I said I understood the appeal was for procedural grounds. Happy to be proven wrong there. Doesn’t change the fact that following a thorough investigation, SS issues a verdict and may impose a sanction. Using GM as an example, he was found guilty, for want if a better word. I will now consider him guilty unless the appeal results give me reason it to. In court cases do you believe a defendant who was found guilty should still be considered innocent until after an appeal?
5 Likes
RG knew who had signed complaints against him. He shared that information not only with his attorney but with others as well. How do I know this? Because I personally know at least 4 of those who signed initial complaints against him. FWIW, I was not one of them.
11 Likes
I kinda thought it was obvious that HLMom and HorseGirlsMom were the same person, since HLMom was responding as if she was HorseGirlMom to posts that called HGM out. Never saw her try to pretend they were two different people. I figured it was just a case of someone forgetting which account they had been logged into.
Just so people don’t think that HLMom was actually trying to pretend she was two different people. Whether you agree with what she says or not, I don’t think it’s fair to be viewing her as a crazy person pretending to be two people when she wasn’t.
And YankeeDuchess definitely isn’t the same person, you can tell by writing style.
8 Likes
Not only is it unfair; it is all too reminiscent of the childish level of discourse displayed in ISWG, and it is no less disgusting here. That HLM & HGM were one & the same was readily apparent at least 30 pages ago. So apparent that it wasn’t even noteworthy, unless of course that is your sole case for discrediting her.
Disappointed to see some generally respected posters cheapen a largely thoughtful & informative discussion that is clearly intended to identify instances where SS may need some shoring up.
8 Likes
I’ve been thinking about the issue of written witness statements, which several people have raised.
There is no question that witness statements, signed under oath, can be incredibly valuable in a case. They memorialize a witness’s recollections, they form a basis for cross-examination, etc.
However, I think if SafeSport wants to win at arbitration, they need to start thinking like trial lawyers–not like bureaucrats.
Let’s say the SS investigator shows up at arbitration with a sheaf of paperwork s/he says are statements obtained from witnesses. Ok fine, the arbitrator spends a few minutes reading them. Meanwhile, on the other side, you have the accused, who has come in person to meet the arbitrator, tell his side of the story, answer the arbitrator’s tough questions . . . and he has half a dozen personable supporting witnesses who tell the arbitrator what a great person the accused is, how he has always been appropriate with students based on their observation, etc. etc. Maybe these supporting witnesses have some facts that appear to cast doubt on the reporting party’s story, and she isn’t there to counter them.
Keep in mind that our entire legal system has a tremendous bias in favor of live witness testimony so the witness’s credibility can be evaluated and the witness can be cross-examined. In fact, signed statements are never allowed in lieu of testimony at trial, even if they are signed under oath.
Where do you think the arbitrator, a former judge, is going to find the preponderance?
You can protest that written statements are more efficient, it’s a hardship for the reporting party to attend etc. I understand those points. I am just stating the reality of how this will all go down in front of a judge. If SS wants to win, they need to get witnesses there–or at least have the witnesses testify by live video link.
4 Likes
Keep in mind that there can be third part reporters. I could report to SafeSport that I had evidence of sexual misconduct by BNT Mr XYZ with 14 year old Emma ABC but as the reporter I could remain anonymous. The fact that reporters may be anonymous does not mean that claimants, or alleged victims, are anonymous.
3 Likes
If the witnesses on both sides do attend the arbitration hearings, I’m thinking since it’s not a trial, that the witnesses can be questioned by the arbitrator in separate rooms, or at different times, or on different days without having to see each other. Would that be correct?
1 Like
@Horsegirl’s Mom It is not only about the hardship for the reporting party to attend. It’s about going through it all over again. There was a Facebook post (it has since been deleted) made about GM threatening their family during an in person interview.
Safe Sport is specifically designed to operate like an HR department. I still do not understand this desire to make it like the criminal courts.
People routinely say Safe Sport needs to be shored up, made better, etc. However the only specific thing anyone has pointed out is lack of signed witnesses statements can lead to an overturn on the appeal. Why, if signed witness statements will suffice, are people arguing for live testimony?
7 Likes
I feel like this thread has gone on so long that we now have new people showing up and rehashing all the same stuff that was discussed ad nauseam earlier. Which is, I guess, inevitable when you have long-running discussions.
So we’re over 2900 posts in and I still haven’t heard any solid suggestions for “improving” SafeSport beyond the oft repeated demands to adopt the procedures of the criminal/civil justice system, which is a useless suggestion because SafeSport was explicitly created to operate outside the bounds of that system.
And now I’ve repeated myself for the umpteenth time, so I guess I need to be done with this discussion. :lol:
15 Likes
And this is one of the chief reasons why criminal sexual misconduct cases fail to be prosecuted.
The victim experiences an incredibly traumatic, personal event and lawyers want them to rehash their experiences or attempt to discredit their character.
It doesn’t matter if the the underage victim was sexually active, impaired, or even “consensual.” A minor cannot give consent, especially in situations where there is a power imbalance.
People keep forgetting that SafeSport isn’t convicting anyone of crimes. They are just “firing” people who do not abide by the organization’s standards.
23 Likes
Also wondering if there are any new developments with the actual case? Seem to be 5 new pages of squabble each time one returns 
5 Likes
The arbitration is done by video conferencing. The Reporting Party/victim can see the entire arbitration if they so choose. The other witnesses can only see the other participants when it is their turn to talk. One side can get together at a single location if they desire, but it is not necessary. Arbitrators are all over the country, SafeSport is in Colorado. No travel expense for witnesses or lawyer unless one side chooses to do it that way.
6 Likes
You are not the Reporting Party if you are anonymous. They do not use anonymous reports in arbitration. SafeSport has told people they can file a report anonymously, but without a name or someone willing to testify, the evidence is not strong.
7 Likes
The Statute of Limitations has not expired in several cases. Criminal action can be taken in some cases, and civil in others. Not every victim is interested in pursuing civil charges. It is not always about seeking restitution or wanting to punish you abuser. Some victims are happy knowing they have done something to regain control of their own life, inform the equestrian community of patterns of abuse and hopefully protect others. That is enough. However, I agree, it would be beneficial if they would use the SafeSport ruling as supporting evidence.
I can say the SS process through arbitration is extremely difficult and emotionally exhausting. I read a few studies that indicated each time a victim tells their story it gets deeper ingrained in their brain. I never thought about my abuse in my late-teens through early 50s. It would affect me when I saw my abuser or any family members, but I was able to bury my feelings. It would affect my personal relationships, but not my daily life until I saw a news story about sexual abuse, then it would all resurface. Testifying was one of the hardest things I have ever done. And now I think about every time I read these threads or see something on FB. Taking my abuser to court will not change this. Money will not change this. Hopefully time will reduce the effect it has on me, but I don’t think legal action would be beneficial.
13 Likes
Excellent post. It’s important to separate SS from the process of a criminal trial. They are NOT the same at all.
23 Likes
While the SafeSport process is a grievance procedure somewhat analogous to a criminal court, it is not a criminal court and they use different terms for various things.
For example, after their 2 year investigation of GM, SafeSport did not announce that GM was “guilty”. That is a word reserved for the criminal courts.
Instead, their statement is that, without mentioning the length of the investigation or number of complainants, SafeSport has “determined the allegations to be credible” and issued a lifetime ban. They also specify what aspect of the code was at issue, usually “sexual misconduct with a minor”.
This is mostly just terminology. Instead of saying, on the basis of an investigation, we have determined he is “guilty”, they announced that “they have found there to be credible allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor”.
Some people have misconstrued this language, along with the language permitting anonymous reports as saying that someone can call up SafeSport and anonymously say “BNT XYZ had sex with me. It was 40 years ago but I was only 13 at the time.” In their fantasy horror story, they imagine that SafeSport decides based on whim whether it, SafeSport, considers the allegation “credible” or not and then issues a ban.
We know that there is a very extensive investigation by SafeSport before they announce they have determined that there are credible allegations of misconduct. However, there is no independent arbitrator (analogous to the judge) prior to the appeal. Like the police and DA, SafeSport will want to investigate all sides of the case, including interviewing the respondent and his witnesses to determine whether they have enough evidence to meet their burden of proof IF it comes to arbitration. However, it is not clear to me that the investigation part is the part of the process that is intended to be a fair balanced assessment of the evidence.
The respondent’s primary venue for stating his case, as I understand it, is when it goes before an independent arbitrator, which happens during the appeal. As a private person, I am very comfortable considering GM “guilty”. However, note that SafeSport does not use the word “guilty”. They just say “credible allegation of misconduct.”
I begrudgingly admit that the ISWG people have a tiny bit of a legitimate complaint in that the ban is imposed before the appeal has been completed, because I have some sympathy with the notion that he has not yet had the opportunity to defend himself in front of the independent arbitrator.
Of course criminal defendants can be jailed while awaiting trial, and SafeSport does not incarcerate people, so I also see the case for the ban being in place while the appeal proceeds. However, if delaying the ban until after the appeal succeeded in shutting up the ISWG people, I could get behind that. (But if course it would not shut them up.)
I was glad you brought up the claim that the appeal focused on procedural issues and not the merits of the case, because I also had read that, and thought, “well, that’s screwy”, and later learned that the opposite was true. I vaguely remember the source being Bonnie Navin. She has stated as fact some other claims that, if true, make SafeSport look like a joke, but seem very unlikely to be true. Do you remember where you read that?
2 Likes
It has not yet been established that “signed witness statements will suffice”. The hope is to have a discussion of various issues, for example, signed witness statement, sworn statements, the ability to compel live testimony, the merits or not of direct cross-examination, etc.
This is not true. The Responding Party can present whatever evidence they want during the investigation. They have the opportunity to discredit the victim. They can provide evidence disputing the claim, etc. The investigator interviews witnesses, compiles reports from doctors/therapist, character statements, etc. (Similar to police or HR investigation). The investigator writes a report presenting his evidence to the SS director who reviews everything and make a decision. I guess you could say he is not independent, since he is employed by SS, but it does not benefit SS if the evidence is not strong enough for the decision to be upheld during arbitration.
13 Likes
I’ve heard people saying that SafeSport bans are analogous to getting fired from a job for sexual harassment, and I have to strongly disagree with that.
If someone is fired from a job for sexual harassment, they’re still free to seek employment with other companies in the same area of business, other areas of the country. The reason for their getting fired is not made publicly known and listed on a website along with the nature of the harassment claim.
With a SafeSport ban, those that aren’t Really Big Names are effectively excluded from the whole sport (yes, I know, Paul Valliere, blah blah blah, but I doubt if a local no-name trainer would be able to pull the same thing off), and their names and infractions are made readily available to the general public.
I am totally ok with this, because I don’t believe that SafeSport hands out bans without a high degree of certainty that the accusations are legit. I don’t think that they are banning anyone because some anonymous claimant said a male trainer dated a 17 year old 30 years ago when he was 20. I don’t “stand with George” and I find the outcry against his ban pretty appalling because I believe that they wouldn’t have banned him without some pretty conclusive evidence.
But SafeSport bans are NOT “just getting fired” or “being excluded from a club.” They are losing your livelihood and being placed on what is essentially a sex-offender registry.
3 Likes
“SafeSport was explicitly created to operate outside the bounds of” the criminal justice system. True. Absolutely true. We all understand that.
In your mind, does accepting that statement logically imply that there is no way that SafeSport can be modified by altering one or two specific aspects of its procedures and with appropriate modification possibly be better configured to weed out bad guys and/or reduce fears of innocent people being banned? Altering one or two specific procedural features might make it look a tiny, tiny bit more like the criminal justice system, but would still leave it operating “outside the bounds of the criminal justice system”, as it is now.
Please note this is a yes or no question. The question is not rhetorical. Please respond.
1 Like
