Sport Horse Spotlight

Zucchero Gold - Wandres, Frederic - 838-BC18_REU2723-foto_reumann

Real Estate Spotlight

Birman1

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • 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 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


        • Originally posted by Peggy View Post

          Well, it’s actually Safe Sport Overhul according to the GoFundMe page, or at least it was as of yesterday.
          You're right! It's Safe Sport OVERHUL. Vanna, can I buy a vowel?
          ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post

            You're right! It's Safe Sport OVERHUL. Vanna, can I buy a vowel?
            For $25K?
            The Evil Chem Prof

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Peggy View Post

              For $25K?
              Peggy that's already earmarked for pamphlets, proofreading is another gfm
              Let me apologize in advance.

              Comment


              • So the pamphlets don’t come with a proofreader? Dang! What is an “overhul” anyway.

                ETA: I looked at the page and unless they make specific coherent statements about what is wrong and how they want to fix it beyond it’s not fair to our friends. It will get no traction. The plane rides to different states to visit members of Congress just shows how people in the industry have no clue how anything works or gets done.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  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.
                  She was pointing out the “alleged victim” part. It is an interesting word choice. People don’t need to lighten up .

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                    She was pointing out the “alleged victim” part. It is an interesting word choice. People don’t need to lighten up .
                    I don’t see a major moral issue with using the term “alleged victim” during the time prior to a ruling of guilty or liable. It goes along with that presumption of innocence thing. Is using the term “alleged victim” in the time interval prior to a guilty ruling victim bashing now?

                    I would never suggest that you, personally, should “lighten up”.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peggy View Post

                      Indeed it was.
                      I thought as much. Interesting that Phelps Media is only invested in this crusade in a very small manner.

                      To send out George's "I am so offended by this terribly unfair banning" email to the unfortunate people who happened to be available because they were on the email list of Phelps Media, didn't take much effort or cost.

                      Having a (former?) member ask for donations to pursue an ill advised and scatterbrained attempt to "reform" Safe Sport, when their only problem with it so far is that a few horseman have been banned for molesting students, is not likely to influence politicians to join their cause. Thus the "crowdfunding".

                      I doubt any business entity would spend money on that. They'll leave it to others who can't see which way the wind blows when it comes to child molesters.

                      Comment


                      • I mean, what do they think is going to happen?

                        They fly out to talk to congress members.

                        Congress members are like ??? Isn't this to help prevent child molesters from molesting children in sports?

                        DUE PROCESS!!!!!!!!! LACK OF TRANSPARENCY!!!!!!!!

                        *Congress members may decide to look into it because reasons

                        "So SS, these people are upset about this process. What is this all about?"

                        "We have absolute proof that their "GOD" has committed these crimes, we did a very long investigation and decided that after all of the evidence that was presented to us from both sides because we do what we are supposed to do, that we banned him. Apparently they are pissed off about it. Here, read his book."

                        Congress members: ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HLMom View Post
                          The verbiage below was posted on the "SafeSport Overhaul" Facebook page today. I was somewhat puzzled by it. It seems to indicate that SafeSport currently has a retired FBI investigator investigating GM. But I thought SafeSport's investigation was completed before they issue a sanction?? At least that's what the flowchart shows.


                          A SATURDAY MORNING OBSERVATION.

                          IF YOU GET A CALL FROM THIS MAN OR ANYONE ELSE "INVESTIGATING" anyone...at the opening of the conversation please tell him you want a copy of his notes of your conversation!!!!!! Then at the end of your time with him PLEASE remind him YOU WANT HIS NOTES....YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THEM!!!! Don't get caught off guard!!

                          I was on the phone for an hour and a half (or more) with the retired FBI guy who is investigating George yesterday. WE WILL NOT DEBATE THE GEORGE SITUATION HERE!!!

                          HOWEVER, it was definitely interesting and enlightening to get first hand knowledge of these 'investigations'...

                          He is pleasant (or was to me at least) interested in the case, takes detailed notes and comes back to them as he needed.....but remember....he clearly has an agenda AND A JOB ASSIGNMENT!.

                          I BELIEVE he (or another 'investigator) has been fed some amazingly erroneous information. He also talked about the SS Center and their assignments and jobs.

                          MY TAKE AWAY.....we have a lot of work to so but there might be cracks in the woodwork!!!

                          JUST MY OPINION!!

                          PSSSS...no discussing any specific case or people please.
                          So, Ms Khobstetter, I can't help but notice the difference in how you present yourself to the people on your Safe Sport "Overhaul" page, and how you present yourself here. You are obviously capable of writing properly, so why the hysterical writing on your fundraising page?


                          I suggest that you tone down the !!!! and ODD CAPITALIZATIONS, use proper sentence structure and punctuation, and make some factual arguments that you have with Safe Sport, if you are really preparing materials to give to U.S. Representatives.

                          Why the marked difference in your manner of writing, I can only imagine.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                            I don’t see a major moral issue with using the term “alleged victim” during the time prior to a ruling of guilty or liable. It goes along with that presumption of innocence thing. Is using the term “alleged victim” in the time interval prior to a guilty ruling victim bashing now?

                            I would never suggest that you, personally, should “lighten up”.
                            The moral issue, as I read it, is that it is usually the victim that does the "self-alleging" here. And arguing that someone might be wrong about what happened to themselves is incredibly invalidating. It is also an unfortunate strategy that has long been part of the defense's tool box-- "she said 'no', but she meant 'yes'"-- etc. Can we just stop doing that with victims of sex crimes, please? The strategy is no longer morally acceptable.
                            The armchair saddler
                            Politically Pro-Cat

                            Comment


                            • A quick question for those of you who think you can take the political temperature to things right now:

                              Do you think there is an appetite at this moment for Congress to get on board with making sure that those investigated and banned by an organization like SafeSport get some better process? I just don't know how much pay-off there is to standing on the opposite side of an organization founded to stop the likes of Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky.

                              What do you all think?
                              The armchair saddler
                              Politically Pro-Cat

                              Comment


                              • Maybe the ISWG people can go to Congress & picket with the ISWL people (I stand with Larry Nassar) That would catch people’s attention.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by mvp View Post
                                  A quick question for those of you who think you can take the political temperature to things right now:

                                  Do you think there is an appetite at this moment for Congress to get on board with making sure that those investigated and banned by an organization like SafeSport get some better process? I just don't know how much pay-off there is to standing on the opposite side of an organization founded to stop the likes of Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky.

                                  What do you all think?
                                  No way. Even if it caught on with a few members of Congress at an extreme end of the political spectrum... Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and McConnell the Senate Majority Leader. Both have been around long enough to know what political suicide looks like when they see it.

                                  As for the Commander in Chief... he is nothing if not capricious. However... he did sign this into law. So it’s unlikely it’s going to get amended during the 2020 cycle.

                                  It seems far more likely it will be challenged via the courts. On narrow grounds. And that is a long, long process. Could take a few years for a challenge to make its way through the process. GM is in his 80’s... his specific case is what it is, and I am still of the opinion that it is NOT the best case to use to try and overturn Safe Sport. And regardless of wealthy benefactors (I think that issue is a bit overblown with him)... it’s not wise for someone in their 80’s to spend a great deal on a long shot civil suit trying to overturn a law intended to prevent sexual abuse of minors in sport.

                                  I’m not saying that there aren’t some valid points to be made about concerns over the Safe Sport process... but the ISWG people are living in an alternate reality.
                                  Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Aug. 26, 2019, 10:56 AM. Reason: typo

                                  Comment


                                  • WARNING: Long essay ahead.

                                    I think it is interesting that Kathy, one of the few horse professionals who has actually held a job somewhat outside the horse industry, is so vocal against what amounts to a Human Resources Disciplinary
                                    Panel.

                                    SafeSport is not a criminal court -- it does not and cannot impinge upon consitutional liberties. Those found in non-compliance with the Code of Conduct do not go to jail. They are not on parole. They are free to move about, to vote, to own a gun, and so on.

                                    It's not a civil court -- SafeSport does not award monetary compensation to victims.

                                    It is, however, similar in many ways to the HR department of any large corporation. Let's call the corporation the United States Olympic Committee, and the NGBs are operational divisions within the larger corporation. The athletes and coaches are the 'employees' within the operational divisions that make up the corporation.

                                    At any corporation, there are codes of conduct all employees--from the mailroom to the boardroom--must adhere to, or face consequences. A minor infraction will usually result in a warning from the direct manager, and the consequences escalate if the offense is repeated. So if Joe tells an inappropriate joke in the lunchroom, he gets a verbal warning rom his supervisor (who may also involve HR). If he tells another, he gets a written warning from his supervisor and HR and sent to sensitivity training. A third might get him a 'last chance' written warning. The fourth time he tells a salty joke he may well find himself pounding the pavement with his resume in his hand.

                                    It doesn't matter if Joe is THE BEST employee in all other ways. He failed to uphold the code of conduct, so he is out.

                                    At Acme Widgets Corporation, Sam the National Sales Manager comes up behind Jenny, makes a lewd pass at her and smacks her on the bum. Jenny is distraught, and goes immediately to her manager. Now, back in the day, Sam might've got a warning, or Jenny might have been told to 'suck it up buttercup.'

                                    No more.

                                    Today, Jenny is told by her manager to go straight to HR. She tells them what happened. Sam is called in to face HR. He is put on administrative leave ASAP, and since his role is almost entirely commission based, that means he does not earn any money. HR interviews Jenny, Sam, other employees on the team, the managers, a customer who was in the office that day, even the guy who was restocking the vending machines. IT is pulled in to review all of Sam's email, his browser history, the call and text records on his company phone. All his expenses are audited.

                                    After gathering all this evidence, HR informs Sam that he is terminated with cause. They remind him that he agreed to abide by the code of conduct when he signed his contract. He will not receive a severance package. He will not receive a reference. This means he will struggle to find employment at the same level in a different corporation.

                                    Sam chooses to hire an lawyer and sue for wrongful dismissal (if his jurisdiction makes that worth pursuing). During that case, the lawyers for Acme Widgets Corporation not only present the evidence they used to terminate with cause. They contact every single solitary company Sam has ever worked for to find out what, if any, discipline was on his file there. Lo and behold, this is his second or third time he has behaved in an inapproprite manner by getting 'handsy' with female coworkers. In the worst case, he coerced sex from an intern, telling her he'd be sure she got a full time job on his team when she graduated. The other corporations paid him off to leave and swept the incidents under the rug. Only Acme Widgets had the backbone to stand up for the victim. They not only win the court case, they bring ALL of Sam's past transgressions to light as well.

                                    So now Sam has lost his job and his income. He has incurred legal fees. His name is MUD in the widget industry. No one will hire him. No one will buy from him.

                                    Do you feel sorry for him?

                                    Stop and ask yourself. Think hard. Do you feel sorry for Sam?

                                    Would you take his side if he got on social media and whined all over the place? Screamed about 'due process' and 'guilty until proven innocent' and 'constitutional rights'?

                                    Would you, as his friend, start petitions? Solicit funds to create pamphlets? Start a Go Fund Me so you could fly all over the country to talk with the shareholders of Acme Widgets?

                                    Would you rail against Acme Widgets and its HR department online, spreading falsehoods? Take the word of a misinformed copyright lawyer with an agenda over that of an employment lawyer?

                                    Would you continue to support him when other people known to sexually exploit, lie, cheat, and steal join in his fight? Even convicted rapists? Would you?

                                    Because if Acme Widgets is the USOC, USEF is the sales department and SafeSport is the HR department (and those elected representatives the Overhul group wants to speak with are the shareholders), that is precisely what the ISWG and Overhul groups are doing. They are standing with Sam. They are believing the words of a lawyer with no expertise in this area of the law. They are allowing convicted rapists and child molesters to have a voice renouncing a law that was put in place precisely to silence those MOFOs.

                                    Or would you tell Sam he's darned lucky to not be in jail? To count his lucky f***ing stars, shape up his behavior and find gainful employment in another field?

                                    Jenny represents all the nameless and faceless victims -- many, many of them minors -- who have fallen to Sam, who represents all those with a lifetime ban from SafeSport. They've lost their jobs, not their liberties. They need to shape up their behavior and find gainful employment in another field.

                                    It is NOT the fault of the victims that these individuals have no other employable skills. That is the fault of the so-called professionals who have failed to be professional. They have failed to abide by the code of conduct they agreed to when they became members of USEF. They have been terminated with cause.

                                    We are sad that Sam is not the upstanding guy we thought he was, but we accept the fact that he lost his job. And we're in various degrees of shock, outrage and disgust that Sam's friends are actually not just accepting but encouraging convicted criminals in their fight against SafeSport. They aren't even making cogent suggestions for improving the HR policies and procedures at Acme Widgets. If they were at least doing that, it would be worth listening to; in the meantime, clean house within your advocacy group.

                                    There's a saying here on COTH that dates back many moons: "When someone shows you who they really are, believe them."

                                    We see you. We believe you. We aren't happy.

                                    Comment


                                    • Personally I didn't see anything wrong with the "alleged victim", isn't that just the verbage they use in court ("alleged victim", "accused", "alleged shooter", etc) until the final judgement is made? Not a law person at all, but I always understood that to just be the term they are required to use. Like, Michael Barisone shot that LK chick, but he is still called "alleged shooter" even though it's not uncertain that he shot her. It's not uncertain that the victim is actually a victim.


                                      Also, on the subject of equestrian clothes being "sexy": I don't think the little kids stuff is at all, but anyone who says equestrian breeches aren't sexualized hasn't seen the tons of teen girls on IG posing in their breeches with their butts stuck out to the camera to make it look big. Like, it can be quite excessive. Disclaimer: it's totally their right to wear whatever they want and men still need to be held responsible for their actions, the girls aren't "asking for" anything, etc, etc. The gear IS made to be more athletic. Doesn't mean some of the younger girls aren't actively trying to make themselves look sexy in them (I just look like a lumpy potato, I wish I could look like that.)

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                                        Do you think there is an appetite at this moment for Congress to get on board with making sure that those investigated and banned by an organization like SafeSport get some better process? I just don't know how much pay-off there is to standing on the opposite side of an organization founded to stop the likes of Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky.

                                        What do you all think?
                                        Right now, Congress wouldn't touch this with the proverbial 10 ft pole. I don't think Congress will ever touch this and I think people are nuts if they think they can convince Congress to intervene.

                                        Given that other sports have, as far as I can tell, accepted SafeSport actions without huge meltdowns over the horrible unfairness of it all, I think the equestrian world's temper tantrums just make us look like we're all a bunch of entitled whiners who support a culture in which sexual misconduct with minors is deeply ingrained.

                                        "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                                        that's even remotely true."

                                        Homer Simpson

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                                          No way. Even if it caught on with a few members of Congress at an extreme end of the political spectrum... Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and McConnell the Senate Majority Leader. Both have been around long enough to know what political suicide looks like when they see it.

                                          As for the Commander in Chief... he is nothing if not capricious. However... he did sign this into law. So it’s unlikely it’s going to get amended during the 2020 cycle.

                                          It seems far more likely it will be challenged via the courts. On narrow grounds. And that is a long, long process. Could take a few years for a challenge to make its way through the process. GM is in his 80’s... his specific case is what it is, and I am still of the opinion that it is NOT the best case to use to try and overturn Safe Sport. And regardless of wealthy benefactors (I think that issue is a bit overblown with him)... it’s not wise for someone in their 80’s to spend a great deal on a long shot civil suit trying to overturn a law intended to prevent sexual abuse of minors in sport.

                                          I’m not saying that there aren’t some valid points to be made about concerns over the Safe Sport process... but the ISWG people are living in an alternate reality.
                                          I agree with you. It is a no-win political issue. Any developments are going to take place in the JAMS setting and (down the road) in civil courts.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X