Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

[YankeeDuchess]

@blue_heron

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?

I do not agree with your premise that just because in its first three years, SS has not had a ban reversed in equestrian, that respondents should just shut up and “trust the SS investigation.”

For myself, I do in fact trust the SS investigation, but I think respondents are entitled to more safeguards than that.

I think it is vitally important that the respondent knows he can avail himself of adjudication by an impartial judge (who was not involved in the investigation). That is the “fair trial”.

I Suppose SS thought like you did and thought that their mission to protect vulnerable children was so important that they, like you, were willing to sanction a few pedo guys that they believed in their heart of hearts were guilty but for whom they didn’t quite have solid evidence lined up. Maybe they’re right, the perp is guilty, but it’s difficult to really document the case.

If they know in their heart of hearts trainer Z is guilty, but the case is weak, will they risk banning the guy? If the case is weak, they risk a good chance of being overturned on appeal. That would be a disaster.

The fact SS knows that they will have to go in front of an independent adjudicator outside their own organization forces SS to sanction only those respondents for whom they know they have a solid case.

So far, SS has been careful not to overreach, and none of the important bans have been overturned. As SS gets more of a track record of being very rarely overturned, perhaps 10 years down the line no one will ever appeal. However, even if no ever used the appeals process, the fact that SS would have to meet its burden of proof in arbitration or risk being overturned is a vital safeguard to ensure against SS overreaching.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

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.”

They seldom admit assault. They allude to one incident 43 or 47 years ago which was consensual but in which the woman was a tiny bit below the legal age of consent. That’s not what these guys are being banned for.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

They seldom admit assault. They allude to one incident 43 or 47 years ago which was consensual but in which the woman was a tiny bit below the legal age of consent. That’s not what these guys are being banned for.

Exactly. So if they admit to one, they are still admitting guilt and probably strengthens the statements of the others. Also, how did RG not get a fair shake? People claimed it was a 17 yo when he was 19. Then the accusers spoke out publicly. Was RG railroaded? Nope, after the accusers spoke people performed mental gymnastics trying to justify it.

I understand what you and RD are saying. I don’t agree with it. Also, do you think Micheal Barisone is unfairly suspended? He hasn’t had his day in court yet and his suspension was handed down when he got arrested.

ETA: Also, the accused is allowed to have counsel with them through the whole process. They don’t just send in documents, a list of witnesses, cross their fingers and hope for the best.

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

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.

By the claimant, do you mean the reporter? If there is more than one reporter (as there usually is), are the two parties the group of reporters vs the respondent?

Are the reporters singly or as a group one of the two parties in the arbitration phase? I thought the reporters were witnesses in the arbitration phase.

I agree that their role is to investigate the claims and reach a conclusion as to whether they consider the allegations credible.

Is “finding the allegations credible” the same as determining that the respondent is “guilty of misconduct” in your view?

[ladyj79]

I beseech everyone to use your internal block. It would be funny if it wasnt about sexual assault.

Thankfully, these people will not be tasked with “reforming” safe sport.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

Exactly. So if they admit to one, they are still admitting guilt and probably strengthens the statements of the others. Also, how did RG not get a fair shake? People claimed it was a 17 yo when he was 19. Then the accusers spoke out publicly. Was RG railroaded? Nope, after the accusers spoke people performed mental gymnastics trying to justify it.

I understand what you and RD are saying. I don’t agree with it. Also, do you think Micheal Barisone is unfairly suspended? He hasn’t had his day in court yet and his suspension was handed down when he got arrested.

ETA: Also, the accused is allowed to have counsel with them through the whole process. They don’t just send in documents, a list of witnesses, cross their fingers and hope for the best.

Re Barisone There are two distinct routes to be suspended or banned. One is by criminal disposition. In Barisone’s case, since he was immediately arrested on charges of attempted murder, SS does not get involved at all and simply suspends the person while the criminal
case is ongoing. If acquitted on all charges, suspension is lifted; if convicted of a felony, the person is banned. I’m fine with that.

I never said that RG failed to get “a fair shake”. He committed suicide before going through with his appeal, but he had the opportunity to have the appeal, so he got a fair shake.

I never said RG did not get a fair shake, nor that he was railroaded. When I said that there was one specific element in what Robert Dover posted that was not asinine, you then attribute to me any preposterous thing that any accused perp or their friends has said. That’s sloppy thinking. I doubt very much that you understand what I am saying.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

I beseech everyone to use your internal block. It would be funny if it wasnt about sexual assault.

Thankfully, these people will not be tasked with “reforming” safe sport.

@ladyj79

If your intent is to not engage with me and beseech “everyone” to internally block me, why did you send me a “follow request”?

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

Re Barisone There are two distinct routes to be suspended or banned. One is by criminal disposition. In Barisone’s case, since he was immediately arrested on charges of attempted murder, SS does not get involved at all and simply suspends the person while the criminal
case is ongoing. If acquitted on all charges, suspension is lifted; if convicted of a felony, the person is banned. I’m fine with that.

I never said that RG failed to get “a fair shake”. He committed suicide before going through with his appeal, but he had the opportunity to have the appeal, so he got a fair shake.

I never said RG did not get a fair shake, nor that he was railroaded. When I said that there was one specific element in what Robert Dover posted that was not asinine, you then attribute to me any preposterous thing that any accused perp or their friends has said. That’s sloppy thinking. I doubt very much that you understand what I am saying.

So who hasn’t gotten a fair shake? That is what RD is claiming per Title IX. That there needs to be a more definitive adjudication process before arbitration. This doesn’t play out in the horse world because, according to the cases he brought up, trainers would have to show a loss of income on the level of unemployment and not being able to work in the industry again. We know that’s not a thing in the horse world. Heck GM just got caught at a rated show.

That’s why the argument is asinine.

I do get what you’re saying but your refusal to acknowledge a counter argument makes it seem like I don’t. You keep rephrasing your argument and will only believe I understand you if I agree. That’s not a discussion. I also am a bit confused about your posting style because it reads like you agree with RD because of the pages long defense of trying to get an agreement. It seems you are unwilling to consider another side.

[Mardi]

@ladyj79

That’s called confirmation bias.

Not to worry. I can understand another’s point of view, and how they explain it,
while still reserving my own perception.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

So who hasn’t gotten a fair shake? That is what RD is claiming per Title IX. That there needs to be a more definitive adjudication process before arbitration. This doesn’t play out in the horse world because, according to the cases he brought up, trainers would have to show a loss of income on the level of unemployment and not being able to work in the industry again. We know that’s not a thing in the horse world. Heck GM just got caught at a rated show.

That’s why the argument is asinine.

My interpretation of RDs fairly cryptic reference to Title 9 is different from yours, naturally. Title IX is civil rights legislation that says that any college that accepts federal money in any way is responsible for ensuring the equal protection of students (and staff) and this includes “date” rape as well as forcible rape being considered a violation of the civil rights of the victim, beyond actual criminal rape laws. So when a student claims to be the victim of date rape, usually the student does not bring a criminal case via the police (whether the student does to the police or not). Instead, the accusation of rape is handled extra judicially within the university. This is relevant because the SS process is also extra judicial.

Since it was an extra judicial process handled within the university, most universities held hearings in which the accused did not get all the constitutional protections that apply in a criminal proceeding, and the standard of proof was taken as a preponderance of the evidence. Like SS, this was justified on the basis of attendance at the university was the privilege of a private club and the only sanctions were suspension and expulsion. The parallels to SS are legitimate.

After about 10 years of this, there were a numerically significant number of cases in which outside journalistic investigations revealed that the accused really did not get “a fair shake”. Frankly, it was a mess.

The economic damage to the unfairly “sanctioned“ male students was considerable. They couldn’t get jobs. Some sued.

Some universities are considering, or have, raised the burden of proof to “by clear and convincing evidence”. I think that Dover was trying to use the reference to Title IX to say that USEF should be worried about being sued and should therefore lobby Congress to have the burden of proof raised all the way to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

While the parallel to Title IX is not silly, I don’t think USEF has to worry about getting sued because it’s not their investigation. They’re required by law to implement the ban. Further, there are reasons why the preponderance of the evidence standard is the correct one for SS.

For those reasons, I think his request that USEF lobby Congress to raise the burden of proof to beyond a reasonable doubt is going exactly nowhere. However, pointing out that there is a strong parallel between SS and Title IX university rape cases, and that there are very serious issues with the treatment of the Title IX cases is valid.

As I understand it, universities conducted the investigations and made decisions, internally, but they did not give the accused the opportunity for independent arbitration.

Again, I think you shut RD down by saying “the arbitration IS the adjudication process, dude” and not by arguing about what SS does or doesn’t do prior to arbitration.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

My interpretation to RD fairly cryptic reference to Title 9 is different from yours, naturally. Title IX is civil rights legislation that says that any college that accepts federal money in any way is responsible for ensuring the equal protection of students (and staff) and this included “date” rape as well as forcible rape being considered a violation of the civil rights of the victim, beyond actual criminal rape laws. So when a student claims to be the victim of date rape, usually the student goes not bring a criminal case via the police (whether the student does to the police or not). Instead, the accusation of rape is handled extra judicially within the university. This is relevant because the SS process is also extra judicial.

Since it was an extra judicial process handled within the university, most universities held hearings in which the accused did not get all the constitutional protections that apply in a criminal proceeding, and the standard of proof was taken as a preponderance of the evidence. Like SS, this was justified on the basis of attendance at the university was the privilege of a private club and the only sanctions were suspension and expulsion. The parallels to SS are legitimate.

After about 10 years of this, there were a numerically significant number of cases in which outside journalistic investigations revealed that the accused really did not get “a fair shake”. Frankly, it was a mess.

The economic damage to the unfairly “sanctioned“ male students was considerable. They couldn’t get jobs. Some sued.

Some universities are considering, or have, raised the burden of proof to “by clear and convincing evidence”. I think that Dover was trying to use the reference to Title IX to say that USEF should be worried about being sued and should therefore lobby Congress to have the burden of proof all the way to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

While the parallel to Title IX is not silly, I don’t think USEF has to worry about getting sued because it’s not their investigation. They’re required by law to implement the ban. Further, there are reasons why the preponderance of the evidence standard is the correct one for SS.

For those reasons, I think his request that USEF lobby Congress to raise the burden of proof to beyond a reasonable doubt is going exactly nowhere. However, pointing out that there is a strong parallel between SS and Title IX university rape cases, and that there are very serious issues with the treatment of the Title IX cases is valid.

As I understand it, universities conducted the investigations and made decisions, internally, but they did not give the accused the opportunity for independent arbitration.

Again, I think you shut RD down by saying “the arbitration IS the adjudication process, dude” and not by arguing about what SS does or doesn’t do prior to arbitration.

I shut him down because SS is not an internal process. I shut him down because he like many others act like it’s unique to Equestrian. He would have a point if these things were the responsibility of the NGBs. It has been proven the NGBs can’t clean their own house across sports. Now we have SS.

Also, part of those cases that you didn’t address was the repercussions to the accused in those cases included severely impacted the person with regards to employment so they did need a higher burden of proof. Being allowed to be a USEF member or not, no matter the crime or infraction, does not make someone un-hirable in the industry. Many people on the banned list are still working in horses. They are literally being told they can’t horse show. That’s it.

[YankeeDuchess]

Even if SS is not internal to USEF or any of the other NGBs, it is an extra judicial process, so some of the same issues arise in both. I don’t see how concerns about extra judicial processes are invalid just because the extra judicial process is external to the NGBs, as it is with SS.

The students were simply expelled from the university and while there was no legal barrier to them being hired, they just couldn’t get jobs. It’s exactly analogous to trainers being expelled from USEF.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

Even if SS is not internal to USEF or any of the other NGBs, it is an extra judicial process, so some of the same issues arise in both. I don’t see how concerns about extra judicial processes are invalid just because the extra judicial process is external to the NGBs, as it is with SS.

The students were simply expelled from the university and while there was no legal barrier to them being hired, they just couldn’t get jobs. It’s exactly analogous to trainers being expelled from USEF.

They are invalid because they only stop people from being a member of an NGB. Now I don’t know what, if any, kind of impact that has for other sports, but for the horsey set to whine about it is just disingenuous. They didn’t care one bit until they realized they wouldn’t get a pass. Their issue isn’t with safe sport. Their issue is the USEF not being able looking away. That’s my biggest problem. Couple that with lame legal arguments, and no, I’m not going to hash out the glimmer of truth as you call it.

No one is losing their lively hood. They are literally being told they can’t horse show. It also doesn’t ostracize them within the horse world because again, there are several people on the lifetime ban list with clients for days.

The above is why I’m okay with the non-judicial punishment. It’s a thing in every other job sector.

ETA: The law suits referenced were not about the kids but the accused getting back pay. So when I speak about fall out, I’m talking about the accused not the accusers.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

They are invalid because they only stop people from being a member of an NGB. Now I don’t know what, if any, kind of impact that has for other sports, but for the horsey set to whine about it is just disingenuous. They didn’t care one bit until they realized they wouldn’t get a pass. Their issue isn’t with safe sport. Their issue is the USEF not being able looking away. That’s my biggest problem. Couple that with lame legal arguments, and no, I’m not going to hash out the glimmer of truth as you call it.

No one is losing their lively hood. They are literally being told they can’t horse show. It also doesn’t ostracize them within the horse world because again, there are several people on the lifetime ban list with clients for days.

The above is why I’m okay with the non-judicial punishment. It’s a thing in every other job sector.

ETA: The law suits referenced were not about the kids but the accused getting back pay. So when I speak about fall out, I’m talking about the accused not the accusers.

So now you are saying that concerns about SS as an extra judicial process are not valid because the worst outcome is getting a lifetime ban which just involves not being able to show horses, and banned trainers seem to be able to continue to work, so RD is just wrong to get worked up about it on the behalf of RM?

Again, I don’t think it enhances the legitimacy of
SafeSport to brush off moderately well articulated concerns on the grounds that if a respondent happens to “not get a fair shake” the effect of the ban is inconsequential.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

So now you are saying that concerns about SS as an extra judicial process are not valid because the worst outcome is getting a lifetime ban which just involves not being able to show horses, and banned trainers seem to be able to continue to work, so RD is just wrong to get worked up about it on the behalf of RM?

Again, I don’t think it enhances the legitimacy of
SafeSport to brush off moderately well articulated concerns on the grounds that if a respondent happens to “not get a fair shake” the effect of the ban is inconsequential.

I’ve always said that. The horsey set is acting like whiney toddlers because their friends are getting caught. End of. When was the last time you’ve should on the circuit?

Sorry but it’s true. Preponderance of evidence all the way through to beyond a reasonable doubt is based solely on the severity of the outcome and the court who has jurisdiction. The effect of the ban is inconsequential because GHM had a client at a USEF show!!! Because eventers wouldn’t notice…

[ladyj79]

If a teacher is found to have–from a preponderance of the evidence–committed sexual misconduct with a minor, even if they dont go to jail, they usually arent teaching anymore.

Unfortunately in the horse industry we have demonstrated that we as a community care less than institutions where a lawsuit for this kind of willful blindness is inevitable.

a third party literally had to step in to prevent these mostly guys from making a living from one subset of the horse industry. We’ll call this subset has beens and wannabes for pedos.

Because that’s how f*ing awful this part of the industry has proven itself to be.

And as I predicted a year ago, these elderly men who sexually assaulted children will still not want for dollars from supplicants.

And they clearly dont lack vociferous (and absurd) public defenders

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

I’ve always said that. The horsey set is acting like whiney toddlers because their friends are getting caught. End of. When was the last time you’ve should on the circuit?

Sorry but it’s true. Preponderance of evidence all the way through to beyond a reasonable doubt is based solely on the severity of the outcome and the court who has jurisdiction. The effect of the ban is inconsequential because GHM had a client at a USEF show!!! Because eventers wouldn’t notice…

OK. I understand your position. Doesn’t really matter what SS does because “the ban is inconsequential because GHM had a client at a USEF show!!”

I assume “When was the last time you’ve shown on the circuit?” is intended as a put down. Classy.

[YankeeDuchess]

@blue_heron

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.

I did not say that “SS is incapable of an unbiased investigation”. I said that even if the respondent feared, rationally or irrationally, that SS were not impartial, the respondent can rely on an impartial adjudication of the allegations in the arbitration phase.

[BigMama1]

@YankeeDuchess

By the claimant, do you mean the reporter? If there is more than one reporter (as there usually is), are the two parties the group of reporters vs the respondent?

Are the reporters singly or as a group one of the two parties in the arbitration phase? I thought the reporters were witnesses in the arbitration phase.

I agree that their role is to investigate the claims and reach a conclusion as to whether they consider the allegations credible.

Is “finding the allegations credible” the same as determining that the respondent is “guilty of misconduct” in your view?

Yes. If they find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the claims, that means the claims of misconduct are credible. For want of a better analogy, it’s the same as being found guilty in a criminal court, or (more appropriately) a judgement for the plaintiff in a civil court. And not just in my view, but in practice.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

OK. I understand your position. Doesn’t really matter what SS does because “the ban is inconsequential because GHM had a client at a USEF show!!”

I assume “When was the last time you’ve shown on the circuit?” is intended as a put down. Classy.

Not a put down a genuine question because at all levels, rated and unrated, there are people there who ride with banned trainers and will tell you that. Some of these trainers were convicted in court but people don’t care.

I didn’t want to fix my autocorrect because posts tend to go into the spam folder when you edit.