After hung juries in two trials, Minnesota authorities have dropped charges against former swim coach Alfred O’Neill. O’Neill remains banned by the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
O’Neill (noted in some reports as Alfred John O’Neill) was accused of inappropriate 1980s sexual conduct with a former swimmer. The woman said she started swimming for O’Neill as a 14-year-old, and that he began a sexual relationship with her while she was still 17. O’Neill admitted to having sexual contact with the swimmer, but said he only had sex with her after she had turned 18. Another victim came forward later on with allegations that O’Neill had engaged in a sexualized relationship with her when she was a minor in the late 1990s.
That second set of charges were dismissed within a few months, though, per reports in early 2019.
Now, Minnesota’s local CBS affiliate reports that the Dakota County Attorney’s Office has decided not to pursue the criminal sexual conduct charges from the 1980s. WCCO reports that two trials have ended in hung juries, leading prosecutors to drop the charges. The first was in April of 2019 and the most recent this month in November of 2019.
The 63-year-old O’Neill remains banned by the U.S. Center for SafeSport. The Center has its own investigative process, and can ban coaches even if official legal charges are dropped. O’Neill’s entry into the SafeSport database remains under the “ineligible” tag, meaning his appeal window with that governing body could still remain open.
Got opinion on both sides of the aisle. Understandable. If a coach has a relationship with his swimmer, it is something many would frown upon. Problem is, this was 32 years ago in a unique, consensual and exceptional time, where PARENT consent existed and they remained friends for more than 20 years after the relationship ended. Since then, Mr. O’Neill dedicated his life to coach hundreds of kids at multiple clubs, traveled with teams, had an active presence with swim families and coaches, and never once there was a concern of misconduct of any sort. Whoever is asking to keep the coach banned is not appealing to common sense, but to a personal agenda against this coach and to the… Read more »
I swam for “Rocky” (as swimmers and parents knew him) O’Neil in the 80s and 90s. I’m not at all surprised by the charges and neither are many of his former swimmers, swim parents and coaching colleagues.
Longtimeswimmer: why, exactly? Did you see something we didn’t see through all this years? No one had the smallest of conflicts with this coach. Every head coach in charge of Rocky’s duties will speak positively about his ethics and excellence.
Because you didn’t notice it, it didn’t happen? Let me paste something in from USA Swimming’s own athlete protection training: The alleged offender would never do this.
Often, the person making the report knows the alleged offender well.
It can be difficult to believe something so bad about someone we think we know and trust.
Sexual abusers spend time in advance protecting themselves against suspicion in order to gain access to young people.
Most people only recognize the warning signs in hindsight.
Reporting abuse allows the athlete who experienced abuse to get help, contributes to keeping other athletes in your program safe and maintains the integrity and reputation of your sport organization
Just because USA swimming says this that doesn’t mean this happened in this case. Until you know the facts and were at both trials you don’t get to judge. He is innocent.
This is why I posted the excerpt from the training. The fact that someone is a pillar of the swimming community does not render them innocent. Cf: Diana Nyad and her coach. (And by the way, didn’t your coach’s lawyer admit that he slept with a swimmer soon within a year after he was “no longer her coach”? Seems pretty factual to me.) Stop using “I didn’t see it” as exoneration, and start wondering what it is you might have missed.
For Sane Swim Parent: in 1989 none of this governance existed. For this to be ruled, there should have been a standing regulation at the time. You are judging unsanctioned events from the past with rules from this century. It is pointless.
We are talking about whether he should be allowed to coach in the present. In the present, (I had thought) that at this point people pretty much agreed that coaches shouldn’t sleep with their current or ex-swimmers. Apparently I was wrong. There seem to be a lot of people who have no problem with that commenting on this page.
You are so wrong by saying this. If you were correct there would be more swimmers coming forward. My kids swam for him and I didn’t see this at all. In fact I saw the opposite.
No one at all finds it sus he had a relationship with her? Has anyone ever heard of grooming?
This is a case for arbitration at the Court of Arbitration for Sport if this coach is not reinstated.
Criminally it matters whether she was 18 or not. In terms of his coaching career – it does not. We have come to the consensus that a coach having sex with one of their athletes is not acceptable. He did that, so he was banned. The results of the criminal case should have no bearing on the ban at this point.
How hypocrite a society can be. Then a large percentage of coaches across the US should be scrutinized. Do you believe that this is the only coach that has ever had a relationship with an athlete? Wake up!
“Then a large percentage of coaches across the US should be scrutinized” okay, grooming has no place in our society
Who’s “we”?
The defendants attorney said she was 17 and he was 31.
It was not in the code of conduct back then that you couldn’t date a former swimmer. It is now but not back then. You have to look at the rules from back in 1989.
“Robert Paule, then O’Neill’s defense attorney, conceded the relationship became sexual”
He was not coaching her at the time the relationship became sexual. Read the transcripts.
I don’t care if he wasn’t technically her swim coach because the season had ended.
Shawn Deleary, time to reveal why you have so much hate and resentment towards Mr O’Neill
Well you should care because that is the law! He was not her coach at the time nor did he ever use his position of authority over her. How many coaches from that time do you know that are married to their swimmers? Or who had relationships with them?
Only after she turned 18. Get your facts correct.
The first jury split 9 to 3 for conviction the second jury split 11-1 for acquittal. “ONeill denied having sexual contact with her before she turned 18″. He had 5 criminal charges against him. The other case against him was not brought to trial due to ” evidentiary issues”. This is what the StarTribune a Minnesota newspaper reported about the case. Considering these facts about the case he can not be reinstated to coaching.
I don’t think you are right
Anonymous: I think you don’t want him to come back because you are very afraid that his swimmers will beat your swimmers again.
What a kindergarden argument lol
The second case was dropped because the person was flat out not telling the truth and making stuff up that was happening even today. The Burnsville police discovered this and they had no choice but to drop the case. It was all a lie.
Legally . . . as a Nation of Laws . . . he is presumed not-guilty. The legal question is can SafSport ban him without being liable for a suit by O’Neill. I see that a case could be made for a large punitive award.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. If SafeSport decides to keep him banned, it will set a very dangerous precedent for just anyone to throw a wrench and accuse a coach of wrongdoing, getting a coach charged and rip them off their coaching rights. I say let him coach again.