Your dismissal of local circuit riders is quite jaw dropping. Using those riders as proof of Navarro’s livelihood being impacted by the ban as if somehow local circuit trainers are unsuccessful because they don’t play at the top is equally jaw dropping.
ETA: A conviction didn’t alter Navarro’s business. Highly doubt the ban would if that didn’t.
Under what authority do you suggest that SafeSport has the power to subpoena witnesses? SafeSport is (let’s all say it together) an extra-judicial administrative body. SafeSport’s lack of authority to compel people to do anything they don’t want to do is baked into the structure.
As anyone who has ever watched Law & Order knows, the court system has the authority to compel someone to appear. If the person fails to appear, a warrant can be issued and the police can fetch them. The person can be declared in contempt of court and tossed in jail.
So let’s say we do what you suggest. Poof! SafeSport, you may now issue a subpoena ordering a witness to appear without involving the courts. How do you propose that SafeSport will enforce that subpoena? What if the person refuses to show up? What do you want SafeSport to do about it? Call up the police and say, “Hey, would you all please go down to 124 Oak Street, slap Victim A in handcuffs, and drag her ass back here to testify in this arbitration hearing? We sent her a strongly worded order to appear but she didn’t show up.” Yeah, I’m sure the police will get right on that. :rolleyes:
Enforcing a subpoena requires the authority of the justice system. It is impossible to give SafeSport the power to subpoena a witness and enforce that subpoena without having SafeSport also operate within the criminal/civil justice system.
Have any of you been in a workplace where a sexual harassment claim is filed? The accused is usually suspended immediately pending investigation. In this case, an investigation happened before the suspension, so that’s more “due process” than in any other profession I’m aware of. You can scream due process til the cows come home, but the #1 priority and reason for existence of SS is to STOP child predators, to remove them from the organization immediately. Sure, they can be reinstated if the allegations prove to be false, but if you would risk your child being molested or raped after reports have been made, but before the appeal process, then you should consider relinquishing your parental rights because you’re not equipped to be a parent.
Actually there was a poster earlier on the thread that thought that junior riders should go back to the old flared breeches since the newer show clothing was too tight and sexy. Somebody mentioned juniors sticking their butts out for photos to look sexy in their breeches so yes there is at least one person on this board that feels that sexy riding clothes contributes to the problem. (Sorry I suck at multiple quotes.)
As there were a few replies to that individual I am guessing @Denali6298 was addressing that point.
And yes there are still people think that if you dress sexy or wear tight clothing that you are either asking for it or are at least partially to blame if you get sexually harassed or assaulted. But only if you are female. Yes, some of those people are COTH forum members.
I wonder if the Lopez brothers case was processed under the pre-codification of safe sport–that is what was in place per the USA Olympic committee.
it looks like safe sport was enacted in 02/14/18. Further Congress seems to speak to any civil actions (which again might prevent a repeat of that case), as it prescribes the remedy for personal injuries, that:
SEC. 102. CIVIL REMEDY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES. Section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: ``(a) In General.–Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241©, 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains or liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000, and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. The court may also award punitive damages and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.’’;
Ok I will say it. Level of showing is not definitively related to NET income. More input often means more output. I wonder how many are actually living paycheck to paycheck like their colleagues training for local shows. Maybe even moreso as there are more keep up with the Joneses when you are a bnt.
”‹”‹”‹”‹I suspect there are as many non USEF trainers making at least as much net income if not more than USEF trainers.
@SonnysMom thank you. I’m not sure why that particular poster thinks all negative posts that do not quote a post or name a poster are directed at her.
But maybe that would result in a ruling for them in civil court. Is that a better outcome for the victims?
Yep, and according to him, he’s doing “millions of dollars of business” each year. So I guess the ban hasn’t hurt him too much!
That makes total sense to me. SS can’t straddle the fence between civil/criminal/law enforcement and administrative arbitration. It has to be one or the other - can’t be both. It reports to law enforcement/criminal court when the situation dictates, but can’t step over that line and act as either law enforcement or the criminal/civil justice system.
There is no such equivalent as a “hostile witness” in the SS code (that I found). If an accuser or reporter or witness or accused doesn’t wish to participate OR decides to stop participating at any point in the process, s/he can’t be compelled to do so.
Ok, so this Navarro fellow was a small-time trainer with no national aspirations before the ban and has remained a small-time trainer with no national aspirations afterwards. I’ll take your word for that.
My question to you remains: Is it your argument that a SafeSport ban never has a significant impact on a h/j trainer’s business?
And if that is your position, then please explain why they spend so much time and money appealing it.
I do not think it would hurt business at all nor do I think it ever would. People KNEW about these things before the ban and still trained with now banned. Not a H/J trainer but Randall Cates’ barn was being advertised by his city’s tourism website. People on this thread said regardless of the ban they would still ride with GM. The clinic with GM in Aiken was still taking riders and auditors up until the 18th of this month despite the ban. It only got cancelled because GM cancelled until after arbitration.
They spend time and money appealing to stay a part of the USEF and probably for ego as well. I highly doubt any of them are worried about their livelihoods. There are way too many examples of low level to famous trainers being banned that still have successful careers in the horse industry.
This is actually pretty variable.
If you’re actively removed from any job in education it will be pretty hard to get another, even if the reasons aren’t public.
It can be hard to get another job any time you were fired rather than you resigned. Heck, it can be hard to get another job if you don’t currently have one.
For jobs that involve interacting with children, I think it would be really quite challenging to get a new job after a substantiated accusation of sexual harassment in a workplace.
Most investigations in a workplace will be quite a bit less objective and less thorough than what SafeSport does.
This is a very interesting question.
As I’ve stated, we arbitrate cases in front of JAMS regularly, and JAMS has the power to subpoena witnesses. So my thinking was that SafeSport should adopt the regular JAMS rule regarding subpoenas. (Technically, it is the tribunal that has the subpoena power, and the parties are allowed to issue subpoenas in the tribunal’s name).
USEF has its members agree to all SafeSport rules as a condition of membership, right? The subpoena rule could be added to the existing set of procedural rules. As for how it would be enforced, disobeying the subpoena would be a violation of SafeSport rules that could subject you to a penalty.
I understand it feels heavy-handed to talk about requiring witnesses to testify. Equestrians already feel SafeSport is too much in their business, so maybe this is a bridge too far. But you understand the concern, right? Without a way to require witnesses to testify, you end up with a lot of people who’d “rather not get involved,” and that diminishes one’s confidence that all the facts are being brought to light.
Well okay then! I’ve got to appreciate someone who has the courage of their convictions!
If George Morris is reading this thread, he will surely be tremendously relieved!
I feel like it would be very damaging to force the victims to testify again in front of the arbitrator. Also, I think it’s been demonstrated that there are more than enough people willing to jump to the defense of the accused. The Lopez case went to hell because the victims refused to sign the affidavits and/or testify again. Not any witnesses.
Now I am curious how many bans are overturned on appeal because the victims do not want to testify or provided signed affidavits.
And I stated my reasons why. I don’t get why you chopped my post to that one sentence. Nor do I understand why you are making the argument that it would hurt business, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guessed at your last question as I have no clue what the thought process is for people who molest children.
When you say “testify again,” what are you referring to? When did the victim testify the first time?
Being interviewed by a SS investigator is not testifying, because the person is not under oath, and there is no opportunity for the arbitrator or opposing party to cross-examine.
Based on my review of the rules, the arbitration is the one and only time anyone will testify.
Wrong word my apologies. Point stands though. If the accused appeals and the victims refuse for what ever reason to participate it is their right. They may not be able to deal with the process or as in the Lopez case be suing for damages.
ETA: Do they actually use JAMS for the appeal or just a similar process? After reading the JAMS website subpoenas come into play during the original arbitration. Not on the appeal. So are they are using the arbitration rules or the appeal rules? If it’s the appeals rules they don’t compel anyone to participate they carry on.
If SafeSport were given the authority to subpoena witnesses, then yes, it would need the involvement of local police or Federal marshals to enforce it.
Given that GM is banned, if he were to show up on the show grounds of a USEF show and refuse to leave, I assumed that the show management was expected to call the police to have him removed rather than physically get rid of him themselves.
How to do see USEF enforcing a ban as they are legally required to do?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
