I don’t follow it. So the gofund me is to pay for her and others plane tickets?
5 Likes
And pamphlets…
5 Likes
I’m confused. Congress authorized Safe Sport to establish policies and procedures. Why wouldn’t those who desire an overhaul address their grievances to the USEF and Safe Sport?
4 Likes
Read Hobstetter’s post. Does that not explain where they intend the money to go?
I don’t think the plan sounds too vague for public consumption. I think the “line by line” budget isn’t what most organizations would publish in something like a GoFundMe request. It’s fine for you and Hobstetter to disagree on what counts on fairness in the process… so long as both sides actually know what the process is.
1 Like
I did read it. It didn’t mention money for plane tickets which apparently is a thing. Also, no one can say what is unfair about the process that isn’t in the context of criminal courts. If they have been I’ve missed it.
6 Likes
Yes.
4 Likes
I don’t know if this is directed at me or KHobstetter.
Speaking for myself, I have not reached a conclusion as to whether SafeSport’s procedures are adequate or not. I am very eager to see more cases proceed to arbitration where they will be reviewed by JAMS arbitrators–who are generally former judges and much more learned and experienced than I am. It has been stated here and elsewhere that a high percentage of SS sanctions have been overturned in arbitration, which would certainly be cause for concern. I have not been able to determine the truth of that statement.
Having reviewed the SS flowchart, the SS arbitration rules, and given my familiarity with normal JAMS arbitration rules, these are my concerns:
-
It is unclear when the accused sees all the evidence (for example, witness statements) against him. That does not appear on the flowchart.
-
The arbitration procedure does not allow any discovery. This is contrary to normal JAMS procedure, so SS has made a decision to deny the accused discovery. Discovery is considered crucial to fairness in both civil and criminal litigation, so this is a significant concern.
-
Lack of cross-examination–again, an essential tool in determining the credibility of a testifying witness.
-
Lack of subpoena power. This could prevent the accused from bringing in potentially exculpatory witnesses if they don’t want to show up voluntarily.
These are protections afforded in any civil (not just criminal) trial, even in small claims cases! I think we can all agree the consequences of a SS sanction are at least as serious as a small claims action, so these issues do nag at me.
The question of whether the accused has a “legal right” to these protections is somewhat of a red herring. I believe there are good legal arguments that he does, for reasons discussed pages and pages ago. However, even if this is not the case, I think we can all agree that we want any organization we are part of to have fair and reasonable procedures. So it is legitimate for us to discuss what meets the standard of “fair and reasonable” to the accused and the alleged victim.
In the interest of empathy and considering all points of view, I would also suggest we conduct the following thought experiment. I get the sense this board is overwhelmingly women. Thus, we naturally identify more with victims than perpetrators–indeed, many of us have been victims. But any of us could have a son or husband accused under SS. Ask yourself, what procedures would you feel are reasonable in that situation? What procedures would give you confidence that the outcome will be correct? Borrowing from the philosopher John Rawls, putting yourself in each possible role and asking what you would want in that situation is a powerful way of determining what is fair.
I have a friend whose son was accused of rape; the son faced an “expedited” disciplinary procedure that got him kicked out of school with few procedural protections. A later civil suit revealed that there were plenty of witnesses who would (and did) undermine the girl’s story, and her son was exonerated, but not before he had lost two years of his life.
5 Likes
Kathy-
What you added here does not contradict my speculation (I have no way of knowing for a fact), that SafeSport requested a continuance to follow up additional reports.
I trust that your intentions and motivation behind your SafeSport Overhaul page are honest and good.
However, you are not running the page in a way that works toward any specific, feasible changes. You are not going to get SafeSport to have the same level of due process and constitutional protections as the criminal justice system. It is a waste of time to keep throwing out catch words like “due process”, “guilty before proven innocent”, “violation of constitution rights”, “banned based on mere allegations.”
If your group could come up with a proposal for a few specific, incremental changes, and articulate both the proposed change and the rationale behind it, there is some chance you could achieve change.
Your petition is much, much too vague for any lawmaker to respond to, even if they wanted to. In fact it pretty much advertises the fact that your group cannot put together a coherent, feasible proposal for change. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be deemed a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
In the SafeSport process, it is not until the appeal that the respondent is in front of an independent arbitrator and fully has a chance to defend himself. For this reason, if you wanted the ban delayed until after the ban had been upheld after appeal, I would be in favor of that. (If the respondent were not a current threat, and if there were limitations on delays). But you are not providing any specific changes, reasonable, unreasonable, or otherwise.
To me, both the Overhaul page and your petition just say “I really don’t think SafeSport is fair, and I’m self-righteous about it.”
I really don’t understand why you think that that is going to accomplish any change.
16 Likes
@Horsegirl’s Mom may I suggest you read the safesport website, rather than relying on the flowchart.
Many of your misconceptions will be clarified.
Its the equivalent of asking you to read a book before you try to give a plot summary or review.
11 Likes
The flowchart is on the SafeSport website, under “Response and Resolution Process.” Perhaps you may wish to study the website more closely?
I note you do not address any of my specific concerns. I welcome open-minded and reasoned discussion.
2 Likes
Because they have been discussed at length many times over to statements like the ones you made. The flow chart is the cliff notes version of the response and resolution process.
10 Likes
My concerns are based on study of the SS website and the JAMS procedures.
I’m a little frustrated that you and others just want to say, “That’s not true!!! Na na na na na, No way is that true!!!” yet you present no contrary facts. If I am incorrect, show me using an authoritative source. I am here to learn and form thoughtful opinions. I have no agenda, other than truth and fairness.
3 Likes
Or you could read through the thread, specifically @FiSk123 posts. Why should we all retype what has already been posted and reposted? Your study of the SS website seems to be limited to a flow chart. I am a little frustrated with people wanting to be spoon fed information time and again.
18 Likes
And apparently happy to take money from Cackling Yentas too :lol:
8 Likes
Your statements are ill-informed and have been addressed repeatedly. Please educate yourself before engaging again. Or just keep on keeping on. You cannot exact change when you are unfamiliar what it is you are seeking to change.
7 Likes
Just as I thought, you can point to nothing that contradicts the concerns I have raised. And yes, I have read this entire thread, in addition to the SS and arbitration procedures.
It’s okay for you to disagree as to whether certain procedural protections are necessary. I understand people will have different points of view about that, and as I’ve noted, I myself have not come to a final conclusion as to how to weigh the conflicting priorities.
But what is odd is to hear people insist that features that are clearly written in the rules–like no discovery– aren’t real. Honestly, I don’t think we can have a discussion if we can’t even agree on what the rules actually are.
The SS procedure raises interesting issues, to be sure. I’m sure we will all be eager to see what the JAMS retired judges think of it.
1 Like
I only read the forum and never comment but I came across an article about “lifetime” bans being lifted on 2 taekwondo Olympic coaches who had been banned early last year by SS. Interesting. Reinstatement due to arbitration. https://www.orangecountycoast.com/survivors-u-s-center-for-safe-sport-clash-over-jean-lopez-reinstatement/
2 Likes
@khobstetter
Um…if you had actually read my post you would see that the person who said that you were not the brightest light in the sky was skydy, not me. I simply said that I didn’t believe that investigations were conducted in the way you outlined. If you did some background research and were convinced the person was genuine, fine, but that’s not the way your post read. I’m still not contributing.
7 Likes
they’re all just copying and pasting the same list of grievances that aptly demonstrate they have not familiarized themselves with the rules or process.
This is actually exactly what it’s like when a kid in your class who clearly hasn’t read the book starts arguing a point about the plot or characters of said book she hasn’t read.
Or oh oh when someone at a party hears your specialty and then–despite having no actual background in it–starts lecturing you on your specialty based on what their dad said, or uncle, or a blog. It’s hilarious to a point, but then it’s just exhausting.
Just no.
7 Likes
If only there were one central location where all members of Congress met and had their offices.
But yes, you should find plenty of support among lawmakers in an election year who’d love to co-sponsor a bill making life easier on child molesters.
40 Likes
