George Morris on the SS list

[anon6923113]

@NoSuchPerson

However… As I have said before, I think there is a danger here in getting too caught up in the idea of pulling the SS process into the criminal justice system and that seems to be where many of the legal experts want to go. (No, I’m not talking about the somewhat esoteric discussions of anti-trust laws and such, although I admit that I’m scrolling on past those for lack of interest.)

SS was created by congress in large part because the criminal justice system was failing, and failing egregiously, to deal with the problem of sexual abuse in Olympic sports. SS, by design, operates outside the criminal justice system. Dragging it into the criminal justice system, with all it’s requirements and limitations, will doom SS to failure, just as the criminal justice system has failed.

I have a slightly different take on this. I think our criminal justice system is limited when it comes to sexual crimes… in some ways for good reasons (we do have protections under the law including a presumption of innocence and evidentiary rules)… in other ways the system is limited for sad reasons that I hope change (some of the sentencing for sex crimes is really hard to stomach… I think a lot should be tougher).

Bottom line… anyone who has been a victim knows that the criminal justice system is a tough way to go. So in some cases, the mind inevitably goes to, “Why did this thing happen? In lieu of justice, how is it best prevented?”

When we are talking about civic organizations and trusted roles in society (priest, doctor, lawyer, teacher, coach, etc…), there is some ethical responsibility that comes to mind. I’m a VERY free market sort of person (please see earlier post about studying with a professor who was a Milton Friedman student)… but I firmly believe in the concept of civic responsibility and codes of ethics and clear guidelines with respect to professional behavior and best practices. The people making “nanny state” arguments about Safe Sport get under my skin. Big time.

This isn’t about regulation of the sport and industry. It’s about ethics and best practices. Safe Sport has grown up in response to an OBVIOUS lack of ethics when it comes to sports… especially with respect to high levels of Olympic sports and the pursuit of medals. Someone brought up earlier that there were financial incentives when it comes to people who are part of a medal winning team, etc. Sounded like something to do with distribution of funds and support from USOC to different NGOs. Anyway… it all plays a part in people turning a blind eye to people in sports who EVERYONE knows are problems. John Geddert and the Karolys in gymnastics played a big role in Larry Nassar hiding in plain sight for so very long. And Jimmy Williams and George Morris are two legendary coaches and closely tied to Olympic winners… but the price children paid was unacceptable. Grossly unethical.

So I guess all I am trying to say is that I don’t see Safe Sport as a response to a failed criminal justice system. Nor as an over-reach of government and regulation of an industry. It’s a response to an obvious failure of ethics with respect to the civic responsibility that should be part of civic organizations support youth sports, and Olympic teams that carry our county’s flag on the world stage.

I believe our country is one of the most ethical in the world. And Safe Sport is something that will make me watch and support the Olympics next year, in a way I haven’t in ages. All those who support it should.

[HLMom]

@IPEsq

@mvp there is some history behind using the antitrust laws in the context of sports. It’s not a crazy idea, although I disagree with the viability of that strategy here. There’s an overlap between labor law and some antitrust concerns when it comes to league sports. There have also been issues with monopoly power and sports.

As far as suspensions and antitrust, the case I studied in law school had to do with suspensions in golf from the 70s and 80s.

The NCAA has also been found to have violated Sherman Act Sec 1.

In any event, it’s not a stretch if someone pursued this angle with SS. And it’s reasonable for people to ask how SS might be able to be challenged in the alternative to the mostly ridiculous constitutionality comments.

I still don’t understand why you and Fordtraktor are so quick to dismiss any due process arguments. I would agree with you if we were talking about a true private club like your local town Bridge Club, but as discussed above, there is substantial case law suggesting that USEF may not be found to be a mere private club, given its size and unique control over the h/j profession.

SafeSport was given its charter by an act of Congress. It has already received federal funding and by news accounts is seeking much more federal funding. It seems like there is a possible argument that SafeSport is an extension of the government or that the government exercises substantial control over its mission. I just grabbed this from an old Duke Law Review article:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2285&context=dlj

State action sufficient to require application of the fourteenth amendment will be found where the state or federal government becomes substantially involved in or exercises substantial control over an otherwise private enterprise.

And of course, just recently we’ve seen the spread of due process concepts to private universities adjudicating sexual assault cases (i.e., the 2019 Rhodes College case) based on either the university’s receipt of federal funding or the federal government’s involvement through Title IX.

I’m not an expert in this field and none of us have time to research it as if we were charged with writing the brief… but I can’t say on its face there is no argument there. What am I missing?

And for those reading this casually: I am not suggesting that SafeSport does not afford adequate due process. I am raising the question of whether it is required to provide some level of due process–just trying to anticipate what arguments attorneys for GM or others might make.

[endlessclimb]

@ladyj79

Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

It’s sick and sad but I don’t have time or energy to fix those people.

The sickest part is that they often are elevated for doing so. I’m not defending it. I’m stating a fact.

[Bogie]

@dannyboy

Um…George has a family now? Has he been cloned?

That alone is an indicator of what they know about George Morris.

[Mosey_2003]

@endlessclimb

First off I agree with you.

But as a woman in industry, there ARE points for being in the Good Ol’ Boys club.

The fact that this is wrong does not change the reality of the current situation.

I know I do see a lot of it that isn’t even being used for one’s career though, just jumping up and down on social media like good little puppies, and it really grinds my gears.

@ladyj79

Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

It’s sick and sad but I don’t have time or energy to fix those people.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say, basically :yes:

[eeyore886]

So I have not read every comment posted here. I’m pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man’s life with no proof except that it’s now PC to do so. We watched the lies during the Kavanaugh hearing trying to destroy a good man’s career and life with no proof, and no memory even. Now, because “me too” is trending, everyone who feels they were “abused” in some way is jumping on the band wagon. Without actual proof, it is wrong, even a sin, to ruin a man’s reputation and livelihood. And I’m sorry that proof can’t be had from 50years ago, but that’s just too bad then. You can’t destroy someone based on a memory. How can it even be answered., It’s all he said, she said. And that’s not good enough. If it did happen, it’s unfortunate. But there is no way that anyone can be held liable for it now. This Safe Sport has gone too far. I am disgusted.

[vineyridge]

HLMom, given that I’ve been retired for eons, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I’d argue that Safe Sport is required to provide “due process” because it’s an entity created under Congressional legislation. I’d also argue that if the arbitration provided as an appeal is in fact a de novo fact finding hearing that it would meet that constitutional requirement. Remember that we are talking about due process procedures, also known as procedural due process, and there is not a single standard across all situations; it will vary depending on the entity that is providing the process and even the reasons why it has chosen or been chosen to provide a particular process.

[Jealoushe]

@ladyj79

Of course, as with every industry and life there are always women who think that they will be embraced and elevated by embracing their own inner misogynist and espousing what they (wrongheadedly) perceive as masculine virtues of indifference and shake it off-itude

It’s sick and sad but I don’t have time or energy to fix those people.

I hate those people, so so much. I have experienced this myself, in my own account of being a victim of an extremly violent assault.

I watched as women, supported my attacker, blamed me, etc etc. Regardless of the truth I had told them, and warned them about this guy. It’s really unbelievable.

[endlessclimb]

@HLMom

I still don’t understand why you and Fordtraktor are so quick to dismiss any due process arguments. I would agree with you if we were talking about a true private club like your local town Bridge Club, but as discussed above, there is substantial case law suggesting that USEF may not be found to be a mere private club, given its size and unique control over the h/j profession.

SafeSport was given its charter by an act of Congress. It has already received federal funding and by news accounts is seeking much more federal funding. It seems like there is a possible argument that SafeSport is an extension of the government or that the government exercises substantial control over its mission. I just grabbed this from an old Duke Law Review article:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2285&context=dlj

State action sufficient to require application of the fourteenth amendment will be found where the state or federal government becomes substantially involved in or exercises substantial control over an otherwise private enterprise.

And of course, just recently we’ve seen the spread of due process concepts to private universities adjudicating sexual assault cases (i.e., the 2019 Rhodes College case) based on either the university’s receipt of federal funding or the federal government’s involvement through Title IX.

I’m not an expert in this field and none of us have time to research it as if we were charged with writing the brief… but I can’t say on its face there is no argument there. What am I missing?

And for those reading this casually: I am not suggesting that SafeSport does not afford adequate due process. I am raising the question of whether it is required to provide some level of due process–just trying to anticipate what arguments attorneys for GM or others might make.

This is exactly the angle that will be taken. There is some merit to the claim. If we, safesport supporters and safesport themselves, are not ready to defend against this (note that colleges are undergoing much fire and criticism, sometimes even overturning or dropping claims), and instead just stand around saying how stooooooopid everyone is who doesn’t agree with SafeSport Our Lord And Savior Amen, then we can’t go around pouting when these jackasses win the suit.

There is ALWAYS room for improvement, in every organization. Instead of us sitting around speculating that lawyers from ISWG are in here bouncing around ideas to prepare for an upcoming suit, we should be doing it to THEM so we can bulletproof an organization that is necessary, before they can make the claim it needs to disappear entirely.

Yeah, that’s what the devil’s advocate does. And no, I’m not a damned sympathizer. I just don’t want to cry when I get caught off guard when I’ve done nothing but stick my fingers in my ears instead of prepare for what’s coming.

[endlessclimb]

@eeyore886

So I have not read every comment posted here. I’m pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man’s life with no proof except that it’s now PC to do so. We watched the lies during the Kavanaugh hearing trying to destroy a good man’s career and life with no proof, and no memory even. Now, because “me too” is trending, everyone who feels they were “abused” in some way is jumping on the band wagon. Without actual proof, it is wrong, even a sin, to ruin a man’s reputation and livelihood. And I’m sorry that proof can’t be had from 50years ago, but that’s just too bad then. You can’t destroy someone based on a memory. How can it even be answered., It’s all he said, she said. And that’s not good enough. If it did happen, it’s unfortunate. But there is no way that anyone can be held liable for it now. This Safe Sport has gone too far. I am disgusted.

quoted to show that STILL people cannot read factual information.

So because it was 50 years ago, it doesn’t count?

[MHM]

@Virginia Horse Mom

Anyway… it all plays a part in people turning a blind eye to people in sports who EVERYONE knows are problems. John Geddert and the Karolys in gymnastics played a big role in Larry Nassar hiding in plain sight for so very long.

Gymnastics tangent.

Are you saying the gymnastics people before Nassar had sexual misconduct issues with the athletes? If so, I had not heard about that.

[poltroon]

@snaffle1987

[snip]
I am fully aware that several of the known victims who played a part in reporting GM are not stellar people themselves in their adult lives. But let’s rewind to their childhood years before their personal wrongs and put ourselves in their shoes. These are minors who were gifted in the saddle and had talent and loads of promise. They were not from the wealthiest of families and therefore probably couldn’t reach the pinnacle of the sport without some influential people playing a role. GM identified their talent in their travels and invited them to Hunterdon to train. What an opportunity for a young rider! These young riders now had the opportunity to live and train and show with the premier trainer in the sport at the premier facility in the sport. they hit the jackpot. Now imagine wanting your dreams so badly that you would do anything to not risk losing it all. And you were being overseen and managed by a trainer who knew this, knew his power, knew his influence, and had the opportunity to “groom” said minors everyday, overtime. Take away the GM name and the minors name and this same scenario could play out in any barn in the country when parental oversight is non existent. And it has. It has happened in other sports and it happens behind closed door homes. It’s just in this scenario one of the biggest names in the business was taken down. Now imagine how something like that could influence your life and wear on you for eternity.

quoted for truth.

Soresi wasn’t just a junior who trained in GM’s barn for a while, or even just a junior who came to live at Hunterdon. He was GM’s assistant trainer for several years, something like 1977 to 1983 or so? So I’ve always thought it was odd that this hypothesis - the proposal that Soresi was irredeemable and troubled from a very young age - never seemed to reflect back at GM at all, not even to his judgement in running his business and choosing his staff.

And if you flip it the other way, just think of all the talented young men who maybe didn’t get to the top who could have, had they connected to a different trainer.

[prairiewind2]

@eeyore886

So I have not read every comment posted here. I’m pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man’s life with no proof except that it’s now PC to do so.

Here are excerpts from two posts I’ve done over the past several days to answer your outrage.

First post: "Even so, I gobbled up mags and books, and enjoyed reading GM. Knew all about his credentials. But then the internet came along and you could see his clinics online. And my God - the man was clearly an abuser. I don’t mean sexual predator. I had no way of knowing that. But he abused his students, even - and maybe most particularly - his teen students. In front of crowds. And any person who enjoys abusing children in front of crowds has some huge psychological problems. This was so apparent to me that I couldn’t fathom why the crowds sometimes tittered at his abuses and didn’t instead rush out there and lynch him. I watched a couple of clinics and then could stomach no more. What a piece of filth.

IMO, the whole equine community should share the blame for lionizing him and enabling him. Shame on us."

And second: "Many years ago, I was a crime reporter. Most of the stories I wrote about are lost to my memory but I will never forget one. A 77-year-old man enticed children into his apartment with money. I can’t remember if he raped them himself - there was no blue pill back then - but he did teach them to assault each other while he watched.

Sexual predators do not outgrow their tendencies. They will always be dangerous."

I have no patience with your willful blindness.

[Mosey_2003]

@eeyore886

So I have not read every comment posted here. I’m pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man’s life with no proof except that it’s now PC to do so. We watched the lies during the Kavanaugh hearing trying to destroy a good man’s career and life with no proof, and no memory even. Now, because “me too” is trending, everyone who feels they were “abused” in some way is jumping on the band wagon. Without actual proof, it is wrong, even a sin, to ruin a man’s reputation and livelihood. And I’m sorry that proof can’t be had from 50years ago, but that’s just too bad then. You can’t destroy someone based on a memory. How can it even be answered., It’s all he said, she said. And that’s not good enough. If it did happen, it’s unfortunate. But there is no way that anyone can be held liable for it now. This Safe Sport has gone too far. I am disgusted.

And look, here we have an example :rolleyes:

[mvp]

@HLMom

And for those reading this casually: I am not suggesting that SafeSport does not afford adequate due process. I am raising the question of whether it is required to provide some level of due process–just trying to anticipate what arguments attorneys for GM or others might make.

Yours and Virginia Horse Mom’s post and thinking about power as well as monopolies in the economic sense make me think that part of what allowed Nasser and Williams and Morris to do what they did, a bit “in plain sight” is that those individuals were granted a somewhat monopolistic level of power in that sport. So if a trainer or Chef d’equipe or doctor is a gate-keeper who grants or denies access to success, he’s got a ton of power within that small “economy” of opportunity in an elite sport.

Again, speaking in market terms, it’s not as if one could take one’s asset (the kid) and one’s business and go elsewhere to find an other George Morris who could do the job for you. Look at the story of how Micheal Hart Jr. and his family agreed that shipping the kid from Minnesota to Hunterdon was regarded as a great opportunity. And, if I could be the fly on the wall, I’ll bet there were lots and lots of instances of kids and parents and by-standing adults not wanting to admit what they saw or knew or to do anything precisely because of the extraordinary “King-Maker” kind of power these individuals were granted by the industry at large.

So perhaps it makes sense fo think of this as breaking a monopoly where the price all the adults involved agreed to set was some really nefarious behavior with a handful of kids who, as a class, had very little power.

[anon6003733]

@Jealoushe

I hate those people, so so much. I have experienced this myself, in my own account of being a victim of an extremly violent assault.

I watched as women, supported my attacker, blamed me, etc etc. Regardless of the truth I had told them, and warned them about this guy. It’s really unbelievable.

Gross. So many awful people out there. I hope you had an awesome Team Jealoushe to support you through that.

[Alterforme]

Eeyore886… just because you don’t think there is proof from 50 years ago, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Also… unless there is hard dna evidence, photos, texts, letters, taped confession, eye witnesses… it will always be a “ he said, she said”… weather it’s 50 years ago or 5 days ago.
But the 50 yr old cases maybe will have more people aware of the abuse because of long standing “ rumors “ and “ whispers “.

[snaffle1987]

@poltroon

quoted for truth.

Soresi wasn’t just a junior who trained in GM’s barn for a while, or even just a junior who came to live at Hunterdon. He was GM’s assistant trainer for several years, something like 1977 to 1983 or so? So I’ve always thought it was odd that this hypothesis - the proposal that Soresi was irredeemable and troubled from a very young age - never seemed to reflect back at GM at all, not even to his judgement in running his business and choosing his staff.

And if you flip it the other way, just think of all the talented young men who maybe didn’t get to the top who could have, had they connected to a different trainer.

Not just Soresi. There were other victims as well.

[ladyj79]

@eeyore886

So I have not read every comment posted here. I’m pretty sure there is enough from both sides. But here’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I am outraged that someone can reach out from 50 years ago and destroy a man’s life with no proof except that it’s now PC to do so. We watched the lies during the Kavanaugh hearing trying to destroy a good man’s career and life with no proof, and no memory even. Now, because “me too” is trending, everyone who feels they were “abused” in some way is jumping on the band wagon. Without actual proof, it is wrong, even a sin, to ruin a man’s reputation and livelihood. And I’m sorry that proof can’t be had from 50years ago, but that’s just too bad then. You can’t destroy someone based on a memory. How can it even be answered., It’s all he said, she said. And that’s not good enough. If it did happen, it’s unfortunate. But there is no way that anyone can be held liable for it now. This Safe Sport has gone too far. I am disgusted.

you are awful and should feel awful. I’m disgusted.

[MHM]

@endlessclimb

Total aside - can someone who is a member of ISWG message me? I am interested if a local trainer is a member of the group - the individual has made a public statement in support of GM following the ban, so they aren’t just a silent watcher. I have asked someone here to check for their name, and was told no (not sure why my request is such a problem, but whatever).

As others have said, just being a member of that Facebook group does not automatically signify support, since some people are there strictly to observe.

The relevant question is whether the person has made supportive comments on that page.