That is, indeed, how most people view it. I view it differently, as I have tried to explain.
1 Like
You know how some things are subjective?
This isnt one of those things.
30 Likes
Well, if that is how you “view it” you will never understand it. Safe Sport does not function in the same manner as the court system.
19 Likes
There’s not a glimmer of anything except maybe stupidity and Just. Not. Getting. It. Courts and arbitration do not delay sentencing due to an appeal. It’s not a thing, it will never be a thing. Should Barisone be off the list until the completion of his trial? What if he made bail? Should he be on the list?
Someone being a wife/husband/friend does not give these idiotic arguments legitimacy. It just adds to the list of people making idiotic arguments.
17 Likes
Yankee Duchess go have a beer or a gin and tonic…you are straddling the line. If you have a drink maybe you will fall to one side or the other. LOL
13 Likes
I said that in my own interpretation of how the process, considered as a whole, works, I interpret the adjudication to occur in the arbitration phase, not the investigation phase, and the adjudicator to be the arbitrator, not SS. I think I know what “subjective” means, but am not clear on what you are accusing me of “being subjective” about. Actually, I suspect you’re just saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”. Again.
Have you noticed then when they announce a ban
SS says “We have investigated the allegations and found them to be credible.” They don’t say, “After a thorough investigation, we have adjudicated the complaint and found that by a preponderance of the evidence, the respondent is guilty of misconduct?”
Enjoy your overwhelming sense of moral
superiority with (another) glass of wine.
2 Likes
@YankeeDuchess it’s not productive to respond to you any further on this subject… As you have made clear, you have your own interpretation of the process.
Enjoy your evening.
17 Likes
OK, so I just got yelled at in all caps because I dared to disagree with Robert Dover’s letter, & brought up a few of the normal reasons why.
“BUT THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS!!!”
I give up. It’s like trying to argue with a cult member.
16 Likes
You can “consider” and “interpret” until the cows come home. Until you look at Safe Sport objectively (read the procedures) instead of making your own “interpretation” of it you will never understand the comparative differences between Safe Sport and the criminal justice system , no matter how many people explain it to you.
If I decide to “interpret” the rules that apply to Hunter Derbies as being akin to a Grand Prix Jump off, I will be forever perplexed by why the horse that completed its Hunter Derby course in the quickest time didn’t win the class.
28 Likes
Indeed, it does NOT function the same as the court system, and the word “appeal” means something quite different in SS vs the court system.
In an “appeal” in the court system, the appeal must be based on procedural issues that arose in the first adjudication (trial), is not a retrial on the merits of the case. Bonnie Navin tried to make SS look like a crock by falsely claiming that the “appeal” in arbitration in SS was also limited to just procedural issues and did not adjudicate the merits of the case.
If you think that because the arbitration in SS is called an “ appeal”, it has to be exactly like an appeal in the court system, are you endorsing Navin’s bullshit to the effect that the respondent can only complain about procedural issues, and cannot address the truth or untruth of the allegations in the “appeal”? Serious question; not rhetorical.
1 Like
No, I was saying that they are not the same thing.
9 Likes
In vino veritas.
2 Likes
You are incorrect, as is Robert Dover. Perhaps you simply haven’t done the research to educate yourself on the facts, however I know he knows the difference, which makes his repeated support of proven offenders even more disappointing.
Sanctions are not imposed prior to adjudication except in the very rare case they have reason to believe the person under investigation is at high risk or harming a minor while the investigation is ongoing. In that case they do reserve the right to issue a temporary suspension, pending the outcome of the investigation. Although rarely used by SS, temporary suspensions are standard practice when teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc. are being investigated by their professional standards associations for alleged misconduct.
The normal SS steps are investigation, report, review of report and decision (ie first adjudication), sanction, then arbitration if desired (second adjudication).
First of all, SafeSport IS an independent, impartial third party. That was the entire point of creating a separate body to provide oversight of sports organizations, because NGBs did a terrible job of policing their own members. The SS board members and trained investigators are entirely independent from any one sport. They have no idea who Bob MacDonald or George Morris are, and they don’t care.
The investigators investigate, interview relevant parties from all sides (including the “accused” and any rebuttal witnesses they choose to provide), review all the evidence and prepare a formal report. The SS Director (who is an impartial third party)reviews the report and any additional information required, then makes a decision based on all the evidence and statements gathered. That is the first adjudication (aka trial and verdict, for those who insist on drawing parallels with the justice system).
If, in that adjudication, the Center finds a preponderance of the evidence supports the claims, then a sanction is imposed (aka sentencing in criminal justice terms).
If the “accused” is unhappy with the decision, he or she may request arbitration. That would be the equivalent of an appeal in the justice system. The arbitrator is completely independent from SafeSport (which, I remind you, is independent from the NGBs). So now you have not only an impartial third-party investigation but also a “fourth party” review and arbitration.
Honestly I don’t see how much more due process could possibly be provided. You can choose to interpret things in your own mind as you see fit, but that doesn’t actually alter the facts.
26 Likes
One of the problems with people attempting to equate Safe Sport with the Criminal Justice system is that this is not a criminal procedure. No one will be put in jail by Safe Sport.
Safe Sport is more akin to a civil proceeding than it is a criminal one, but it is actually more of a workplace disciplinary procedure, such as the Bar yanking your law license or the State Board yanking your license to practice medicine.
I don’t understand why it is that seemingly intelligent people (Dover et al) cannot wrap their minds around this. Horse Sport is only being made to abide by ethical standards that have been common in most workplaces for decades. Hopefully the rules will stop people from having sexual relationships with minors, though those that do such things really don’t care about “rules”.
We obviously can’t completely eradicate the sleazy immoral predators that seduce and/or assault minors, but at least we now have some guidelines to help prevent abuse and some accountability for those who choose to prey on the young people in Equestrian sport.
21 Likes
You don’t have to like something on Facebook to get a notification that something has been posted. There is a handy notification option on posts that you can click on. Even I’ve figured that out.
2 Likes
You don’t have to like something on Facebook to get a notification that something has been posted. There is a handy notification option on posts that you can click on. Even I’ve figured that out.
SafeSport is independent of the Democratic Party, the POTUS, the USEF and all of the NGBs. It’s crucial that they are independent of the NGBs, because otherwise the BNT perps could foil the investigations.
What I am disagreeing with is whether SS is an impartial third party providing an impartial adjudication of the results of its own investigation.
If SS, as opposed to the arbitrator, is the impartial, third party adjudicator, then who are the opposing adversarial first two parties? The reporter and the respondent?
I view SS as a partisan advocating on behalf of potential victims of abuse. They investigate allegations against the respondent, and involve the reporters as witnesses. After investigating, they make a report as to whether or not they found the allegations reported to them credible. If they find the allegations credible, they announce a sanction.
If SS is a partisan advocating for athletes (like a DA), and is responsible for conducting the investigation (like the police), do you see SS as an impartial third party assessing its own investigation? How can they be impartial wrt the guilt or innocence of respondent, when it’s their own investigation they are assessing?
I have zero problem with the SS procedure. I think their job is to perform a duty comparable to, but different from, the police and DA in the criminal justice system. No disrespect or criticism involved.
If you were charged with a crime, would you be OK with your guilt or innocence bring adjudicated by the police and DA? Have the police decide whether or not they themselves have met a burden of proof? You might decide plead guilty or plea bargain.
But if you want to maintain your innocence, you exercise your right to a trial. The judge and jury are supposed to be the impartial third party, not the investigators (police).
To put it differently, would you be comfortable with eliminating the SS arbitration phase, and claim that respondent has received an impartial “third party” adjudication (by SS) when SS makes its report?
I am fine with the process as it stands now. However, if you actually believe the SS report based on its own investigation is a true impartial third party adjudication of the misconduct, I would consider the truncated process unfair to the respondent. If the process is unfair to the respondent it’s going to lose legitimacy.
I think the arbitration phase is absolutely vital, and I am not offended by a suggestion that the imposition of the ban be delayed until after the adjudication in the arbitration is concluded (provided the respondent is not considered a current risk).
Likewise, at this juncture prior to the completion of the appeal, I am not offended by DM saying “He is innocent!”
1 Like
So petite women aren’t allowed to get married? Definitely not to older men? I do not know anything about McDonald, and I’m not defending him with this statement, but I’m tired of every 20+ year marriage where the woman was under 18, is vilifying the man. I have a friend who at 19 or 20 started dating a 28 year old. They are married, he isn’t a creeper. Sometimes you meet the right person when you’re young.
I met my husband when I was 16, he would have been 23, I thought he was seriously a heart throb, but didn’t see him again for nearly a year. I started dating him when I graduated high school, when I was 17, I was attending the same college. We married when I was 19. Now when he’s 57 and I’m 50, it is no big deal, a 7 year age difference. He’d spent 4 years in the Army before starting college. There was no coaching relationship, I pursued him more than him me. Oh, I’m 5’1" and he’s 6’.
I have not read Debbie’s book, but her marrying him relatively young does not bother me…mostly because they have stayed married, in an age when divorce is not uncommon and is more of a financial hit than anything else. IMO, that is irrelevant and SafeSport should not be going after 43 year old marriages. In fact, once people have gotten married, I think that this is not a case where SafeSport should be pursuing THAT relationship. Now, if there are OTHERs, then absolutely.
4 Likes
She was 14 when they met, but they did not marry until she was 23. Their age difference is about the same as yours.
The investigation is confidential, but I think it is extremely unlikely that SS would go for a lifetime ban based on his “relationship” with her prior to her turning 18.
5 Likes
Good lord, you may not be “offended” if someone who has been found to have enough credible evidence against them is allowed to continue to have access to minors, but I have a feeling that the parents of a minor would be absolutely irate if Safe Sport, having enough information about an individual that, after an investigation and subsequent judgement was found to be deserving of a lifetime ban under the rules, were to molest a child while waiting for arbitration.
We are discussing the protection of children. Their welfare is paramount (to some of us.)
I can’t understand your inability to read and process the Safe Sport guidelines, nor your reluctance to put the welfare of children first.
23 Likes
