Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Robert “Bob” McDonald Apparently Cleared of Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Lifting of SafeSport Lifetime Ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by La-LaPopRider View Post

    This..... This is the simple, unfortunate truth of the matter. It’s not that SS doesn’t have the best of intentions. However, they are (currently) understaffed & those whom are designated to job of “investigator,” - don’t display their credentials or training types for public consumption.

    SafeSport has a duty to protect all competitors from power imbalances, bullying, sexual assaults, harassment etc, etc, etc. If anyone in any sport which commands SS as the oversight body, is found to have been arrested, charged with a crime by police (not an interpersonal summons by magistrate- but criminal charges brought by a state) is automatically deemed “ineligible.” That is literally written in their long list of code violations. It does make me question things when this information about an offender is made available & verifiable to SS (through DA’s or Federal agents) - but their own code isn’t followed.

    Surely, they are staffed enough & have the training enough to know, refusing to follow their own guidelines “per the code,” looks & smells fishy.

    This is (now) just an example & has never, to my knowledge, happened .... yet. But, if a repeat offender for (let’s say) illegal gambling, has a sibling or cousin or relative/friend - someone with a different last name- who is an LEO & willing to switch to the vice department, repeat offender would then have an “inside man.” It is really not that far a stretch - Bc, it’s way more common within LE than people would believe. Since that’s the case there, how many degrees of separation to a hired SS applicant must a sex offender (for example) have ..... and how would We know?

    I guess my point is, something which begins as an idea - graduates to becoming a policy & begins with the absolute best of intentions (much like police- back when “sheriff” was called “shire reeve,” - reeve of the shire/village ) - can also “graduate,” to corruption. Again, not saying this HAS happened, or will happen. Just providing a scenario in which it easily could. And, bc of the structured model which requires/allows SS (and prohibits all parties involved in a complaint) to provide zero public information before, during or after an investigation’s outcome- we will never ever know a single detail. Except “banned,” “ineligible,” “suspended,” etc. Or, the “lifting,” of any of the aforementioned sanctions. Aside from that- the public gets nothing, aside from a very general, pre-approved by SS statement from any or all complainants or alleged “violators,” - should either party desire to “go public,” so to speak. (This is why DM was so secretive on her post about her husbands banning- “I’m barred from discussing details , but we are confident we will prevail in an independent arbitration.”) Paraphrased from DM fb post.

    Trust me, if she were allowed to use her very large platform .... to tilt the scales in her husbands direction, by blowing the victim out of the water - she would have. Bad for her. Bad for victim. Extra layer of alleged controversy re: SS. That said, a victim should ALWAYS have the choice to remain anonymous - Forever.
    It strikes me as a very unfair accusation to assert that you somehow know that, had she not been gagged by the confidentiality clause, DM “would have ... [blown] the victim out of the water” in order to “tilt the scales in her husband’s direction.”

    Given the confidentiality, we will probably never know whether the allegation was baseless or true but unprovable. We do know that SS reversed the ban and (seems to) have closed the case. I think both DM and RM acted with restraint and dignity by not saying anything beyond “He is innocent”, and especially by refraining from attacking the SS process.

    Proclaiming one’s innocence, especially prior to the arbitration, is not, in itself, an attack on SS.

    My pointing that out is not an attack on SS, either.

    Comment


      #82
      "This is (now) just an example & has never, to my knowledge, happened .... yet. But, if a repeat offender for (let’s say) illegal gambling, has a sibling or cousin or relative/friend - someone with a different last name- who is an LEO & willing to switch to the vice department, repeat offender would then have an “inside man.” It is really not that far a stretch - Bc, it’s way more common within LE than people would believe. Since that’s the case there, how many degrees of separation to a hired SS applicant must a sex offender (for example) have ..... and how would We know?"

      That entire paragraph makes no sense. "...way more common with LE than people would believe,"? So you are in LE and know this for fact? What a totally bizarre statement.

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

        It strikes me as a very unfair accusation to assert that you somehow know that, had she not been gagged by the confidentiality clause, DM “would have ... [blown] the victim out of the water” in order to “tilt the scales in her husband’s direction.”

        Given the confidentiality, we will probably never know whether the allegation was baseless or true but unprovable. We do know that SS reversed the ban and (seems to) have closed the case. I think both DM and RM acted with restraint and dignity by not saying anything beyond “He is innocent”, and especially by refraining from attacking the SS process.

        Proclaiming one’s innocence, especially prior to the arbitration, is not, in itself, an attack on SS.

        My pointing that out is not an attack on SS, either.
        On your first point- Yes. You’re probably right that my assumption wasn’t entirely fair. My very first read of DM’s post regarding the ban struck me as extremely angry. Not that I would disagree with that reaction if she and her husband were wronged by a frivolous complaint. Knowing the extremely strict confidentiality rules implemented by SS on all parties of any complaint/counter complaint - (rules which apply to everyone alike) - I guess her post rubbed me the wrong way. Again, of course, first read only without much (or any) further analysis at the time, to me, it read like a BNT feeling or seeming more insulted that anyone would have the audacity to accuse “them,” of something such as “misconduct.” That alone (possibly/probably/perhaps) incorrectly, struck me as a statement with gritted teeth in being unable to just lay it all out right then, victim be “damned.” That’s honestly how it came it off to me, but, really more so as I read her replies the first time. Less so in the post itself.

        Its possible that the more friends in similar or more powerful positions reply, the natural reaction *could* be to (even accidentally) reply back with more & more disdain towards the anonymous, complaining party. I do agree without a doubt, serious restraint was displayed and that’s a good thing. Whether or not it was due to, well, a “gag order,” (I guess that would be the best phrase) or genuine civility & respect for the SS process. I could be completely off, and I have no problem rethinking & re-reading the post along with all replies, though, I do distinctly remember thinking, “wow, what level of entitlement *is* this?” Then, came the RD post, confirming my original reaction. First reactions..... certainly up for grabs in equal & opposite reactions from others with exactly that. Fair enough.

        To your 2nd & 3rd point- I also agree proclaiming innocence is not attack on SS’s process. I’m curious, since I wrestle with this myself & you seem to have numerous, well thought out ideas on most subjects, if you could change anything about SS, it’s process, it’s supposed civil suit immunity, or, basically any aspect of the SS body, what would that be? It’s also entirely respectable if your view is, “it’s perfectly good as is.” Equally, I wouldn’t at all consider it an “attack,” or undermining of SS if you did have ideas on how to make SS a more .... trustable (?? - for lack of a better word) institution. I look forward to your thoughts!

        And, btw, I didn’t at all feel your last point (or any) were attacks on SS. Since there are so many from a wide range of people, you not being one of them, I figured you’d be the best person to ask if you did feel it could made better & how. Every time I consider the same question, I begin to understand why even SS itself is encountering issues in making its own system better for victims & respondents alike. As a victim myself, I have to try & examine things from the side of respondents, particularly one’s who are/were innocent of the claims laid down upon them. Any ideas? (Genuinely asking, as I’m sure you know already.) )
        ????????????????????

        Comment


          #84
          [edit]

          Bizarre? How so? Are you of the opinion that LE have never faced corruption charges in their existence? I don’t have to know anyone personally to make this assertion- it’s all over the news, including the DOJ, AG offices etc....That said, I do know many LEO’s personally & let’s just say, there are some who appreciate very much having an IA department & some who would rather see it gone, yesterday. I’ll leave that at that.

          [edit]
          Last edited by Moderator 1; Sep. 26, 2020, 01:05 PM.
          ????????????????????

          Comment


            #85
            YankeeDuchess I just thought of something & asked a friend who had the answer, but no real opinion either way. Apparently, a “third party,” complainant is not entitled to updates on a filed complaint. The reason I asked in the first place was Bc, the person I was thinking of & referring to in my question was not a “third party,” complainant, but a first party one. (At least according to this individual’s description of their own concluded/semi concluded matter.)

            Assuming this is true, (the latter & the former) do you know why SS would have withheld pertinent updates from a party who seemed certain he/she was the first party complainant? I’m just thinking, if a complainant files a complaint & is later told that complaint is “third party,” & complainant is entitled to no info re one or more of the respondents, this (almost) seems like a deliberate way to protect certain respondents. As always, I could be wrong - completely & totally off base. I couldn’t locate anything other than “third party complainants,” and their respective roles within a complaint.... but, nothing which would explain *how* a “first party,” complainant could become “third party.” Perhaps I don’t have the entire set of facts. Though, (carefully) assuming I do - do you know why or how this type of thing could take place? (The shift from 1st party to 3rd, that is?) All I could conjure up is this: Perhaps, one of the respondents didn't “count,” as the main respondent, therefore removing the complainant of that particular party to a 3rd party complaint, making any info regarding that particular respondent, info to which a 3rd party would not be entitled? Darn, trying to provide an example so this seems less vague, but if anyone could follow this, sans specific details, again, I would stake my bet on you!

            Their entire “thing,” is concluded now, (or, in the stage of wrapping up- not 100% sure) so these are just afterthoughts the individual is considering, which may or may not cause this individual to take further steps. Not really related to RM exactly, but the more people who educate themselves on SS code and it’s process - the better it will be for everyone involved in SS governed sports. Also, nothing that I add or deduce should be construed as undermining the SS SafeSport system. I’m the last person on earth who would have something “bad,” to say - as far as I’m concerned SS protects victims & I’m thankful. Systems do have flaws though. The philosopher in me always needs to view things from every angle possible. Not to do so could leave doubt, which victims & respondents alike never want left in their wake. :-)
            ????????????????????

            Comment


              #86
              Originally posted by La-LaPopRider View Post

              On your first point- Yes. You’re probably right that my assumption wasn’t entirely fair. My very first read of DM’s post regarding the ban struck me as extremely angry. Not that I would disagree with that reaction if she and her husband were wronged by a frivolous complaint. Knowing the extremely strict confidentiality rules implemented by SS on all parties of any complaint/counter complaint - (rules which apply to everyone alike) - I guess her post rubbed me the wrong way. Again, of course, first read only without much (or any) further analysis at the time, to me, it read like a BNT feeling or seeming more insulted that anyone would have the audacity to accuse “them,” of something such as “misconduct.” That alone (possibly/probably/perhaps) incorrectly, struck me as a statement with gritted teeth in being unable to just lay it all out right then, victim be “damned.” That’s honestly how it came it off to me, but, really more so as I read her replies the first time. Less so in the post itself.

              Its possible that the more friends in similar or more powerful positions reply, the natural reaction *could* be to (even accidentally) reply back with more & more disdain towards the anonymous, complaining party. I do agree without a doubt, serious restraint was displayed and that’s a good thing. Whether or not it was due to, well, a “gag order,” (I guess that would be the best phrase) or genuine civility & respect for the SS process. I could be completely off, and I have no problem rethinking & re-reading the post along with all replies, though, I do distinctly remember thinking, “wow, what level of entitlement *is* this?” Then, came the RD post, confirming my original reaction. First reactions..... certainly up for grabs in equal & opposite reactions from others with exactly that. Fair enough.

              To your 2nd & 3rd point- I also agree proclaiming innocence is not attack on SS’s process. I’m curious, since I wrestle with this myself & you seem to have numerous, well thought out ideas on most subjects, if you could change anything about SS, it’s process, it’s supposed civil suit immunity, or, basically any aspect of the SS body, what would that be? It’s also entirely respectable if your view is, “it’s perfectly good as is.” Equally, I wouldn’t at all consider it an “attack,” or undermining of SS if you did have ideas on how to make SS a more .... trustable (?? - for lack of a better word) institution. I look forward to your thoughts!

              And, btw, I didn’t at all feel your last point (or any) were attacks on SS. Since there are so many from a wide range of people, you not being one of them, I figured you’d be the best person to ask if you did feel it could made better & how. Every time I consider the same question, I begin to understand why even SS itself is encountering issues in making its own system better for victims & respondents alike. As a victim myself, I have to try & examine things from the side of respondents, particularly one’s who are/were innocent of the claims laid down upon them. Any ideas? (Genuinely asking, as I’m sure you know already.) )
              Regarding the dignity and restrain of DM’s remarks, the only statement of hers that I read was a 3 or 4 sentence statement quoted in COTH that said basically (paraphrasing) ‘I’m not allowed to say much/please understand this is a stressful time/He is innocent!’

              If there was more back and forth on FB, I did not see it as I’m not on Facebook.

              In this particular thread I have been attacked and mocked for attempting to state this position:

              As much as I trust the SS investigation of the complaint (including this investigation) to be thorough and conducted in good faith, at the time that Dan Hill announced the lifetime ban (in RM’s case in June), the SS investigation has been completed and the SS determination that “the allegations are credible” has been made, but at that point the respondent has not yet had the case reviewed by an independent adjudicator. “Independent” here means “independent of the SS investigation”. The respondent has been interviewed by SS and had the opportunity to submit evidence, but an independent adjudication has not occurred.

              Without faulting the SS process in any way, my position was (and is) that the only real, independent adjudication the respondent receives is in the arbitration phase.

              At the point that the SS ruling comes down, the ban had been imposed, and prior to the arbitration, my position was that RM (or other respondents) have not yet had “their day in court” and therefore their supporters proclaiming their innocence does not constitute “supporting pedophiles” or “attempting to undermine SS”.

              If you reread the thread, you will see posters attacking me for taking the position that neither DM nor her Olympic teammates who clicked “like” on RDs post should be condemned as “pedophile supporters” or accused of attempting to undermine SS. While I did not click “like” on RDs post, for saying that those who did should not be condemned, I was condemned as a “pedophile supporter”. Numerous times, by numerous posters, in the nastiest language permitted by COTH.

              The one, tiny change to SS procedure that I would advocate is this:
              At the time the SS investigation is completed and there is a finding that the allegation is credible, Dan Hill announces that and says “The respondent is now on the interim suspension list pending the results of the independent arbitrator. Depending on the outcome of the arbitration, the suspension will either be lifted or be replaced with a lifetime ban.”

              Note that this changes only the verbiage. Note that in this instance, if SS had used that verbiage it would be in a less embarrassing position when it received the additional evidence, as it could have simply ended the interim suspension prior to arbitration instead of having to reverse a lifetime ban.

              I advocated a change along these lines, not to soften the burden on the respondent, but to effectively counter Diane Carney’s statement when the ban was announced to the effect that “contrary to what you may have heard, the man did not receive a hearing prior to being banned”. She was right - at the time he was banned, he had not yet had his hearing. I’m OK with that. All SS needs to do is answer, “He has the right to independent arbitration; he is simply on an interim suspension pending the outcome of the arbitration.” So the purpose of the change (in verbiage only) is to shut down the criticisms of people like Diane Carney. Also to make more clear that stating your husband’s innocence prior to the arbitration is not undermining SS or “supporting pedophiles”. Also to give SS a more graceful exit if they need to reverse the ban prior to arbitration, or if they lose in arbitration.

              I was advocating a mild alteration in verbiage only that would STRENGTHEN SS, and I was ridiculously attacked and called a “pedophile supporter” for making the point.

              Comment


                #87
                If one believes in the sanctity of Safe Sports original decision, then it follows that one should believe in the updated decision. Or Safe Sport loses their credibility.

                Comment


                  #88
                  Originally posted by jodyjumper View Post
                  If one believes in the sanctity of Safe Sports original decision, then it follows that one should believe in the updated decision. Or Safe Sport loses their credibility.
                  That's my problem, right there. I don't quite see how to give equal credibility to two such opposite decisions. Especially without an explanation as to the change - even just at the highest level without details.

                  SS owes me something to understand how the guy could be off-limits one moment, and a-ok the next. And it doesn't help that I don't think that SS intended to send a signal that he is an a-ok guy.

                  Comment


                    #89
                    Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post

                    That's my problem, right there. I don't quite see how to give equal credibility to two such opposite decisions. Especially without an explanation as to the change - even just at the highest level without details.

                    SS owes me something to understand how the guy could be off-limits one moment, and a-ok the next. And it doesn't help that I don't think that SS intended to send a signal that he is an a-ok guy.
                    If we fully support SS because we have faith that their investigations are thorough and conducted in good faith (I do), then we would expect them to change their stance on the credibility of the allegations if the set of evidence or roster of witnesses changes. There is nothing dishonest in their dropping the ban if some key piece of evidence against RM for some reason was not valid or usable in the arbitration. In fact, doing that is more honest than saying, ‘Gee, we lost a key part of our case, but we can’t admit we were wrong so we’ll try to push through a dubious case’.

                    SS never said he was “off limits” in the sense of being a current threat; they can issue lifetime bans as a sanction for past violations even if the respondent is not a current threat. He had not been suspended pending the investigation, which suggests he had not been considered a current threat.

                    Likewise, SS never said that he is now considered “A-Ok”. They rescinded the ban, which simply means that they no longer think they can meet the burden of proof to establish the violation.

                    This leaves us bystanders not knowing whether the allegations were completely unjustified or just couldn’t be proven to the satisfaction of an arbitrator.

                    As a bystander, you are bothered by the case being left in limbo as it were. How do you think RM feels? Maybe the allegations were true but unprovable and he feels relief; maybe the allegations were untrue and, while he’s not banned, he has to live with the humiliating shadow over his reputation.


                    Comment


                      #90
                      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                      Regarding the dignity and restrain of DM’s remarks, the only statement of hers that I read was a 3 or 4 sentence statement quoted in COTH that said basically (paraphrasing) ‘I’m not allowed to say much/please understand this is a stressful time/He is innocent!’

                      If there was more back and forth on FB, I did not see it as I’m not on Facebook.

                      In this particular thread I have been attacked and mocked for attempting to state this position:

                      As much as I trust the SS investigation of the complaint (including this investigation) to be thorough and conducted in good faith, at the time that Dan Hill announced the lifetime ban (in RM’s case in June), the SS investigation has been completed and the SS determination that “the allegations are credible” has been made, but at that point the respondent has not yet had the case reviewed by an independent adjudicator. “Independent” here means “independent of the SS investigation”. The respondent has been interviewed by SS and had the opportunity to submit evidence, but an independent adjudication has not occurred.

                      Without faulting the SS process in any way, my position was (and is) that the only real, independent adjudication the respondent receives is in the arbitration phase.

                      At the point that the SS ruling comes down, the ban had been imposed, and prior to the arbitration, my position was that RM (or other respondents) have not yet had “their day in court” and therefore their supporters proclaiming their innocence does not constitute “supporting pedophiles” or “attempting to undermine SS”.

                      If you reread the thread, you will see posters attacking me for taking the position that neither DM nor her Olympic teammates who clicked “like” on RDs post should be condemned as “pedophile supporters” or accused of attempting to undermine SS. While I did not click “like” on RDs post, for saying that those who did should not be condemned, I was condemned as a “pedophile supporter”. Numerous times, by numerous posters, in the nastiest language permitted by COTH.

                      The one, tiny change to SS procedure that I would advocate is this:
                      At the time the SS investigation is completed and there is a finding that the allegation is credible, Dan Hill announces that and says “The respondent is now on the interim suspension list pending the results of the independent arbitrator. Depending on the outcome of the arbitration, the suspension will either be lifted or be replaced with a lifetime ban.”

                      Note that this changes only the verbiage. Note that in this instance, if SS had used that verbiage it would be in a less embarrassing position when it received the additional evidence, as it could have simply ended the interim suspension prior to arbitration instead of having to reverse a lifetime ban.

                      I advocated a change along these lines, not to soften the burden on the respondent, but to effectively counter Diane Carney’s statement when the ban was announced to the effect that “contrary to what you may have heard, the man did not receive a hearing prior to being banned”. She was right - at the time he was banned, he had not yet had his hearing. I’m OK with that. All SS needs to do is answer, “He has the right to independent arbitration; he is simply on an interim suspension pending the outcome of the arbitration.” So the purpose of the change (in verbiage only) is to shut down the criticisms of people like Diane Carney. Also to make more clear that stating your husband’s innocence prior to the arbitration is not undermining SS or “supporting pedophiles”. Also to give SS a more graceful exit if they need to reverse the ban prior to arbitration, or if they lose in arbitration.

                      I was advocating a mild alteration in verbiage only that would STRENGTHEN SS, and I was ridiculously attacked and called a “pedophile supporter” for making the point.
                      I 100% agree with your suggested change in verbiage. While it’s seems a very minuscule change, (and, it is) - the potential resulting damage to claimants & respondents, as well as potential embarrassment for SS, could be eradicated, or, lessened with this tweak.

                      How anyone could see a problem with that, is too far beyond my comprehension. It always seems that when you (you, per se) carefully & thoughtfully make a case for a position you’re defending, the Coth “mob,” can’t handle it!

                      Seems a quite straightforward position to take, in stating, “no, I’m not advocating for alleged ‘pedo’s‘ & Im also not undermining the SS process- I’m simply pointing out that, a slight change in verbiage wrt to Dan Hill, could have possibly made a positive difference for the respondent/s & SS, wrt to the public’s general reaction!” (Paraphrased, of course.)

                      FTR- personally, it’s my belief that, these ridiculous attacks on you are a result of your ability to critically think & explain your positions, which are well researched & meticulously thought out. Certain Coth posters (not all- again, not all, Incase anyone insists I have ‘lumped them all together’ ) need to believe they are the BB threads’ “Commenter in Chief.” Sigh~

                      Discussions are good. Vicious (or ANY) attacks on those engaging in healthy conversations, only serve to waste pages. That’s a shame. Also, rude & disrespectful. You’ve always kept comments/replies you write classy & civil- regardless of how emphatically you may, or may not state your position. At least you have positions & don’t come on here disguised as someone who does- but, in reality, only wants to stir the pot. (Even if the pot was at maximum stir level a year ago.) Tell it like it is, YD! Forget the trolls. 😉

                      ????????????????????

                      Comment


                        #91
                        Perhaps the vagueness of the SS language was a result of the legislation-making process. Folks who didn't want something like SS in the first place (we can police our own!) held out for lack of transparency/specificity/naming the act.
                        My guess is that if SS can be given some teeth that matter to ALL levels of organizations/participants under their watch (as was pointed out somewhere else, if you have no Olympic aspirations, perhaps you don't care as much about not being sanctioned?) then we may see more of these issues resolved, and hopefully a more transparent process.

                        I do believe that the lack of information was also likely part of how some believed they would shield the alleged wrongdoers from shame, more than they were concerned about the victims visibility. Even if that perspective is not in the legislative history. Just MHO.

                        Comment


                          #92
                          Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post

                          That's my problem, right there. I don't quite see how to give equal credibility to two such opposite decisions. Especially without an explanation as to the change - even just at the highest level without details.

                          SS owes me something to understand how the guy could be off-limits one moment, and a-ok the next. And it doesn't help that I don't think that SS intended to send a signal that he is an a-ok guy.
                          I actually tend to agree with the last half of the last sentence of your first paragraph. I believe, some statement from SS, clarifying that either “we did not have sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof required,” or, “the evidence on which we placed the decision for the ban, turned out be inaccurate, requiring SS to lift this sanction,” (or, something along the lines of what may have happened, in a general sense) would have been appreciated by many. To the best of my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong, no such statement was made.

                          As far as SS’s intentions, I will just say, I made the mistake of assuming certain actions DMD *would have* taken, had she not been under a confidentiality order. But, that’s not a fact & was, perhaps wrong to assume. It’s possible you’re right. Maybe, SS really didn’t want to send a strong message that RMD is “really a great guy.” It’s also equally plausible that, in doing just that, it would diminish the victim & his/her claim/s. This would open up a whole new can of worms for SS, too. In my opinion, erring on the side of caution is probably the best move, considering the delicate subject matter.

                          I, too, feel some explanation is “owed.” However, I also recognize that’s human nature to want more details on a subject though, we’re not really owed or entitled to knowing anything about matters which don’t directly concern us, personally.

                          ????????????????????

                          Comment


                            #93
                            Originally posted by LilRanger View Post
                            Perhaps the vagueness of the SS language was a result of the legislation-making process. Folks who didn't want something like SS in the first place (we can police our own!) held out for lack of transparency/specificity/naming the act.
                            My guess is that if SS can be given some teeth that matter to ALL levels of organizations/participants under their watch (as was pointed out somewhere else, if you have no Olympic aspirations, perhaps you don't care as much about not being sanctioned?) then we may see more of these issues resolved, and hopefully a more transparent process.

                            I do believe that the lack of information was also likely part of how some believed they would shield the alleged wrongdoers from shame, more than they were concerned about the victims visibility. Even if that perspective is not in the legislative history. Just MHO.
                            I would not characterize SS has having “vague language”. I think the legislation setting up SS reflected a conscious decision that the investigations would be kept confidential, and only the outcome would be publicly revealed. I think it was a deliberate choice, and undertaken primarily to protect the privacy of the victims.

                            I’m “dying” of curiosity to know what happened to cause the reversal, but I can’t imagine what SS could say that would be informative, while protecting the privacy of all parties. As curious as I am, I don’t think I am “owed” an explanation.

                            Comment


                              #94
                              You know, I do think the rest of the organization is actually "owed" an explanation. I mean, how can you do better if you don't know what went wrong?

                              There's ways and ways of getting information out without naming and blaming. It doesn't have to be done right away, just on a regular basis: One reprimand was issued tp a member for ABC, one suspension was for OPQ, one suspension was over turned because after arbitration it was shown that XYZ.

                              I mean, SS has more than just the horsey set to manage, they could put out a semi annual report on their work, and we wouldn't know if they were talking about a hunter trainer or a taekwondo trainer, right? But we'd know a little more about the process. We'd know what gets a person in trouble, and where our various organizations need to do some work.

                              Comment


                                #95
                                I was assuming that the investigative team within SS does have the information as to why the ban was reversed. The issue is what can be disclosed outside SS.

                                We know what the SS code is, and SS announces the broad category of the violation when it bans someone, e.g. “sexual misconduct involving a minor”.

                                In the RG case, a group of his victims dropped their anonymity in order to show his ban was warranted. If people had been willing to trust the decision of SS, that should not have been necessary. But I still think SS itself has to abide by the confidentiality provision regardless of how curious everyone is.

                                Over time, there will be leaks that provide some of the information you want. But I think it is important that it not come officially from SS itself.

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  Originally posted by TooManyBays View Post

                                  Child porn is extremely harmful to the children who become victims of it. It is a disgusting thing and anyone who gets caught with it and can’t explain why that would be there should be on a sex offender list. Period.
                                  I seriously doubt that child porn ‘just happened’ to be there. More than likely, there was much more, and he thought he successfully deleted it but didn’t and got caught.
                                  He should not have a pass here, and should be banned from any safesport governed event.

                                  The timing of his reversal is also very, very suspicious.
                                  I agree, child porn is extremely harmful to the children who become victims of this.
                                  I disagree, with the assumption that he deleted things, believing to be “successful,” but “didn’t and got caught.” That *could have* happened. But, there has been no evidence to show, indisputably, that’s the case. All speculation.

                                  I may have missed something, though. Was there an article/post/statement which mentioned this ban was to do with “child pornography?” If so, could you please share it? Or, let me know where to find it? The only accusation I was aware of, was a vague charge indicating “sexual misconduct with a minor.” Then, the ban was lifted. (A whole other discussion.) If there is information from the original charge leading to the ban, which in any way indicated computer child porn, I’ve not read it. Did this happen? Or, just speculation?
                                  ????????????????????

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    We removed a number of posts more focused on personal commentary about/between a few posters than any topic related to the thread itself, to get it back on track.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      Originally posted by La-LaPopRider View Post

                                      I agree, child porn is extremely harmful to the children who become victims of this.
                                      I disagree, with the assumption that he deleted things, believing to be “successful,” but “didn’t and got caught.” That *could have* happened. But, there has been no evidence to show, indisputably, that’s the case. All speculation.

                                      I may have missed something, though. Was there an article/post/statement which mentioned this ban was to do with “child pornography?” If so, could you please share it? Or, let me know where to find it? The only accusation I was aware of, was a vague charge indicating “sexual misconduct with a minor.” Then, the ban was lifted. (A whole other discussion.) If there is information from the original charge leading to the ban, which in any way indicated computer child porn, I’ve not read it. Did this happen? Or, just speculation?
                                      I believe this was in reference to a different case.
                                      Banter whenever you want to banter....canter whenever you want to canter.

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X