Of course, because as he said last year, if George morris didnt have sex with his super hot husband when he was in his 20s, he definitely never forcibly sodomized tween boys.
17 Likes
Robert Dover also, just a reminder, briefly tried to set up a GoFundMe for Morris last year during his appeal. It was taken down almost immediately, presumably gone private.
This is not new.
12 Likes
“This is not new.” Actually, it is. Perhaps you should read the letter and the changes advocated. I’m not defending McDonald, RG, GM, or any others. But - guilty until proven innocent, with little and quite belated opportunity to prove one’s innocence IS a violation of constitutional rights, among other things. SS is necessary. That have done worlds of good since inception. That doesn’t mean they are infallible, and it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have third party oversight. How can that be harmful?
3 Likes
I don’t get why he’d even send that letter to the USEF board. USEF has literally no say about the process. They are constrained to respect and follow it by federal law.
16 Likes
Mondo,
A) safe sport is the third party oversite of our ngbs for Olympic sports.
B) there is a detailed reporting process, there are extensive investigations and interviews, there is a ruling about ability to participate in a sport club
C) there is a third party appeals process.
That’s where McDonald is now.
No one is constitutionally guaranteed the right to participate in a club sport.
37 Likes
Because these people still dont understand the purpose or process, because they have decided to remain willfully blind and ignorant, because it has always worked for them before.
See America today.
25 Likes
They have been “proven guilty,” for want of a better phrase, by an in-depth investigation, interviews with the claimant, the accused, and witnesses (including rebuttal witnesses provided by the accused), consideration of all the evidence, and a ruling.
Third-party oversight is provided by the independent arbitrator, should an accused person wish to exercise their right to that option.
Sounds more than fair process for what amounts to being kicked out of a club. I love Robert Dover but he looked like a fool with his stance on GM, and this is no better.
28 Likes
SS has already concluded that the preponderance of evidence supports the claimant. The arbitrator will re-examine everything to ensure the investigation was conducted properly
11 Likes
It was Bonnie Navin that spouted the nonsense about the respondent only being able to nit pick on procedural issues in the appeal.
My understanding is that there is no new investigation during the appeal, but the nature of the arbitration is that SS and its lawyers have to present evidence from their investigation in order to establish that by an preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred. It is the first point in the process in which the respondent with his lawyer can make his case in front of an independent arbitrator (as opposed to SS investigators). The arbitrator can overturn the sanction on the grounds that SS did not meet its burden of proof that the misconduct occurred, or he can agree that the burden of proof is met, but the sanction was inappropriate.
The idea that the grounds for appeal is limited to procedural quibbling alone is misinformation spread by Bonnie Navin in order to make the SS procedure look hopelessly unfair.
Her client, Rob Gage, committed suicide after the appeal had been scheduled when SS unilaterally delayed the start date of the appeal. One reason that SS could have delayed the appeal would be if additional “reporters” had come forward.
5 Likes
I that letter, don’t they mean “confidentially” instead of “confidently?
Safe Sport never says “guilty”. They don’t even refer to the respondent as the “defendant”.
Safe Sport conducts its own investigation and based on its investigation sometimes announces that it has found the allegations “credible.”
If the respondent thinks the allegations are untrue and the sanction unfair, the respondent can use his right to appeal the sanction and at that point SS has to meet its burden of proof that the misconduct occurred in front of an independent third party - the arbitrator. If SS fails to meet its burden of proof to the satisfaction of the arbitrator, the sanction is overturned.
1 Like
As much as I support SS, I don’t think it is useful to claim that they are the independent third party. Their charge is to represent victims and investigate reports of misconduct.
In one corner: the reporters, SS investigators. In the other corner: the respondent.
The independent third party is the arbitrator. SS must prove to the satisfaction of the independent arbitrator that the misconduct occurred. I actually agree with the “critics” of SS that the respondent does not get a hearing in front of an independent adjudicator with benefit of a lawyer until the appeal.
That’s partly why I think it is completely appropriate to refrain from assuming he’s guilty until after the appeal.
6 Likes
He’s part of a group that sent the letter; it’s not his alone. He’s asking the board to support its athletes by requesting that Congress rework the SS process, even though USEF has no obligation to do so.
SS has conducted the investigation and knows that the ban can be overturned in arbitration, so to preserve its own credibility, SS will not announce a sanction unless it is pretty damn confident that it can establish that the misconduct occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. But the ruling on the preponderance of the evidence is the decision of the arbitrator, not SS.
I disagree with the notion that the primary purpose of arbitration is for the arbitrator to review whether proper procedures were followed by SS in the investigation. The purpose of the appeal is for the arbitrator to determine if SS has met the burden of proof.
6 Likes
Safe sport is absolutely not there to represent victims, they are expressly there to protect the ngbs/participating athletes from predators/lawsuits. Victims are merely witnesses to the process, a process that offers witnesses nothing but the opportunity to help protect others.
10 Likes
This is going to end up a double…
Safe sport is absolutely not there to represent victims, they are expressly there to protect the ngbs/participating athletes from predators/lawsuits. Victims are merely witnesses to the process, a process that offers them nothing but the opportunity to help protect others.
15 Likes
I disagree. RD is far from willfully blind and ignorant. He certainly understands the purpose of SS and supports it, as the letter says.
He also understands the process, and finds it to be lacking, as many do. I give him credit for asking USEF to step up and support its athletes by
requesting Congress to rework the process. If you don’t want USEF moving in that direction, write to them and let them know.
1 Like
I’m OK with your rephrasing. SS is there to protect participating athletes from predators.
I was trying to say that I don’t think of SS as an independent third party vis a vis the respondent. SS is a non neutral agency working for participating athletes and opposing predators, much like the DA represents “the people” and opposes suspected criminals. I don’t see SS as analogous to the judge and jury in a criminal proceeding; that role is taken by the arbitrator.
I think that SS was foisted on NGBs after NGBs made it obvious that they could not be relied on to police their own sports, and that the NGBs should be grateful that the issue has been taken out of their hands.
3 Likes
I found his bringing up of George Morris’s great restraint in declining to hit on his super hot now husband, back before they were married, concrete evidence of his being ignorant.
25 Likes
Oh lordy! :lol::lol::lol:
