Sport Horse Spotlight

Sir Donnerhall_02Beelitz

Real Estate Spotlight

97 Spring Lane (1)

Sale Spotlight

  • 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
No announcement yet.

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
    Another excellent post from DarkBayUnicorn, but I would add a point

    8} Get rid of all the Exclamation points in your presentation.
    WHAT??!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh wait. I did ask for RATIONAL, REASONED, EMOTION-FREE PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE. No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!s involved in that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mvp View Post

      My, but that's a broad and accusatory brush you'd tar me with!

      Note that I was speaking of the term "alleged victim." And what is the data on how many people present themselves as having been the victim of a sex crime versus those who came forward with those claims only to have them dismissed, one way or another?

      And I think it's a false dichotomy to assume that if I want credibility given to victims in the face of a history of their credibility having been badly undermined, you think I must automatically thing the inverse is true about accused perpetrators being automatically guilty.

      I don't write or think so coarsely. Check my posts on this thread to verify that claim. I don't deserve to be treated as if that were true.
      In the context of a judicial or other grievance procedure, such as the criminal justice system or SafeSport, dropping the modifier “alleged” and referring to the complainant or reporter as the (100% known for a fact) victim DOES imply that the respondent or defendant is guilty of being an abuser, rapist, etc. That is why the phrase “alleged victim” is necessary to have a discussion of the appropriate procedures to use to determine whether the accused is in fact an abuser.

      You were the one tarring Horsegirl’s Mom with a broad brush by saying she was morally suspect simply because she used the phrase “alleged victim” and not looking at the context in which she used it.

      Comment


      • DarkBayUnicorn, thank you for your excellent post on pg. 138.

        Frankly, I think what is so upsetting to the ISWG folks is that for years and years, there have been absolutely no repercussions in our industry for predators. None. In fact, horse show culture treated BNTs as if they were untouchable, and as if inappropriate relationships between them and their younger students were inevitable and excusable. Instances where people went to law enforcement were rare

        The old thinking was that smart parents somehow magically were supposed to know who they could leave their kids alone with and who they couldn't. And the kids belonging to trusting parents, or bad parents, poor parents, or worse yet, parents who were willing to pimp their child out to a BNT so they could brag about their child the "equestrian prodigy" were considered acceptable losses. In the end, the blame was always on the kids (it was "consensual," kid had a crush, was slutty) or the parents (irresponsible, naive), NEVER on the trainer.

        What we are facing now is a huge culture shift. Finally, trainers are being held responsible for their own actions--even if it is just by being kicked out of a sports club. It's a real shocker to people who have been getting away with stuff for decades. They have been getting away with it for so long that they, and others, think it is natural and their right to use their position of power and influence and the privacy of their own equestrian facility to have inappropriate relationships with young students.

        I am so thankful for Safe Sport for coming onto the scene and helping us, because it's obvious that there are a lot of influential people in our industry who consider their loyalties to BNTs more important than protecting minors from abuse. There's just no way the equestrian industry was ever going to be able to clean itself up from within.

        It's intensely disturbing to me that instead of simply standing by a friend or colleague that they believe is innocent, these people are trying to discredit and even tear down a much needed organization that exists to protect children from real life molestation and abuse.
        Last edited by BeeHoney; Aug. 26, 2019, 09:01 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

          In the context of a judicial or other grievance procedure, such as the criminal justice system or SafeSport, dropping the modifier “alleged” and referring to the complainant or reporter as the (100% known for a fact) victim DOES imply that the respondent or defendant is guilty of being an abuser, rapist, etc. That is why the phrase “alleged victim” is necessary to have a discussion of the appropriate procedures to use to determine whether the accused is in fact an abuser.

          You were the one tarring Horsegirl’s Mom with a broad brush by saying she was morally suspect simply because she used the phrase “alleged victim” and not looking at the context in which she used it.
          You’re not wrong but put it into context. No one, and certainly not Horsegirl’s Mom would care if it wasn’t GHM. If it was some middle of the road trainer they wouldn’t be trotting out statistics that when put in numerical form are minuscule at best.

          For decades all the legal protections were for the accused. It’s recent the law added protections for the victims. Forcing Safe Sport into a legal box be it criminal or civil is just dumb. Read and read again the epic post by DarkBayUnicorn.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

            You’re not wrong but put it into context. No one, and certainly not Horsegirl’s Mom would care if it wasn’t GHM. If it was some middle of the road trainer they wouldn’t be trotting out statistics that when put in numerical form are minuscule at best.
            Wow, this would be laughable if it were not so sad to see people resorting to unfounded accusations and personal attacks, rather than engaging on the interesting and difficult ethical questions that have been raised.

            I have said many times I am no defender of George Morris. If you search my prior posts here and in the Gage thread, I believe you will find at one point I speculated that he sounds like a sociopath. As a mom, I do not abide a teaching style that involves bullying and humiliating students.

            When we talk about SS procedures, we are not talking about GM in particular. SS needs to have procedures that are fair and effective for all types of claims, and all reporting parties and alleged perpetrators, that might come before it in the future.

            Honestly, I'm a little surprised I have to say that. Maybe someone in this conversation is only focused on GM, but it isn't me.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

              Wow, this would be laughable if it were not so sad to see people resorting to unfounded accusations and personal attacks, rather than engaging on the interesting and difficult ethical questions that have been raised.

              I have said many times I am no defender of George Morris. If you search my prior posts here and in the Gage thread, I believe you will find at one point I speculated that he sounds like a sociopath. As a mom, I do not abide a teaching style that involves bullying and humiliating students.

              When we talk about SS procedures, we are not talking about GM in particular. SS needs to have procedures that are fair and effective for all types of claims, and all reporting parties and alleged perpetrators, that might come before it in the future.

              Honestly, I'm a little surprised I have to say that. Maybe someone in this conversation is only focused on GM, but it isn't me.
              Except we see the policies for what they are and don’t try to fit them in some neat little box that involves the court system. Safe Sport has established a Human Resources department for sports. If you don’t like the rules and required conduct expected of the members, nor the disciplinary route that is taken if one violates the rules, don’t become a member. Easy Day. And yes before Rob Gage and George Morris there were a host of people convicted in court and not on that list and y’all were silent.

              Comment


              • You guys know there's a SS penalty for filing a false claim, right?
                Adversity is the stone on which I sharpen my blade.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                  You’re not wrong but put it into context. No one, and certainly not Horsegirl’s Mom would care if it wasn’t GHM. If it was some middle of the road trainer they wouldn’t be trotting out statistics that when put in numerical form are minuscule at best.

                  For decades all the legal protections were for the accused. It’s recent the law added protections for the victims. Forcing Safe Sport into a legal box be it criminal or civil is just dumb. Read and read again the epic post by DarkBayUnicorn.

                  I see nothing in Horsegirl’s Mom’s posts that suggest to me that her motivation is defending GHM or any other BNT. I read her posts as very legitimately trying to engage in a discussion of whether, how, and to what degree SafeSport procedures could or should be modified to provide better protection for the accused. She even alluded to designing a system based on the Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

                  Unless you know for a fact that 100% of the respondents are guilty, it is not only OK but it is necessary to refer to the reporter as the “alleged victim” instead of “victim”. We need a term that allows for the possibility that the alleged crime did not occur. Makes no difference at all if the probability of non occurrence is 1% or 6% or 50%. If the language of the legal procedure implies that it is known that the crime in fact occurred in the midst of the process which purports to determine whether the crime occurred, that is huge problem.

                  Suppose that you are so woke and sensitive to the plight of victims that you personally want a system designed to maximize the extent to which you succeed in getting rid of the bad guys. That’s all you care about.

                  Paradoxically, that goal is NOT achieved by rigging the system against the accused. If the balance of rights and protections of the accused vs rights of the accuser is struck at a position that favors the accuser “too strongly” by some metric, then there could, theoretically, be instances in which an innocent person is wrongly sanctioned. There could be cases, albeit rare, in which an innocent person actually is sanctioned. If the process is perceived as not providing enough protection to the accused, it loses credibility and legitimacy, and it cannot succeed in its mission of protecting the victims most of the time.

                  Personally, I am OK with the level of protection afforded respondents in the SafeSport process, although I don’t claim to understand it fully. For myself, as a private and possibly anonymous person, I think RG and GM are guilty as hell, to use the legal term.

                  For myself, I have provisionally decided to view the SafeSport process as a legitimate one, and view those who are banned as fairly determined to be guilty. But not everyone has.

                  If you want SafeSport to succeed, you should be engaging in discussions on whether SafeSport can or should improve protections for the accused, because by doing so SafeSport possibly could solidify its legitimacy further. Not among the ISWG crowd, but among the broader population.

                  Horsegirl’s Mom raised questions of fact on specific procedures. I’ve been diligent reading here, and don’t fully know the answers to them. They are legitimate questions. Asking them does not paint her a GM apologist. You were particularly out of line when dumping on her for using the word “alleged” in a specific context in which it was necessary.

                  ETA. Indeed, I have read the epic post by DarkBayUnicorn and endorsed it as strongly as I could.
                  I agree with everything both Horsegirl’s Mom and DarkBayUnicorn have posted. And don’t see any contradiction in that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RainWeasley View Post
                    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.
                    Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow to read that Lauren was an "alleged victim" of a shooting?

                    Of course you would. Same with "alleged victim" of any other crime - car theft, robbery, kidnapping. It implies doubt that we don't assign to any other crime, normally. It's only your word that you had $500 cash on your person, and if you did actually have it, that you didn't give it over willingly.

                    SafeSport uses the term "Claimant" which I think is carefully chosen and very neutral and all-purpose.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


                      I see nothing in Horsegirl’s Mom’s posts that suggest to me that her motivation is defending GHM or any other BNT. I read her posts as very legitimately trying to engage in a discussion of whether, how, and to what degree SafeSport procedures could or should be modified to provide better protection for the accused. She even alluded to designing a system based on the Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

                      Unless you know for a fact that 100% of the respondents are guilty, it is not only OK but it is necessary to refer to the reporter as the “alleged victim” instead of “victim”. We need a term that allows for the possibility that the alleged crime did not occur. Makes no difference at all if the probability of non occurrence is 1% or 6% or 50%. If the language of the legal procedure implies that it is known that the crime in fact occurred in the midst of the process which purports to determine whether the crime occurred, that is huge problem.

                      Suppose that you are so woke and sensitive to the plight of victims that you personally want a system designed to maximize the extent to which you succeed in getting rid of the bad guys. That’s all you care about.

                      Paradoxically, that goal is NOT achieved by rigging the system against the accused. If the balance of rights and protections of the accused vs rights of the accuser is struck at a position that favors the accuser “too strongly” by some metric, then there could, theoretically, be instances in which an innocent person is wrongly sanctioned. There could be cases, albeit rare, in which an innocent person actually is sanctioned. If the process is perceived as not providing enough protection to the accused, it loses credibility and legitimacy, and it cannot succeed in its mission of protecting the victims most of the time.

                      Personally, I am OK with the level of protection afforded respondents in the SafeSport process, although I don’t claim to understand it fully. For myself, as a private and possibly anonymous person, I think RG and GM are guilty as hell, to use the legal term.

                      For myself, I have provisionally decided to view the SafeSport process as a legitimate one, and view those who are banned as fairly determined to be guilty. It not everyone has.

                      If you want SafeSport to succeed, you should be engaging in discussions on whether SafeSport can or should improve protections for the accused, because by doing so SafeSport possibly could solidify its legitimacy further. Not among the ISWG crowd, but among the broader population.

                      Horsegirl’s Mom raised questions of fact on specific procedures. I’ve been diligent reading here, and don’t fully know the answers to them. They are legitimate questions. Asking them does not paint her a GM apologist. You were particularly out of line when dumping on her for using the word “alleged” in a specific context in which it was necessary.
                      My big point and I should have left it at that was, protections for victims in the legal system are new relatively speaking. That is why I raise an eyebrow at those posts. Protections for the accused are much older. Again, protections for the victims are new, and I do not like when people try to turn back the clock nor do I like when people try to make SS into something it’s not. Also, he’s already been found guilty or whatever word you want to use. I’m also willing to bet that when people get the notice of being accused, they can and do send in any information that exonerate them.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post
                        And you may know that the Innocence Project has exonerated dozens and dozens of men falsely convicted of rape. I suppose you think that is some kind of scam too? Those men must have really done it since they were accused?
                        True for robbery and murder too. Even arson. Usually the Innocence Project is a matter of confirming that the wrong person was arrested, not that the victim fraudulently made up being dead.

                        For what it's worth, it's estimated that 2% of all crime reports are false across all felonies, and that sexual assault has about the same rate as those other crimes.
                        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


                        • Also for people who bring up what if it was your son.... well teach your sons not to put themselves in situations where this might happen and teach them that no means no. Teach them that rape and sexual assault is bad.

                          That doesn’t sound too good does it? Well that’s what women have been told for years... “you put yourself in that situation, you were drinking, you were wearing a skirt.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                            SS needs to have procedures that are fair and effective for all types of claims, and all reporting parties and alleged perpetrators, that might come before it in the future.

                            My problem with this is that I have yet to see anyone come on here and actually identify the specific SS procedures that are unfair and ineffective or propose specific reasonable changes in procedures that would be more fair and effective without crippling the organization. No one has made a cogent argument that does this.

                            The near-universal themes of those complaining about SS and calling for "improvements" in the process have been:

                            1. A litany of complaints that aren't true (e.g. the accused doesn't get a chance to defend himself or have his own witnesses until after he has been sanctioned by SS, which anyone who bothers to read the SS procedures can plainly see isn't correct); and/or

                            2. A demand that SS operate under the rules and restrictions of the legal system, when SS was explicitly created as an extra-judicial process and intended to operate outside the existing criminal/civil justice system.

                            If you (generic) want to convince me to support your position, you're going to have to come up with better arguments.
                            "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                            that's even remotely true."

                            Homer Simpson

                            Comment


                            • Yankee Duchess, I am awed and exhilarated by your posts. I will be the first to admit that I can't match your level of reasoning and writing ability, but I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.

                              For those who think enhanced procedures would favor abusers over victims: We should all be very concerned over the Lopez case (as reported in the press). That appears to be a case where a guilty party went free (so to speak) because SS did not meet the preponderance standard when it got to arbitration.

                              It is legitimate to ask: What flaw, if any, in SS's processes contributed to this result? The news articles indicate that SS was unable to get any witnesses to come and testify against Lopez. As you know, I have raised a concern about the lack of subpoena power in SS arbitration for exactly this reason: there is no way to get key witnesses to come and testify, unless they volunteer to do so out of the goodness of their heart!

                              So this appears to be a case where SS's "abridged" procedures came back to bite it in the butt.

                              Fair procedures do not only protect the accused. They also protect victims by ensuring that the truth comes out and the guilty are punished.

                              Comment


                              • For me, these two statements seem at odds with one another. But that is just me. Perhaps you could elaborate.

                                Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                                I’m fine with still presuming GM innocent until he loses the appeal.
                                Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                                For myself, as a private and possibly anonymous person, I think RG and GM are guilty as hell, to use the legal term.
                                ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                  Except we see the policies for what they are and don’t try to fit them in some neat little box that involves the court system. Safe Sport has established a Human Resources department for sports. If you don’t like the rules and required conduct expected of the members, nor the disciplinary route that is taken if one violates the rules, don’t become a member. Easy Day. And yes before Rob Gage and George Morris there were a host of people convicted in court and not on that list and y’all were silent.
                                  I genuinely do not understand why you are dismissing Horsegirl’s Mom as some fellow traveler of the ISWG group.

                                  Nowhere did she sloppily say that SafeSport would never be legitimate unless it morphs into the criminal justice system. You are being intellectually sloppy in accusing her of doing so.

                                  While SafeSport is not, will never be, and should not be the criminal justice system, we should be discussing the possible relative merits of advocating some well defined specific changes that might move it incrementally in the direction of the standards of the criminal justice system.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                    I genuinely do not understand why you are dismissing Horsegirl’s Mom as some fellow traveler of the ISWG group.

                                    Nowhere did she sloppily say that SafeSport would never be legitimate unless it morphs into the criminal justice system. You are being intellectually sloppy in accusing her of doing so.

                                    While SafeSport is not, will never be, and should not be the criminal justice system, we should be discussing the possible relative merits of advocating some well defined specific changes that might move it incrementally in the direction of the standards of the criminal justice system.
                                    I didn’t accuse her of being sloppy. I just don’t agree with her. I personally don’t think the policies will be struck down or modified by a court. Also she just says it’s not exactly fair. Okay well how? What specifically is unfair? From words not a dippy flow chart to dumb down the literature.

                                    Also, I really want to know, has she asked TPTB? Or does she just like to pontificate on a BB?

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by HLMom View Post
                                      Yankee Duchess, I am awed and exhilarated by your posts. I will be the first to admit that I can't match your level of reasoning and writing ability, but I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.

                                      For those who think enhanced procedures would favor abusers over victims: We should all be very concerned over the Lopez case (as reported in the press). That appears to be a case where a guilty party went free (so to speak) because SS did not meet the preponderance standard when it got to arbitration.

                                      It is legitimate to ask: What flaw, if any, in SS's processes contributed to this result? The news articles indicate that SS was unable to get any witnesses to come and testify against Lopez. As you know, I have raised a concern about the lack of subpoena power in SS arbitration for exactly this reason: there is no way to get key witnesses to come and testify, unless they volunteer to do so out of the goodness of their heart!

                                      So this appears to be a case where SS's "abridged" procedures came back to bite it in the butt.

                                      Fair procedures do not only protect the accused. They also protect victims by ensuring that the truth comes out and the guilty are punished.
                                      You are completely misreading what happened in the Lopez case. It is not that SafeSport did not have that evidence during their investigation. It's that the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process under the timeline that was allotted, and under the conditions the arbitration panel set up.

                                      In part this is because during this process, the claimants were also pursuing a civil case against USA Taekwando for deliberately suppressing evidence. They have also sued SS and the US Olympic Committee IIRC.

                                      I cannot personally untangle all the pieces here to know how much was SafeSport being awkward in one of their first big cases, SafeSport intentionally throwing the case due to the lawsuits, claimants having a fair beef about being treated poorly, claimants unwilling to be in the room with the abuser, schedule issues, the arbitrators being stupid, etc. IE, there's some combination of stupid, incompetence, hurt feelings, and malice going through that case and I can't tell you which is predominant. The only thing I am sure of is that the Lopez brothers used their position to assault multiple women in their sport.
                                      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


                                      • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                                        It's that the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process under the timeline that was allotted, and under the conditions the arbitration panel set up.


                                        .
                                        I'm not misreading anything. That's exactly what I understand happened. As you state: the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process

                                        Giving the arbitrators the power to subpoena witnesses (which JAMS arbitrators routinely have in non-SafeSport arbitrations) would have prevented this problem. The claimant and any supporting witnesses would have been subpoenaed to testify.

                                        In a criminal case, do you think the prosecutor just hopes the alleged victim will show up to tell what happened? Of course not; the prosecutor subpoenas the victim and all supporting witnesses. (Yes, I was a deputy DA). Same thing happens in regular JAMS arbitrations; same thing happens in small claims cases.

                                        So I return to the question I raised many posts ago: shouldn't there be a mechanism to subpoena witnesses in a SS arbitration?

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                                          I'm not misreading anything. That's exactly what I understand happened. As you state: the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process

                                          Giving the arbitrators the power to subpoena witnesses (which JAMS arbitrators routinely have in non-SafeSport arbitrations) would have prevented this problem. The claimant and any supporting witnesses would have been subpoenaed to testify.

                                          In a criminal case, do you think the prosecutor just hopes the alleged victim will show up to tell what happened? Of course not; the prosecutor subpoenas the victim and all supporting witnesses. (Yes, I was a deputy DA). Same thing happens in regular JAMS arbitrations; same thing happens in small claims cases.

                                          So I return to the question I raised many posts ago: shouldn't there be a mechanism to subpoena witnesses in a SS arbitration?
                                          No people should not be forced to testify. No one’s freedom and constitutional rights are on the line. Safe Sport isn’t awarding punitive damages. ITS NOT A COURT.

                                          Subpoenas, discovery etc is a thing in the courts because of the ramifications to one’s liberties and constitutional rights. Safe Sport has no impact on that. Safe Sport can only say you can’t be a member of the NGB and compete at their events.

                                          Please stop equating not being able to be a USEF member and attend their horse shows with actual punishment that is handed out by the legal system.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X