George Morris on the SS list

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@ohmissbrittany

So I’m not sure how much reading you have done on the Lopez case, but the women were supposed to be given the right to testify REMOTELY, which they were not. The bans were overturned on a “technicality” because they refused to be in the room with the Lopez men. These women are now adding SS to the defendants in their “big boy court” case stating the bans were wrongfully overturned.

Additionally, out of 211 lifetime bans (at last count) only 3 have been overturned, including the Lopez bros. That’s a pretty low error rate.

You account of the Lopez case is different from what was reported in newspapers. What is the authority for your statements?

As for 211 lifetime bans, in how many of those cases has the arbitration process been completed? We know some lifetime bans still have the arbitration pending, such as GM.

Also, why are your statistics limited to lifetime bans? Aren’t there other forms of sanctions SS hands out? Have any of those cases been arbitrated?

We need to know how many total cases have been arbitrated, and how many of those cases SS won.

[poltroon]

@Doberpei

USEF does not owe anyone a job or a career. Packy said banning someone takes away their right to compete in the Olympics. Um, when did that become a constitutional right?

It’s not a constitutional right but it’s in the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, written that way to counter some nasty and inappropriate behavior by the AAU in the 1970s.

But, SafeSport is created in an amendment to that Act. They’re not in conflict.

[YankeeDuchess]

@BITSA

An arbitrator’s power to compel non-parties to produce documents or testify is derived from Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which grants arbitrators the authority to “summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case.Section 7 also provides that the “summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrators…shall be signed by the arbitrators….” and shall be enforced by “petition to the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting….”

@NoSuchPerson
This passage refers to the power of arbitrators to compel testimony of non-parties. It involves enforcement by the US district court.

   With suitable changes in the law authorizing SafeSport, why are court enforced subpoenas unavailable to JAMS arbitration of SafeSport bans?  Subpoenas of non-parties?

[NoSuchPerson]

@YankeeDuchess

Are you saying the claim that their lawyers told them not to testify because testifying in the arbitration process would jeopardize their civil case is not true?

Have you actually read the multiple news reports, readily available on the internet through a simple Google search? If you would do that, you could easily answer many of these questions that you keep posing here. The conversation goes so much better when the participants are well informed.

And, like @roseymare said, the two statements aren’t mutually exclusive.

[YankeeDuchess]

@roseymare

They can both be true though.

If their lawyers told them not to testify because it would jeopardize a civil suit, I would think that that would be the critical impediment to their testifying, and the being in the same room thing is pretty irrelevant.

Please don’t state for a fact that some simple logistical issue was the reason for not testifying when there is another, more intractable, reason to explain why they didn’t testify.

[NoSuchPerson]

@Horsegirl's Mom

You account of the Lopez case is different from what was reported in newspapers. What is the authority for your statements?

As for 211 lifetime bans, in how many of those cases has the arbitration process been completed? We know some lifetime bans still have the arbitration pending, such as GM.

We need to know how many cases have been arbitrated, and how many of those cases SS won.

FiSk123 already provided a complete breakdown of these stats, as I believe others here have already noted. Have you gone back through the GM and RG discussions to find it?

[roseymare]

@YankeeDuchess

If their lawyers told them not to testify because it would jeopardize a civil suit, I would think that that would be the critical impediment to their testifying, and the being in the same room thing is pretty irrelevant.

Please don’t state for a fact that some simple logistical issue was the reason for not testifying when there is another, more intractable, reason to explain why they didn’t testify.

The same room thing is very very relevant.

[Doberpei]

@poltroon

It’s not a constitutional right but it’s in the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, written that way to counter some nasty and inappropriate behavior by the AAU in the 1970s.

But, SafeSport is created in an amendment to that Act. They’re not in conflict.

Thank you - I think I understand what you are saying. I was simply trying to say that no one is guaranteed an Olympic career, but yes, I see that the only way to the Olympics in Equestrian Sport is through USEF, so not being a member would take that away.

Packy also spent a lot of time comparing SafeSport to the numerous overturnings of Title IX cases in colleges and universities, and SafeSport better prepare for that.

[NoSuchPerson]

@YankeeDuchess

@NoSuchPerson
This passage refers to the power of arbitrators to compel testimony of non-parties. It involves enforcement by the US district court.

With suitable changes in the law authorizing SafeSport, why are court enforced subpoenas unavailable to JAMS arbitration of SafeSport bans? Subpoenas of non-parties?

Did you bother to look up the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to look at the terms and applicability? What makes you think it even applies in this situation? This may surprise some people, but just because someone posts something on this forum doesn’t mean it’s true. Maybe you should go read the FAA and let us all know which sections make it applicable to SafeSport-type arbitrations.

SafeSport arbitrations are conducted outside the legal system, as I already explained. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Have you done any exploring of available information? A simple Google search will reveal a wealth of information on arbitrations.

Here’s one opinion:

Since arbitration is by nature contractual, parties also can agree to different procedural laws that will govern the arbitration proceedings…Parties have ample autonomy to choose the law or rules that apply to an arbitration.

[mountainbells]

@NoSuchPerson: I believe that FiSK123 only analyzed for # of bans by sport, not # of bans overturned by arbitration. At least that is what I’ve found in looking back at the Rob Gage discussion. I am wondering how someone not involved with SS could have access to the numbers of overturned bans, since those folks would now be OFF the list and therefor not public info.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@NoSuchPerson

FiSk123 already provided a complete breakdown of these stats, as I believe others here have already noted. Have you gone back through the GM and RG discussions to find it?

No, the statistics I am looking for have not been provided.

In fact, the only statistics provided in the Gage thread are inconsistent with what OhMissBrittany posted. In that thread, 541hunter posted there have been 292 total bans (I believe she indicated this came from the SS website). Now MissBrittany tells us there have been 211 bans.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NoSuchPerson

FiSk123 already provided a complete breakdown of these stats, as I believe others here have already noted. Have you gone back through the GM and RG discussions to find it?

FiSk123 provided stats on how many complaints to SafeSport result in lifetime bans, which is about 3%. That number convincingly shows that SafeSport reserves the lifetime ban to cases it considers “most egregious”.

What we are talking about now is: Of lifetime bans issued by SafeSport, how many were appealed, and of those appealed, how many were overturned?

Bonnie Navin has made the ridiculous statement that for some sample of cases, which she can’t be bothered to define, 90% were overturned on appeal.

It seems unlikely to me that the 90% overturn rate is accurate. Even to the nearest order of magnitude. We have asked FiSk123 to weigh in on the correct number.

If there is a post by someone super credible, which to me would be FiSk123 and no one else, that documents these two numbers: percent of lifetime bans appealed, and, of those appealed, the percent overturned, please cite the post number.

[Peggy]

@Texarkana

If banned trainer Jonathan Robert Doe of California (fake name, obviously) pops up selling horses and giving lessons in Ohio as Jack Doe, or Bob Doe, or John Robert, or any other alias, how fast do you think people would catch on?

I would hope there are stiff repercussions if you get caught. But if an individual is determined, they could likely fly under the radar for a very long time.

Like you suggested, if you had real gall, I’m not even sure you’d be caught if you entered a rated show as a non-USEF member under an alias, or even pulled a new membership under an alias. When you enter a horse show, no one asks you to confirm your identity, and I don’t recall a USEF membership asking for anything more than name and contact info. But to your point, hopefully that is an area that can be tightened up with databases, software, and better identity verification in the future.

I’m not even sure that USEF would catch on as I’ve seen several cases of people who appear to be in there under the same name, or variations of a name. And we don’t microchip people.

Not quite the same thing, but there was a trainer out here who had a criminal record (not involving unwanted sex), but many people didn’t realize it bc the person mostly used a different version of their name in the horse world. The population of unaware people included police officers who were clients.

[YankeeDuchess]

@roseymare

The same room thing is very very relevant.

It would be relevant in the absence of a more important factor that was the crucial deciding factor in their decision not to testify.

Suppose the claimants inform SafeSport that they refuse to testify because their lawyers have advised them not to because of a civil case. That was my understanding of the primary issue.

Suppose SafeSport then says, well if you change your mind, and decide to testify, you will have to be in the same room. If the claimants stick to their lawyers advice and are unwilling to testify, the availability of remote testimony is irrelevant.

Suppose you ask me why I’m not riding Grand Prix in the next horse show, and I said, well I can’t because I don’t own a shadbelly. It is true that I do not own a shadbelly. However the determining factor in my not riding Grand Prix is that I don’t have a Grand Prix horse and can’t ride at that level if I had one.

[oneequestrienne]

@YankeeDuchess

It would be relevant in the absence of a more important factor that was the crucial deciding factor in their decision not to testify.

Suppose the claimants inform SafeSport that they refuse to testify because their lawyers have advised them not to because of a civil case. That was my understanding of the primary issue.

Suppose SafeSport then says, well if you change your mind, and decide to testify, you will have to be in the same room. If the claimants stick to their lawyers advice and are unwilling to testify, the availability of remote testimony is irrelevant.

Suppose you ask me why I’m not riding Grand Prix in the next horse show, and I said, well I can’t because I don’t own a shadbelly. It is true that I do not own a shadbelly. However the determining factor in my not riding Grand Prix is that I don’t have a Grand Prix horse and can’t ride at that level if I had one.

I know for a fact as a witness that Safesport does not tell witnesses/respondents that they will have to be in the same room as the respondent.

[NoSuchPerson]

@mountainbells

@NoSuchPerson: I believe that FiSK123 only analyzed for # of bans by sport, not # of bans overturned by arbitration. At least that is what I’ve found in looking back at the Rob Gage discussion. I am wondering how someone not involved with SS could have access to the numbers of overturned bans, since those folks would now be OFF the list and therefor not public info.

My mistake. Sorry.

WTH, doesn’t anybody know how to Google?

Of the 365 decisions SafeSport has issued since it opened in March 2017, 11 have gone to arbitration. Only three have been overturned, but the last two – both involving the Lopez brothers – came in the last month.

From a February 21, 2019 article in USAToday.

[roseymare]

@YankeeDuchess

It would be relevant in the absence of a more important factor that was the crucial deciding factor in their decision not to testify.

Suppose the claimants inform SafeSport that they refuse to testify because their lawyers have advised them not to because of a civil case. That was my understanding of the primary issue.

Suppose SafeSport then says, well if you change your mind, and decide to testify, you will have to be in the same room. If the claimants stick to their lawyers advice and are unwilling to testify, the availability of remote testimony is irrelevant.

Suppose you ask me why I’m not riding Grand Prix in the next horse show, and I said, well I can’t because I don’t own a shadbelly. It is true that I do not own a shadbelly. However the determining factor in my not riding Grand Prix is that I don’t have a Grand Prix horse and can’t ride at that level if I had one.

I read your initial response as that testimony in front of accusers could never be relevant to the case. I am saying it could be very relevant. We do not know.

[YankeeDuchess]

@mountainbells

@NoSuchPerson: I believe that FiSK123 only analyzed for # of bans by sport, not # of bans overturned by arbitration. At least that is what I’ve found in looking back at the Rob Gage discussion. I am wondering how someone not involved with SS could have access to the numbers of overturned bans, since those folks would now be OFF the list and therefor not public info.

 SafeSport publicly announces a ban. It publicly reveals whether a ban is subject to appeal. If the person were banned but the ban was overturned on appeal, they would not subsequently show up on the list. 
 So all the required data has been made public over time. The issue is whether the database contains only the information that John Doe is currently not banned, or whether it contains the information that he was investigated and banned previously, although is not banned now. 

  Most bans are based on “criminal disposition”

rather than a SafeSport investigation. It would be important to report the % overturned rates for criminal disposition vs SafeSport investigation separately.

[roseymare]

@oneequestrienne

I know for a fact as a witness that Safesport does not tell witnesses/respondents that they will have to be in the same room as the respondent.

That is good to know.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@NoSuchPerson

My mistake. Sorry.

WTH, doesn’t anybody know how to Google?

From a February 21, 2019 article in USAToday.

That’s an “overturn” rate of 27%, which isn’t great, but the sample is so small I don’t think it’s fair to draw any conclusions from it.

That article was from 6 months ago. Has there been any update on the statistics? How many arbitrations are currently pending–meaning the sanctioned individual has demanded arbitration, but the arbitration has not yet been completed?