Sport Horse Spotlight

Real Estate Spotlight

3255 Davidsonville Rd  Barns

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 oneequestrienne View Post

    You deposed someone as part as a Safesport investigation? REALLY? As someone who has actually dealt directly with Safesport and been part of an investigation, I am really curious. Did you depose a respondent or a claimant? At what point in the Safesport process did this occur? I am not asking for any identifying information at all. Are you claiming that depositions are part of the Safesport process?
    Perhaps I used an incorrect description. I did not depose anyone. I spent a half hour answering questions. Short of that I don't wish to reveal much else about my experience.
    www.midatlanticeq.com
    Mid-Atlantic Equitation Festival,Scholarships and College Fair
    November 11-13, 2016

    Comment


    • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

      Perhaps I used an incorrect description. I did not depose anyone. I spent a half hour answering questions. Short of that I don't wish to reveal much else about my experience.
      Half and hour answering questions and you don't want to reveal much else.... my first interview was 4 hours and people want all the gory details including my name and what occurred.

      Comment


      • Donated funds are used to pay for attorneys, lobbyists, and other resources required for the dedicated effort to reform amateur sports’ disciplinary processes as well as the current inequity in SafeSport policy and procedures.
        This does not lead me to believe it's just people that want to make sure an accused has access to representation. They are paying lobbyists, and dedicated to trying to reform the process which seems to have worked as intended. If they're on the list of donors for that, they're off the list of decent human beings.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post

          This does not lead me to believe it's just people that want to make sure an accused has access to representation. They are paying lobbyists, and dedicated to trying to reform the process which seems to have worked as intended. If they're on the list of donors for that, they're off the list of decent human beings.
          Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
          www.midatlanticeq.com
          Mid-Atlantic Equitation Festival,Scholarships and College Fair
          November 11-13, 2016

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

            Half and hour answering questions and you don't want to reveal much else.... my first interview was 4 hours and people want all the gory details including my name and what occurred.
            And your point is????
            www.midatlanticeq.com
            Mid-Atlantic Equitation Festival,Scholarships and College Fair
            November 11-13, 2016

            Comment


            • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

              Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
              So now we are back to the same question we've been at so many times


              What reforms of the process would you like to see?

              How will your reforms better address keeping predators away from young people than the current system?

              (because again, reform is a different goal than funding representation for accused persons within the system)

              I feel like these discussions are so slippery, and the only suitable solution for some people is that things just return to the status quo, but that just isn't going to happen.
              Let me apologize in advance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
                Have you read the site? I have no issue with anyone accused being able to defend themselves. Nobody in Safe Sport is denying anyone that opportunity. Please show me where anyone was told that they were accused and banned without investigation or the opportunity for appeal, because that doesn't seem to have happened.

                The issue I have with these people funding this "reform group" is that there hasn't even been a single suggestion of an improved process. The only thing they seem capable of is whining about due process for the accused and accusations of some kind of weaponized false reporting which there has also been no evidence that anyone has been banned due to a false report.

                Please point us to where the supporters of this group have made any viable suggestion for improvement of the process, or where it states that they are simply funding legal fees for these mythical falsely accused, indigent trainers that are being driven out of the industry by jealous competitors bringing malicious claims.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                  Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
                  With all due respect, I think the folks wanting reform of SafeSport have failed in a couple of senses.

                  1. They have not definitively distanced themselves from the less-noble I Stand With George folks, or others in the earlier Rob Gage or Jimmy Williams' scenarios who did everything from shame victims to trot out the "it was a different time" excuse, to "you all killed him," to cries for Due Process without knowing a whole lot about either the SafeSport process, nor anything offered by the justice system.... The list could get longer, but I'm sure you can see my point: It's hard to distinguish people who want their guy to remain well-respected, at all costs, from people who honest-to-God want to go to bat for victims past and future.


                  2. None of these folks has suggested any substantive reforms, nor engaged in a detailed and knowledgable discussion of the SafeSport process and where it goes wrong.

                  Because of this muddiness on both counts, I can't tell what peoples' motives are. Perhaps some day, when victims of sex crimes regularly get way more credit and help from people, from society and from institutions, I'll believe you when you say that "no one wants predators to not be addressed." But we aren't collectively there yet.

                  Speaking to your point about the accuseds' rights-- Those folks are given a chance to present their side of things in a SafeSport investigation, right?
                  The armchair saddler
                  Politically Pro-Cat

                  Comment


                  • Plus... no need to raise money for” the accused to have access to representation “, just call BN, she does it for free.

                    Comment


                    • What I think is most interesting, and no one seems to have really pointed it out (or caught on?), is that there are TWO equestrian-inspired groups going after SS and soliciting donations. Both need astronomical amounts of money for their goals, and yet they've chosen to split their donor base in two:

                      United Athletes = Safe Sport Overhaul FB Group = Kathy Hobstetter: [edit]

                      Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc = ISWG FB Group = Diane Carney: [edit]


                      I am not on any bandwagon that's going up against SS; I'm just befuddled that these people chose to make their cause more difficult to achieve, rather than come up with a plan to work together towards a common goal. Nor is anyone publicly addressing the fact that they have two competing entities occupying the space of one incredibly niche effort.

                      Typical horse industry people. We should not be allowed to run anything.
                      Last edited by Moderator 1; Dec. 7, 2019, 10:06 AM. Reason: GoFundMe links
                      EHJ | FB | #140 | watch | #insta

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                        Speaking to your point about the accuseds' rights-- Those folks are given a chance to present their side of things in a SafeSport investigation, right?
                        You are correct. Respondents are given the opportunity to give their side during the investigation as well as know the identity of those who reported them. For an investigation to move towards the point of sanctions, there must be named individuals who will stand by their statements with their name. It is part of the process as outlined by Safesport’s published policy. I also know this because I was a witness who remained anonymous in another case due to fear of repercussions. To be clear, there were multiple other witnesses who came forward and stood by their statements thus allowing their abuser to know their names. It’s a huge risk.

                        I am in awe of the victims who had the strength not to remain anonymous in any case. In my case and every other one. Safesport asked me a number of times to not be anonymous. I finally said that I would come forward if the case could not be successful without me. Fortunately for me, those other brave victims were enough. I was shocked by the disgusting public blowback and victim shaming which happened after the RG suicide, which continues to this day as others like GM are banned. My immediate response was to call Safesport and make my statement official.

                        Elitism certainly plays a part in the massive denial going on in H/J land but so does fear. Fear of wondering who will be the next one called out. They portray it as a “witch hunt” but the truth is that there are so many who know they could be next, not because they are innocent but because they know what they did and thought they got away with it.
                        Last edited by oneequestrienne; Dec. 6, 2019, 09:41 AM. Reason: Typo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by dags View Post
                          What I think is most interesting, and no one seems to have really pointed it out (or caught on?), is that there are TWO equestrian-inspired groups going after SS and soliciting donations. Both need astronomical amounts of money for their goals, and yet they've chosen to split their donor base in two:

                          United Athletes = Safe Sport Overhaul FB Group = Kathy Hobstetter: [edit]

                          Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc = ISWG FB Group = Diane Carney: [edit]


                          I am not on any bandwagon that's going up against SS; I'm just befuddled that these people chose to make their cause more difficult to achieve, rather than come up with a plan to work together towards a common goal. Nor is anyone publicly addressing the fact that they have two competing entities occupying the space of one incredibly niche effort.

                          Typical horse industry people. We should not be allowed to run anything.
                          It would be funny if it weren’t so sad and typical of the equestrian world. I’ve been trying to find a link between the two entities but I guess I’m not the only one who can’t find any. Another reason why they will fail.
                          Last edited by Moderator 1; Dec. 7, 2019, 10:07 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                            And your point is????
                            Take a deep breath. I was not attacking you.
                            My point was you had an opportunity to share your experience with a group of open-minded people who have shown to respond to those offering to educate them on something they have not had first-hand experience and you clammed up.
                            Why not share what your experience was like? Educated others on what the interview process was like. Did they tell you what the charge was? Did they mention names? Several people on this thread have also been through the interview process and have shared their experiences with SafeSport was like. It sounds like the system worked in the case which you were interviewed. Why not share that?
                            From the posts I have read from the people that want reform, they want transparency. They want to know the allegations, they want to know what the alleged abuse was so they can form their own opinion. You protected the person and the circumstances in the case in which you were questioned. Apparently you felt they were entitled to that privacy. So, guess what, we found some common ground.
                            I believe everyone should have assistance in their defense, however another untruth is that the victims have SafeSport as their lawyers and they do not pay a cent for representation. This is not true. The victims are witnesses not a party in the case. The case is SS against the Responding Party. The lawyer represents SafeSport not the Reporting Party/victim. The SS lawyer will tell you, and he told me more than once, he does not represent me; I can get my own attorney. He represents SS. As the Reporting Party, I am not privy to all the information in the case. I do not get representation in pre-hearing conferences. I do not get to see the witness list. I do not get to see the evidence. I do not get to see/read the final arbitration decision. Safesport does not share that information with the Reporting Party or the other witnesses they present.
                            Last edited by Keep it Simple; Dec. 6, 2019, 10:45 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                              I believe everyone should have assistance in their defense, however another untruth is that the victims have SafeSport as their lawyers and they do not pay a cent for representation. This is not true. The victims are witnesses not a party in the case. The case is SS against the Responding Party. The lawyer represent SafeSport not the Reporting Party/victim. The SS lawyer will tell you, and he told me more than once, he does not represent me; I can get my own attorney. He represents SS. As the Reporting Party, I am not privy to all the information in the case. I do not get representation in pre-hearing conferences. I do not get to see the witness list. I do not get to see the evidence. I do not get to see/read the final arbitration decision. Safesport does not share that information with the Reporting Party or the other witnesses they present.
                              Thank you for clarifying this. I also was never privy to other reporting party’s names or what they said. I knew who some might be but did not know who else was actually involved. Safesport did not tell me anything about other reporting parties.

                              It wasn’t until later that I heard personally from other victims who told me themselves that they had reported our abuser.
                              Last edited by oneequestrienne; Dec. 6, 2019, 10:43 AM. Reason: Added last sentence

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dags View Post
                                What I think is most interesting, and no one seems to have really pointed it out (or caught on?), is that there are TWO equestrian-inspired groups going after SS and soliciting donations. Both need astronomical amounts of money for their goals, and yet they've chosen to split their donor base in two:

                                United Athletes = Safe Sport Overhaul FB Group = Kathy Hobstetter: [edit]

                                Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc = ISWG FB Group = Diane Carney: [edit]


                                I am not on any bandwagon that's going up against SS; I'm just befuddled that these people chose to make their cause more difficult to achieve, rather than come up with a plan to work together towards a common goal. Nor is anyone publicly addressing the fact that they have two competing entities occupying the space of one incredibly niche effort.

                                Typical horse industry people. We should not be allowed to run anything.
                                Would these same ISWG people be so up in arms about "reforming" SafeSport if Joe Smith (random name here) with a 5-horse boarding stable and lesson program, who takes his students to MAYBE 3 AA-rated shows/year, was the banned party? Instead of high-profile icons like George, Tommy Serio, and, to a lesser extent, Rob Gage? Somehow I don't think they'd start a FB page called "I Stand With Joe". It's only the "cool kids" who get that kind of blind loyalty and support.

                                All of those groups need to kick Jim Giorgio out, btw. Even a loose association with a convicted pedophile does them no favors, and I can't believe they don't see that.
                                Last edited by Moderator 1; Dec. 7, 2019, 10:09 AM.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                                  Perhaps I used an incorrect description. I did not depose anyone. I spent a half hour answering questions. Short of that I don't wish to reveal much else about my experience.
                                  You don't have to say anything about the case if you don't want to. But if you had your deposition taken in a civil case, that means this was a court case and not a SafeSport process. It's really apples and oranges and not what that page referenced purports to be about. I am not pressing you to reveal details about your testimony but I do think it is worth reiterating that CIVIL LITIGATION is not coextensive/the same/necessarily related to the SAFESPORT proceeding. Apples and oranges (if that is indeed what you were involved with).
                                  ~Veronica
                                  "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                                  http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                                  Comment


                                  • Heard something today that offers a little more clarity, to me, anyway ...

                                    It's the difference between asking the accuser:

                                    "How did you come to be in a relationship with GM when you were so young?"
                                    vs. asking
                                    "What did GM do to encourage and develop this relationship with you when you were so young?"

                                    Even those skeptics / deniers who admit there was a relationship do not seem to want to ask the second question.

                                    That's a problem. Because it is the adult who has to take the responsibility for a relationship with a minor.

                                    An insistence on putting even part of the onus for the relationship onto the minor is a major gap in their discussion. A gap that they seem to have no intention of trying to bridge. That is stopping any meaningful reconciliation of the two sides, no matter what is done with SafeSport.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                                      Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
                                      what I fail to understand is all of this fund raising became to come about 1) after Bob Gage killed himself and 2) George Morris was initially banned. There was very. very little issue with Safe Sport until "big names" started being investigated and set down

                                      I am in full support of improving the process but at no point should the lobbying and fundraising take away or limit Safe Sports current practices.

                                      Those that have been found guilty and banned from the club by Safe Sport have all been thoroughly investigated and proven of actions by trained law enforcement professionals. It's sad that Bob Gage took the path to end his life that he did; but are we more sad for him having chosen that path or are we sad for all the victims he inappropriately touched and shared a bed with and equally upset with him for having done those dirty, sick deeds?

                                      Just as there is in everyday life, people are wrongly accused of things. It does not surprise me, nor will it ever, that people are wrongly accused within Safe Sport. But it is Safe Sport's job to sort through those and dismiss them accordingly. I think that they have done a pretty fair job in doing so thus far; have they not?

                                      What I have a problem with is donating money to a cause to help people fight the process because they have been "wrongly accused". So are you putting forth your hard earned money to potentially support a child molester who is lying through their teeth that "they didn't do it". Say said person gets found guilty have review of significant evidence. Could you sleep at night knowing your money went to the pocket of someone who inappropriately touched and slept with children for their own physical benefit?


                                      George Morris had the chance to appeal and stand before Safe Sport and provide his side of the story. And yet, Safe Sport upheld their decision given the evidence before them. We need to keep in mind that most of those fighting the bob Gauge and GM issue are fighting it because they believed their cases should be dismissed on the grounds that they performed such acts years ago. that type of rhetoric is about as sick and disturbing as the pedophile who committed the acts originally.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post
                                        Heard something today that offers a little more clarity, to me, anyway ...

                                        It's the difference between asking the accuser:

                                        "How did you come to be in a relationship with GM when you were so young?"
                                        vs. asking
                                        "What did GM do to encourage and develop this relationship with you when you were so young?"

                                        Even those skeptics / deniers who admit there was a relationship do not seem to want to ask the second question.

                                        That's a problem. Because it is the adult who has to take the responsibility for a relationship with a minor.

                                        An insistence on putting even part of the onus for the relationship onto the minor is a major gap in their discussion. A gap that they seem to have no intention of trying to bridge. That is stopping any meaningful reconciliation of the two sides, no matter what is done with SafeSport.
                                        Yup. As a parent, who is also a survivor of abuse, and consequently more watchful and skeptical and protective of my kids than many of my friends (not saying this to imply I’m a better mother... just acknowledging that I am vigilant/hyper vigilant because of my own experiences) I think of it on an even more basic level...

                                        If an adult teacher, or coach, or adult from our church, or next door neighbor, or even extended family member shows an intense interest in developing a one on one relationship with my child/tween/teenager (my kids aren’t quite teens yet)...

                                        I pause and think “What is that all about?”

                                        I am really tired of seeing articles and puff pieces everywhere talking about how important these adult - child relationships are, and how much they add to the kid’s lives. That may be true in certain cases... and the child was never exploited or abused by that adult. But when it comes to examples of kids and teens who WERE exploited or abused by adult coaches and mentors, the majority of those situations were in fact preceded by these unique, intense adult-child mentoring/super close relationships.

                                        At what point are we ready to decide that our sport and community at large is better off if we just support and encourage coaches to be good, professional coaches, and stop lionizing this extra special, extra curricular aspect of it all, which turns the coach into a mentor/close friend/confidant of the minor athlete? Because it’s really only one more step to go from that sort of relationship, to an emotionally and sexually inappropriate relationship.

                                        And yes... I am aware of the benefits of barn rat and working student positions. I think these positions and situations can continue... coaches should simply follow MAAP guidelines, and be professional. It’s not complicated. Coaches who choose not to, and who continue to have these intense, mentoring, extra close relationships with students? People really need to pause and ask themselves why an adult is doing that. Good professionals should be far too busy for that sort of thing, and should be primarily interested in spending free personal time related to friendships and romantic relationships with their own adult peers. Not minors who are also students.
                                        Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Dec. 6, 2019, 02:07 PM. Reason: typos

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Mara View Post

                                          Would these same ISWG people be so up in arms about "reforming" SafeSport if Joe Smith (random name here) with a 5-horse boarding stable and lesson program, who takes his students to MAYBE 3 AA-rated shows/year, was the banned party? Instead of high-profile icons like George, Tommy Serio, and, to a lesser extent, Rob Gage? Somehow I don't think they'd start a FB page called "I Stand With Joe". It's only the "cool kids" who get that kind of blind loyalty and support.
                                          I think the ISWG movement is a way to feel that one is somehow nobly and effectively connected to the elite of the sport, perhaps for the first time . A no-name trainer wouldn't get passing notice.
                                          The armchair saddler
                                          Politically Pro-Cat

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X