Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

[DownYonder]

@Silverbridge

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…

“Many base supporters?” Can you back that up with facts and figures?

What about base supporters of the other party? In case you have forgotten, these guys have all been accused of sexual assault and misconduct, and they are certainly not supporters of “the party currently in power.” Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Sheen, Stephen Seagal, George Takei, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, Roman Polanski, Morgan Freeman, Steve Wynn, Al Franken, Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, R. Kelly, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Rep. John Conyers, Joe Biden, and a host of pro athletes.

And no, I am not trying to derail this thread from the very serious topic of sexual misconduct with minors–which I abhor and absolutely do not condone. I am glad that SS is shining a very bright light on it–it was tolerated way too long in horse sports and elsewhere.

[SillyHorse]

@ladyj79

[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.

I am sad and disappointed to see the names of a few people whom I know, like, and otherwise admire in the “Like” list. No one was complaining about SS’s sanctions in other sports, not until it hit home.

[ladyj79]

@DownYonder

“Many base supporters?” Can you back that up with facts and figures?

What about base supporters of the other party? In case you have forgotten, these guys have all been accused of sexual assault and misconduct, and they are certainly not supporters of “the party currently in power.” Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Sheen, Stephen Seagal, George Takei, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, Roman Polanski, Morgan Freeman, Steve Wynn, Al Franken, Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, R. Kelly, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Rep. John Conyers, Joe Biden, and a host of pro athletes.

And no, I am not trying to derail this thread from the very serious topic of sexual misconduct with minors–which I abhor and absolutely do not condone. I am glad that SS is shining a very bright light on it–it was tolerated way too long in horse sports and elsewhere.

I wouldn’t feed this under the bridge dweller.

[poltroon]

@YankeeDuchess

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.

For people wondering about this, here’s the reason to keep in mind.

Hypothetical case: Alex Athlete accuses Chris Coach of inappropriate sexual behavior. (Could be pressuring for dates, could be quid pro quo, could be rape, oddly doesn’t matter for this.)

Basically, the SafeSport team, in your basic hypothetical case, isn’t prosecuting a child molester: instead they’re deciding which of the two people gets to stay in the sport.

If they decide that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Alex Athlete is correct, Chris Coach is sanctioned in some way - could be corrective training, could be a partial protective order, could be short term suspension, could be a permanent ban.

If they decide that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Chris Coach is correct, Alex Athlete probably has to leave the area if not the entire sport, depending up on the level of Chris Coach. If both are currently at the elite level, most likely Alex Athlete will leave elite competition.

Even though SafeSport itself does not sanction a claimant who does not clear the preponderance of the evidence, the truth is that making the claim has the cost, and living through the event has a cost, and that being in the same room with, let alone under the power of, someone who has hurt you, is very very difficult.

There are several known examples of the second case in multiple sports, and far more that are unknown, people who just suddenly retired or quit “for no reason.”

So this is just the first part of the consideration, before you even get to the concern about repeat offending.

[YankeeDuchess]

Robert Dover wrote a letter urging USEF to urge Congress to modify how SS works in a way to better protect theoretically innocent respondents if there are any. Most of us think that the balance that SS has struck between safeguarding the interests of the potentially innocent accused vs the interests of the abused and potentially abused minors is fine.

The letter did not claim that George Morris or Bob McDonald or anyone specific was innocent. The only thing about the letter that offended me was that it claimed that there were documented cases of people being “taken out” with reports to SS, without, well, documenting them.

In terms of effecting change of SS, the letter will do nothing.

The post says stuff that is somewhat different. I don’t have a problem with people expressing a desire to change the way SS operates. Something that he says in the post that is legitimate, in my view, is that the ban is announced prior to the respondent having his day in “court”, “court” in quote marks because it’s binding arbitration. I agree with the critics that the respondent does not have a formal chance to defend himself until the appeal, and that the SS investigation is not “independent.” I don’t have a problem with the way it works, but I can see their pain that the ban is announced prior to the conclusion of the appeal.

Back to the post (not letter). He expresses support for DM, and does not mention RM. As there is no evidence that DM knew or suspected and looked the other way, I also support DM.

The Equal Justice League appears to be a non profit that works against overly harsh punishment, mass incarceration, and racial inequality and not a defense fund for equestrian pedophiles. Again, it looks like a gesture, not like an attempt to raise funds for RMs defense.

I would not have “liked” the post. But if I put myself in the boots of one of her Olympic teammates (I wish), I might have “liked” the post out of desperation to show support for her. The post does not mention RM or any banned perp, and does not actually rise to the level of attempting to undermine SS, in my view. It is not remotely at the level of Bonnie Navin, Kathy Serio, ISWG, or Diane Carney.

Society has standard ways to show support when someone faces the death of a loved one. What is the appropriate way to show support when your Olympic teammate’s husband has been banned for sexual misconduct? (Support for the teammate, not the husband.)

DM is in a extremely uncomfortable and tricky position. So are her colleagues and teammates.

[YankeeDuchess]

@poltroon

For people wondering about this, here’s the reason to keep in mind.

Hypothetical case: Alex Athlete accuses Chris Coach of inappropriate sexual behavior. (Could be pressuring for dates, could be quid pro quo, could be rape, oddly doesn’t matter for this.)

Basically, the SafeSport team, in your basic hypothetical case, isn’t prosecuting a child molester: instead they’re deciding which of the two people gets to stay in the sport.

If they decide that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Alex Athlete is correct, Chris Coach is sanctioned in some way - could be corrective training, could be a partial protective order, could be short term suspension, could be a permanent ban.

If they decide that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Chris Coach is correct, Alex Athlete probably has to leave the area if not the entire sport, depending up on the level of Chris Coach. If both are currently at the elite level, most likely Alex Athlete will leave elite competition.

Even though SafeSport itself does not sanction a claimant who does not clear the preponderance of the evidence, the truth is that making the claim has the cost, and living through the event has a cost, and that being in the same room with, let alone under the power of, someone who has hurt you, is very very difficult.

There are several known examples of the second case in multiple sports, and far more that are unknown, people who just suddenly retired or quit “for no reason.”

So this is just the first part of the consideration, before you even get to the concern about repeat offending.

I strongly agree that “by a preponderance of the evidence” is the correct standard. The other major factor to consider is that, unlike the criminal justice system, the penalty is banishment from a private club as opposed to incarceration.

[TheMoo]

I don’t think we can comment on why someone “liked” a post. It looks bad. Period.

[Mardi]

@NotGrandPrixYet

I will be checking those likes out and cutting any friend or colleague I know who liked that post out of my life.

Will you tell them why ?

[poltroon]

SS investigation is not “independent.”

I don’t know what you mean by this. SafeSport has no ties to either party. They have no stake in the sport in question. It does not matter to them, when a claim comes to them, if they find it to be supported or unsupported.

Once they make a finding, of course they have an incentive to defend that finding and their process. This is true whether they find that the claim is supported or unsupported.

The arbitrator is then another step in that process, oversight to ensure that SafeSport has not overreached. I think this is a very effective process, though I’ve been concerned that the arbitrators have been somewhat uneven in their rulings from my point of view in the cheap seats. This may have to do with the pool of arbitrators coming in with rather different levels of experience in this area of law and claims.

[poltroon]

One of the things that strikes me with all of these pushbacks is how all of them seem to imagine themselves as a defendant and never as a victim. Robert Dover mentioned that his husband never was bothered by George Morris as a working student. Okay. But what if he had been? What would have happened to him? Would he and RD ever even have met? How might his life have been changed? What options would he have had to extract himself, and what recourse would he have had to reestablish himself in horse sport?

[Silverbridge]

@DownYonder

“Many base supporters?” Can you back that up with facts and figures?

Are you stationed at some forgotten outpost in Antarctica with no connection to the outside world?

[YankeeDuchess]

@poltroon

I don’t know what you mean by this. SafeSport has no ties to either party. They have no stake in the sport in question. It does not matter to them, when a claim comes to them, if they find it to be supported or unsupported.

Once they make a finding, of course they have an incentive to defend that finding and their process. This is true whether they find that the claim is supported or unsupported.

The arbitrator is then another step in that process, oversight to ensure that SafeSport has not overreached. I think this is a very effective process, though I’ve been concerned that the arbitrators have been somewhat uneven in their rulings from my point of view in the cheap seats. This may have to do with the pool of arbitrators coming in with rather different levels of experience in this area of law and claims.

What I mean by SS not being “independent” is that they are not an independent third party assessing the culpability of the respondent.

The two opposing parties are 1) SafeSport advocating for abused and potential future abused athletes, especially minors, and 2) the respondent.

To the extent that the respondent can defend himself in front on an independent, impartial third party, that opportunity doesn’t happen until the appeal in front of the arbitrator.

So at this point, SS as partisan advocate for the victims, has investigated and found the allegations credible. The sanction, in this case a lifetime ban, is effective immediately and announced very publicly, PRIOR to his day in “court” in front of the independent arbitrator.

I don’t have a problem any of this. However, I can see the legitimacy of the respondent’s complaint that the humiliation of the ban comes down like a ton of bricks, and the sanction is put into effect, PRIOR to the respondent being able to defend himself in front of an independent third party.

While SS is not the independent third party comparable to a judge or jury, the fact that the respondent has a right to appeal and the ban will be overturned if SS fails to meet its burden of proof makes me extremely comfortable that SS has not, and won’t, try to sanction people unless they have a really solid case.

However much I support SS, I don’t think it is useful to claim that they are an independent third party assessing the respondent’s culpability. That’s the job of the independent arbitrator.

[ladyj79]

If you dont view safe sport as an independent third party, how can you possibly trust their investigative process?

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

If you dont view safe sport as an independent third party, how can you possibly trust their investigative process?

Simple. I think they’re smart enough to realize they would lose all credibility if they sanctioned someone, especially someone like George Morris, but really anyone, and then were overturned on appeal with any regularity.

Even if only one out of twenty respondents avails himself of the right to appeal, the fact that the banned person can essentially demand that SS show its cards and SS has to meet a burden of proof in front of the independent arbitrator or be overturned, is enough to “keep them honest”, so to speak.

Actually, even if no ever appealed, even once, theoretically the “threat” that SS could be overturned on appeal should keep them honest. Theoretically.

SS is young. If, in the first 20 years of their existence, very, very few sanctions are overturned or modified, I would expect the rate of appeals to fall.

[TheMoo]

@ladyj79

If you dont view safe sport as an independent third party, how can you possibly trust their investigative process?

To add on, what does Safe Sport get out of not allowing people to horse show? How are they not independent?

I personally don’t care if the respondents are humiliated from the ban. They should be humiliated. Don’t molest minors. It’s really simple.

[ladyj79]

@TheMoo

To add on, what does Safe Sport get out of not allowing people to horse show? How are they not independent?

I feel like there’s a fundamental misunderstanding as to what third party means…and I dont know how that is possible.

[starhorse]

Re: Dover’s post…

I’m all in favor of raising money for the Equal Justice Initiative, but there’s something really tone-deaf about subtly comparing the unfair and often racially-motivated legal processes of many poor, primarily black death row convicts to an organization protecting minors from by-and-large white, elite predators.

There is a real spectrum of justice here and Dover, etc and the EJI are not on the same side of it.

[YankeeDuchess]

@poltroon

One of the things that strikes me with all of these pushbacks is how all of them seem to imagine themselves as a defendant and never as a victim. Robert Dover mentioned that his husband never was bothered by George Morris as a working student. Okay. But what if he had been? What would have happened to him? Would he and RD ever even have met? How might his life have been changed? What options would he have had to extract himself, and what recourse would he have had to reestablish himself in horse sport?

There is an essential asymmetry. The defendants are publicly identified, high status people who are their friends. The victims are usually anonymous.

Some defenders of RG changed their tune dramatically when a selection of his victims dropped their anonymity.

[TheMoo]

I think it’s just mental gymnastics in order to debate which is just annoying. I really don’t understand the position of “I support Safe Sport, but here’s a really long post about how they are corrupt.”

[NotGrandPrixYet]

@Mardi

Will you tell them why ?

. Most certainly.