In defence of Safeguarding | Local Sports | trinidadexpress.com

The Safeguarding, Player Care and Wellbeing Department of the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) has responded to an article in the Sunday Express concerning its handling of certain matters.

Following is its response to the matters raised.

The Andy Smith matter

Andy Smith is currently the subject of an investigation by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).

In recognition of the ongoing police investigation, and to avoid any action that could compromise or interfere with that process, the TTFA placed its internal investigation on hold pending the outcome of the TTPS investigation.

Importantly, this does not mean that the TTFA has taken no action.

As an interim safeguarding measure, Smith has been restricted from coaching youth players until the relevant investigation has concluded and his status has been appropriately reviewed.

This restriction is a protective measure and should not be interpreted as a determination of guilt or innocence.

Upon the conclusion of the TTPS investigation, the TTFA will assess the findings and determine what further action, if any, is appropriate within its jurisdiction and in accordance with its safeguarding and disciplinary procedures.

Smith has been formally made aware of the position adopted by the Association.

The Shawn Cooper matter

With respect to the matter involving Shawn Cooper, it is important to clarify that the matter is currently before the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, and those proceedings have not yet concluded.

This is not information that has been concealed from the public. Indeed, the existence of the court proceedings has previously received considerable public attention.

It would therefore be reasonable to expect that persons commenting publicly on this matter would acknowledge the existence of those proceedings and the implications they may have for related processes.

The TTFA remains mindful of its responsibility to respect the judicial process and will not engage in public commentary that may prejudice proceedings currently before the Court.

Allegations concerning

reports made by a coach

Brian Jordan (author) also indicated that he recently spoke with a coach who claimed to have submitted a report concerning two male coaches and had not received an update on the matter.

This raises an important issue regarding the distinction between providing information to a safeguarding authority and having an entitlement to receive confidential information concerning an investigation.

The TTFA actively encourages all individuals who possess information concerning suspected abuse, exploitation, harassment or other safeguarding concerns to report such information through the appropriate channels.

However, the act of providing information does not automatically confer the right to receive confidential details concerning the persons involved, the progress of an investigation or the outcome of proceedings.

With respect to the particular matter referenced, the coach did provide information to the TTFA. However, that information was also brought to the attention of the relevant statutory authorities.

What was not adequately reflected in the public account is that the persons directly involved did not wish to proceed with the matter and did not provide statements to either the TTFA or the relevant statutory authorities.

The absence of those statements presented significant evidential challenges to progressing the matter through the available processes.

Indeed, the TTFA Safeguarding Department has continued to address the broader circumstances arising from this matter.

Actions undertaken by the

Safeguarding Department

Contrary to any impression that the TTFA Safeguarding Department has remained inactive, the Department has undertaken several meaningful measures aimed at strengthening safeguarding systems, addressing identified vulnerabilities and reducing the likelihood of similar circumstances arising in the future.

Importantly, safeguarding interventions and protective measures do not always result in information that can appropriately be placed in the public domain.

Confidentiality must never be mistaken for inactivity, and the absence of public commentary must not automatically be interpreted as a failure to act.

NLCL matter

On February 9 2024, the TTFA Safeguarding Department requested player registration records, technical and executive membership information, and match cards relating to a specific football club for an ongoing safeguarding investigation at that time.

On February 15 2024, NLCL requested additional time to consult its attorneys and Board. Despite deadlines of February 26, March 1 and March 6 2024, the specific records requested were not provided.

Instead, on March 6 2024, NLCL requested a further extension until March 24 and a waiver of liability before releasing the information. The TTFA declined that request and, by letter dated March 18 2024, formally raised an allegation of failure to cooperate, giving NLCL until 27 March 2024 to respond. This was not a trivial administrative disagreement. The requested information was relevant to a safeguarding investigation involving youth football, and the delays affected the Department’s ability to progress its inquiries.

In its response of March 27 2024, NLCL raised concerns about confidentiality and indicated that its committee had adopted a hands-off approach regarding certain records. Following further discussions, representatives of NLCL and the TTFA met on May 8 2024, when it was agreed that the outstanding documents would be provided and that the TTFA would consider withdrawing the allegation upon satisfactory compliance.

On May 17 2024, NLCL submitted additional documents, but the specific registration records sought remained outstanding. Further inquiries were made on May 20 and 27 2024. Significantly, NLCL’s explanation concerning the possible destruction or disposal of rejected registration documents was first communicated on May 21 2024, while clarification concerning the particular records was not received until October 17 2024. The Department’s concern was that the possible unavailability of these records had not been disclosed during the meeting of May 8 2024, notwithstanding the specific discussion about their importance to the ongoing investigation.

These circumstances must be considered against the TTFA Safeguarding Policy and Framework. Article 22 establishes a duty to cooperate truthfully, fully and in good faith with authorised safeguarding processes, while Article 32 addresses failures or delays in cooperation. Consequently, by correspondence dated November 22 2024, the Department made allegations concerning failure to cooperate and the provision of allegedly incomplete or misleading information to NLCL. The correspondence also advised NLCL of a provisional suspension for 90 days, commencing at noon on November 25 2024 and scheduled to end on 23 February 2025, subject to further notification. This was an interim measure, not a final determination of the allegations.

For the avoidance of doubt, the TTFA Safeguarding, Player Care and Wellbeing Department wishes to clarify that, following the expiration of the 90-day provisional suspension on 23 February 2025, it made a deliberate decision not to pursue further disciplinary action against Next Level Consulting Limited (NLCL) in relation to the outstanding allegations of failure to cooperate.

This decision was reached after considering the prolonged nature of the matter, which had extended beyond one year, and the fact that the Department had, in parallel, successfully implemented alternative safeguarding measures to address the underlying concerns and reduce the risks identified.

The Department determined that, in the circumstances, continuing disciplinary proceedings would serve limited additional safeguarding benefit, particularly when the necessary protective and preventative measures had already been implemented. Accordingly, in the best interests of youth football, the Department elected to bring its pursuit of the matter to a close rather than prolong the dispute.

It must be emphasised that this decision was not an exoneration of NLCL, nor did it amount to a finding that the original concerns were without merit. Equally, it should not be represented as a final determination of guilt. Rather, it was an exercise of the Department’s discretion, informed by proportionality, the passage of time and the safeguarding outcomes already achieved.

The Department remains satisfied that its actions throughout the matter were guided by its responsibility to protect children, uphold safeguarding standards and act in the wider interests of youth football in Trinidad and Tobago.

The TTFA Safeguarding Department welcomes responsible journalism, constructive criticism and legitimate questions about its performance. However, safeguarding cannot become an exercise in selective narratives.

The protection of children depends not only on the actions of the national association, but also on the willingness of leagues, clubs, coaches, administrators and other stakeholders to comply with safeguarding requirements and cooperate with investigations.

The Department will continue to respect confidentiality, due process and the rights of all persons concerned, including those against whom allegations have been made. We remain committed to our guiding principles of confidentiality, compassion and cooperation. Ultimately, the question should not be who can generate the most public criticism, but whether every person entrusted with the welfare of young footballers is prepared to meet the same standards of responsibility and accountability.

Gary St Rose

Manager, Safeguarding, Player Care and Wellbeing Department

Trinidad and Tobago Football Association