Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

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.

In the arbitration phase, the retired judge who serves as arbitrator is the adjudicator, correct? So who are the first two adversarial parties in arbitration? The group of reporters as a whole vs the respondent?

When it makes its report why doesn’t SS say “By a preponderance of the evidence, we have found the respondent guilty? Or, we find in favor of the reporters?

It seems clear to me that in the arbitration phase, the impartial third party adjudicator is the arbitrator and the two adversarial parties are SS and the respondent, with the reporters as witnesses. There was discussion before as to whether SS should be allowed to subpoena witnesses. Clearly it is SS itself that is one of the two adversarial parties in the arbitration phase.

You’re saying that SS takes the role of an impartial adjudicator to weigh the interests of the group of 4 or 6 reporters vs the respondent prior to the announcement of the ban, then if the respondent exercises his right to appeal, then switches from impartial adjudicator into partisan prosecutor attempting to endure its ban is not overturned?

In what judicial or extra judicial proceeding in the US, or Canada for that matter, does a single agency switch from an adjudicator role to a prosecutorial role in different phases of the proceeding?

Criminal court, civil court, Title IX proceeding, any type of proceeding is fine for an example of that switch-in role phenomenon.

[Jealoushe]

@YankeeDuchess

In the arbitration phase, the retired judge who serves as arbitrator is the adjudicator, correct? So who are the first two adversarial parties in arbitration? The group of reporters as a whole vs the respondent?

When it makes its report why doesn’t SS say “By a preponderance of the evidence, we have found the respondent guilty? Or, we find in favor of the reporters?

It seems clear to me that in the arbitration phase, the impartial third party adjudicator is the arbitrator and the two adversarial parties are SS and the respondent, with the reporters as witnesses. There was discussion before as to whether SS should be allowed to subpoena witnesses. Clearly it is SS itself that is one of the two adversarial parties in the arbitration phase.

You’re saying that SS takes the role of an impartial adjudicator to weigh the interests of the group of 4 or 6 reporters vs the respondent prior to the announcement of the ban, then if the respondent exercises his right to appeal, then switches from impartial adjudicator into partisan prosecutor attempting to endure its ban is not overturned?

In what judicial or extra judicial proceeding in the US, or Canada for that matter, does a single agency switch from an adjudicator role to a prosecutorial role in different phases of the proceeding?

Criminal court, civil court, Title IX proceeding, any type of proceeding is fine for an example of that switch-in role phenomenon.

Why don’t you contact SS for clarification since you are questioning things so intensely? How do you know what they include in the report?? How do you know what the guilty party gets sent?

[YankeeDuchess]

@Jealoushe

Why don’t you contact SS for clarification since you are questioning things so intensely? How do you know what they include in the report?? How do you know what the guilty party gets sent?

I’m talking about what they announce publicly.

I would like a response from

@BigMama1 or anyone on the issue of whether, when they claim that the respondent has received an impartial third party adjudication by SS itself PRIOR to its announcement, they think that SS then switches gears from impartial adjudicator to adversarial prosecutor in the arbitration phase.

When DM released a short statement saying she couldn’t say much, but including the words “He is innocent!”, I commented that I was “not offended” that she would continue to presume him innocent, given that in my view as a minority of one, at this point the impartial third party adjudication has not yet occurred.

Most posters are eager to condemn her, and anyone who “liked” RDs Facebook post, and have condemned me for saying I’m not offended by her statement and that I’m also not offended by the people who “liked” Dover’s post because, while I don’t agree with his post and think his letter is going exactly nowhere, there were a couple points in his letter that were “not asinine”, as I think I put it.

I have tried to articulate a mildly different interpretation of the SS process that in no way criticizes the process, but which shows both DMs and RDs statements in a slightly different light.

For this, I am condescended to and reviled as a supporter of GM!

[Jealoushe]

@YankeeDuchess

I’m talking about what they announce publicly.

What difference does it make? It really only matters to those involved.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

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.

Well, I’m a dressage rider, and we dressage riders don’t really have to worry about riding or not riding with banned trainers.

If I wanted to snub DMs friends and Olympic teammates because they “liked” RDs post, that would be an issue, but my (apparently shocking and extremely controversial position) is that Dover’s post was mostly an empty gesture and did not attempt to undermine SS or express support for pedophiles.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Jealoushe

What difference does it make? It really only matters to those involved.

Huh? The credibility and legitimacy of SS depends on how people, including people like RD and the people who “liked” his post, as well as rank and file USDF members perceive the fairness of its process.
I would never in a million years say “The way SS operates does not affect me until I’m accused, or a reporter.”

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

Huh? The credibility and legitimacy of SS depends on how people, including people like RD and the people who “liked” his post, as well as rank and file USDF members perceive the fairness of its process.

I would never in a million years say “The way SS operates does not affect me until I’m accused, or a reporter.”

No it doesn’t. Safe Sport isn’t unique to the USEF. A handful of riders are not going to dent the credibility and legitimacy of Safe Sport.

[YankeeDuchess]

The credibility and legitimacy of SS depends on how people, including but not limited to RD and the people who “liked” his post perceive the fairness of its procedures.

I don’t think RDs post undermined the legitimacy of SS. I think rank and file USDF members who say things like “I want less bad behavior from men, and I’m not picky about how the job gets done” do undermine the credibility of SS.

SS has done an impressive job of building credibility by proceeding on reports, even against some of the icons and having its bans upheld, so I am confident that SS will continue to build credibility just by doing its job well.

[blue_heron]

@YankeeDuchess

Well, I’m a dressage rider, and we dressage riders don’t really have to worry about riding or not riding with banned trainers.

If I wanted to snub DMs friends and Olympic teammates because they “liked” RDs post, that would be an issue, but my (apparently shocking and extremely controversial position) is that Dover’s post was mostly an empty gesture and did not attempt to undermine SS or express support for pedophiles.

I was done here, but what does this have to do with dressage vs not dressage? I’m just as uncomfortable riding with a man banned by SS in a dressage saddle than in any other tack. RD’s SS questioning makes me concerned. I understand this may be a response to internal affairs between Debbie and RD as they are at the top of the sport, but it does rub me the wrong way.
FWIW, I think Debbie is an incredible instructor and I have loved her clinics. Her riding speaks for itself.

[smoofox]

@YankeeDuchess

I have tried to articulate a mildly different interpretation of the SS process that in no way criticizes the process, but which shows both DMs and RDs statements in a slightly different light.

For this, I am condescended to and reviled as a supporter of GM!

To be honest, you have actually been far more condescending to anyone who dares to have a differing opinion than whatever the current one you have is - that you have been laboriously expressing and beating everyone over the head with in never-ending circles. No, you are not “reviled” even though it seems that you want to be for some reason. Someone simply expressing their concerns or opinion (as I am doing now) is not “reviling” you.

GM in his later years had become a sneering bully… listening to his yearly clinic that was held in June at the farm next door was excruciatingly painful at times. The insults and howling were not appropriate… and at his last clinic, the farm owner received many complaints about how GM went over the top and was often inappropriate. She correctly pointed out that they knew what they signed up for - but admitted that GM was getting worse.

Being revered as a hunt seat eq god/chef d’equipe/whatever does not grant anyone the “power” to act like that. And yet GM reveled in it…

In a previous thread, I shared a tale from many years ago about being at Spruce Meadows in the Exhibitors pub… and overhearing an intense discussion between US grooms and one rider - a young male groom had obviously had some uncomfortable interactions with GM. While the others at the table were supportive, they repeatedly cautioned that he not say anything as GM was untouchable. I was disappointed in that rider - she had the leverage and status to step in but stepped back instead. It was freakin’ GM, doncha know?

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.

I took the comment about not showing as an aside/proof that you can have a career in horses and yet never need to show - which is what some banned trainers do. They can still have careers in the horse industry. The condescending/sneering tone of that quote (or at least that is how it came across to me) sort of refutes your claims that you and you alone are “condescended to”.

[ladyj79]

The legitimacy of safe sport doesn’t depend on a small non representative minority of a small non-representative minority that is the horse industry, it actually depends on an overwhelming majority of voters in the United States.

This is a congressional mandate. It was signed into law by the president of the united states. Congress is elected by eligible and participating voters in the United States, and are responsible for legislation aka law creation in the united states.

As I have said multiple times, there are zero elected officials who are going to take up the legislative cause of reducing athlete --many of whom are children-- protections for the benefit of what amounts to a very very small graduating class of individuals who have been deemed a clear and present danger to said athletes–again, many of whom are children.

This is a law. It can only be undone by the law, not whinging about how unfair it is that elderly sexual predators cant go to horse shows.

[YankeeDuchess]

@blue_heron

I was done here, but what does this have to do with dressage vs not dressage? I’m just as uncomfortable riding with a man banned by SS in a dressage saddle than in any other tack. RD’s SS questioning makes me concerned. I understand this may be a response to internal affairs between Debbie and RD as they are at the top of the sport, but it does rub me the wrong way.
FWIW, I think Debbie is an incredible instructor and I have loved her clinics. Her riding speaks for itself.

TheMoo asked me when was the last time I had “shown on the circuit”, which I first thought was put down. She assured me it was not a put down, but that if I were riding on “the circuit” I would be in contact with riders riding with banned trainers.

I was pointing out that her assumption that I was a jumper rider was incorrect and that as a dressage rider I know of zero banned trainers remotely close to me, so riding or not riding with a banned dressage trainer is a non issue in my area of the country.

That’s what the specific question from Moo has to do with dressage vs not dressage. I would take a lesson with Debbie, Steffen Peters, Adrienne Lyle, Lisa Wilcox, or Carl Hester if the opportunity arose.

Actually, part of the thread discusses the extent to which DM saying “He is innocent!” constitutes undermining of SS and the extent to which she should be shunned for that. My position is not at all.

[Jealoushe]

@YankeeDuchess

Huh? The credibility and legitimacy of SS depends on how people, including people like RD and the people who “liked” his post, as well as rank and file USDF members perceive the fairness of its process.

I would never in a million years say “The way SS operates does not affect me until I’m accused, or a reporter.”

Well first of all thats NOT at all what I said, coming from someone who argues semantics until the cows come home you should know that. You referred to the report specifically.

If you want to know (or RD or any of those other idiots) they can go ahead and read all the guidelines and processes. SS doesnt have to defend or explain themselves every time they suspend someone. Sorry but they don’t. Its all on their website, regarding the process. Don’t like it, take it up with them. Pretty simple.

[blue_heron]

@YankeeDuchess

TheMoo asked me when was the last time I had “shown on the circuit”, which I first thought was put down. She assured me it was not a put down, but that if I were riding on “the circuit” I would be in contact with riders riding with banned trainers.

I was pointing out that her assumption that I was a jumper rider was incorrect and that as a dressage rider I know of zero banned trainers remotely close to me, so riding or not riding with a banned dressage trainer is a non issue in my area of the country.

That’s what the specific question from Moo has to do with dressage vs not dressage. I would take a lesson with Debbie, Steffen Peters, Adrienne Lyle, Lisa Wilcox, or Carl Hester if the opportunity arose.

Actually, part of the thread discusses the extent to which DM saying “He is innocent!” constitutes undermining of SS and the extent to which she should be shunned for that. My position is not at all.

I’m aware, as I’ve said, I’ve been following this thread closely. Moo’s comment, which you have chosen to leech, is just asking if you are involved in showing, and I know that you knew that.

This post in particular shows just how much you view this as an “us vs. them” issue. If it doesn’t affect you, you don’t care. That’s disappointing. I don’t give a flying [choose 4-letter word] what your discipline is or where you’re located, this sport should be showing a dedication to protecting young riders, of which the overwhelming majority is female. Can’t emphasize enough how purely disgusting it is that some people can’t get behind that. End of story.

[YankeeDuchess]

@smoofox

To be honest, you have actually been far more condescending to anyone who dares to have a differing opinion than whatever the current one you have is - that you have been laboriously expressing and beating everyone over the head with in never-ending circles. No, you are not “reviled” even though it seems that you want to be for some reason. Someone simply expressing their concerns or opinion (as I am doing now) is not “reviling” you.

GM in his later years had become a sneering bully… listening to his yearly clinic that was held in June at the farm next door was excruciatingly painful at times. The insults and howling were not appropriate… and at his last clinic, the farm owner received many complaints about how GM went over the top and was often inappropriate. She correctly pointed out that they knew what they signed up for - but admitted that GM was getting worse.

Being revered as a hunt seat eq god/chef d’equipe/whatever does not grant anyone the “power” to act like that. And yet GM reveled in it…

In a previous thread, I shared a tale from many years ago about being at Spruce Meadows in the Exhibitors pub… and overhearing an intense discussion between US grooms and one rider - a young male groom had obviously had some uncomfortable interactions with GM. While the others at the table were supportive, they repeatedly cautioned that he not say anything as GM was untouchable. I was disappointed in that rider - she had the leverage and status to step in but stepped back instead. It was freakin’ GM, doncha know?

I took the comment about not showing as an aside/proof that you can have a career in horses and yet never need to show - which is what some banned trainers do. They can still have careers in the horse industry. The condescending/sneering tone of that quote (or at least that is how it came across to me) sort of refutes your claims that you and you alone are “condescended to”.

I never said that I ALONE was condescended to. Just that I was condescended to.

The Moo has already clarified that it was not a put down, instead, that she was making the related but somewhat different point that if I were showing on the jumper circuit I would have come across other riders who were being coached by banned trainers.

But I don’t ride on the jumper circuit and there are no banned dressage trainers in my part of the country.

Perhaps before providing your interpretation of what another poster meant, you could read enough of the recent posts to see that she had already clarified the post herself.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Jealoushe

Well first of all thats NOT at all what I said, coming from someone who argues semantics until the cows come home you should know that. You referred to the report specifically.

If you want to know (or RD or any of those other idiots) they can go ahead and read all the guidelines and processes. SS doesnt have to defend or explain themselves every time they suspend someone. Sorry but they don’t. Its all on their website, regarding the process. Don’t like it, take it up with them. Pretty simple.

I may have misunderstood your post when you referred to “it” mattering to only those involved. I thought by “it” you were referring to the credibility and legitimacy of SS, which I think matters to everyone, not just those currently involved in the process.

Statements referring simply to “it” are easy to misunderstand.

[BigMama1]

I really have nothing else to add to this thread. I have explained how the system works, and why I believe your interpretation of the process is incorrect.

Since that obviously doesn’t satisfy you, I suggest you visit the hunter jumper forum and read through the many, many threads there about SafeSport, Robert Gage, George Morris, and Diane Carney’s group. You may feel your position is more validated by some of the people over there.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Jealoushe

Well first of all thats NOT at all what I said, coming from someone who argues semantics until the cows come home you should know that. You referred to the report specifically.

If you want to know (or RD or any of those other idiots) they can go ahead and read all the guidelines and processes. SS doesnt have to defend or explain themselves every time they suspend someone. Sorry but they don’t. Its all on their website, regarding the process. Don’t like it, take it up with them. Pretty simple.

I was saying that what SS announces publicly about the report on an individual case matters in terms of the public’s perception of whether the process is fair and legitimate, and that that matters to everyone, not just the people involved in the process.

SS doesn’t have to explain or defend themselves whenever they ban someone.

However, if Dover writes a public letter or Facebook post questioning any part of the process lots of people (not necessarily you) feel free to ridicule and condemn him.

[blue_heron]

@YankeeDuchess

I was saying that what SS announces publicly about the report on an individual case matters in terms of the public’s perception of whether the process is fair and legitimate, and that that matters to everyone, not just the people involved in the process.

SS doesn’t have to explain or defend themselves whenever they ban someone.

However, if Dover writes a public letter or Facebook post questioning any part of the process lots of people (not necessarily you) feel free to ridicule and condemn him.

SS can only say so much about the decision to protect victims. This point has been beaten into the ground endlessly. I don’t need to know that they did A, B, and C and make my own decision on whether it’s serious enough to condemn. Any/all sexual misconduct towards minors (or anyone, for that matter) is enough for me to dissuade me from working with them.

[smoofox]

@YankeeDuchess

I never said that I ALONE was condescended to. Just that I was condescended to.

The Moo has already clarified that it was not a put down, instead, that she was making the related but somewhat different point that if I were showing on the jumper circuit I would have come across other riders who were being coached by banned trainers.

But I don’t ride on the jumper circuit and there are no banned dressage trainers in my part of the country.

Perhaps before providing your interpretation of what another poster meant, you could read enough of the recent posts to see that she had already clarified the post herself.

Perhaps before lecturing other posters on how to post (with yet more of that condescension that you supposedly dislike) … you might consider that I have actually read the entire thread. I never just drop in on the 18th page (on my computer) and comment.

I just said how I interpreted that comment upon MY first reading as it related to part of the previous discussion… and you took it an entirely different way on YOUR first reading. As simple as that. Nothing complicated. No hidden meanings. Zero. Moo’s intent was not what either of us “read” - as per her clarification.