11/6 update: Statement from USA Track & Field on the arrest of Dan Bowdoin:
This week, USA Track & Field was made aware of the arrest and charges against Dan Bowdoin, COO of Athletic.net. We have been informed by Athletic.net that Dan is no longer with the organization and does not have access to any client information. While USATF engages with Athletic.net as a vendor, our relationship is with that organization and not any specific employees of the organization. USATF takes the safety of its constituents extremely seriously. We are committed to ensuring individuals doing business with this federation are subject to meticulous background checks annually and annual certification from the U.S. Center for SafeSport. The most recent background check on Mr. Bowdoin was completed prior to these charges being made public. He has not been credentialed by USATF to attend an event since 2023. The allegations against this individual are reprehensible. While the legal process continues, we affirm that such conduct has no place in this sport. We will not be making any additional comments at this time.
Statement from Athletic.net CEO Ross Krempley: We were made aware on October 18, 2025 that an employee had been charged with multiple felony offenses. Although the individual was arraigned on those charges in January, the company had no prior knowledge of the matter. Upon learning of the charges, the employee was immediately placed on administrative leave pending further review. As of October 27th, he is no longer with the company. To the best of our knowledge, the employee only attended four events in 2025, none featuring minor-aged participants. As legal proceedings are ongoing, we will not be making further public comment at this time.
' Through flagship events, storytelling campaigns, and its online network ‘Safe Sport Connect’, SSI empowers stakeholders with resources, training, and advocacy. Recognised as a thought leader, SSI inspires cultural change and drives international standards, ensuring sport remains a safe, respectful space for participants of all ages and backgrounds.'
from the ssi website. this sort of garbage makes me want to vomit.
Dan was the public face of Athletic.Net and Athletic Timing for the last few years. There was an incident on or about New Years Day in 2021. In fall of 2024 he was apparently under investigation. It seems as though something happened in terms of discovery that changed the court's opinion of things and caused his release to be revoked, his bond was set at $1,000,000.
This is unrelated to SafeSport as he likely wouldn't need to register for it as a timer. Timers are not officials in the eyes of the USATF. I don't think he was coaching either. Maybe the USATF would require background checks for high end meets, but they do not for lower level things. (Bet they will going forward)
The State has set a three day trial for April of next year. This suggests a fair amount of evidence and witnesses to be called.
Think whatever you want about this, but it doesn't look great from the outside that the State decided after a year to push for a trial with the charges as serious as they are.
This is incorrect. Every timer working at a USATF-sanctioned competition should be both a USATF member and a certified official. This isn’t optional for any meet that carries legitimate sanctioning or record-eligibility implications. Certified timers are required to sign off on all record applications and must provide their USATF certification number as part of the documentation. In addition, anyone credentialed to work at a USATF meet—timers, officials, announcers, media, etc.—must be Three-Step Compliant (membership, background screening, and SafeSport training). The only exception applies to one-time volunteers, who must complete a short orientation and sign the appropriate waiver form prior to participation. It’s important to note that a background check only reflects convictions, while SafeSport violations depend on reports submitted to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. If an incident occurs and is not self-reported or reported by others, SafeSport would have no visibility until a complaint is filed and brought to light. This is why organizational self-reporting is a critical ethical responsibility, especially when misconduct surfaces. If the company involved failed to self-report and instead attempted to quietly remove references or distance themselves after the fact, which seems to be the case, they could be exposed to organizational liability—both under SafeSport guidelines and in potential civil action. In a case like this, all affiliated entities (athletic.net, AthleticTiming and RunnerSpace) could indeed face scrutiny or legal exposure - Dan was the face of all three for a long time.
This is incorrect, most event staff are not USATF certified, nor would it have helped in this case.
You are correct about A.net knowing and not self reporting. The owner knew for a year.
I was curious if USATF/A.net opened themselves up to a lawsuit by letting this happen and here’s what ChatGPT said:
You might be able to sue — but it depends on several factors, including what the organization knew and what actually happened. Here’s a breakdown: 1. Possible Legal Theories Negligence: You could have a case if the organization knew or should have known that the person was a danger to children and still allowed them to be around your child without proper supervision or warnings. Negligent hiring/supervision/retention: If this person was an employee, volunteer, or otherwise under the organization’s authority, the organization could be liable for failing to do proper background checks or for allowing risky access to children. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED): In rare cases, if their actions were extremely reckless or outrageous and caused you or your child significant emotional distress, you might claim this — but it’s harder to prove if no physical harm occurred. 2. Challenges No actual harm: If nothing happened — meaning your child wasn’t harmed or traumatized — it can be difficult to show damages, which are a required part of most lawsuits. Courts generally need evidence of harm (emotional, psychological, or physical) to award compensation. Emotional distress claims: These sometimes work if you can show a credible threat or psychological harm (like your child developed anxiety or trauma from being around that person once you learned the truth). 3. Other Options Even if a lawsuit might be hard to win, you can still: Report the organization to relevant authorities (licensing boards, child protection agencies, or law enforcement) — especially if minors are regularly in contact with this individual. Warn other parents (factually and carefully, to avoid defamation issues). Consult a local attorney — ideally one who handles personal injury or child protection cases. Many will give a free consultation and tell you whether your case has a chance.
While valid for 2 years, the background checks are supposed to be automatically rechecked at the one year mark. Depending on the timing of the previous check/officials registration, a background check should have brought up the charges if it was run anytime in 2025.
I'm definitely curious if he was three-step compliant (on paper) and working at the USATF U20 meet (if he really was), or if somehow in the incredibly convoluted meet management of that event he wasn't and that fell through the cracks.
Bigger question is if anyone who is a covered individual knew about the charges, knew he was working at USATF sanctioned events, and failed to report them to USATF or SafeSport.
The even bigger question is how long did the CEO of Athletic.Net (assuming it's still his brother) know about it and not do or report anything as the executive of the company. Instead the company let him continue working and attending events. Maybe in some jobs its not be an issue to have someone with rape charges still on payroll, but their business meant access to children's information from athletic.net registrations and being at meets around young people as a timer. Also, was anything reported by any of the companies when he was terminated? Looks like they spent time removing his name from things recently, but hoped no one would find out about it if they didn't say anything. Hard to believe the fall out from this will be limited to 1 person there.
This is incorrect. Every timer working at a USATF-sanctioned competition should be both a USATF member and a certified official. This isn’t optional for any meet that carries legitimate sanctioning or record-eligibility implications. Certified timers are required to sign off on all record applications and must provide their USATF certification number as part of the documentation. In addition, anyone credentialed to work at a USATF meet—timers, officials, announcers, media, etc.—must be Three-Step Compliant (membership, background screening, and SafeSport training). The only exception applies to one-time volunteers, who must complete a short orientation and sign the appropriate waiver form prior to participation.
Straight up false, as mentioned by others. Coaches, yes. Uniformed USATF officials, yes. Announcers, media, timers, nope.
So this happened a while ago or on Nov. 2nd? I’m confused. Also, USTFCCA pays money to A.net I believe. Does the money they pay directly benefit a rapist if Dan owns A.net? Seems like money could be spent better elsewhere now.
He's charged with crimes that allegedly happened in 2021. Charges were filed on 11/27/24. He was taken into custody on 11/3/25.
Questions:
The alleged crimes took place on 1/1/21. Does this suggest a New Year’s celebration and a possibly impaired victim that might not have given consent or was unable to grant consent?
Oregon’s statute of limitations on these charges is 20 years. Perhaps the alleged victim came to a realization and decided to press charges?
Defendant is charged in November 2024 and is presumably free on bail. Authorities arrest and jail the defendant a year later. Does this indicate a violation of a bond agreement or condition?
It's hard to tell by the court documents, a lot of other states at least include pdfs of formal filings. It seems clear that his defense tried to loosen the release conditions in the spring, but that was rejected. Interesting to me is that it looks like the defense recently pressed for a decision regarding prosecution, and the response was, "yes, we're going to prosecute" and also revoke release for a huge bail.
Well I’ll give Safe Sport this much: I can’t pick a needy kid and take him to practice in my car. So there is that you know. I mean Heaven forbid I help a kid out that way.
SafeSport doesn't prevent giving kids rides to practice; that's not how it works. However, if you *did* the training you would know about the best practices for doing so.
Plus, the strategies advocated by SafeSport on this—observable, with more than just one adult and one kid, plus knowledge of adults, etc—are not new. Many of the other strategies for creating a safe environment for athletes, especially youth athletes, are also not new.
These are things organizations have been teaching their folks for years for insurance reasons. (Because it's not out of the goodness of a corporate heart, let me tell you.)
These are all just good practices to reduce risk and liability, and increase safety.
You know, sometimes it's annoying to have to rummage around and find your safety glasses at the shop before you do some work. But it's even more annoying when you lose an eye from flying debris.
Those dang woke OSHA regulations making it harder for me to lose my eye, and SafeSport guidelines making it harder for predators to exploit vulnerable athletes!
Harder to turn a blind eye to something if both of them work, dangit . . .
(In all seriousness, SafeSport has issues, but it's better than the nothing we used to have. It can, and should, be improved. But to argue it shouldn't exist or is worthless ignores the value it does provide, and the serious problems it seeks to solve.)
Well I’ll give Safe Sport this much: I can’t pick a needy kid and take him to practice in my car. So there is that you know. I mean Heaven forbid I help a kid out that way.
SafeSport doesn't prevent giving kids rides to practice; that's not how it works. However, if you *did* the training you would know about the best practices for doing so.
Plus, the strategies advocated by SafeSport on this—observable, with more than just one adult and one kid, plus knowledge of adults, etc—are not new. Many of the other strategies for creating a safe environment for athletes, especially youth athletes, are also not new.
These are things organizations have been teaching their folks for years for insurance reasons. (Because it's not out of the goodness of a corporate heart, let me tell you.)
These are all just good practices to reduce risk and liability, and increase safety.
You know, sometimes it's annoying to have to rummage around and find your safety glasses at the shop before you do some work. But it's even more annoying when you lose an eye from flying debris.
Those dang woke OSHA regulations making it harder for me to lose my eye, and SafeSport guidelines making it harder for predators to exploit vulnerable athletes!
Harder to turn a blind eye to something if both of them work, dangit . . .
(In all seriousness, SafeSport has issues, but it's better than the nothing we used to have. It can, and should, be improved. But to argue it shouldn't exist or is worthless ignores the value it does provide, and the serious problems it seeks to solve.)
Safe Sport absolutely forbids me from giving a kid a ride to practice under any reasonable circumstance. Unless I suppose I want to swing by and pick up another coach or a parent along the way.
This includes timing the biggest HS events in the country - Nike Cross Country Nationals, NSAF's Nike Nationals, USATF U20 Championships, Brooks PR and many other meets including Oregon's home meets at Hayward.
The nuance that is missing about whether or not a timer has to be three step SafeSport compliant depends on the event. The same standards don’t apply to every USATF sanctioned event.
Of the events listed, the USATF U20 Championships is the only one where the timers would absolutely be expected to be certified officials and three step compliant. Being in the timing booth is a position of power (even if they rarely/never contact athletes).
NSAF and U20 were held at the same facility on the same weekend. You would have to be pretty in the weeds with the event management to know exactly who was actually in the timing booth.
It would still be a problem for someone who has been charged with that type of crime to work at *any* USATF sanctioned event, and anyone who knew about the charges and knew he was working at USATF sanctioned events could face their own punishment from SafeSport, if they are a USATF member.
But at this point, none of these events have confirmed he timed their events this year. The only thing we know for sure is that Dan was charged with these crimes and was recently arrested.
SafeSport doesn't prevent giving kids rides to practice; that's not how it works. However, if you *did* the training you would know about the best practices for doing so.
Plus, the strategies advocated by SafeSport on this—observable, with more than just one adult and one kid, plus knowledge of adults, etc—are not new. Many of the other strategies for creating a safe environment for athletes, especially youth athletes, are also not new.
These are things organizations have been teaching their folks for years for insurance reasons. (Because it's not out of the goodness of a corporate heart, let me tell you.)
These are all just good practices to reduce risk and liability, and increase safety.
You know, sometimes it's annoying to have to rummage around and find your safety glasses at the shop before you do some work. But it's even more annoying when you lose an eye from flying debris.
Those dang woke OSHA regulations making it harder for me to lose my eye, and SafeSport guidelines making it harder for predators to exploit vulnerable athletes!
Harder to turn a blind eye to something if both of them work, dangit . . .
(In all seriousness, SafeSport has issues, but it's better than the nothing we used to have. It can, and should, be improved. But to argue it shouldn't exist or is worthless ignores the value it does provide, and the serious problems it seeks to solve.)
Safe Sport absolutely forbids me from giving a kid a ride to practice under any reasonable circumstance. Unless I suppose I want to swing by and pick up another coach or a parent along the way.
You could give a kid a ride to and from practice if there is another person in the car. A friend coaches his son's youth soccer team and often picks up or takes kids home with his own son in the car. There are also some other exceptions exist such as a parent signing off. I would recommend folks take a look at the Safesport MAAPP (Minor Athlete abuse prevention policy). I am quoting from it below.
MODEL POLICY: TRANSPORTATION Athletes are often carpooling or traveling without the supervision of their parent/guardian to practices and competitions. This can place them in vulnerable positions where they are susceptible to abuse. This section establishes policies for adults transporting children to or from sport activities. A. Mandatory Components 1. Observable and Interruptible Adult participants must ensure that all In-Program Contact during Transportation is Observable and Interruptible unless an exception exists or: a. The Adult Participant has advanced, written consent to transport the Minor Athlete one-on-one, obtained at least annually from the Minor Athlete’s parent/guardian. Minor Athlete(s) or their parent/guardian can withdraw consent at any time. b. The Adult Participant is accompanied by another Adult Participant or at least two minors who are at least 8 years of age. 2. Additional Requirements for Transportation Authorized or Funded by the “Organization” a. Written consent from a Minor Athlete’s parent/guardian is required for all transportation authorized or funded by an Organization at least annually. b. Minor Athlete(s) or their parent/guardian can withdraw consent at any time. B. Recommended Components 1. Shared or Carpool Travel Arrangement The Organization encourages parents/guardians to pick up their Minor Athlete first and drop off their Minor Athlete last in any shared or carpool travel arrangement. 2. Parent Training Parents/guardians receive the U.S. Center for SafeSport education and training on child abuse prevention before providing consent for their Minor Athlete to travel one-on-one with an Adult Participant.
The statement from USATF says Dan was not credentialed at any of its events since 2023 which as near as I can tell precedes any incidents he is alleged to have committed.
So USATF did nothing wrong here.
Some key elements in terms of deciding who is required to get Safesport trained and a background check (these are different and separate, SafeSport does not run background checks) is access to youth (although it should be noted that Safesport is not just about youth) and regular contact. For instance, if a food truck comes to the venue, you would not expect that vendor to have to complete Safesport and/or a background check. Now if a vendor (let's say an equipment manufacturer) were coming to every event then more likely to require at least Safesport. An issue I ran into at one NGB was that often a vendor would hire someone locally to come to an event and staff the booth. These events had minors at them. They would be there for a four day event. Is that "regular contact" even if few minors interacted with them?
The statement from USATF says Dan was not credentialed at any of its events since 2023 which as near as I can tell precedes any incidents he is alleged to have committed.
Nope. Alleged incident was January of 2021, he hadn't been to court regarding this incident in 2023.
I don't disagree that USATF did nothing wrong, but others may have.
The statement from USATF says Dan was not credentialed at any of its events since 2023 which as near as I can tell precedes any incidents he is alleged to have committed.
So USATF did nothing wrong here.
Some key elements in terms of deciding who is required to get Safesport trained and a background check (these are different and separate, SafeSport does not run background checks) is access to youth (although it should be noted that Safesport is not just about youth) and regular contact. For instance, if a food truck comes to the venue, you would not expect that vendor to have to complete Safesport and/or a background check. Now if a vendor (let's say an equipment manufacturer) were coming to every event then more likely to require at least Safesport. An issue I ran into at one NGB was that often a vendor would hire someone locally to come to an event and staff the booth. These events had minors at them. They would be there for a four day event. Is that "regular contact" even if few minors interacted with them?
The alleged incident happened in 2021, but it still would not have shown up on a background check, as an arrest did not occur until earlier this month. Background checks do not include allegations, but for certain crimes (usually felonies) according to the laws of that state, arrests may appear. An arrest is not a conviction. It is an accusation. The laws of each state are designed to balance the public's right to know what certain individuals have been accused of, as arrest records are public, with an individuals right to due process and the presumption of innocence.
I am not lawyer, nor am I licensed to practice law in the state of Oregon. But I have a layman's understanding of why an event that is alleged to have occurred in 2021 would not appear on a background check until an arrest was made at a later date. I hope someone with more expertise in the law can chime in and correct me if I have made errors in my explanation.
' Through flagship events, storytelling campaigns, and its online network ‘Safe Sport Connect’, SSI empowers stakeholders with resources, training, and advocacy. Recognised as a thought leader, SSI inspires cultural change and drives international standards, ensuring sport remains a safe, respectful space for participants of all ages and backgrounds.'
from the ssi website. this sort of garbage makes me want to vomit.
First, pretty sure that is not a US site ("recognised") and while there is a lot of corporate babble wanting sport to be a safe and respectul place seems like a worthy goal.
Actually, the USATF background screen includes pending criminal cases - which seems to have been sometime around Dec 2024 in this case.
Flagged based on criterion A reportable record or disclosure that contains a disposition or resolution of a criminal proceeding, other than an adjudication of not guilty[1], or the existence of pending charges, for any of the below criminal offenses will “flag” an applicant’s records for further review: All felonies (any criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one (1) year; no time bar) Any misdemeanors involving:All sexual crimes, criminal offenses of a sexual nature to included but not limited to; rape, child molestation, sexual battery, lewd conduct, possession and distribution of child pornography, possession and distribution of obscene material, prostitution, indecent exposure, public indecency, and any sex offender registrant (any Participant that has been convicted of, received an imposition of a deferred sentence for, or any plea of guilty or no contest for any sexual crime, criminal offense of a sexual nature, and/or is a sex offender registrant must be reported to the U.S. Center for SafeSport); Any drug related offenses; Harm to a minor, including, but not limited to, offenses such as child abandonment, child endangerment/neglect/abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and DUI with a minor; Violence against a person, force, or threat of force (including crimes involving deadly weapons and domestic violence); Stalking, harassment, blackmail, violation of a protection order and/or threats; Destruction of property, including arson, vandalism, and criminal mischief; and Animal abuse, cruelty, or neglect Any individual who has a “Flagged” finding will not be eligible to participate with USATF unless the individual successfully appeals such determination, as outlined herein.
The statement from USATF says Dan was not credentialed at any of its events since 2023 which as near as I can tell precedes any incidents he is alleged to have committed.
So USATF did nothing wrong here.
Some key elements in terms of deciding who is required to get Safesport trained and a background check (these are different and separate, SafeSport does not run background checks) is access to youth (although it should be noted that Safesport is not just about youth) and regular contact. For instance, if a food truck comes to the venue, you would not expect that vendor to have to complete Safesport and/or a background check. Now if a vendor (let's say an equipment manufacturer) were coming to every event then more likely to require at least Safesport. An issue I ran into at one NGB was that often a vendor would hire someone locally to come to an event and staff the booth. These events had minors at them. They would be there for a four day event. Is that "regular contact" even if few minors interacted with them?
The alleged incident happened in 2021, but it still would not have shown up on a background check, as an arrest did not occur until earlier this month. Background checks do not include allegations, but for certain crimes (usually felonies) according to the laws of that state, arrests may appear. An arrest is not a conviction. It is an accusation. The laws of each state are designed to balance the public's right to know what certain individuals have been accused of, as arrest records are public, with an individuals right to due process and the presumption of innocence.
I am not lawyer, nor am I licensed to practice law in the state of Oregon. But I have a layman's understanding of why an event that is alleged to have occurred in 2021 would not appear on a background check until an arrest was made at a later date. I hope someone with more expertise in the law can chime in and correct me if I have made errors in my explanation.
The incident may have occurred in 2021, but when was it REPORTED and more importantly when were the charges initially filed?
It seems the charges were filed a year ago but the accused was taken into custody this month for some reason (violation of bail?). So there would have been a red flag from the screener using the USATF criteria. Pretty much every NGB in the Olympic world uses the USOPC recommended screening criteria
If a charge is filed even for something like driving recklessly it will absolutely show up on a NGB background screen even if there is no conviction. It does not have to be a felony to show up. Misdemeanors often do show up and something involving a sex crime even if a misdemeanor would.
Ross Krempley, the CEO of Athletic.NET, reached out to us to set the record straight on a couple of things from this thread. This is his full statement on the matter:
We were made aware on October 18, 2025 that an employee had been charged with multiple felony offenses. Although the individual was arraigned on those charges in January, the company had no prior knowledge of the matter. Upon learning of the charges, the employee was immediately placed on administrative leave pending further review. As of October 27th, he is no longer with the company. To the best of our knowledge, the employee only attended four events in 2025, none featuring minor-aged participants. As legal proceedings are ongoing, we will not be making further public comment at this time.
Ross Krempley, the CEO of Athletic.NET, reached out to us to set the record straight on a couple of things from this thread. This is his full statement on the matter:
We were made aware on October 18, 2025 that an employee had been charged with multiple felony offenses. Although the individual was arraigned on those charges in January, the company had no prior knowledge of the matter. Upon learning of the charges, the employee was immediately placed on administrative leave pending further review. As of October 27th, he is no longer with the company. To the best of our knowledge, the employee only attended four events in 2025, none featuring minor-aged participants. As legal proceedings are ongoing, we will not be making further public comment at this time.
No events with minor-aged participants in 2025? How about the Oregon Middle School Meet of Champions track meet on 5/16/2025, an event that he has been putting on for years?
His name has been scrubbed from the meet information page for those events in 2026, 2025, 2024 and 2023 on various dates since 10/18/2025.
