Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

[BigMama1]

@YankeeDuchess

IMHO, no, and no.

In your scenario, should his wife be condemned as a supporter of pedophiles if she declines to denounce him or divorce him PRIOR to the conclusion of his formal appeal? Especially if the initial “charges deemed credible/ upheld was in-house in the school system, and the adjudicator at the appeal is a retired judge independent of the school?

As I have said about Debbie, the wife shouldn’t come into the discussion at all unless and until it can be conclusively shown that she knew about the abuse and didn’t report it. That had NOTHING to do with Robert Dover’s repeated support for sexual abusers and his continued attacks on the SafeSport system.

It doesn’t matter who is in charge of which investigation, appeal, etc. That’s the point: abusers must be immediately removed from a position of power over minors. Period. They should not be allowed to continue working with kids while waiting for their appeal, and the abuse should n it be kept secret during this time, which is essentially what you’ve been advocating for over dozens of pages now.

[alicen]

@skydy

Here we go (again) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Perfect!

[YankeeDuchess]

@ACMEeventing

I was thinking the same thing. Sounds a lot like SwampYankee / LadyB (or something)

I am not Diane Carney, not a previously banned poster, and not an alter for anyone. If you want to speculate on my identity, could you take it to PM? I’m flagging the posts speculating on my identity for the moderator, so the moderator may chime in or shut down the thread or both.

[TheMoo]

Can’t have it both ways YD

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

As I have said about Debbie, the wife shouldn’t come into the discussion at all unless and until it can be conclusively shown that she knew about the abuse and didn’t report it. That had NOTHING to do with Robert Dover’s repeated support for sexual abusers and his continued attacks on the SafeSport system.

It doesn’t matter who is in charge of which investigation, appeal, etc. That’s the point: abusers must be immediately removed from a position of power over minors. Period. They should not be allowed to continue working with kids while waiting for their appeal, and the abuse should n it be kept secret during this time, which is essentially what you’ve been advocating for over dozens of pages now.

I have never ONCE said that SS should not announce their finding that the the allegations are credible until after the arbitration. Not once.

In fact I explicitly said that it was important that the announcement be made PRIOR to the arbitration because the announcement emboldens other victims to come forward, and that is vital information for SS in the arbitration. I specifically said that in the RG case, the arbitration was scheduled, but then delayed by SS, and one possible interpretation was that the delay was caused by more victims coming forward. Gage committed suicide.

Please show me a post in which I said the charges should be kept secret pending appeal. I said the opposite.

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

As I have said about Debbie, the wife shouldn’t come into the discussion at all unless and until it can be conclusively shown that she knew about the abuse and didn’t report it. That had NOTHING to do with Robert Dover’s repeated support for sexual abusers and his continued attacks on the SafeSport system.

It doesn’t matter who is in charge of which investigation, appeal, etc. That’s the point: abusers must be immediately removed from a position of power over minors. Period. They should not be allowed to continue working with kids while waiting for their appeal, and the abuse should n it be kept secret during this time, which is essentially what you’ve been advocating for over dozens of pages now.

I never ONCE said the charges should be kept secret pending the appeal. I explicitly said the OPPOSITE - that it was important to publicly announce the charges prior to the start of arbitration because the announcement of charges emboldens other victims to come forward and those additional victims are important for SS to include in its case. I also explicitly said that if the respondent was deemed a current risk, he should be publicly sudiended pending the investigation.

If I have said over “dozens of pages” that the charges should be kept “secret” pending appeal, it should be no burden to find ONE instance. But I haven’t, and you won’t.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

Can’t have it both ways YD

I thought you were asking a genuine question; sorry to have misunderstood.

I have found your posts extremely difficult to understand, even when you pose what seem to be straightforward questions to me. I will endeavor to cease responding to you, which I assume is welcome.

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

I never ONCE said the charges should be kept secret pending the appeal. I explicitly said the OPPOSITE - that it was important to publicly announce the charges prior to the start of arbitration because the announcement of charges emboldens other victims to come forward and those additional victims are important for SS to include in its case. I also explicitly said that if the respondent was deemed a current risk, he should be publicly sudiended pending the investigation.

If I have said over “dozens of pages” that the charges should be kept “secret” pending appeal, it should be no burden to find ONE instance. But I haven’t, and you won’t.

You don’t really expect anyone to slog through all of your posts again, do you? When you contradict yourself and make no sense whatsoever, one reading is more than enough to expect from any intelligent human being.

[YankeeDuchess]

@skydy

You don’t really expect anyone to slog through all of your posts again, do you? When you contradict yourself and make no sense whatsoever, one reading is more than enough to expect from any intelligent human being.

No, I don’t expect anyone to slog through my posts to find something I never said. Or to stumble across the post in which I said the exact opposite!

I have not contradicted myself, and don’t remotely expect anyone to slog through my posts to document the contradictions that aren’t there, either!

I’m not sure whether BigMamas mischaracterization of my position on keeping the charges “secret” pending arbitration is deliberate or an honest mistake.

[x-halt-salute]

Does anyone else hear the Muppet theme song whenever they see threads go this way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ9yAV8uQ7g

It’s time for lame semantics
It’s time for pointless fights
It’s time for thread derailment on the YD show tonight
It’s time for weird third person
It’s time to get uptight
It’s time to raise the curtain on the YD show tonight

Why do they always come here
I guess we’ll never know
It’s like a kind of torture
To see them post and post

But now let’s get things started on the
most fixational, accusational, confrontational, self-congratulational
This is what they call the YD shooooooooow!

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

No, I don’t expect anyone to slog through my posts to find something I never said. Or to stumble across the post in which I said the exact opposite!

I have not contradicted myself, and don’t remotely expect anyone to slog through my posts to document the contradictions that aren’t there, either!

I’m not sure whether BigMamas mischaracterization of my position on keeping the charges “secret” pending arbitration is deliberate or an honest mistake.

I see that you haven’t been able to keep up with your incredibly frequent and voluminous posts. Perhaps more thought and fewer words would help you to get your point across.
Surely you realize by now that the reason you are not making sense to most people is because you are not communicating your thoughts well, not that people just can’t understand your reasoning?

[YankeeDuchess]

@skydy

I see that you haven’t been able to keep up with your incredibly frequent and voluminous posts. Perhaps more thought and fewer words would help you to get your point across.
Surely you realize by now that the reason you are not making sense to most people is because you are not communicating your thoughts well, not that people just can’t understand your reasoning?

Indeed, when someone characterizes my position as the exact opposite of what I’ve explicitly written, as BigMama did, I assume she has not understood my posts. That’s the generous interpretation.

I won’t bother dredging up the post in which I stated the opposite. It would not convince you.

[NotGrandPrixYet]

@YankeeDuchess

Re: Milne. I take it he has been banned but has not had his arbitration yet. I have extreme confidence that SS would not have stated that they found the allegations of misconduct credible unless they had a solid case and were 99% sure that when SS as the investigators had to take the role of prosecutor in the arbitration, they could meet their burden of proof in front of the retired judge. Not only do I not support him, I consider him a pedophile, given my confidence in SS being able to defend their ban. I would mildly note with an asterix that his arbitration has not been completed.

Re: Bob McDonald. Exactly the same words as for Milne. Do not support. Confident ban will be upheld by the judge. In the privacy of my own mind he is a pedophile.

This has to do with a presumption of innocence. You and I don’t need to presume he’s innocent, either one of them until after the arbitration. Only the arbitration judge has to give those two men a presumption of innocence going into the arbitration.

This is about Debbie McDonald and her friends and Olympic teammates. If she wants to DECLINE to condemn him as a pedophile until AFTER he has had the full fledged, obviously impartial formal arbitration hearing in front of a retired judge, that is her right and does not make her a pedophile supporter. She’s just choosing to give him a presumption of innocence.

Likewise the teammates who clicked on a single post of RD which did NOT explicitly undermine SS or express support for any banned athletes, and only expressed support for the wife of a man who has not yet had his formal hearing.

If, after the arbitration upholds the ban, DM
says anything substantially different from “This is incredibly painful and I request privacy, but nevertheless I fully respect SS and the decision of the arbitrator”, I’ll condemn her then. But not now.

Whether she divorces him, leaves but stays married, or stays with him is 100% her decision.

I think you need to go back and read Dover’s post again. He does undermine SS by implying that this belongs in the courts and implies that parents should have taken it to the courts long ago. It’s only in his last paragraph where he states his support for DM. Take that last paragraph out and read it again.

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

Indeed, when someone characterizes my position as the exact opposite of what I’ve explicitly written, as BigMama did, I assume she has not understood my posts. That’s the generous interpretation.

I won’t bother dredging up the post in which I stated the opposite. It would not convince you.

You haven’t written anything “explicitly”. That is the problem. Your posts are long, convoluted and contradictory. You may be able to “dredge up the post” where you “stated the opposite” but the incredible number of lengthy posts you’ve written were so convoluted and contradictory that you, like the rest of us, probably have no idea what you said when and where, only that much of it made no sense.

If you pick out only the bits that you want people to remember, you’ll need to pick out the bits where you say the opposite. However you don’t want to do that, and no one wants to play that game with you.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NotGrandPrixYet

I think you need to go back and read Dover’s post again. He does undermine SS by implying that this belongs in the courts and implies that parents should have taken it to the courts long ago. It’s only in his last paragraph where he states his support for DM. Take that last paragraph out and read it again.

First, thank you for expressing a straightforward disagreement with my position.
I have said that I myself would not have “liked” Dover’s post, but that I am not willing to disparage the Olympic teammates of both Dover and McDonald when they did so.
I actually do not consider it to be actively undermining SS to suggest that the crimes should be handled in the courts because I think the ship has sailed definitively on that issue. SS refers any cases within the statute of limitations and steps back if there is an active criminal investigation. They handle the cases outside the statute of limitations and for which criminal prosecution could not meet the higher standard of proof in a criminal case.

Is there any significant chance Dover’s suggestion to leave it to the criminal courts would be enacted by Congress? No. It’s an empty gesture.

He also suggests that the burden of proof be raised to beyond a reasonable doubt. Not going to happen. Another empty gesture.

He prefaces his post by proclaiming that he supports SS. Probably just lip service.

He asks for donations to a fund called the Equal Justice Initiative, which seems like a legitimate fund which will funnel zero dollars to RM. A typical gesture, but no funds to RM.

Earlier, I characterized Dover’s post as “not asinine”, which is not exactly high praise. His drawing a parallel between SS and Title IX tribunals is legitimate. The situation with Title IX university rape cases is a mess.

I just don’t see respectfully proposing a couple of very serious changes to SS, none of which are remotely going to happen, as “undermining SS”.

Most of all, I don’t think it’s reasonable to treat a person who liked a single, specific post of Dover’s from a week ago as therefore endorsing everything Dover has ever posted, like the stuff on George Morris.

[YankeeDuchess]

@skydy

You haven’t written anything “explicitly”. That is the problem. Your posts are long, convoluted and contradictory. You may be able to “dredge up the post” where you “stated the opposite” but the incredible number of lengthy posts you’ve written were so convoluted and contradictory that you, like the rest of us, probably have no idea what you said when and where, only that much of it made no sense.

If you pick out only the bits that you want people to remember, you’ll need to pick out the bits where you say the opposite. However you don’t want to do that, and no one wants to play that game with you.

I honestly don’t understand what you mean when you say I “haven’t written anything ‘explicitly’ “, so it’s difficult to respond to that.

If I go back and find the post in which I EXPLICITLY said that SS should announce the charges PRIOR to the arbitration because it is important to induce other victims to come forward, would you admit BigMama mischaracterized my position when she said I had stated that the ban should be SECRET pending the arbitration?

I’m guessing no, you won’t admit it even if I go to the effort of digging up the proof, so I’m not going to bother.

Since my posts make no sense to you, I will endeavor to not respond to your posts.

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

I honestly don’t understand what you mean when you say I “haven’t written anything ‘explicitly’ “, so it’s difficult to respond to that.

If I go back and find the post in which I EXPLICITLY said that SS should announce the charges PRIOR to the arbitration because it is important to induce other victims to come forward, would you admit BigMama mischaracterized my position when she said I had stated that the ban should be SECRET pending the arbitration?

I’m guessing no, you won’t admit it even if I go to the effort of digging up the proof, so I’m not going to bother.

Since my posts make no sense to you, I will endeavor to not respond to your posts.

It would be good if you would go back and find the posts where you have said that SS should not have announced the names of banned people before arbitration. You don’t even seem to remember that you have said that, yet you want other people to search through your many many posts to remind you of your own contradictions?

Again, if you would not “endeavor” to post in such a long winded and convoluted manner, you may more easily remember what you have said, and that you have frequently contradicted yourself.

If you would take the time to read your posts on this thread (it will take some time) you might realize why condensing your thoughts (and thus your words) would help you to realize why you aren’t able to communicate as well as you’d like.

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

Who, Milne? I said that I do NOT support any athletes banned by USEF. That would include Milne.

Can’t this stop being all about you, just for awhile?

[YankeeDuchess]

@skydy

It would be good if you would go back and find the posts where you have said that SS should not have announced the names of banned people before arbitration. You don’t even seem to remember that you have said that, yet you want other people to search through your many many posts to remind you of your own contradictions?

Again, if you would not “endeavor” to post in such a long winded and convoluted manner, you may more easily remember what you have said, and that you have frequently contradicted yourself.

If you would take the time to read your posts on this thread (it will take some time) you might realize why condensing your thoughts (and thus your words) would help you to realize why you aren’t able to communicate as well as you’d like.

One problem: I never said that.

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

One problem: I never said that.

I’m sure you believe that you didn’t, but you did. That is why you should read your posts again and not expect other people to do it for you.

You do realize that this thread is not all about you?