When discussing the attribute of SS being independent and impartial, it is important to be clear on specifying independent/ impartial with respect to XYZ.
SS was created to be independent of NGBs and this is extremely important so that BNTs and their friends can’t have undue influence on the process. We all agree here.
SS conducts an investigation (independent of the USEF). When the head of SS reviews the evidence gathered by investigators within his organization, from the point of view of the respondent, can the SS personnel making the report be considered impartial in forming a judgement of culpability in an adversarial relationship in which one party is the SS investigators and the other is the respondent.
I am questioning whether in its determination of the allegations being credible whether SS is, or claims to be, independent of and impartial with respect to its own investigation. I am not talking about point 1.
You can discuss whichever points you like, and come to as many incorrect conclusions as you like, as I’m not engaging with you on this topic any further.
I think you would be much much less fraught if you just spoke to those who share your incorrect interpretations.
An echo chamber in the form of a closed FB group, perhaps? I’d rather be a minority of one than avoid different opinions by seeking out an echo chamber.
This statement has 16 “likes” and can be used by people like Bonnie Navin and Diane Carney to document that the supporters of SS are sufficiently hysterical about safeguarding children that they acknowledge that the SS process may not provide safeguards to ensure fairness respect the accused, and they don’t care, as long as the accused are off the streets.
It can be used by those miscreants to undermine the legitimacy of SafeSport.
I think the SS process as a whole, inclusive of the arbitration phase does provide fair treatment of the accused. My point is simply that the accused’s impartial third party adjudication is the arbitration, not the SS report. Stating that is all that needs to be done to shut down the bitching and moaning by RD. By continuing to insist that the SS report is the impartial third party adjudication, and then making things worse by saying that you don’t even care if it’s not fully impartial, you’re validating his complaints and undermining the legitimacy of SS.
But I’m not… because I’m not part of the jurisdiction that makes up SS, so whether or not I care if it’s impartial (which it is) is irrelevant.
I am 100% okay with being “sufficiently hysterical” in ensuring that children aren’t sexually abused. Let that be my final statement.
I think I see what you are questioning. Can the director of Safe Sport review all the evidence and the report in an impartial manner? I would have to say yes. I don’t think it does them any favors to try sanction everyone just because they feel they can, nor does it do them favors to not sanction people.
It is my belief based on the statistics given at the USHJA meeting last winter, that they are being impartial. We would see the numbers skew if they weren’t being impartial.
I also get the impression that many in the horse world think it’s just for them. They still think the USEF has a choice to implement it or not. I also think many in the horse world are grasping at straws to make their arguments because it IS their friends and colleagues who are being sanctioned and publicly listed.
Other sports have sanctioned members and banned members. Not a peep. It is my impression that SS is now a problem because it’s hitting close to home and the protection they once enjoyed by being a BNT/BNR is gone. When lesser names are banned/sanctioned, no one talks about it. I also truly believe the conversation about BM wouldn’t be happening if he wasn’t married to DM.
I think I see what you are questioning. Can the director of Safe Sport review all the evidence and the report in an impartial manner? I would have to say yes. I don’t think it does them any favors to try sanction everyone just because they feel they can, nor does it do them favors to not sanction people.
It is my belief based on the statistics given at the USHJA meeting last winter, that they are being impartial. We would see the numbers skew if they weren’t being impartial.
I also get the impression that many in the horse world think it’s just for them. They still think the USEF has a choice to implement it or not. I also think many in the horse world are grasping at straws to make their arguments because it IS their friends and colleagues who are being sanctioned and publicly listed.
Other sports have sanctioned members and banned members. Not a peep. It is my impression that SS is now a problem because it’s hitting close to home and the protection they once enjoyed by being a BNT/BNR is gone. When lesser names are banned/sanctioned, no one talks about it. I also truly believe the conversation about BM wouldn’t be happening if he wasn’t married to DM.
@YankeeDuchess I think I see what you are questioning. Can the director of Safe Sport review all the evidence and the report in an impartial manner? I would have to say yes. I don’t think it does them any favors to try sanction everyone just because they feel they can, nor does it do them favors to not sanction people.
It is my belief based on the statistics given at the USHJA meeting last winter, that they are being impartial. We would see the numbers skew if they weren’t being impartial.
I also get the impression that many in the horse world think it’s just for them. They still think the USEF has a choice to implement it or not. I also think many in the horse world are grasping at straws to make their arguments because it IS their friends and colleagues who are being sanctioned and publicly listed.
Other sports have sanctioned members and banned members. Not a peep. It is my impression that SS is now a problem because it’s hitting close to home and the protection they once enjoyed by being a BNT/BNR is gone. When lesser names are banned/sanctioned, no one talks about it. I also truly believe the conversation about BM wouldn’t be happening if he wasn’t married to DM.
SS’s legitimacy rests on the whole community believing that the process as a whole provides a fair and impartial adjudication to the accused.
I also consider protecting minors from abuse as paramount. But to be successful in its mission, SS needs rock solid legitimacy, and your statements feed rather than refute RDs bitching and moaning.
I think this post actually got me to understand where you’re coming from, and why you couldn’t explain it in a way I was understanding-- and I will probably do just as poor of a job arguing my side, which is;
Here’s the problem. You cannot debate SS under a false hypothetical. SS says that Trainer X did Z, and then Trainer X’s supporters say that maybe he didn’t do Z. There has yet to be a point which I know of where a BNT has had their allegations of Z reversed, and SS has allowed them to return to the sport without reservations.
It is perhaps unreasonable to argue the bias, or lack of, of SS with a problem that is purely hypothetical.
Personally I think it is just as much an offense to the legitimacy of SS to argue a stance which has no evidence, than to be “sufficiently hysterical” in protecting minors (your opinion). You are as much part of the community that is saying that SS does not provide a “fair trial.” Why perpetuate that notion?
It’s also worth pointing out that no one is denying an assault. No one. They all are hoping it goes away by saying it was one person 40-50 years ago. So they admit guilt. RG’s friends said it, GM said it, and RM said it. I don’t think these three people are the best examples of unfair treatment when their press releases and friends all say, “yeah but it was one kid 40-50 years ago. It was a different time.”
I cant remember the name of the poster who was I believe involved in figure skating, and only ended up here due to our extensive and contentious railing against safe sport, but they had the actual math, that showed the overwhelming and vast majority of reports result in zero sanctions, so to say that --again-- safe sport is a gotcha! Club is active and aggressive misinformation, and that is what the I stand with pedos trolls latch onto.
The poster you are thinking of is FiSk123, a reporter who is coming to us from figure skating.
It’s not completely true that equestrian is the only sport circling the wagons around big names sanctioned - figure skating has done some as well, and I’m sure there are examples in other sports. I don’t know how the taekwando or swimming situations look from the inside. But I think equestrian doesn’t look good on this account.
And that’s where your premise is flawed. The two parties are the claimant and the respondent. SS is not agent for the claimant, no matter how much you want to interpret it that way.
They are an INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY. They have no vested interest in finding the claims to be credible. Their role is to investigate the claims and either find them credible or not.
I am NOT saying that the SS process as a whole “does not provide a ‘fair trial’.”
I am saying the the respondent’s opportunity to defend himself against the allegations with benefit of counsel in front of an independent, impartial adjudicator (usually a retired judge) doesn’t happen as part of the SS investigation and report PRIOR to the announcement by SS saying that they have found the allegations credible. It happens, but at a different point in the process.
If people keep asserting that the respondent received his impartial adjudication prior to the announcement, as you are doing, then RM and RD can keep bringing up their complaint that SS can not be considered 100% impartial, given that the investigation and “adjudication” are all done within the same organization. It only makes their complaint look more valid when you say that you don’t care if SS is less than 100% impartial.
On the other hand, when the criticism of SS is made that possibly SS cannot be an impartial judge of its own investigation, if you were to respond, “we’re not relying on SS to necessarily have an impartial view of its own investigation, that is what the option for arbitration is for, so quit bitching and wait 30 days,” the SS critics would have no comeback to that.
SS is incapable of an unbiased investigation because they are relying on themselves for a proper investigation? This is when talking in circles feels like being frisbee’d into the sun. It’s been fun, YankeeDuchess.
