George Morris on the SS list

[chisamba]

@rah

I was assured yesterday it has been removed, just trying to confirm.

It’s still on their website and slideshow as the George H Morris arena. I just looked

[RainWeasley]

@Groom&Taxi

It didn’t do much for me - and, spoiler alert, it’s a blog.

I’m kind of disappointed, I really wanted to like something written by someone that calls themselves the Engineering Equestrian but I looked at a few of the posts, they weren’t very well written.

[NotaPonyDoc]

@Silk

Can these elite controllers transmit the virus to others?

That really depends on how well of an elite controller a person is… some people will have viral spikes over time (maybe associated with a common cold when their immune system is weaker) and could transmit the disease then.

[prairiewind2]

@BlueMoonJumper

[h=1]

For example: Potty training a puppy. (Because we’re all animal lovers here and I think this scenario will be relatable to most of us)
New puppy pees on area rug. I absolutely do not want this behavior, I don’t like this behavior, I’m not cool with it. It’s gross and I don’t want to live with it. I definitely feel a certain way about it. As far as my action? I take the area rug out of the house and replace it.

Puppy pees on new area rug. I continue to have those strong feelings that I don’t like it, I’m not cool with it, it’s gross and I don’t want to live with it. Toss the new area rug in the trash.

Puppy pees on the third rug and the fourth. I continue to be grossed out and unhappy. Never take any action other than throwing away area rugs.

What’s going to be the result? We all know - the puppy is going to continue to pee on the fresh new area rugs I provide to it.

There was no discernible objection from me. There was no correction. By failing to turn my feelings into corrective action, I have accommodated the undesirable behavior and allowed it to become the norm.

Your analogy is interesting but I see it a different way. To me, you did not accept the puppy’s peeing. Accepting it would have meant that you left the first rug in place, to be peed on repeatedly. Instead, you removed the rug. Did you stop the peeing? No. But you protected your rug.

Upthread, someone spoke of a sibling who was raped and talked about their family moving away. They did not deal with the rapist and there could have been a dozen reasons for that. Is it ideal to ignore the rapist? As far as the community goes, no. But as far as the family goes, maybe, probably, especially back then. In general, sex wasn’t spoken of as easily as it is today. Remember, Hollywood enforced the Hays Code (censorship) for movies until the mid '60s or so.

When most people are threatened, they circle the wagons and protect their own first. The welfare of society in general is not their first thought. Not dealing with a pedophile back then was not “accepting” rape. As I said earlier, many people did deal with the issue, just not in the same way we might now. They did not “accept” kiddie rape. That would have meant leaving the “rug” in place.

One more thing - you could have removed the “puppy”. That happened back then too. Just quietly, without a lot of fanfare. And as someone else pointed out, there was a charge of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”. I remember that charge being used.

[anon6003733]

del

[Tiramit]

@Tiramit

Thinking through to the future of our sport, how can we help protect the children? History has exposed ours as a culture of gossip and pathetically little action, so how do we protect kids outside of USEF shows? Those kids riding on the local circuit whose well-meaning but clueless parents don’t know that the trainer was banned by SS (and either don’t know or think to look at the list)?

Another question to ponder, are local circuit managers in any way responsible for allowing known sexual predators at their shows? Could someone sue them in the future? Obviously if the person is criminally found guilty of sexual abuse in another state, that could make it easier to identify the person, but only if someone knows to look. Is there a reciprocal process in place for, say, a Virginia trainer who was found guilty in NY?

Short of posting a sign of current SS banned offenders at the show office (not possible because of Constitutional rights and potentially a libel suit), I can’t think of how those local kids could be protected from the likes of local hero predators?

Would licensing trainers be a start?

Is there a solution?

As interesting and therapeutic as it is to debate the past, it doesn’t do a heck of a lot to help the kids who ride and compete at events outside of SS’s reach. Given that the kids showing at rated shows are only a percentage of all kids riding and showing, shouldn’t we think about our industry as a whole if protecting kids is really our goal? I posed the above pages back but it didn’t seem to catch notice.

We know these predators exist within our sport. We can expect them to stay within the industry. For the non-Gods, that means teaching lessons and showing at non-USEF events. How do we protect those kids? The kids who don’t have bigger bank accounts and are looking to make every opportunity count?

[cloudyandcallie]

[QUOTE=atl_hunter;n10455032]

But wasn’t the age of consent in GA 14 until 1995? And isn’t it currently 16? So I guess the question is “what is an underage child?” The date the state says is the age of consent or the Age 18? And if the age of consent was 14 in 1995 and an adult engaged in sexual activities with a child of consenting age, does that make it right? Can SS go after an adult who had sex with a consenting 14 YO back in 1994? Also, isn’t the SS legal age 18? How can SS have a different age of consent than a state? Does that violate state’s rights or does a federally mandated law overrule state’s rights? Is this in federal jurisdiction to mandate an age of consent or is that the right of the state? The ages of consent are in conflict it seems[/QUOTE

Many different sex crimes had different ages. And some sex crimes had no age limits. Like for example it was illegal for adult married couples to engage in oral sex. OMG I was in law school when Prof Mack Player asked me what I thought of 1 to 20 years in prison for oral sex and I blurted out in front of my all male classmates that I thought it was foreplay.

So so it all depends on how the state and federal judges interpret SS. I clerked for the Chief U.S. District Judge in Savannnah eons ago. A good example is that a person can be acquitted of murder in a state court and then tried and convicted of violating the dead person’s civil rights with no double jeopardy. So let GW use the court system and get cross examined on all his claims from “Unrelenting.”

Name those 10,000 sex partners. More than Mick Jagger

[dannyboy]

I don’t think licensing trainer is particularly helpful with regards to protecting children. It’s true that equestrian, things are pretty wide open, but trainers in many other sports are required to have some sort of credentials and that doesn’t weed out the bad apples, although it may raise the quality of instruction.
I think the biggest benefit to SafeSport, although it doesn’t deal directly with lower-level trainers, is the increased awareness. Didn’t SafeSport expect only a few hundred complaints across all disciplines and instead they got thousands? The more people are aware that this kind of thing happens, the better off we all are at all levels.

[springdaisy]

@prairiewind2

Your analogy is interesting but I see it a different way. To me, you did not accept the puppy’s peeing. Accepting it would have meant that you left the first rug in place, to be peed on repeatedly. Instead, you removed the rug. Did you stop the peeing? No. But you protected your rug.

I have to disagree with your counter-argument, because she removed the “damaged/injured” rug but then replaced it with another rug. If she had removed the rug to protect it but had left the area bare (or put some protective measures in place like a puppy pad in this continued example)…okay I can see an argument for safety of the family in silence. But to remove one rug and either intentionally put another in the same place or unintentionally allow for the space to be filled by an equally vulnerable rug - unacceptable because it is, in a way, acceptance. Which I think is what the original poster was trying to show.

[hut-ho78]

@hut-ho78

Good article. https://www.theengineeringequestrian.com/safesport-unsafesport-sadsport-madsport-george-morris-and-people-getting-shot-wtf-is-going-on/

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll try again. Here is a blog that restates the SafeSport process in simple steps and language using a SafeSport process diagram. It destroys misinformation efforts about SafeSport procedures.

[alicen]

@aredhel

I agree with Palm Beach that a 5 day window is too short. Not everyone is connected 24/7/365. I regularly go on trips that last longer than 5 days where I have little or no contact with the outside world. And there’s always the possibility of the person being ill and in a hospital. A 30 day window to file an intent to appeal would seem more reasonable.

I think it safe to assume that GM would not be conducting a clinic in the middle of the Amazon jungle and from early on in the investigation would have decided whether or not to appeal.

[ladyj79]

@alicen

I think it safe to assume that GM would not be conducting a clinic in the middle of the Amazon jungle and from early on in the investigation would have decided whether or not to appeal.

Especially since he had been aware of the investigation for over a year, long enough to threaten potential witnesses and their families.

[prairiewind2]

@springdaisy

I have to disagree with your counter-argument, because she removed the “damaged/injured” rug but then replaced it with another rug. If she had removed the rug to protect it but had left the area bare (or put some protective measures in place like a puppy pad in this continued example)…okay I can see an argument for safety of the family in silence. But to remove one rug and either intentionally put another in the same place or unintentionally allow for the space to be filled by an equally vulnerable rug - unacceptable because it is, in a way, acceptance. Which I think is what the original poster was trying to show.

Well, I didn’t think she was talking of a family where one child would be removed and deliberately replaced with a sibling. I thought she was talking of a community-wide problem where the pedophile moves to the next child. Of course, her analogy breaks down at this point because we cannot train pedophiles to quit their behavior (and I think she was asking us to train the puppy instead of removing rugs). So it was always a limited analogy but I was working with it as best as I could.

Of course, irl, one sibling is often replaced by another if a family doesn’t know, or denies, that there is a problem. But one family does not a community make. One family’s indifference does not indicate that a society “accepts” child rape. Which is the only thing I have been debating.

[dannyboy]

I’m curious about those threats. No doubting it at all, but I haven’t seen any direct quotes or to whom. “Accidents happen, y’know” or “I’m going to hire someone to rub out your family, Si Jayne-style” or what?

[LexInVA]

I don’t think GM has the ability to harm anyone at this point, at least not physically, and he’s not inconspicuous enough to go unnoticed for the purposes of committing sabotage at shows, but I do believe that some of his supporters are mentally ill enough to give their lives or livelihoods or kill horses and burn down barns in retribution for this attack against his legacy, given the halo effect and strong cult of personality surrounding him. At the very most, he’s got significant dirt to drop on people and happenings that could give bad headlines or perhaps even undermine the last thirty years of H/J, essentially his legacy, and bring the upper-crust echelons of the sport and it’s symbiotic society crashing down. It’s certainly in the interest of some wealthy and well-known people to keep such information quiet, so if anything, GM is more a danger to himself than to others at this point, but who knows how this will go over twelve months from now or five years.

[neigh]

I recommend that everyone go to NetFlix and watch the movie “The Tale”. It is a powerful narrative and is based on a true story.

[atl_hunter]

[quote="“cloudyandcallie,post:2193,topic:460643”]

@atl_hunter

1 to 20 years in prison for oral sex and I blurted out in front of my all male classmates that I thought it was foreplay.

So so it all depends on how the state and federal judges interpret SS. I clerked for the Chief U.S. District Judge in Savannnah eons ago. A good example is that a person can be acquitted of murder in a state court and then tried and convicted of violating the dead person’s civil rights with no double jeopardy. So let GW use the court system and get cross examined on all his claims from “Unrelenting.”

Name those 10,000 sex partners. More than Mick Jagger

Thank you - this is what I was trying to understand. Who gets to decide the actual age? SS or the State? Hopefully he will utilize the court system and we will all have some clarity as to whether age of consent is a state’s right or a federal one, and what the age should actually be. I’m all for one age, 18, for the entire nation. It would definitely make it clear and consistent. It’s not like 18 year olds can vote and you need to be 18 to enlist.

[RainWeasley]

@neigh

I recommend that everyone go to NetFlix and watch the movie “The Tale”. It is a powerful narrative and is based on a true story.

I read the plot summary on Wiki, wow. I’ll have to go watch it.

[Sunflower]

@Palm Beach

Good post. Also missing is the fact that one party has authority over the other, which in many cases can result in the fear of retaliation if the authoritative party is rejected. The younger party, or the party in the subordinate position may be afraid that rejection will result in a loss of opportunities, maybe even eviction. Young adults, even not-so-young adults, struggle with this, which is why many companies have nonfraternization (is that a word) rules.

Yes, indeed! I would classify that as examples of coerced consent or consent under duress.

[AllOverFarm]

Neigh… I just watched the YouTube trailer to the movie, “The Tale”, that you suggested. Wow! It’s even set around competition horses.