George Morris on the SS list

[YankeeDuchess]

@roseymare

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.

   I was saying that testimony in front of abusers was not the determining reason that the claimants refused to testify specifically in the Lopez case, and therefore irrelevant in that specific case.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NoSuchPerson

My mistake. Sorry.

WTH, doesn’t anybody know how to Google?

From a February 21, 2019 article in USAToday.

The question I was asking is how many lifetime bans were appealed, and of those appealed, how many were overturned.

Not the statistics for “decisions”, which would include suspensions. 

 And I find FiSk123 a more reputable authority than USAToday.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Horsegirl's Mom

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?

You are glossing over the part that says that of 365 “decisions” only 11 were appealed (went to arbitration) and of the tiny number 11 that were appealed, only 3 were overturned.

The important number here is 3/365 or less than 1% of decisions are successfully overturned on appeal.

Of those that appeal, 27% are overturned. But only 3% of decisions are even appealed.

[roseymare]

@YankeeDuchess

I was saying that testimony in front of abusers was not the determining reason that the claimants refused to testify specifically in the Lopez case, and therefore irrelevant in that specific case.

Gotcha. I read it wrongly at first.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NoSuchPerson

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:

 My post was asking whether court enforced subpoenas of non-parties to a dispute would technically be available in the JAMS arbitration part, if the law authorizing SafeSport were suitably changed. My reading of the excerpt of the FAA act provided by BITSA indicated that court enforced subpoena power would be available to JAMS. 

  It was an honest question. 

  Perhaps someone else will answer it.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@YankeeDuchess

You are glossing over the part that says that of 365 “decisions” only 11 were appealed (went to arbitration) and of the tiny number 11 that were appealed, only 3 were overturned.

The important number here is 3/365 or less than 1% of decisions are successfully overturned on appeal.

Of those that appeal, 27% are overturned. But only 3% of decisions are even appealed.

I don’t think that’s a valid conclusion, Yankee Duchess, because we don’t know how many appeals were still pending in those cases.

At the time of that article, 11 of the 365 decisions had completed arbitration. You are assuming that in all the remaining cases, the respondent had decided not to appeal. But this is not correct. There could have been arbitrations still pending in some of the cases. I read somewhere that the arbitration process was designed to take 45 days to complete.

Also, the article speaks of “decisions.” But some of those may be cases where SafeSport’s “decision” was to not impose sanctions. (Of course, there would be no appeal in such cases). I think we are looking for statistics on cases where a ban was imposed by SafeSport and then overturned.

I do agree with the principle you are espousing–that if SafeSport issues a sanction, and the party declines to appeal, that counts as an indication that SafeSport was correct on the merits (I guess there could be a rare case where someone just decided to retire or, ahem, killed himself, but I think we can disregard that for statistical purposes)

[Denali6298]

Why are we getting wrapped around the axle about subpoenas an potentially putting witnesses and victims in jail for contempt of court? Once again this is a push to bring an administrative process into the courts.

Most of these questions can be answered by google. Also wrt to FiSK123 being more reputable than USA Today, that person is a journalist so they could have written the USA Today article.

I swear people are reading and then still posting their preformed thoughts in response to posts without actually comprehending the post.

Also, have any of you with these questions thought to maybe contact Safe Sport?

[YankeeDuchess]

@Horsegirl's Mom

I don’t think that’s a valid conclusion, Yankee Duchess, because we don’t know how many appeals were still pending in those cases.

At the time of that article, 11 of the 365 decisions had completed arbitration. You are assuming that in all the remaining cases, the respondent had decided not to appeal. But this is not correct. There could have been arbitrations still pending in some of the cases. I read somewhere that the arbitration process was designed to take 45 days to complete.

I do agree with the principle you are espousing–that if SafeSport issues a sanction, and the party declines to appeal, that counts as an indication that SafeSport was correct on the merits (I guess there could be a rare case where someone just decided to retire or, ahem, killed himself, but I think we can disregard that for statistical purposes)

I agree with you that we should look at the sample for which the appeals process has been completed.

My point is that within that sample, it is important to report both overturned bans as a % bans and overturned bans as a % of appealed bans.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

I swear people are reading and then still posting their preformed thoughts in response to posts without actually comprehending the post.

So we DO agree!

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@YankeeDuchess

I agree with you that we should look at the sample for which the appeals process has been completed.

My point is that within that sample, it is important to report both overturned bans as a % bans and overturned bans as a % of appealed bans.

We are having an epidemic of agreement!

[4LeafCloverFarm]

It is important to note that if a sanctioned individual wishes to appeal, that appeal (arbitration) is between the arbitrator (representing the Center for SS) and the respondent (the individual SS has sanctioned). The claimant (the individual who was harmed/abused/harassed by the respondent) is not a “party” in the appeal, but can serve as a witness. The claimant(s) are not even required to be in attendance, according to the code. However, if they are in attendance, they can only be questioned by the Arbitrator, unless they specifically give permission to be questioned by the respondent (or their advocate).

[I][B]XIV. Arbitration Rules

4. Parties[/B] The parties to the Arbitration will be the Center and the Respondent. A reference to the parties, the Center, the Respondent or the Claimant will include any parent or guardian of a Minor, unless otherwise stated herein.

27. Hearing
d. Examining witnesses [/I] [INDENT]1. The Claimant shall be subject to questioning by only the arbitrator unless the Claimant agrees to direct examination and cross-examination by the opposing party.[/INDENT]
e. Role of the Claimant The Claimant is not a party, but has the right to be present during the hearing and to give testimony as a witness if called, but shall not otherwise participate in the hearing.

So, concerning the Lopez’s case being overturned, because the claimants had not (during the investigation phase) provided affidavits or other sworn testimony to SS, AND the arbitrator could not question the claimants in the appeal hearing, the arbitrator felt they could not uphold the SS decision. As to whether the claimants were given poor advice from their respective advocates or SS had an ulterior motive or BOTH, I’ll leave that up to each person to make a determination.

After all, it is impossible to say what would have happened if the claimants had been there as witnesses (however, I’d like to think that it WOULD have made a difference). We can only guess that their presence and cooperation would have upheld the ban. Perhaps a different arbitrator would have come to a different conclusion - who knows? It is very unfortunate IMO that these two brothers are permitted to carry on like nothing ever happened. I sincerely hope they are tripped up by more reporters/claimants coming forward, and a future investigation and ban is upheld (and a few articles do say that one brother is under a current investigation by SS). Those two sound like real monsters.

See the article below, from which this is a direct quote from the panel reviewing the arbitration hearing to make a determination:

“Without the testimony of (Meloon, Poe and Gilbert) or any other corroborating witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the events, the panel was left with insufficient evidence to support the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence,” the three-person panel said. “The panel does not have authority to force witnesses to testify in this arbitration. In this matter, the witnesses necessary to support the allegations either refused or were not available to testify at the final hearing. Additionally, Safe Sport did not offer sworn testimony through deposition transcripts or affidavits to provide any testimony under oath of witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the events alleged.”

https://thinkprogress.org/2-olympic-stars-were-found-guilty-of-sexual-misconduct-but-their-permanent-bans-only-lasted-months-4b1b54b8c1ef/

[roseymare]

I think the Lopez case is difficult to use as a gauge for SS appeals because it started before SS was enacted.

[omare]

Agree Roseymare. Congress has also specified the route for a civil action under SS and the amount of damages, so I agree it is not a good comparison.

[FiSk123]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Why yes, thank you for offering!

As a preliminary question, are you affiliated with SafeSport? Can we take your answers to these questions as authoritative statements on how SafeSport works?

Here are my questions:

1. When does the accused see the evidence, including witness statements, that will be used against him?

2. Does the initial investigation or the arbitration proceeding allow for any discovery? [The rules clearly state no, but perhaps you will tell us otherwise.] If not, why not?

3. Does the initial investigation or the arbitration proceeding allow the accused’s attorney to cross-examine any witnesses?

4. Does the arbitrator have any power to compel witnesses to come and testify (i.e., like a subpoena)? If not, how can the accused get a reluctant witness to testify as to the facts they know–like if the witness says they “don’t want to get involved”?

5. How many SafeSport sanctions have gone to arbitration, and how many of those have been upheld?

Hello @Horsegirl’s Mom - there is a post in the Rob Gage page (Post #1412) that goes into my connection with SafeSport. I have forwarded your questions to a SafeSport media representative that I have worked with in the past. I hope you don’t mind if I try to answer some of your questions now, to the best of my ability:

1. Honestly, it depends. If the responding party cooperates with the Center, they are regularly updated on the evidence against them. If the responding party does not cooperate with the Center, they are left out of the loop. I shared a few examples in the Rob Gage thread.In other words, as long as the responding party agrees to the Center’s requests (upholds any temporary measures, relinquishes copies of relevant documents, doesn’t harass any witnesses or claimants, etc.), they are told/shown the evidence against them & given the opportunity to provide evidence in their defense.

2. There is no discovery. IMO this is for logistical and financial reasons (having attorneys reviewing all documents, discovery depositions and resolving discovery disputes can be extremely time-consuming & expensive). I will update this response once I hear back from the Center.

3. Witnesses can be cross-examined if they agree to be cross-examined. I have worked on several cases in which the witnesses were cross-examined. I also know of a few cases in which the witnesses refused to be cross-examined.

“The Claimant shall be subject to questioning by only the arbitrator unless the Claimant agrees to direct examination and cross-examination by the opposing party.” - XIV, 27, D - SafeSport Code.

4. My apologies ahead of time if I am repeating any information that you have already heard. The arbitrator does not have the power to compel witnesses to testify in SafeSport-related cases. IMO this is for logistical, financial and ethical reasons. The Center is not interested in punishing witnesses, especially survivors of abuse, for not testifying.

5. I will wait until I get a definitive answer from the Center before posting the numbers. If I don’t get an answer in a reasonable amount of time, I can calculate them for myself (I have been keeping a running list for 18 or so months). I’m assuming that you are interested in:

of SafeSport Sanctions that have been appealed

of SafeSport Sanctions that are currently being appealed

of SafeSport Sanctions that were overturned in appeal

My apologies, @YankeeDuchess, but would you mind placing all of your most recent questions in a list and @-ing me? I keep getting behind on the forum and I want to make sure I’m able to answer them all in the most efficient way! My apologies again for being so MIA from the forum - figure skating is having its own “reckoning” with abuse culture and I have had much less free time since.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@roseymare

I think the Lopez case is difficult to use as a gauge for SS appeals because it started before SS was enacted.

Ok… but that prompts another question: How long are these arbitrations really taking?

SafeSport was founded in March 2017, and the Lopez arbitration ruling came in January 2019. So what was happening during those nearly two years?

Are other cases getting their arbitrations completed in 45 days (the goal I saw mentioned somewhere), or is that more of an aspiration rather than a reality?

I guess we’ll see how soon GM’s ban is ruled upon in arbitration.

And to be clear, I’m not blaming SafeSport for any delays (to the extent there are any). Lawyers and arbitrators are the worst for creating delays and drawing things out with continuances and such, so I have a pretty good idea where the blame would fall.

[oneequestrienne]

I want to thank @virginiahorsemom for bringing HBO’s “The Tale” to my attention.

The NY Times reviewer in her description of the story does a great job describing some of the reasons why so many victims didn’t come forward before. The quotation which says it all, particularly for me:

“Jennifer tells her fiancé that…she’d had a ‘relationship’ with an older guy when she was a teenager, but it wasn’t a big deal. And hey: it was the 70s” (or 80s…)

Right there is what I told myself and what the social media victim shamers tell us all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/television/the-tale-hbo-review.html

[Denali6298]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Ok… but that prompts another question: How long are these arbitrations really taking?

SafeSport was founded in March 2017, and the Lopez arbitration ruling came in January 2019. So what was happening during those nearly two years?

Are other cases getting their arbitrations completed in 45 days (the goal I saw mentioned somewhere), or is that more of an aspiration rather than a reality?

I guess we’ll see how soon GM’s ban is ruled upon in arbitration.

And to be clear, I’m not blaming SafeSport for any delays (to the extent there are any). Lawyers and arbitrators are the worst for creating delays and drawing things out with continuances and such, so I have a pretty good idea where the blame would fall.

If one educates themself with Safe Sport one would see they are 45 days barring extenuating circumstances.

[Bold_MooMoo]

Who is this FISK that you keep calling upon to back up your facts? Do you know them in real life or just who they say they are here. I would like to hear from them again, about 75 pages later.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Ok… but that prompts another question: How long are these arbitrations really taking?

Are other cases getting their arbitrations completed in 45 days (the goal I saw mentioned somewhere), or is that more of an aspiration rather than a reality?

SafeSport indicates 45 days, however they have taken longer. I would estimate at least 90 days.

5 days for Responding Party to request arbitration hearing.
Then a number of days for an arbitrator to be chosen.
Then scheduling of pre-hearing conferences.
Prior to the pre-hearing conference, Respondent must submit position statement (answer to Director’s Decision), including documents, witness lists, etc. Any evidentiary and jurisdictional issues, and any other disputed issue are presented at this time.
Pre-hearing conference - time line established for exchange of info - evidence, witness list, etc
There can be multiple pre-hearing conferences.
Arbitrator submits written decision on what was agreed upon logistics (date of hearing, length of time for arbitration hearing, amount of time each side is allowed),
Arbitration should occur about 15 days after the pre-hearing conference.

So, imagine trying to schedule this. Equestrian professionals want everything scheduled on a Monday. Attorneys often are involved in cases that they can’t postpone. It also has to fit with the arbitrator’s schedule. Either side can have delays if an attorney fails to submit required information on time or asks for an extension. The witnesses need to be available on the hearing date. There are many factors that prevent the hearing from being completed in 45 days.

Hearing is complete, the arbitrator has 7 days for their final written decision.

Question - are these calendar days, or business days?

[oneequestrienne]

@Keep it Simple

SafeSport indicates 45 days, however they have taken longer. I would estimate at least 90 days.

5 days for Responding Party to request arbitration hearing.
Then a number of days for an arbitrator to be chosen.
Then scheduling of pre-hearing conferences.
Prior to the pre-hearing conference, Respondent must submit position statement (answer to Director’s Decision), including documents, witness lists, etc. Any evidentiary and jurisdictional issues, and any other disputed issue are presented at this time.
Pre-hearing conference - time line established for exchange of info - evidence, witness list, etc
There can be multiple pre-hearing conferences.
Arbitrator submits written decision on what was agreed upon logistics (date of hearing, length of time for arbitration hearing, amount of time each side is allowed),
Arbitration should occur about 15 days after the pre-hearing conference.

So, imagine trying to schedule this. Equestrian professionals want everything scheduled on a Monday. Attorneys often are involved in cases that they can’t postpone. It also has to fit with the arbitrator’s schedule. Either side can have delays if an attorney fails to submit required information on time or asks for an extension. The witnesses need to be available on the hearing date. There are many factors that prevent the hearing from being completed in 45 days.

Hearing is complete, the arbitrator has 7 days for their final written decision.

Question - are these calendar days, or business days?

Is that information directly from Safesport? I’m not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand your source for the above. My involvement with Safesport didn’t go that far so I wouldn’t know for sure but never heard anything about a “pre-hearing conference”. Certainly doesn’t mean there wasn’t one as my testimony wasn’t needed.