“Ridiculous to say we’re weaponising safeguarding!” St Rose on Cooper, NLCL suspensions

Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) Safeguarding manager Gary St Rose has defended the integrity of the local body’s operation and denied that the function designed for the welfare of minors has been weaponised.

The Safeguarding unit was criticised last November for its decision to suspend the NLCL Under-19 Community Cup for three months and there were even more protests last month when Trinidad and Tobago Men’s National Under-17 coach Shawn Cooper was “prohibited from coaching youth players (18 years and under), until further notice”.

A letter to the editor, published on Wired868, suggested that the TTFA might be guilty of misusing or weaponising safeguarding to the detriment of its coaches.

St Rose strongly disagrees.

“In that letter to the editor, Brendon purported to know about safeguarding,” said St Rose, “but it’s so biased and off—it is either they don’t know at all, or they wilfully gave a very biased account.”

The letter suggested that St Rose’s operation was focusing on screening and punishing coaches rather than education and prevention, which Brendon described as a “narrow and injudicious interpretation” of Fifa’s safeguarding policies.

However, St Rose offered statistical data to rebut the accusations.

“The TTFA has nine different workshops we run, on the safeguarding process,” St Rose told Wired868. “I don’t know what’s going on all over the world but we run workshops every single week. There are few FAs who invest as much time on safeguarding as us.

“[…] Education is about changing behaviours that are undesirable. And [our workshops] address specific behaviours that we have noted in the Trinidad and Tobago context.

“So, I don’t know if the person is totally unfamiliar with what we are doing. We have educators in every single zone—and not just when we had the appointment ceremony, we have had this going on for months now!

“On top of that, we have an open workshop every week at Ato (the Ato Boldon Stadium) for walk-ins. We are far ahead of most FAs in terms of trying to educate persons on behaviours that are not conducive to the development of athletes.”

In three years, St Rose said the TTFA conducted 643 level one workshops in all six regional associations with 5,857 individuals (coaches, administrators, and parents) trained, and 175 academies licensed, along with 53 event license holders and 75 organisations.

He also said there have also been 241 persons trained to level two as club safeguarding officers, 24 at level three, and 12 at level four.

St Rose believes that the Safeguarding unit’s response to claims, in terms of the ratio of suspensions, also suggests that the body is not going after coaches.

“I have dealt with—we have dealt with—561 reported concerns,” he said. “Most of them are dealt with through counselling, which is that we make a phone call and talk to the coach. The more difficult ones might escalate and we had 23 that went beyond counselling.

“Fifteen were settled via mediated discussions; in eight instances, we had to write formally.

“[…] It is so ridiculous to say we are weaponising safeguarding. Out of all those concerns, it is only about four times we have taken action—that is less than one percent.”

Of course, there have been high profile sanctions.

The Safeguarding Department informed the public that two coaches, Terrence Marcelle and Lester Young, were not registered with the local body and therefore not authorised to work with minors.

Daniel Henry, Lindsay Rondon and the NLCL received provisional suspensions—and then came Cooper.

Notably, as St Rose previously explained, suspension should be followed by a hearing before a tribunal set up by the TTFA’s secretariat. Yet, in all cases, the suspended officials had their suspensions expire before any such meeting.

Was it that the TTFA is not properly supporting its Safeguarding Department by activating a tribunal on request? Or is that the Safeguarding suspensions are viewed as a trivial matter by TTFA president Kieron Edwards?

Edwards did not respond to Wired868’s questions on his body’s failure to provide a tribunal.

Is it that persons flagged by Safeguarding for undesirable behaviour are allowed to return to the game due to the Edwards-led body’s negligence in attending to the matter?

St Rose claimed that mediation between his department and the suspended individuals continued during their suspension, so the public need not worry that persons were slipping through cracks.

However, he refused to speak on specific cases.

“If it is not sorted someway, somehow then we will continue our action,” he said. “Again, there are a lot of differences in each case… We would always try to treat with each matter but there are several avenues to treat with it, even after a suspension.

“The whole point is we don’t want to be just excluding people from football, so we are giving people ample opportunity to be heard. Everybody generally agrees to give everybody ample opportunity to be heard.”

So is it that persons suspended by the TTFA for safeguarding violations are cleared before they return to the game?

“I wouldn’t use the word cleared—I’d say they are allowed to participate in football,” said St Rose. “I know people might have questions; they want to know. Sometimes you have a gap in information and that gap is nagging to some people.

“But the same way you would want privacy when that time comes, it is the same way you have to respect that we keep confidentiality so tight. Because even if I say something, it is not proven in a court of law.”

In the case of the NLCL Community Cup suspension, tournament director Germaine Jordan insisted that her organisation be exonerated by the TTFA. Jordan insisted that her group did nothing wrong but were punished because of a personality clash.

St Rose denied the accusation. And he sidestepped Jordan’s public plea for exoneration.

“I have not seen anything from NLCL requesting that,” said St Rose. “(A press release from NLCL) is not for us. There is no request to address.”

At least the NLCL suspension had an end date. Cooper’s case is far trickier, as the sanctions imposed on the national youth coach are open-ended.

Up until a month ago, Cooper was the most experienced head coach in the TTFA’s employ. Now, based on the St Rose-led body’s ruling, Cooper is not only forbidden from continuing as national youth coach—but he also cannot work at Presentation College (San Fernando), or anywhere else, once minors are involved.

After roughly two decades of international service across five different football presidents, Cooper is now unemployable in his primary field as a youth coach.

“I won’t go into what [the suspension] means for his career,” said St Rose. “What I would say is there are mechanisms to treat with it. We have done everything that we need to do.

“Again, there is a lack of knowledge in the public but we are following the steps faithfully.”

He said Cooper’s safeguarding sanctions were not punishment.

“Only a tribunal can hand down punishment,” said St Rose. “Most times, suspensions are considered a precaution. I cannot speak about this specific case but there are many reasons that someone can be suspended during a disciplinary process. For instance, it might be so you don’t interfere with the investigation.

“It all comes back to the same thing, which is that it is a precautionary measure.”

The question again arises: what tribunal?

President Edwards and virtually invisible TTFA general secretary Kareem Paul are yet to activate a tribunal, although three suspensions were delivered last year.

So, what does that mean for Cooper?

“Before we even reach [to a tribunal], people would respond [to safeguarding probes] and that response would start a dialogue which could take you in several different directions including mediation,” said St Rose. “Being suspended or restricted does not stop dialogue.

“We felt that we needed to take this action but we maintain that, once persons reach out, dialogue will continue until we reach a logical end—and this is for everybody.”

Does that mean the only person who Cooper can turn to overturn sanctions applied by the St Rose-led body is St Rose himself?

Edwards refused to clarify. And St Rose said he is bound by confidentiality and cannot be specific.

“Once we start the formal process [in a safeguarding investigation, what we expect—what normally happens—they write back and engage, which will trigger a few different responses based on how you respond,” said St Rose, “then we move forward.

“That dialogue happens with the person and/ or the person’s representative. That dialogue can start one of several processes based on what was communicated…”

Presentation College can take from that what they will, as they consider what their preparation for the 2025 Secondary Schools Football League (SSFL) will look like. Most schools begin pre-season between June and July.

Should any team or body under the TTFA umbrella which caters to minors involve Cooper during his suspension, they run the risk of suspension themselves from the local game.

Since Cooper’s suspension is from a local football body, it can be enforced too even if he migrates.

St Rose insisted that the TTFA Safeguarding Department is neither a one-man show nor deaf to its stakeholders.

“In the last three years, we are now on our third version of our [safeguarding] policy,” he said. “We are learning and putting things in place and getting better, evolving and listening. We are willing to listen and learn.

“A lot of people don’t revise policies often, so even that speaks volumes.”

As suddenly as Cooper was sanctioned, he could just as abruptly be reinstated by the TTFA—with the public left with no clue about what changed, or what was wrong in the first place. Just as was the case with Henry and Rondon.

That manner of doing business, St Rose explained, is part and parcel of safeguarding.

“The persons we dealt with have been communicated to,” said St Rose. “You may not know—but they have been communicated to.

“The general public might be wondering what is happening, but there is a very fine line we have to tread when it comes to confidentiality.”