RD started a Go Fund Me page for GM, is that not expressing support for a pedophile? And RD was glib about his hot BF not being hit on.
23 Likes
Actually, that’s not what you said:
“We dressage riders” implies all of us, not just those in “your area.” Any of us could, at some time, have to worry about this.
17 Likes
You asked what this has to do with dressage vs non dressage. Contrary to Moos assumption that I was on the jumper circuit, I’m not.
The issues are 100% the same whether the offender is Hunter/jumper/ or dressage.
Is it controversial to point out that of the banned equestrians, almost all are Hunter jumper and very few are dressage trainers? The only dressage BNT being Michael Barisone?
I DON’T view this as “us” vs “them”, certainly not as dressage vs jumper.
I assume we are all strong supporters of SS, but if I make a mild statement to the effect that I am not offended by DM saying “He is innocent!”, and explain why, or that RD’s post was not actively undermining SS, and I don’t feel it is my moral duty to shun the people who “liked” it, very suddenly the vast majority of posters toss me into a bin labeled: Them (people who support pedophiles version).
Where did I ever remotely say anything that could be construed as “If this doesn’t affect me, I don’t care”. I said I have not personally had the experience of having to decide whether or not to ride with a banned trainer because I don’t know of any banned dressage trainers remotely close to me.
Much of this thread has an involved “us” vs “them” on the issue of SS. “Us” as defined by the majority seems to be posters who require that someone not only support SS, but explicitly express moral repugnance at others if those others do something as mild as saying “He is innocent” prior to the conclusion of the appeal, or who “like” a post that says that the respondent has not had an impartial hearing prior to the announcement of the ban.
If I post anything that fails that rigid test, the majority “us” group unilaterally puts me in the “them” bucket along with George Morris and Bonnie Navin. I’ve made it clear in my overly long posts what I think about George Morris, Bonnie Navin, Diane Carney, etc, and I’m not “them”.
Yes, and I have pointed out that in your explanation of how the process works, it would be necessary for SS to take the role of an independent adjudicator in one phase of the process, then switch gears and take the role of adversarial prosecutor in the next phase. Given that SS has numerous cases proceeding at the same time, it would have to be acting as adjudicator in some and prosecutor in others simultaneously.
I asked whether that makes sense to you, or whether an analogous adjudicator/prosecutor role switch occurs in any other type of proceeding.
To put it slightly differently, if the respondent knows that he will be dealing with SS in the prosecutor role attempting to meet the burden of proof to the satisfaction of the arbitrator in the arbitration phase, can you see how the respondent might legitimately question the impartiality of SSs report at the conclusion of the investigation phase?
I don’t expect you to respond. Perhaps someone else will.
I participated in both the RG and the GM threads, as certainly not remotely as their advocates.
1 Like
I agree with your correction. At the present time, in my part of the country, there are no banned dressage trainers that I know of.
Sorry to have misunderstood you. I thought you were clarifying her meaning for me and thought it superfluous given that she had already done so herself.
1 Like
Yes, we all agree that we can condemn and avoid the trainers who are banned at the point that SS makes the announcement. I have immense faith in SS and for myself, assume that RM is guilty as hell, to use the legal term. Same with GM, RG, etc.
I think it is a somewhat more complicated and subtle issue as to whether we should condemn/look down on/refuse to train with someone who has NOT been banned but expresses some degree of support, even indirectly, for a banned person. Such as DM saying “He is innocent” prior to his appeal. Or Adrienne Lyle “liking” a post that mentions DMs name but not her husbands, and suggests (uselessly, because it won’t happen) that the standard of proof used by SS be raised.
It appears to me that for everyone other than me, this second issue if neither complicated nor subtle but is back and white. Merely clicking on Dover’s post or failing to express repugnance toward those who clicked makes you anti-SS and a pedophile supporter.
3 Likes
Yep, you’ve figured it out.
5 Likes
I pointed out that in the explanation of @BigMama1
of how the SS process works, it would be necessary for SS to take the role of an independent adjudicator in one phase of the process, then switch gears and take the role of adversarial prosecutor in the next phase (arbitration).
Given that SS has numerous cases proceeding at the same time, it would have to be acting as adjudicator in some and prosecutor in others simultaneously.
I also asked whether that type of switch from adjudicator to prosecutorial role makes sense logically, and whether an analogous adjudicator/prosecutor role switch occurs in any other type of proceeding in the US.
To put it slightly differently, the question is whether the respondent who knows that he will be dealing with SS in the prosecutor role attempting to meet the burden of proof to the satisfaction of the arbitrator in the arbitration phase), might legitimately question the impartiality of SSs report at the conclusion of the investigation phase?
These are all essentially the same question, just lied slightly differently.
@BigMama1 has declined to clarify her position on this.
If anyone else wants to clarify this issue, I would be interested in learning the answer.
I should mention I have not thoroughly thought through Debbie’s position here. I would hope that she’s not being pressured into saying something, and I understand that there are hundreds of other factors that decide whether she stays/separates from her husband.
RD I have been disappointed with since the GM debacle.
5 Likes
@smoofox you read my post correctly. Not being a USEF member only prevents trainers from participating in USEF shows. Many still have barns, clients, and attend non-rated shows.
It is also why RD’s point of the Title IX cases he referenced is invalid in my opinion.
4 Likes
Only since then ? For me he’s been a disappointment since the first time I was in his company at a show almost 20 years ago.
He was high maintenance and condescending back then, and still is today.
7 Likes
SS neither prosecutes nor defends in the arbitration phase. The arbitrator review and either uphold the original decision or over rules it.
13 Likes
So you’re explicitly endorsing the position that by declining to express repugnance for an Olympic teammate of Debbie McDonald who “liked” Robert Dover’s you have classified me as anti-SS and a supporter of pedophiles.
Are you speaking on behalf of just yourself or behalf of everyone?
So in the arbitration phase, the first two parties are the plaintiff in the form of a group of reporters and the respondent, and the arbitrator is the impartial third party adjudicating.
So unlike the first phase in which SS both investigates and adjudicates, in the arbitration phase SS plays no role at all. Who pays the lawyers who present the evidence from the SS investigation on behalf of the plaintiff/reporters? (Rhetorical)
1 Like
We’ve all clarified/answered your question. You just don’t like the fact that we disagree with you. As I said pages back, rephrasing the question will NOT change our response to you. Continuing to ignore our “whys” makes for a crappy discussion. I’m not sure why you need everyone to agree with you and RD other than you like seeing your own posts.
20 Likes
This spinning hamster wheel is making me dizzy.
25 Likes
RDs response to the GM ban was embarrassing. Hugely. Embarrassing to a cringeworthy degree.
I have been responding to what RD posted in a single FB post. While it was provoked by the McDonald case, the only equestrian he mentioned in the post was his Olympic teammate, Debbie McDonald, and he stated that he loved and supported her.
In his most recent Go Fund Me appeal, the recipient was a legitimate equal justice fund that focus on injustice across racial lines. As I see it, zero dollars of the GFM appeal will go to any banned equestrian.
Blue Heron has clarified that my declining to express repugnance that some of Debbie McDonald’s Olympic teammates clicked “like” on a SINGLE FB post of Dover’s makes not only Dover, or the clickers, but also me, guilty of “supporting pedophiles”.
I understand that pedophiles seldom change their stripes, so to speak, but I thought that Dover changed his response to a friend being banned rather dramatically between the Morris case and the McDonald case.
1 Like
I speak for myself and I am saying that liking RD’s GFM or MacDonald’s claim to innocence shows some degree of support. Like a mini endorsement.
9 Likes
I think you may be quite a bit older than I am. 
I think he is a good clinician and I like what he’s done with the young riders program. I am deeply uncomfortable about his defense for GM.
1 Like
