Stallion Spotlight

Vitalis_img_4461skawx LL_Fotos

Real Estate Spotlight

DSC_0001
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Originally posted by snaffle1987 View Post
    [snip]
    I am fully aware that several of the known victims who played a part in reporting GM are not stellar people themselves in their adult lives. But let's rewind to their childhood years before their personal wrongs and put ourselves in their shoes. These are minors who were gifted in the saddle and had talent and loads of promise. They were not from the wealthiest of families and therefore probably couldn't reach the pinnacle of the sport without some influential people playing a role. GM identified their talent in their travels and invited them to Hunterdon to train. What an opportunity for a young rider! These young riders now had the opportunity to live and train and show with the premier trainer in the sport at the premier facility in the sport. they hit the jackpot. Now imagine wanting your dreams so badly that you would do anything to not risk losing it all. And you were being overseen and managed by a trainer who knew this, knew his power, knew his influence, and had the opportunity to "groom" said minors everyday, overtime. Take away the GM name and the minors name and this same scenario could play out in any barn in the country when parental oversight is non existent. And it has. It has happened in other sports and it happens behind closed door homes. It's just in this scenario one of the biggest names in the business was taken down. Now imagine how something like that could influence your life and wear on you for eternity.
    quoted for truth.

    Soresi wasn't just a junior who trained in GM's barn for a while, or even just a junior who came to live at Hunterdon. He was GM's assistant trainer for several years, something like 1977 to 1983 or so? So I've always thought it was odd that this hypothesis - the proposal that Soresi was irredeemable and troubled from a very young age - never seemed to reflect back at GM at all, not even to his judgement in running his business and choosing his staff.

    And if you flip it the other way, just think of all the talented young men who maybe didn't get to the top who could have, had they connected to a different trainer.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 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.
      Here are excerpts from two posts I've done over the past several days to answer your outrage.

      First post: "Even so, I gobbled up mags and books, and enjoyed reading GM. Knew all about his credentials. But then the internet came along and you could see his clinics online. And my God - the man was clearly an abuser. I don't mean sexual predator. I had no way of knowing that. But he abused his students, even - and maybe most particularly - his teen students. In front of crowds. And any person who enjoys abusing children in front of crowds has some huge psychological problems. This was so apparent to me that I couldn't fathom why the crowds sometimes tittered at his abuses and didn't instead rush out there and lynch him. I watched a couple of clinics and then could stomach no more. What a piece of filth.

      IMO, the whole equine community should share the blame for lionizing him and enabling him. Shame on us."

      And second: "Many years ago, I was a crime reporter. Most of the stories I wrote about are lost to my memory but I will never forget one. A 77-year-old man enticed children into his apartment with money. I can't remember if he raped them himself - there was no blue pill back then - but he did teach them to assault each other while he watched.

      Sexual predators do not outgrow their tendencies. They will always be dangerous."

      I have no patience with your willful blindness.

      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.
        And look, here we have an example
        It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

          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.
          Yours and Virginia Horse Mom's post and thinking about power as well as monopolies in the economic sense make me think that part of what allowed Nasser and Williams and Morris to do what they did, a bit "in plain sight" is that those individuals were granted a somewhat monopolistic level of power in that sport. So if a trainer or Chef d'equipe or doctor is a gate-keeper who grants or denies access to success, he's got a ton of power within that small "economy" of opportunity in an elite sport.

          Again, speaking in market terms, it's not as if one could take one's asset (the kid) and one's business and go elsewhere to find an other George Morris who could do the job for you. Look at the story of how Micheal Hart Jr. and his family agreed that shipping the kid from Minnesota to Hunterdon was regarded as a great opportunity. And, if I could be the fly on the wall, I'll bet there were lots and lots of instances of kids and parents and by-standing adults *not* wanting to admit what they saw or knew or to do anything precisely *because* of the extraordinary "King-Maker" kind of power these individuals were granted by the industry at large.

          So perhaps it makes sense fo think of this as breaking a monopoly where the price all the adults involved agreed to set was some really nefarious behavior with a handful of kids who, as a class, had very little power.
          The armchair saddler
          Politically Pro-Cat

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

            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.
            Gross. So many awful people out there. I hope you had an awesome Team Jealoushe to support you through that.
            One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
            William Shakespeare

            Comment


            • Eeyore886..... just because you don’t think there is proof from 50 years ago, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

              Also.. unless there is hard dna evidence, photos, texts, letters, taped confession, eye witnesses.. it will always be a “ he said, she said”... weather it’s 50 years ago or 5 days ago.
              But the 50 yr old cases maybe will have more people aware of the abuse because of long standing “ rumors “ and “ whispers “.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                quoted for truth.

                Soresi wasn't just a junior who trained in GM's barn for a while, or even just a junior who came to live at Hunterdon. He was GM's assistant trainer for several years, something like 1977 to 1983 or so? So I've always thought it was odd that this hypothesis - the proposal that Soresi was irredeemable and troubled from a very young age - never seemed to reflect back at GM at all, not even to his judgement in running his business and choosing his staff.

                And if you flip it the other way, just think of all the talented young men who maybe didn't get to the top who could have, had they connected to a different trainer.
                Not just Soresi. There were other victims as well.

                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.
                  you are awful and should feel awful. I'm disgusted.
                  Let me apologize in advance.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by endlessclimb View Post
                    Total aside - can someone who is a member of ISWG message me? I am interested if a local trainer is a member of the group - the individual has made a public statement in support of GM following the ban, so they aren't just a silent watcher. I have asked someone here to check for their name, and was told no (not sure why my request is such a problem, but whatever).
                    As others have said, just being a member of that Facebook group does not automatically signify support, since some people are there strictly to observe.

                    The relevant question is whether the person has made supportive comments on that page.

                    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.
                      I too am disgusted, but by you. Shame on you and your ignorant, old, outdated ways. You should have read every comment, because you look like a damn fool believing everything you read on Facebook and taking ZERO time to read and learn about the process of Safe Sport, and the entire situation with GM.

                      You look like an absolute *** ATM.
                      Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                      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.
                        you do understand that the incidents are not just from "50 years ago". You are taking GM's word for it that this was just a singular incident. Supposedly, from those involved in the investigation, his ban did not come from a singular incident 50 years ago. There is evidence and incidents that go as recently as the early 2000's that were investigated thoroughly by SS. This information came from someone else on another message board who had close ties to the investigation. Safe Sport isn't going to ban someone from a singular incident 50 years ago unless they admitted to it. For all we know, GM could've admitted to such incidents. Then what would people think of all of this?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AlterHalter2019 View Post
                          Update Re: RCF sponsorship

                          TEVA has responded to my message and has stated that they are NOT a sponsor. They stated that they take SafeSport seriously with their three veterinarians completing the certification, and their information has been removed from the RCF website. Their obligation lies solely with the horses and their welfare.
                          It stands to reason that a guy who embellishes being a professor, dodges Safe Sport rules, and did whatever he did to children just might also fudge sponsors on his website. I'd give his 'sponsors' a bit of a break on that one.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ohmyheck View Post

                            Gross. So many awful people out there. I hope you had an awesome Team Jealoushe to support you through that.
                            I did, and thank you.

                            Should have seen their faces in court when he pled "guilty".

                            and 6 months after he was released from prison, one of these women messaged me apologizing saying he threatened her and she was terrified. I tried to warn her...
                            Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                            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.
                              It's been said about a million times already, but once more with feeling:

                              There is no proof that there's "no proof." There's no proof that it's "someone from fifty years ago" either - we do know about Soresi because he went on the record publicly. That does NOT mean his is the only testimony in the case, and given the length of this investigation I think it's a very safe assumption that there is more to this. When you say there is "no proof" and it's one incident from "fifty years ago" you are buying the PR spin that Mr. Morris's people put out. SafeSport can not counter those claims publicly because it has a duty to protect victims from public scrutiny.

                              If things that happened "50 years ago" shouldn't matter, and it's just "too bad," how bad of a crime does it have to be in your mind that it should be looked into or consequences given? When they find ex-Nazis hiding in Argentina decades after WWII, who committed crimes against humanity, should it be "too bad then"?

                              Is it more of a "sin" to ruin someone's "reputation" than it is for that person to have destroyed someone else? What is more important to you, someone being able to give a clinic or a confused, hurt child who has his whole LIFE ruined by the demons that follow after being abused?

                              Yes, Me Too served as a bit of a bandwagon situation - but only because people who have kept things quiet for years, decades even, finally had the courage to speak up when they saw others being brave.

                              Abuse and manipulation by someone in a position of power is SUPER COMMON. If you think it's not, you're extremely lucky. I myself had something happen to me that I have not told a living soul. Don't know if I ever will. But my incident was relatively minor, and it seems to come up in my mind and haunt me more and more the older I get. If I do come out with it, it's not because I want to ruin anyone's reputation or get attention but because sometimes a dam will burst.

                              But again, SS was investigating this for more than a year. All this shrieking about "no proof" is incredible, given the amount of time and attention and energy they put into looking into this.

                              And I honestly think that even if SS was to come out with every detail in the investigation, and every victim spoke up publicly with detail, people who don't want to believe it will find some way to excuse it away. Well, sorry, I don't want to live in that world anymore.





                              "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

                              My CANTER blog.

                              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.
                                1. It's not one person.
                                2. Safe Sport protects the victims by not releasing information about the accusations. It's only George's narrative saying it's one person from 50 years ago.
                                3. Consider kindness when talking about this to friends and family. Chances are someone you know is struggling with something that happened to them years ago. Don't put their tragedy in air quotes.

                                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...
                                  On and off topic re these millenials? They are often way smarter and ethical than those of us who came up back in the day. They are more likely to speak up or leave in the face of mistreatment by trainers, less likely to do things like ride through major injuries and concussions, less likely to use up and discard horses. (broadly speaking) I see a lot of jabs at them about being wimpy, weak, not tough enough and so on. Not the ones I've been seeing.

                                  Alot of old school philosphy was unnecessary, cruel and/or downright wrong, I've had to do a great deal of unlearning myself.

                                  The stories of the T-Rex Eventer

                                  Big Head, Little Arms, Still Not Thinking It Through

                                  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.
                                    I am going to engage with you, not to get into a vitriolic polarized argument, but because I sincerely want to point out a few things in a cool headed rational way.

                                    If the facts of the allegations against Rob Gage or GHM were only a matter of a single complaint, from 35 or 50 years ago, based only on memory testimony... I would agree with you. It would be outrageous to ban someone for life and tarnish their reputation.

                                    You say that the metoo movement has gone too far. In some ways, I understand why some people would feel that way. I watched every single bit of the Kavanaugh hearings and read detailed reports from all sides before and after what happened with that. I have opinions on it. I’m not going to get into it here because I do not want to take this thread in a “p” direction and inevitably get into WILD arguments with people. But I understand how and why there are multiple perspectives on the metoo movement.

                                    I also followed a few of the stunning cases and stories in recent history related to Title IX and sexual assault on college campus. My son plays lacrosse, and I have immediate family members with deep ties to college lacrosse who played at a Div 1 level and have been close friends for years with people who coach college lacrosse and play in the MLL. The Duke lacrosse story, as well as the sad case of the death of Yeardly Love at UVA were both issues that impacted friends of close family members of mine personally. Coaches lost their jobs. The Duke case was found to be a hoax after the fact... but the whole situation rocked that program and deeply impacted people. The UVA case involved a young woman dying after being in a relationship with a guy who played in the men’s program, and who was known to be abusive to her, and an out of control young man. Coaches lost their jobs because the powers that be thought there was a culture with that team that essentially turned a blind eye to the out of control conduct going on with the players. I know people who were affected by this. They aren’t monsters. But a young woman died and a young man is in jail now, and young athletes lives have been lost and ruined. There also is the insane UVA case of a hoax perpetrated by a troubled young woman. Rolling Stone published the story nationally and it was shocking. It was eventually sorted out though, and our civil system kicked in, and the people who lied and didn’t fact check stories adequately (because of PC bias - there is no way to deny it) well - they wrecked their own reputations as journalists and were sued for millions.

                                    So back to RG and GHM and your assertion that lives are being destroyed based on PC culture run amok and flimsy allegations from years ago based only on memories... and comparing it to the Ksvsnaugh hearings.

                                    You don’t actually KNOW what evidence the investigators from Safe Sport have. The people investigating complaints are NOT biased journalists or pink hat activists. They are retired law enforcement in many case. Judges. Lawyers. It has been reported in the case of RG that there was a 400 page report and multiple victims gave testimony. In the case of GHM, Soresi has come forward. People know that he LIVED at Hunterdon from age 13 to 18. That is NOT comparable to Blasey-Ford being unable to prove the location of a specific party she attended, and being unable to produce one witness to confirm she attended that party. Mr. Soresi can produce many many people who can indeed verify he lived with GM. So we have the “where“ and “when” confirmed. And you and I do not know what other evidence is out there that indicates that the “what” did indeed happen. In RGs case, there apparently was a letter that he himself wrote ADMITTING to the conduct. He also admitted some of it to investigators apparently.

                                    So if there is proof that GHM did indeed have a sexual relationship with a 13 year old boy who lost his father at the age of 6, and who was invited to live and train with Morris because the boy was talented and came from a modest background...

                                    I don’t care if it was 50 years ago. That’s wrong and awful. The boy was vulnerable and groomed and then used. By a powerful adult he trusted. The ban is appropriate.

                                    And bottom line, just as you assume there is no evidence and only memory testimony and one victim... I will admit to being biased. I assume there is more than one victim. And some much more recent ones. And I bet there is more than just memory evidence. So I reject that Safe Sport is just another example of government overreach and our pc culture run amok. I think it’s a good thing, and change that we need. And so far... I trust the investigations and the decisions they have reached. What we know about the people banned so far and allegations, and evidence and testimony that has made its way into the public eye... well... it’s all really sad. The lives that have been wrecked are those of the kids and young people who shouldn’t have had to go through this stuff.
                                    Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Aug. 13, 2019, 12:14 PM. Reason: typos

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by MHM View Post
                                      As others have said, just being a member of that Facebook group does not automatically signify support, since some people are there strictly to observe.

                                      The relevant question is whether the person has made supportive comments on that page.
                                      I already stated they made supportive comments on a shared Dover post. I am hoping that's a one-off, and would like to know if they are part of the group. If I could check myself, I would.

                                      So now it's a super secret club. Yall are ridiculous lol. Let's out everyone we can, except those on a facebook group. Oi.

                                      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.
                                        You do make very good points. I think why lawyers are reluctant to hang their hats on that is because those cases are just working their way up to the Supreme Court and it is a really unsettled area right now. It's new territory currently developing, and one of the first things you learn in practice is never to ask a court to break new ground when you can argue your case should prevail under existing precedent. The Sherman Act line of reasoning is decades old as applied to private associations, it is an established technique.

                                        Making a Constitutional law argument breaking new ground is the Hail Mary pass of legal strategy. You don't rely on it unless you have to. I am sure if GM takes this to the courts it will be included. There may be other alternative strategies used to deal with this, I am simply not aware of them. This is the avenue I know. I would be happy to learn other theories that might be applicable I haven't yet considered.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                                          Hey, man. I'm not a lawyer. fordtraktor was just answering my "interested.... able to read.... does actually read and google" layman's question about the Sherman Act. The post to which you are responding was actually another minor legal eddy in which fordtraktor was answering me.

                                          Sorry to have done my share of stirring up a kind of side-line conversation about some obscure and technical stuff. But I wouldn't get too upset about those little side-line things. Just scroll by if the legal reasoning doesn't do it for you. It's never going to be discussed here with enough thoroughness and in the terms that will satisfy those with professional expertise in this part of the law.
                                          I for one find the legal questions both interesting and on topic.
                                          *****
                                          You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X