Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

[Mardi]

Again, since Safe Sport is not allowed to provide information about the number of complaints,dates, and places (cities, states), it is not burying heads in the sand to say We Don’t Know how many, when, where, etc. Until an official, named source releases that information We.Don’t. Know. Everything else is speculation.

I’m not talking about his guilt or innocence. I’m addressing the speculation in some posts about events, even the future of his marriage, about which we have no
verified information.

I would say the same for any one of you if you were under intense speculation without publicaly verified facts. It’s not right.

[Mardi]

@Jealoushe

Anyone who knows anything about child predators knows these things aren’t a one off, and there is a pattern. They don’t stop when someone gets married. Ridiculous notion.

Bury your heads in the sand all you want, plug your ears and yell lalala…the writing is on the wall.

Again, since Safe Sport is not allowed to provide information about the number of complaints,dates, and places (cities, states), it is not burying heads in the sand to say We Don’t Know how many complaints, when, where, etc. Until an official, named source releases that information. We.Don’t. Know. Everything else is speculation.

I’m not talking about his guilt or innocence. I’m addressing the speculation in some posts about events, even the future of his marriage, about which we have no verified information.

I would say the same for any one of you if you were under intense speculation without publicly verified facts. It’s not right.

[mvp]

@YankeeDuchess

In the case of RG, the head of the Hunter/Jumper federation cryptically leaked the basic fact that there were multiple victims, significantly under the age of consent, but so many people believed the narrative of a single incident 45 years ago, that a group of the victims felt it necessary to reveal their identities and ages at the time of the misconduct. It turned out SS was NOT overreaching. The victims should not have had to reveal their identities in order to lend SS credibility.

Louder for the a-holes anywhere, especially the bolded part.

[Jealoushe]

@Mardi

Again, since Safe Sport is not allowed to provide information about the number of complaints,dates, and places (cities, states), it is not burying heads in the sand to say We Don’t Know how many complaints, when, where, etc. Until an official, named source releases that information. We.Don’t. Know. Everything else is speculation.

I’m not talking about his guilt or innocence. I’m addressing the speculation in some posts about events, even the future of his marriage, about which we have no verified information.

I would say the same for any one of you if you were under intense speculation without publicaly verified facts. It’s not right.

This is how ALL investigations work, including criminal. LE doesn’t spill what info they have before trial. Any case involving minors in Canada is gagged - so after trial you likely won’t get details either.

SS has a procedure to ensure these investigations are handled correctly. We don’t need public confirmation to know the man is a predator of minors.

[Mardi]

@Jealoushe

SS has a procedure to ensure these investigations are handled correctly. We don’t need public confirmation to know the man is a predator of minors.

I understand that. As I said, I’m not talking about his guilt or innocence.

[skydy]

@NotGrandPrixYet

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH!!! Where do you see in my post that I was defending him!!! OMG, check yourself at the door. I was putting out info. I am a victim of child abuse myself. I DIDN’t and don’t excuse ANYBODY.

I read more into your post than I should have and I apologize.

[SillyHorse]

@NotGrandPrixYet

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH

Whoa.

[2tempe]

https://dressage-news.com/2020/06/12…t-arbitration/

[smoofox]

@2tempe

https://dressage-news.com/2020/06/12…t-arbitration/

He seems to be spreading a lot of the “fake news” and BS about Safe Sport there that the ISWG types embrace as fact… plus suggesting that HE is the poor victim here and everything said about him is a big fat lie and so on and so forth…

Color me unimpressed and unsympathetic.

[2tempe]

[LIST=1]

[QUOTE=smoofox;n10672193]

[/LIST]
He seems to be spreading a lot of the “fake news” and BS about Safe Sport there that the ISWG types embrace as fact… plus suggesting that HE is the poor victim here and everything said about him is a big fat lie and so on and so forth…

Color me unimpressed and unsympathetic.

[/QU
My biggest take away is that Debbie is supporting him. Hard to know what I would do in her shoes after 40-odd years of marriage and family.

[Cowgirl]

This incident triggered me to finish my SS training. I wasn’t showing, horses at home, not crossing paths with minors, etc., and I have to do like 80 hours a year of video training for my job, so I did a module a few years ago and put it off. I finished it the night before last and this is what I can summarize: SS goes beyond the law to protect minors from abuse (of all kinds) in organized sport. Going beyond the law is not a bad thing, because often the law is insufficient to prevent abuse from happening in the first place. SS is very INTOLERANT of any sort of abuse and almost all shades of it are reportable and required to be reported. In these times of finally acknowledging our privileges and our tacit participation by failing to actually notice, acknowledge or do anything about disparity of power problems, I don’t care if the incidents happened 47 years ago. It will and should scare the bejeebus out of any offenders operating today because there is no statute of limitations in SS.

Unless anyone can prove that DM knew about/didn’t report or was otherwise complicit with the events giving rise to the ban, you have to leave her out of this conversation, as well as anyone else connected with her.

[OverandOnward]

@smoofox

He seems to be spreading a lot of the “fake news” and BS about Safe Sport there that the ISWG types embrace as fact… plus suggesting that HE is the poor victim here and everything said about him is a big fat lie and so on and so forth…

Color me unimpressed and unsympathetic.

And since it is all a big fat lie, therefore the accusers are all rotters and the investigators are all part of a great big conspiracy. Out of, you know, jealousy, hurt feelings, hatefulness, fill in the blank.

Sounds like GM didn’t copyright that song, it’s available to anyone who needs it.

[YankeeDuchess]

[/QUOTE=2tempe]
My biggest take away is that Debbie is supporting him. Hard to know what I would do in her shoes after 40-odd years of marriage and family.
[/QUOTE]

He has said he will appeal. Given that, it is natural and reasonable that he would protest his innocence. Debbie for the most part said nothing. If, as the higher status wife, she said “No comment”, at this point before the appeal, that sort of says, “Yeah, he probably did it. “

I interpret her brief statement as saying, “Look, the man has a right to an appeal. Let’s keep an open mind until the appeal takes its course.”

She’s in a delicate position. I think it’s appropriate that she is mildly going along with the pro forma categorical denial at this point prior to the appeal.

My understanding is that the respondent has not had an opportunity to make their case prior to the appeal, so I interpret the statements from both as just saying “We’re asking you not to pass judgement until after the appeals process has been completed.” Which I think is reasonable.

[skydy]

[quote="“YankeeDuchess,post:133,topic:469078”]

@2tempe

[LIST=1]

He has said he will appeal. Given that, it is natural and reasonable that he would protest his innocence. Debbie for the most part said nothing. If, as the higher status wife, she said “No comment”, at this point before the appeal, that sort of says, “Yeah, he probably did it. “

I interpret her brief statement as saying, “Look, the man has a right to an appeal. Let’s keep an open mind until the appeal takes its course.”

She’s in a delicate position. I think it’s appropriate that she is mildly going along with the pro forma categorical denial at this point prior to the appeal.

My understanding is that the respondent has not had an opportunity to make their case prior to the appeal, so I interpret the statements from both as just saying “We’re asking you not to pass judgement until after the appeals process has been completed.” Which I think is reasonable.

Yankee Duchess, that is a great deal of supposition about the innermost feelings of the banned man’s wife on your part. :no:

[Bogey2]

[quote="“YankeeDuchess,post:133,topic:469078”]

@2tempe

[LIST=1]

He has said he will appeal. Given that, it is natural and reasonable that he would protest his innocence. Debbie for the most part said nothing. If, as the higher status wife, she said “No comment”, at this point before the appeal, that sort of says, “Yeah, he probably did it. “

I interpret her brief statement as saying, “Look, the man has a right to an appeal. Let’s keep an open mind until the appeal takes its course.”

She’s in a delicate position. I think it’s appropriate that she is mildly going along with the pro forma categorical denial at this point prior to the appeal.

My understanding is that the respondent has not had an opportunity to make their case prior to the appeal, so I interpret the statements from both as just saying “We’re asking you not to pass judgement until after the appeals process has been completed.” Which I think is reasonable.

ummmm…she said he’s innocent from what I read. Your interpretation in quotes is kind of nutty. Why not just quote hers, then comment?

[mvp]

@2tempe

My biggest take away is that Debbie is supporting him. Hard to know what I would do in her shoes after 40-odd years of marriage and family.

I hope y’all will forgive my wildly speculative dive into business that is not mine and which I’ll never know. But I think the usual PR plan today is to

1. Make a statement soon, i.e. “Get out in front of it”;

2. Seem like a nice and rational guy; thanking supporters makes it look like some people have some facts that actually exonerate you, plus you look magnanimous at the same time;

3. Categorically deny any and all accusations. Keep doing that until there is no possible way left to do that. This phase of things could go on for a while;

4. Get your wife to sign up for this plan, at least during this hopeful “we’re going to appeal” phase. She can switch to a different strategy later as you will, without regard to the fact that the latter position makes the former one a lie.

So what Bob MacDonald says publicly now about what his wife feels now, prior to his appeal, ought to mean nothing.

[NotGrandPrixYet]

@SillyHorse

Whoa.

I’ve been saying it wrongly all of my life. 🤣

[Graymaresrule]

@2tempe

https://dressage-news.com/2020/06/12…t-arbitration/

He’s claiming the allegations date from 47 years ago. Not that it matters in the long run but I thought the events were more recent.

[YankeeDuchess]

[quote="“Bogey2,post:135,topic:469078”]

@YankeeDuchess

ummmm…she said he’s innocent from what I read. Your interpretation in quotes is kind of nutty. Why not just quote hers, then comment?

Given the context, especially the fact that he plans to appeal and the appeal has not yet happened, I don’t interpret it as DM taking a position on his actual innocence.

Any continued silence would have started to “speak loudly” in a negative way.

[YankeeDuchess]

[quote="“skydy,post:134,topic:469078”]

@YankeeDuchess

Yankee Duchess, that is a great deal of supposition about the innermost feelings of the banned man’s wife on your part. :no:

Not really.