Sport Horse Spotlight

Sandro Hit Standa Eylers

Real Estate Spotlight

JR-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

  • Honestly, the things that some people say in defense of GM.

    From Facebook:

    "let’s pretend this is true , if it was me I would be thankful George did what they say he did because obviously I was a dumb girl 50 years ago and needed a lesson in life to stay away from older men back then . It was a different time back then I can’t believe we need to dig up the past from so long ago George was a young guy back then he has a family now and tons of fans students etc so I hope this resolves itself and George is triumph"
    Okay, now if you were abused as a child you should consider it a life lesson? Holy smokes, I hope this woman doesn't have children.
    Equine Ink - My soapbox for equestrian writings & reviews.
    EquestrianHow2 - Operating instructions for your horse.

    Comment


    • Is that satire?

      What is wrong with people?

      Comment


      • Um....George has a family now? Has he been cloned?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by enjoytheride View Post

          I think it's discouraging when someone offers a neutral legal perspective and suggestions to improve Safesport to make it more legally firm (when people ask for that),...
          However... As I have said before, I think there is a danger here in getting too caught up in the idea of pulling the SS process into the criminal justice system and that seems to be where many of the legal experts want to go. (No, I'm not talking about the somewhat esoteric discussions of anti-trust laws and such, although I admit that I'm scrolling on past those for lack of interest.)

          SS was created by congress in large part because the criminal justice system was failing, and failing egregiously, to deal with the problem of sexual abuse in Olympic sports. SS, by design, operates outside the criminal justice system. Dragging it into the criminal justice system, with all it's requirements and limitations, will doom SS to failure, just as the criminal justice system has failed.


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

          Homer Simpson

          Comment


          • Is that satire?
            No, just teh stoopid.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
              No, just teh stoopid.
              And so obviously someone in the upper eschelons of the sport ......the above is sarcasm btw

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bogie View Post
                Honestly, the things that some people say in defense of GM.

                From Facebook:
                "let’s pretend this is true , if it was me I would be thankful George did what they say he did because obviously I was a dumb girl 50 years ago and needed a lesson in life to stay away from older men back then . It was a different time back then I can’t believe we need to dig up the past from so long ago George was a young guy back then he has a family now and tons of fans students etc so I hope this resolves itself and George is triumph"

                Okay, now if you were abused as a child you should consider it a life lesson? Holy smokes, I hope this woman doesn't have children.
                There seems to be a faction of women that have taken it upon themselves to shame other women for things they did in the past. This smacks of that... "I needed to learn a lesson back then, so let's make sure all these dumb millenials learn it too!" Kind of hard to explain what I mean, but I see this attitude a lot online, and it makes me sick. The "so what?/get over it/move on/well just don't be a victim then/you should have spoken up at the time if it really bothered you" type of faction. It's like they think they're going to get brownie points for trying to be in the Good Ole Boys club...
                It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mosey_2003 View Post
                  There seems to be a faction of women that have taken it upon themselves to shame other women for things they did in the past. This smacks of that... "I needed to learn a lesson back then, so let's make sure all these dumb millenials learn it too!" Kind of hard to explain what I mean, but I see this attitude a lot online, and it makes me sick. The "so what?/get over it/move on/well just don't be a victim then/you should have spoken up at the time if it really bothered you" type of faction. It's like they think they're going to get brownie points for trying to be in the Good Ole Boys club...
                  First off I agree with you.

                  But as a woman in industry, there ARE points for being in the Good Ol' Boys club.

                  The fact that this is wrong does not change the reality of the current situation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by endlessclimb View Post

                    First off I agree with you.

                    But as a woman in industry, there ARE points for being in the Good Ol' Boys club.

                    The fact that this is wrong does not change the reality of the current situation.
                    Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

                    It's sick and sad but I don't have time or energy to fix those people.
                    Let me apologize in advance.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

                      However... As I have said before, I think there is a danger here in getting too caught up in the idea of pulling the SS process into the criminal justice system and that seems to be where many of the legal experts want to go. (No, I'm not talking about the somewhat esoteric discussions of anti-trust laws and such, although I admit that I'm scrolling on past those for lack of interest.)

                      SS was created by congress in large part because the criminal justice system was failing, and failing egregiously, to deal with the problem of sexual abuse in Olympic sports. SS, by design, operates outside the criminal justice system. Dragging it into the criminal justice system, with all it's requirements and limitations, will doom SS to failure, just as the criminal justice system has failed.

                      I have a slightly different take on this. I think our criminal justice system is limited when it comes to sexual crimes... in some ways for good reasons (we do have protections under the law including a presumption of innocence and evidentiary rules)... in other ways the system is limited for sad reasons that I hope change (some of the sentencing for sex crimes is really hard to stomach... I think a lot should be tougher).

                      Bottom line... anyone who has been a victim knows that the criminal justice system is a tough way to go. So in some cases, the mind inevitably goes to, “Why did this thing happen? In lieu of justice, how is it best prevented?”

                      When we are talking about civic organizations and trusted roles in society (priest, doctor, lawyer, teacher, coach, etc....), there is some ethical responsibility that comes to mind. I’m a VERY free market sort of person (please see earlier post about studying with a professor who was a Milton Friedman student)... but I firmly believe in the concept of civic responsibility and codes of ethics and clear guidelines with respect to professional behavior and best practices. The people making “nanny state” arguments about Safe Sport get under my skin. Big time.

                      This isn’t about regulation of the sport and industry. It’s about ethics and best practices. Safe Sport has grown up in response to an OBVIOUS lack of ethics when it comes to sports... especially with respect to high levels of Olympic sports and the pursuit of medals. Someone brought up earlier that there were financial incentives when it comes to people who are part of a medal winning team, etc. Sounded like something to do with distribution of funds and support from USOC to different NGOs. Anyway... it all plays a part in people turning a blind eye to people in sports who EVERYONE knows are problems. John Geddert and the Karolys in gymnastics played a big role in Larry Nassar hiding in plain sight for so very long. And Jimmy Williams and George Morris are two legendary coaches and closely tied to Olympic winners... but the price children paid was unacceptable. Grossly unethical.

                      So I guess all I am trying to say is that I don’t see Safe Sport as a response to a failed criminal justice system. Nor as an over-reach of government and regulation of an industry. It’s a response to an obvious failure of ethics with respect to the civic responsibility that should be part of civic organizations support youth sports, and Olympic teams that carry our county’s flag on the world stage.

                      I believe our country is one of the most ethical in the world. And Safe Sport is something that will make me watch and support the Olympics next year, in a way I haven’t in ages. All those who support it should.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IPEsq View Post
                        mvp there is some history behind using the antitrust laws in the context of sports. It’s not a crazy idea, although I disagree with the viability of that strategy here. There’s an overlap between labor law and some antitrust concerns when it comes to league sports. There have also been issues with monopoly power and sports.

                        As far as suspensions and antitrust, the case I studied in law school had to do with suspensions in golf from the 70s and 80s.

                        The NCAA has also been found to have violated Sherman Act Sec 1.

                        In any event, it’s not a stretch if someone pursued this angle with SS. And it’s reasonable for people to ask how SS might be able to be challenged in the alternative to the mostly ridiculous constitutionality comments.
                        I still don't understand why you and Fordtraktor are so quick to dismiss any due process arguments. I would agree with you if we were talking about a true private club like your local town Bridge Club, but as discussed above, there is substantial case law suggesting that USEF may not be found to be a mere private club, given its size and unique control over the h/j profession.

                        SafeSport was given its charter by an act of Congress. It has already received federal funding and by news accounts is seeking much more federal funding. It seems like there is a possible argument that SafeSport is an extension of the government or that the government exercises substantial control over its mission. I just grabbed this from an old Duke Law Review article:

                        https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...85&context=dlj

                        State action sufficient to require application of the fourteenth amendment will be found where the state or federal government becomes substantially involved in or exercises substantial control over an otherwise private enterprise.

                        And of course, just recently we've seen the spread of due process concepts to private universities adjudicating sexual assault cases (i.e., the 2019 Rhodes College case) based on either the university's receipt of federal funding or the federal government's involvement through Title IX.

                        I'm not an expert in this field and none of us have time to research it as if we were charged with writing the brief... but I can't say on its face there is no argument there. What am I missing?

                        And for those reading this casually: I am not suggesting that SafeSport does not afford adequate due process. I am raising the question of whether it is required to provide some level of due process--just trying to anticipate what arguments attorneys for GM or others might make.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                          Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

                          It's sick and sad but I don't have time or energy to fix those people.
                          The sickest part is that they often are elevated for doing so. I'm not defending it. I'm stating a fact.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                            Um....George has a family now? Has he been cloned?
                            That alone is an indicator of what they know about George Morris.
                            Equine Ink - My soapbox for equestrian writings & reviews.
                            EquestrianHow2 - Operating instructions for your horse.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by endlessclimb View Post

                              First off I agree with you.

                              But as a woman in industry, there ARE points for being in the Good Ol' Boys club.

                              The fact that this is wrong does not change the reality of the current situation.
                              I know I do see a lot of it that isn't even being used for one's career though, just jumping up and down on social media like good little puppies, and it really grinds my gears.

                              Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                              Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

                              It's sick and sad but I don't have time or energy to fix those people.
                              Yes, this is what I was trying to say, basically
                              It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.

                              Comment


                              • So I have not read every comment posted here. I'm pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here's my two cents for what it's worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man's life with no proof except that it's now PC to do so. We watched the lies during the Kavanaugh hearing trying to destroy a good man's career and life with no proof, and no memory even. Now, because "me too" is trending, everyone who feels they were "abused" in some way is jumping on the band wagon. Without actual proof, it is wrong, even a sin, to ruin a man's reputation and livelihood. And I'm sorry that proof can't be had from 50years ago, but that's just too bad then. You can't destroy someone based on a memory. How can it even be answered., It's all he said, she said. And that's not good enough. If it did happen, it's unfortunate. But there is no way that anyone can be held liable for it now. This Safe Sport has gone too far. I am disgusted.
                                [COLOR=rgb(128,0,128)]Amy Gero [/COLOR]

                                Comment


                                • HLMom, given that I've been retired for eons, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I'd argue that Safe Sport is required to provide "due process" because it's an entity created under Congressional legislation. I'd also argue that if the arbitration provided as an appeal is in fact a de novo fact finding hearing that it would meet that constitutional requirement. Remember that we are talking about due process procedures, also known as procedural due process, and there is not a single standard across all situations; it will vary depending on the entity that is providing the process and even the reasons why it has chosen or been chosen to provide a particular process.
                                  Last edited by vineyridge; Aug. 13, 2019, 12:40 PM.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                                    Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

                                    It's sick and sad but I don't have time or energy to fix those people.
                                    I hate those people, so so much. I have experienced this myself, in my own account of being a victim of an extremly violent assault.

                                    I watched as women, supported my attacker, blamed me, etc etc. Regardless of the truth I had told them, and warned them about this guy. It's really unbelievable.
                                    Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                                      I still don't understand why you and Fordtraktor are so quick to dismiss any due process arguments. I would agree with you if we were talking about a true private club like your local town Bridge Club, but as discussed above, there is substantial case law suggesting that USEF may not be found to be a mere private club, given its size and unique control over the h/j profession.

                                      SafeSport was given its charter by an act of Congress. It has already received federal funding and by news accounts is seeking much more federal funding. It seems like there is a possible argument that SafeSport is an extension of the government or that the government exercises substantial control over its mission. I just grabbed this from an old Duke Law Review article:

                                      https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...85&context=dlj

                                      State action sufficient to require application of the fourteenth amendment will be found where the state or federal government becomes substantially involved in or exercises substantial control over an otherwise private enterprise.

                                      And of course, just recently we've seen the spread of due process concepts to private universities adjudicating sexual assault cases (i.e., the 2019 Rhodes College case) based on either the university's receipt of federal funding or the federal government's involvement through Title IX.

                                      I'm not an expert in this field and none of us have time to research it as if we were charged with writing the brief... but I can't say on its face there is no argument there. What am I missing?

                                      And for those reading this casually: I am not suggesting that SafeSport does not afford adequate due process. I am raising the question of whether it is required to provide some level of due process--just trying to anticipate what arguments attorneys for GM or others might make.
                                      This is exactly the angle that will be taken. There is some merit to the claim. If we, safesport supporters and safesport themselves, are not ready to defend against this (note that colleges are undergoing much fire and criticism, sometimes even overturning or dropping claims), and instead just stand around saying how stooooooopid everyone is who doesn't agree with SafeSport Our Lord And Savior Amen, then we can't go around pouting when these jackasses win the suit.

                                      There is ALWAYS room for improvement, in every organization. Instead of us sitting around speculating that lawyers from ISWG are in here bouncing around ideas to prepare for an upcoming suit, we should be doing it to THEM so we can bulletproof an organization that is necessary, before they can make the claim it needs to disappear entirely.

                                      Yeah, that's what the devil's advocate does. And no, I'm not a damned sympathizer. I just don't want to cry when I get caught off guard when I've done nothing but stick my fingers in my ears instead of prepare for what's coming.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by eeyore886 View Post
                                        So I have not read every comment posted here. I'm pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here's my two cents for what it's worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man's life with no proof except that it's now PC to do so. We watched the lies during the Kavanaugh hearing trying to destroy a good man's career and life with no proof, and no memory even. Now, because "me too" is trending, everyone who feels they were "abused" in some way is jumping on the band wagon. Without actual proof, it is wrong, even a sin, to ruin a man's reputation and livelihood. And I'm sorry that proof can't be had from 50years ago, but that's just too bad then. You can't destroy someone based on a memory. How can it even be answered., It's all he said, she said. And that's not good enough. If it did happen, it's unfortunate. But there is no way that anyone can be held liable for it now. This Safe Sport has gone too far. I am disgusted.
                                        quoted to show that STILL people cannot read factual information.

                                        So because it was 50 years ago, it doesn't count?

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                                          Anyway... it all plays a part in people turning a blind eye to people in sports who EVERYONE knows are problems. John Geddert and the Karolys in gymnastics played a big role in Larry Nassar hiding in plain sight for so very long.
                                          Gymnastics tangent.

                                          Are you saying the gymnastics people before Nassar had sexual misconduct issues with the athletes? If so, I had not heard about that.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X