No, but cynical me says that the unfair thing is that their friend(s) got caught.
27 Likes
They need $25,000 to send letters? What would be a more fair process? Who is going to decide what that process should look like? SO many holes in this “overhaul” that I don’t even know where to start. I think maybe I’ll start with the image of a wall full of blue ribbons that’s being used. If that’s what they use to depict a supposed group to bring a better system of protecting our youth in the sport, that’s pretty telling. Ignore the bad acts, focus on that blue ribbon.
16 Likes
Has any other sport reacted in quite this way? I know some were in denial but this much?
I haven’t listened to the Plaid Horse podcast with the NYT journalist but plan to do so tomorrow.
1 Like
I was really impressed. As if I wasn’t already impressed after reading her articles.
3 Likes
Agreed. Definitely worth a listen. Long story short, it puts to rest that “one incident from 50 years ago” crap.
7 Likes
Peggy, I’m not suggesting that you’re in favor of this idea, but rather than contributing $$$ to some GoFundMe with nebulous goals, let me suggest that it would be better to actually think things through and write your congresspersons with concrete suggestions for an overhaul, but that’s just my .02.
Thanks for this explanation!
1 Like
Peggy didn’t write that. Kathy Hobstetter did. Peggy just shared it here.
9 Likes
It also addresses the “problem” of trusting the credibility of a victim or witness who is himself a registered sex offender. The interview goes into this, but that strikes me as ironic and sad: Being sexually abused is life-changing. Not everyone abused does, in turn, become a perpetrator themselves. But I think there is data on the prevalence of that behavior being learned or cultivated (?— not sure what terms fits). And so, to make it harder to prosecute perpetrators because their victims, as a class, tend to show the effects of their trauma is a problem that needs correction. To me, that is a high-level form of victim blaming.
15 Likes
Out of curiosity, anyone know when, in George’s career, he stopped having live in working students? Anyone have an estimated number on how many youth male students he had working for him over the years? When he had a male student living with him… was it just one student at a time, living alone with him?
2 Likes
That’s not cynical, that’s the truth.
7 Likes
Well - Bonnie Navin has gone on Facebook again with an interesting post dissecting Safe Sport processes. I’ve copied and pasted it here, as I know several lawyers are following this thread and I’m curious as to their reactions…
[I]“Someone posted the USOC Due process Checklist - lets compare the list I pasted to what SS actually does.
First "notice of specific charges or alleged violations in writing and possible consequences (NOT done in any of the cases I handled with SS) and when specific charges were demanded they had to be told by an arbitrator to fix it.
Second - reasonable time between charges and hearing to prepare a DEFENSE. No folks SS does NOT Give a hearing for a defense to be presented until AFTER the director issues a charge, the person seeks an appeal and pays. So this is NOT happening at all.
Third - the right for the hearing to take place so the person can attend - okay AFTER they are banned and AFTER they seek an appeal and AFTER they pay $6000 they do get to attend.
Fourth - a hearing before a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders. AH HA - Nope - this is pleural “fact finders” and SS only allows ONE arbitrator from JAMS whom by the way JAMS is a private company of mediators and holds the EXCLUSIVE contract with SS - impartial - nope not so much (oh PS it is widely known that SS sent its rules to JAMS for their arbitrators to offer suggestions to the rules.
Fifth - the right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence and argument - but again AFTER the ban and AFTER you seek an appeal and AFTER you pay the entry fee for your appeal.
Sixth - the right to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses - NOPE the accusers do not have to appear and they do NOT have to be cross examined by responding party atty but the arbitrator with selected questions.
Seventh - the right to have a record made of the hearing - yes this is afforded IF the reporting party pays for it and it can not be transcribed and used as it stays confidential and the attys cannot even get a copy of it.
Eighth - burden of proof on proponent of charge - well the accusers are the proponents BUT SafeSport has decided the accusers are just witnesses and SafeSport takes on the position of proponent.
Ninth - a wrtiien decision with reasons - yes that seems to happen
Tenth - written notice of appeal procedures bahhhaaaaaaa there are no appeal processes available under SafeSport.
So as you can see - this is NOT happening the way it should be. It should be: Notice of charge, exchange evidence, have a hearing where all evidence is presented etc, before a PANEL and then a decision and punishment accessed and then an appeal. That is how its supposed to be.”[/I]
1 Like
I listened last night. If you’ve been following along with SafeSport, it was nothing “new,” rather Nir just confirmed what has been reiterated on this thread. I was most impressed that Sissy Wickes and her co-host Piper Klemm were loudly in support of SafeSport. We need more people in positions of stature to outright condemn the awful behavior in our sport— both the abuse, as well as the disgusting reactions/victim-shaming. While Nir had to remain impartial as a journalist, the hosts made it clear they DO NOT agree with the vitriol being spewed in defense of GM. I applaud them for that. :applause:
22 Likes
Here is copied and pasted text of the USOC Due Process Checklist BN references
USOC Due Process Checklist
The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (TSOASA) requires that an athlete have a hearing before being declared ineligible [§220522 (a)(8)]. The USOC recommends the following be included in such a hearing:
Ӣ Notice of the specific charges or alleged violations in writing, and possible consequences if the charges are found to be true;
Ӣ Reasonable time between receipt of the notice of charges and the hearing within which to prepare a defense;
Ӣ The right to have the hearing conducted at such a time and place so as to make it practicable for the person charged to attend;
Ӣ A hearing before a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders;
”¢ The right to be assisted in the presentation of one’s case at the hearing,
including the assistance of legal counsel, if desired;
Ӣ The right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence and
argument;
Ӣ The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses;
Ӣ The right to have a record made of the hearing if desired;
Ӣ The burden of proof shall be on the proponent of the charge, which burden
shall be at least a “preponderance of the evidence” unless the NGB requires
or provides for a higher burden of proof;
Ӣ A written decision, with reasons therefore, based solely on the evidence of
record, handed down in a timely fashion;
Ӣ Written notice of appeal procedures, if the decision is adverse to the person
charged, and prompt and fair adjudication of the appeal.
4 Likes
One last note… Because I feel that it’s VERY important not to lose sight of who it is that is making these arguments, etc.
Bonnie Navin has tagged Jim Giorgio in the first comment on her own post (which has now been widely shared) and asked him specifically if he cares to “jump in” - presumably about these procedural issues with Safe Sport…
I went back and looked at the 2007 article written by staff writer Larry Smith and published in The Hartford Courant concerning the legal situation, and charges against Giorgio… and have shared portions of it here so that people realize exactly who this person BN tagged because… I presume she thinks he can effectively make the case 
”‹ he was denied due process somehow and unfairly banned by Safe Sport ”‹ :sigh::no:
“A 43-year-old former East Windsor man avoided time in jail Tuesday after pleading guilty to inappropriately touching a minor girl in 2005.
James Giorgio pleaded guilty to fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor in Superior Court of Enfield. Judge Howard Scheinblum sentenced Giorgio to a seven-year suspended term with 10 years of probation.
Scheinblum also ordered Giorgio to register for 10 years as a sex offender, have no contact with the victim, undergo a sexual offender evaluation and have no unsupervised contact with a minor under 16.
Assistant State’s Attorney Anthony Bochicchio said East Windsor police became aware of the situation in December 2005 after they were contacted by Windsor police. The victim, a girl under the age of 15, told police that incidents happened in East Windsor, Block Island, R.I., and Stowe, Vt., Bochicchio said.
[I]The victim, the daughter of a friend of Giorgio’s, told police that on one occasion in East Windsor he inappropriately touched her under her pajamas, and on a second occasion he hugged her then fondled her under her bra and asked her to take a shower with him, Bochicchio said.
Giorgio apologized to the girl for all of the incidents in November 2005, Bochicchio said.
Because of the plea agreement in Connecticut, prosecutors in Rhode Island will not pursue charges for an incident that happened on Block Island, Bochicchio said. The victim agrees with the resolution of the case but did not want to be heard in court, he added.
Attorney Rob Britt said his client, who now resides in East Lyme, has from the beginning sought to resolve the case in a way that did not cause the victim to have to testify or be deposed. Giorgio has said there are no winners in the resolution of the case, Britt said.
“Everyone in the case has a need to move forward,” Britt said.
The outcome of the Connecticut charges convinced authorities in Rhode Island to drop their case after it became apparent that the prosecution in that state and the defense could not come to a resolution, Britt said. There are no legal issues in Vermont, he added.[/I]
7 Likes
Thanks for posting all that @Virginia Horse Mom.
It looks like it’s Bonnie Navin’s word against SafeSport’s word, because she is claiming stuff isn’t happening that is written in their policies and has been corroborated by other parties.
I’m more inclined to believe the latter, because Bonnie Navin has come across on social media as unprofessional and incapable at her job; and that’s putting it mildly.
17 Likes
I’m so confused. Is there a hearing that you can have recorded/transcribed or is there no hearing? You pay $6000 fee to appeal but there’s no appeal? Kathy Serio said the charges come to you via email—that seems like a writing under today’s standards to me. And BN also says you don’t know the charges until after the ban but you somehow know them before the hearing which may or may not happen? None of this makes sense. If anyone should have actual insight into the procedure it should be her, but this is so contradictory that it is impossible to figure out if SS is following their procedure or not.
As for SS being one side and not the accuser(s), that of course makes sense just like in criminal court it would be the government vs the accused. Or any other hearing before a licensing board that received a complaint. And so the accusers are witnesses not a party.
5 Likes
@Texarkana - I totally agree. She comes across as though she is defensive concerning how she handled RGs case.
Bottom line… someone jump in if I am wrong… but in the case of folks who have criminal records for specific offenses involving minors, Safe Sport aligns with the justice system. It’s pretty basic.
So so how in the world can Giorgio or anyone like him - people with an ACTUAL CRIMINAL RECORD WHO ARE ON A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY claim now they were denied due process?
He got a shot at due process in the actual criminal justice system. HE PLEAD GUILTY. And avoided MORE CHARGES in another state and jail time by doing so.
Unbelievable.
20 Likes
I’ve lived in the DC area going on a decade, had horses with top trainers in Middleburg/Upperville for years, and have literally never heard of this guy before this thread.
6 Likes
Ah ok so perhaps there is no hearing or advanced notice where SS is merely implementing a ban based on criminal disposition. This would make sense.
9 Likes
