Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

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.

The issue that I was raising was that the public humiliation and the effective date of the ban occurs BEFORE instead of AFTER the completion of the appeal, and that the appeal is the first opportunity the respondent has to make his case in front of the arbitrator, who unlike SS, is an independent, impartial third party.

If that particular gripe could be defused by SS saying that while they have investigated and found the allegations credible, that the ban or suspension is delayed pending the appeal, I think that would be a worthwhile trade off.

[ladyj79]

No, it would leave people who have been deemed a threat to athletes by the third party organization who has been tasked with investigating still in the victim pool, intimidating past and future victims and witnesses.

No. This would not just undermine the mandate of safe sport but actively put more athletes at greater risk for abuse and intimidation.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

The issue that I was raising was that the public humiliation and the effective date of the ban occurs BEFORE instead of AFTER the completion of the appeal, and that the appeal is the first opportunity the respondent has to make his case in front of the arbitrator, who unlike SS, is an independent, impartial third party.

If that particular gripe could be defused by SS saying that while they have investigated and found the allegations credible, that the ban or suspension is delayed pending the appeal, I think that would be a worthwhile trade off.

In criminal proceedings the accused is made public before a trial so I fail to see how that is a problem. You also never explained why you think SS isn’t a neutral third party.

[poltroon]

@YankeeDuchess

The issue that I was raising was that the public humiliation and the effective date of the ban occurs BEFORE instead of AFTER the completion of the appeal, and that the appeal is the first opportunity the respondent has to make his case in front of the arbitrator, who unlike SS, is an independent, impartial third party.

If that particular gripe could be defused by SS saying that while they have investigated and found the allegations credible, that the ban or suspension is delayed pending the appeal, I think that would be a worthwhile trade off.

SafeSport is an objective, independent third party investigator. In fact we know more about SafeSport’s credentials and process than we do about the arbitrator’s.

The investigator is an independent third party, as is the supervisor inside of SafeSport who has to sign off. They are not victim advocates.

SafeSport doesn’t get a bounty for each ban they enact and successfully defend… unlike say your local district attorney. And there’s certainly no reason for them to be particularly or unusually interested in Equestrian.

(Note: in the criminal justice system, the person’s crime could/would be public at the time of arrest, which is usually before the investigation is complete and certainly before there is a trial. A person under investigation for misconduct around youth would probably have the allegations public before even an arrest.)

The arbitrator is just another step. They are not more or less independent than the multiple staff members inside SafeSport choosing how to pursue the investigation.

[YankeeDuchess]

@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 not on the same side of it.

But to the extent that Dover is fundraising, he is advocating donations to EJI, not a newly created Legal Defense Fund for BNT Pedophiles. I cannot imagine that he has a deal with EJI to the effect that whatever money comes in due to his go fund me campaign with go to RM.

I agree with you that it ridiculous and insulting to EJI to suggest that RM, or GM, or TS take the brunt of “unequal justice”. I see his sidling up to a serious nonprofit group like EJI as tone deaf, as you say, and embarrassing but not nefarious. Compared to his social media campaign on behalf of GM (the dedicated fund raising for GM himself, the “didn’t hit on my super hot now husband”), what he’s done this past week is not nearly as bad or as “cringe-worthy”.

[YankeeDuchess]

@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.”

What is? I never said, or remotely wrote anything with any tiny whiff of an implication, to the effect that SS is “corrupt”, so obviously you are not responding to a post of mine.

On the other hand, it seems that pretty much everything I post is deemed “annoying” by you. Unless you grossly misrepresent my position, I will attempt to decline to respond to your posts.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

No, it would leave people who have been deemed a threat to athletes by the third party organization who has been tasked with investigating still in the victim pool, intimidating past and future victims and witnesses.

No. This would not just undermine the mandate of safe sport but actively put more athletes at greater risk for abuse and intimidation.

If SS deems there is a current threat to athletes, I agree that the person should be SUSPENDED pending the appeal, and perhaps pending the investigation itself.

[ladyj79]

@YankeeDuchess

If SS deems there is a current threat to athletes, I agree that the person should be SUSPENDED pending the appeal, and perhaps pending the investigation itself.

That is exactly what happens.

the interim suspension almost immediately fell out of favour, but this is otherwise exactly how the process works. (They have the ability to interim suspend, a la Tommy Serio’s initial suspension, but have seemingly stopped using that in recent cases)

beyond that, what you describe is exactly how the process works. Hope that helps.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

What is? I never said, or remotely wrote anything with any tiny whiff of an implication, to the effect that SS is “corrupt”, so obviously you are not responding to a post of mine.

On the other hand, it seems that pretty much everything I post is deemed “annoying” by you. Unless you grossly misrepresent my position, I will attempt to decline to respond to your posts.

I don’t even know what your position is. You are saying what you don’t like about SS and your suggestions on how to make it better either make no sense or, it’s what they do already.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

In criminal proceedings the accused is made public before a trial so I fail to see how that is a problem. You also never explained why you think SS isn’t a neutral third party.

Is the sentence imposed prior to the trial? I did not advocate the announcement of SS’s finding the allegations credible be delayed until after the appeal. It’s important that the finding is announced PRIOR to the appeal because the announcement often emboldens additional victims to come forward.

I’ve explained at least twice why I don’t think SS is a neutral or impartial third party; restating it a third time would just “annoy” you a third time.

Your posts don’t annoy me. They amuse me, but not all that much.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

Is the sentence imposed prior to the trial? I did not advocate the announcement of SS’s finding the allegations credible be delayed until after the appeal. It’s important that the finding is announced PRIOR to the appeal because the announcement often emboldens additional victims to come forward.

I’ve explained at least twice why I don’t think SS is a neutral or impartial third party; restating it a third time would just “annoy” you a third time.

Your posts don’t annoy me. They amuse me, but not all that much.

No but it is imposed before the appeal. Like Safe Sport.

This idea of making ones case only in arbitration is false. People are acting like the first time the accused hears about the investigation is when their name hits the ban list. They provide evidence, speak to investigators, have people speak on their behalf etc.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

That is exactly what happens.

the interim suspension almost immediately fell out of favour, but this is otherwise exactly how the process works. (They have the ability to interim suspend, a la Tommy Serio’s initial suspension, but have seemingly stopped using that in recent cases)

beyond that, what you describe is exactly how the process works. Hope that helps.

Is RM banned as of today, or banned as of the conclusion of the appeal if he loses the appeal?

If he was not deemed a current risk in order to be suspended while the investigation is going on, why should he be suspended while the appeal is going on?

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

Is RM banned as of today, or banned as of the conclusion of the appeal if he loses the appeal?

If he was not deemed a current risk in order to be suspended while the investigation is going on, why should he be suspended while the appeal is going on?

They stopped the interim suspensions to protect the the people who were found not in violation. That makes sense to me. If the person is a current risk they are suspended and the police are usually involved. See the list of people suspended pending criminal trials.

He should be suspended during the appeal because one does not get to escape sanctions/punishment/jail time just because of an appeal.

[LexInVA]

He is banned, subject to appeal. He and his wife relocated to Welly-World to run their training business out of a barn near the showgrounds, so he can’t be allowed to run around unchecked, with the Summer crowd of Junior Riders and young adults hanging around there, until his appeal is successful.

[ladyj79]

The investigation is over. He has already had the opportunity to provide evidence to safe sport investigators.

Safe sport concluded that by a preponderance of the evidence, McDonald had acted contrary to the code of conduct, specifically, that he had committed sexual misconduct involving a minor.

Because of the severity of the misconduct, as well as the need to protect current athletes, he has received a lifetime suspension.

That is the most severe penalty safe sport can hand down. They can and have handed down lesser penalties.

He has been banned. He can appeal. it has been expressed that he will appeal.

He is banned. He cannot participate or coach in any athletic activities governed by or involving members of any ngbs for sport.

If his appeal is successful, he can be reinstated.

But just like George Morris couldnt participate while his appeal was pending, neither can McDonald.

[TheMoo]

@ladyj79

The investigation is over. He has already had the opportunity to provide evidence to safe sport investigators.

Safe sport concluded that by a preponderance of the evidence, McDonald had acted contrary to the code of conduct, specifically, that he had committed sexual misconduct involving a minor.

Because of the severity of the misconduct, as well as the need to protect current athletes, he has received a lifetime suspension.

That is the most severe penalty safe sport can hand down. They can and have handed down lesser penalties.

He has been banned. He can appeal. it has been expressed that he will appeal.

He is banned. He cannot participate or coach in any athletic activities governed by or involving members of any ngbs for sport.

If his appeal is successful, he can be reinstated.

But just like George Morris couldnt participate while his appeal was pending, neither can McDonald.

I still think you need to use simpler words.

[SuzieQNutter]

@TheMoo

I still think you need to use simpler words.

There are no complex words in that post. Maybe you need a translator if you cannot understand that post.

I didn’t, but someone could like a post in Facebook so as they get a notification if someone posts on there.

According to the TV show Law and Order, sexual crimes are deemed most heinous.

[ladyj79]

@SuzieQNutter

There are no complex words in that post. Maybe you need a translator if you cannot understand that post.

I didn’t, but someone could like a post in Facebook so as they get a notification if someone posts on there.

According to the TV show Law and Order, sexual crimes are deemed most heinous.

She was making a joke :lol: because some people find this very very very complex

[ladyj79]

@SuzieQNutter

There are no complex words in that post. Maybe you need a translator if you cannot understand that post.

I didn’t, but someone could like a post in Facebook so as they get a notification if someone posts on there.

According to the TV show Law and Order, sexual crimes are deemed most heinous.

(You won’t receive notifications by liking a post on fb, only by commenting or turning on notifications)

[Atlas_Shrugged]

@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.

How did you come by this information : “I’ve been concerned that the arbitrators have been somewhat uneven in their rulings from my point of view in the cheap seats” ?