It’s like all these guys read the same playbook. Rob Gage, George Morris, Bob McDonald… it’s all “oh it was one time > 40 yrs ago” and then, well, actually, it’s a well-established multi-decade pattern of behavior.
26 Likes
I also disagree. The quote in the article from her facebook is very clear [bolding mine]: [INDENT]Debbie said in a statement on Facebook: “Right now we cannot say much. But just because it was Bob as the accused don’t think for a moment after 42 years of marriage it doesn’t affect the entire family. And the truth will come out! He is innocent!”[/INDENT]
5 Likes
That’s the thing, they are all dumb.
They don’t come out and categorically deny, probably because they’ve been given initials so most know exactly who is the primary complainant so they again, foolishly, don’t categorically deny everything, but instead say something referencing something related to the (or one of the) accuser that they likely full well remember, enough to say oh it’s just one thing from random but very specific time period earlier.
from a non lawyer perspective, I would advise these people to stop doing this, and just deny, if that’s their intent, and let the system play itself out.
6 Likes
That’s the exact quote I was referring to. The first three sentences are obviously true.
Suppose the fourth sentence were replaced by “People who are familiar with SS know that it is only in the appeal that the respondent can present a defense and get a decision from an independent arbitrator. Given that he has decided to appeal and defend against the allegations, at this point I’m giving him the presumption of innocence until the appeal is completed.”
Too wordy for FB? I consider “He is innocent!” potentially just a shorter version.
Even if she thinks he is guilty of the misconduct and has already decided to leave him, to openly state that prior to the conclusion of the appeal would be devastating.
I will take her statements after the appeal is over more seriously as reflections of her actual position.
2 Likes
Honestly, as a former LEO, the absolute best thing people can do is KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. I really cannot fathom why people think because they deny things we all believe the denials. If someone opens their mouth, then questions start and next thing you know, it’s a confession.
“Let thy lawyer doest the talking”.
That’s what they get paid the big bucks for!
16 Likes
“very clear”? Hmmm.
I’m guessing she had a talk with someone like a publicist or crisis manager, but they didn’t actually write that. She or someone close to her wrote it. Just a guess because of the awkward phraseology and structure. It is not a polished statement. But it may be quite authentic to her deeper feelings.
A lot could be gleaned from that emotional, but convoluted, statement. The awkward phrasing and the overall structure are intriguing. Sometimes people unintentionally say what they are really thinking, if we don’t work too hard to try to make it mean what we think they meant it to mean. :yes: If we just read what’s there, and not re-shuffle it in our brains to make a more polished statement.
Just one of the items of interest - “And the truth will come out!” is fascinating in a down-the-rabbit-hole way. If he didn’t do anything, what is this hidden truth that will come out? It would seem that she knows or senses that there is a truth that is now being ferreted out - by someone. Not by Bob, who is maintaining there is nothing to know. That one exclamation may be the truest thing about her feelings. But I don’t know, just wildly speculating … :o
3 Likes
What does “higher status wife” mean ?
1 Like
That she’s more of a big deal in the dressage world than he is in the hunter jumper world.
4 Likes
We could do some mental gymnastics to justify her words as meaning something other than how they’re written-- “He is innocent!” could mean that she has doubts about his innocence but feels obligated to stick to the party line to give him benefit of the doubt, or… I mean it could indicate that she believes that “He is innocent!”
3 Likes
“The truth will come out” reminds me of a certain other poster…
13 Likes
By her own admission in interviews and articles, she and her husband have been (extensively) physically separated for long periods of time by their respective careers as trainers in different disciplines, so she cannot make a claim that he is wholly innocent of wrongdoing in this matter, unless whatever evidence her husband has presented to her is irrefutable enough to exonerate him, when all is said and done. To be frank, it is completely possible that she has not been privy to anything that SafeSport has presented to her husband and she is simply taking the position of The Good Wife. We will simply have to see where the chips fall in the end.
7 Likes
It wasn’t the saying, it was the writing. 
5 Likes
It was a joke. 😧
6 Likes
His position is that he never committed sexual misconduct with minors during any of those periods in which they were separated geographically. In general it’s almost impossible to irrefutably “prove” a negative. In the arbitration, SS will have to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one or more “positives” in the form of incidents of sexual misconduct with minors. He doesn’t have to irrefutably prove a negative in the appeal, he will win the appeal if SS fails to meet its burden of proof that stuff happened.
1 Like
I dont think that’s how the arbitration works, I think McDonald has to prove there were procedural problems, right?
(I could be totally wrong, but this isn’t having a whole new investigation, it’s the arbiter looking at whether investigation and ruling are in line with established standards and procedures)
Moderately unrelated, but this is also when other victims tend to come out of the woodwork.
6 Likes
I think that you got that impression because that is the narrative some lawyer (was it Bonnie Navin?) spouted after the Rob Gage suicide in an attempt to discredit the SafeSport process.
My understanding of the way it works is that in response to a report or reports, SS with its investigators and lawyers conducts the investigation. The respondent I assume can provide testimony that he did or didn’t do it, but the outcome of the investigation is simply the decision of SS. I see this as comparable to the police investigation being conducted and the DA determining the person is to be charged with a crime.
The respondent can either accept the ban without appeal, or appeal.
If there is an appeal, SS presents its case in front of the arbitrator and the respondent with lawyer present their defense. The arbitrator can change the sanction based on either the merits of the case (SS did not meet its burden of proof that it happened) or on the appropriateness of the punishment (SS met its burden of proof that it happened, but the misconduct did not warrant a permanent ban).
So it’s not a new investigation, but the arbitrator looks at the substance of the evidence presented by SS to give his own determination of whether misconduct occurred.
The additional victims come out of the woodwork when they learn the respondent has been banned, and is appealing. At that point, they can be confident that their allegations will not be laughed off.
I’m with you. I prefer to look at someone’s declarative statement and give it a straight forward read.
2 Likes
I thought this, too. Just wait, it will all come out, big surprises!!11!!!1!
9 Likes
Robert Dover advocates for SS changes in letter to USEF board.
