. Mr. Beekman was chosen from outside the Athletic Department. Mr. 

Beekman had, and continues to have, the strong support of the Athletic Department, coaches, and University community as a leader with a strong commitment to 

compliance. 

Question 21. Were any candidates outside of Michigan State seriously considered? 

96 

1https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2018/06/08/larry-nassar-michiganstate-licensing-inquiries-strampel-hadden-teachnor-hauk-dietzel-stollak-msu/684359002/ 

Answer. A national search would not have identified a better or more principled 

person than Mr. Beekman. 

Question 22. Do you believe that this hire sends the right message that MSU is 

dedicated to moving forward past its grievous mistakes? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 23. Has Beekman undergone any form of mandatory reporting, gender 

discrimination, sexual abuse, or violence prevention training? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 24. MSU Athletic Department Staff under investigation by Michigan 

State Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs: On June 8, 2018, it was reported that six current or former Michigan State University medical professionals 

with ties to the Larry Nassar scandal were under investigation by the state’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). Some of these staff were allegedly informed of abuse, and failed to report it. Others directly supervised Nassar. 

As reported by the Lansing State Journal, the six individuals under LARA investigation include 1: Dr. William Strampel, Dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine; Destiny Teachnor-Hauk, sports trainer who was a medical expert during 

MSU’s 2014 Title IX investigation of Nassar; Dr. Brooke Lemmen, medical expert 

during MSU’s 2014 Title IX investigation of Nassar; Lianna Hadden, current sports 

trainer who was told about concerns regarding Nassar by two of his victims more 

than a decade ago; Dr. Douglas Dietzel, head of MSU Sports Medicine clinic, where 

Nassar served as team doctor for the women’s gymnastics and crew teams; and Dr. 

Gary Stollak, former MSU clinical psychologist who was told about sexual abuse by 

Nassar in 2004. 

For the individuals under investigation by LARA who are still employed by MSU, 

why is that? Why are they still able to continue to work with athletes while under 

investigation? 

Answer. Drs. Strampel, Lemmen, and Stollak are no longer employed by the University. LARA has closed its licensing investigations and found no violations for Drs. 

Dietzel and Kovan. While it appears that LARA’s licensing investigations for 

Hadden and Teachnor-Hauk remain open, both athletic trainers continue to work 

with student-athletes because there has been no substantiating evidence that either 

Hadden or Teachnor-Hauk violated any law, regulation, or University policy. 

Question 25. When do you expect to know the outcome of this investigation? 

Answer. To my knowledge, LARA has not communicated to the University when 

LARA expects its ongoing investigations to conclude. 

Question 26. If the investigation has already concluded, how does MSU plan to 

respond to the results? 

Answer. As explained above, LARA has closed its licensing investigations of Drs. 

Dietzel and Kovan, who have been cleared of wrongdoing. 

Question 27. Has MSU already conducted its own investigation into these individuals? Who conducted that investigation? What has that investigation uncovered? 

Answer. Prior to my arrival, the law firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and 

Flom LLP and Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC were retained to assist the 

University in responding to allegations of misconduct regarding Nassar. The firms 

were retained to facilitate the University’s cooperation with appropriate law enforcement and regulatory agencies, advise the University on any internal reviews so that 

such reviews were carried out in a manner that would best assist the University’s 

response and not compromise any law enforcement actions concerning Nassar, and 

advise and assist in anticipation of and with respect to any civil litigation. 

Accordingly, the firms were tasked with reviewing all of the underlying facts, and 

the firms were directed that if they found evidence substantiating that anyone at 

MSU other than Nassar knew of his criminal behavior or did anything to conceal 

or facilitate it. Any such evidence of criminal conduct would be reported immediately to law enforcement and the University. Those firms found no reportable misconduct by MSU employees concerning crimes associated with Nassar. 

It has also been publicly reported that the FBI investigated this matter, and the 

FBI’s review led to no criminal charges. Further, at the request of the University’s 

Board of Trustees, Michigan’s Attorney General is also conducting an independent 

investigation of the Nassar matter. The Attorney General’s investigation is ongoing. 

Significantly, the Skadden law firm advised the Attorney General that the firms believe that the evidence will show that no University official believed or understood 

97 

2https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/03/30/2-msu-employees-still-job-though-informednassar-ex-athletes-say/417731002/ 3https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/03/17/larry-nassar-brooke-lem 

men-gymnastics/99338982/ 

that Nassar committed sexual abuse prior to newspaper reports in late Summer 

2016. 

Question 28. Ms. Lianna Hadden, MSU Athletic Trainer: Lianna Hadden is a current sports trainer at MSU, working with athletes from the wrestling, and swimming and diving teams. As reported by the Detroit Free Press, at least two of 

Nassar’s victims (Ms. Jennifer Rood Bedford and Ms. Tiffany Lopez) have said that 

they told Hadden about concerns more than a decade ago.2 Hadden failed to report 

these concerns. Is Ms. Hadden still employed and actively working with athletes at 

MSU? 

Answer. Yes, Hadden is still employed by the University as an athletic trainer 

and, therefore, is working with student-athletes. To date, there has been no substantiating evidence that Hadden knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse or that she violated any law, regulation, or University policy. 

Question 29. Given her alleged connection to the Nassar scandal and failure to 

report serious concerns about abuse, why is Ms. Hadden still employed at Michigan 

State University and actively working with athletes? Has she issued any kind of 

public apology and/or remorse for her inaction? 

Answer. Please see my response above. I am certain that Hadden—like all the 

members of the University community—is sorry that Nassar perpetrated his crimes 

against the survivors through his associations with the University, USA Gymnastics, U.S. Olympic Committee, and others. 

Question 30. Has Ms. Hadden undergone any form of training or re-training in 

mandatory reporting, sexual abuse, or child abuse training? Please provide dates 

completed of any such training. 

Answer. Yes. All employees receive such training annually. Hadden’s last date of 

training was May 4, 2017. 

Question 31. Ms. Teachnor-Hauk, MSU Athletic Trainer: During the 2014 Title IX 

investigation of Nassar, Ms. Teachnor-Hauk told a university investigator that she 

had never had a complaint about Nassar in 17 years and had no concern about him 

crossing a line between medically appropriate and inappropriate. On the contrary, 

and as reported by the Detroit Free Press, Nassar survivor Tiffany Lopez told 

Treachnor-Hauk [sic] of her complaint about Nassar in the early 2000s. Recounting 

the experience to reporters, Lopez said, ‘‘I felt like she didn’t believe me. She called 

me crazy; she told me I was crazy for thinking that . . . the treatment that I had 

been receiving this entire time wasn’t, like, actual medical treatment.’’ TeachnorHauk discouraged Ms. Lopez from filing a formal complaint. 

Had Teachnor-Hauk treated Ms. Lopez’s allegations seriously, hundreds of women 

could have been spared from Nassar’s abuse. Is she still employed by MSU? Has 

she issued any kind of public apology and/or remorse for her inaction and misleading investigators? 

Answer. Yes, Teachnor-Hauk is still employed by the University as an athletic 

trainer and, therefore, is working with student-athletes. To date, there has been no 

substantiating evidence that Teachnor-Hauk knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse or that she violated any law, regulation, or University policy. 

Question 32. Has Ms. Teachnor-Hauk undergone any form of training or re-training in mandatory reporting, sexual abuse, or child abuse training? Please provide 

dates completed of any such training. 

Answer. Yes. All employee receive such training annually. Teachnor-Hauk’s last 

date of training was May 4, 2017. 

Question 33. Ms. Brooke Lemmen: As reported by the Lanasing [sic] State Journal, in fall 2016, after sexual assault allegations against Nassar were first made 

public by the Indianapolis Star, Ms. Lemmen removed patient files from the university at Nassar’s request. She reported taking the files to her house instead of to 

Nassar and brought them back to MSU the next day, her attorney wrote in a letter 

to the university last year.3

Lemmen reportedly had second thoughts about removing the records and called 

MSU Health Administrator Susan Dolby, who convinced Lemmen to return the 

records. 

Did Susan Dolby report the stolen documents to her supervisors or the authorities 

after being notified by Ms. Lemmen? 

Answer. Yes. 

98 

4https://statenews.com/article/2018/04/police-report-msu-employee-actions-during-nassar-investigation 5https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/03/17/larry-nassar-brooke-lem 

men-gymnastics/99338982/ 6https://deadspin.com/a-list-of-people-accused-of-enabling-larry-nassar-1822393026 

Question 34. Several attorneys suing MSU, Nassar and USA Gymnastics have 

said in lawsuits that some of their client’s medical records, provided by MSU, were 

devoid of mentions of intravaginal procedures their clients said were performed, and 

in some cases the university could not provide medical records that were requested. 

Are you certain that none of the documents Ms. Lemmen transported were destroyed? 

Answer. It is my understanding that no such documents were destroyed. 

Question 35. Ms. Lemmen was advised by Nassar that USA Gymanastics [sic] was 

investigating him in July 2015, yet she kept this information to herself. Between 

July 2015 and when the Indy Star expose was announced, there were at least 40 

more victims of Nassar’s abuse, according to the New York Times. Was Ms. Lemmen 

ever reprimanded for her inaction during her tenure at MSU? Did the University 

put pressure on Ms. Lemmen to resign following the unveiling of this complicit behavior? 

Answer. Dr. Lemmen resigned from the University before my arrival as Interim 

President. It is my understanding that the University informed Dr. Lemmen that 

it had concerns regarding her exercise of judgment and behavior, and Dr. Lemmen 

subsequently resigned. 

Question 36. Ms. Lemmen was interviewed by then-MSU Title IX coordinator 

Kristine Moore as an expert, not a witness, in the 2014 Title IX investigation into 

Nassar. The Lansing State Journal reported that Lemmen, as well as other experts 

interviewed for the investigation, were chosen based on Nassar’s recommendation 

despite the personal relationships with him 4. Is it ever appropriate to allow the subject of a Title IX investigation to supply character witnesses who have close personal relationships with the subject? Do you believe it is appropriate to view these 

testimonies as ‘‘expert’’ given the witness’ close personal relationship with the subject of a Title IX investigation? Does MSU still have a policy of allowing Title IX 

investigation subjects to provide a list of expert witnesses that may also be friends 

with the subject testify on behalf of the subject? 

Answer. In 2014, under procedures then in place, both the claimant and respondent could ask the Title IX investigator to interview witnesses who may have relevant information. During the 2014 investigation of Nassar, the Title IX investigator interviewed both the claimant’s identified witnesses and Nassar’s identified 

witnesses: Dr. Lemmen and Teachnor-Hauk, both of whom worked directly with 

Nassar. Subsequently, the Title IX investigator determined that she needed to independently consult with additional osteopathic doctors. The investigator sought recommendations from the then-Dean as to other doctors who could provide an informed and impartial analysis of the matter. Drs. DeStefano and Gilmore were recommended and utilized because they did not work directly with Nassar. Neither had 

a close personal relationship with Nassar. Title IX investigative protocols have 

since been revised to require consultation with non-MSU experts. 

Question 37. As reported by the Detroit Free Press, ‘‘A comment [Ms. Lemmen] 

made about the university’s attorneys conducting the internal [2014 Title IX] investigation also made one staff member feel ‘pressured not to fully cooperate in the investigation,’ according to Strampel’s [December 12, 2016] letter.5 What lessons has 

MSU learned from its botched 2014 Title IX investigation and what can it do in the 

future to make sure investigations are conducted expediently and accurately? 

Answer. Respectfully, Strampel’s December 12, 2016 letter referred to the University’s review of the Nassar matter in 2016, not the 2014 Title IX investigation. 

Nonetheless, the University expects and requires that all Title IX investigations be 

conducted promptly and equitably. 

Question 38. MSU Medical Manipulation Specialists: According to an article in 

Deadspin 6: ‘‘Dr. Lisa DeStefano, a former MSU medical manipulation specialist, is 

accused of knowing about Nassar’s methods of abuse and deeming them to be medically appropriate treatment. She is now the faculty department chair of MSU’s College of Osteopathic medicine. ‘‘Dr. Jennifer Gilmore, a former MSU medical manipulation specialist, is also accused of knowing about Nassar’s abuse and characterizing 

it as medically appropriate. She is now an assistant professor.’’ 

Have Dr. DeStefano and Dr. Gilmore issued any kind of public apology and/or remorse? 

99 

Answer. To date, there has been no substantiating evidence that DeStefano or Gilmore knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse, as opposed to the 

medically approved procedure they believed he was using. Nor is there any substantiating evidence that they violated any law, regulation, or University policy. Even 

though there is no such evidence, I am certain DeStefano and Gilmore—like all the 

members of the University community—are sorry that Nassar perpetrated his 

crimes against the survivors through his associations with the University, USA 

Gymnastics, U.S. Olympic Committee, and others. 

Question 39. Have Dr. DeStefano and Dr. Gilmore undergone any form of training 

or re-training in mandatory reporting, sexual abuse, or child abuse training? Please 

provide dates completed of any such training. 

Answer. Yes. All employee receive such training annually. DeStefano’s last date 

of training was February 5, 2017, and Gilmore’s last date of training was December 

3, 2017. 

Question 40. Dr. Doug Dietzel: Dr. Douglas Dietzel is the head of MSU Sports 

Medicine clinic, where Nassar served as team doctor for the women’s gymnastics 

and crew teams. According to his testimony given to police, Dr. Dietzel recalls William Strampel telling him about the sexual assault allegations against Nassar in 

2016. 

Is Mr. Dietzel still employed and working with athletes at MSU? Given his connection to the Nassar scandal and role as Nassar’s supervisor, why is Mr. Dietzel 

still employed at Michigan State University and actively working with athletes? 

Answer. Yes, Dietzel is still employed with the University and is working with 

student-athletes. To date, there has been no substantiating evidence that Dietzel 

knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse or that he violated any 

law, regulation, or University policy. LARA has cleared Dr. Dietzel of wrongdoing. 

Note: Dietzel’s statement to the police indicated that Strampel told him about the 

sexual assault allegations against Nassar in 2016 after Nassar was removed clinical 

practice. 

Question 41. Has Dr. Dietzel undergone any form of training or re-training in 

mandatory reporting, sexual abuse, or child abuse prevention training? Please provide dates completed of any such training. 

Answer. Yes. All employee receive such training annually. Dietzel’s last date of 

training was March 11, 2017. 

Question 42. Past Mistakes and Forward Solutions: There were not only failures 

in the processes and operations at MSU, but also in the general culture at the 

school and in the athletic department. It is clear that Administrators at MSU fostered a culture of widespread denial, inaction, and information suppression regarding complaints of discrimination and sexual and dating violence and abuse. 

What have you done to identify and remove current employees who knew about 

sexual abuse and not only did not report, but stayed silent? 

Answer. To date, there has been no substantiating evidence that any employee 

knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse prior to 2016 when Ms. 

Denholender filed her MSU police complaint and made explicit allegations that 

Nassar digitally penetrated her. As noted in my testimony and these answers, one 

of the reforms instituted is the expansion of the employees subject to mandatory reporting requirements and imposition of accountability for failure to make a mandatory report of sexual misconduct. 

Question 43. Has anything been done to identify and remove coaches, athletic directors, employees, and officials who witnessed sexual, emotional, or physical abuse 

of athletes and did not report child abuse to authorities and did nothing to stop it? 

Answer. To date, there has been no substantiating evidence that any employee 

knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse prior to 2016. 

Question 44. In order to begin to restore trust, are you willing to disclose to the 

public all of the previously mishandled sexual abuse claims made against individuals within the MSU athletic community? Are you able to explain why these failures 

happened and what you are doing to make sure they will not happen again? 

Answer. To date, there has been no substantiating evidence that any employee 

knew or believed that Nassar was committing sexual abuse prior to 2016. If such 

evidence is obtained regarding Nassar’s abuse, it will be reported and disclosed. In 

my testimony, I detailed the many steps we have taken to make sure this will not 

happen again. Among all of them, accountability is the most significant change that 

we are implementing in a culture of ‘‘shared governance’’ where there had been less 

emphasis on actual responsibility for achieving specific outcomes. Ensuring accountability is the charge of the new Office of Enterprise Risk Management, Ethics and 

Compliance, which I created to monitor legal, ethical, and regulatory requirements. 

100 

7https://www.facebook.com/notes/rachael-denhollander/questions-for-john-engler-kerry-perryand-susanne-lyons-at-their-senate-hearing/1914933721920272/ 

We pledge to the survivors and the community at large that we will do all we can 

to protect students, patients, athletes, and others. 

Question 45. Have University officials ever sought to withhold the names of athletes or coaches in campus police records, or delete data from incident reports? How 

does MSU plan to combat this problem? 

Answer. To my knowledge, this has not occurred. 

Question 46. In what ways has the University consulted with survivors or experts 

in sexual abuse and violence in crafting new policies or new mandated training? 

Answer. I appointed a Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert Advisory Working Group consisting of nationally-recognized faculty and staff who are 

subject-matter experts, and the Group has been soliciting input from across the University community, including from survivors. This is just one example where the 

University is seeking input on policies and training from all stakeholders. 

Question 47. What policies have been initiated to detect, prevent, and punish the 

use of emotional and physical abuse by coaches and other individuals involved in 

the athletes [sic] training? 

Answer. Pursuant to our Standards for Safeguarding Institutional Governance of 

Intercollegiate Athletics at Michigan State University, the University is committed 

to promoting the safety, health, and well-being of every student-athlete, as well as 

providing and coordinating a comprehensive array of professional healthcare services. Emotional and physical abuse by coaches is contrary to the Institutional Standards. Individuals can report violations of the Institutional Standards, as well as any 

other misconduct involving athletics, to the Office of Compliance Services or through 

the Misconduct Hotline, where reports can be made anonymously. 

Question 48. Ms. Rachael Denhollander’s Questions: As you know, Ms. Rachael 

Denhollander was the first woman to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. 

In a Facebook post dated July 24, 2018, Ms. Denhollander wrote: ‘‘How you as leaders think about and what you communicate about sexual assault is the determining 

factor in whether your institution is safe or not. Procedural or policy changes matter 

little when the example from the top is shaming, blaming, and refusing to honestly 

assess and admit when failures have occurred.’’ 

Ms. Denhollander had several questions that she hoped would be asked to leaders 

at MSU, USAG, and USOC. They have been copied below in their entirety.7

If you want to move forward to create effective change, why have you not commissioned an independent investigation into what went wrong, so you know what to 

change and how to do better? Why have you not investigated who knew what about 

Nassar and when, or identified the breakdowns and failures that let him sexually 

abuse children for decades? (MSU, USAG and USOC have not commissioned a public investigation into what happened with Nassar—something the survivors have 

been requesting for nearly two years.) 

Answer. At the request of the University’s Board of Trustees, Michigan’s Attorney 

General is currently investigating the Nassar matter. Please also see my response 

to Question 27. 

Question 49. Have you otherwise identified any specific breakdowns or failures of 

policy or individuals that is responsible in whole or part for allowing Nassar to 

abuse children for decades? 

Answer. Since Fall 2016, we have identified the following issues and taken the 

following actions, among many others: 

• Strengthened mandatory reporting obligations. 

• Ended William Strampel’s connection with the University. 

• Reorganized the University’s health colleges, clinical practices, and student 

wellness programs. 

• Instituted a triage protocol to review all reported allegations or concerns of inappropriate practitioner-patient and practitioner-student interactions. 

• Revised policies on sensitive examinations and chaperones. 

• Enhanced student-athlete medical care after review by external sports medicine 

physicians. 

• Implemented a number of recommendations for improvements to student counseling and psychiatric services as outlined in Keeling & Associates’ report. 

• Created the Office of Enterprise Risk Management, Ethics and Compliance. 

• Strengthened protections for youth participating in campus programs. 

101 

I would also draw your attention to the attachment to my written testimony— 

‘‘Michigan State University: Taking Action to Foster a Safer Campus’’—which details these and other changes we have implemented. We will continue to update this 

publication and provide additional materials and resources on MSU’s ‘‘Our Commitment’’ website at https://msu.edu/ourcommitment/. 

Question 50. If you HAVE identified some failures, why have these not been identified and disclosed, with consequences for any individual failures? 

Answer. As noted above, the University has taken action on a wide variety of 

issues associated with Nassar and has identified those issues publicly in many 

ways, including my testimony and the ‘‘Our Commitment’’ website. 

Question 51. If you HAVE identified failures, why have the victims received no 

disclosure of these failures, or specific apology for them? 

Answer. The University has endeavored to take action and communicate those actions publicly. We have also apologized many times for failing the survivors, including in my testimony. 

Question 52. If you have NOT identified specific failures, why have you not taken 

that basic step? 

Answer. Please see my responses to the prior questions. 

Question 53. Moving forward, have you identified any specific failures in how 

leaders have talked about, characterized, or spoken of survivors of abuse? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 54. Have you retracted and apologized for each of these statements? 

Answer. I have publicly apologized to Ms. Denhollander for the comments I made 

in a private e-mail. The comments were wrong, and it has never been my intent 

to have an adversarial relationship with any survivor. 

Question 55. What message do you believe has been communicated about how sexual assault survivors are viewed in the statements made publicly about these 

women, and made privately in e-mails and internal correspondence? 

Answer. I am proud of the way the entire University community has come together to support the survivors. 

Question 56. Do you or did you at one believe the statements made by leaders 

at MSU (including Mr. Engler) that sexual assault survivors are in this for money, 

being manipulated by trial attorneys, pushing legislative reform for personal gain, 

receiving kickbacks, or lying about what was said in private meetings for personal 

gain? 

Answer. I never stated that the survivors were ‘‘in it for the money.’’ The comment I made in a private e-mail concerning Ms. Denhollander was made in the heat 

of the moment as we worked to finalize an historic settlement with the survivors, 

and I have apologized for it. 

Question 57. If you do not and did NOT believe these statements, why would you 

say them or allow others to say them unchallenged and uncorrected? 

Answer. Please see my prior response. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

SUSANNE LYONS

Question 1. With respect to the Center for SafeSport, one of the primary concerns 

we have heard through the course of this investigation is that the Center is not 

truly independent from USOC, which results in a lack of trust on the part of athletes. I would like to hear your perspective on this matter. First, do you believe it 

is true that SafeSport is not truly independent? If not, why? What can be done to 

either rectify this or reassure athletes that SafeSport is truly independent and is 

focused entirely on their best interests, not that of USOC? 

Answer. When launching the Center for SafeSport, the U.S. Olympic Committee 

chose to create it as an independent entity because we agree that independence is 

important to engendering trust in its processes and to minimizing potential conflicts 

of interest within the Olympic community. Nonetheless, the Center would not have 

launched without the assistance of the Olympic Committee, including organizational 

assistance and financial support. Building trust in the Center’s operations is an important and ongoing goal of the Olympic Committee. For example, the Center’s investigations and adjudications are entirely independent, and the Center does not 

provide information about specific ongoing cases to the Olympic Committee or, to 

our knowledge, national governing bodies. The Center’s staff operates independently 

and places a high priority on maintaining its operational independence. Because the 

Olympic Committee is committed to the success of the Center, there are other areas 

102 

where collaboration is beneficial. For example, the Olympic Committee and the Center are currently working to improve coordination and consistency related to banned 

lists. And, of course, the Olympic Committee continues to be a primary funder of 

the Center. As noted in my testimony, the Olympic Committee believes that increasing the Center’s sources of funding can help contribute to demonstrating its independence. In the meantime, because the success of the Center is so important to 

the entire Olympic community, the Olympic Committee is committed to ensuring 

that the Center has the resources it needs to be successful. 

Question 2. Do the Center for SafeSport, the USOC and NGBs have adequate insurance in place to cover the devastating and lifelong impact for what we now know 

is an incredibly large population of abused athletes? What insurance number would 

you deem adequate, and what would that be based on? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee has continuously maintained insurance policies 

commensurate with its operations and activities. The current issues were, of course, 

very much unanticipated. It is not possible currently to estimate an amount necessary to address the needs of all victims or the role of insurance in addressing the 

needs of victims. I cannot speak to the current insurance position of the Center or 

the national governing bodies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

SUSANNE LYONS

Question 1. Larry Nassar was the team doctor for the USA Gymnastics Olympics 

Team. Is that right? 

Answer. This question is best answered by USA Gymnastics. From the perspective of the Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics selected and advanced Nassar for 

credentialing as a doctor for the gymnastics team in connection with various Olympic events. 

Question 2. What role does the USOC Sports Medicine have in approving NGB 

doctors? Was Larry Nassar a part of the USOC Sports Medicine team? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee’s Sports Medicine department does not approve 

national governing body doctors. Rather, national governing bodies submit medical 

professionals to the Olympic Committee for credentialing in connection with certain 

events, and the Olympic Committee conducts a criminal background check and a 

medical credential review for the proposed professional. Nassar was not a part of 

the Olympic Committee’s Sports Medicine department. To my knowledge, his involvement with the Olympic Committee’s medical operations were one instance serving as a medical volunteer at an Olympic Training Center and serving on an advisory board for the National Medical Network. 

Question 3. Why is USOC is now arguing in the lawsuit it has no duty to protect 

these women and that Nassar was never employed by USOC? Will you withdraw 

the petition to remove USOC as defendants in the lawsuits filed by several survivors of Nassar’s abuse? 

Answer. Respectfully, that is not the position of the Olympic Committee. As I testified, the Olympic community failed the athletes that it was supposed to protect. 

The Olympic Committee has instituted deep and systemic reforms to strengthen significantly the protection of athletes, including working to rebuild USA Gymnastics 

under new leadership, and launching the U.S. Center for SafeSport, which provides 

a safe and independent path for reporting and investigating issues of abuse. We are 

also committed to understanding all facts about the Nassar abuse, and we look forward to receiving the report of the independent investigation that we launched earlier this year. We will make that report public. The legal filings address an entirely 

different and more specific question, namely the legal responsibility for Nassar’s 

crimes. As you noted, he was not employed by the Olympic Committee. 

Question 4. How can USOC can do a credible job of protecting athletes in the future if you refuse to take responsibility for past failures and hold your people accountable? 

Answer. We have taken responsibility, we do take responsibility, we have held 

people accountable, and we will continue to hold people accountable. 

Question 5. USOC has failed to provide proper oversight and protect athletes from 

physical, emotional and sexual abuse not only in gymnastics but in many other 

sports including swimming and figure skating for decades. The current chairman, 

Mr. Larry Probst has been in office since 2008 and has arguably failed to provide 

the leadership that the organization needs to move forward. Many survivors have 

called for his resignation. 

103 

a. How does USOC intend to restore public confidence in USOC while Mr. Probst 

is still chairman? 

Answer. When I became acting CEO, Mr. Probst and I announced a series of initiatives to strengthen our handling and response to issues of abuse and address 

other structural weaknesses within the Olympic community. As discussed more fully 

in my testimony, we have made significant progress on those initiatives, and at the 

same time, we have continued to refine our plans for reform, adding new initiatives 

and efforts as we identified additional areas in need of attention. In my testimony, 

I outlined our initiatives and progress in the areas of SafeSport and athlete safety 

programs, athlete advocacy, the Olympic Committee’s engagement with national 

governing bodies and athletes, the reform of USA Gymnastics, and the ongoing independent investigation. I sincerely hope and believe that these efforts to address the 

important issues of athlete safety will help restore public confidence in the organization. In my experience on the board, where we discussed the topic of SafeSport at 

nearly every meeting, Mr. Probst both ensured this topic was a priority and consistently urged more speed in the implementation of the Center for Safe Sport. 

b. How can USOC restore public confidence while the same board is still in place? 

Answer. There have been several changes in the composition of the board. Some 

board changes have occurred in the ordinary course, and some board changes, such 

as the resignation of Mr. Blackmun, have not. Board service is subject to term limits 

to ensure both continuity and fresh perspectives on the board. For example, at the 

end of this year, there will be three to four additional changes in board composition 

as individuals reach the end of their terms. 

Question 6. The Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act provides in part that the USOC 

‘‘may review all matters related to the continued recognition of an organization as 

a national governing body and may take action it considers appropriate, including 

placing conditions of the continues recognition [of the NGB].’’ What is it about this 

language limits USOC from being active and fixing issues, especially those pertaining to sexual abuse, that arise? 

Answer. Nothing. Indeed, the Olympic Committee’s bylaws require that national 

governing bodies maintain and enforce athlete safety policies and procedures, and 

that national governing bodies are subject to the jurisdiction of the Center for 

SafeSport and the SafeSport Code. The Olympic Committee will use these and other 

elements of its rules and procedures to be active in fixing issues as they arise. 

Question 7. Is USOC responsible for the safety of the athletes it sends to the 

Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic games? Is protecting them from sexual 

abuse a top priority? 

Answer. Yes, the Olympic Committee is responsible for providing a safe environment for athletes competing in the Games. Yes, protecting athletes from sexual 

abuse is a top priority. 

Question 8. It was not until January of 2018 that USOC commissioned a ‘‘USAG 

Working Group’’ to understand the sexual abuse that occurred in its organization 

for so many years. This was over two and a half years since its knowledge of Larry 

Nassar, over one year since Larry Nassar’s abuse broke publicly in September of 

2016, and only shortly after USA Gymnastics, MSU and USOC came under fire at 

the sentencing hearings in Michigan after so many survivors took the stand in the 

courtroom to deliver victim-impact statements. 

Why did it take so long to form this working group? What was USOC doing for 

those two years, and why didn’t it do something sooner? 

Answer. Respectfully, this question mischaracterizes the nature of this working 

group. The working group formed in January 2018 was directed at (1) the selection 

of an independent investigator to investigate both USA Gymnastics and the Olympic 

Committee and (2) the intense focus necessary to rebuild USA Gymnastics after the 

Olympic Committee required the removal of its entire board. The Olympic Committee was deeply involved in these issues much earlier, such as when it required 

the resignation of Steve Penny in March 2017. Moreover, as explained in more detail in my testimony, the Olympic Committee board and executives have been working on the SafeSport initiative since 2010. 

Question 9. What has USOC done to ensure that athletes across NGBs are not 

misled into thinking that required to submit written complaints? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee requires national governing bodies to abide by 

the procedures of the Center for SafeSport. The Center’s procedures provide multiple methods of reporting, including by telephone. For example, both the Sexual 

Misconduct Incident Reporting Form and the Center’s procedures posted on its 

website provide a telephone number for reporting. Educating athletes about appropriate reporting procedures is a priority for the Olympic Committee, as well as the 

Center and national governing bodies in my experience. 

104 

Question 10. Are athletes across NGBs now able to submit anonymous complaints? 

Answer. Yes. The Center’s procedures permit anonymous reports. For example, 

the Center’s online Sexual Misconduct Incident Reporting Form states at the top, 

in all capital letters, ‘‘YOU MAY REPORT ANONYMOUSLY.’’ 

Question 11. You served on the USOC Board of Directors for over seven years before taking over as acting CEO. During that time, do you believe you were well-informed as to the health and status of the organization? If yes, why did the abuse 

of athletes continue for so long and what should be done to avoid similar situations 

in the future? If no, who or what was responsible for keeping the Board of Directors 

in the dark about what was happening and what is the USOC doing to keep that 

from happening again? 

Answer. During my tenure on the board, we discussed SafeSport issues, including 

our efforts to launch the Center, at nearly every meeting. Like everyone across the 

Olympic community, and indeed the country, the board was not aware of the devastatingly broad scope or magnitude of the abuse that occurred. In January 2018, 

the Olympic Committee announced that it would be launching an independent investigation to determine how an abuse of this proportion could have gone unreported for so long. We need to know when complaints were brought forward and to 

whom. Although the investigation is ongoing, the Olympic Committee is not waiting 

on the results of the investigation to act. In February 2018, I announced a series 

of reforms and initiatives to strengthen our handling and response to issues of 

abuse and address other structural weaknesses within the Olympic community. Additional details about these efforts are contained in my written testimony. 

Question 12. If a coach is suspended by an NGB, and the USOC knows that coach 

is still coaching at their local club, what action can USOC take to ensure that coach 

doesn’t coach at that club? Can USOC take action independent of the NGB? Why 

or why not? 

Answer. Your question highlights some of the significant challenges that we collectively face as we work to address issues of abuse. Although a national governing 

body can terminate memberships and the Olympic Committee can cease recognitions, the Olympic community has no authority over the hiring decisions of unaffiliated local clubs. We can partially address these issues by improving information 

sharing, such as coordination and publication of banned lists, to enable parents and 

local clubs to know when a particular coach has been disciplined. 

Question 13. What can USOC do to enforce the suspension of a coach for sexual 

abuse? 

Answer. While the specific enforcement would generally fall to the national governing body, the Olympic Committee has a unique leadership role to lead changes 

in the entire Olympic community. For example, we are working with the national 

governing bodies and the Center to facilitate the sharing of banned and suspended 

lists, and to make them available to athletes, parents, and potential employers, and 

anyone who works in the athlete community. If necessary, the Olympic Committee 

can use its authorities under the Ted Stevens Act to require a national governing 

body to enforce a suspension, including decertification as a national governing body. 

Question 14. What can the Center for SafeSport do to enforce the suspension of 

a coach for sexual abuse? 

Answer. Although the Center is in the best position to answer this question, the 

Center already makes publicly available a searchable database of adjudicated cases. 

The Center also circulates an adjudication log, on a biweekly basis, to all of the national governing bodies that contains additional information concerning interim 

measures. If the Center found that a national governing body was not enforcing a 

suspension, I expect that the Center would bring that to the attention of the Olympic Committee. 

Question 15. Does the USOC need to be explicitly made responsible for the obligations of any national governing body under its authority? 

Answer. In my view, the provisions of the Ted Stevens Act sufficiently specify the 

relationship between the Olympic Committee and national governing bodies. The 

Act allows the Olympic Committee to have a strong leadership role in areas such 

as athlete safety. Exercising that authority, for example, the Olympic Committee 

created and launched the Center for SafeSport. It must lead to further concrete 

steps and changes in policy, and, as I testified, it has and will. 

Question 16. Executive Compensation: In response to a QFR, former USOC CEO 

Scott Blackmun explained that his ‘‘salary was based 50 percent on comparable nonprofits, 25 percent on sport and 25 percent on for-profit companies.’’ Based on the 

most recent available tax filings, Blackmun earned $1.075M in total compensation 

105 

in 2016, of which $646,000 was base salary. It’s also my understanding that 

Deloitte, a USOC sponsor, is responsible for this formula and benchmarking data 

for salaries for USOC executives. Is this consistent with your understanding? If not, 

please explain in detail how USOC executives are compensated. 

Answer. This is generally accurate. In addition to Deloitte, the compensation committee of the board received benchmarking from other outside advisors. 

Question 17. Do you think it is a conflict of interest for Deloitte to establish executive compensation for the very executives who will also be responsible for negotiating and approving Deloitte’s sponsorship agreement? Do you think that is a proper 

and transparent way to conduct business? 

Answer. The compensation committee of the board and, ultimately, the full board 

establishes compensation for Olympic Committee executives. Those decisions were 

informed by Deloitte as well as other outside advisors. As noted, Deloitte is a sponsor of the Olympic Committee and some of its sponsorship is provided in the form 

of in-kind services. Such arrangements permit the Olympic Committee to operate 

more efficiently, reducing costs for the benefits of the organization and the athletes 

that it supports. In my experience, the market data provided by Deloitte has been 

consistent with the data provided by other compensation experts, such as Mercer. 

Question 18. Please explain how athletes are typically compensated across NGBs. 

Does USOC set any rules or guidelines regarding how athletes are compensated? 

Answer. The Olympics operate very differently from professional sports. Athletes 

are not compensated for athletic participation. 

To help develop athletic excellence, the Olympic Committee maintains a number 

of athlete support programs to provide resources to Olympic and Paralympic athletes. These programs include cash stipends, athlete health insurance, support for 

the Olympic Training Centers, sports medicine, sport sciences, and other programs. 

Question 19. From your personal experiences, would you agree with reports that 

USOC has engaged in exorbitant and lavish spending—flying executives and 

spouses on first class and providing excessively generous per diems? 

Answer. No. 

Question 20. What do you think of the fact that Mr. Penny took $1 million from 

the non-profit USAG as part of his severance package, yet refused to answer questions at this Subcommittee’s last hearing regarding conduct he had engaged in on 

behalf of USAG? 

Answer. I share the Committee’s frustration that Mr. Penny did not answer the 

Committee’s questions. I believe it is essential that we understand all of the facts 

related to athlete abuse. 

Question 21. Athlete Compensation: After the 2016 Rio Olympics, the USOC’s 

board of directors gave five executives $100,000 or more in bonuses, many already 

making six figures. Meanwhile, an athlete winning a gold medal received just 

$37,500. Do you see anything wrong with an organization that is supposed to be 

centered on athletes, perpetrating such a ridiculous wage gap between staff? 

Answer. As noted above, Olympic athletes are not compensated like professional 

athletes. They are not employees of the Olympic Committee. Approximately 75 percent of the Olympic Committee’s budget is dedicated to programs and services aimed 

at helping athletes achieve the elite-level success that they seek. 

Question 22. Does USOC still pay athletes and programs that have the highest 

achieving athletes? Are there any plans by USOC to end this ‘‘Money for Medals’’ 

Program? 

Answer. There is no such ‘‘Money for Medals’’ program. As part of its efforts to 

support athletic excellence, the Olympic Committee is proud to provide a host of 

athlete benefits aimed at helping athletes achieve the elite-level success that they 

seek. Resources are generally allocated toward athletes who have the potential to 

achieve their dreams in international competitions. The program that awards a cash 

payment to Olympic and Paralympic athletes who win a medal in the Games recognizes their extraordinary achievements in representing our Nation. 

Question 23. Do you believe that the profound inequity in salaries and financial 

support earned between USOC and NGB officials and Team USA perpetuates a 

power imbalance? Don’t you think this is antithetical to athlete safety? Do you believe that the inequity between athletes and executives qualifies as financial abuse? 

Answer. No. 

Question 24. Do you think athletes across NGBs are adequately and fairly compensated—particularly in comparison to inflated executive compensation and personal fringe benefits at NGBs and USOC? Do you believe that the salaries given 

to elite athletes affords them a high quality of life? 

106 

Answer. As noted above, Olympic athletes are not compensated like professional 

athletes (they do not receive a salary) and executive compensation is set by the 

board of directors after assessing benchmarks, with the support of outside advisors. 

Approximately 75 percent of the Olympic Committee’s budget is dedicated to programs and services aimed at helping athletes achieve the elite-level success that 

they seek. 

Question 25. Has the USOC board put forward an actionable timeline to significantly increase the paltry 8 percent of its 336 million dollar revenue that goes to 

the support of athletes? 

Answer. Respectfully, this question mischaracterizes the Olympic Committee’s 

support of athletes. Approximately 75 percent of the Olympic Committee’s budget 

is dedicated to programs and services that support athletes (with the remainder 

aimed at enabling the Olympic Committee to best provide these programs and services). I believe that the 8 percent number referenced in the question refers to the 

portion of athlete support that is composed of direct payments to athletes. 

Question 26. Mr. Rick Adams also testified in March of 2017 that there was ‘‘a 

flawed culture, where the brand, the sport, and their (competitive) results are given 

a higher priority than the health and well-being of athletes.’’ Do you agree with Mr. 

Adams’ testimony? 

Answer. Yes. 

Since Mr. Adams testified, now over a year ago, has the USOC done anything 

(taken any measures, adopted any policies, implemented any new guidelines) to fix 

this culture discussed by Mr. Adams? 

Answer. Yes. In my testimony, I outlined our initiatives and progress in the areas 

of SafeSport and athlete safety programs, athlete advocacy, the Olympic Committee’s engagement with national governing bodies and athletes, the reform of USA 

Gymnastics, and the ongoing independent investigation. 

Question 27. Your Oversight of USA Taekwondo: From February 27, 2012 through 

October 10, 2013, USA Taekwondo was on probation because the USOC found that 

it was non-compliant with USOC membership obligations set forth by the Sports 

Act. During this time period, you were actually Chair of the Hearing Panel that 

monitored USAT’s path to compliance, correct? 

Answer. I was appointed chair of a three-member hearing panel that considered 

two consolidated complaints, under section 10 of the Olympic Committee’s bylaws, 

against USA Taekwondo filed in August 2011, Robinson v. USA Taekwondo (Aug. 5, 

2011) and Harris v. USA Taekwondo (Aug. 10, 2011). The complaints asserted that 

USA Taekwondo was not meeting its obligations and responsibilities as a national 

governing body in certain administrative respects and that USA Taekwondo failed 

to conduct fair and impartial elections for its board seats in 2010. 

Question 28. You were responsible for overseeing USAT when an official Ethics 

Complaint was filed against USAT Coach Mark Gitelman in September 2013, and 

when additional reports were made to the police October 2, 2013—correct? 

Answer. No, I was not responsible for overseeing USA Taekwondo. I was chair of 

a three-member hearing panel that considered two specific section 10 complaints 

against USA Taekwondo. 

Question 29. Despite all of this, on October 10, 2013, you officially lifted USAT’s 

probationary status, and announced that USAT had ‘‘addressed outstanding grievances and ethics complaints,’’ and ‘‘revamped its grievance and ethics procedures to 

ensure that such grievances and ethics complaints are dealt with timely and fairly.’’ 

It wasn’t until after Gitelman was criminally convicted in September 2015 that 

USA Taekwondo banned him from coaching. 

Why did this take so long? Do you think you could have done more at the time? 

What could you have done? Why or why not? 

Answer. I was not made aware of the complaint involving Gitelman prior to the 

USA Taekwondo probation being lifted. I became aware of Gitelman’s conduct in 

March 2014, and at that time, I immediately notified appropriate Olympic Committee personnel. As I was not involved in USA Taekwondo’s consideration of the 

Gitelman matter, the remaining questions would be best addressed by USA 

Taekwondo. 

Question 30. You had direct knowledge that USAT athletes were in harm’s way. 

And yet, you defend the USOC’s inaction, writing in an e-mail, ‘‘This is no longer 

in our purview.’’ Why should athletes trust you when you have directly allowed athletes to be in harm’s way in the past? 

Answer. Respectfully, the question mischaracterizes my e-mail and the history of 

the matter. The quoted statement comes from a March 10, 2014, e-mail in which 

I expressed outrage upon learning about allegations of abuse at USA Taekwondo. 

107 

8https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/an-athlete-accused-her-coach-of-sex-abuseolympic-officials-stayed-on-sideline/2017/02/14/35a6fc76-d2eb-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story 

.html?utm_term=.6891a726cf0c 

I immediately notified the appropriate Olympic Committee personnel of the allegations. As I stated in the e-mail, ‘‘[a]llowing a potential sexual preditor [sic] to continue to coach without having an appropriate investigation and conclusion is unacceptable.’’ The excerpt from my e-mail above refers only to the fact that the hearing 

panel’s jurisdiction had concluded. Nonetheless, I and Olympic Committee personnel 

acted swiftly to ensure that the allegations were addressed. 

Question 31. Questions about the Center for SafeSport’s Independence: For the 

Center for SafeSport to be effective, it needs to be independent. Victims will avoid 

reporting to the Center if they view it as an arm of the USOC, which cares more 

about its reputation than about them. Are you aware of concerns regarding the Center’s independence? What have you heard and how do you plan to address these concerns? Are you aware of any other concerns regarding SafeSport? 

Answer. When launching the Center for SafeSport, the Olympic Committee chose 

to create it as an independent entity because we agree that independence is important to engendering trust in its processes and to minimizing potential conflicts of 

interest within the Olympic community. Nonetheless, the Center would not have 

launched without the assistance of the Olympic Committee, including organizational 

assistance and financial support. Building trust in the Center’s operations is an important and ongoing goal of the Olympic Committee. For example, the Center’s investigations and adjudications are entirely independent, and the Center does not 

provide information about specific ongoing cases to the Olympic Committee or, to 

our knowledge, national governing bodies. The Center’s staff operates independently 

and places a high priority on maintaining its operational independence. Because the 

Olympic Committee is committed to the success of the Center, there are other areas 

where collaboration is beneficial. For example, the Olympic Committee and the Center are currently working to improve coordination and consistency related to banned 

lists. And, of course, the Olympic Committee continues to be a primary funder of 

the Center. As noted in my testimony, the Olympic Committee believes that increasing the Center’s sources of funding can help contribute to demonstrating its independence. In the meantime, because the success of the Center is so important to 

the entire Olympic community, the Olympic Committee is committed to ensuring 

that the Center has the resources it needs to be successful. 

Question 32. What kind of resources, other than funding, does USOC provide to 

the Center? Please detail all resources USOC provides, to SafeSport, whether monetary or through services, personnel, or other formats. 

Answer. In terms of resources, the Olympic Committee provides primarily funding 

to the Center. As noted above, the Olympic Committee is committed to the success 

of the Center, and Olympic Committee staff work collaboratively with the staff of 

the Center on issues of mutual concern that are unrelated to investigations. 

Question 33. What is your understanding of the Center for SafeSport’s investigative powers and enforcement authority? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee requires national governing bodies to provide jurisdiction to the Center. The Center’s activities are governed by the SafeSport Code 

and the Center’s policies and procedures. It has exclusive authority within the 

Olympic community to investigate and resolve issues of sexual or sexualized abuse, 

and discretionary authority to investigate and resolve other issues of abuse. 

Question 34. As you know, the Center’s Chief Operating Officer Malia Arrington 

was a longtime employee of USOC. She was hired by USOC in 2010 without sexual 

abuse expertise and switched over to the Center for SafeSport in 2017. Many survivors and athletes feel she was largely responsible for USOC doing nothing as 

NGBs mishandled sexual abuse allegations and do not trust her to be independent 

from USOC. She once said in a deposition that she had no authority to make USA 

Taekwondo ban a coach, blaming the Ted Stevens Act.8 Do you understand why 

some may be skeptical about the Center’s independence given its staffing decisions? 

What are you doing to address them? 

Answer. Ms. Arrington had a significant role in the launch of the Center, reflecting the Olympic Committee’s commitment to creating a safe and independent path 

to report, investigate, and resolve issues of abuse. The Center now has the ability 

to require a national governing body to ban a coach. As noted above, the Olympic 

Committee considers the Center’s independence to be important to its mission and 

credibility. Today, the Center is an independent entity that makes its own staffing 

decisions. In recognition of the Center’s independence, the Olympic Committee plays 

108 

9https://www.teamusa.org/about-the-usoc/inside-the-usoc/leadership/executive-team/rickadams 

no role in the Center’s personnel decisions. In my experience, Ms. Arrington has operated independently of the Olympic Committee. 

Question 35. As you know, Mr. Rick Adams is Chief of Sport Operations and 

Paralympics for USOC. According to Mr. Rick Adam’s online bio at teamusa.org, 

‘‘Prior to the Center’s launch in March 2017, Adams led the hiring of a CEO and 

a nine-member, independent board of directors that includes a diverse membership 

of subject-matter experts in the areas of abuse prevention, investigation and compliance.’’ 9 If Mr. Adams, a USOC executive, was responsible for hiring the Center for 

SafeSport’s CEO and nine-member board, why would anyone think the Center is 

independent? 

Answer. Mr. Adams was the lead Olympic Committee official supporting the 

launch of the Center. Mr. Adams did not serve on the Center’s Nominating and Governance Committee, which selected the Center’s board. The Center’s board selected 

the Center’s CEO. 

Question 36. Is the Center for SafeSport strictly prohibited from communicating 

allegations to USOC, or is it up to their discretion? How about communicating allegations to NGBs? What is done to make sure that everything is done in lockstep 

with law enforcement? 

Answer. The Center is an independent entity and it is best positioned to answer 

this question. The SafeSport Code specifies the instances in which the Center can 

share information, including to notify a national governing body of an allegation involving a covered individual, when the Center imposes an interim measure, when 

the Center proceeds to a full investigation, and upon a final decision. Covered individuals under the Code must report suspected instances of child abuse to both the 

Center and law enforcement. 

Question 37. How can athletes be assured of the Center for SafeSport’s independence? How iron-clad is the separation of the Center from NGBs and USOC? 

Answer. When launching the Center for SafeSport, the Olympic Committee chose 

to create it as an independent entity because we agree that independence is important to engendering trust in its processes and to minimizing potential conflicts of 

interest within the Olympic community. Nonetheless, the Center would not have 

launched without the assistance of the Olympic Committee, including organizational 

assistance and financial support. Building trust in the Center’s operations is an important and ongoing goal of the Olympic Committee. For example, the Center’s investigations and adjudications are entirely independent, and the Center does not 

provide information about specific ongoing cases to the Olympic Committee or, to 

our knowledge, national governing bodies. The Center’s staff operates independently 

and places a high priority on maintaining its operational independence. Because the 

Olympic Committee is committed to the success of the Center, there are other areas 

where collaboration is beneficial. For example, the Olympic Committee and the Center are currently working to improve coordination and consistency related to banned 

lists. And, of course, the Olympic Committee continues to be a primary funder of 

the Center. As noted in my testimony, the Olympic Committee believes that increasing the Center’s sources of funding can help contribute to demonstrating its independence. In the meantime, because the success of the Center is so important to 

the entire Olympic community, the Olympic Committee is committed to ensuring 

that the Center has the resources it needs to be successful. 

Question 38. How often does USOC communicate with the Center for SafeSport? 

How often do you personally initiate communication with the Center? How often 

does the Center initiate communication with you? What is the purpose of that communication? 

Answer. In the interest of its independence, the Olympic Committee’s communications with the Center are limited. The Olympic Committee’s director of athlete safety is the lead Olympic Committee official responsible for communication with the 

Center. In general, the communications relate to areas of cooperation (such as the 

work on banned lists mentioned above) and understanding ways in which the Olympic Committee can help to ensure that the Center has the resources that it needs 

to be successful. The director of athlete safety and others at the Olympic Committee 

are not a party to specific investigations. 

Question 39. Effectiveness of the Center for SafeSport: Do SafeSport materials 

contain clear expectations for appropriate relationships and ethical behavior that 

have been developed by experts in the field? Who was evaluated and reviewed materials generated for SafeSport? 

109 

Answer. The Center is best positioned to answer questions regarding its materials. 

Question 40. Has the USOC mandated that all SafeSport materials be required 

reading for every NGB employee and that it be distributed by every NGB to each 

member parent, coach and individual? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee’s NGB Athlete Safety Policy requires national 

governing bodies to implement a policy requiring education and training concerning 

the key elements of the national governing body athlete safety program for individuals the national governing body authorizes, approves, or appoints to a position of 

authority over, or to have frequent contact with athletes, and national governing 

body staff. 

Question 41. Has the Center for SafeSport hired outside psychiatric experts in the 

relevant fields of abuse to develop training materials that protect young athletes 

from sexual abuse? If no, when it will plan to do so? 

Answer. The Center is an independent entity that makes its own staffing choices. 

The Center is best positioned to answer this question. 

Question 42. Has Center for SafeSport directed NGBs to hire sport specific psychiatric professionals to help them develop their own educational materials to protect their athletes from abuse? For what sports has the Center does this for, so far? 

What is the timeline for doing so? 

Answer. The Center is an independent entity and is best positioned to answer this 

question. 

Question 43. What assurances do you have that the Center for SafeSport does not 

notify alleged perpetrators of any ongoing investigation nor accusation unless and 

until authorized by law enforcement to do so? 

Answer. The Center is an independent entity and is best positioned to answer this 

question. The SafeSport Code specifies the instances in which the Center may share 

information. 

Question 44. How are SafeSport training materials publicized and disseminated 

to parents, coaches and athletes? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee’s NGB Athlete Safety Policy requires each national governing body to publish SafeSport materials to its members, which must 

include online resources. Information concerning SafeSport is also available to all 

parents, coaches, and athletes on the Olympic Committee and Center websites. 

Question 45. Can the Center for SafeSport issue mandatory standards on NGBs? 

Can USOC issue mandatory standards on NGBs? 

Answer. Yes, the Olympic Committee has mandatory standards for national governing bodies. For example, the Olympic Committee requires national governing 

bodies to provide jurisdiction to the Center and adhere to its policies and procedures. The Center also promulgates policies and procedures and can update its code. 

These materials are obligatory for national governing bodies via the Olympic Committee’s requirements. 

Question 46. How do you respond to concerns that SafeSport is little more than 

a ‘‘USOC brand created to make parents feel better and make reporters go away’’? 

Answer. I disagree. The Center is a significant and important undertaking, and 

it is an unprecedented and groundbreaking entity—no other sports organization in 

the world has anything similar to the Center. The Center has already demonstrated 

that it is serving an essential role in making it easier for victims and survivors to 

report concerns. Notably, the Center has recently experienced a significant increase 

in the number of reports of abuse. 

Although any report is disheartening, this is precisely the reason that we need 

the Center. It provides a safe and independent path for athletes to report concerns 

so that the Olympic and Paralympic community can address them. The Center removes the investigation and resolution of allegations of sexual abuse from the control of national governing bodies, and it is a resource dedicated to education and 

awareness of the importance of recognizing and reporting abuse. 

Question 47. Banned Lists: Have all NGBs agreed to publish and make easily accessible lists of all banned and suspended individuals? Will you decertify any NGBs 

that refuse to do so? Can you promise a date by which all of these will be available? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee instituted new reporting requirements on national governing bodies in May 2018. These new requirements include reporting to 

the Olympic Committee banned and suspended members that have not been submitted to the Center. We are engaged in an ongoing effort to improve the coordination and information sharing among the Center, the Olympic Committee, and the 

national governing bodies regarding individuals on banned or suspended lists. We 

110 

need to make it easier for parents, athletes, and potential employers to access information about coaches and athletes on banned and suspended lists. 

As noted in my testimony, Congress should consider extending the liability protections in the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act to other Olympic and Paralympic organizations. Congress provided the Center with liability protection for the exercise of certain of its official functions, including protection against lawsuits for defamation, libel, or slander. This liability protection has proven to be important to the Center’s ability to provide information on 

people banned or suspended from Olympic sports. These provisions cover neither the 

Olympic Committee nor the national governing bodies. Congress should consider 

whether these protections should be extended to other Olympic and Paralympic organizations or whether the language should be clarified to encompass information 

published by the Center that relates to a national governing body adjudication, to 

help enable broader and more comprehensive information for athletes, parents, and 

others. 

Question 48. Have you provided NGBs with any specific requirements regarding 

what information should be provided on those banned lists? For example, will date 

and reason for the ban also be included? What other information are you considering should be included on the banned lists? Why or why not? 

Answer. These issues are part of our ongoing discussions described above. 

Question 49. What consequences are there for any member clubs that hire a coach 

or individual on the banned list? 

Answer. The primary consequence or such a club is the termination of its membership in the relevant national governing body. 

Question 50. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to 

keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC or individual 

NGBs? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee expects that each national governing body will 

preclude banned members from participating in events sanctioned by the national 

governing body. We are engaged in an ongoing effort to improve the coordination 

and information sharing among the Center, the Olympic Committee, and the national governing bodies regarding individuals on banned or suspended lists. With respect to the events sanctioned by the Olympic Committee, the Olympic Committee 

also enforces such policies. 

Question 51. Decertification: When does the USOC deem it necessary to exercise 

its authority over NGBs and put conditions on continued NGB recognition? 

Answer. Section 8 of the Olympic Committee’s bylaws establishes the conditions 

by which the Olympic Committee can consider suspending, revoking, or otherwise 

taking action concerning national governing body recognition. The Olympic Committee also generally considers recognition when a member of a national governing 

body brings a complaint alleging the body is not fulfilling its responsibilities or 

when a sports organization seeks to replace a national governing body, under sections 10 and 11, respectively, of the Olympic Committee’s bylaws. 

Question 52. As you mention in your testimony, the USOC asked for the resignation of USAG’s CEO and subsequently, in January 2018, the entire board of USAG. 

Why didn’t USOC think the same logic should apply to the USOC board? 

Answer. When it became clear to the Olympic Committee board that the former 

USA Gymnastics CEO should no longer serve in that role, the board sought his resignation. Likewise, when it became clear that USA Gymnastics did not have a board 

structure and membership that the organization needed to bring a culture of change 

and address the significant issues that the organization faced, the Olympic Committee board required the resignation of the USA Gymnastics board. The Olympic 

Committee board leads the entire Olympic community in the United States, including the community of athletes and the national governing bodies for each individual 

sport. The Olympic Committee board has created and launched the Center for 

SafeSport, launched an independent investigation of the Olympic Committee and 

USA Gymnastics, and instituted additional reforms and initiatives as discussed in 

my testimony. 

Question 53. Does the USOC Board of Directors and executive leadership feel that 

it has the authority to take strong action—like forcing a board to resign—when it 

becomes aware of athlete abuse in a sport? If yes, why didn’t they? If not, why did 

they not ask Congress for the authority to do so? 

Answer. Yes. In recent years, the relationship between the Olympic Committee 

and the national governing bodies has evolved, particularly with respect to the Center, which removed the national governing bodies’ authority to investigate and resolve issues of sexual abuse. More recently, the Olympic Committee took a very acVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
111 

tive role in the reform of USA Gymnastics. These developments demonstrate that 

the Olympic Committee can and will use its persuasive and moral leadership to 

bring change in the Olympic community when needed. 

Question 54. USOC has routinely stated, and in hearings to the U.S. Senate Committee, that it’s main—if not only—recourse with National Governing Bodies is to 

de-certify those bodies. In fact, USOC has threatened, or actually de-certified other 

National Governing Bodies (aside from USA Gymnastics) for much less egregious 

violations than Nassar’s horrific misconduct. For example, in 2002, USOC was considering de-certifying the Track and Field Program for record-keeping issues. Please 

describe all instances in which USOC was considering decertification for a NGB. 

Answer. With respect to complete decertification as a national governing body, the 

Olympic Committee decertified the U.S. Team Handball Federation in 2006 and the 

National Rifle Association in 1994. There are numerous instances in which the 

Olympic Committee placed a national governing body on probation, or the Olympic 

Committee pursued or discussed decertification and then proceeded with a remediation plan instead. For example, the Olympic Committee commenced a decertification hearing against the U.S. Taekwondo Union in 2004, and the Taekwondo Union 

subsequently entered into a remediation plan with the Olympic Committee. Similarly, the Olympic Committee agreed not to seek decertification after the U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation entered a remediation plan in 2006. Other examples 

include a restructuring plan at the USA Karate-do Federation in 2007, and governance and management changes at USA Table Tennis in 2007. The Olympic Committee has also placed various national governing bodies on probation, including 

USA Boxing in 2002, USA Taekwondo in 2012, USA Judo in 2015, and the U.S. 

Bowling Congress in 2017. 

Question 55. Why is USOC so reluctant to decertify USAG? Under what circumstances do you think decertification would be appropriate? 

Answer. As the Olympic Committee expressed to USA Gymnastics in January this 

year, the Olympic Committee is not at all reluctant to pursue decertification if necessary. In this instance, USA Gymnastics agreed to a wholesale leadership change 

in the board and key executives, and dramatic internal reforms to address its shortcomings. These changes are largely similar to the changes that would accompany 

decertification. Unfortunately, past experience has shown that full decertification 

can harm the athletes the most. If USA Gymnastics were to fail to adhere to the 

reform criteria the Olympic Committee established, we have made clear that we will 

pursue decertification. 

Question 56. Under the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, the USOC has the 

power to de-certify National Governing Bodies for non-compliance with USOC rules, 

guidelines, and bylaws. Since USAG was not decertified, at any point throughout 

the Nassar scandal, is it USOC’s position that USAG has been in compliance with 

all USOC policies, rules, guidelines, and bylaws from 1986 to present? 

Answer. No. Additionally, as noted in my testimony, in January 2018, the Olympic Committee provided USA Gymnastics with a specific list of reforms that were 

necessary for USA Gymnastics to remain as a national governing body. 

Question 57. Athlete Whistleblowers: There are numerous accusations that whistleblowers are routinely retaliated against in the Olympic and Paralympic system. 

In particular, currently competing athletes are often scared to speak out, out of fear 

that it will have to mean the end of their athletic careers. What specific plans do 

you have to prevent this from happening in the future? 

Answer. First, if you are aware of any instances of retaliation, I encourage you 

to bring them to my attention personally or to the attention of my successor. Retaliation is unacceptable, and I would appreciate the opportunity to take action against 

anyone who has engaged in retaliation. 

Second, concerns about disincentives to speak out were a core reason that the 

Olympic Committee created the Center for SafeSport. It provides a safe and independent path for athletes to report concerns about abuse, and an independent system—separate from the national governing bodies and the Olympic Committee—for 

investigating and resolving cases of sexual abuse. The Center’s independence is critical for encouraging victims to come forward about their abuse. 

Finally, the Olympic Committee’s Athlete Safety Policy includes anti-retaliation 

provisions. This policy states that ‘‘[t]he USOC will not encourage, allow or tolerate 

attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any 

individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.’’ Any allegations of retaliation 

should be reported immediately. 

Question 58. Athletes and victims’ advocates have pointed out vast imbalances in 

power between staff members and athletes in many situations. This puts athletes 

112 

in an inherently vulnerable situation. What is the USOC doing to minimize these 

risks? 

Answer. Athlete advocacy is a cornerstone of the reforms and initiatives that I announced in February. We have worked with the Athletes’ Advisory Council to identify its priorities and recommendations, including seeking its input on athlete representation on the Olympic Committee’s board. We also added a position within the 

office of the Athlete Ombudsman dedicated to increased communication with athletes about services and resources available to athletes, and we are creating a new 

athlete services department that will focus on assisting with individual athlete 

grievances. Additional details are in my written testimony. 

Question 59. Testimony by Mr. Rick Adams, Chief of Sport Operations and 

Paralympics, USOC: In March of 2017, Rick Adams of the USOC testified before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee and stated, ‘‘The Olympic community failed the people 

it was supposed to protect.’’ Mr. Adams also stated, ‘‘We do take responsibility, and 

we apologize to any young athlete who has ever faced abuse.’’ 

Are you aware that USOC is now attempting to deny responsibility in the civil 

lawsuits of these Olympians, according to recent filings? 

Answer. Respectfully, that is not the position of the Olympic Committee. As both 

Mr. Adams and I testified, the Olympic community failed the athletes that it was 

supposed to protect, and we do have responsibility and accountability. The legal filings address an entirely different and more specific question, namely the legal responsibility for Nassar’s crimes. 

Question 60. Was Mr. Adams speaking out of turn, when he said these things? 

Answer. No. 

Question 61. Does USOC hold itself responsible for what happened to these 

women? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 62. Is USOC changing its position, now that it is in litigation? 

Answer. No. 

Question 63. Are you aware that incoming USOC CEO Sarah Hirshland refused 

to speak with Olympic gold medalist and Nassar survivor Ms. Aly Raisman following the Subcommittee hearing? If you are not aware, you can read more about 

that interaction here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/07/ 

24/aly-raisman-rebuffed-sarah-hirshland-us-olympic-committee-ceo/831061002/ and 

https://thinkprogress.org/new-u-s-olympic-head-snubs-aly-raisman-after-senatehearing-on-sex-abuse-7e970bda4c53/ 

a. What kind of message do you think this sends to survivors? 

Answer. As Ms. Hirshland communicated directly to Ms. Raisman, this was a misunderstanding. Ms. Hirshland apologized directly and quickly to Ms. Raisman for 

the misunderstanding, and invited her to talk in person whenever it is convenient 

for Ms. Raisman. 

b. Did you instruct Ms. Hirshland did not to speak with Ms. Raisman or other 

survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. No. 

c. Why do you think she said she was instructed not to speak with Ms. Raisman? 

Answer. In February 2018, Ms. Raisman’s counsel, Mr. John Manly, demanded 

that the Olympic Committee not communicate with any of his clients. 

d. Do you expect Ms. Hirshland to speak to survivors of sexual abuse as CEO of 

USOC? If not, how do you expect to see a culture change? 

Answer. Yes. 

e. Have you ever been given instructions regarding with whom you should or 

should not speak? 

Answer. As noted above, Ms. Raisman’s counsel, Mr. John Manly, demanded that 

the Olympic Committee not communicate with any of his clients. Ms. Raisman also 

approached me at the hearing, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak 

with her extensively. Understanding her perspective is important to me, and important to the future of the Olympic Committee. 

Question 65. Ms. Rachael Denhollander’s Questions: As you know, Ms. Rachael 

Denhollander was the first woman to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. 

In a Facebook post dated July 24, 2018, Ms. Denhollander wrote: ‘‘How you as leaders think about and what you communicate about sexual assault is the determining 

factor in whether your institution is safe or not. Procedural or policy changes matter 

little when the example from the top is shaming, blaming, and refusing to honestly 

assess and admit when failures have occurred.’’ 

113 

10https://www.facebook.com/notes/rachael-denhollander/questions-for-john-engler-kerryperry-and-susanne-lyons-at-their-senate-hearing/1914933721920272/ 

Ms. Denhollander had several questions that she hoped would be asked to leaders 

at MSU, USAG, and USOC. They have been copied below in their entirety.10 If you 

want to move forward to create effective change, why have you not commissioned 

an independent investigation into what went wrong, so you know what to change 

and how to do better? Why have you not investigated who knew what about Nassar 

and when, or identified the breakdowns and failures that let him sexually abuse 

children for decades? (MSU, USAG and USOC have not commissioned a public investigation into what happened with Nassar—something the survivors have been requesting for nearly two years.) 

Answer. In January 2018, the Olympic Committee announced that it would be 

launching such an independent investigation. On February 2, 2018, the Olympic 

Committee announced that it retained the law firm Ropes & Gray to conduct a fully 

independent investigation into Nassar’s abuse. The investigation includes both the 

Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics. The investigation is ongoing. 

Question 66. Have you otherwise identified any specific breakdowns or failures of 

policy or individuals that is responsible in whole or part for allowing Nassar to 

abuse children for decades? 

Answer. Although the investigation is ongoing, the Olympic Committee is not 

waiting on the results of the investigation to act. In February 2018, I announced 

a series of reforms and initiatives to strengthen our handling and response to issues 

of abuse and address other structural 

Question 67. If you HAVE identified some failures, why have these not been identified and disclosed, with consequences for any individual failures? 

Answer. As noted above, the investigation is ongoing, and we are already instituting reforms. Additional details about these efforts are contained in my written 

testimony. 

Question 68. If you HAVE identified failures, why have the victims received no 

disclosure of these failures, or specific apology for them? 

Answer. When Rick Adams testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 

March 2017, he apologized to all of the victims of abuse. When I testified before the 

House Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee, in May and 

July 2018, respectively, I also apologized to all of the victims and survivors. As 

noted above, the lawyer for many of the victims and survivors has instructed us that 

we may not reach out to them to offer individual apologies. 

Question 69. If you have NOT identified specific failures, why have you not taken 

that basic step? 

Answer. In addition to the above, we have committed to taking whatever additional steps are necessary after we receive the report of the independent investigation. 

Question 70. Moving forward, have you identified any specific failures in how 

leaders have talked about, characterized, or spoken of survivors of abuse? 

Answer. It is clear that we need to do more to ensure that victims and survivors 

feel entirely safe to speak up and report issues of abuse. I have sought to speak 

with empathy and respect toward all the victims and survivors. 

Question 71. Have you retracted and apologized for each of these statements? 

Answer. As leaders of the Olympic community, I feel it is necessary for the Olympic Committee to acknowledge the community’s failings and to apologize for them, 

as I have done. 

Question 72. What message do you believe has been communicated about how sexual assault survivors are viewed in the statements made publicly about these 

women, and made privately in e-mails and internal correspondence? 

Answer. I believe that the culture of the Olympics must always honor and respect 

athletes. The Olympics would be nothing without the athletes. 

Question 73. Do you or did you at one believe the statements made by leaders 

at MSU (including Mr. Engler) that sexual assault survivors are in this for money, 

being manipulated by trial attorneys, pushing legislative reform for personal gain, 

receiving kickbacks, or lying about what was said in private meetings for personal 

gain? 

Answer. No. 

Question 74. If you do not and did NOT believe these statements, why would you 

say them or allow others to say them unchallenged and uncorrected? 

114 

Answer. I am not aware of such statements from the Olympic Committee. The 

Olympic Committee commends the bravery of the victims and survivors of sexual 

assault, and honors those who have stood up against abuse. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO SUSANNE LYONS

Question 1. In your hearing testimony before the House Commerce Committee in 

May, you promised to look into requiring that ‘‘ban lists’’ be made publicly available. 

Has the USOC required that all NGB’s publish and make easily accessible lists of 

all banned individuals? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee instituted new reporting requirements on national governing bodies in May 2018. These new requirements include reporting to 

the Olympic Committee banned and suspended members that have not been submitted to the Center. We are engaged in an ongoing effort to improve the coordination and information sharing among the Center, the Olympic Committee, and the 

national governing bodies regarding individuals on banned or suspended lists. We 

need to make it easier for parents, athletes, and potential employers to access information about coaches and athletes on banned and suspended lists. 

As noted in my testimony, Congress should consider extending the liability protections in the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act to other Olympic and Paralympic organizations. Congress provided the Center with liability protection for the exercise of certain of its official functions, including protection against lawsuits for defamation, libel, or slander. This liability protection has proven to be important to the Center’s ability to provide information on 

people banned or suspended from Olympic sports. These provisions cover neither the 

Olympic Committee nor the national governing bodies. Congress should consider 

whether these protections should be extended to other Olympic and Paralympic organizations or whether the language should be clarified to encompass information 

published by the Center that relates to a national governing body adjudication, t 

help enable broader and more comprehensive information for athletes, parents, and 

others. 

Question 2. USOC has a duty to keep young athletes safe and to ‘‘promote a safe 

environment in sports, that is free from abuse. . .of any amateur athlete.’’ What are 

those explicit protections and do they apply only at Olympic events and training 

centers? 

• Where does that extend to—a duty to protect minors in the Olympic Village? 

Hotels? Of-site venues? 

• What individual is most responsible for that protection? 

• Who is the most accessible person for athletes to go to in order to report any 

issue, abuse or otherwise? 

Answer. The Olympic Committee’s Athlete Safety Policy is the primary document 

outlining the specific policies and procedures related to athlete safety. The policy 

specifies the persons and locations to which it applies and the various methods of 

reporting concerns. The policy is attached to this response. 

Question 3. As a follow-up, in writing, to the question I asked in the hearing, what 

are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for NGB member clubs that hire a 

coach or individual on the banned list? Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong policies to keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the 

USOC or individual NGB’S? 

Answer. The primary consequence for such a club is the termination of its membership in the relevant national governing body. Similarly, the primary consequence 

for a national governing body that failed to enforce its athlete safety policies (or 

those of the Center) is the Olympic Committee ceasing to recognize it as a national 

governing body. 

Additionally, the ability of the Olympic Committee to exercise control over certain 

national governing body actions will be part of the governance review that the 

Olympic Committee recently launched. Recently, the Olympic Committee created 

the Athlete and NGB Engagement Commission and selected Lisa Borders, the president of the Women’s National Basketball Association, as the chair of the commission. The commission will review the Olympic Committee’s interaction with and 

oversight of national governing bodies and its engagement with athletes. 

115 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

KERRY PERRY

Question 1. Your testimony states that 86 percent of the recommendations from 

Deborah Daniels’ report are ‘‘either implemented or in progress.’’ While you also 

clearly state that USAG intends to implement all of the recommendations, can you 

please explain what recommendations make up the remaining 14 percent? What is 

the reason for their delayed implementation? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics remains committed to implementing the recommendations from the Deborah Daniels report, all 70 of which our Board of Directors unanimously approved. We have created a website, www.usagymprogressreport.com, that 

provides the full report and tracks the status of each recommendation. The significant majority of the recommendations have either been implemented or are in 

progress. The remaining recommendations, which are either ongoing or in the planning phase, reflect those that require both specific action and continued cultural improvement, or those that require enterprise-wide implementation. For recommendations in the planning phase, USA Gymnastics is planning appropriate and responsive measures to meaningfully address each recommendation, including collaborating where needed with other organizations such as the U.S. Center for SafeSport 

(the ‘‘Center’’). 

Question 2. Your testimony describes the creation of the Athlete Task Force. Will 

you please elaborate on the specific member makeup of this group and their strategic mission? Is USAG required to act on the recommendations of this body? 

Answer. The aim of the Athlete Task Force is to include our athletes in shaping 

the future of USA Gymnastics, including its strategic initiatives such as, but not 

limited to, the search for a permanent high-performance training facility, key athlete-focused initiatives for the organization, an athlete mentoring program, educational initiatives for safe sport, the concept of an ombudsman for USA Gymnastics 

athletes, and increasing involvement of former national team members and energizing the alumni network. The Athlete Task Force is also encouraged to bring forth 

ideas and proposals that are important to them. The Athlete Task Force consists 

of up to nine former athletes, all volunteers, including the athlete directors on the 

Board of Directors for men’s and women’s gymnastics and one former elite athlete 

per competitive discipline with relevant work experience. Each member serves a 

one-year term with an option of a second year. Current members on the Athlete 

Task Force are Shenea Booth (acrobatic gymnastics), Ivana Hong (women’s gymnastics), Jazzy Kerber (rhythmic gymnastics), Steven Legendre (men’s gymnastics), 

and Leigh Hennessy Robson (trampoline and tumbling). 

Question 3. Do the Center for SafeSport, the USOC and NGBs have adequate insurance in place to cover the devastating and lifelong impact for what we now know 

is an incredibly large population of abused athletes? What insurance number would 

you deem adequate, and what would that be based on? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics is committed to putting the safety of our athletes first, 

including providing assistance to those who have suffered sexual abuse. The Athlete 

Assistance Fund, created in partnership with the National Gymnastics Foundation, 

serves to provide the survivors of abuse with resources for counseling and medical 

services. USA Gymnastics, in the ordinary course of its business, maintains insurance coverage in the amount and type appropriate to the organization’s activities. 

Additionally, USA Gymnastics is committed to working with its insurers and the 

plaintiff-survivors, through the mediation process, to resolve the pending litigation. 

USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf of the Center, the U.S. Olympic Committee, or other National Governing Bodies (‘‘NGBs’’). 

Question 4. Your testimony stated that USAG plans to issue requests for proposal 

(RFPs) as part of replacing the closed Karolyi Ranch training center. Will the RFPs 

include an organizational requirements as it relates to staffing and reporting structures for alleged abuse? If so, is there anything unique about the organization/reporting requirements for the National Team Training Center compared to the rest 

of USAG and its member club? 

Answer. Every USA Gymnastics member club must have a policy consistent with 

the requirements of the Center’s SafeSport Practices and Procedures for the U.S. 

Olympic and Paralympic Movement (the ‘‘SafeSport Procedures’’). Accordingly, and 

pursuant to the SafeSport Procedures and the forthcoming revised USA Gymnastics 

Safe Sport Policy (the ‘‘Safe Sport Policy’’), in addition to any obligations under relevant laws, Covered Adults are required to report suspected child abuse, including 

sexual misconduct, to the appropriate legal authorities and to the U.S. Center for 

SafeSport.1 In addition, USA Gymnastics requires compliance with the Protecting 

Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which 

116 

1The Safe Sport Policy defines ‘‘Covered Adult’’ to include any individual over the age of 18 

‘‘who currently is, or was at the time of a possible SafeSport Code Violation, within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of USA Gymnastics or who is seeking to be within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of USA Gymnastics’’ or ‘‘who is an Athlete or Non-Athlete Participant that USA Gymnastics formally authorizes, approves or appoints to a position of authority over Athletes or to have frequent contact with Athletes[.]’’ 

The Safe Sport Policy defines reportable sexual misconduct to include ‘‘conduct of which [the 

adult] become[s] aware that could constitute (a) sexual misconduct, (b) misconduct that is reasonably related to the underlying allegation of sexual misconduct, and (c) retaliation related to 

an allegation of sexual misconduct as set forth in the [Center’s] Code.’’ 

The Safe Sport Policy was last revised in June 2017. USA Gymnastics is in the process of 

further revising the policy and expects to publish these updates in the upcoming months. 

requires adults authorized by an NGB to interact with minor or amateur athletes 

to report suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse, to the proper legal authorities within 24 hours.1

Question 5. During the hearing it was brought to the attention of the Committee 

that two coaches, Colden Raisher and Terry Gray, had been suspended by USAG 

but were still permitted to coach minors. In what situations is a suspended coach 

allowed to continue coaching? 

Answer. According to the Center’s SafeSport Code for the U.S. Olympic and 

Paralympic Movement (the ‘‘SafeSport Code’’), the Center maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation and resolution of all matters involving allegations of 

sexual misconduct and/or sexual abuse. The Center has the authority to impose interim measures, including suspension. The Center’s authority to impose interim 

measures, however, is not exclusive. The SafeSport Procedures state that NGBs, 

which include USA Gymnastics, are not prohibited by the SafeSport Procedures 

from taking appropriate interim measures upon notice of an imminent threat of 

harm. It is USA Gymnastics’ policy to assess each case and impose interim measures, such as suspension, when the Gymnastics community may be at risk. In the 

case of complaints originating with the Center, however, USA Gymnastics has limited information on which to assess the case and may have to rely on the Center’s 

notification as the basis for implementing an interim measure. 

In 1990, USA Gymnastics was the first NGB to publicize a list of persons deemed 

to be permanently ineligible for membership. USA Gymnastics continues to do so 

today. USA Gymnastics also publicly maintains a list of members currently under 

suspension (including suspensions with modified restrictions, such as no unsupervised contact with minors) by the Center or by USA Gymnastics. This list includes 

the individual’s name; the state where the violation occurred, where the individual 

resides, or where the member club is located; duration of suspension; for those declared ineligible after January 1, 2012, the Bylaw, rule, regulation, or policy that 

was violated; and the suspension type or interim measure. Interim measures may 

include, but are not limited to, suspension, altering training schedules, providing 

chaperones, implementing contact limitations, or member club restrictions. Both 

lists may be found on USA Gymnastics’ website. Currently, Colden Raisher and 

Terry Gray are not permitted to have unsupervised contact with minors. Please see 

https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/suspended_members.html. 

Question 6. Furthermore, reports claim that SCEGA, the club that employed Mr. 

Gray, did not receive notification prior to contacting USAG to confirm his suspensions. What is the official notification protocol to the respective club when USAG 

decides to suspend a member? Was this protocol followed in notifying SCEGA of Mr. 

Gray’s suspension? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics notifies the relevant or affiliated member club of imposed interim measures simultaneously with the implementation of any interim 

measures. The member clubs are required to ensure that the imposed interim measures are followed, and USA Gymnastics may revoke a club’s member status for disregarding the implementation of interim measures. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

KERRY PERRY

Question 1. What enforcement mechanisms do you have to compel member gyms 

to comply with all of your bylaws and policies? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics is a membership organization whose members—whether an individual or a club—are required to follow USA Gymnastics’ Bylaws, all policies such as the Safe Sport Policy, and the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s (the ‘‘Center’’) 

Code for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement (the ‘‘SafeSport Code’’), the 

Center’s SafeSport Practices and Procedures for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic 

117 

Movement (the ‘‘SafeSport Procedures’’), and all applicable laws. Members that do 

not comply—either by violating an applicable policy such as the Bylaws, the Safe 

Sport Policy, or the SafeSport Code (including a failure to lodge a mandatory report), or by causing another to violate an applicable policy—are subject to discipline. 

USA Gymnastics may revoke a club’s member status for disregarding the implementation of imposed disciplinary measures. 

Question 2. What consequences have you and will you impose on member gyms 

that do not take USAG’s banned and suspended lists seriously, or any other parts 

of your bylaws? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 1. 

Question 3. How can banned and suspended lists be made more effective? How 

can you make sure they contain pertinent information—like dates or reason for the 

ban or suspension? 

Answer. In 1990, USA Gymnastics was the first National Governing Body 

(‘‘NGB’’) to publicize a list of persons deemed to be permanently ineligible for membership. USA Gymnastics continues to do so today. This list includes the individual’s name; the state where the violation occurred, where the individual resides, or 

where the member club is located; and, for those declared ineligible after January 

1, 2012, the Bylaw, rule, regulation, or policy that was violated. 

USA Gymnastics also publicly maintains a list of adult members currently under 

suspension (including suspensions with modifying conditions, such as no unsupervised contact with minors) by the Center or by USA Gymnastics. This list includes 

the individual’s name; the state where the violation occurred, where the individual 

resides, or where the member club is located; the duration of suspension; the 

grounds for suspension; and the suspension type or interim measure. 

Both lists may be found on USA Gymnastics’ website. 

Question 4. An article recently published in the Orange County Register revealed 

that two Southern California gymnastics coaches continue to work with underage 

gymnasts, despite being suspended. Despite your promises to institute change, gymnasts appear to remain at risk. In your view, whose fault is it that the gyms were 

unaware of these coaches’ suspension: the USAG member gym, the Center for 

SafeSport, or USAG? Please explain. 

Answer. According to the SafeSport Code, the Center maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation and resolution of all matters involving allegations of sexual misconduct and/or sexual abuse. The Center has the authority to impose interim 

measures, including suspension. The Center’s authority to impose interim measures, 

however, is not exclusive. The SafeSport Procedures state that NGBs, which include 

USA Gymnastics, are not prohibited by the SafeSport Procedures from taking appropriate interim measures upon notice of an imminent threat of harm. It is USA Gymnastics’ policy to assess each case and impose interim measures, such as suspension, 

when the Gymnastics community may be at risk. In the case of complaints originating with the Center, however, USA Gymnastics has limited information on which 

to assess the case and may have to rely on the Center’s notification as the basis 

for implementing an interim measure. Interim measures may include, but are not 

limited to, suspension, altering training schedules, providing chaperones, implementing contact limitations, or member club restrictions. 

USA Gymnastics notifies the relevant or affiliated member club of imposed interim measures simultaneously with the implementation of any interim measures. 

The member clubs are required to ensure that the imposed interim measures are 

followed. Notice is also provided to the general public via the USA Gymnastics 

website. USA Gymnastics may revoke a club’s member status for disregarding interim measures. 

Currently, the two individuals mentioned in the article in the Orange County Register, Colden Raisher and Terry Gray, are not permitted to have unsupervised contact with minors. Please see https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/suspended_members.html. 

As briefly mentioned during the hearing, USA Gymnastics encourages Congress 

to consider the topic of interim measures; specifically, to review the current overlapping authority held by the Center, hearing panels, and USA Gymnastics, and to consider streamlining the decision-making process by designating one entity with the 

exclusive authority to impose interim measures in regards to sexual misconduct 

and/or abuse. 

Question 5. You have vowed to be more accountable in pursuing sexual abuse 

cases. Are you willing to take the extra steps—any extra e-mails and phone calls— 

to make sure that young athletes are being protected from sexual abuse? 

Answer.USA Gymnastics is committed to promoting a safe gymnastics environment for all participants, including from sexual abuse. The organization continues 

118 

11The Safe Sport Policy defines ‘‘Covered Adult’’ to include any individual over the age of 18 

‘‘who currently is, or was at the time of a possible SafeSport Code Violation, within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of USA Gymnastics or who is seeking to be within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of USA Gymnastics’’ or ‘‘who is an Athlete or Non-Athlete Participant that USA Gymnastics formally authorizes, approves or appoints to a position of authority over Athletes or to have frequent contact with Athletes[.]’’ 

The Safe Sport Policy defines reportable sexual misconduct to include ‘‘conduct of which [the 

adult] become[s] aware that could constitute (a) sexual misconduct, (b) misconduct that is reasonably related to the underlying allegation of sexual misconduct, and (c) retaliation related to 

an allegation of sexual misconduct as set forth in the [Center’s] Code.’’ 

The Safe Sport Policy was last revised in June 2017. USA Gymnastics is in the process of 

further revising the policy and expects to publish these updates in the upcoming months. 

to review, evaluate, refine and strengthen our policies and procedures, including by 

committing to incorporate all recommendations from the independent and comprehensive report from former U.S. Attorney Deborah Daniels. USA Gymnastics is 

committed to working with athletes, survivors, and all members of the gymnastics 

community to rebuild trust and develop a culture in which athletes and members 

can thrive. 

Question 6. As the new President of USA Gymnastics, have you spoken to anyone 

at USOC regarding the systemic failures at USA Gymnastics that led to the sexual 

abuse of countless minors and young athletes? If yes, when have those conversations 

occurred and with whom? If no, why haven’t you? 

Answer. On September 3, 2018, former USA Gymnastics President and CEO 

Kerry Perry resigned. USA Gymnastics is in the process of searching for a new 

President and CEO and a management committee has been established to provide 

organizational oversight until a new President and CEO is named. USA Gymnastics 

cannot answer on behalf of Ms. Perry or the U.S. Olympic Committee (the ‘‘USOC’’). 

Question 7. Given your perspective as a new leader of an NGB, do you believe 

that USOC is taking the appropriate measures to ensure that NGB’s are prepared 

to prevent future abuse and tragedies like the Nassar scandal from happening 

again? Do you have any ideas on how USOC can improve? 

Answer. The USOC and the Center have various measures that promote the safety and well-being of athletes. Both the Center’s SafeSport Code and USA Gymnastics’ Safe Sport Policy articulate the requirements and standards to which members are held, and provide for reporting and disciplinary procedures to enforce these 

policies. 

On September 3, 2018, former USA Gymnastics President and CEO Kerry Perry 

resigned. USA Gymnastics is in the process of searching for a new President and 

CEO and a management committee has been established to provide organizational 

oversight until a new President and CEO is named. USA Gymnastics cannot answer 

on behalf of Ms. Perry or the USOC. 

Question 8. Have you ever criticized the prior board at USA Gymnastics—the 

Board that hired you? If so, what criticisms have you lodged? 

Answer. On September 3, 2018, former USA Gymnastics President and CEO 

Kerry Perry resigned. USA Gymnastics is in the process of searching for a new 

President and CEO and a management committee has been established to provide 

organizational oversight until a new President and CEO is named. USA Gymnastics 

cannot answer on behalf of Ms. Perry. 

USA Gymnastics continues to undergo a leadership transition, with a new Board 

of Directors (‘‘Board’’), composed of a majority of independent directors, having been 

elected in June, and an ongoing search for a new President and CEO. USA Gymnastics also underwent a reorganization that resulted in staff changes. It is the intent of USA Gymnastics to ensure that, going forward, the leadership reflects the 

organization’s mission and is focused on protecting athletes and creating a culture 

that encourages athletes to speak freely. 

Question 9. What have you done to identify and remove current employees who 

knew about sexual abuse and not only did not report, but stayed silent? Is there 

anyone else still employed at USAG who knew about sexual abuse but did not do 

anything about it? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics takes seriously the issue of abuse and prioritizes athlete safety. The organization’s forthcoming revised Safe Sport Policy requires that 

Covered Adults report all allegations of child abuse and sexual misconduct to the 

Center, which has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate these matters. Covered Adults are also required to report suspected child 

abuse, including sexual abuse, to the appropriate legal authorities.11 The Center has 

the authority to impose interim measures, including suspension, but the Center’s 

authority to impose interim measures is not exclusive. USA Gymnastics may take 

119 

appropriate interim measures upon notice of an imminent threat of harm, although 

for cases originating with the Center, it may have to rely on the Center’s notification as the basis for implementing an interim measure. A final sanction imposed 

by the Center resulting from the exercise of its exclusive or discretionary authority 

must be enforced by all NGBs. Members who violate the Safe Sport Policy (including 

a failure to lodge a mandatory report), or cause another to violate the Safe Sport 

Policy, are subject to discipline by USA Gymnastics. In addition, USA Gymnastics 

requires compliance with the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe 

Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which requires adults authorized by an NGB to 

interact with minor or amateur athletes to report suspected child abuse, including 

sexual abuse, to the proper legal authorities within 24 hours. 

USA Gymnastics has and continues to fully cooperate with investigations related 

to the abuse of athletes by Larry Nassar, including investigations by all law enforcement as well as the independent investigation being conducted by outside counsel 

Ropes & Gray LLP. USA Gymnastics looks forward to reviewing the findings of the 

independent investigation when the investigation is complete and taking appropriate action. 

USA Gymnastics continues to undergo a leadership transition, with a new Board 

of Directors, composed of a majority of independent directors, having been elected 

in June, and an ongoing search for a new CEO and President. USA Gymnastics also 

underwent a reorganization that resulted in staff changes. It is the intent of USA 

Gymnastics to ensure that, going forward, the leadership reflects the organization’s 

mission and is focused on protecting athletes and creating a culture that encourages 

athletes to speak freely. 

Question 10. Has anything been done to identify and remove coaches, athletic directors, employees, and officials who witnessed emotional and physical abuse of athletes and did not report child abuse to authorities and did nothing to stop it? If not, 

do you plan to do so? What is the timeline for that? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 9. 

Question 11. In order to begin to restore trust, have you proactively disclosed to 

law enforcement and the public all of the previously mishandled sexual abuse claims 

made against individuals within the USAG community? Are you able to explain why 

these failures happened and what you are doing to make sure they will not happen 

again? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics’ forthcoming revised Safe Sport Policy requires that 

Covered Adults report suspected child abuse, including sexual misconduct, to the appropriate legal authorities as well as the Center. In addition, USA Gymnastics requires compliance with the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe 

Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which requires adults authorized by an NGB to 

interact with minor or amateur athletes to report suspected child abuse, including 

sexual abuse, to the proper legal authorities within 24 hours. 

Question 12. Will you promise the victims of Larry Nassar that USAG will no 

longer deny all responsibility for their protection of sexual predators? Are you willing to take responsibility as an organization for the decades-long failure of the organization to protect its young athletes from sexual abuse? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics unequivocally and vehemently condemns the despicable 

and criminal conduct of Larry Nassar, any individual who commits sexual misconduct and/or abuse, or any individual who failed to report the same. USA Gymnastics is undertaking and will continue to pursue wide-ranging and decisive action 

to prevent sexual abuse and misconduct, to implement a culture that prioritizes athlete safety, and to work to regain the trust and confidence of our athletes and members. This has included a complete overhaul of our Board of Directors and the CEO 

and President, a reorganization that resulted in staff changes, amending our Bylaws 

and policies and procedures, commissioning and implementing recommendations 

from the independent and comprehensive report from former U.S. Attorney Deborah 

Daniels, expansion of our Safe Sport department, creation of an Athlete Task Force, 

creation of an Athlete Assistance Fund, and educating and training our Board, staff, 

and members on the Safe Sport Policy. 

USA Gymnastics deeply regrets that it did not know of Nassar’s despicable conduct sooner. If it had known, it could and would have acted. As soon as USA Gymnastics became aware of allegations against Nassar, it promptly acted to address 

those allegations, including hiring an investigator and reporting the allegations to 

the FBI—twice. USA Gymnastics is fully committed to continuing to work with the 

plaintiff-survivors to resolve the pending litigation through mediation and to promote healing and transformation within the gymnastics community. 

Question 13. In your prior testimony before the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee, you repeatedly testified about how you apologize for the abuse that ocVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
120 

12Please see footnote 11 for additional details. 

curred. Were you apologizing for the horrible acts of abuse that happened or USA 

Gymnastics’ systemic failures at protecting them? Do you understand there is a difference and the importance of apologizing for your organization’s complicity in the 

abuse? 

Answer. On September 3, 2018, former USA Gymnastics President and CEO 

Kerry Perry resigned. USA Gymnastics is in the process of searching for a new 

President and CEO and a management committee has been established to provide 

organizational oversight until a new President and CEO is named. USA Gymnastics 

cannot answer on behalf of Ms. Perry. 

USA Gymnastics apologizes for the horrible and criminal conduct of Larry Nassar. 

USA Gymnastics also regrets that it did not know of Nassar’s despicable conduct 

sooner. 

Question 14. Has USAG hired independent psychological professionals for its elite 

athletes that will honor doctor patient confidentiality? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics is committed to putting the safety of our athletes first, 

including providing assistance to those who have suffered sexual abuse. The Athlete 

Assistance Fund, created in partnership with the National Gymnastics Foundation, 

serves to provide the survivors of abuse with resources for counseling and medical 

services. 

Question 15. What policies have been initiated to detect, prevent and punish the 

use of emotional and physical abuse by coaches and other individuals involved in 

the athletes training? Especially at the national team level? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics’ forthcoming revised Safe Sport Policy strengthens our 

approach to athlete safety. Every USA Gymnastics member club must comply with 

the policy, which, among other requirements: increases the number of individuals 

who fall under USA Gymnastics’ jurisdiction; increases the number of categories of 

misconduct; addresses and prohibits boundary violations and ‘‘grooming’’ behaviors; 

requires Covered Adults to report suspected child abuse, including sexual misconduct, to the appropriate legal authorities; requires Covered Adults to notify the 

Center of any child abuse or sexual misconduct; and requires all members to take 

a designated safe sport course every two years. All USA Gymnastics staff, Board 

of Directors, and members have been trained on the Safe Sport Policy. Beginning 

in 2018, all professional and club members must be Safe Sport certified as a condition of membership. 

All USA Gymnastics members are also expected to follow the organization’s Bylaws and all applicable laws. Members that do not comply—whether athlete, professional, or club members—are subject to discipline. 

Question 16. Do you understand what a ‘‘mandatory reporter’’ is? If so, please explain your understanding of that term. Have you ever received any mandatory reporter training from the USOC, USAG, or any other entity? 

Answer. Pursuant to the SafeSport Procedures and USA Gymnastics’ forthcoming 

revised Safe Sport Policy, and in addition to any obligations under the relevant 

laws, Covered Adults are required to report suspected child abuse, including sexual 

misconduct, to the appropriate legal authorities, as well as to the Center.12 In addition, USA Gymnastics requires compliance with the Protecting Young Victims from 

Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which requires adults authorized by an NGB to interact with minor or amateur athletes to report suspected 

child abuse, including sexual abuse, to the proper legal authorities within 24 hours. 

As described in Question 15, USA Gymnastics requires all members to take a designated safe sport course every two years. All USA Gymnastics staff, Board of Directors, and members have been trained on the Safe Sport Policy. Beginning in 2018, 

all professional and club members must be Safe Sport certified as a condition of 

membership. 

Question 17. What have you done to make sure that USAG officials understand 

their legal duties under mandatory reporting laws? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 16. 

Question 18. How would you describe your relationship with the community of 

gymnasts who are survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. The safety and well-being of our athletes and other members is USA 

Gymnastics’ top priority. Hearing the powerful stories of our athlete-survivors motivates and underlies our mission to create a supportive culture that helps our athletes achieve their gymnastics goals in a safe environment. USA Gymnastics still 

has work to do to regain the trust and confidence of our athletes, members, and the 

gymnastics community. The organization’s recent and ongoing initiatives are inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
121 

13https://www.law360.com/articles/1065655/usa-gymnastics-says-it-isn-t-liable-in-nassarabuse-suit 14 Code of Ethical Conduct (April 2016): Any Member (‘Complainant’) who believes that another Member of USA Gymnastics has failed to meet such Member’s obligations under this Code 

is, under all but the most egregious circumstances, encouraged to first address that concern directly to that Member. If that action does not result in a satisfactory resolution, the Complainant may file a written complaint with the President, program director or other appropriate staff 

member of USA Gymnastics. That complaint must be signed and state specifically the nature 

of the alleged misconduct. 

tended to continue that work. USA Gymnastics looks forward to continuing to work 

with its members to transform and improve the sport and the community. In addition, USA Gymnastics is committed to working with the plaintiff-survivors, through 

the mediation process, to resolve the pending litigation. USA Gymnastics believes 

that resolving the litigation is an important step toward enabling communication 

with survivors and promoting healing within the gymnastics community. 

Question 19. How do you plan to you improve your relationship with the community of gymnasts who are survivors of sexual abuse? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 18. 

Question 20. Larry Nassar was the national team doctor for women’s artistic gymnastics, correct? 

Answer. Larry Nassar served as a volunteer in various capacities for USA Gymnastics from 1987 to 2015. During this period, he appears to have titled his positions and/or was called ‘‘Medical Coordinator’’ (1996 to 2015) and ‘‘Women’s National 

Team Physician’’ (1995 to 2015). Larry Nassar was not an employee of USA Gymnastics. Rather, he was an employee of Michigan State University (‘‘MSU’’). 

Question 21. Larry Nassar was the former National Team Medical Coordinator for 

all of USA gymnastics, correct? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 20. 

Question 22. In a recent filling, USAG denied civil liability for the sexual misconduct of convicted former national team doctor Larry Nassar. When asked if 

Nassar was employed by USAG from approximately 1986 to 2015 in such positions 

as certified athletic trainer, osteopathic physician, national medical director and national team physician, USAG said, ‘‘Denied. Admitted only that Nassar served as 

a volunteer in various capacities for USAG from 1987 to 2015.’’ 13 I asked you about 

this filing during the hearing. 

• Were you not aware of this filing during the hearing? 

• Are you now familiar with this filing? 

• Are you now aware that USAG continues to try to disclaim all responsibility 

in this matter—not even admitting that Larry Nassar served as the national 

team doctor, and in an official capacity on the USA Gymnastics Medical Task 

Force? 

• How can athletes, parents, communities, trust an organization that can’t even 

admit the simple fact that Nassar was employed by USAG? 

• Will you commit to withdrawing this filing? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 20. On September 3, 2018, former 

USA Gymnastics President and CEO Kerry Perry resigned. USA Gymnastics is in 

the process of searching for a new President and CEO and a management committee has been established to provide organizational oversight until a new President and CEO is named. USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf of Ms. Perry. 

USA Gymnastics is fully committed to continuing to work with the plaintiff-survivors to resolve the pending litigation through mediation and to promote healing 

and transformation within the gymnastics community. 

Question 23. Code of Ethical Conduct—At the last hearing, I asked Ms. Faehn, 

VP of Women’s Program at USAG, about the Code of Ethical Conduct and why it 

still contained language 14 suggesting that complaints submitted to USAG must be 

signed, written, and perhaps even corroborated, in order for USAG to follow-up with 

an allegation of misconduct. It also encouraged complainants to first address concern directly with their abuser. At the time, the Code of Ethical Conduct had last 

been updated in April of 2016. 

a. At what point did you become aware of problems with the Code of Ethical Conduct? 

b. Who made you aware? 

122 

c. Are you aware that the survivor community had taken issue with the Code of 

Ethical Conduct for some time? 

d. Why didn’t you take steps to update it sooner? Why does it seem as though 

it was not until I raised this at the last Subcommittee hearing that this was 

updated? 

Answer. As part of USA Gymnastics’ commitment to the safety and well-being of 

our athletes, USA Gymnastics has reviewed and amended certain policies and procedures, including the Code of Ethical Conduct. The Code of Ethical Conduct was most 

recently revised on July 10, 2018. It addresses members’ ethical obligations and the 

resolution of ethical issues. It is intended to work in conjunction with the Safe Sport 

Policy, which provides the definitions and mandatory reporting requirements for 

sexual misconduct and abuse. USA Gymnastics’ work is ongoing, including implementing all recommendations from the Deborah Daniels report, which we recognize 

requires ongoing activities, initiatives, monitoring, and other actions as appropriate. 

Question 24. Non-Disclosure Agreements—During the hearing, I asked if you were 

aware of other any other NDAs USAG had signed that would silences sexual abuse 

victims. You referenced the NDA with Ms. McKayla Maroney, but denied there 

being any others, saying, ‘‘I am not aware of any others prior to my being CEO. . .’’ 

a. Your testimony at the hearing contradicts the letter you sent to me and Senator Moran on April 16, 2018, and an article published in the Orange County 

Register on April 4, 2018, which describes other USAG settlements with victims of sexual abuse that included NDAs. Would you like to correct the record? 

b. As President and CEO of USAG, are you committed to leading with transparency and integrity? Will you commit to being forthright and honest in your 

responses? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics is aware of six settlement agreements since 2005 that 

relate to allegations of sexual abuse and to which USA Gymnastics was a party. 

Two of these settlement agreements were entered into this year. While we are unable to locate one of the settlement agreements, the five we have located contain 

confidentiality and/or nondisclosure provisions. Of the five we have located, only one 

(from 2016) included a provision that applied the confidentiality and/or nondisclosure requirements to the underlying facts of the abuse. USA Gymnastics has since 

released that party from the provisions of the agreement that would prohibit the 

athlete’s ability to speak publicly about the abuse. The other four agreements’ confidentiality and/or nondisclosure provisions govern the settlement terms, such as the 

amount of the settlement payment, but do not prohibit the athlete from speaking 

of the abuse. Going forward, USA Gymnastics will not enter into, or enforce, agreement terms that prevent or prohibit victims of sexual abuse from speaking publicly 

about their abuse. 

Question 25. Athlete Task Force—In your testimony, you discussed the creation 

of an ‘‘Athlete Task Force’’ that will help shape USAG’s future strategic and operating decisions. As you may know, this ‘‘Athlete Task Force’’ has been met by skepticism by the survivor community. 

a. Considering the prevalence of sexual abuse in the sport and the sheer magnitude of survivors of sexual abuse by Larry Nassar, why is there no Nassar 

survivor on this Athlete Task Force? Did you ever reach out to the survivors? 

b. How can the Athlete Task Force help direct the program away from the same 

toxic environment and culture of abuse that enabled Larry Nassar in the first 

place if there are no survivors of Nassar’s abuse on the task force? 

c. I have heard from survivor advocates that you need at least two survivors on 

a panel or a working group for them to feel safe and empowered to advocate 

for reforms necessary on behalf of abuse survivors. What do you think of that 

idea? Will you implement that recommendation? When? 

d. Have you spoken directly with any survivors? Who? 

Answer. The aim of the Athlete Task Force is to include our athletes in shaping 

the future of USA Gymnastics, including its strategic initiatives such as, but not 

limited to, an athlete mentoring program, educational initiatives for safe sport, and 

the concept of an ombudsman for USA Gymnastics athletes. The Athlete Task Force 

is also encouraged to bring forth ideas and proposals that are important to the athletes. Current members on the Athlete Task Force, who are all volunteers, are 

Shenea Booth (acrobatic gymnastics), who is a victim and survivor, Ivana Hong 

(women’s gymnastics), Jazzy Kerber (rhythmic gymnastics), Steven Legendre (men’s 

gymnastics), and Leigh Hennessy Robson (trampoline and tumbling). USA Gymnastics is committed to working with athletes, survivors, and all members of the 

123 

gymnastics community to rebuild trust and develop a culture in which athletes and 

members can thrive. In addition, USA Gymnastics is fully committed to continuing 

to work with the plaintiff-survivors to resolve the pending litigation through mediation and to promote healing and transformation within the gymnastics community. 

Question 26. Removal of Medical Records removed from the Karolyi Ranch—In the 

Senate testimony by Ms. Rhonda Faehn, she indicated that an individual employed 

by USA Gymnastics was instructed to leave Indianapolis, go to the Karolyi Ranch, 

purchase suitcases, and then load them with medical records, in 2017. 

a. Have you investigated these claims by Ms. Faehn? 

b. Why were these medical records removed from the Karolyi Ranch? Who ordered this action? 

c. Who took these records? Why? 

d. Whose medical records were these? 

e. Did you ever speak with Ms. Amy White about her involvement with these 

medical records? Or Ms. Renee Jamison? If yes, what did they indicate to you? 

f. What are the statuses of these individuals’ employment at USA Gymnastics? 

g. After these records were taken, what was done with these records by USA 

Gymnastics? 

Answer. These questions address a matter that USA Gymnastics understands to 

be the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation in Texas. Accordingly, USA Gymnastics cannot comment on these questions at this time. USA Gymnastics has fully 

cooperated with law enforcement agencies, including the Texas Rangers, and will 

continue to do so. Most recently, USA Gymnastics through counsel, reached out to 

Walker County District Attorney’s Office to offer access to documents that may have 

been collected from the Karolyi Ranch and brought back to Indianapolis. 

Question 27. USAG Medical Records—As you may know, several National Team 

Members and Olympians requested their medical records from USA Gymnastics. In 

response, only a few pages of records were produced for these women. For example, 

Aly Raisman, who competed with USA Gymnastics since a little girl, on the National Team for five years, only received approximately 12 pages of medical records. 

a. Where are these records? What happened to them? 

b. USOC implemented a new electronic health records system during the 2012 

Olympics. What happened to these electronic medical records? Shouldn’t you 

have these? 

c. To the best of your knowledge, did Larry Nassar keep any medical records for 

his abusive treatments of gymnasts? 

Answer. In response to requests from various athlete-members for their medical 

records, USA Gymnastics conducted a search of its records reasonably calculated to 

identify the requested records and provided the records to the athlete-member. Requests for records in the possession of other entities, such as the USOC or MSU, 

should be directed to those entities. USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf of 

other entities. 

Question 28. SafeSport Training— 

a. Who will have access to SafeSport training materials? (i.e., athletes, parents, 

coaches, volunteers, gym owners, etc.) 

b. At what point in the membership process are USAG members required to complete SafeSport training? How frequently is such training required? 

c. Which USAG members will have in-person SafeSport training? What percentage of members will have some kind of live training? 

d. How much of USAG’s resources will be directed to ensuring members are 

trained in SafeSport? 

e. Are NGBs responsible for expenses related to SafeSport, or is the Center for 

SafeSport for those expenses? 

f. Is USAG generating its own sport-specific SafeSport training materials? If yes, 

what individuals and groups have provided input on the content of these materials? 

g. Have you taken all three SafeSport courses? When did you first take these 

courses? How many times have you taken these courses? 

h. Have you ever received any kind of training regarding how to detect signs of 

grooming, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? Who provided this training? Was 

it mandatory or voluntary? 

124 

Answer. In June 2017, USA Gymnastics adopted a Safe Sport Policy which requires mandatory reporting, delineates specific types of misconduct (including sexual and physical misconduct, as well as verbal and emotional, among others), sets 

standards to prohibit ‘‘grooming’’ behavior and establishes greater accountability. 

All USA Gymnastics members must comply with this policy, which, among other 

things, requires that all members complete a designated safe sport course every two 

years. Additionally, USA Gymnastics has taken steps to educate its members 

through online tools, live presentations at regional and national events, including 

the topic in athlete, parent and staff discussions, and producing appropriate written 

collateral materials. All USA Gymnastics staff, Board of Directors, and members 

have been trained on the Safe Sport Policy. In addition to training staff and members on the Safe Sport Policy, the organization has hired a former prosecutor who 

previously prosecuted child abuse and sex crime cases to provide supporting legal 

counsel on SafeSport matters. The organization also recently named child advocate 

Shelba Waldron to be its Director of Safe Sport Education and Training, a new position that will lead USA Gymnastics’ efforts to educate its members and the gymnastics community on topics related to SafeSport and corresponding policies and 

laws. USA Gymnastics has also taken measures to simplify reporting. The Safe 

Sport page on USA Gymnastics’ website permits members to report misconduct, reminds adult members of the obligation to report abuse—sexual or otherwise—to law 

enforcement, provides contact information for the reporting of sexual misconduct to 

the Center, and provides a form, e-mail address (reportfirst@usagym.org), and hotline (1–833–844–SAFE) to report other, non-sexual misconduct to USA Gymnastics. 

Question 29. Relationship with the Center for SafeSport 

a. When the Center for SafeSport is investigating an allegation of sexual abuse, 

who determines whether an individual should be temporarily suspended during 

that investigation—USAG or the Center for SafeSport? Does who makes this 

determination vary by NGB? If USAG provides that determination, what information is provided to USAG in order to make that determination? At what 

stage of the investigation is USAG advised of this? 

b. If the Center for SafeSport determines sexual misconduct has occurred, would 

the Center or USAG determine whether the guilty individual is banned or temporarily suspended? What discretion would USAG have on that matter? If 

USAG makes that decision, what information is provided to them in order to 

make that decision? 

c. How long has it generally taken for the Center for SafeSport to investigate a 

sexual misconduct complaint for USAG’s cases? 

d. Do you think the Center has sufficient number of investigators? 

e. Have you been satisfied with the Center for SafeSport’s communication with 

you? How could it be improved? Please be specific. 

Answer. The Center maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation and 

resolution of all matters involving allegations of sexual misconduct and/or sexual 

abuse. The Center has the authority to investigate the report, issue any interim suspension or other measures pending the conclusion of the investigation and any hearing(s), make recommendations of sanctions or disciplinary action as a result of such 

investigation, and fully adjudicate such matters. In matters that are adjudicated by 

the Center that result in permanent ineligibility for membership and that are published on the Center’s searchable database, USA Gymnastics will also publish the 

information to its list of permanently ineligible members. 

The Center’s authority to impose interim measures, however, is not exclusive. The 

SafeSport Procedures state that NGBs, which include USA Gymnastics, are not prohibited by the SafeSport Procedures from taking appropriate interim measures upon 

notice of an imminent threat of harm. It is USA Gymnastics’ policy to assess each 

case and impose interim measures, such as suspension, when the Gymnastics community may be at risk. In the case of complaints originating with the Center, however, USA Gymnastics has limited information on which to assess the case and may 

have to rely on the Center’s notification as the basis for implementing an interim 

measure. Interim measures may include, but are not limited to, suspension, altering 

training schedules, providing chaperones, implementing contact limitations, or member club restrictions. The list of adult members currently under suspension (including suspensions with modifying conditions, such as no unsupervised contact with 

minors) by the U.S. Center for SafeSport or by USA Gymnastics is also publicly 

maintained. 

USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf of the Center regarding its investigations, including length of time and staffing. 

125 

Question 30. Athlete and Executive Compensation 

a. Please describe how USAG executives are compensated and how compensations 

packages are determined. 

b. Are bonuses given to executives based off of athlete medal performance? 

a. If yes, why is that? 

a. If no, have bonuses ever been given off of this model in the past? When did 

this happen? 

c. Please describe how gymnasts are compensated at different levels. 

d. From your personal experiences, would you agree with reports that USOC has 

engaged in exorbitant and lavish spending—flying executives and spouses on 

first class and providing excessively generous per diems? Do you think USAG 

is similarly engaged in exorbitant and lavish spending in any way? 

e. What percent of USAG expenses go toward Administration and Fundraising? 

f. How many employees does the USAG have? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics interprets ‘‘executive’’ or ‘‘executives’’ to mean USA 

Gymnastics Officers or Directors. 

The USA Gymnastics Board of Directors receive no salary or compensation for 

serving as a Director. Directors may receive reasonable compensation for services 

rendered in any other capacity, subject to review and approval by the Ethics and 

Grievance Committee and as permitted by Board policy. Directors’ expenses may be 

reimbursed, provided the expenses are reasonable and supported by appropriate 

documentation. 

USA Gymnastics’ Officers, except for the President, receive no salary or compensation for serving as an Officer. Officers may receive reasonable compensation 

for services rendered in any other capacity, subject to review and approval by the 

Ethics and Grievance Committee and as permitted by Board policy. Officers’ expenses may be reimbursed, provided the expenses are reasonable and supported by 

appropriate documentation. The Board’s Finance, Compensation and Audit Committee advises the Board on matters pertaining to the compensation and benefits 

for the President to ensure that compensation and benefits are fair, effective, transparent and accountable. 

Athletes may qualify for financial support as a result of competitive success at 

National Championships. Where NCAA and other rules allow, there is also a bonus 

structure for some athletes based on performance at designated events. 

Data regarding our revenues, expenses, and other metrics, such as the number 

of employees, may be found in our audited financial statements and tax returns, 

which are publicly available on the USA Gymnastics website. As reported on our 

IRS Form 990 for 2016, the last year for which we have reported data, we employed 

69 employees. We anticipate filing our 2017 forms later this year. 

Question 31. Athlete-Whistleblower Retaliation—In the Mach 2017 testimony of 

Mr. Adams, he indicated that at USA Gymnastics there were ‘‘barriers’’ and ‘‘disincentives’’ to reporting about by victims. 

a. Do you know what ‘‘disincentives’’ he was talking about? Do you know what 

barriers he was talking about? 

b. If you don’t know, then have you consulted with Mr. Adams who had these 

criticisms? Have you discussed the concerns he expressed? What did he tell 

you? How do you plan to address these criticisms? 

c. If you haven’t spoken with Mr. Adams, then why not? Will you commit to doing 

so? 

d. Do you think there are still cultural issues in place that prevent gymnasts 

with knowledge of sexual abuse from coming forward? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics is committed to promoting a safe gymnastics environment for all participants, including from sexual abuse. We have worked to review, 

evaluate, refine and strengthen our policies and procedures, including by revising 

our Bylaws, Code of Ethics, and adopting a Safe Sport Policy. We are also incorporating all recommendations from the independent and comprehensive report from 

former U.S. Attorney Deborah Daniels. USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf 

of Mr. Adams. 

Question 32. Are you aware that incoming USOC CEO Sarah Hirshland refused 

to speak with Olympic gold medalist and Nassar survivor Ms. Aly Raisman following the Subcommittee hearing? If you are not aware, you can read more about 

that interaction here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/07/ 

24/aly-raisman-rebuffed-sarah-hirshland-us-olympic-committee-ceo/831061002/ and 

126 

15https://www.facebook.com/notes/rachael-denhollander/questions-for-john-engler-kerryperry-and-susanne-lyons-at-their-senate-hearing/1914933721920272/ 

https://thinkprogress.org/new-u-s-olympic-head-snubs-aly-raisman-after-senatehearing-on-sex-abuse-7e970bda4c53/ 

a. What kind of message does this send to you? 

b. What message do you think this sends to other survivors of sexual abuse 

across sports? 

c. Do you understand why Ms. Hirshland did not speak with Ms. Raisman? 

d. Has USOC ever given you any instructions regarding with whom you should 

or should not speak? 

e. Has the USAG Board ever given you any instructions regarding with whom 

you should or should not speak? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics stands behind our community of survivors, whose willingness to speak publicly about the abuse is courageous. An important part of our 

mission to changing our culture is to include our athletes’ voices, including athletesurvivors, in the organization’s strategic and operating decisions. USA Gymnastics 

is committed to working with athletes, survivors, and all members of the gymnastics 

community to rebuild trust and develop a culture in which athletes and members 

can thrive. USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf of the USOC. 

Question 33. USAG Funding: What were the 2017 revenues from USA Gymnastics? Have the revenues been impacted by the Larry Nassar scandal? Please describe the breakdown of any lost revenue—from sponsorships, advertising, fundraising, membership dues, etc. 

Answer. Data regarding our revenues, expenses, and other metrics may be found 

in our audited financial statements and tax returns, which are publicly available on 

the USA Gymnastics website. We filed our 2016 IRS Form 990 on November 14, 

2017 and anticipate filing our 2017 form later this year. 

Question 34. Michigan State University settled with the victims of Larry Nassar’s 

sex abuse for half a billion dollars. What is the contingency plan, if any, for USOC 

and USAG to withstand the cost of legal action filed against them? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics continues to seek resolution of the pending litigation 

through mediation, which involves both the plaintiffs and USA Gymnastics’ insurers. USA Gymnastics cannot answer on behalf of the USOC. 

Question 35. In May 2010, according to its 2016 990, USA Gymnastics took financial control as a fiscal agent of all of the bank accounts women’s and men’s state 

and regional chapters. The state and regional account balances are now listed under 

the nonprofit’s Schedule D section under ‘‘Escrow and Custodial Arrangements.’’ If 

USAG falls under the weight of pending litigation, are the funds of these state and 

regional chapters vulnerable? How would the loss of these funds endanger the grassroots activities of these chapters, and therein, local gymnasts? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 34. 

Question 36. What do you think of the fact that Mr. Penny took $1 million from 

the non-profit USAG as part of his severance package, yet refused to answer questions at this Subcommittee’s last hearing regarding conduct he had engaged in on 

behalf of USAG? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics continues to undergo a leadership transition, with a 

new Board of Directors, composed of a majority of independent directors, having 

been elected in June, and an ongoing search for a new CEO and President. Mr. 

Penny resigned in March 2017. Thus, at the time of the June 5, 2018 hearing before 

this Subcommittee, Mr. Penny had no role with USA Gymnastics, and he still has 

no role with USA Gymnastics. 

Question 37. Ms. Rachael Dehollander’s Questions: As you know, Ms. Rachael 

Denhollander was the first woman to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. 

In a Facebook post dated July 24, 2018, Ms. Denhollander wrote: ‘‘How you as leaders think about and what you communicate about sexual assault is the determining 

factor in whether your institution is safe or not. Procedural or policy changes matter 

little when the example from the top is shaming, blaming, and refusing to honestly 

assess and admit when failures have occurred.’’ 

Ms. Denhollander had several questions that she hoped would be asked to leaders 

at MSU, USAG, and USOC. They have been copied below in their entirety.15

If you want to move forward to create effective change, why have you not commissioned an independent investigation into what went wrong, so you know what to 

change and how to do better? Why have you not investigated who knew what about 

127 

Nassar and when, or identified the breakdowns and failures that let him sexually 

abuse children for decades? (MSU, USAG and USOC have not commissioned a public investigation into what happened with Nassar—something the survivors have 

been requesting for nearly two years.) 

Answer. In late 2016, USA Gymnastics engaged Deborah Daniels, a former Federal prosecutor and U.S. Attorney, to conduct an independent review of USA Gymnastics’ Bylaws, policies, procedures and practices related to handling sexual misconduct matters, and to make recommendations for improvement in the interest of 

protecting young athletes from abuse. Her review partnered with Praesidium, a 

company that specializes in preventing sexual abuse in organizations that serve 

youth and vulnerable adults. The resulting 100-page report, released in June 2017 

and available online via USA Gymnastics’ website, made 70 recommendations, all 

of which our Board of Directors unanimously approved and the significant majority 

of which have been implemented or are in progress. USA Gymnastics remains committed to implementing all recommendations from the report. 

In February 2018, a special committee of directors for the USOC engaged outside 

counsel Ropes & Gray LLP (‘‘Ropes & Gray’’) to conduct an independent investigation into the abuse of athletes by Larry Nassar, including investigating its contributing circumstances. USA Gymnastics is fully cooperating with the investigation. 

USA Gymnastics understands that Ropes & Gray’s report, when complete, will be 

released in its entirety to the public. USA Gymnastics looks forward to reviewing 

the findings when the investigation is complete and taking appropriate action. 

Additionally, USA Gymnastics has worked diligently to pursue compliance with 

all policies from the U.S. Center for SafeSport, as well as any requirements or recommendations from the USOC. USA Gymnastics has also undertaken its own initiatives, such as the Athlete Assistance Fund and the Athlete Task Force. 

Question 38. Have you otherwise identified any specific breakdowns or failures of 

policy or individuals that is responsible in whole or part for allowing Nassar to 

abuse children for decades? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 37. 

Question 39. If you HAVE identified some failures, why have these not been identified and disclosed, with consequences for any individual failures? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 37. 

Question 40. If you HAVE identified failures, why have the victims received no 

disclosure of these failures, or specific apology for them? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 37. 

Question 41. If you have NOT identified specific failures, why have you not taken 

that basic step? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 37. 

Question 42. Moving forward, have you identified any specific failures in how 

leaders have talked about, characterized, or spoken of survivors of abuse? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 37. 

Question 43. Have you retracted and apologized for each of these statements? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 37. 

Question 44. What message do you believe has been communicated about how sexual assault survivors are viewed in the statements made publicly about these 

women, and made privately in e-mails and internal correspondence? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics unequivocally and vehemently condemns the despicable 

and criminal conduct of Larry Nassar, any individual involved in sexual misconduct 

and/or abuse, or any individual who failed to report the same. USA Gymnastics 

stands behind our community of survivors, whose willingness to speak publicly 

about the abuse is courageous. 

Question 45. Do you or did you at one believe the statements made by leaders 

at MSU (including Mr. Engler) that sexual assault survivors are in this for money, 

being manipulated by trial attorneys, pushing legislative reform for personal gain, 

receiving kickbacks, or lying about what was said in private meetings for personal 

gain? 

Answer. On September 3, 2018, former USA Gymnastics President and CEO 

Kerry Perry resigned. USA Gymnastics is in the process of searching for a new 

President and CEO and a management committee has been established to provide 

organizational oversight until a new President and CEO is named. USA Gymnastics 

cannot answer on behalf of Ms. Perry or any individuals at MSU. 

USA Gymnastics stands behind and supports our community of survivors, whose 

willingness to speak publicly about the abuse is courageous. 

128 

16The Safe Sport Policy defines ‘‘Covered Adult’’ to include any individual over the age of 18 

‘‘who currently is, or was at the time of a possible SafeSport Code Violation, within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of USA Gymnastics or who is seeking to be within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of USA Gymnastics’’ or ‘‘who is an Athlete or Non-Athlete Participant that USA Gymnastics formally authorizes, approves or appoints to a position of authority over Athletes or to have frequent contact with Athletes[.]’’ 

The Safe Sport Policy defines reportable sexual misconduct to include ‘‘conduct of which [the 

adult] become[s] aware that could constitute (a) sexual misconduct, (b) misconduct that is reasonably related to the underlying allegation of sexual misconduct, and (c) retaliation related to 

an allegation of sexual misconduct as set forth in the [Center’s] Code.’’ 

The Safe Sport Policy was last revised in June 2017. USA Gymnastics is in the process of 

further revising the policy and expects to publish these updates in the upcoming months. 

Question 46. If you do not and did NOT believe these statements, why would you 

say them or allow others to say them unchallenged and uncorrected? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to Question 45. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO KERRY PERRY

Question 1. Are you engaging with the elite-level victims of sexual abuse to help 

direct the gymnastics program away from this widely reported culture of abuse that 

enabled predators like Larry Nassar in the first place? How and in what capacity? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics is committed to working with athletes, survivors, and 

all members of the gymnastics community to rebuild trust and develop a culture in 

which athletes and members can thrive. This is reflected in our commitment to implementing every recommendation from the Deborah Daniels report, all 70 of which 

our Board of Directors unanimously approved. One of these recommendations focuses on a culture change, which USA Gymnastics recognizes requires ongoing activities, initiatives, monitoring, and other actions as appropriate. We created an 

Athlete Task Force to include our athletes in shaping the culture and future of USA 

Gymnastics, including its most important strategic initiatives. The Athlete Task 

Force consists of up to nine former athletes, all volunteers, including one former 

elite athlete per competitive discipline with relevant work experience and the athlete directors on the Board of Directors for men’s and women’s gymnastics. Current 

members on the Athlete Task Force are Shenea Booth (acrobatic gymnastics), Ivana 

Hong (women’s gymnastics), Jazzy Kerber (rhythmic gymnastics), Steven Legendre 

(men’s gymnastics), and Leigh Hennessy Robson (trampoline and tumbling). While 

the organization’s ability to communicate directly with plaintiff-survivors is currently limited due to the ongoing litigation, USA Gymnastics is committed to and 

looks forward to working with the plaintiff-survivors, through the mediation process, 

to resolve the pending litigation. 

Question 2. As a follow-up, in writing, to the question I asked in the hearing, what 

actions is USA Gymnastics taking to identify and remove coaches, athlete directors, 

employees, and officials who witnessed emotional and physical abuse of athletes and 

did not report child abuse to authorities and did nothing to stop it? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics takes seriously the issue of abuse and is focused on 

prioritizing athlete safety. Under the forthcoming revised Safe Sport Policy, Covered 

Adults are required to report all allegations of child abuse and sexual misconduct 

to the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ‘‘Center’’), which has the exclusive authority 

and jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate these matters. Covered Adults are also 

required to report suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse, to the appropriate 

legal authorities.16 The Center has the authority to impose interim measures, including suspension, but the Center’s authority to impose interim measures is not 

exclusive. USA Gymnastics may take appropriate interim measures upon notice of 

an imminent threat of harm, although for cases originating with the Center, it may 

have to rely on the Center’s notification as the basis for implementing an interim 

measure. A final sanction imposed by the Center resulting from the exercise of its 

exclusive or discretionary authority must be enforced by all National Governing 

Bodies (‘‘NGBs’’). Members who violate the Safe Sport Policy (including a failure to 

lodge a mandatory report), or cause another to violate the Safe Sport Policy, are 

subject to discipline by USA Gymnastics. USA Gymnastics will take swift and decisive action if it learns that any member was involved in, or failed to report, child 

abuse or sexual misconduct. In addition, USA Gymnastics requires compliance with 

the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 

of 2017, which requires adults authorized by an NGB to interact with minor or amaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57804.TXT JACKIE
129 

teur athletes to report suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse, to the proper 

legal authorities within 24 hours. 

USA Gymnastics continues to undergo a leadership transition, with a new Board 

of Directors, composed of a majority of independent directors, having been elected 

in June, and an ongoing search for a new CEO and President. USA Gymnastics also 

underwent a reorganization that resulted in staff changes. It is the intent of USA 

Gymnastics to ensure that, going forward, the leadership reflects the organization’s 

mission and is focused on protecting athletes and creating a culture that encourages 

athletes to speak freely. 

Question 3. As a follow-up, in writing, to the question I asked in the hearing, what 

actions are being taken to identify and remove current employees who knew about 

sexual abuse and not only did not report, but stayed silent or did not report in a 

timely manner? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to the previous Question. 

Question 4. In previous witness testimony, we have heard about the conflict of interest issue within the USA Gymnastics selection committee composition. What has 

USAG done to address the obvious conflict of the athlete representative in their role 

as both an ‘‘athlete advocate’’ and as a member of the selection committee that controls the international assignments of selection to the National Team, and therefore 

the career fate of the athlete? What are the future plans? 

Answer. This issue was addressed in the Deborah Daniels report. USA Gymnastics plans to separate the role of the athlete representative on the selection committee from the ‘‘athlete advocate’’ position. USA Gymnastics remains committed to 

implementing the recommendations from the Deborah Daniels report, all 70 of 

which our Board of Directors unanimously approved. We have created a website, 

www.usagymprogressreport.com, that provides the full report and tracks the status 

of each recommendation. USA Gymnastics is also instituting a Conflict of Interest 

Policy that it hopes to release soon. 

Question 5. What policies have been initiated to detect, prevent and punish the 

use of emotional and physical abuse by coaches and other individuals involved in 

the athletes training? Not only at the national team level, but what about for other 

youth programs? 

Answer. In June 2017, USA Gymnastics adopted a Safe Sport Policy, which requires mandatory reporting, delineates specific types of misconduct (including sexual and physical misconduct, as well as verbal and emotional misconduct, among 

others), sets standards to prohibit ‘‘grooming’’ behavior, and establishes greater accountability. All USA Gymnastics members must comply with this Policy, which, 

among other things, requires that all members complete a designated safe sport 

course every two years. Additionally, USA Gymnastics has taken steps to educate 

its members through online tools, live presentations at regional and national events, 

including the topic in athlete, parent and staff discussions, and producing appropriate written collateral materials. All USA Gymnastics staff, Board of Directors, 

and members have been trained on the Safe Sport Policy. In addition to training 

staff and members on the Safe Sport Policy, the organization has hired a former 

prosecutor who previously prosecuted child abuse and sex crime cases to provide 

supporting legal counsel on SafeSport matters. The organization also recently 

named child advocate Shelba Waldron to be its Director of Safe Sport Education and 

Training, a new position that will lead USA Gymnastics’ efforts to educate its members and the gymnastics community on topics related to SafeSport and corresponding policies and laws. USA Gymnastics has also taken measures to simplify 

reporting. The Safe Sport page on USA Gymnastics’ website permits members to report misconduct, reminds adult members of the obligation to report abuse—sexual 

or otherwise—to law enforcement, provides contact information for the reporting of 

sexual misconduct to the Center, and provides a form, e-mail address 

(reportfirst@usagym.org), and hotline (1–833–844–SAFE) to report other, non-sexual 

misconduct to USA Gymnastics. 

Question 6. Since taking over as the President of USA Gymnastics, how many 

complaints of abuse (physical, sexual or emotional) have you received, and/or been 

involved with handling? 

Answer. On September 3, 2018, former USA Gymnastics President and CEO 

Kerry Perry resigned. USA Gymnastics is in the process of searching for a new 

President and CEO, and a management committee has been established to provide 

organizational oversight until a new President and CEO is named. 

USA Gymnastics is aware of receiving an estimated 50 reports in 2017 and 109 

reports in 2018 (through October 12, 2018) relating to matters regarding sexual 

abuse. The 2018 figure includes cases reported directly to USA Gymnastics as well 

as those where the Center notified USA Gymnastics. All reports received by USA 

130 

Gymnastics were forwarded to the Center. USA Gymnastics recently launched a 

data collection and reporting system, based on the Maxient software platform, for 

current and future reports, complaints, or allegations of any form of abuse. 

Question 7. As a follow-up, in writing, to the question I asked in the hearing, since 

taking over as President of USA Gymnastics, have you implemented any changes 

to address this ‘‘environment’’ that ‘‘discouraged victims from reporting abuse’’? 

Answer. Please refer to the answer to the first Question above. 

Question 8. Will you commit to disclosing to law enforcement all of the previously 

mishandled sexual abuse claims made against individuals within the USAG community? 

Answer. USA Gymnastics’ forthcoming revised Safe Sport Policy and the Center’s 

SafeSport Practices and Procedures for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement 

require that Covered Adults report suspected child abuse, including sexual misconduct, to the appropriate legal authorities as well as the Center. In addition, USA 

Gymnastics requires compliance with the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual 

Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which requires adults authorized 

by an NGB to interact with minor or amateur athletes to re ort suspected child 

abuse, including sexual abuse, to the proper legal authorities within 24 hours. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

HAN XIAO

Question. With respect to the Center for SafeSport, one of the primary concerns 

we have heard through the course of this investigation is that the Center is not 

truly independent from USOC, which results in a lack of trust on the part of athletes. I would like to hear both of your perspectives on this matter. First, do you 

believe it is true that SafeSport is not truly independent? If not, why? What can 

be done to either rectify this or reassure athletes that SafeSport is truly independent and is focused entirely on their best interests, not that of USOC? 

Answer. I believe that the SafeSport board is independent. However, there are 

concerns regarding SafeSport’s funding sources as well as the presence of former 

USOC employees within the SafeSport staff. Having the majority of SafeSport funding come from the USOC and NGBs and having former USOC staff on the payroll 

cause some athletes and advocates to question whether the Center is truly independent, especially when they are dissatisfied with the Center’s operations or policies. Both of these concerns will take time to rectify, but they will need to be addressed long-term to reassure athletes that SafeSport is completely independent and 

is focused entirely on protecting athletes. 

In the meantime, a crucial step to instill confidence in athletes is to improve both 

the competence and transparency of the Center for SafeSport’s operations. Ensuring 

that cases are handled in a timely manner, improving processing time of cases, protecting confidentiality, and communicating in a consistent manner throughout an investigation are all ways that the Center can earn the trust of all parties involved. 

In addition, competently investigating cases while protecting due process rights of 

all parties will prevent the SafeSport complaint process from being weaponized. Increased transparency into the process by which SafeSport investigates and adjudicates cases will also allow athletes to see whether the Center is acting in an independent manner and allow the Center to receive more applicable feedback and continuously improve its process. This would go a long way towards increasing trust 

in the Center for SafeSport while independence concerns continue to be addressed. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HAN XIAO

Question 1. In your testimony, you write that ‘‘sexual abuse is the canary in the 

coal mine.’’ What are the larger systemic issues that you believe need to be addressed by USOC? 

Answer. 

1. The system as it stands requires more structured and consistent oversight to 

investigate and report on a variety of governance and operational issues. There 

are insufficient counterbalances to the power of the USOC, NGBs, and other 

organizations within the system, which should be rectified to support the rights 

and interests of athletes. For example, even many Olympic and Paralympic 

medalists are struggling to support themselves due to limited financial support, leaving themselves open to intimidation and exploitation as well as limiting their ability to train and compete to their maximum ability. Rather than 

131 

attempting to anticipate every possible future issue, we should have an independent entity that can serve as a watchdog for organizations within the system. Relying on a monopoly to self-report is inadequate. 

2. Athletes have a legitimate fear of retaliation for voicing concerns, whether it’s 

a right to compete issue, a compliance issue, a financial issue, or an athlete 

safety issue. Speaking out against the actions of staff members or board members can jeopardize an athlete’s career. Even in the current climate, athlete 

representatives within certain sports have reported blowback from administrators for bringing up general athlete concerns within their sport. If athlete directors on boards are facing criticism for voicing athlete concerns, one can only 

imagine how difficult it would be for a currently competing athlete to criticize 

anything or anyone within the movement. 

3. The relationship between the USOC and athletes need to be changed. Leaders 

at the USOC are consistently receiving their information from staff members. 

Although staff members have valuable perspective, the athletes are the centerpiece of the movement and should be treated as such. The governance leaders 

and the executive staff of the USOC should be in touch with the athlete base 

to fully understand athlete issues and concerns, as well as what athletes’ lives 

are like. Alternatively, an athlete advocacy body, whether it be the AAC or an 

independent athlete advocacy organization, should be empowered to advise the 

USOC on athlete issues. USOC leadership should trust such a body to provide 

sound advice and consistently act on its recommendations barring extraordinary circumstances. Having athlete needs and athlete experiences drive the 

decision making of the organization would be a significant competitive advantage internationally. 

4. Athlete support should be the main priority of the USOC. Whether that means 

ensuring that NGBs are appropriately prioritizing athlete safety and athlete 

support, or maximizing the resources that are dedicated specifically to supporting our athletes, the organization must refocus its mission to being athlete 

focused. 

Question 2. What should, in your opinion, be USOC’s first priority as it seeks to 

address the widespread abuse and toxic culture surrounding athletes? 

Answer. In my opinion, the first priority of the USOC should be to change its culture, which currently prioritizes brand and organizational reputation above the 

needs and concerns of individual athletes. This has manifested itself in many ways, 

including sexual, physical, and mental abuse of athletes, a lack of financial support 

for athletes, a lack of mental health support for athletes facing post-Games depression, etc. Team USA athletes are often treated as a collective; it is easy to lose sight 

of the fact that it is composed of individuals who have sacrificed a tremendous 

amount to contribute to the success of Team USA. When individual athletes have 

reported sexual abuse, many of them have not been believed or their concerns were 

secondary to organizational liability and embarrassment. This culture must not be 

allowed to stand. 

Question 3. It’s been reported that two former Chairs of the USOC Athletes’ Advisory Council, Micki King (Diving, ’68 and ’72) and Ed Williams (Biathlon, ’68), met 

with Scott Blackmun, former head of the USOC in Colorado Springs, along with 

John Ruger, the Athlete Ombudsman and Debra Yoshimura, Director of the USOC 

Audit Division. Their message was that the USOC’s in-house oversight and review 

of NGB compliance by the USOC’s Membership Working Group was not working; 

NGBs were out of compliance, to the detriment of athletes. King and Williams suggest that the USOC’s compliance functions mandated by the Sports Act be taken 

over by the Audit Division of the USOC. Did you have any role in this meeting or 

in the message that Former-Chairs King and Williams brought to Blackmun? What 

came of this meeting? Have any of their suggestions been implemented? 

Answer. I did not have any role in this reported meeting. However, I have brought 

similar concerns to the organization and have pushed for more proactive enforcement of NGB compliance. Recently, the USOC has begun to audit NGBs for compliance via the Audit Division. Currently, the department’s efforts are focusing on compliance with specific provisions of the Amateur Sports Act and the USOC Bylaws. 

I have recommended additional steps to enforce best practices that when not enforced put athletes at risk, such as clear conflict of interest policies for key committees of the NGB, objective team selection criteria, transparency in areas such as 

team selection and athlete funding decisions, etc. 

Question 4. In your testimony, you provided thorough and helpful suggestions, including a suggestion to create a new fulltime Athlete Advocate position and an independent Inspector General to establish oversight over USOC and NGBS, and better 

132 

communications between these organizations and athletes. Have you ever raised 

these suggestions with any USOC executives—perhaps Ms. Lyons? If so, what was 

Ms. Lyons’ reaction to this feedback? 

Answer. I have raised some of these suggestions with USOC executives in the 

past. Although the Inspector General was never directly raised with the USOC, Ms. 

Lyons has expressed disagreement with the concept in general and has been more 

focused on internal policies and procedures that the USOC believes would better 

protect athletes. The idea of alternative athlete advocacy models has been a consistent theme of discussion, particularly with Kacie Wallace, the Athlete Ombudsman. Ms. Wallace has been supportive of exploring the area of athlete advocacy. In 

discussions with Ms. Lyons, the overall reaction has been one of agreement with the 

general philosophy of strengthening athlete voice but disagreement regarding the 

mechanisms to achieve that. There has been resistance to creating independent entities outside the USOC as well as adding outside oversight. 

Question 5. Has Ms. Lyons ever discussed with you the idea of creating an ‘‘Athlete Advocate’’ who would report to Mr. Rick Adams, Chief of sport operations and 

Paralympics for the USOC? Can you explain why that would be problematic? 

Answer. Yes, Ms. Lyons raised this idea with me in a phone call. I expressed then 

that I was skeptical that many athletes would support such a model. Athletes must 

be able to trust without a doubt that an Athlete Advocate would be serving their 

interests unconditionally and advocating strongly for their rights. There must be no 

possible suspicion that the advocate would be prioritizing the interests of the USOC 

or an NGB above those of the athlete at any time. Although independence would 

not guarantee this type of trust and that trust would need to be built up over time, 

such a position within the USOC has the potential to be counterproductive and further erode athlete confidence in the system. An Athlete Advocate would have a limited role in many cases when athletes have grievances against other athletes, so 

most cases involving such advocacy efforts would involve issues of fairness, or an 

athlete grievance against an organization in the system. In such cases, the Athlete 

Advocate certainly should not be a USOC employee to remain fully impartial. 

Question 6. In general, do you feel that leadership at USOC take the feedback and 

work that the AAC gives seriously? Have you felt that your concerns have been listened to? Are there changes that you can think of that would grant the AAC more 

power and more of a voice in the process? 

Answer. I feel that the AAC’s feedback is considered at times for certain issues, 

but overall for contentious issues or issues where the AAC’s opinion significantly differs from that of key staff members the AAC’s feedback is not taken seriously. Executives and board members of the USOC have expressed several times recently 

that the USOC should hear from more athletes, rather than relying on the elected 

representatives of the AAC. Board members also often question whether the AAC 

has consensus on many issues rather than accepting the work the AAC has done 

to understand athlete issues and distill them to core themes. There are also concerns that the USOC has attempted to fill key athlete representation positions, such 

as AAC leadership and board of director positions, with athletes that toe the company line rather than those who voice potentially contentious athlete concerns and 

challenge the status quo. 

Among changes that would grant the AAC more power and more of a voice in the 

process, I would include: 

1. The addition of professional athlete advocacy in the system to work in tandem 

with the AAC and provide professional and legal expertise, as well as time and 

resources the AAC does not have to effect change. 

2. Removal of the 10-year rule for athlete representation. Although recent competition experience is a benefit, older retired athletes sometimes have more 

passion, more time, more professional experience, and fewer conflicts of interest. Allowing athletes to decide who would most effectively represent their interests would be a more effective model of athlete representation than the current restrictions would allow. 

3. Having the Chair of the AAC sit as an ex officio board member of the USOC. 

This would not only ensure a consistent voice from the AAC on the Board, but 

would reduce barriers between the USOC and the athlete body and alleviate 

any ‘‘us against them’’ mentality from either side. 

4. Having periodic reports to Congress come from not only the CEO of the USOC 

as mandated in the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, but also from either the 

AAC and/or an Athlete Advocate to report on the current state of the system 

from an athlete perspective. 

133 

5. The AAC would have more power as a quasi-independent organization with bylaws separate from those of the USOC and more control over its budget and 

staff. This is a system that Germany is adopting and I believe that we should 

also explore the benefits of an independent athlete voice. 

Question 7. Do you believe the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act sufficiently protects athletes? How does it fall short? 

Answer. I do not believe that the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act currently sufficiently protects athletes. It falls short in several key areas: 

1. As mentioned previously, it does not provide effective oversight of the system 

to enforce its provisions. A monopolistic system such as ours requires more outside regulation and oversight, such as Congressionally appointed directors on 

the USOC board and an Inspector General’s office. 

2. It does not mandate the USOC to focus on athlete support or athlete safety, 

and additionally does not specify a responsibility of the USOC to ensure NGB 

compliance. Although the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 

Safe Sport Authorization Act establishes a baseline for protecting athletes from 

sexual abuse, the USOC should have more clear expectations within the Act 

regarding protection of athlete well-being and NGB compliance. 

3. Para athletes are not adequately protected by the current revision. They are 

essentially an afterthought and do not have a consistent governance structure 

or voice guaranteed to them. For example, Para athletes managed by U.S. 

Paralympics do not have a voice in the governance of their sports since there 

is not a direct board of directors they can sit on that would govern their sport 

other than the USOC Board of Directors. These athletes should have their interests protected to an equal standard as their able-bodied counterparts within 

the movement. 

4. The financial imbalance between staff members and athletes must be addressed. Appropriate constraints should be placed on the USOC’s overhead expenses and appropriate levels of athlete support should be guaranteed in some 

way. The specific methods can be debated, but with the huge influx of revenue 

into the Olympic and Paralympic system and nobody to negotiate terms on behalf of athletes collectively within the movement, athletes have been left behind compared to the other stakeholders. 

Question 8. In your testimony, you mention that you have heard stories that reveal that ‘‘the rights of the accused are not being appropriately protected’’ during 

SafeSport investigations. Do you believe that SafeSport can potentially become 

weaponized as a means of retaliating against athletes? 

Answer. SafeSport can absolutely be weaponized as a means of retaliation against 

athletes, coaches, staff members, etc. Due to the growing pains of the U.S. Center 

for SafeSport, athletes have reported investigations taking a long time, confidentiality not being protected appropriately in certain cases, confusion over policies and 

procedures, etc. We know of cases where people have suffered severe consequences 

such as a loss of employment without any hearing or sanction. The specter of being 

under SafeSport investigation is sometimes enough to cause substantial harm. Athletes and staff in some sports have already realized that a SafeSport complaint can 

sometimes justify strong interim measures or suspensions, and the lack of clarity 

surrounding the process means that due process is sometimes lacking. 

Question 9. Is there a culture of retaliation in elite athletics? How can the reporting channels for athlete whistle blowers be improved to prevent retaliation? Do you 

believe that the Sports Act needs to be revised to explicitly prohibit the prevention 

of whistleblowing via intimidation? 

Answer. There is certainly a culture of defensiveness and sometimes retaliation 

when staff members are faced with athlete concerns and criticism. I believe that the 

most effective way for athlete whistle blowers to have reporting channels without 

fear of retaliation is to make those reporting channels independent of the organizations they are reporting about, such as an Inspector General’s Office. I believe that 

the Sports Act needs to be revised to provide these independent reporting channels 

with the authority to investigate and report on whistle blower concerns. Although 

explicitly prohibiting the prevention of whistleblowing via intimidation would be a 

positive step, there remains the possibility that given a big enough allegation, appropriate action to protect athletes based on whistleblower reports would be delayed 

and whistleblowers could be silenced or placated even if they were not retaliated 

against directly. From an athlete perspective, an independent reporting channel 

would certainly be optimal to eliminate as much fear of retaliation as possible, 

which should lead to a healthier system overall. 

134 

Question 10. The U.S. Center for SafeSport has been heralded by USOC as an 

independent organization to investigate abuse. In your testimony, you argue for the 

creation of an Office of the Inspector General, in addition to SafeSport to investigate 

complaints and recommend corrective action to USOC and NGBs. Why do you believe that SafeSport alone is not sufficient as a means to investigate malfeasance? 

Answer. The U.S. Center of SafeSport cannot investigate governance issues or 

mismanagement within the system as a response to complaints. For example, if an 

athlete reports that there are rampant conflicts of interest in his or her sport that 

are compromising the organization and putting athletes at risk through biased team 

selection and financial decision making, and the USOC is not appropriately investigating and providing solutions, it would benefit athletes to have an entity capable 

of doing so and bringing urgent issues directly to the attention of Congress. 

In addition, the Inspector General can provide oversight and act as a check and 

balance for USADA and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. The Center is authorized to 

investigate and adjudicate athlete abuse issues and has protection from civil liability in performing its role. An Inspector General can respond to concerns about the 

state of SafeSport and work with Congress and stakeholders within the system to 

improve SafeSport operations rather than having that responsibility fall to the 

USOC. This would help maintain pressure on the Center to operate fairly and efficiently while also maintaining its independence from other entities in the Olympic 

and Paralympic movement. 

Question 11. Regarding Executive Compensation at USOC, NGBs: This hearing, 

and the others before it have rightfully focused on the scourge of sexual abuse in 

amateur and elite athletics. However a theme that has also consistently come up 

is the imbalance of power between the USOC and NGB staff and athletes. This imbalance is perpetrated because of the profound inequity in salaries and financial 

support that Team USA athletes, and USOC and NGB executives. 

You talk about this problem extensively in your written testimony. Can you highlight briefly what the athletes you represent think of high executive salaries and 

the practice of executives receiving massive bonuses for medal performance? 

Answer. Currently, many successful athletes are struggling to support themselves 

while some staff who athletes do not see contributing significantly to their success 

or well-being are extremely well compensated, leading to dissatisfaction. 

The more contentious issue among athletes is the practice of executives and staff 

members receiving bonuses for medal performance. Athletes are skeptical of the impact of these staff members in driving the medals that athletes are earning on the 

field of play. In addition, the rationale given for these medal bonuses is to focus the 

staff on the success of the athletes. This is troublesome for two main reasons: first, 

this can create the perception among staff members that athletes who do not medal 

are of lesser value to them; second, one would hope that staff members working at 

a non-profit supporting Olympic and Paralympic athletes would care about the success and well-being of those athletes without requiring monetary bonuses to motivate them. 

Question 12. Do you think athletes across NGBs are adequately and fairly compensated—particularly in comparison to inflated executive compensation and personal fringe benefits at NGBs and USOC? 

Answer. Overall, athletes are not compensated fairly. Although there are exceptions, there are gold medalists who I have spoken to who indicate a monthly stipend 

of $1,000 per month. A two-time Olympic gold medalist in rowing confirmed to me 

that her highest stipend was a little over $2,000 per month. Although there are 

training and competition costs reimbursed for these athletes, they are certainly not 

fairly compensated in their opinion compared to staff members and are struggling 

to support their careers. 

Question 13. Do you believe that the salaries given to elite athletes affords them 

a high quality of life? 

Answer. Certainly not. Some athletes need to work a separate day job to support 

themselves. With Olympic and Paralympic sports becoming more professionalized, 

these athletes feel that they cannot afford a high quality of life and are also at a 

competitive disadvantage compared to their international competitors. 

The USOC often points to the fact that the vast majority of its funds are being 

used for programmatic expenses. NGBs often point to similar breakdowns in how 

funds are being allocated. However, athlete services, no matter how impactful, cannot help an athlete who cannot afford appropriate food, housing, and other expenses 

to take care of their body. Some athletes do not use the majority of athlete service 

being provided. There is therefore a difference between funds used for programmatic 

expenses such as public relations and direct financial support for athletes. 

135 

The low stipends athletes receive are contributing to a potential decline in performance that many people including non-athletes fear has already arrived. With 

other countries putting more resources into their athletes, our existing competitive 

advantages will decrease, especially in non-NCAA sports. Conversely, experts have 

noted that in major sports an increase in compensation often following athlete 

unionization not only benefits the performance of the athletes but also stimulates 

growth throughout the system. 

Question 14. How does this financial imbalance contribute to the imbalance of 

power between athletes and the USOC and NGBs? 

Answer. Athletes are often afraid to voice concerns since their already low stipends can be cut very easily. Athletes have reported that their stipends have been 

cut without notification, and are certainly afraid that criticizing their NGB or the 

USOC could easily result in their stipends being cut. This is certainly an unhealthy 

dynamic and contributes to the power imbalance between the athletes and the 

USOC and NGBs. 

In addition, grievances between athletes and NGBs that cannot be resolved easily 

often require arbitration. Many athletes simply can’t afford to pit their meager resources against the resources of their NGB and/or the USOC. Some athletes simply 

drop their cases because they cannot find pro bono legal representation and cannot 

afford to take their case to arbitration. 

Question 15. According to reports, USOC still pays athletes and programs that 

have the highest achieving athletes. Do you think this is antithetical to athlete safety? 

Answer. Although I don’t think that this practice in itself is antithetical to athlete 

safety, I think it does contribute to the culture that athletes are only worth something if they are medalists or medal contenders. Athletes feel that this attitude is 

prevalent in the movement and many athletes feel that athletes are seen as a collective medal count rather than individuals with value. It is this culture that is antithetical to athlete safety, especially for athletes who may not even have qualified 

for an Olympic or Paralympic Games. 

Many athletes have concerns about the current funding model. The USOC 

defunds programs that are not medal contenders, prioritizing short-term medal contenders over any long-term pipeline investment. In fact, NCAA programs tend to be 

the best predictor of our medals. This leads many athletes to question whether the 

current funding practice drives medals or merely follows them. We agree that high 

performing programs should receive appropriate funding to fuel their continued success, but defunding sports in this manner will lead not only to the devaluation of 

athletes in that sport, but also a decline in overall performance long-term. 

Question 16. Do you believe that this inequity qualifies as financial abuse? 

Answer. For athletes whose careers are to pursue their Olympic and Paralympic 

dreams, one can argue that it would qualify as financial abuse. These athletes have 

nowhere else to turn since the system is a monopsony. Their ability to acquire substantial sponsors can sometimes be limited as well due to IOC Rule 40 and other 

commercial rights restrictions. 

Ultimately it is a choice to pursue an athletic career in this system. Even if one 

does not consider this inequity as financial abuse, it is significantly impacting our 

ability to compete in a variety of athletic disciplines. It is extremely difficult to develop a pipeline of athletes when so many of them stop competing due to the inability to support oneself as an elite athlete in their sport. This is why NCAA programs 

are the primary driver of medals in most sports. 

Question 17. Mr. Rick Adams also testified in March of 2017 that there was ‘‘a 

flawed culture, where the brand, the sport, and their (competitive) results are given 

a higher priority than the health and well-being of athletes.’’ Do you agree with Mr. 

Adams’ testimony? 

Since Mr. Adams testified, now over a year ago, do you believe that the USOC 

has done anything (taken any measures, adopted any policies, implemented any new 

guidelines) to fix this culture discussed by Mr. Adams? 

Answer. I agree with Mr. Adams’ testimony. Since his testimony, the USOC has 

begun to make some movements in the areas of athlete safety and NGB compliance. 

For example, the USOC hired a Director of Athlete Safety and began conducting 

some NGB compliance audits within the Audit Division. The USOC is also making 

efforts to review governance, policies and procedures, and its overall mission. Although the rhetoric is somewhat different and some actions have been taken, I have 

not yet seen a significant culture change in how the USOC values athletes and athlete voice. Athletes in some sports are still receiving criticism from staff members 

for raising athlete issues, which we find difficult to understand in the current climate. In addition, our continued feedback regarding athlete support and the need 

136 

to challenge the organization’s financial priorities has not been met with much enthusiasm. 

I do think that there has been significant discussion and movement regarding 

policies. However, the lack of focus on cultural change is troubling. In some sports, 

we are seeing SafeSport complaints being used between athletes and staff members 

for clearly non-SafeSport issues. In other sports, athletes have reflected that 

SafeSport training is not taken seriously and is a ‘‘check the box’’ exercise. Despite 

an increased willingness to engage athlete voices, overall there is still a lot of defensiveness around contentious issues throughout the movement that affect both staff 

members and athletes, such as coach selection, coach evaluation, athlete financial 

support, etc. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

HAN XIAO

Question. Senate Select Committee on Sexual Abuse within USA Gymnastics: As 

you may know, my colleague Senator Shaheen, the senior senator from my state of 

New Hampshire, recently led efforts requesting that a select committee be established in the Senate with the purpose of providing further exploration into what role 

the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics had in allowing serial pedophile 

Larry Nassar to abuse hundreds of girls over the course of three decades. 

I joined these bipartisan calls for action and hope Senate leadership makes this 

a top priority. 

If a select committee were established, do you commit to fully participate in this 

investigation and provide additional materials and testimony if called upon? 

Answer. Yes, I would commit to fully participate in such an investigation and 

would be honored to provide additional materials and testimony as necessary. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO HAN XIAO

Question 1. Is the USOC leadership, or NGB leadership, actively engaging with 

the Athletes’ Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help direct the programs to stamp out a culture of abuse that enabled predators like Larry Nassar in 

the first place? In what capacity? 

Answer. We are not aware of programs directly designed to stamp out a culture 

of abuse at this moment. The USOC has hired a Director of Athlete Safety whom 

I have been in contact with occasionally, but we have not been engaged in any programs directly related to changing abusive culture in sport. 

Question 2. Who do you know within the USOC organization has sufficient knowledge and experience with victims of severe emotional, physical and sexual abuse to 

make pro-victim decisions that will not further harm the athlete-victim in their desire to report abuse but not irreparably damage their athletic career? 

Answer. I am not aware of any such individuals within the USOC organization. 

I do know that external victims’ advocates with subject matter expertise such as 

Nancy Hogshead-Makar have been in contact with both the USOC and the U.S. 

Center for SafeSport to provide feedback. 

Question 3. Do you know if Safe Sport recommended the most direct way for the 

USOC to communicate their material to all of their NGB’s and on to the member 

clubs? 

Answer. I am not aware of such recommendations. To the best of my knowledge, 

the Center has been focused primarily on handling an unforeseen volume of cases 

and has not been able to focus heavily on education and outreach efforts. However, 

we have not been heavily engaged in many of the operational aspects of the Center 

and have limited insight into those details. 

Question 4. Does USOC still pay athletes and programs that have the highest 

achieving athletes? Are there any plans by USOC to end this ‘‘Money for Medals’’ 

Program? 

Answer. The USOC has consistently employed a model where short-term medal 

contending programs are funded and others are not. Many athletes have concerns 

about a number of aspects of this approach, including the effectiveness from a performance standpoint. In addition, it contributes to a culture where non medal contenders or athletes who have not qualified for an Olympic or Paralympic Games are 

devalued by the system. To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan to significantly alter the current resource allocation model. 

137 

Question 5. USOC has a duty to keep young athletes safe and to ‘‘promote a safe 

environment in sports, that is free from abuse. . .of any amateur athlete.’’ What are 

those explicit protections and do they apply only at Olympic events and training 

centers? 

• Where does that extend to—a duty to protect minors in the Olympic Village? 

Hotels? Of-site venues? 

• In your experience, what individual is most responsible for that protection? 

• In your experience as an athlete, who is the most accessible person for athletes 

to go to in order to report any issue, abuse or otherwise? 

Answer. The USOC and NGB’s duty to protect minors extends to all sanctioned 

clubs, venues, events, competitions, etc. Ultimately, we need to create a culture of 

collective protection. The responsibility should not fall primarily on any one individual, but all the members of the Olympic and Paralympic community. We have 

made the mandatory reporting requirements clear via the SafeSport authorization 

bill of 2017, but we should also be striving to create a culture where regardless of 

venue, if a member of our community witnesses athlete abuse, he or she will report 

it and will intervene in any way possible to protect our athletes, especially minors. 

This is a culture that must start from the executive leadership of the USOC and 

our NGBs. 

In my experience, there is no fixed person who is most accessible or most responsible for athlete protection and for reporting. Athletes typically will go to their coach 

for many issues, but if the coach has created an unhealthy athletic culture or is actively involved in athlete abuse, clearly this reporting structure breaks down. Outside of this, some athletes have NGB staff or USOC staff who they are acquainted 

with and feel comfortable confiding in. This is usually not a fixed person or position 

and varies by athlete. 

In attempting to create any position that would be a clear reporting channel for 

athletes, those people must prioritize establishing an informal relationship with athletes. This involves interacting with athletes and socializing in a low-pressure environment rather than a competition environment such as a team trials event. Athletes who get to know a staff member in this manner will instinctively report issues 

to that staff member if a rapport has been built in this way. In my experience, having a former athlete in that position or someone else athletes can easily relate to 

make this process faster and more reliable. Creating these relationships by design 

is the most reliable way to designate an accessible person for athletes to go to in 

order to report issues. Ideally this person should also belong to an independent entity rather than any stakeholder in the system to minimize any fear of retaliation or 

loss of confidentiality. 

Æ