SafeSport Center flew investigator to training, after-hours socials despite knowing of his arrest
The center would go on to fire the investigator, Jason Krasley, who would later also be arrested for sex crimes allegedly committed while he was at his previous job, a vice cop for the Allentown, Pennsylvania., police department.
The center's handling of the Krasley matter triggered an inquiry by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and played a key role in the firing of CEO Ju'Riese Colon in April.
These before-undisclosed details about how the center responded when it found out about a pair of Krasley's arrests – one in 2019 and one in 2024 – lend more insight into its handling of a sensitive employment matter that ended up sending shockwaves through the center and the Olympic community.
In responses to questions from The Associated Press, SafeSport explained Krasley was allowed to participate in the event because 'the Center adhered to directives from law enforcement to not take any actions that could alert the investigator to a criminal investigation.' Krasley is free on bond as his cases await trial. His attorney has said Krasley is innocent of the charges.
The center fired Krasley on Nov. 15, more than two months after the training sessions. Not until an AP report in December did Krasley's arrest for theft and his firing from the center become public. Another AP report in January revealed that Krasley had subsequently been arrested for charges including rape and sex trafficking.
Three employees who also attended the training and social events, which spilled over into some after-hours drinks at the hotel bar where the out-of-towners were staying, confirmed to AP that Krasley was there and that none were made aware of the legal troubles that were beginning to pile up for the investigator. None reported any inappropriate contact from Krasley,
Difficult training courses but also a 'Joyologist'
The center, which was established in 2017 to handle abuse allegations in Olympic sports, said the training included sessions about trauma-informed practices, department presentations by staff, an update on the Center's strategic plan, and various team-building activities.
'Given the difficult subject matter staff deal with on a daily basis, the Center prioritizes employee well-being,' the center's email said.
One of the well-being sessions involved a presentation from a person described as a 'Joyologist.'
A person who attended that session said it lasted about 90 minutes, and included exercises in which employees made small puppets and played games of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors.'
The center said the session 'was facilitated by a medical doctor and focused on understanding the science of joy and improving individuals' quality of life, approach to work, and interaction with colleagues.'
Employees were also told, according to people present, that attendance at the after-hours mixers was expected.
For the first night, employees were given two vouchers for food and two for drinks at an indoor-outdoor restaurant-bar near downtown Denver with beach volleyball and other games. No drink vouchers were given for the second night, but attendance was, once again, expected at a pub in south Denver where Krasley and dozens of other Center employees attended.
Arrests, expenses caught attention of key senator
Nearly four months after the training, the string of arrests became public and caught the attention of Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who sent a letter to Colon in February seeking answers about considerations that went into the center's hiring of the vice officer. Among the revelations was that during the hiring process, the center had been made aware of internal investigations into Krasley while he worked at the force, but hired him anyway.
'You conceded that this was 'concerning information' but hired him nonetheless after being unable to ascertain additional information,' Grassley said in an April letter to the center seeking follow-up.
The case, Colon explained to Grassley, had been based on statements from an alleged victim who later recanted.
The center hired Krasley in April 2021. On Sept. 5, 2024, it said in a letter to the senator, it became aware of two of Krasley's arrests – one in 2019 for allegedly stealing money seized in a drug bust he participated in, another in June 2024 for harassment, using lewd language and other charges.
That revelation came four days before most of the center's 133 employees, many of whom work remotely across 33 different states, descended on Denver for a week's worth of training sessions based at agency headquarters.
'This decentralized model is necessary based on the scope of our work and budget,' the center said in its email to AP. 'As such, the annual event is important as it brings together the entire team for training, wellness, collaboration, and team building.'
In a follow-up letter to April Holmes, the board chair who became interim CEO after Colon's departure, Grassley pinpointed the center's $390,000 travel budget in 2023 as among some 'expenses that seem excessive for a non-profit organization.'
Holmes responded, explaining 'as an organization with national jurisdiction, travel is critical to executing the Center's mission.'
Changes were made at center following Krasley's dismissal
After the Krasley episode became public, the center took a number of steps, including:
—Commissioning a third-party law firm to audit cases Krasley resolved, and working with experts in trauma-informed care to make sure those who interacted with him receive appropriate communication and support.
—Enhancing its code of ethics and adding an ethics clause to all letters offering employment.
—Strengthening hiring practices, including ensuring each final candidate for a job meets with the CEO for a final interview.
—Requiring checks of the National Decertification Index, which keeps track of certificate of license revocations relating to officer misconduct.
This culminated with the firing of Colon in April. Last month, the center held a series of seven community outreach programs with athletes, survivors and Olympic sports leaders.
The center said it has also informed employees of mental-health resources available in the wake of Krasley's arrest 'and has notified staff of both internal and independent mechanisms for reporting any concerns related to the investigator.'
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Australian woman Erin Patterson is convicted of 3 murders for poisoning her in-laws with mushrooms
MORWELL, Australia (AP) — Australian woman Erin Patterson was Monday found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them poisonous mushrooms for lunch. The jury in the Supreme Court trial in Victoria state returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that gripped Australia. Patterson faces life in prison and will be sentenced at a later date. Patterson, who sat in the dock between two prison officers, showed no emotion but blinked rapidly as the verdicts were read. Three of Patterson's four lunch guests — her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson — died in the hospital after the 2023 meal at her home in Leongatha, at which she served individual beef Wellington pastries containing death cap mushrooms. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, who survived the meal. It wasn't disputed that Patterson served the mushrooms or that the pastries killed her guests. The jury was required to decide whether she knew the lunch contained death caps, and if she intended for them to die. The guilty verdicts, which were required to be unanimous, indicated that jurors rejected Patterson's defense that the presence of the poisonous fungi in the meal was a terrible accident, caused by the mistaken inclusion of foraged mushrooms that she didn't know were death caps. Prosecutors didn't offer a motive for the killings, but during the trial highlighted strained relations between Patterson and her estranged husband, and frustration that she had felt about his parents in the past. The case turned on the question of whether Patterson meticulously planned a triple murder or accidentally killed three people she loved, including her children's only surviving grandparents. Her lawyers said she had no reason to do so — she had recently moved to a beautiful new home, was financially comfortable, had sole custody of her children and was due to begin studying for a degree in nursing and midwifery. But prosecutors suggested Patterson had two faces — the woman who publicly appeared to have a good relationship with her parents-in-law, while her private feelings about them were kept hidden. Her relationship with her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, who was invited to the fatal lunch but didn't go, deteriorated in the year before the deaths, the prosecution said. The simplest facts of what happened that day and immediately afterward were hardly disputed. But Patterson's motivations for what she did and why were pored over in detail during the lengthy trial, at which more than 50 witnesses were called. The individual beef Wellington pastries Patterson served her guests was one point of friction, because the recipe she used contained directions for a single, family-sized portion. Prosecutors said that she reverted to individual servings, so she could lace the other diners' portions, but not her own, with the fatal fungi — but Patterson said that she was unable to find the correct ingredients to make the recipe as directed. Nearly every other detail of the fateful day was scrutinized at length, including why Patterson sent her children out to a film before her guests arrived, why she added additional dried mushrooms to the recipe from her pantry, why she didn't become ill when the other diners did, and why she disposed of a food dehydrator after the deaths and told investigators that she didn't own one. Patterson acknowledged some lies during her evidence — including that she'd never foraged mushrooms or owned a dehydrator. But she said that those claims were made in panic as she realized her meal had killed people. She said she didn't become as ill as the other diners since she vomited after the meal because of an eating disorder. She denied that she told her guests she had cancer as a ruse to explain why she invited them to her home that day. Before the verdict, Australian news outlets published photos of black privacy screens erected at the entrance to Patterson's home. The case has provoked fervor among the public and media, and the courtroom in the rural town of Morwell was packed throughout the trial.
San Francisco Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Pennsylvania man accused of beheading father and posting video of his severed head to stand trial
DOYLESTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania man accused of killing his father and posting video of his severed head online — and calling for others to help him try to overthrow the U.S. government — is set to stand trial Monday in the Philadelphia suburbs. Justin D. Mohn, 33, faces charges of murder, abuse of a corpse, terrorism related crimes and other offenses for the 2024 killing of Michael F. Mohn at the Levittown home where they lived with the defendant's mother. She found her husband's body in a bathroom. Prosecutors have said Justin Mohn shot his father with a newly purchased pistol, then decapitated him with a kitchen knife and machete. The 14-minute YouTube video was live for several hours before it was removed. Mohn was armed with a handgun when arrested later that day after allegedly climbing a 20-foot (6-meter) fence at Fort Indiantown Gap, the state's National Guard headquarters. He had hoped to get the soldiers to 'mobilize the Pennsylvania National Guard to raise arms against the federal government,' Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn said at a news conference last year. Mohn had a USB device containing photos of federal buildings and apparent instructions for making explosives when arrested, authorities have said. He also had expressed violent anti-government rhetoric in writings he published online, and the YouTube video included rants about the government, immigration and the border, fiscal policy, urban crime and the war in Ukraine. Mohn's defense attorney, Steven M. Jones, said last week he did not anticipate the case being resolved with a plea deal. Michael Mohn, who was 68, had been an engineer with the geoenvironmental section of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the video, Justin Mohn described his father as a 20-year federal employee and called him a traitor. During a competency hearing last year, a defense expert said Mohn wrote a letter to Russia's ambassador to the United States seeking a deal to give Mohn refuge and apologizing to President Vladimir Putin for claiming to be the czar of Russia.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
BOSTON (AP) — A federal bench trial begins Monday over a lawsuit that challenges a Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, would be one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 'The policy's effects have been swift. Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence,' the plaintiffs wrote in their pretrial brief. 'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.' Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies. Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities. Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war. Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.' 'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.' They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically.' But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. 'Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it,' plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
