George Morris on the SS list

[skydy]

@ladyj79

Right on, ladyj!

… :lol:

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

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.

So why bring up that statistic. Y’all focused on the wrongly accused. I’m trying to impart some knowledge about the history of the criminal justice system. The 6% was HL Mom’s point. Maybe not yours.

Um all your posts are here and the RG thread so no clue about your Dressage riding.

I don’t think I have a moral high ground I’m correcting misinformation.

[Denali6298]

@skydy

She was being funny about HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom being the same poster and “forgetting” they were logged into both accounts at the same time because they were using a laptop and desktop at the same time.

[skydy]

Oh. Thanks.

[ladyj79]

@skydy

oh because someone got called out for being multiple different logins and congratulating their alters :lol: like, within the last five pages, and then they admitted it like it was a totally normal and acceptable practice.

I’m doing it wrong, because its just way too much work creating alters, but some people seem to really enjoy that echo chamber. And I mean, I really, really agree with me.

Its frankly hilarious.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

: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

Calling people morons in posts that don’t even rise to the level of “semi-literate” when you don’t have a coherent argument to make to rebut the meat of a post is pretty much the literary and debating style of the ISWG group.

[ladyj79]

@Denali6298

She was being funny about HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom being the same poster and “forgetting” they were logged into both accounts at the same time because they were using a laptop and desktop at the same time.

this thread reads so much faster when you can ignore three people in one :lol: or is it one person in three??

[YankeeDuchess]

@skydy

I think this is her cutesy way of accusing me of being an alter for HL Mom.
But I am not an alter.

[Capall]

Tommy Serio was accused of sexual harassment. The accuser was found to have made a false claim. Tommy Serio is not banned from USEF.

The system worked for Tommy Serio. Even though his wife hemmed and hawed about how “unfair” the whole thing was, in the end… The system worked.

I do not understand why people are getting so bent out of shape over a process that is to protect children from child predators. The only thing people seem to want to do is turn SS into a court of law. Which is not the purpose of SS. The purpose of SS is literally to protect children from sexual abuse.

I do not get the argument about a statute of limitations. Do you really think that after a period of time, every sexually abused person just suddenly gets over it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish with that stipulation?

I’m not saying SS is perfect. But the things people keep whinging about are addressed over and over and over and yet it falls on deaf ears who keep shouting “DUE PROCESS!” “DISCOVERY!” “CROSS EXAMINATION!!!”

[ladyj79]

Small nitpick, the accuser in the Serio case was NOT deemed to have made a false claim: there was insufficient evidence to move forward, which is a not uncommon situation in any venue.

it’s an important distinction.

But yes, absolutely indicative that ss isn’t Willy nilly handing out suspensions and bans based on one unsubstantiated or uncorroborated accusation

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

oh because someone got called out for being multiple different logins and congratulating their alters :lol: like, within the last five pages, and then they admitted it like it was a totally normal and acceptable practice.

I’m doing it wrong, because its just way too much work creating alters, but some people seem to really enjoy that echo chamber. And I mean, I really, really agree with me.

Its frankly hilarious.

HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom were the same person with two different logins. I would not assume she was trying to be sneaky with creating an alter, given that she rather brazenly used “Mom” in both. 
I think I am accused of being her alter because I (gasp) agreed with her and pushed back at people bashing her. 
I am not her alter, nor anyone else’s.

[Capall]

Thank you for the correction LadyJ.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

this thread reads so much faster when you can ignore three people in one :lol: or is it one person in three??

The two “Mom” posters are in fact one Mom. I am not an alter for “Mom”. Is it really so shocking that I might defend someone else’s posts and not just my own?

[4LeafCloverFarm]

@YankeeDuchess

. . .

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.
. . .

Maybe because I do not have children, and am not currently competing and plugged into sports the way many are that are competing and do have children competing… but what cases (in any discipline) specifically are you talking about where the appeal (arbitration) failed because of some process/policy at Safe Sport? And which athletes (in any discipline) were wrongly/unjustly accused?

I’m a reader - so if you have articles or news programs or whatever you can link, I’d appreciate it.

[poltroon]

@YankeeDuchess

“The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weight the [percent] of victims.” True statement. Absolutely true. I don’t need more statistics.

Also absolutely irrelevant. A credible and legitimate process needs some degree of procedural protection for the minuscule, even theoretical, accused but innocent person. Unless you somehow know, a priori, or by consulting god, that exactly 100% of the accused are indeed guilty, there need to be procedural protections. The legitimate question is, what level of procedural protections correctly balances to protection of the accused with the ability of SafeSport to successfully ban
those found guilty.

Please, please explain to me why the fact that only 6% or 2% or 1% of sexual assault claims are false implies that there is no legitimate discussion on the desirability of altering some aspects of the SafeSport process.

So it’s important to remember we have competing claims here, not just a case of guilty or not.

The standard of choosing to weight any doubt in favor of the defendant is right for a case where the defendant’s liberty is at stake. But in a case like this, you’re choosing which athlete will stay in your sport and which will leave, because it’s unlikely the sport is big enough for both, especially at the elite level.

There, if you settle doubts always in favor of the defendant, and particularly because of the nature of these offenses, you may have future claimants. Or just a lot of people who get a big break and then mysteriously fade in their orbit.

[Denali6298]

@ladyj79

this thread reads so much faster when you can ignore three people in one :lol: or is it one person in three??

I feel like we need a game bigger than bingo at this point. :yes:

[anon6003733]

del

[Roser123]

@ladyj79

oh because someone got called out for being multiple different logins and congratulating their alters :lol: like, within the last five pages, and then they admitted it like it was a totally normal and acceptable practice.

I’m doing it wrong, because its just way too much work creating alters, but some people seem to really enjoy that echo chamber. And I mean, I really, really agree with me.

Its frankly hilarious.

The poster didn’t get “called out” for multiple logins, nor did she “congratulate” her alters. If y’all were as perceptive as you think you are, you’d have noticed a long time ago that hlmom and horsemom (or whatever the names are) are the same person, both speaking in “I” form.
In any case, she’s made some very valid and thoughtful posts, and that’s what people should be concentrating on … not whether “so and so is really so and so”. It makes any FB group you’re railing against sound mature.

[Denali6298]

@Roser123

The poster didn’t get “called out” for multiple logins, nor did she “congratulate” her alters. If y’all were as perspective as you think you are, you’d have noticed a long time ago that hlmom and horsemom (or whatever the names are) are the same person, both speaking in “I” form.
In any case, she’s made some very valid and thoughtful posts, and that’s what people should be concentrating on … not whether “so and so is really so and so”. It makes any FB group you’re railing against sound mature.

And we have a CoTH secretary. Sorry we don’t pay that much attention??? Please publish your notes and yes she has thoughtful posts but they are also extremely misguided.

[YankeeDuchess]

@4LeafCloverFarm

Maybe because I do not have children, and am not currently competing and plugged into sports the way many are that are competing and do have children competing… but what cases (in any discipline) specifically are you talking about where the appeal (arbitration) failed because of some process/policy at Safe Sport? And which athletes (in any discipline) were wrongly/unjustly accused?

I’m a reader - so if you have articles or news programs or whatever you can link, I’d appreciate it.

Upthread there was discussion of two brothers who were banned by SafeSport in Taekwondo, but the case was not upheld in arbitration. Three witnesses (victims) provided statements in the SafeSport investigation, and it looks like the brothers were guilty, but the victims wanted to pursue civil charges, and their lawyers advised them not to testify during the appeal because apparently that might have jeopardized the civil case. The issue is whether SafeSport might have had the appeal upheld if it had had the power to compell the witnesses to testify, or if it had the power to obtain sworn witness statements to present at arbitration. The posts upthread have links to articles on the case.
Tommy Serio in equestrian was interim suspended for about 2 weeks while SafeSport investigated a claim of sexual misconduct. Within the two weeks, SafeSport determined that there was not sufficient evidence to move forward and the interim suspension ended. His wife, Kathy Serio, is active on SafeSport Overhaul.

But thank you for some questions that might get the thread back on track.

FiSk123 is the real resource here if she feels it safe to jump back in.