SafeSport disputes claim in Lopez appeal

Accusers need not testify, it says

The U.S. Center for SafeSport is disputing the characterization that women who had accused taekwondo coach Jean Lopez of sexual misconduct would have to testify in person at his appeal hearing and be subject to cross-examination by him or his attorney.

SafeSport spokesman Dan Hill said Sunday that comments made by attorney Stephen Estey to USA TODAY on Friday in a story about Lopez’s ban being lifted were “misleading.” Estey told USA TODAY that SafeSport attorney Joe Zonies had told him the center could not defend its lifetime ban of Lopez unless the women testified in person.

“The Center offers reporting parties a number of options, including offsite questioning by video or telephone, as well as an opportunity for reporting parties to be questioned only by the arbitrator, without direct cross-examination by the responding party or their lawyer, in accordance with the SafeSport Code,” Hill said in a statement to USA TODAY.

“Options, consistent with the SafeSport Code, were offered to the lawyer representing the reporting parties that would have allowed the Center to proceed with the arbitration regarding Lopez’s permanent ineligibility.”

Those options were unacceptable, Estey said Sunday.

“I told them, postpone arbitration for two or three months until after we take the depositions for the civil case,” Estey said.

The center declared Lopez permanently ineligible in April after finding him in violation of the SafeSport code for sexual misconduct and sexual misconduct involving a minor. SafeSport found that Jean Lopez had assaulted Mandy Meloon, Heidi Gilbert and a third woman with whom he had also engaged in a consensual sexual relation- ship with starting when she was 17.

His ban has now been lifted and replaced with a temporary restriction, though it’s not clear what that covers. Hill said in his statement that SafeSport is “weighing its administrative options to determine how to best address this situation.”

Meloon said Friday she was frustrated by SafeSport’s reluctance to defend its ban over what she sees as a procedural issue.

“For them to lift the ban just because they couldn’t agree on the process for the appeal just blows my mind,” she said. “Why drop the ban? Why couldn’t they come to an agreement?”

The dispute appears to be over whether the women provided written testimony, which Estey offered, and live testimony that SafeSport sought. Estey said he doesn’t want the women to have to testify live because they are already going to be subject to questioning in a civil lawsuit, and he didn’t want them to have to testify multiple times.

Estey represents Meloon, Heidi Gil- bert and three other women in a federal lawsuit against Jean Lopez and his brother, two-time Olympic champion Steven Lopez; the U.S. Olympic Committee; and USA Taekwondo that was filed in May in U.S. District Court in Colorado.

“I don’t want to subject my clients to additional trauma,” Estey said.

According to SafeSport’s rules for arbitration, reporting parties do not even have to participate in the appeal process. If they do, they are not required to appear in person or provide live testimony.

“SafeSport’s trauma-informed model makes as many accommodations as possible to ensure individuals, including those who may be victims of abuse or trauma, the ability to be interviewed and questioned in accordance with best practices,” Hill said in his statement.

But Estey said at least some the arbitrator’s questions would come from the responding party’s attorney. That’s still cross-examination, he said, even if it’s not direct.