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 TheMoo View Post

    Agreed. However I doubt the circuit would get much traction. I mean how many people said they wouldn’t renew and drop their membership? Bet they are all at WEF.

    It would be nice if they actually acted on their convictions rather than solicit money on falsehoods. Diane Carney had an opportunity to test the aiding and abetting clause yet she didn’t. For all the shrieking they don’t have the balls to challenge the law they deem “unconstitutional.”

    Then there is DM making an honest attempt to wax philosophical about his BFF but it’s mostly incoherent ramblings of someone with the emotional maturity of a five year old. He actually told Fair Judy she doesn’t know what she’s talking about when Ward got brought up on the FB thread. He knows better because his aunt rode with Ward.

    And last we have Packy telling us we should all wish we had a lawyer like BN. Uh no. I prefer my attorneys to actually KNOW the law and not have over the top emotional reactions instead.

    It’s just ridiculous and they really need their own sand box.
    Excellent post. I just went back and saw Duncan’s latest and greatest words of wisdom on social media, and I feel it is entirely fair and appropriate to copy and paste his public comment, and share it here so that people can judge his words for themselves.

    I agree about the assessment that he has the emotional maturity of a 5 year old for what it’s worth. Others have made the astute observation that he is behaving like a blow hard who seems to be all about puffery, and talking about who he knows and is somehow theoretically closely associated with, and is essentially using the current moment in our sport with Safe Sport and some of these prominent situations involving big names to grab a bit of attention for... himself. He’s quite impressed with himself.

    I wholeheartedly agree with that as well.

    As I have said on a different thread... I’m much more impressed with his wife than him, and he should zip it, stat, and just focus on being supportive of her given all she personally has been through. instead of playing some role as some sort of bizarro philosopher/restorative justice expert and trying to educate others.

    Anyway... here’s the comment. And in an ironic twist that you can’t make up, he mentions the Scarlett letter and gulags.

    “**** **** you don’t know him as well as I do. And I’m not sure if you’ve read his book? He was a teammate with my aunt. And there is something about being gay from the time period that he came from that requires incredible bravery. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t abuse power dynamics because I’m sure there were, but if you were to ask whether he continued to abuse power dynamics? That’s what restorative justice is about.

    It’s not shocking that we would have the attitudes we do that if someone ever did something wrong then they have to wear a brand. We are the nation of the scarlet letter. But we also are the nation that somehow has created the highest population of prisoners since the Gulag. Food for thought.”
    Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Dec. 13, 2019, 01:28 PM. Reason: edited out unnecessary tags.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Mara View Post
      I'm as avid a reader as anyone here, but can we take the literature discussion to Off Topic? Now that we're clear on Lolita and Humbert?
      Mara can speak for herself, obviously, but speaking for myself, I tend to enjoy the tangents.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

        Excellent post. I just went back and saw Duncan’s latest and greatest words of wisdom on social media, and I feel it is entirely fair and appropriate to copy and paste his public comment, and share it here so that people can judge his words for themselves.

        I agree about the assessment that he has the emotional maturity of a 5 year old for what it’s worth. Others have made the astute observation that he is behaving like a blow hard who seems to be all about puffery, and talking about who he knows and is somehow theoretically closely associated with, and is essentially using the current moment in our sport with Safe Sport and some of these prominent situations involving big names to grab a bit of attention for... himself. He’s quite impressed with himself.

        I wholeheartedly agree with that as well.

        As I have said on a different thread... I’m much more impressed with his wife than him, and he should zip it, stat, and just focus on being supportive of her given all she personally has been through. instead of playing some role as some sort of bizarro philosopher/restorative justice expert and trying to educate others.

        Anyway... here’s the comment. And in an ironic twist that you can’t make up, he mentions the Scarlett letter and gulags.

        “Sarah Pair you don’t know him as well as I do. And I’m not sure if you’ve read his book? He was a teammate with my aunt. And there is something about being gay from the time period that he came from that requires incredible bravery. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t abuse power dynamics because I’m sure there were, but if you were to ask whether he continued to abuse power dynamics? That’s what restorative justice is about.

        It’s not shocking that we would have the attitudes we do that if someone ever did something wrong then they have to wear a brand. We are the nation of the scarlet letter. But we also are the nation that somehow has created the highest population of prisoners since the Gulag. Food for thought.”
        Duncan's comment speaks to exactly the intersectional crisis I said months ago was coming for people like Dover, and obviously duncan:

        These guys ostensibly believe they're defending a gay man from homophobia, but really they're defending a pedophile who happened to prefer boys, thus perpetuating the worst homophobic stereotype of all.
        Let me apologize in advance.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

          Excellent post. I just went back and saw Duncan’s latest and greatest words of wisdom on social media, and I feel it is entirely fair and appropriate to copy and paste his public comment, and share it here so that people can judge his words for themselves.

          I agree about the assessment that he has the emotional maturity of a 5 year old for what it’s worth. Others have made the astute observation that he is behaving like a blow hard who seems to be all about puffery, and talking about who he knows and is somehow theoretically closely associated with, and is essentially using the current moment in our sport with Safe Sport and some of these prominent situations involving big names to grab a bit of attention for... himself. He’s quite impressed with himself.

          I wholeheartedly agree with that as well.

          As I have said on a different thread... I’m much more impressed with his wife than him, and he should zip it, stat, and just focus on being supportive of her given all she personally has been through. instead of playing some role as some sort of bizarro philosopher/restorative justice expert and trying to educate others.

          Anyway... here’s the comment. And in an ironic twist that you can’t make up, he mentions the Scarlett letter and gulags.

          “Sarah Pair you don’t know him as well as I do. And I’m not sure if you’ve read his book? He was a teammate with my aunt. And there is something about being gay from the time period that he came from that requires incredible bravery. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t abuse power dynamics because I’m sure there were, but if you were to ask whether he continued to abuse power dynamics? That’s what restorative justice is about.

          It’s not shocking that we would have the attitudes we do that if someone ever did something wrong then they have to wear a brand. We are the nation of the scarlet letter. But we also are the nation that somehow has created the highest population of prisoners since the Gulag. Food for thought.”
          I did see his post, oddly and solely because I changed my Facebook presence to Sarah pair simply because I wasn’t comfortable with unfriending 150 people. Facebook became to triggering for me and now all the people I blocked under Sarah Hochschwender are visible again.😎 I have no problem with Duncan’s comments although it is telling that he immediately backed up when I revealed to him that I am Sarah Hochschwender. I have given
          him my phone number to contact me. Sadly, I learned some time ago not to have in-depth private conversations in private messaging. I do hope he contacts me. I believe in restorative justice, the trigger for Duncan was when I asked him if he really thought George was interested in participating in that process.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
            I found the constitutional rights brought up in one of the questions to Mr Henry (if I remember the name from the Safe Sport Q&A) hysterical. Nobody has a "constitutional right" to be a part of a USEF. I wonder if explaining that nobody has a "constitutional right" to belong to an association or retain their employment in a business when they have been found to have committed a misconduct of the association or businesses rules will be part of what the communications firm will address.
            They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

            What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

            Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

            There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.

            Comment


              Yeah some of these guys haven't gotten the news flash that you can be straight, gay, or bi with consenting adults, but when you start molesting and penetrating the kids, you need to go.

              Comment


                Originally posted by fair judy View Post

                I did see his post, oddly and solely because I changed my Facebook presence to Sarah pair simply because I wasn’t comfortable with unfriending 150 people. Facebook became to triggering for me and now all the people I blocked under Sarah Hochschwender are visible again.😎 I have no problem with Duncan’s comments although it is telling that he immediately backed up when I revealed to him that I am Sarah Hochschwender. I have given
                him my phone number to contact me. Sadly, I learned some time ago not to have in-depth private conversations in private messaging. I do hope he contacts me. I believe in restorative justice, the trigger for Duncan was when I asked him if he really thought George was interested in participating in that process.
                Judy - I want to apologize that in my 1st post, I unintentionally copied in your Facebook name. I went back and edited.

                You’ve been very strong and forthright on both social media outlets (FB and these forums) But I feel terribly if I end up causing you to experience more harassment from dummies. You don’t deserve it

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
                  Yeah some of these guys haven't gotten the news flash that you can be straight, gay, or bi with consenting adults, but when you start molesting and penetrating the kids, you need to go.
                  I honestly think that’s their own bias.

                  Fair Judy you are one strong lady. And more power to you for willing to have a conversation. I personally couldn’t as the thoughts are rambling at best, incoherent at worst. Maybe he’s a better conversationalist than writer.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                    They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

                    What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

                    Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

                    There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.
                    Agreed. It became clear that the willfully ignorant were out in force at the Q&A. Especially when Ms. "I had heard there's a fee" wouldn't let that go.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post

                      Agreed. It became clear that the willfully ignorant were out in force at the Q&A. Especially when Ms. "I had heard there's a fee" wouldn't let that go.
                      And Bonnie is STILL pushing the idea that there is a fee. She said, there wasn't a fee to start an investigation, but once someone was banned, there was a fee to determine if you should get temporary measures. No, if your are banned, you've already gotten temporary measures. If you want to be taken off temporary measures, you have to go to arbitration, for which there is a fee. If you want to fight your ruling, it is done through arbitration, for which you have to pay.

                      Why do people think these things should be free? If you face civil charges, you pay for everything to defend yourself.
                      *****
                      You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by fair judy View Post

                        I did see his post, oddly and solely because I changed my Facebook presence to Sarah pair simply because I wasn’t comfortable with unfriending 150 people. Facebook became to triggering for me and now all the people I blocked under Sarah Hochschwender are visible again.😎 I have no problem with Duncan’s comments although it is telling that he immediately backed up when I revealed to him that I am Sarah Hochschwender. I have given
                        him my phone number to contact me. Sadly, I learned some time ago not to have in-depth private conversations in private messaging. I do hope he contacts me. I believe in restorative justice, the trigger for Duncan was when I asked him if he really thought George was interested in participating in that process.
                        The day George Morris sincerely and genuinely admits that what he did was wrong will be the day I grow a second, third, and fourth head.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                          Duncan's comment speaks to exactly the intersectional crisis I said months ago was coming for people like Dover, and obviously duncan:

                          These guys ostensibly believe they're defending a gay man from homophobia, but really they're defending a pedophile who happened to prefer boys, thus perpetuating the worst homophobic stereotype of all.
                          I IMMEDIATELY thought of your earlier comment on the intersectional crisis.

                          You were so on point with that. And here it is ... again.

                          In my opinion, he’s doing the same thing he has been doing all along... he’s trying to portray himself as some sort of super smart, super enlightened, philosophical and cultural leader.

                          And of course, he’s also trying to cozy up to the powerful old guard in sport. Like so many others in the ISWG crowd. Because these people are all about using a crisis in sport involving a revered coach and Olympian who has been banned for the sexual abuse of minors to....

                          wait for it....

                          advance their own profile as a professional in the industry.

                          In another comment, he mentioned actually working with Jonathan years ago, and essentially said that he thought the relationship was consensual.

                          For everyone who has forgotten, JS went to ride with George and live at Hunterdon back in 1968, I think. He was 13 or 14 years old at the time. And an emotionally vulnerable teen, as his father had passed away at age 6.

                          JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. Pause on the issue of possession of child pornography, discovered years and years later. Just think about a young teenage boy, from a middle class background, whose father had died, and who was living with a coach and had dreams of making it as a professional in the sport.

                          Its awful. And really sad. And these people excusing it? Whitewashing it? Awful. Just AWFUL.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                            They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

                            What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

                            Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

                            There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.
                            They also conveniently (for them) overlook the fact that your constitutional rights do not prevent you being held in jail until your fair trial, should the judge decide it's necessary. They only need look as far as Michael Barisone for an example.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                              They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

                              What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

                              Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

                              There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.
                              I think what's happening is that both sides are conflating two concepts:

                              1. True "Constitutional rights" that would create a right of action in court; and

                              2. The intuition that any large body that has a substantial impact on people's lives and livelihoods should function according to certain norms of procedural and substantive fairness (sometimes short-handed as "due process.")

                              The latter is why, for example, a huge contingent of Harvard Law School professors rebelled when the university instituted a sexual misconduct adjudication policy that they felt leaned too far toward the rights of the accuser and did not allow the accused a fair chance to mount a defense. NB: Harvard Law is a private institution and no one has a "Constitutional right" to attend.

                              I hope that most horse people, recognizing the huge impact that USEF can have on people's lives and livelihoods, would also embrace the value of fundamental fairness in SafeSport's procedures.

                              I will say that the presence in SafeSport of so many criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors, and judges (i.e., the JAMS folks) gives me confidence that they have a very good understanding of due process and are unlikely to allow an accused person to be railroaded.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                                I IMMEDIATELY thought of your earlier comment on the intersectional crisis.

                                You were so on point with that. And here it is ... again.

                                In my opinion, he’s doing the same thing he has been doing all along... he’s trying to portray himself as some sort of super smart, super enlightened, philosophical and cultural leader.

                                And of course, he’s also trying to cozy up to the powerful old guard in sport. Like so many others in the ISWG crowd. Because these people are all about using a crisis in sport involving a revered coach and Olympian who has been banned for the sexual abuse of minors to....

                                wait for it....

                                advance their own profile file as a professional in the industry.

                                In another comment, he mentioned actually working with Jonathan years ago, and essentially said that he thought the relationship was consensual.

                                For everyone who has forgotten, JS went to ride with George and live at Hunterdon back in 1968, I think. He was 13 or 14 years old st the time. And an emotionally vulnerable teen, as his father had passed away at age 6.

                                JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. Pause on the issue of possession of child pornography, discovered years and years later. Just think about a young teenage boy, from a middle class background, whose father had died, and who was living with a coach and had dreams of making it as a professional in the sport.

                                Its awful. And really sad. And these people excusing it? Whitewashing it? Awful. Just AWFUL.
                                In all fairness this is coming from someone who believes his 10 year old daughter can make her own choices about having sexual contact with an adult and she has to live with those choices. He also believes that one is ONLY a victim if they choose to remain quiet about abuse. If nothing else, he’s consistent.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Midge View Post

                                  And Bonnie is STILL pushing the idea that there is a fee. She said, there wasn't a fee to start an investigation, but once someone was banned, there was a fee to determine if you should get temporary measures. No, if your are banned, you've already gotten temporary measures. If you want to be taken off temporary measures, you have to go to arbitration, for which there is a fee. If you want to fight your ruling, it is done through arbitration, for which you have to pay.

                                  Why do people think these things should be free? If you face civil charges, you pay for everything to defend yourself.
                                  Apparently there are some fees. If you are on an interim suspension while the investigation is going on (which is very rare), you can pay a fee to have arbitration of the interim suspension; if you want to appeal the final sanction, you pay a fee for the arbitration.

                                  So there are fees. I am all for the ISWG types donating their own money to pay these fees and pay for lawyers to defend their friends. Since SS issues interim suspensions in only 2% of cases, and only 1% of sanctions are overturned (which suggests that the vast majority of those sanctioned will wise up and not waste money on an appeal), it’s probably not even a lot of money involved. If funding the defense of the accused were a moral issue, you would think these funds would appear for all the accused, not just for the famous people like GM.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                    I think what's happening is that both sides are conflating two concepts:

                                    1. True "Constitutional rights" that would create a right of action in court; and

                                    2. The intuition that any large body that has a substantial impact on people's lives and livelihoods should function according to certain norms of procedural and substantive fairness (sometimes short-handed as "due process.")

                                    The latter is why, for example, a huge contingent of Harvard Law School professors rebelled when the university instituted a sexual misconduct adjudication policy that they felt leaned too far toward the rights of the accuser and did not allow the accused a fair chance to mount a defense. NB: Harvard Law is a private institution and no one has a "Constitutional right" to attend.

                                    I hope that most horse people, recognizing the huge impact that USEF can have on people's lives and livelihoods, would also embrace the value of fundamental fairness in SafeSport's procedures.

                                    I will say that the presence in SafeSport of so many criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors, and judges (i.e., the JAMS folks) gives me confidence that they have a very good understanding of due process and are unlikely to allow an accused person to be railroaded.
                                    Comparing a power imbalance among adults for grades, letters of recommendation, a law clerk position or just plain fraternization is widely different than penetrating and molesting kids.

                                    Yes having sex with kids ruins ones ability to make money in their chosen field. That is not unique to the USEF. I’m appalled that people find all of this revolutionary.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                                      Comparing a power imbalance among adults for grades, letters of recommendation, a law clerk position or just plain fraternization is widely different than penetrating and molesting kids.

                                      Yes having sex with kids ruins ones ability to make money in their chosen field. That is not unique to the USEF. I’m appalled that people find all of this revolutionary.
                                      I can't determine if you don't understand my post, or if you are actually arguing that it doesn't matter whether SafeSport's procedures are fair.

                                      My position, to put it more simply, is that as moral human beings, we all ought to have an interest in ensuring that SafeSport's procedures are fair. Having learned more about how the process works, the statistics regarding how often a SafeSport violation is found (which turns out to be in a small minority of reported cases), and the qualifications of SafeSport personnel, I am leaning toward believing the process is overall fair and is not likely to result in someone being railroaded.

                                      Comment


                                        I think that "fair" is a word open to an incredible array of interpretations, hence the outcry from all sides.

                                        Let me apologize in advance.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                          Apparently there are some fees. If you are on an interim suspension while the investigation is going on (which is very rare), you can pay a fee to have arbitration of the interim suspension; if you want to appeal the final sanction, you pay a fee for the arbitration.

                                          So there are fees. I am all for the ISWG types donating their own money to pay these fees and pay for lawyers to defend their friends. Since SS issues interim suspensions in only 2% of cases, and only 1% of sanctions are overturned (which suggests that the vast majority of those sanctioned will wise up and not waste money on an appeal), it’s probably not even a lot of money involved. If funding the defense of the accused were a moral issue, you would think these funds would appear for all the accused, not just for the famous people like GM.
                                          Exactly. I also find it odd Bonnie is STILL beating the drum regarding the fees. She claims to have represented people pro-bono. I have no reason at this time to question this particular claim (that she hasn’t charged people for work she has done on Safe Sport issues). But I find her focus on the arbitration fees strange. She’s a LAWYER. She KNOWS that the REAL expense is the actual billable hours people have to pay attorneys if they don’t have someone defending them on a pro bono basis.

                                          By all means... if others disagree with my take on this, especially the actual attorneys who follow these threads, feel free to educate me. But honestly... the arbitration fees do not seem like a major concern to me.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X