George Morris on the SS list

[mvp]

@vineyridge

Odd that this poster would have forgotten dressage and eventing, and there are several more sports regulated by the FEI for international competition. But, as Keep it Simple points out, the law is much broader in scope.

Odd that that poster would wish to find a solution by allowing the Hunters-- arguably the most child-inhabited of the disciplines-- to just get out from under the SafeSport umbrella. But the post confused me a bit, so I’m not sure I understood just what problem this creative suggestion was meant to solve.

[poltroon]

@mvp

Great question!

IMO, the contract should specify. I’ll bet it does name and specify what security deposit is for.

And because that bit of housing law is so well-defined, I think a boarder who got ripped off might just win in court. Again, the contract should specify, precisely because language would have come from contracts that were common in other business like renting apartments versus renting stalls, with board and are.

It’s not that you won’t win in court but that the cost to bring the case is significant, possibly as much as you are out or more, and then you still have to collect the judgement. There’s also the cost of your time. Even small claims court - you’d probably have to take a couple of days off from work to bring the case.

With housing, the amounts are larger and there are government agencies that have some nice bitey tools to quickly and easily bring bad actors in line in the most egregious cases. The lesser cases (you put a mark on the wall so I’m docking you $300) less so.

I have never been asked to leave either a Security Deposit or Last Month’s Board by any boarding contract I have signed. But you can bet I’d read that part carefully and have a conversation with the BO in order to make sure that we were on the same page about how money and moving out were going to happen.

Well, if you find yourself in this situation I wish you the best. IME everyone is professional when you move in, and about half the time, not so much when you move out. The only time moving out went well was when I was moving 600 miles away - the manager’s attitude immediately went from frosty to pleased for me and helpful. Trying to correct the bad actors was too hard a problem for me.

[ohnoO]

A little off tangent, but I have often wondered if pedophiles get into coaching, directing, priesthood, etc. because of the plethora of young girls/boys, or are they already in the sport/profession and think, “Oh, what a bonanza “?

I guess it is probably both. I often wonder when the “light-bulb moment” occurs.

[mroades]

@ohnoO

A little off tangent, but I have often wondered if pedophiles get into coaching, directing, priesthood, etc. because of the plethora of young girls/boys, or are they already in the sport/profession and think, “Oh, what a bonanza “?

I guess it is probably both. I often wonder when the “light-bulb moment” occurs.

Access…

[Crashing_Boar]

@poltroon

A secondary difference that we haven’t discussed between a criminal proceeding and an administrative one is that cases of sexual misconduct, assault, and bullying are different in a workplace, a school, or in this case, an athletic community, also come with specific rights entitling the victim to participate.

• Public schools are both semi-mandatory and entitlements.
• Colleges and workplaces have obligations to ensure people are not harassed out of a job or an education. (Colleges have the additional challenge of managing housing.)
• Athletes have protections meant to ensure their ability to participate even if their national federations find them annoying. (These come from the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and was a response to some specific obnoxious actions by the AAU; they are reinforced by the amendment that created SafeSport.)

One of the facts recognized by these processes is that with an accusation of sexual misconduct, there’s not really a neutral position: someone is going to lose their ability to participate, whether through action or inaction. Choosing not to act has the impact of taking rights and opportunities away from the claimant in favor of the accused.

For years, this was not acknowledged. And the effect was that a person who was abused ended up having to leave the community because action was not taken against the abuser and because being in a small community with the abuser was intolerable.

(In a criminal case, the stakes for the accused are higher, in that they can lose their freedom entirely and become a convicted felon, but also in general the accuser has more opportunities to avoid interaction with the accused regardless of outcome. Not always in practice.)

Then of course, for the most part the accused ALSO has these rights. In our sport that would be most so when it involves two athletes and not when one party is exclusively a coach.

So to take one of the harder cases, drawn from a real life example in wrestling, A credibly claims that B entered her hotel room while she was sleeping and assaulted her in her bed. Let’s say it’s credible and likely it happened that way but there’s not enough evidence to convict in a court of law.

A no longer feels safe traveling with the team if B is selected. (B may also feel unsafe traveling with A on the team.)

So, now you have to choose. You only get one of these team members going forward. Which will it be?

That is among the problems making these cases so hard.

---

One thing happening here is that we are seeing only the hardest cases. Situations that can be informally mediated are (that’s right in the SafeSport procedures). Situations where the offenses are less, or the accused less well-known, don’t get as much attention. Situations where a criminal conviction is obtained are simple. And we see only the name of the accused - so we are unconsciously choosing between someone we know, or know of, and an unknown number of blank slates that could be one or many.

Feel the difference when you’re talking about Jimmy Williams with some anonymous girls, versus Jimmy Williams with Carol Creamcheese, versus Jimmy Williams with Anne Kursinski. Whether we mean to or not, we’re inclined to make rather grotesque choices not based on what he did but on who he did it to and if we know or love that person. I’ve crassly said the only reason Anne could come out is because she had more Olympic medals than Jimmy and I don’t think I’m wrong. Even all of the other girls who have spoken on the record would not be enough to have swayed opinion as much as her testimony did.

What we say when we do this is that Jimmy is worth more than all those girls put together. (Ironically, there seem to be people who believe this even though he’s dead.) And that’s just ugly.

Horse and rider training is not so rarified a skill that it can only be obtained from abusers.

Good post. I think it’s necessary to acknowledge that there are many, many shades of gray here including battleship, flea-bitten and grulla! Here are the biggest problems I have with SS as things now stand:

(1) There should be a reasonable statute of limitations, perhaps corresponding to that in the judicial district where the alleged abuse took place. I’ve heard all the contrary arguments, but if there is no evidence of any improper activity in say the past 20 years, I’m not seeing any point in setting down elderly people for ancient history–all it does is open a window for people to weaponize SS for vindictive purposes. No child is being “protected” from George, or JW who’s been dead a quarter century, now. The person way up thread who stated “It should be about moving FORWARD from here” was spot on.

(2) I do not believe in banning the dead, nor memory-holing their accomplishments, an Orwellian reference if you are unfamiliar. This involves removing all acknowledgment of their careers as though they had never lived, ripping their names off trophies, arenas, scholarships, etc. They’ve already done it to JW, and will probably try it with GM, though I think his many fans might make that tougher. Regardless of whether negative aspects of personal lives later come to light, and regardless of whether in the realm of sports, film, art, music, or any other sphere of public life, their accomplishments should stand. With an asterisk, perhaps, like we’re now appending to Christopher Columbus or Thomas Jefferson. As in fallible men, NOT “gods.”

(3) The big, BIG problem is with “aiding and abetting.” You’re right, getting kicked out of an elite private club is NBD and it’s possible to operate thriving equine businesses without USEF membership. However, the A&A clause crosses a line into restraint of trade and infringes on freedom of association, which every American posesses by law. SS set him down and they publicized it; if after that clients still want to send their horses and even their children to him for clinics or whatever, that’s THEIR business and not SS’s. For instance, I have no juniors at my barn and and do not consider GHM even remotely a danger to me or my clients. Should we wish to invite him for a clinic, I should think WE accept the choice and any theoretical liability that comes with it. For any event not directly sanctioned by USEF, they should have no jurisdiction. Equine business is different than many sports in that it IS a living for so many people, and nothing less than the force of U.S. law should (or does!) have the power to deny someone the ability to make a living.

(4) It is utterly impossible to “micro-monitor” the activities of every person who comes on the premises of a busy stable. The vast majority of grooms, muckers, veterinarians, farriers, delivery truck drivers, repairmen, lawn crews, etc. are not under the moment-by-moment “control” of the barn owner or trainer, nor under the obligations or jurisdiction of SS. How about encountering people out on trails? No barn owner or trainer can possibly guarantee that no “abuse” is possible on their premises. To be held to that standard is non-workable in the real world. Very different than supervising juniors at a school swimming pool or basketball court. So how about SS insert language the holds PARENTS or GUARDIANS ultimately responsible for supervision of their minor participants?

[Jaegermonster]

@mvp

Odd that that poster would wish to find a solution by allowing the Hunters-- arguably the most child-inhabited of the disciplines-- to just get out from under the SafeSport umbrella. But the post confused me a bit, so I’m not sure I understood just what problem this creative suggestion was meant to solve.

[kirbydog]

@Old Mac Donald

Good thing GM is not a pedophile then.
A pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Typically under the age of 11. Someone who has sexually offended against a minor is not automatically a pedophile.

Plenty of “pedophiles” never offend against children; they may be well aware of their attraction but never seek to act on it. The same way someone may have intense fantasies about [insert a strange / illegal / immoral fetish] and never seek to actually act it out.

OTOH. Plenty of sexual offenders who have offended against children did so, not because they were attracted to them, but because the victim was in a position to be victimised - similar to prison rape. The offender may not have a same-sex attraction, but “when in jail…”

As an actual prison psych (and now officer), we see plenty of all of the above: one time offenders, reoffenders, can’t-not-reoffenders. Blanket statements about reoffence rates has no place here.

The incorrect use of the term pedophile is rampant here. There is no evidence to suggest that GM ever offended against a prepubescent minor.

Carry on.

Semantics, but if it makes you feel better, then carry on

[dannyboy]

@ CrashingBoar

For instance, I have no juniors at my barn and and do not consider GHM even remotely a danger to me or my clients. Should we wish to invite him for a clinic, I should think WE accept the choice and any theoretical liability that comes with it.

I have a feeling your insurance company may have a problem with that. They may not care if you accept the liability, but they may not wish to insure you against it. Just a thought.

[poltroon]

@Crashing Boar

(2) I do not believe in banning the dead, nor memory-holing their accomplishments, an Orwellian reference if you are unfamiliar. This involves removing all acknowledgment of their careers as though they had never lived, ripping their names off trophies, arenas, scholarships, etc. They’ve already done it to JW, and will probably try it with GM, though I think his many fans might make that tougher. Regardless of whether negative aspects of personal lives later come to light, and regardless of whether in the realm of sports, film, art, music, or any other sphere of public life, their accomplishments should stand. With an asterisk, perhaps, like we’re now appending to Christopher Columbus or Thomas Jefferson. As in fallible men, NOT “gods.”

I don’t think anyone is “memory-holing” Jimmy Williams’ accomplishments, which are many.

But do you want to win an award with his name on it today, knowing that among his accomplishments are raping an 11 year old girl? I really don’t. Going forward, I am not going to react with pleasure to see that award given out.

And having little kids ride in an arena named for him doesn’t sound nice to me either.

If you want to honor his accomplishments, maybe it would be better to name those things for one of his students or one of his horses.

Hmm. Interestingly, neither he nor GM really had iconic horses that you associate them with. Maybe their legends kind of overshadowed the horses.

[poltroon]

@Crashing Boar

(1) There should be a reasonable statute of limitations, perhaps corresponding to that in the judicial district where the alleged abuse took place. I’ve heard all the contrary arguments, but if there is no evidence of any improper activity in say the past 20 years, I’m not seeing any point in setting down elderly people for ancient history–all it does is open a window for people to weaponize SS for vindictive purposes. No child is being “protected” from George, or JW who’s been dead a quarter century, now. The person way up thread who stated “It should be about moving FORWARD from here” was spot on.

You don’t know when their most recent evidence dates to.

There’s an assumption that elderly men stop abusing people sexually. In fact, this is not an idea well supported by the evidence.

A pattern of abuses over many years and many athletes may not be apparent without looking back many years. The single case that comes to light in the last 10 years looks wholly different when you add in three more decades before. That’s what we’ve seen in the Catholic Church cases and that’s what we’ve seen with cases like Mainwaring.

[Crashing_Boar]

Here are a couple of additional practical suggestions beyond those for tweaking up SS:

(1) Parents need to teach their children, from the time they’re old enough to understand, which actions by adults are normal and safe and which are never to be tolerated (red light!). They need to have an escape plan, and to know they can ALWAYS bring even the slightest suspicion that someone’s a “little off” to YOU–and YOU WILL BACK THEM UP. 50 years ago we didn’t have that; today, we should. “Teach Your Children Well.” Way more effective than having some 4th party adjudicate the thing 51 years after the incident.

(2) Do not dump your kids off at the barn at 0800 and expect the management to entertain them for the next 10-12 hours. If your child is old enough and competent enough for a working student arrangement, that should be in writing with SS protocols incorporated so everyone understands the deal. Parents should not otherwise use the stable as an unpaid babysitting service. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, and this eliminates opportunity to be “groomed” by any personnel not under direct supervision of trainer.

(3) For the love of God, STOP sexualizing children. The 12-year old daughter of two Yalies, one a clergyman, that I knew actually let their pubescent daughter run around in hot-pink tights with the word “JUICY!” embossed in rhinestones across the butt! A child doesn’t know any better, but parents should. Maybe the promotion of 9-year-old “drag queens” and Jon-Benet Ramsey style dress-up/makeup is not a good choice. Let’s stop promoting with our fashion dollars the “bimbo” culture and the idea that taking your clothes off for a camera lens, anyone’s lens, is EVER a good idea. Steaming manure like the “Good Boys” movie just released is beyond appalling; one more example of Hollywood’s race to the bottom of the muck-choked trough of so-called modern “culture.” Go read a synopsis if you haven’t yet heard of it, and protect your children from ideas like this that can’t possibly end well.

(4) Get rid of social media for impressionable youth entirely. A flip-phone will do fine for emergencies and calling home.
Parents are enabling all the pathologies that accompany unfettered, 24/7 internet access. Most adults can’t handle it, let alone youth.

(5) Raise your children with a sense of personal responsibility, which seems to have been replaced by “self esteem” and “activism.” You will be judged by your actions in the world both good and bad, as GHM is being judged now. Use the current news cycle as a teaching moment, and do not make excuses for anyone.

[ladyj79]

A) we’ve already devoted the entirety of human history to placing the onus on victims not to get victimized…it hasn’t worked

b) I thought trainers absolutely had to be able to text and Facebook message children privately or their business would be in shambles?

[poltroon]

@ladyj79

A) we’ve already devoted the entirety of human history to placing the onus on victims not to get victimized…it hasn’t worked

b) I thought trainers absolutely had to be able to text and Facebook message children privately or their business would be in shambles?

Amen to a and LOL at b.

“Here are solutions specially chosen not because they have ever worked but because they do not inconvenience me in any way.”

It’s good to know Facebook is to blame for sexual assaults of teenage boys 50 years ago.

[Crashing_Boar]

@ladyj79

A) we’ve already devoted the entirety of human history to placing the onus on victims not to get victimized…it hasn’t worked

b) I thought trainers absolutely had to be able to text and Facebook message children privately or their business would be in shambles?

<<placing the onus on victims not to get victimized>>

It’s less probable you’ll be hit by a train if you don’t stand in the middle of the tracks, waving a “Vacancy!” flag.

<<text and Facebook>>

Never have used FB, and texting is a bane I actively avoid because it’s a PITA. Both media invite exactly the type of over-familiarity that has the potential to cause problems. Regular voice phone makes misunderstandings less likely, with e-mail reserved for more serious business matters with clients. Again, I’ve never had juniors so non-issue, though I well realize for many they must use these platforms, and that’s their choice.

[Crashing_Boar]

@poltroon

Amen to a and LOL at b.

“Here are solutions specially chosen not because they have ever worked but because they do not inconvenience me in any way.”

It’s good to know Facebook is to blame for sexual assaults of teenage boys 50 years ago.

Who’s “trolling” now?

[vineyridge]

You know, I want to raise something. There is a clear and distinct timeline for when the human body is mature enough for sex. For most of human history, once puberty was reached, a person was of marriageable age, had sex, and had children. We live in a society that glorifies sex.

I live in Mississippi, and we have oodles of teenaged pregnancies, probably the highest level in the nation. There have been pregnancies as young as 11, but 13 is rather common. Both boys and girls nationwide are sexually active at earlier and earlier ages, or so I’ve read. So we know that sex is part of teenaged life with or without contraception. Mentally most of them take it in stride. Here men and boys are considered men when they father a child, and most are rather proud of having done so; age of mother doesn’t matter to them.

If kids are screwing, why is it so wrong for them to screw with an adult? I can understand the authority aspect would make it wrong, but why is the authority aspect so much worse for under 18s than it would for adults?

[ladyj79]

@vineyridge

You know, I want to raise something. There is a clear and distinct timeline for when the human body is mature enough for sex. For most of human history, once puberty was reached, a person was of marriageable age, had sex, and had children. We live in a society that glorifies sex.

I live in Mississippi, and we have oodles of teenaged pregnancies, probably the highest level in the nation. There have been pregnancies as young as 11, but 13 is rather common. Both boys and girls nationwide are sexually active at earlier and earlier ages, or so I’ve read. So we know that sex is part of teenaged life with or without contraception. Mentally most of them take it in stride. Here men and boys are considered men when they father a child, and most are rather proud of having done so; age of mother doesn’t matter to them.

If kids are screwing, why is it so wrong for them to screw with an adult? I can understand the authority aspect would make it wrong, but why is the authority aspect so much worse for under 18s than it would for adults?

No words.

[mvp]

@poltroon

It’s not that you won’t win in court but that the cost to bring the case is significant, possibly as much as you are out or more, and then you still have to collect the judgement. There’s also the cost of your time. Even small claims court - you’d probably have to take a couple of days off from work to bring the case.

With housing, the amounts are larger and there are government agencies that have some nice bitey tools to quickly and easily bring bad actors in line in the most egregious cases. The lesser cases (you put a mark on the wall so I’m docking you $300) less so.

Well, if you find yourself in this situation I wish you the best. IME everyone is professional when you move in, and about half the time, not so much when you move out. The only time moving out went well was when I was moving 600 miles away - the manager’s attitude immediately went from frosty to pleased for me and helpful. Trying to correct the bad actors was too hard a problem for me.

Well… I think one month’s board that we were bickering over would put us in Small Claims Court, so I’m good with that.

Also, I read and discuss contracts before I sign them. If the BO and I both didn’t trust each other, or agreed that we shared an understanding about how the last 30 days would go, I think I wouldn’t move it.

I have only had a BO start to let care go downhill toward the end of my 30 days’ notice in 25 or so years of boarding. In this one case, it was a newbie to boarding with a private farm. She wanted to save on shavings so she let my horse’s stall get really bad for the last day or so. And didn’t send a bale of hay with him, as the barn he came from had sent a bale of hay for the transition. IMO, the BO was inexperienced and unprofessional. I will never again be anyone’s first boarder. But otherwise, I really don’t find myself in these situations, perhaps because I choose carefully in the beginning.

[kirbydog]

@Crashing Boar

<<placing the onus on victims not to get victimized>>

It’s less probable you’ll be hit by a train if you don’t stand in the middle of the tracks, waving a “Vacancy!” flag.

<<text and Facebook>>

Never have used FB, and texting is a bane I actively avoid because it’s a PITA. Both media invite exactly the type of over-familiarity that has the potential to cause problems. Regular voice phone makes misunderstandings less likely, with e-mail reserved for more serious business matters with clients. Again, I’ve never had juniors so non-issue, though I well realize for many they must use these platforms, and that’s their choice.

And when a child, woman, or man is cornered and forcibly sexually assaulted, by an adult male trainer or priest, whatever, is their fault because their parents spoiled them?
You are SO cavalier in your attitude.

[kirbydog]

@vineyridge

You know, I want to raise something. There is a clear and distinct timeline for when the human body is mature enough for sex. For most of human history, once puberty was reached, a person was of marriageable age, had sex, and had children. We live in a society that glorifies sex.

I live in Mississippi, and we have oodles of teenaged pregnancies, probably the highest level in the nation. There have been pregnancies as young as 11, but 13 is rather common. Both boys and girls nationwide are sexually active at earlier and earlier ages, or so I’ve read. So we know that sex is part of teenaged life with or without contraception. Mentally most of them take it in stride. Here men and boys are considered men when they father a child, and most are rather proud of having done so; age of mother doesn’t matter to them.

If kids are screwing, why is it so wrong for them to screw with an adult? I can understand the authority aspect would make it wrong, but why is the authority aspect so much worse for under 18s than it would for adults?

[What] is wrong with you?