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 williepaws View Post

    I only read the forum and never comment but I came across an article about "lifetime" bans being lifted on 2 taekwondo Olympic coaches who had been banned early last year by SS. Interesting. Reinstatement due to arbitration. https://www.orangecountycoast.com/su...reinstatement/
    That case is worth a serious look by anyone because among other things it seems terribly likely that the Lopez brothers should be banned. What happened is that the witnesses decided not to participate in the arbitration in favor of their own civil suit.

    If anything, it seems like SafeSport may have failed to adequately bring and defend their case in front of the arbitrators. Or it may be that the arbitrators sucked (they do sometimes) and weren't appropriate to hear the case. But it does not at all look like the Lopez brothers were improperly or unfairly accused, unfortunately.

    The stories and the list of accusations by the survivors are pretty jaw-dropping.

    Jean Lopez likely drugged, and then molested and had Gilbert perform oral sex while they traveled to a World Cup event in Germany in 2003, Safe Sport said. Jean Lopez also told Gilbert he wanted to leave his wife and have “Olympic babies” with her, according to Safe Sport and court documents.

    While the women reported Jean Lopez to Safe Sport and cooperated with the center’s investigation, they declined on the advice of their attorneys to testify at the arbitration hearing.
    Here's what Sports Illustrated says about them:
    https://www.si.com/olympics/2018/09/...onduct-lawsuit

    Joslin lost her first-round match in Bonn the next day. After returning home, she decided to leave taekwondo. Even now, she says, “I miss it so bad, but I can’t do it. It’s too broken.”
    The Lopez brothers have a stature in their sport pretty similar to GM or Bela Karolyi.

    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


      "Not the brightest star in the sky", yes that was my post. I stand by it. Especially when you write about how diligently you "researched" the guy who called you and now you now want to warn us that he or someone like him may be calling us too.

      No, I certainly won't help pay your travel expenses so you can personally hand a Congressional staff member a folder full of god knows what. You can mail, or email your Representatives.

      Comment


        Members of Congress find it most helpful to hear from their direct constituents. There is no cost whatsoever to meet with them. I've personally walked into both my representative and senator's offices. It cost me about a quarter tank of gas. I took a signed petition, which cost me very little in printer ink and the door to door to get signatures cost me nothing. I didn't need a pamphlet. I've found in most cases an informational pamphlet tends to be taken as an insult.

        You will want to be armed with facts about how SS currently works, which steps have failed, and why, and how EXACTLY you propose the process be changed, and why. You'll need well respected experts that are willing to be called on or to actually write the process you wish to see as well. You can't just say "due process," "no cross examination of the fragile victims!" and expect to make any impression whatsoever, which is what appears to most of us to be happening right now.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Khobstetter
          The cost of getting to Congresspeople in Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Washington DC, all over California and the west coast and other congressional offices will be, and IS, certainly costly.
          Um...there is the telephone. And email. Oh, and Congress, which is where most of them hang out a lot.

          Comment


            I've had no problem getting responses from my Representatives. I've phoned and emailed.
            A plane ticket, hotel etc... was not required.

            I received a response to an email I sent to Senator John McCain a few years ago, and I don't live in Arizona. He was great. I was very impressed.

            Comment


              skydy BTW, I didn't say I don't agree with you - actually, I do think it's a harebrained idea. I just don't like to have someone (like khobstetter) put words in my mouth.

              Comment


                Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                Horsegirl’s Mom brings up the claim, without endorsing it, that many SafeSport bans have been overturned on appeal. If this were true, it would indeed suggest that the SafeSport investigations are shoddy, and people are bring banned without substantial evidence.

                It was Bonnie Navin who in a post on her own Facebook page, subsequently reposted to ISWG and other anti-SafeSport groups, stated that in the “beginning”, “SafeSport was lifetime banning everyone” and that when they went to arbitration “90%” were overturned.

                Despite requests for documentation of these supposed statements of fact, she never provides any documentation at all. Doesn’t even clarify whether she is referring to all sports or just equestrian, or the time period. It seems extremely unlikely to me that either statement is true, even as a crude approximation, and I think it is irresponsible of her to throw out such statements without being willing to document them.

                So I have completely discounted the claim that most bans are overturned on appeal. But willing to reconsider instantly if shown documentation.

                On the other hand, I really like the fact that you are bringing up very specific, well defined issues. I think they are well worth discussing.

                I also agree that the university administrative processes dealing with sex assault have in some cases led to (arguably) serious injustices. Instead of bashing SafeSport, as ISWG, and SafeSport Overhaul are doing, I think that it would be extremely useful to have a discussion of what specific changes to what specific parts of the process would better protect the accused.

                The ISWG people are right in saying that even the guilty deserve a fair hearing. Unlike them, I don’t think at the moment that the SafeSport process is unfair to the accused, but I would be in favor of strengthening protections for the accused (as long as the stronger protections did not significantly degrade SafeSport’s ability to weed out he bad guys.)
                Thanks for the reasoned response, Yankee Duchess.

                It has occurred to me that one possible reason SS has dispensed with certain procedural protections and created a (relatively) expedited procedure is because of the immense backlog of accusations. SS may feel the only way to get through the huge caseload is by truncating certain procedures (like eliminating discovery). That in itself raises interesting ethical issues, such as how to balance fairness toward a single accused versus the potential safety of many. These are not easy questions.

                As for how many sanctions are overturned in arbitration, SS has that information and in the interest of transparency, they should publish it. However, I suspect as cases proceed, it will become obvious (through press articles etc.) how well the SS sanctions are holding up. I don't have a prediction at this point. I am interested to see what develops.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                  skydy BTW, I didn't say I don't agree with you - actually, I do think it's a harebrained idea. I just don't like to have someone (like khobstetter) put words in my mouth.
                  I don't blame you. Especially annoying to have a person that is attempting to organize a massive review of safe sport, make that sort of mistake. Doesn't bode well for dotted I s and crossed T s.
                  Last edited by skydy; Aug. 25, 2019, 08:00 PM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                    The flowchart is on the SafeSport website, under "Response and Resolution Process." Perhaps you may wish to study the website more closely?

                    I note you do not address any of my specific concerns. I welcome open-minded and reasoned discussion.
                    Hello Horsegirl's Mom - do you have any specific questions on the SafeSport policies and procedures? I would be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability!

                    Thank you for the beautifully stated suggestions, poltroon - I agree 100%. I would also add that the Center looks at two primary factors when selecting a sanction - severity of the violation & likelihood to re-offend.

                    For example, let's say there is a now 45 year old coach who has had several romantic and sexual relationships with his adult students over the past decade (all the students were in their late 20's to early 30's at the onset of the relationships & the relationships were consensual). The coach was reported by another coach at his gym and openly admits, alongside his former students, to the relationships. IMO this case would never lead to a lifetime ban, even though there is a pretty high likelihood of re-offending, since the severity of the violation does not rise to a high enough level. I don't even know if SafeSport would really look into a case like this, TBH.

                    Now, let's say that a 75 year old coach is found "liable", by SafeSport, of raping a 10 year old student 45 years ago. The evidence includes a recorded confession from the coach via a phone call with the survivor and a written confession from the coach via an email sent to their brother. There is no evidence that this coach has abused anyone since. IMO this case would certainly lead to a lifetime ban. Even though there *appears* to be a low likelihood to re-offend, the extreme severity of the violation is more than enough to warrant the sanction.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by skydy View Post

                      I don't blame you. Especially annoying to have a "lawyer" make that kind of mistake isn't it?
                      khobstetter is a southern California trainer, not a lawyer, FWIW.
                      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


                        Horsegirl's Mom have you ever asked your questions to Safe Sport? Or asked your congressman? Just curious. It seems you like to stomp your feet and scream for change on social media rather than asking TPTB.
                        Don't try this at home.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                          khobstetter is a southern California trainer, not a lawyer, FWIW.
                          Sorry, I have confused her with the lawyer that is also involved with this mess. I'll edit.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by williepaws View Post

                            I only read the forum and never comment but I came across an article about "lifetime" bans being lifted on 2 taekwondo Olympic coaches who had been banned early last year by SS. Interesting. Reinstatement due to arbitration. https://www.orangecountycoast.com/su...reinstatement/
                            Uhh maybe read this article....

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                              khobstetter is a southern California trainer, not a lawyer, FWIW.
                              Was in the past, but doesn't currently operate a training business, as far as I know. I think she last worked out of the OC Fairgrounds as Fox Pointe Farm. Involved in sport governance and publicity, I think she owns iJump Sports. At least at one time worked for Phelps Media.
                              The Evil Chem Prof

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Peggy View Post

                                Was in the past, but doesn't currently operate a training business, as far as I know. I think she last worked out of the OC Fairgrounds as Fox Pointe Farm. Involved in sport governance and publicity, I think she owns iJump Sports. At least at one time worked for Phelps Media.
                                Jeez, you'd think she'd know a better way to contact Representatives about her group's complaint about SafeSport.
                                Wasn't Phelps Media the source of the George Morris "statement" emails?

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by FiSk123 View Post

                                  Hello Horsegirl's Mom - do you have any specific questions on the SafeSport policies and procedures? I would be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability!

                                  Why yes, thank you for offering!

                                  As a preliminary question, are you affiliated with SafeSport? Can we take your answers to these questions as authoritative statements on how SafeSport works?

                                  Here are my questions:

                                  1. When does the accused see the evidence, including witness statements, that will be used against him?

                                  2. Does the initial investigation or the arbitration proceeding allow for any discovery? [The rules clearly state no, but perhaps you will tell us otherwise.] If not, why not?

                                  3. Does the initial investigation or the arbitration proceeding allow the accused's attorney to cross-examine any witnesses?

                                  4. Does the arbitrator have any power to compel witnesses to come and testify (i.e., like a subpoena)? If not, how can the accused get a reluctant witness to testify as to the facts they know--like if the witness says they "don't want to get involved"?

                                  5. How many SafeSport sanctions have gone to arbitration, and how many of those have been upheld?

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by skydy View Post

                                    Jeez, you'd think she'd know a better way to contact Representatives about her group's complaint about SafeSport.
                                    Wasn't Phelps Media the source of the George Morris "statement" emails?
                                    Indeed it was.

                                    The Evil Chem Prof

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post

                                      I think this one sentence makes your viewpoint very clear. Because by your choice to use "alleged victim", you are insinuating that these individuals have not suffered abuse, and are therefore lying or making false reports to SS. Why would you not have phrased it as "victim and alleged perpetrator"? I find that curious.
                                      Please lighten up. “Accused” means the same thing as “alleged perpetrator”.
                                      Before the hearing/trial/arbitration you have the reporter/complainant/alleged victim and the respondent/accused/alleged perpetrator. Only after the thing is adjudicated, and the respondent found liable do you have a victim and abuser.
                                      If you insist that you know for a fact that the reporter is a victim before any investigation or hearing, then you are doing the “guilty until proven innocent” thing that the ISWG people complain about. I’m fine with still presuming GM innocent until he loses the appeal.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Peggy View Post

                                        Indeed it was.
                                        Ah ... Lightbulb goes on.

                                        Doesn’t SafeSport Overhaul claim that they want to improve SafeSport but aren’t advocating for any specific case?

                                        A paid apologist for GM is running SafeSport Overhaul. Easier to understand why zero specific and feasible suggestions for change have come out of the group.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                          Ah ... Lightbulb goes on.

                                          Doesn’t SafeSport Overhaul claim that they want to improve SafeSport but aren’t advocating for any specific case?

                                          A paid apologist for GM is running SafeSport Overhaul. Easier to understand why zero specific and feasible suggestions for change have come out of the group.
                                          Well, it’s actually Safe Sport Overhul according to the GoFundMe page, or at least it was as of yesterday.
                                          The Evil Chem Prof

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X