Stallion Spotlight

0201171029b-1

Real Estate Spotlight

Grand 2 story entry
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

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

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Originally posted by IPEsq View Post

    Not necessarily. Courts do not have to be bound by the decisions of an administrative body unless the statute says so. For example, I work in trademark law. The trademark office has a trial and appeal board that follows the rules of civil procedure. It doesn’t adjudicate infringement but deals with whether or not someone can protect a trademark or enforce a registration or prior right. If parties in a dispute there then take their issue to federal court, even if it involves the validity of a trademark (say, in defending a counterclaim) that the board has already ruled on, the federal court does and can decide that issue anew.

    So, if SS wanted to more closely align with criminal procedures (which is how I read the petition, not civil), the arbitrator’s decision would likely not replace a criminal case, meaning a separate criminal case would have to be tried. Reciprocity is only working one way—if there is a court case first decided against the accused, then SS can issue a criminal disposition ban. I don’t think there’s any possibility the law would change to make reciprocity happen the other way. And the reason for that is actually the due process clause. You can’t have an arbitration procedure that would conform to criminal case standards (ie no jury trial in arbitration).
    It sounded to me like they want the court procedures whether that be criminal or civil, not sure instead of the SS procedeedings. That's what I meant by being careful what you wish for. If they are melting down of GM not being able to coach or give clinics, imagine how they will react when he spends the rest of his life behind bars.
    McDowell Racing Stables

    Home Away From Home

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Laurierace View Post

      It sounded to me like they want the court procedures whether that be criminal or civil, not sure instead of the SS procedeedings. That's what I meant by being careful what you wish for. If they are melting down of GM not being able to coach or give clinics, imagine how they will react when he spends the rest of his life behind bars.
      Ok I see. The petition made zero sense to me. If that is the case, then who is going to pay for that also? There’s already enough trouble funding SS as it is.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

        But the people that SafeSport bans are not all on sexual offender registries. The ban is beyond predators. Go look for yourself how many on that list fall under any state or federal registry. It is a quick internet search. You can even call SafeSport and ask them yourself if all banned individulas have full legal convictions or have some settled in court in nocontest because the trial is too expensive, or are some banned based only on the statement in a report.

        Again anyone can report for a sex offense. SafeSport will ban you based on their interpretation of the criminal offense and how much they believe the information in the report. Imagine you are innocent, and the law exhonerates any false claims against you, but you are still banned - how does that not bother you?

        This is not about posting legal findings and holding those that are legally guilty accountable.
        So correct me of I am wrong, but you are making the case that people who aren’t on a sex offender registry anymore (Navarro... he got himself removed from the Virginia registry back in 2015 pursuant to the terms of his plea deal - he was not exonerated - but simply removed from the registry after being on it for years) or people who plead guilty to an offense, but didn’t go through a criminal trial (Jim Giorgio and Navarro), or people who were banned but didn’t have charges brought against them by local authorities because of a peosecutor’s opinion that the defense lawyers could make a case for reasonable doubt given the teenaged victim’s devotion to the guy who had groomed her for years with thousands of texts (Randy Cates)...

        You are making the case that these people shouldn’t be on the Safe Sport list because they were not found guilty in a court of law, after going through a trial constrained by criminal rules of evidence and ua criminal burden of proof? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

        Others have pointed out that you are comparing apples and oranges... different burdens of proof, and penalties in the US judicial system versus sanctions barring someone from participating in a sport governed by a private organization (NGB).

        All I will add is that it sounds to me like you are closely connected to an actual person on the list. And listening to what they have to say. And I will repeat... these people lie. It’s what they do. They lie and manipulate and charm and work people over. They hustle for access to kids if that’s what they are into. Or hustle for other people’s money using a horse business. Or both simultaneously.

        One last thought... which is more likely? That you, the person with a connection to someone on the banned list is correct, really knows what’s wrong with the process and the guy was really falsely accused... and everyone else here who thinks the guy is a dirtbag, plus the local investigators with the police department who investigated allegations years ago, and the Safe Sport investigators who banned him, and looked st it again on appeal and didn’t change their minds... all those people are wrong and don’t know the facts? They were all tricked as well by the minor who set the guy up to get investigated for a sex offense? Or the minor and her parent/s? Do you really believe that the original “set up” was so well done, everyone who has looked into it since has been fooled? Multiple trained investigators?

        Or... possibly... they weren’t fooled. Nor are the posters on this board who have passed judgement. Nor Safe Sport. And it’s you... the individual with a personal relationship with a designated predator who is being manipulated and lied to... and you are buying it. And you are being fooled.

        Think long and hard. And maybe pay a fee for a background check service to look at public records associated with this banned individual you want to defend. And see if the public records from the court system match what they are telling you. My personal experience is that liars who lie do so all. the. time. About big things and tiny details. Once you start watching for it... you can see it. Quite clearly.

        And if they lie about other details... you better believe they are lying about the facts of what happened with the minor victim years ago. But it’s your choice... believe in and trust a predator if you want. At least Safe Sport exists and you were informed and warned.
        Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Aug. 14, 2019, 11:28 AM. Reason: typos and clarity

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

          No one is stopping you from hiring child molesters to give your kids riding lessons. They’ll just have to stick to the non affiliated local circuits. Have fun!
          Palm Beach what is the criteria to be found guilty by Safe Sport?

          You realize anyone can report you for a sex offense and based on the report, you too could join the list of banned people. Even if the legal court exhonerates you of the offense, Safe Sport has the right to still ban you.

          So this is not just about child molesters. It is about a process that has innocent people listed amongst others who have committed crimes, and listed amongst those that are at risk of committing crimes.

          To limit my choices to take my kids to non-affiliated, because SafeSport by law has to post within 24 hours of a confirmed report, but has no obligation to remove exhonerated people. How does that not concern you?

          Go ahead and call SafeSport and ask them how they would handle someone they have banned with a final decision, and then the courts exhonerate. Safe Sport told me they would still have the person banned.

          Why have a judicial system??

          Comment


          • Bluey I get what you're saying, but cultural mores do change, and definitions of accepted change. That doesn't make the behavior acceptable, which is truly a nuance of language.

            As a for instance, speeding in your car is widely accepted in our culture. We joke about it, tell stories about it, and yet it is decidedly against the law and morally and ethically wrong. You are a danger to others around you when you do it. But, I live in a city of 600k people, and I'm clearly one of the few that believes it should modify *my* behavior (as cars go zipping around me on the freeway). Could it be that someday we decide that it's also culturally wrong? Yes. And what would happen at that point? People would no longer joke about it. The statute of limitations on speeding tickets could be extended etc.

            Think that sounds ridiculous? Let's take something else as a for instance - drinking and driving. In the late 60s it was against the law. One could argue that it was always morally and ethically wrong, and we should have always known it. However, it wasn't until relatively recently that someone who had a DUI was also culturally castigated - that really started around the 80s. It took 20 years for culture to "catch up" to something which had already been legally and morally wrong. There were still loads of "accepted" jokes in TV in the 70s and even into the 90s about drinking and driving before finally enough people had died to consider it bad form.

            Now - sexual abuse sounds like it's black and white, but it really isn't. Abuse takes many forms, and one such form is a "so-called" consenting relationship between a teen and an adult. In fact, in the US, it's still legal in many states for a teen to marry an adult with the consent of their parents https://theconversation.com/child-ma...n-the-us-88846 In other states that's considered statutory rape now and prosecuted appropriately. This means that culture still hasn't quite decided on the definition of consent, when it can occur, and how old one has to be to give consent. The side-effect of this is that sexual crimes against teenagers are something we as a society struggle with.

            Where we have drawn the line clearly is with male young boys in American culture but other times didn't have the same mores, and therefore not the same definitions of right and wrong. In Rome, homosexuality was ONLY accepted in an unequal relationship, and Greece had some very clear...rituals....that sound an awful lot like grooming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedera...ancient_Greece Was it wrong then? Yes, it was equally wrong then, but it WAS considered accepted.

            I say this NOT to defend anyone, but to point out that this tension between moving a society forward and changing the culture *is* a normal thing. As I was driving to the barn this morning to meet the farrier I was thinking, ok, so what if someday they decide to "backward prosecute" speeders? Should that change my behavior today? (Likely, yes). So acknowledging that thinking of acceptable behavior as above and beyond (in terms of morality) the "norms" of culture is a good thing.

            We do have a culture of "everyone's doing it" being a defense, and it really shouldn't be a defense. It should be a warning to us all that just because the law or culture says it's ok, doesn't mean it's always ok. We currently have laws around corporations that make my toes curl and think "oh geez, history isn't going to look kindly around that at some point", and yet some in our culture think because it's legal, it's ok...or "everyone does it" so it's ok.

            I hope that makes *some* sense - I'm definitely feeling a bit philosophical this morning.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

              Palm Beach what is the criteria to be found guilty by Safe Sport?

              You realize anyone can report you for a sex offense and based on the report, you too could join the list of banned people. Even if the legal court exhonerates you of the offense, Safe Sport has the right to still ban you.

              So this is not just about child molesters. It is about a process that has innocent people listed amongst others who have committed crimes, and listed amongst those that are at risk of committing crimes.

              To limit my choices to take my kids to non-affiliated, because SafeSport by law has to post within 24 hours of a confirmed report, but has no obligation to remove exhonerated people. How does that not concern you?

              Go ahead and call SafeSport and ask them how they would handle someone they have banned with a final decision, and then the courts exhonerate. Safe Sport told me they would still have the person banned.

              Why have a judicial system??
              If you read the thread, as well as the safe sport website, and take the safe sport training, many of your questions will be answered. Come back with questions that haven't been addressed dozens of times already.
              Let me apologize in advance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

                Palm Beach what is the criteria to be found guilty by Safe Sport?

                You realize anyone can report you for a sex offense and based on the report, you too could join the list of banned people. Even if the legal court exhonerates you of the offense, Safe Sport has the right to still ban you.

                So this is not just about child molesters. It is about a process that has innocent people listed amongst others who have committed crimes, and listed amongst those that are at risk of committing crimes.

                To limit my choices to take my kids to non-affiliated, because SafeSport by law has to post within 24 hours of a confirmed report, but has no obligation to remove exhonerated people. How does that not concern you?

                Go ahead and call SafeSport and ask them how they would handle someone they have banned with a final decision, and then the courts exhonerate. Safe Sport told me they would still have the person banned.

                Why have a judicial system??
                Who currently on the permanent Safe Sport banned has actually been exonerated by a court of law, but not removed from the list? Can you provide a name of a person?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by cnm161 View Post
                  My take: Stripping parents of their "rights to choose" sexual predators as trainers/mentors for their children feels like a good move.
                  If their children end up molested, then the parents should be criminally charged.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CindyB59 View Post

                    If their children end up molested, then the parents should be criminally charged.
                    I do agree with this for sure - at that point you're intentionally putting a minor in danger.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                      So correct me of I am wrong, but you are making the case that people who aren’t on a sex offender registry anymore (Navarro... he got himself removed from the Virginia registry back in 2015 pursuant to the terms of his plea deal), or people who plead guilty to an offense, but didn’t go through a criminal trial (Jim Giorgio), or people who were banned but didn’t have charges brought against them by local authorities because of a peosecutor’s opinion that the defense lawyers could make a case for reasonable doubt given the teenaged victim’s devotion to the guy who had groomed her for years with thousands of texts (Randy Cates)...

                      You are making the case that these people shouldn’t be on the Safe Sport list because they were found guilty in a court of law under a criminal burden of proof?

                      Others have pointed out that you are comparing apples and oranges... different burdens of proof, and penalties in the US judicial system versus sanctions barring someone from participating in a sport.

                      All I will add is that it sounds to me like you are closely connected to an actual person on the list. And listening to what they have to say. And I will repeat... these people lie. It’s what they do. They lie and manipulate and charm and work people. They hustle for access to kids if that’s what they are into. Or hustle for other people’s money using a horse business. Or both simultaneously.

                      One last thought... which is more likely? That you, the person with a connection to someone on the banned list is correct, really knows what’s wrong with the process... and everyone else here who thinks the guy is a dirtbag, plus the local investigators with the police department who investigated allegations years ago, and the Safe Spirt investigators who banned him... all those people are wrong and don’t know the facts? Tricked by the minor who set the guy up to get investigated for a sex offense? Or the minor and her parent/s? Do you really believe that the original “set up” was so well done, everyone who has looked into it since has been fooled? Multiple trained investigators?

                      Or... possibly... they weren’t fooled. Nor are the posters on this board who have passed judgement. Nor Safe Sport. And it’s you... the individual with a personal relationship with a designated predator who is being manipulated and lied to... and you are buying it.

                      Rhink long abs hard. And maybe pay a fee for a background check service to look at public records associated with this banned individual you want to defend. And see if the public records from the court system match what they are telling you. My personal experience is that liars who lie do so all. the. time. About big things and tiny details. Once you start watching for it... you can see it. Quite clearly.

                      And if they lie about other details... you better believe they are lying about the facts of what happened with the minor victim years ago. But it’s your choice... believe in and trust a predator if you want. At least Safe Spirt exists and you were informed and warned.
                      My father immigrated to the USA because of dictatorship that arrested both of his parents based on their association with the democratic leader. He grew up with Aunts and Uncles. In the USA he served the military and the many decades as USA Deparment Of Justice Attorney in Charge held the highest clearance serving Presidents in both parties. His cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Annually our home was inspected by investigators, to ensure integrity.

                      I uphold our Constitution.

                      When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

                        My father immigrated to the USA because of dictatorship that arrested both of his parents based on their association with the democratic leader. He grew up with Aunts and Uncles. In the USA he served the military and the many decades as USA Deparment Of Justice Attorney in Charge held the highest clearance serving Presidents in both parties. His cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Annually our home was inspected by investigators, to ensure integrity.

                        I uphold our Constitution.

                        When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.

                        Pedophiles aren't political dissidents. It's frankly horrifying that you are using an argument that likens your parents and other political dissidents to a child rapist.
                        Let me apologize in advance.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

                          But the people that SafeSport bans are not all on sexual offender registries. The ban is beyond predators. Go look for yourself how many on that list fall under any state or federal registry. It is a quick internet search. You can even call SafeSport and ask them yourself if all banned individulas have full legal convictions or have some settled in court in nocontest because the trial is too expensive, or are some banned based only on the statement in a report.

                          Again anyone can report (someone) for a sex offense. SafeSport will ban you based on their interpretation of the criminal offense and how much they believe the information in the report. Imagine you are innocent, and the law exhonerates any false claims against you, but you are still banned - how does that not bother you?

                          This is not about posting legal findings and holding those that are legally guilty accountable.
                          You are mistaken about the process. A "report" or claim does not lead to a lifetime ban. It leads to an investigation. An investigation may or may not lead to a sanction, which could range from a letter of reprimand to a lifetime sport ban, depending on what is found.

                          FiSk123 who is a reporter from figure skating has kindly shared some statistics with us back on July 3.
                          https://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/f...ob-gage/page45

                          Originally posted by FiSk123
                          I just went through the SafeSport Centralized Disciplinary Database. I selected cases based on the following pair of criteria:

                          1. The sanction was "Permanently Ineligible" - meaning that I did not include people who had temporary measures, suspensions or non-permanent ineligibility.
                          2. The adjudicating body was the U.S. Center for SafeSport - meaning that I excluded people whose bans were imposed by their NGB pre-SafeSport (for e.g. if a person was banned in 2015 by USA Volleyball, they were not counted).

                          Criminal Disposition: 89.04% (n=260)
                          Non-Criminal Disposition: 10.96% (n=32)

                          Criminal Disposition - Involving a Minor: 64.04% (n=187)
                          Criminal Disposition - Sexual Misconduct: 21.92% (n=64)
                          Sexual Misconduct Involving a Minor: 6.51% (n=19)
                          Sexual Misconduct: 3.77% (n=11)
                          Criminal Disposition (General): 3.08% (n=9)
                          Other (e.g. Intimate Relationship Involving a Minor): 0.68% (n=2)

                          Total Number of Cases: 292*

                          (While the Morning Call article citing Dan Hill's statement of 285 was released on July 1st, I believe that his quotes came from a little over a week ago. For example, I know that two people from USA Swimming were given lifetime bans on 6/28/2019 and 7/1/2019, respectively. I will triple-check my numbers later this evening after a power-nap LOL).

                          I also want to note that the "Sexual Misconduct" and "Sexual Misconduct - Involving a Minor" categories are very broad. For example, Larry Nassar is listed as "Sexual Misconduct - Involving a Minor" with a 02/06/2018 decision date - even though he was sentenced to 60 years in federal prison for possession of images of child sexual abuse in July of 2017 + 40 to 175 years in state prison after pleading guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault of minors in January of 2018.
                          And this one as well from July 5: https://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/f...ob-gage/page47

                          Originally posted by FiSk123
                          I've spent most of this work week cataloging every violation that resulted in "Permanent Ineligibility" that was not under "Criminal Disposition - Sexual Misconduct" or "Criminal Disposition - Involving a Minor". So far, my search has found:

                          - An athlete who was arrested and charged with felony sexual battery and false imprisonment (the criminal charges were ultimately dismissed, however).
                          - A coach whose former athlete was granted a permanent restraining order against them due to sexual harassment and stalking (the evidence included over 15,000 text messages)
                          - A coach who purchased his then 14 year old student lingerie and exchanged sexual messages with them over SnapChat (this coach was sentenced to 3 years probation for the incident after a plea deal).
                          - A coach who was accused of raping an underage student, tried in criminal court and acquitted in 2005. When another student came forward with similar allegations, the coach was arrested and charged again, however, the charges were ultimately dismissed. The reason - the former student died of an apparent overdose two months prior to testifying.

                          The reason I bring this up is because I feel like some of the apprehension around the SafeSport recommendations come from fear of SafeSport itself. You're not getting suspended for hugging a student after they win a competition. You're not getting banned for life for accidentally texting a 16 year old "good morning" without another adult in the chat. In reality, these guidelines provide protection for all covered individuals - coaches and athletes alike.

                          Also, as several of you have already stated, these recommended guidelines did not come out of thin air. Other institutions, especially in education, follow the same guidelines.

                          Honestly, I'm also a bit confused by the push back against the recommendations since my job has much stricter guidelines than SafeSport (granted, considering the nature of my profession, this makes a lot of sense).
                          If your case doesn't go to trial because the witness commits suicide, that's not the same as exoneration.
                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                          Comment


                          • YOU DO NOT GET BANNED JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ACCUSES YOU.

                            Repeating:

                            You. Do. Not. Get. Banned. Just. By. Being. Accused.

                            Stated another way:

                            Accusation =/= Banning.

                            Accusation does not equal banning.

                            This argument is null.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post


                              Pedophiles aren't political dissidents. It's frankly horrifying that you are using an argument that likens your parents and other political dissidents to a child rapist.
                              This. Also. Laws are not meant to set the ethical standards which we live by. As has been mentioned numerous times, USEF is a club. An employer. Whatever it is to you. They have a duty to protect their members, specifically children, and uphold their set of standards and morals, which should absolutely be above the rock bottom that our justice system sets. As most other employers/clubs/etc set but those in the equestrian community are too entrenched/ignorant/sheltered to embrace. The backlog of rape kits is outrageous. Why what is it 1 in 18 sexual abuse crimes are even reported. Which is why the age of revelation is so high. We bash victims, our police and judicial system fails victims. There should be no statue of limitations given our knowledge on how this is all reported.

                              And if you really want to go there again, look at sodomy and same sex relations laws by state. Illegal.

                              But this whole line of thinking is frightening. People can rationalize anything these days.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post
                                Bluey I get what you're saying, but cultural mores do change, and definitions of accepted change. That doesn't make the behavior acceptable, which is truly a nuance of language.

                                As a for instance, speeding in your car is widely accepted in our culture. We joke about it, tell stories about it, and yet it is decidedly against the law and morally and ethically wrong. You are a danger to others around you when you do it. But, I live in a city of 600k people, and I'm clearly one of the few that believes it should modify *my* behavior (as cars go zipping around me on the freeway). Could it be that someday we decide that it's also culturally wrong? Yes. And what would happen at that point? People would no longer joke about it. The statute of limitations on speeding tickets could be extended etc.

                                Think that sounds ridiculous? Let's take something else as a for instance - drinking and driving. In the late 60s it was against the law. One could argue that it was always morally and ethically wrong, and we should have always known it. However, it wasn't until relatively recently that someone who had a DUI was also culturally castigated - that really started around the 80s. It took 20 years for culture to "catch up" to something which had already been legally and morally wrong. There were still loads of "accepted" jokes in TV in the 70s and even into the 90s about drinking and driving before finally enough people had died to consider it bad form.

                                Now - sexual abuse sounds like it's black and white, but it really isn't. Abuse takes many forms, and one such form is a "so-called" consenting relationship between a teen and an adult. In fact, in the US, it's still legal in many states for a teen to marry an adult with the consent of their parents https://theconversation.com/child-ma...n-the-us-88846 In other states that's considered statutory rape now and prosecuted appropriately. This means that culture still hasn't quite decided on the definition of consent, when it can occur, and how old one has to be to give consent. The side-effect of this is that sexual crimes against teenagers are something we as a society struggle with.

                                Where we have drawn the line clearly is with male young boys in American culture but other times didn't have the same mores, and therefore not the same definitions of right and wrong. In Rome, homosexuality was ONLY accepted in an unequal relationship, and Greece had some very clear...rituals....that sound an awful lot like grooming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedera...ancient_Greece Was it wrong then? Yes, it was equally wrong then, but it WAS considered accepted.

                                I say this NOT to defend anyone, but to point out that this tension between moving a society forward and changing the culture *is* a normal thing. As I was driving to the barn this morning to meet the farrier I was thinking, ok, so what if someday they decide to "backward prosecute" speeders? Should that change my behavior today? (Likely, yes). So acknowledging that thinking of acceptable behavior as above and beyond (in terms of morality) the "norms" of culture is a good thing.

                                We do have a culture of "everyone's doing it" being a defense, and it really shouldn't be a defense. It should be a warning to us all that just because the law or culture says it's ok, doesn't mean it's always ok. We currently have laws around corporations that make my toes curl and think "oh geez, history isn't going to look kindly around that at some point", and yet some in our culture think because it's legal, it's ok...or "everyone does it" so it's ok.

                                I hope that makes *some* sense - I'm definitely feeling a bit philosophical this morning.
                                Although I'm sure you will be jumped on and accused of being a defender of pedophilia, your post isn't crazy.

                                Here's why I think your point may not be relevant to the GM case: IF it's true there is strong evidence of GM having sexual relationships with 13 year olds, I do believe that was both illegal and frowned upon in the 1960's, so the concern that social mores have changed and GM may not have known his conduct was bad seems misplaced.

                                However, here's where I think your concern is valid (since you are feeling philosophical). There are areas of morality and law where our understanding really has evolved. For example, nowadays the endemic sexual harassment of offices in the 1950's is certainly a civil wrong and quite possibly a crime (e.g., pinching someone's bottom is assault and battery).

                                What if there was some effort now to identify those male chauvinist executives and take action against them? Would it be ok for an organization like SafeSport to hand out lifetime bans to old guys who were piggish during their prime? Would it be ok for states to lift civil statutes of limitations so women could sue them now? How about extending the criminal statute of limitations and jailing some of these men?

                                Sometimes these kinds of thought experiments are useful in helping us to identify underlying principles and why we feel comfortable about certain things and not others.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

                                  When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.
                                  You do realize that SafeSport is the law, right? The legislation was passed by Congress and signed by the President.
                                  Last edited by Gardenhorse; Aug. 14, 2019, 12:00 PM. Reason: Typo

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

                                    My father immigrated to the USA because of dictatorship that arrested both of his parents based on their association with the democratic leader. He grew up with Aunts and Uncles. In the USA he served the military and the many decades as USA Deparment Of Justice Attorney in Charge held the highest clearance serving Presidents in both parties. His cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Annually our home was inspected by investigators, to ensure integrity.

                                    I uphold our Constitution.

                                    When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.
                                    I'm not sure which country your father immigrated from, but I do have some experience with this. In those dictatorships, such as Cuba, where my came from, arresting dissidents because of relationships with others is perfectly legal. China too. Totally 100% legal. Slavery was legal. etc. etc.

                                    Focusing solely on the letter of the law can be highly problematic in a society.

                                    Comment


                                    • My father immigrated to the USA because of dictatorship that arrested both of his parents based on their association with the democratic leader. He grew up with Aunts and Uncles. In the USA he served the military and the many decades as USA Department Of Justice Attorney in Charge held the highest clearance serving Presidents in both parties. His cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Annually our home was inspected by investigators, to ensure integrity.

                                      I uphold our Constitution.

                                      When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.
                                      I am not at all sure of the relevance of this information to the subject at hand.

                                      Or is it just supposed to be a distraction? A red herring now that the rest of your arguments have proved futile at best and nonsensical at worst?
                                      The plural of anecdote is not data.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                                        Although I'm sure you will be jumped on and accused of being a defender of pedophilia, your post isn't crazy.

                                        Here's why I think your point may not be relevant to the GM case: IF it's true there is strong evidence of GM having sexual relationships with 13 year olds, I do believe that was both illegal and frowned upon in the 1960's, so the concern that social mores have changed and GM may not have known his conduct was bad seems misplaced.

                                        However, here's where I think your concern is valid (since you are feeling philosophical). There are areas of morality and law where our understanding really has evolved. For example, nowadays the endemic sexual harassment of offices in the 1950's is certainly a civil wrong and quite possibly a crime (e.g., pinching someone's bottom is assault and battery).

                                        What if there was some effort now to identify those male chauvinist executives and take action against them? Would it be ok for an organization like SafeSport to hand out lifetime bans to old guys who were piggish during their prime? Would it be ok for states to lift civil statutes of limitations so women could sue them now? How about extending the criminal statute of limitations and jailing some of these men?

                                        Sometimes these kinds of thought experiments are useful in helping us to identify underlying principles and why we feel comfortable about certain things and not others.
                                        I wasn't using it as a defense - to be sure - of GM. It was from an earlier conversation why I was trying to help people understand *why* others may be negative and outraged toward this social change. I was also not using it to say "GM didn't know his behavior was bad". People who speed know their behavior is bad - we joke about it all the time! It's not a legal NOR a moral defense.

                                        The case I was attempting to make was that just because certain things are legal, societally and culturally accepted, does NOT mean that it's defensible *although people will defend it because it's culturally accepted*.

                                        It ought to make us all think. That was my entire point, but it got lost because people want to believe that culturally accepted = ok. That's been the defense of Trump (for instance) in the case "against collusion" - that his cabinet "didn't know" that it wasn't ok to do some things they'd been doing. But it *isn't* ok, just like it *isn't* ok to speed, just like it *wasn't* ok to marry young girls as young as 15, despite being culturally accepted.

                                        Is that more clear as to my expression? I'm trying, but not succeeding terrifically well, to shift the needle a bit.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                                          I wasn't using it as a defense - to be sure - of GM. It was from an earlier conversation why I was trying to help people understand *why* others may be negative and outraged toward this social change. I was also not using it to say "GM didn't know his behavior was bad". People who speed know their behavior is bad - we joke about it all the time! It's not a legal NOR a moral defense.

                                          The case I was attempting to make was that just because certain things are legal, societally and culturally accepted, does NOT mean that it's defensible *although people will defend it because it's culturally accepted*.

                                          It ought to make us all think. That was my entire point, but it got lost because people want to believe that culturally accepted = ok. That's been the defense of Trump (for instance) in the case "against collusion" - that his cabinet "didn't know" that it wasn't ok to do some things they'd been doing. But it *isn't* ok, just like it *isn't* ok to speed, just like it *wasn't* ok to marry young girls as young as 15, despite being culturally accepted.

                                          Is that more clear as to my expression? I'm trying, but not succeeding terrifically well, to shift the needle a bit.
                                          My ace in the hole here, I was around in the late 60's, early 70' and know first hand it was NOT OK to be an abuser, especially child abuser, just was NOT OK.

                                          That there was abuse was rumors, but I know if anyone suspected that, they were short with those that were part of that.
                                          They did show their displeasure and protected those under their wing, just in case the rumors were true.

                                          I don't buy that GM, if what he is accused of is right, "was just speeding, everyone was speeding".

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X