Are you saying that it’s possible that they shot themselves and blamed it on MB?
I realize that there are an infinite number of universes and corresponding infinitesimally unlikely possibilities but even that knowledge won’t sell me on this explanation.
IIRC, MB said something to the police like an admission that he did the shooting.
People are held in custody because the crime was violent or the charges are serious and they’re seen as a flight risk. It sounds like CB is cooperating with the investigation and the charges are not aggravated (i.e. no bodily injury or violence). This would be consistent with a case in which the accused is not kept in custody.
" I had a good life" doesn’t sound like an admission of anything.from someone who has a [edit] lying on top of them. And who has received nothing but grief since he met that “lady”.
It’s true that those suspensions are usually with pay, but I disagree that most horse trainers earn their income at horse shows. If he were barred from competing in the long term, that would likely affect his income from a sponsorship and sales horse perspective, but I consider a temporary suspension during the investigative process to be quite similar to the suspension of a teacher or police officer - perhaps some reputational damage (which I am absolutely not brushing off or minimizing, but I personally am comfortable with as a side effect of preserving the safety of the general population when there is reason for investigation - YMMV) but he can continue to earn his usual income from teaching lessons, clinics, selling horses, etc. It’s not a perfect equivalent but it’s quite close to suspension with pay in the short term IMO. We do see proof of this even on a long term basis at home right now, with trainers banned under SafeSport continuing to successfully earn a living through horses despite their sanction.
People lose their livelihood over being accused of a crime all the time. There is nothing like being held in jail and being unable to report for work, or even an obligation to appear in court during your normal working hours, to cause job loss. In the US, it’s unfortunately hideously common for people to take a plea bargain and plead guilty to a crime just because they can’t afford the uncertainty of a trial.
Being accused of wrongdoing is expensive and unpleasant whether you are innocent or guilty; that’s just the truth.
But, for that matter, so is being the victim of a crime. There are a lot of costs associated with that too. Getting time off work to testify is a problem for victims; accessing therapy, rearranging one’s life and personal habits, those all cost quite a lot in both time and money.
No, what you describe is not the same thing at all as a suspension with pay of a salaried employee.
The blessing of a salary job is that the employee always knows what is coming into the bank account, and when it will come.
Many trainers are dependent on their fees from shows to make it in the business. Show weekends are big earning times, for some trainers they far exceed their earnings from lessons.
And, income from lessons, clinics etc. is heavily dependent on the trainer’s reputation and public goodwill toward them. The public has a way of dropping those accused of such acts like a hot potato. There will be cancellations.
And in fact, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the trainer may suffer a decrease of reputation and income that could be permanent. The public tends to be like that, suspicious and unforgiving where there is a public accusation, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. We’ve certainly seen that at play outside of the horse industry.
Whereas a salaried employee that is reinstated will continue to earn what they were earning before, regardless of what their co-workers and the public now think of them. Their career prospects may be capped, fairly or unfairly, but they can continue at the same level.
And not for nothing, a salaried job usually includes health insurance and other benefits. If a trainer suffers a reduction of income, those types of needs may suffer from a lack of funds to continue paying the premiums.
If suspended, not allowed to go to events, etc. and then found innocent of all charges, could he then sue the accuser and/or the organization for lost wages, lost appreciated value for the horses he was not able to campaign, etc?
You can pretty much sue anyone for anything. However, unless the accusation has been proven false (not just not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict which is much more often the case) I think it would be hard to win. And in that situation there would likely often be legal ramifications for the accuser.
It is still partial, as the accused is losing revenue.
How about - when someone makes an accusation, the organization suspends them both until the investigation is complete? That way there’s a hardship taken on both sides.
It’s not a perfect comparison, but neither is the comparison of a normal horse professional to a normal salaried employee. I’ll do my best to explain my thinking by replying point by point.
That’s definitely a blessing, but one that no horse professional enjoys (accused of a crime or not).
That is true, though I believe it is less true in the eventing world than, for example, hunter/jumper. This is definitely a topic that comes down to personal opinion – my personal opinion is that if an accusation has gone so far down the road as to be publicly investigated by the police, the interest of the general population as well as specifically the alleged victim is probably best served by a temporary restriction in some of the freedoms of the accused (as is typical of other people accused of other crimes).
I am comfortable accepting the balance of probabilities that at some point, this means we may somewhat limit the earning potential of an innocent person, because I know that at some point, we are preventing someone from being re-victimized or newly victimized while engaging in their hobby. It is a trade off, it is far from a perfect solution, and your mileage may very well vary, but that is how I personally sleep most comfortably at night.
I disagree that this is a given in the horse industry. There are many horse professionals in the US right now making a healthy living teaching clinics and giving lessons despite receiving lifetime bans from SafeSport – ex. an investigation that has actually been concluded against the favour of the clinician. If people are willing to allow them to continue to earn a living, an accusation with no conclusion is hardly automatically damning.
So all of those members with legitimate allegations would be made aware that by using the system to file a grievance, they would automatically receive a suspension? Being that the overwhelming percentage of complaints are legitimate, this is the majority group who’d be thus affected.
It would become another added to the long list of reasons people don’t come forward.
I appreciate that there is a range of opinions and ideas out there but for me this just enters bizarro country. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
Well, what if any repercussions should there be for someone who makes a false or entirely unsubstantiated claim?
If one is getting suspended “without pay”, and comes out clean, who pays the damages?
^ that is what I’m getting at.’
Edit: It’s not completely off the wall, just applied in a non-conventional way. You kid gets suckerpunched in school, and both he and the other kid are very likely getting suspended. You complain about your room mate at the dorm - whether petty or serious allegation - YOU are the one moving, not the offending party.
I’m trying to understand who pays the damages if someone is accused, get suspended, can’t campaign a horse (say at Rolex, or equivalent), the horses value then does not appreciate by X amount… person ultimately comes off clean. Who has to pay for the lack of X appreciation of the horse?
It’s not the same as with teachers etc, where they are either suspended with pay or get their back pay when its over if they are found innocent.
It’s called a civil suit. Never mind it’s rare that rape accusations are made up. I really wish people would stop acting like it’s common rather than rare.
Want a steady reliable income? Don’t be a horse pro or don’t rape people.
There’s no realistic way you can put an accurate dollar number on something like value lost because of a horse not competing at Rolex. A horse could actually lose value if it gets hurt or performs badly.
People lose their jobs every day because they have been accused of/ suspected of/ implicated in crimes, whether or not they are ultimately indicted/ convicted. Most of us are at will employees and can be fired for any reason.
This exactly. It is disheartening in both this case and the SS cases of child molestation that people quickly become so concerned about false allegations. As Denali says, false accusations are rare. When an accusation has been proven false, civil suits can get the true victim restitution. You don’t build into the reporting process consequences for the possibility that an accusation may one day be false because that absolutely chills reporting of incidents which are already drastically under reported both historically and currently.
Just to be clear…in this case, the victim reported to the police…and criminal charges were brought. If you LIE to the police by making a false accusations…you can ALSO face criminal charges. That’s more than enough to curb false accusations in my book.
ETA: I do think the issue is whether the a governing body in a sport…(we are not talking about minors here) should be involved at all or taking sanctions at all for criminal conduct that is unrelated to the sport. I do think this is a slippery slope. I don’t expect my sport…in open competitions… to ban ex-cons or do criminal checks. So I’m uncertain why its involved in this at all. This is where SafeSport goes over the top in my opinion…but this isn’t even a safe sport issue.
When someone is accused of rape and is then found innocent, it’s my opinion that they are never looked at the same. Found innocent doesn’t clear their name. The victim is still wagon circled, with the thoughts that there just wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction, and that the rapist is still guilty. Until and unless the “real” perpetrator is found, as can be the case in a murder or otherwise, the sympathy is extended unevenly following the trial.
Right or wrong, there IS a bias to it. I’ve got the same bias, so don’t go telling me I’m a goblin for thinking this way.
The Duke case, they didn’t even try the girl, let alone convict her.
People are not found guilty or innocent. They are found guilty or not guilty. That word choice is for reason.
Again, rarely do rape victims lie about being raped. Yes the Duke case. Whatever. It’s also the DA’s office who decide there is enough to bring charges against people for whatever crime.
But yes lets wring our hands for the statistically minuscule number of people that are falsely accused and make it harder for the victims.
I personally have no problem with governing bodies banning or suspending convicted criminals. Is it really that hard to not commit crimes?
