George Morris on the SS list

[roseymare]

@DarkBayUnicorn

I think @mountainbells did find a loophole, as used by the Lopez brothers.

Now, HOW do we proposed to close that loophole using rational, unemotional thinking?

I think it is only a loophole if there is a concurrent or upcoming civil suit right?

[YankeeDuchess]

@4LeafCloverFarm

Fair enough.

I guess I personally don’t see the appeal (under SS) any differently from an appeal of an HR decision or an appeal of a court trial. The appeal may change the final outcome, yes. But, I guess I don’t hold my judgement for that process. Perhaps that makes me a bad person or ill-informed or whatever someone might call it. For instance, I don’t have to wait for an appeal of someone like Larry Nassar to determine he is guilty of the crimes to which he was accused, tried and convicted. But some smart attorney might come along, find a loop hole or procedure that wasn’t followed or something, file an appeal and get him out of his sentence. Would I then call him innocent? Absolutely not.

Part of the issue is that in the SafeSport procedure I don’t think that it is the investigation part that leads to the announcement of ban that is supposed to be impartial and balanced. I see the investigation and announcement of sanction as analogous to the police investigation and the DA bringing charges and the determination of the penalty, conditional on the determination of guilt.

When the ban is announced, GM can decline to appeal, analogous to pleading guilty, and accept the sanction, or appeal, which requires SafeSport to meet the burden of proof that the respondent is guilty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
SafeSport is analogous to the police and prosecutor, not the judge. The respondent is analogous to the defendant. The two opposing parties (SafeSport and respondent) are adversaries is front of the independent arbitrator (analogous to the judge) during the appeal.
Unlike the criminal justice system, I think that the respondent does not get his initial “day in court” in front of an independent “judge” until the appeal. For that reason I have some sympathy with delaying the sanction until after the appeal fails. Therefore, even though I know that GM is guilty as hell in the privacy of my own mind, I can agree with his supporters that he hasn’t fully had his day in court until after the appeal fails.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Pennywell Bay

Maybe if people actually read the links on SS page that tell exactly what the process are and the procedures. They have them advises the accused and the accuser.
They do not list time frames for everything- neither does the law. Investigations can take as long as they take, and they keep all parties informed.

Maybe if those in such a tizzy actually educated themselves they wouldn’t look like raving morons.

I did not understand either of the two sentences or part sentences in your first paragraph.

Nevertheless, I do understand that I probably “look like a raving moron” to you, so I understood that part of your post.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

Part of the issue is that in the SafeSport procedure I don’t think that it is the investigation part that leads to the announcement of ban that is supposed to be impartial and balanced. I see the investigation and announcement of sanction as analogous to the police investigation and the DA bringing charges and the determination of the penalty, conditional on the determination of guilt.

When the ban is announced, GM can decline to appeal, analogous to pleading guilty, and accept the sanction, or appeal, which requires SafeSport to meet the burden of proof that the respondent is guilty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
SafeSport is analogous to the police and prosecutor, not the judge. The respondent is analogous to the defendant. The two opposing parties (SafeSport and respondent) are adversaries is front of the independent arbitrator (analogous yo the judge) during the appeal.
Unlike the criminal justice system, I think that the respondent does not get his initial “day in court” in front of an independent “judge” until the appeal. For that reason I have some sympathy with delaying the sanction until after the appeal fails. Therefore, even though I know that GM is guilty as hell in the privacy of my own mind, I can agree with his supporters that he hasn’t fully had his day in court until after the appeal fails.

I see where your coming from. Your analogies are way off. I’ll use GM as the example.

SS get complaints from multiple people about GM sexual molesting them as kids. SS takes a preliminary look into the allegations. SS decides it warrants an investigation. (On the SS web site you can see job openings and see the qualifications people have to have from intake to investigator etc)

SS begins investigation gathers evidence. Tells GM he’s been accused by X,Y and Z. On going investigation continues. Phone calls are made to interview all people involved. Presumably for both sides. (Smart person has already lawyered up.).

SS finds enough evidence for a life time ban at the conclusion of investigation. Tells GM. Name posted.

GM can appeal.

So the name name on the list is after the trial in your analogy not at the DA police investigation stage.

Now, maybe @FiSk123 can shed light on how much evidence to support the obvious denial that would happen is allowed by the accused during the investigation. I don’t think it’s as one sided as people make it out to be.

So I get now where you are coming from. However, if the goal is to close the 2%-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system, using the criminal justice system as a base is not going to work. That’s where those statistics come from.

Further more, the percentage of false claims Safe Sport fields, never see the light of day unless there is enough evidence that someone poses an immediate danger. Then they get an interim suspension and either full suspension or exonerated. Like the CJ system, they are still named.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

Presidents can’t decide guilt or innocence. The Judge does only if it’s a bench trial and people even in criminal court are still considered guilty during the appeals process.

Presidents can’t decide guilt or innocence [but they can issue pardons]. So what?

The judge in a jury trial has to pronounce the verdict of the jury, even if the verdict is acquittal of OJ and he, along with everyone else, knows in his own mind that OJ did it.

[fair_judy]

All I can say is I am Very Glad I stopped on this thread at #1558😇. I remember when Navin had several names here. It appears that others are, also. This is getting ridiculous…

[BITSA]

@Denali6298

From a flow chart as the source. I want actual citations. And I also have noted you haven’t given me your opinion on what exactly could be made better about Safe Sport

1. discovery
2. the right to have a lawyer confront and cross examine the complainant
3. the ability to have the arbitrator issue subpoenas
4. requiring all sworn statements to be under oath
5. a statute of limitations that includes a continuing violations element (like sexual harassment claims have)

[Denali6298]

@BITSA

1. discovery
2. the right to have a lawyer confront and cross examine the complainant
3. the ability to have the arbitrator issue subpoenas
4. requiring all sworn statements to be under oath
5. a statute of limitations that includes a continuing violations element (like sexual harassment claims have)

So you want it tossed to the courts and not work as an HR department?

I disagree because none of that is necessary. No one is getting fined, sentenced to jail or probation, or other liberties revoked. It’s a freaking horse show and horse club.

This post is why horse people look like jerks with Safe Sport. Putting the ability to be a member in a voluntary organization to participate in horse shows on the level of the courts.

Again the 6% innocent getting caught up comes from the courts so I fail to see how that helps. That was the reason for why it needs to be tweaked.

[Jenerationx]

This is not a criminal trial. This is Safe Sport. This is a ban from a sports organization. It’s not a trial, it’s not prison, it’s not compensating victims. This is sanctioning child molesters and bad apples from taking part in membership. Analogies to criminal or civil trials are off base.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

I see where your coming from. Your analogies are way off. I’ll use GM as the example.

SS get complaints from multiple people about GM sexual molesting them as kids. SS takes a preliminary look into the allegations. SS decides it warrants an investigation. (On the SS web site you can see job openings and see the qualifications people have to have from intake to investigator etc)

SS begins investigation gathers evidence. Tells GM he’s been accused by X,Y and Z. On going investigation continues. Phone calls are made to interview all people involved. Presumably for both sides. (Smart person has already lawyered up.).

SS finds enough evidence for a life time ban at the conclusion of investigation. Tells GM. Name posted.

GM can appeal.

So the name name on the list is after the trial in your analogy not at the DA police investigation stage.

Now, maybe @FiSk123 can shed light on how much evidence to support the obvious denial that would happen is allowed by the accused during the investigation. I don’t think it’s as one sided as people make it out to be.

So I get now where you are coming from. However, if the goal is to close the 2%-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system, using the criminal justice system as a base is not going to work. That’s where those statistics come from.

Further more, the percentage of false claims Safe Sport fields, never see the light of day unless there is enough evidence that someone poses an immediate danger. Then they get an interim suspension and either full suspension or exonerated. Like the CJ system, they are still named.

It’s my analogy; if you don’t find it useful don’t use it. I tried to explain to you that in my analogy the SafeSport investigation is NOT analogous to a trial, it is analogous to police investigation and indictment by DA, with requested penalty.   

  In my analogy, the first real “day in court” for the respondent is the appeal when SafeSport shows up as the adversary (prosecution) and has to meet its burden of proof to the arbitrator (judge). 

   In the appeal, it is not the claimant that is the plaintiff, it is SafeSport. The claimant is a witness for the prosecution. 

    I am using the criminal justice system as an analogy. Still not saying SafeSport should be the criminal justice system. 

    Still saying that modest, well defined changes are worthy of discussion. Like sworn witness statements, or other specific elements of the criminal justice system that are not currently part of SafeSport.

  I don’t even know what you mean by “a goal of clos[ing] the 2-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system”.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

It’s my analogy; if you don’t find it useful don’t use it. I tried to explain to you that in my analogy the SafeSport investigation is NOT analogous to a trial, it is analogous to police investigation and indictment by DA, with requested penalty.

In my analogy, the first real “day in court” for the respondent is the appeal when SafeSport shows up as the adversary (prosecution) and has to meet its burden of proof to the arbitrator (judge).

In the appeal, it is not the claimant that is the plaintiff, it is SafeSport. The claimant is a witness for the prosecution.

I am using the criminal justice system as an analogy. Still not saying SafeSport should be the criminal justice system.

Still saying that modest, well defined changes are worthy of discussion. Like sworn witness statements, or other specific elements of the criminal justice system that are not currently part of SafeSport.

I don’t even know what you mean by “a goal of clos[ing] the 2-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system”.

I was trying to explain how it really works. It’s hard to align an HR department, which is the best analogy, to a criminal case.

You and HL Mom keep saying 6% of innocent people getting accused of crimes they didn’t commit is unacceptable and therefore Safe Sport should be made better to ensure that doesn’t happen. Well that 6% comes from the criminal justice system so if that’s what you want to see as your improvements to Safe Sport it won’t work.

I don’t how better to explain it as I don’t think you have a good grasp of how police investigations work, trials work, and how the appellate process works.

Honestly I’m questioning what dog you have in this fight as your only posts have to do with Safe Sport. Curious why you care so much about the horse community. I bet alter.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

So you want it tossed to the courts and not work as an HR department?

I disagree because none of that is necessary. No one is getting fined, sentenced to jail or probation, or other liberties revoked. It’s a freaking horse show and horse club.

This post is why horse people look like jerks with Safe Sport. Putting the ability to be a member in a voluntary organization to participate in horse shows on the level of the courts.

Again the 6% innocent getting caught up comes from the courts so I fail to see how that helps. That was the reason for why it needs to be tweaked.

 Denali, upthread you seemed to endorse the idea of signed witness statements if that would have successfully nailed the Taekwondo abusers. Is a signed witness statement different from a sworn statement or a statement under oath?

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

Denali, upthread you seemed to endorse the idea of signed witness statements if that would have successfully nailed the Taekwondo abusers. Is a signed witness statement different from a sworn statement or a statement under oath?

Yes. Police can get signed statements all day long. No oath with the court required. Hell I write them occasionally for work. No court or law enforcement involved. And those statements I sign are apart of why a multimillion dollar aircraft got damaged or someone got seriously hurt.

[Roser123]

@Pennywell Bay

Maybe if people actually read the links on SS page that tell exactly what the process are and the procedures. They have them advises the accused and the accuser.
They do not list time frames for everything- neither does the law. Investigations can take as long as they take, and they keep all parties informed.

Maybe if those in such a tizzy actually educated themselves they wouldn’t look like raving morons.

It’s never a good idea to call ANYONE a “raving moron” without first proofreading your post. Just my opinion …

[ladyj79]

@Pennywell Bay nah, dude, you were spot on. Just my opinion.

[ladyj79]

@ladyj79

@Pennywell Bay nah, dude, you were spot on. Just my opinion.

Right on, ladyj!

… :lol:

[Roser123]

@ladyj79

@Pennywell Bay nah, dude, you were spot on. Just my opinion.

Fantastic, then maybe you can translate.
It seems so silly to me to be calling names rather than just listening. It’s an interesting conversation to read, but there are clearly some who are “slinging” and others who are “explaining”.

[Denali6298]

@ladyj79

Right on, ladyj!

… :lol:

:lol: I fully support any and all typographical errors when calling people morons for the meat of their post. Oh and pssst you were supposed to use your other login

[Roser123]

@ladyj79

Right on, ladyj!

… :lol:

And good for you for congratulating yourself … we should all do that more often (seriously!)

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

I was trying to explain how it really works. It’s hard to align an HR department, which is the best analogy, to a criminal case.

You and HL Mom keep saying 6% of innocent people getting accused of crimes they didn’t commit is unacceptable and therefore Safe Sport should be made better to ensure that doesn’t happen. Well that 6% comes from the criminal justice system so if that’s what you want to see as your improvements to Safe Sport it won’t work.

I don’t how better to explain it as I don’t think you have a good grasp of how police investigations work, trials work, and how the appellate process works.

Honestly I’m questioning what dog you have in this fight as your only posts have to do with Safe Sport. Curious why you care so much about the horse community. I bet alter.

  No one has said that 6% of innocent people get accused of crimes. The statement is that, of people accused of crimes between 2% and 6% are innocent. Neither HL Mom nor I have said 6% or 2% is “unacceptable”. 

    All we have said is that it is useful to have a discussion on what specific, well defined, incremental changes might be made in order to protect someone who, from the perspective of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, contemplated the system

from the perspective of an innocent person wrongly accused.

   I think that there are modifications that could be made that might improve the success rate at appeal (success defined as upholding the sanction) and at the same time improving the protection of the wrongly accused. My motivation for wanting to improve procedural protections for the accused is primarily to strengthen the legitimacy of SafeSport.

  Why do you think you have the moral high ground in insisting none of this can be discussed and dumping on a poster for using the phrase “alleged victim”?  Rhetorical question. 

   I am not an alter. Not for HL Mom and not for anybody. I am a dressage rider, as you should have figured out from my posts on fashion trends in dressage. I am also a victim of rape and have two children. Other than that, no dog in this fight.