He would have acted with impunity for more than a decade, without ever being worried since. Joël Chenal, Olympic vice-champion of giant slalom at the Turin Olympic Games in 2006 converted coach, would have sexually harassed several minor young girls, both in federal or private structures. This is demonstrated by a survey of Monde Published this Friday, July 4. The article is based on the accusations of at least seven skiers, all minors at the time of the facts.
Put end to end, their testimonies make it possible to establish a “Same operating mode”. Namely: a first approach via social networks, “Then follow flattery, discussions around skiing, then quickly, SMS would arrive containing comments or photos of a sexual nature, accompanied by the insistent demand to keep the conversations secret”details everyday life. For some of them, there would even have been requests for interviews at his home or elsewhere. Contacted by the worldJoël Chenal admits sexual exchanges but denies any act.
Beyond the facts, the investigation shares the dysfunctions “On all floors” of the ski federation. “Rumors were running through the middle […] Since the early 2000s, without anything coming out ”says like this the world. The executives of the French Ski Federation (FFS) and other managers of the Alpine Committees of the time hiding behind the non -follow -up rankings of two investigations against him in 2009 and 2015, in addition to other complaints which did not succeed in explaining the fact of having closed their eyes on the behavior of channel, or even having let him exercise with young girls with full knowledge of the facts. He stayed in the federal fold until 2017.
Questioned as the FFS pre-president at the time of the facts, Michel Vion, also secretary general of the International Ski Federation today, admits flaws: “Our mistake was to stick to what came out of the gendarmerie investigation. We should have been more reactive, more impactful. The fault is collective, even if I assume it completely personally. ” He pleads a different era from 2025: “Today, we are extremely vigilant about these kinds of actions.”
Just like the FFS: “This affair must be placed in time, at a time when the awareness -raising and combating devices of violence in sport were not comparable to those of today. From now on, all the files subject to the Federation are the subject of serious consequences. ”
Chronology of events and Institutional Responses
To better understand the timeline and the scope of the issues, consider the following:
table 1: Key dates and Actions/Inactions
| Date | Event | Federation Response | Impact/Result |
| :————- | :——————————————————————————————————————————— | :———————————————————————————————— | :——————————————————————————————————————————– |
| Early 2000s | Rumors of inappropriate behaviour begin to circulate within the skiing community. | Silence; no action taken despite growing concerns. | Concerns escalate, potentially leading to an unsafe environment for young female athletes. |
| 2009 | Investigation(s) into Chenal’s conduct initiated.| Investigations allegedly closed without follow-up, the details of which have not been explained. | Perpetuation of the cycle of abuse and a failure to protect potential victims. |
| 2015 | Further complaints against Chenal. | Complaints also allegedly did not result in any action. | Continued enabling of the alleged abuser, failure to hold Chenal accountable, no safeguarding measures implemented. |
| 2017 | Chenal remains in the federal fold, continues coaching. He is later removed. | Continued failure to act. | the alleged abuser remains in a position of authority, exposed vulnerable athletes, and allowing potential abuse to continue. |
| 2025 – Current | Le Monde publishes an investigation detailing the allegations, and this article is published. | Claims of increased vigilance and stricter measures.| Public exposure of the scandal, potential legal action, and re-evaluation of safeguarding policies. |
FAQ: Addressing Reader Concerns
To provide further clarity and address common questions,here’s a detailed FAQ section:
Q: What specific actions is Joël Chenal accused of?
A: Chenal is accused of sexually harassing several young female skiers. The alleged pattern involves initiating contact through social media, followed by flattery, discussions about skiing, and eventually, the exchange of sexually suggestive messages and photos. Some reports suggest requests for private meetings.
Q: How many victims have come forward with accusations?
A: As of the investigation by Le Monde, at least seven female skiers have come forward with detailed accounts of Chenal’s alleged misconduct.
Q: What was the response of the french Ski Federation (FFS) to the allegations?
A: The FFS acknowledges significant failings in its handling of the situation. Officials have admitted to a “collective fault” and conceded that the organization should have been more proactive and impactful. They also say that the FFS is more vigilant in modern practices.
Q: What is the current stance of the International Ski Federation (FIS) regarding this investigation?
A: Michel Vion,the current secretary general of FIS and former FFS president,has admitted their past mistakes.The FIS has yet to issue a statement on if it will provide assistance or further address this issue.
Q: What measures are now being implemented to prevent such occurrences in the future?
A: Both the FFS and FIS claim that they are significantly more vigilant and are taking actions to address safeguarding. The exact specific measures have not yet been detailed.
Q: What are the potential legal implications of the allegations?
A: The investigation’s findings could lead to criminal charges against Chenal. furthermore, victims may pursue civil lawsuits against Chenal. In addition,the FFS could also face legal scrutiny for its past actions and inactions.
Q: how does this scandal compare to others in the world of sports?
A: Similar to the Larry Nassar scandal in gymnastics, this matter highlights significant issues with protecting young athletes. Though, a direct comparative analysis is intricate as of the scope of issues. This highlights shortcomings in safeguarding protocols and emphasizes the need for vigilance and robust reporting mechanisms.
