Sarcasm often doesn’t come out the way it is intended for some people, especially in writing.
2 Likes
But he’s not suspended pending the appeal, is he? He’s banned.
I agree that if he posed a current risk he should be suspended pending the appeal AND pending the investigation to protect against additional victimization.
The big sanction here is the public humiliation and that’s a done deal once the SS announcement is made. Delaying the imposition of the ban pending conclusion of the appeal would only be workable if appeals were pretty swift, say 2 months, and the respondent couldn’t game the system by dragging it out.
I keep saying that I have no problem with the current system. At the same time, I can see some degree of truth in the complaint raised by Dover and others that the sanction is imposed prior to the part of the process in which the respondent has a full fledged opportunity to defend against the accusation with benefit of counsel in front of an independent adjudicator.
2 Likes
But if he is considered a risk, he should have been suspended pending the investigation.
1 Like
Well yes he’s banned because SS thought that was necessary. So he’s banned pending appeal. If he was simply suspended he would be suspended pending appeal.
Many of us don’t agree with Dover and people with his position. Insisting on explaining it over and over and debating the merits is not a way to get people to see your POV or rather Dover’s. It’s not that we don’t understand. We don’t agree.
Also, in your weird defense of Dover, you betray a lack of knowledge about how it all works. Arbitration can’t be dragged out.
22 Likes
Is there any actual record of RR being a working student for GM? From what I’ve gathered, neither of the men had anything to do with GM until the late 80’s, when Dover was in residence at Hunterdon after becoming a big deal and Ross was visiting for a GM clinic. Dover saw Ross setting up jumps, asked GM who he was, and GM told him that he was a guy visiting from CA for his clinic, so he went to GM’s pool party the next day and they have been together ever since.
3 Likes
Again, just like a court trial, this is the process. It has completed.
Permanent suspension, banned, six of one.
Pending appeal.
You know how some people get bail, and others don’t?
And even after a trial, someone who got bail during the trial may not be granted bail while they are waiting to appeal?
Bob McDonald, and George Morris were banned/permanently suspended from any sport governed by a ngb.
Because their offences were deemed egregious and/or at a high risk to reoffend.
But their only penalty, the maximum safe sport can had down, is that they cant go to horse shows, or offer services to participating members of said ngbs that they are banned/permanently suspended from.
Morris appealed. He couldnt horse sport during the process (bail denied)
McDonald and co. Say he is appealing. He cannot horse sport, or specifically hockey sport, or really, again sport sport for any sport that is under the umbrella of an ngb.
Because the IOC demanded it, and Congress codified it, and because he was accused, investigated, and found in violation. And then banned/permanently suspended/half dozen of the other.
13 Likes
:lol: Sorry I was being sarcastic. These threads all say the same thing because there is always at least one person who doesn’t understand.
I though if Ladyj used one syllable words it might sink in this time.
5 Likes
After the tommy serio debacle. And the bitching and moaning and willful misunderstandings that have gone on, and the inevitable free ambulance chasing lawsuits, our sport alone makes it very very very difficult to protect athletes in advance of the final findings.
12 Likes
I believe that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the decision of the arbitrator in the first instance. Whether SS “finds the allegations credible“ or not depends very crucially on whether they think they can successfully prosecute their case and meet to burden of proof in the eyes of the arbitrator, so presumably SS will not say they find the allegations credible unless they think they can meet the burden of proof in the adjudication.
You may think that that is just semantics, but I don’t.
The current system is that the ban is imposed at the point that SS announces that it has found the allegations credible, so that is the way it works for everyone up until now, including GM, RG, etc. But one can contemplate a change in the system in which the ban is not imposed until after the conclusion of the appeal (in situations in which the respondent is not considered a current risk). I am not advocating that, but I also don’t think it’s a completely asinine idea for respondents or friends of respondents to advocate.
1 Like
Why would one contemplate not making people serve a punishment, civil or otherwise until after the appeal. It doesn’t work like that in any court, any arbitration hearing, anywhere.
16 Likes
Based on the evidence and what was presented to them, they could not determine if he was a risk until the investigation had been concluded with testimony and fact-gathering and they had something to work with. In the case of Doug Masters, a 28/29-year old former Junior rider turned trainer in Lexington, who is suspended with a directive for no contact due to allegations of sexual relations with a minor, they knew at the get-go he was a risk that needed to be contained because he was - at the time - in an openly acknowledged relationship with a minor, whom I believe was his client or working student. In other words, he wasn’t hiding anything and people knew about it, since he was tagged by other industry adults - ironically female - on social media posts referencing the attractiveness of his underage relationship partner.
9 Likes
Safe sport’s sole mission is to protect athletes.
People who dont like that they or their friends/family have been deemed a threat to athletes will never ever view the system or process or any of the people involved as fair.
Clearly people who arent involved cant even acknowledge that safe sport is clearly a third party.
Playing devils advocate in this situation is gross.
15 Likes
Not to mention we are how many threads and about three years past the roll out? Long past the time to play devils advocate.
8 Likes
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“large”,“data-attachmentid”:10675565}[/ATTACH]
More relevant than ever
9 Likes
I promise I will give up after this final attempt.
Both SS and criminal prosecution involve an investigation phase and an adjudication phase. I define the adjudication phase as a process in which the defendant/respondent has the opportunity to defend against the allegations with benefit of counsel and in which an impartial third party makes a ruling as to whether the party that has conducted the investigator has, in the eyes of the impartial third party, met the stipulated burden of proof.
The SS process is analogous to, but different from, the criminal justice process.
The way I, personally, in my own little mind view the correspondence between the two is this;
Investigator= police or SS
Adjudicator who is supposed to be impartial and gets to say yea or nay as to whether the prosecution (prosecutor or SS) has or hasn’t met the burden of proof is the judge or jury in the criminal justice system and the arbitrator in the SS process.
Adjudication : is called a trial in the criminal
justice system and an appeal in the SS process.
Second shot at adjudication of the case: is called an “appeal” in the criminal justice system. In the SS process, there is no second shot. There is nothing in the SS process that corresponds to the “appeal” in the criminal justice system.
I see SS as the investigator and not the adjudicator.
I do not think it is morally corrupt or asinine for Robert Dover or others to point out that in the current SS process, the sanction is imposed prior to the adjudication before the impartial third party.
2 Likes
You are absolutely incorrect.
it is ok to be wrong.
24 Likes
No. If you must equate Safe Sport to the court system;
Think of Safe Sport as having had the trial and found the defendant guilty.
Think of the arbitrator as the court of appeals.
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-…-Process-2.pdf
Here is a flow chart. As you can see the investigators don’t make decisions. They investigate.
We don’t agree with RD or BN or the Serios, etc… their arguments are asinine because they display a severe lack of knowledge about the process and constantly conflate constitutional rights with horse showing. Never mind in Dover’s letter, he makes that argument referencing Title IX and at the end acknowledges there is no constitutional standing to be in a club.
Also, all these trainers would be hard pressed to show that can’t make money in horses because they can’t belong to USEF. That has been shown to be false long before safe sport.
18 Likes
No. However, if you must equate Safe Sport with the court system (which is silly since they are completely different)
Think of Safe Sport as having had the trial where the defendant was found guilty.
Think of the arbitrator as the court of appeals.
13 Likes
Is this addressed at me? Am I the one you are calling “gross”? I’m not playing devil’s advocate; I can see a glimmer of a legitimate complaint in Dover’s post. Strategically, I think the more robust way to support SS as an institution is to acknowledge any tiny legitimate criticisms, if there are any, and ask whether there are any modest, near costless ways to address them, by say, delaying the ban until after the conclusion of the appeal IN CASES IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS NOT DEEMED A CURRENT RISK for 30 or 60 days.
You apparently think that the most effective way to support SS as an institution is to reflexively (as in knee jerkingly) condemn anyone who criticizes it in any way, or in my case, choses to acknowledge that there might be a glimmer of legitimacy in a single complaint posted by a friend of the wife of a respondent.
Enjoy your serene moral certitude with a glass of wine.
5 Likes
