[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“large”,“data-attachmentid”:10674416}[/ATTACH]
So 131 people agree with dover, including but not limited to
Axel Steiner
Carl Hester
Steffen Peters
And in the comments, unchallenged by any of these illustrious people, are lamentations about how 45% of sexual assault accusations are false, among other ridiculous nonsense.
But the good news is, only 11 people cared enough to donate to his cause.
Might be laying groundwork for the future if they expect the equestrian events to not be olympic sports soon and thus free of the law.
I personally don’t believe it; I could easily believe in a horse-free event in 2021 in Tokyo but I think we’ll have horses in Paris in 2024 unless the olympic games implode completely. (That said, I could also believe a complete USEF meltdown into separate NGB and everything-else organizations; after the whole AHSA/USET/USEF imbroglio I would believe anything!)
Damn. Hadn’t even thought that far…
I doubt they’d get rid of Show Jumping, but you never know.
Aside from the standard moaning about transparency, constitutional rights, and due process, the one concrete item the letter asks for is changing the burden of proof to “beyond a reasonable doubt” (it is now “by a preponderance of the evidence”).
That of course would provide more protection for the innocent, but also more wiggle room for the guilty for whom the evidence is not a slam dunk. I think those of us who are truly innocent are not really worried about the preponderance of the evidence standard, but the guilty would love to have a higher bar for SS to have to clear.
The letter also mentioned that there were documented cases of reports being made to SS in order to “take out” stakeholders, coaches and athletes. It did not document what these “documented cases” were, naturally.
I see the letter as mostly a gesture of support for RM and DM, even if he is guilty and likely to lose the appeal. I don’t see USEF doing anything decisive with Congress, or Congress doing anything to reform SS in the direction they want. Congress solved its political problem by instituting SS, and I don’t think that it is in their political
interest to tinker with it in the direction of raising the burden of proof to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There are millions of parents of young athletes in the country and only a few thousand equestrian trainers.
Where did you see the list of signatories?
Can’t read it (too small) . What does it say ?
That’s not a concrete item. It’s not a criminal trial. It’s arbitration which follows civil court guidelines. If you sue someone in civil court, you are not required to show evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s not a list of signatories, it’s the people who “like” his post. No clue who the eleven people are who donated.
When SS was set up, the legislation made the standard “by a preponderance of the evidence.” If they had wanted to, they could have made it by “clear and convincing evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I think that “by a preponderance of the evidence” is the appropriate standard, but I assume Congress could change it if they wanted to. The friends of people banned would like the higher burden of proof so that it is more difficult for SS to ban people. They always couch it in terms of protecting the innocent, but I think they are mostly interested in protecting the guilty.
OK. Merely “liking” something on FB is not that strong an endorsement in my view.
Yeah if they wanted to leave it to the criminal courts. They don’t. So I’m not sure why you think “beyond a reasonable doubt” has a leg to stand on.
I’m really not sure why you are pointing this out.
It’s enough that people lose their jobs, so it seems like it is a strong enough endorsement for many.
Regardless, I find it pretty shameful myself.
I’m not saying that cases would be transferred to the criminal courts. The cases could still use the SS investigative process, but Congress could, if it wanted, have the standard used in the arbitration of the appeal raised to the same standard as the criminal courts.
I dont see that happening. Elected officials really dont need to pander to sexual assault and pedophile supporters. It really just isnt a big enough lobby to make any sense. The optics would be, what’s worse than f-ing appalling?
I don’t see it happening either. Aside from the usual murky complaining about transparency, due process and constitutional rights, the only “operational” request was to make the standard of proof much higher, in line with the criminal courts.
But why would USEF lobby for such a change? Even if they did, Congress is not going to make a show of making things easier for the pedophiles.
So I see at as an empty gesture that is unlikely to go anywhere.
Ummm, what?
This implies that we live in an age when sexual assault is still considered a character flaw by lawmakers, and by all voters. That is not the case. Male-on-female sexual assault is nowadays looked at–by the lawmakers AND many base supporters of the party currently in power in the US-- as a sign of masculine prowess.
To many people, male on female sexual “assault” exists only in quotes like the ones I just put there. To them it is seen as an admirable trait. Particularly if the man has age/power and the non-compliant (or weak & whiny, as they see it) female is younger, and hot.
You may be in Canada, in which case, you’re forgiven for not noticing the shift. But US Congress? The Senate that we have now? Gettin’ all worked up about sexual assault?
Nah, not so much.
Good lord. Their sexual abuse slush fund was “secret”. Whether they are privately dirtbags–which they are-- no one of them is openly or actively advocating fewer restrains on pedophiles et al, especially not as it relates to participation in a club sport.
Not if they use arbitration. Not sure why you’re advocating this.
Um sexual assault IS a character flaw…
In a criminal proceeding, the judge or jury assess whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof. In arbitration, it is the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators who assess whether SS has met its burden of proof. You could keep the arbitration system for the appeal, but instruct the arbitrators to rule based on a higher standard of proof, like “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
ETA. I am not advocating raising the standard of proof. Robert Dover is. I think preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
