Yes, this whole situation makes me glad I switched to foxhunting. I still take the odd lesson with an eventing trainer that I’ve known for decades but I vastly prefer riding in a discipline that is not competitive. As a teen and young adult, I saw enough of that world to know it wasn’t for me.
9 Likes
Pardon me for quoting my own post, but it appears the person who posted this is a lawyer. Not BN. Why do I think there is an ulterior motive?
6 Likes
I guess what I meant to ask is if they are successful in making SS a civil and/or criminal trial instead of just an investigation and a finding with it either being dropped or sanctioned aren’t they at risk of these people ending up being jailed and/or huge monetary judgements against them? And I am sure it wouldn’t end there, if someone were found guilty of molestation of minors or whatever then there is no way any organization would let that person continue to participate, no? I think they need to be careful what they wish for sort of thing.
4 Likes
It won’t happen, but in my dream world, the victims of George Morris sue him in a civil proceeding, get awarded a huge settlement, and set up a fund for victims.
I said the same of Jimmy Williams, but there is so so much demonstrable proof that George Morris ruined lives, even ended them. That’s just, I just can’t understand defending that.
18 Likes
Once again. For the millionth time. SS is not part of the legal system. It does not fall under Article III of the Constitution. It is an organization, not a court of law. It has its own rules (not laws). As an organization, it can ban you if you break its rules. Because it is not a court of law, you will not go to jail or be fined if it finds that you have broken its rules. You will pay no civil awards or penalties.You will not have to register as a sex offender if it finds that you have broken its rules about messing with children. You will not lose your right to vote. You will still be able to ride a horse. You will still be able to teach lessons. But you will not have the sanction of SS. Because it found that you have broken its rules.
30 Likes
You are not sent to jail. You are not fined. You loose your USEF membership. Why, oh why, do people persist in conflating the criminal judicial system with Safe Sport?
Sorry, prairie wind, I was writing as you and others posted.
23 Likes
Isn’t the whole point of Safe Sport to keep complaints confidential and out of the criminal justice system until Safe Sport reaches a point where they have good cause to believe that the criminal abuse of a minor did occur? It gives people who have complaints a safe place to make them without having to get involved with police and prosecutors from the getgo. And there is a benefit for the criminal justice system (already overwhelmed one hears) in that they will receive only complaints that have already been through an investigatory process that has found the complaints credible.
Certainly in the early days of Safe Sport, they are taking actions against people who may not be criminally liable on some complaints due to the passage of time, but as they clean up the old abusers, the process will become about more recent ones. In the case of George Morris, we have not information at all on whether he continued to abuse minors throughout his 10,000 and counting sex partners.
If he has managed to avoid HIV for so long, he should give his blood to science so they can find out why. 
11 Likes
As others have pointed out, nobody is stopping you from sending your child to a known predator for lessons.
All SS is doing is telling you that that person cannot be present at any competition or facility governed by the NGB.
18 Likes
Not necessarily. Courts do not have to be bound by the decisions of an administrative body unless the statute says so. For example, I work in trademark law. The trademark office has a trial and appeal board that follows the rules of civil procedure. It doesn’t adjudicate infringement but deals with whether or not someone can protect a trademark or enforce a registration or prior right. If parties in a dispute there then take their issue to federal court, even if it involves the validity of a trademark (say, in defending a counterclaim) that the board has already ruled on, the federal court does and can decide that issue anew.
So, if SS wanted to more closely align with criminal procedures (which is how I read the petition, not civil), the arbitrator’s decision would likely not replace a criminal case, meaning a separate criminal case would have to be tried. Reciprocity is only working one way—if there is a court case first decided against the accused, then SS can issue a criminal disposition ban. I don’t think there’s any possibility the law would change to make reciprocity happen the other way. And the reason for that is actually the due process clause. You can’t have an arbitration procedure that would conform to criminal case standards (ie no jury trial in arbitration).
3 Likes
It sounded to me like they want the court procedures whether that be criminal or civil, not sure instead of the SS procedeedings. That’s what I meant by being careful what you wish for. If they are melting down of GM not being able to coach or give clinics, imagine how they will react when he spends the rest of his life behind bars.
11 Likes
Ok I see. The petition made zero sense to me. If that is the case, then who is going to pay for that also? There’s already enough trouble funding SS as it is.
2 Likes
So correct me of I am wrong, but you are making the case that people who aren’t on a sex offender registry anymore (Navarro… he got himself removed from the Virginia registry back in 2015 pursuant to the terms of his plea deal - he was not exonerated - but simply removed from the registry after being on it for years) or people who plead guilty to an offense, but didn’t go through a criminal trial (Jim Giorgio and Navarro), or people who were banned but didn’t have charges brought against them by local authorities because of a peosecutor’s opinion that the defense lawyers could make a case for reasonable doubt given the teenaged victim’s devotion to the guy who had groomed her for years with thousands of texts (Randy Cates)…
You are making the case that these people shouldn’t be on the Safe Sport list because they were not found guilty in a court of law, after going through a trial constrained by criminal rules of evidence and ua criminal burden of proof? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Others have pointed out that you are comparing apples and oranges… different burdens of proof, and penalties in the US judicial system versus sanctions barring someone from participating in a sport governed by a private organization (NGB).
All I will add is that it sounds to me like you are closely connected to an actual person on the list. And listening to what they have to say. And I will repeat… these people lie. It’s what they do. They lie and manipulate and charm and work people over. They hustle for access to kids if that’s what they are into. Or hustle for other people’s money using a horse business. Or both simultaneously.
One last thought… which is more likely? That you, the person with a connection to someone on the banned list is correct, really knows what’s wrong with the process and the guy was really falsely accused… and everyone else here who thinks the guy is a dirtbag, plus the local investigators with the police department who investigated allegations years ago, and the Safe Sport investigators who banned him, and looked st it again on appeal and didn’t change their minds… all those people are wrong and don’t know the facts? They were all tricked as well by the minor who set the guy up to get investigated for a sex offense? Or the minor and her parent/s? Do you really believe that the original “set up” was so well done, everyone who has looked into it since has been fooled? Multiple trained investigators?
Or… possibly… they weren’t fooled. Nor are the posters on this board who have passed judgement. Nor Safe Sport. And it’s you… the individual with a personal relationship with a designated predator who is being manipulated and lied to… and you are buying it. And you are being fooled.
Think long and hard. And maybe pay a fee for a background check service to look at public records associated with this banned individual you want to defend. And see if the public records from the court system match what they are telling you. My personal experience is that liars who lie do so all. the. time. About big things and tiny details. Once you start watching for it… you can see it. Quite clearly.
And if they lie about other details… you better believe they are lying about the facts of what happened with the minor victim years ago. But it’s your choice… believe in and trust a predator if you want. At least Safe Sport exists and you were informed and warned.
28 Likes
@Palm Beach what is the criteria to be found guilty by Safe Sport?
You realize anyone can report you for a sex offense and based on the report, you too could join the list of banned people. Even if the legal court exhonerates you of the offense, Safe Sport has the right to still ban you.
So this is not just about child molesters. It is about a process that has innocent people listed amongst others who have committed crimes, and listed amongst those that are at risk of committing crimes.
To limit my choices to take my kids to non-affiliated, because SafeSport by law has to post within 24 hours of a confirmed report, but has no obligation to remove exhonerated people. How does that not concern you?
Go ahead and call SafeSport and ask them how they would handle someone they have banned with a final decision, and then the courts exhonerate. Safe Sport told me they would still have the person banned.
Why have a judicial system??
@Bluey I get what you’re saying, but cultural mores do change, and definitions of accepted change. That doesn’t make the behavior acceptable, which is truly a nuance of language.
As a for instance, speeding in your car is widely accepted in our culture. We joke about it, tell stories about it, and yet it is decidedly against the law and morally and ethically wrong. You are a danger to others around you when you do it. But, I live in a city of 600k people, and I’m clearly one of the few that believes it should modify my behavior (as cars go zipping around me on the freeway). Could it be that someday we decide that it’s also culturally wrong? Yes. And what would happen at that point? People would no longer joke about it. The statute of limitations on speeding tickets could be extended etc.
Think that sounds ridiculous? Let’s take something else as a for instance - drinking and driving. In the late 60s it was against the law. One could argue that it was always morally and ethically wrong, and we should have always known it. However, it wasn’t until relatively recently that someone who had a DUI was also culturally castigated - that really started around the 80s. It took 20 years for culture to “catch up” to something which had already been legally and morally wrong. There were still loads of “accepted” jokes in TV in the 70s and even into the 90s about drinking and driving before finally enough people had died to consider it bad form.
Now - sexual abuse sounds like it’s black and white, but it really isn’t. Abuse takes many forms, and one such form is a “so-called” consenting relationship between a teen and an adult. In fact, in the US, it’s still legal in many states for a teen to marry an adult with the consent of their parents https://theconversation.com/child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-the-us-88846 In other states that’s considered statutory rape now and prosecuted appropriately. This means that culture still hasn’t quite decided on the definition of consent, when it can occur, and how old one has to be to give consent. The side-effect of this is that sexual crimes against teenagers are something we as a society struggle with.
Where we have drawn the line clearly is with male young boys in American culture but other times didn’t have the same mores, and therefore not the same definitions of right and wrong. In Rome, homosexuality was ONLY accepted in an unequal relationship, and Greece had some very clear…rituals…that sound an awful lot like grooming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece Was it wrong then? Yes, it was equally wrong then, but it WAS considered accepted.
I say this NOT to defend anyone, but to point out that this tension between moving a society forward and changing the culture is a normal thing. As I was driving to the barn this morning to meet the farrier I was thinking, ok, so what if someday they decide to “backward prosecute” speeders? Should that change my behavior today? (Likely, yes). So acknowledging that thinking of acceptable behavior as above and beyond (in terms of morality) the “norms” of culture is a good thing.
We do have a culture of “everyone’s doing it” being a defense, and it really shouldn’t be a defense. It should be a warning to us all that just because the law or culture says it’s ok, doesn’t mean it’s always ok. We currently have laws around corporations that make my toes curl and think “oh geez, history isn’t going to look kindly around that at some point”, and yet some in our culture think because it’s legal, it’s ok…or “everyone does it” so it’s ok.
I hope that makes some sense - I’m definitely feeling a bit philosophical this morning.
7 Likes
If you read the thread, as well as the safe sport website, and take the safe sport training, many of your questions will be answered. Come back with questions that haven’t been addressed dozens of times already.
29 Likes
Who currently on the permanent Safe Sport banned has actually been exonerated by a court of law, but not removed from the list? Can you provide a name of a person?
20 Likes
If their children end up molested, then the parents should be criminally charged.
17 Likes
I do agree with this for sure - at that point you’re intentionally putting a minor in danger.
12 Likes
My father immigrated to the USA because of dictatorship that arrested both of his parents based on their association with the democratic leader. He grew up with Aunts and Uncles. In the USA he served the military and the many decades as USA Deparment Of Justice Attorney in Charge held the highest clearance serving Presidents in both parties. His cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Annually our home was inspected by investigators, to ensure integrity.
I uphold our Constitution.
When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.
