George Morris on the SS list

[NoSuchPerson]

@Sticky Situation

And again, my concern is not over the comfort of people who earn themselves a SafeSport ban. It’s over the use of arguments that make it seem like a SafeSport ban is just an inconvenience that otherwise allows the banned individual to continue with business as usual.

I believe that the argument that “Safe Sport does not award punitive damages to the victims, they do not sentence the accused to jail or require them to register as a sex offender” was offered as an explanation for why SafeSport did not operate, and does not need to operate, using the same rules and practices as the criminal justice system.

Getting banned by SafeSport is indeed a big deal. If it wasn’t, people wouldn’t have a meltdown over BNTs getting banned. But, it’s an administrative action taken by an extra-judicial body, not a legal judgement made by a court. Thus the different policies and procedures of the process.

[dags]

@Keep it Simple

True. The police investigate and they determine is there was a crime. Then they arrest someone. There is not an independent person that looks at it. In real life, people are arrested and thrown in jail and sometimes denied bail before they have had what you keep stating is a chance to present evidence in front of an independent person. Sometimes they commit suicide as they sit in jail waiting to tell their story to the “independent person”. Why does SafeSport have to behave differently?

Ugh. So now the legal system is an appropriate analogy?

[NoSuchPerson]

@YankeeDuchess

If I fail to respond to your posts in the future, it will be because I have blocked your posts and don’t see them. I obviously don’t have the self-control to see them and not respond.

If you’ve figured out how to block someone, please share how you’re doing it. As far as I know, since the last board upgrade, we have not been able to “ignore” other posters and there are a few people whose posts I would dearly love to not see.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@Sticky Situation

Where did I say anyone was destitute? By “losing their livelihood” I mean their ability to make a living as a riding instructor/horse trainer … not that they can’t get a job in some other industry and make ends meet.

And again, my concern is not over the comfort of people who earn themselves a SafeSport ban. It’s over the use of arguments that make it seem like a SafeSport ban is just an inconvenience that otherwise allows the banned individual to continue with business as usual.

You are right, Sticky Situation. A SafeSport ban is not analogous to getting banned from a private club like your local bridge group. It’s not even analogous to getting fired from a job, because if you get fired, there are thousands of other private employers to work for.

For a mid-level trainer to get banned by SafeSport effectively means they will not be able to have a successful career in the hunter/jumper world. I once analogized it to getting disbarred by my state bar association. Sure, you can do something else with horses like run trail rides… just like if I’m disbarred I could write for a legal journal or work as a paralegal… but it’s not the same.

Denali and others can name a few trainers who got into trouble with USEF and still manage to attract clients and train hunters… but the difference is those people were already famous. It’s not going to work that way for mid-level or up-and-coming trainers.

When we talk about how SafeSport works, we need to try to think of all the different situations… not just George Morris or some other BNT. We also need to be honest about the facts. It is not credible to suggest people will be banned and their careers will be just fine.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@Denali6298

Actually it has with the Lopez case. Signed statements are a thing in any HR type investigation, which is what Safe Sport is. I highly doubt the arbitration process would have a higher bar for evidence than the investigation process to hand out a ban.

@Keep it Simple can you clarify this point?

Signed affidavits and character statements are allowed in arbitration. If a person wants to submit 10, 20 ,30 ,40 however many sworn, signed statements to the arbitrator it is allowed. The arbitrator takes about a week or 2 to make their decision. All the evidence is reviewed. The Director’s Decision is ONLY admitted if one side requests it; and it is not always SafeSport that requests that it be admitted.
Obviously, the problem with witness statements (for either side) is there is no opportunity to cross examine, so if a therapist says you (the accused) present no harm to the public, there is no opportunity for SafeSport to question this person or discredit what they say. Therefore, to achieve the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” SafeSport’s evidence needs to be stronger than the accused. This has been achieved by live witness testimony, and that witness’ report standing up to cross-examination.

[SonnysMom]

@Sticky Situation

Where did I say anyone was destitute? By “losing their livelihood” I mean their ability to make a living as a riding instructor/horse trainer … not that they can’t get a job in some other industry and make ends meet.

And again, my concern is not over the comfort of people who earn themselves a SafeSport ban. It’s over the use of arguments that make it seem like a SafeSport ban is just an inconvenience that otherwise allows the banned individual to continue with business as usual.

They can still make their living as a riding instructor/horse trainer however it would need to be at the local level where the organization is not subject to Safe Sport. Depending on the organization they may be able to work as a camp counseler or as a therapeutic riding instructor. Or they can buy, train then sell horses.
They can even stay in the industry but move into the retail end such as working at a tack store or owning one. Or on-line sales of tack items.

They just can’t work with USET members and at USET facilities/shows/clinics.

[Denali6298]

@Horsegirl's Mom

You are right, Sticky Situation. A SafeSport ban is not analogous to getting banned from a private club like your local bridge group. It’s not even analogous to getting fired from a job, because if you get fired, there are thousands of other private employers to work for.

For a mid-level trainer to get banned by SafeSport effectively means they will not be able to have a successful career in the hunter/jumper world. I once analogized it to getting disbarred by my state bar association. Sure, you can do something else with horses like run trail rides… just like if I’m disbarred I could write for a legal journal or work as a paralegal… but it’s not the same.

Denali and others can name a few trainers who got into trouble with USEF and still manage to attract clients and train hunters… but the difference is those people were already famous. It’s not going to work that way for mid-level or up-and-coming trainers.

When we talk about how SafeSport works, we need to try to think of all the different situations… not just George Morris or some other BNT. We also need to be honest about the facts. It is not credible to suggest people will be banned and their careers will be just fine.

Tom Navarro who was previously discussed in this thread has not ever been a BNT. Even without the ban he would never be a BNT. He still has the same career.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

So you want the case decided by arbitration not the investigation?

I am trying to have a discussion with you about what exactly you would like to change and how. You accuse people of not wanting to discuss but when we express our opinions about why we disagree or ask for clarification and specifics on what you want to change and the reasoning behind it you refuse.

I am fine with the process as it is now. I think GM is guilty as hell. I thought a bunch of people, including you, were out of line for denigrating an honest and thoughtful post by HLMom by saying “we’ve already covered all this” and acting superior because she used the term “alleged victim” instead of victim in a context in which “alleged victim” was perfectly appropriate.

 In this most recent exchange, I was just trying to explain the basis for my belief that the respondent’s primary opportunity to defend against the charge is in the appeal, not the investigation. Do you disagree just to disagree? Your rejoinder that, well, “neither side appears before arbitration, so that’s fair” was inane. No, no arbitration, one side makes the determination based on its assessment of its own investigation. You have made similar inane, flip rejoinders. “Just tell an innocent man accused of rape, that he shouldn’t have been standing around with a tight T shirt”, then “explain” that the “point” was to demonstrate the inanity of saying rape victims are at fault for being raped, as if you thought there was a single person on the board that had failed to understand that point for 30 years. 

  Many of your posts consist of you flatly stating your opinion, with no useful information backing it up, and usually based on a misinterpretation of the post you are responding to.  

  Are you the one who called me a “raving moron”, or did you just endorse the person who did and giggle about it?

   I’m not offended btw. Your calling me a raving moron says a lot more about you that it does about me. Hence why I will block you if I can figure out how.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

I am fine with the process as it is now. I think GM is guilty as hell. I thought a bunch of people, including you, were out of line for denigrating an honest and thoughtful post by HLMom by saying “we’ve already covered all this” and acting superior because she used the term “alleged victim” instead of victim in a context in which “alleged victim” was perfectly appropriate.

In this most recent exchange, I was just trying to explain the basis for my belief that the respondent’s primary opportunity to defend against the charge is in the appeal, not the investigation. Do you disagree just to disagree? Your rejoinder that, well, “neither side appears before arbitration, so that’s fair” was inane. No, no arbitration, one side makes the determination based on its assessment of its own investigation. You have made similar inane, flip rejoinders. “Just tell an innocent man accused of rape, that he shouldn’t have been standing around with a tight T shirt”, then “explain” that the “point” was to demonstrate the inanity of saying rape victims are at fault for being raped, as if you thought there was a single person on the board that had failed to understand that point for 30 years.

Many of your posts consist of you flatly stating your opinion, with no useful information backing it up, and usually based on a misinterpretation of the post you are responding to.

Are you the one who called me a “raving moron”, or did you just endorse the person who did and giggle about it?

I’m not offended btw. Your calling me a raving moron says a lot more about you that it does about me. Hence why I will block you if I can figure out how.

Your crusade started because of a disagreement over word choice and people questioning it? Yowza. No I never said you were a “raving moron.” The poster who made that statement didn’t name anyone specifically nor did she quote anyone so I’m not sure why you thought it was directed at you.

My endorsing was a joke because I think it’s lame to criticize typos when we all make them as a come back.

ETA: HL Mom asked the same questions in the very long Rob Gage thread that she did in this thread. How many times does she want a response?

[YankeeDuchess]

@NoSuchPerson

If you’ve figured out how to block someone, please share how you’re doing it. As far as I know, since the last board upgrade, we have not been able to “ignore” other posters and there are a few people whose posts I would dearly love to not see.

I vaguely remember that the option of blocking someone’s posts was an option, but that may have before an update.

I will report back if it turns out to be possible.

[Denali6298]

The option is there but it doesn’t work.

[YankeeDuchess]

@dags

Ugh. So now the legal system is an appropriate analogy?

Why “ugh”? It’s still not the criminal justice system. Both systems have to be designed to maximize the extent to which bad guys get caught, while offering procedural protections for innocent people wrongly accused.

In the analogy I found useful in understanding SafeSport, SafeSport is analogous to the police and DA not the judge or jury. I don’t see this as a criticism of the current process, just my basis for seeing the appeal as the part of the process in which the respondent can present a defense in front of an independent arbitrator.

[NoSuchPerson]

@YankeeDuchess

I humbly admit that I fail to understand this post, as it seems to suggest that discussing whether changes to one or two aspects of the SafeSport procedures is tantamount to turning SafeSport into the criminal justice system.

It didn’t.

I humbly submit that, in my view, it should be acceptable to discuss the relative merits of altering the SafeSport in a few specific ways to improve its functioning but still leaving SafeSport “outside” the criminal justice system, as it is now.

Discuss away. I don’t recall ever telling you to shut up. I simply made the observation that from my perspective, you weren’t engaging in what I define as “discussion.” You’re free to disagree.

[dags]

@YankeeDuchess

Why “ugh”? It’s still not the criminal justice system. Both systems have to be designed to maximize the extent to which bad guys get caught, while offering procedural protections for innocent people wrongly accused.

In the analogy I found useful in understanding SafeSport, SafeSport is analogous to the police and DA not the judge or jury. I don’t see this as a criticism of the current process, just my basis for seeing the appeal as the part of the process in which the respondent can present a defense in from of an independent arbitrator.

I was with you. In my mind I’ve found the ban (pre-appeal) similar to police showing up to arrest someone, having already conducted enough of an investigation to sniff out that someone is the possible perp, and detaining said someone until the issue is heard in front of the judge & their full defense is presented… ie, the SS appeal?

But someone claimed that analogy was not applicable…

And then someone else, who seemed to align with the It’s not LE! crowd, put it back in play in such a way that it seemed to align with your original analogy, which was also my original analogy, which I/you/we had been informed was wrong… :lol:

Honestly, it’s been a verbal volley of legalese & trial procedure these last few pages… punctuated by BOTH sides (which is ridic 'cause no one in here is ISWGing) insisting the other is not listening/not answering/beating dead horses, and I’m whiplashed just trying to keep up. But I stick around 'cause I want a better handle on my own verbal wit when I come across these discussions IRL, which is happening, which means I need to hear & digest all sides. So if y’all’s could not jump down the throat of any alternative viewpoint here, then (g)we will all be better equipped to hash this issue out on the actual playing field.

[dannyboy]

Originally posted by Horsegirl’s Mom

Denali and others can name a few trainers who got into trouble with USEF and still manage to attract clients and train hunters… but the difference is those people were already famous. It’s not going to work that way for mid-level or up-and-coming trainers.

When we talk about how SafeSport works, we need to try to think of all the different situations… not just George Morris or some other BNT. We also need to be honest about the facts. It is not credible to suggest people will be banned and their careers will be just fine.

Well let’s look at Tom Navarro, who as Denali says has never exactly been a BNT, despite his claims to the creds for it.

“Tom Navarro has 30+ years of experience with horses in almost every aspect of horsemanship. He has started more than 300 horses under saddle, worked with top competitors on the Hunter/Jumper circuit, and managed his own barn and business with top-notch care as a number one priority. Tom has successfully Trained and Assisted Horses and Riders from beginners to Grand Prix Jumpers from Local Schooling to AA and 5* competitions.” (The quote is from his bio on his web page)

According to the August, 2019 schedule on the RCF website, he’s pretty much doing business as usual, with a full day of lessons just about every day. Judging from that it doesn’t look like he’s lost much business because of the ban.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NoSuchPerson

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.

The suggestion by HLMom to consider giving SafeSport the power to subpoena witnesses during arbitration might have prevented the apparently guilty Lopez brothers from escaping a lifetime ban, without changing the fact that SafeSport was explicitly created to operate outside the bounds of the criminal/civil justice system.

[YankeeDuchess]

@dags

I was with you. In my mind I’ve found the ban (pre-appeal) similar to police showing up to arrest someone, having already conducted enough of an investigation to sniff out that someone is the possible perp, and detaining said someone until the issue is heard in front of the judge & their full defense is presented… ie, the SS appeal?

But someone claimed that analogy was not applicable…

And then someone else, who seemed to align with the It’s not LE! crowd, put it back in play in such a way that it seemed to align with your original analogy, which was also my original analogy, which I/you/we had been informed was wrong… :lol:

Honestly, it’s been a verbal volley of legalese & trial procedure these last few pages… punctuated by BOTH sides (which is ridic 'cause no one in here is ISWGing) insisting the other is not listening/not answering/beating dead horses, and I’m whiplashed just trying to keep up. But I stick around 'cause I want a better handle on my own verbal wit when I come across these discussions IRL, which is happening, which means I need to hear & digest all sides. So if y’all’s could not jump down the throat of any alternative viewpoint here, then (g)we will all be better equipped to hash this issue out on the actual playing field.

I have pushing the analogy all along. Although I would think my anti-ISWG creds are pretty strong, I may have inflamed people by saying that there is a tiny bit of their rant that I agree with. I agree with the ISWG crowd on the point that the respondent has not had the opportunity to make their case in front of an independent, impartial adjudicator until AFTER the ban has been imposed and the name is on the list.

I have zero problem with the procedure as it is. The respondent has the opportunity to make his case during the appeal.

But it is frustrating to be bashed simply because I am expressing the view that there is a tiny element of truth in what the ISWG crowd is saying.

Much of the whiplash seems to be due to something personal that has developed between Denali and me, so my decision to not respond to her posts should help considerably on that score.

[ladyj79]

@NoSuchPerson

If you’ve figured out how to block someone, please share how you’re doing it. As far as I know, since the last board upgrade, we have not been able to “ignore” other posters and there are a few people whose posts I would dearly love to not see.

You just have to use your “internal block” :lol: Once you do, you realize that nothing new or necessary is taking place in this conversation at present.

But like, if someone has the stone from their breast removed and replaced with a human heart, do tag me :lol:

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@dannyboy

Originally posted by Horsegirl’s Mom

Well let’s look at Tom Navarro, who as Denali says has never exactly been a BNT, despite his claims to the creds for it.

“Tom Navarro has 30+ years of experience with horses in almost every aspect of horsemanship. He has started more than 300 horses under saddle, worked with top competitors on the Hunter/Jumper circuit, and managed his own barn and business with top-notch care as a number one priority. Tom has successfully Trained and Assisted Horses and Riders from beginners to Grand Prix Jumpers from Local Schooling to AA and 5* competitions.” (The quote is from his bio on his web page)

According to the August, 2019 schedule on the RCF website, he’s pretty much doing business as usual, with a full day of lessons just about every day. Judging from that it doesn’t look like he’s lost much business because of the ban.

Ok, he has a calendar on his website with lots of names like “Kendall” and “Kylar.” What does that prove? Do you know anything about these riders? Are any of them showing in regional equitation finals or winning championships in junior hunters? For all we know, these are all up-down riders whose show career consists of being in the annual barn horseshow.

Is anyone really going to argue that a lifetime ban by SafeSport has no significant impact on a h/j trainer’s livelihood?

If that is the case, then I would expect to see a lot of sanctioned trainers not even bothering to appeal, since the ban won’t affect them at all! Why spend thousands of dollars hiring lawyers and going through arbitration if the impact is so trivial?

[greysfordays]

@dags

Honestly, it’s been a verbal volley of legalese & trial procedure these last few pages… punctuated by BOTH sides (which is ridic 'cause no one in here is ISWGing) insisting the other is not listening/not answering/beating dead horses, and I’m whiplashed just trying to keep up. But I stick around 'cause I want a better handle on my own verbal wit when I come across these discussions IRL, which is happening, which means I need to hear & digest all sides. So if y’all’s could not jump down the throat of any alternative viewpoint here, then (g)we will all be better equipped to hash this issue out on the actual playing field.

EXACTLY! The battle for the hearts and minds of people around safe sport is not going to be won and lost here, it’s happening at tack shops, on the rail at shows, at clinics and lessons all over the country. I have talked to a lot of really kind and well-meaning trainers who are terrified.

Most folks are not sitting at a desk and thoughtfully parsing the language of the code. They are hearing bits and pieces on social media. And of course, they bring their own experiences in which color their thinking. A close friend of mine moved to Europe and GM wrote her a ton of recommendation letters and worked with her to find employment there. Convincing someone who was grateful to GM is hard especially with all the noise and chatter on FB about due process. Like what average person isn’t in favor of due process. It’s a very compelling argument for the ISWG people.

This thread, long though it may be, has for me been pretty helpful in helping comfort some of these trainers that the sky is not falling. But I’ve most appreciated the points of respectful disagreement to as Dags says, make my arguments more clear. Bc even within this very well informed group there was just a few pages ago some misunderstanding about what happens at arbitration (argue for substance or process). If some of us are maybe unclear on the process for people who have read from page 1, what hope is there out there for folks who are knee deep in lessons and planning for shows or worrying about a horse that’s suddenly lame?

If we could focus less on scoring points and more on understanding the issues and places we could further buttress the process, I think that would be helpful. I think the vast majority of people on this thread at this point believe in safesport and want to see it succeed. Especially in the beginning when credibility is so important.