Thanks for saying what I’ve been thinking.
A friend shared this on Facebook this morning and it really made me think of the way this thread has been going.
How Social Media Works
Me: “I prefer mangoes to oranges…”
Random Person: “So basically what you’re saying is that you hate oranges? You also failed to mention pineapples, bananas, and grapefruits. Educate yourself.”
:lol:
I am SO relieved that a single incident of streaking is (probably) not enough to get me on the sex offenders registry.
Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But it absolutely can in California.
She is female.
My point was that the concept that two adults having an otherwise completely consensual sexual relationship in a situation in which one has a position of power or trust over the other, i,e. doctor/patient, Professor/student, is not a state or Federal crime. Such relationships are rightly frowned upon and violate professional codes of conduct and can therefore get you fired or get your license to practice medicine revoked, but absent the additional machinations in the case FiSk described, are not crimes.
Since the relationship with the patient he described would not have gotten him on the sex offender list, we have no idea what crime he did commit.
I’ve always thought of the sex offender list as involving conduct with minors, but it makes a lot of sense that any serious sex offense, like rape, would be included, even indecent exposure.
Thanks for posting these links. The ThinkProgress article describes exactly what I thought happened in the Lopez case.
I’m sure after reading the Think Progress article, you are as concerned as I am: SafeSport let two horrific sexual offenders slip out of its grasp because it did not put on sufficient evidence at the arbitration. This is one of the reasons I am raising the question of whether SafeSport should have some kind of subpoena power, and how successful SafeSport really is at ensuring the truth comes to light in these cases.
To be clear: it is the people who say, “Don’t ask any questions about SafeSport!!!” who are contributing nothing to this discussion. People like Fisk understand that SafeSport’s credibility rests on transparency and sharing information, and many of us are grateful for his/her efforts in this regard.
I thought safe sport extended to amateurs in addition to minors? Generally I could see a person that was seen as “abusing” their position of authority (or violating in a similar way their professional code of ethics) that put them on the sex offender list would rightly be banned from sports to protect both minors and amateurs.
I was in college during the streaking fad, and I heard a story of a class in art history in which two female students, one a bit more full figured than the other, streaked across the room.
Supposedly the professor calmly looked up from his notes and remarked on what he saw:
“Baroque. Rococo”
I was not there, but believe this occurred with every fiber of my being.
We don’t know the patients mental state and that depending on what it is can absolutely be a crime when it comes to doctor/patient as pointed out by another poster.
But how does that correlate with protecting the reporting victims? Are you going to 'sacrifice" them just for the appeal?
”‹”‹”‹”‹
@Horsegirl’s Mom No one has said don’t ask questions. What has been said is do a little research on the basic questions that have been asked and answered over the course of numerous threads and still continue to get asked in this one by THE SAME POSTERS.
Also, with the subpoena argument, what you are missing is, in the civil suit the claimants are alleging that Safe Sport would ONLY allow live testimony which goes against their own agreed upon rules of arbitration as outlined on their website. That’s why Safe Sport is getting sued along with the USOC et al. The investigation was also kicked off before Safe Sport became a thing.
Adding to my prior post: there was an additional wrinkle to the Lopez case. The victims were suing SafeSport and the USOC, saying those organizations looked the other way at the Lopez misconduct for years because they were more interested in winning and preserving the image of the Olympics. So it’s not clear the victims wanted SafeSport’s sanctions to succeed, because they wanted to portray the organization as a complete failure. Meanwhile the SafeSport attorney was (according to the article) playing games trying to get two chances to examine the victims under oath (once in the arbitration and once in the civil case), in the hope that would help SafeSport in the civil case. (Attorneys love to get two shots at a witness because that’s when inconsistencies tend to crop up).
Yikes. That’s a lot to unwind. Almost makes you feel bad for SafeSport-- apparently in the Lopez situation, they were hated by both the victims and the perpetrators.
It does. The majority of people on the ban list though have been banned for criminal disposition with minors. There is three or so people where it just says criminal disposition. Related, if MB is found guilty for attempted murder he will most likely end up on the ban list.
Maybe I missed that bit between your rants poking holes in incomplete statistics posted by other users.
I think the safesport process is working how it was intended to and theres just a bit of pearl-clutching indignation that notoriety is no longer a protection for someone to be a jerk to students/employees in an industry that enjoyed flying below the radar into the swamps for a long time. I dont think questioning exactly how many bans are in active vs complete arbitration is helpful or productive to the topic being discussed.
If you want useful information on the rate at which bans are successfully overturned on appeal, you obviously need to have a sample for which the appeals process has been completed. Otherwise you have truncation bias, which could be severe in this case given the short time SafeSport has been operating. That’s Statistics 101.
“Pearl-clutching indignation”? I hope that posters on this board would at least show a little respect by tossing around more original insults.By pearl clutching indignation that poster was referring to people spreading false information about BNTs being banned by Safe Sport BECAUSE they are a BNT.
It is now blatantly obvious you know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community and you for whatever reason ignore what the majority writes about on these threads.
This is why a couple of pages ago I said the Lopez case is a poor barometer for SS appeals.
Holy cow, that’s not very nice.
To review where we are: Supporters of GM and other banned trainers have made public statements that (1) A large proportion of SafeSport’s sanctions are overturned on appeal; and (2) the SafeSport process needs improvement.
That prompted some of us to do research and request clarification from SafeSport on various questions, including seeking statistics to evaluate the claims about the “overturn” rate. When someone asserts something, it is generally more persuasive instead of just saying, “That’s not true!” to have the real facts to counter it.
It also has led to a discussion here about whether, indeed, the SafeSport process could be improved. This has two potential aspects: (1) ensuring fairness to the accused; and (2) ensuring SafeSport is successful in proving its case against predators. This is where the discussion about subpoena power came in. People have made arguments on both sides–there are pros and cons on all these issues.
It’s a discussion. It was my understanding that’s what an internet forum is for. If it’s a topic that bores you, or you think you already know everything you need to know about SafeSport, then don’t participate!
Lastly, I don’t have any doubt that the folks who work with SafeSport are genuinely committed to eliminating sexual abuse in sport. I know there are journalists who have claimed otherwise–some say SafeSport is just a “cya” for the Olympic committee. I don’t buy it–I think SafeSport are good people working in good faith to achieve a worthy mission. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valid to discuss whether the process can be improved in any way.
My statement was one of fact. Not to be nice or not nice. It is what it is. Sorry that many of us have gotten educated through numerous threads and reading up on Safe Sport through many different avenues. Doesn’t change my statement.
In order to have a discussion people need to do more than make blanket statements about what they think should happen. They need to back that up with why and not ignore counter arguments that don’t fit their agenda.
Its also helpful if people wanting the discussion have a basic grasp of the parameters of Safe Sport and the culture to which it is applied and not rely on facts gleaned from Facebook.
Again the poster stating people are pearl clutching is in direct reference to people denying things despite evidence to the contrary just because of who the accused is. I’ll say again, I have been friends with and respected someone who is now sitting in federal prison for doing much worse than anyone on the ban list. I have had no problem cutting off ties nor would I dream of making excuses for them.
I am honestly shocked and appalled attorneys on this thread can’t do basic research. If one has time to post on this thread on has time to google. That statement is not directed at you personally. I understand where you are coming from as a lawyer and as a horse mom. But really, when you put stock in what Bonnie Navin says, you will lose credit on this board. When you say witnesses should be subpoenaed think about the posters like keep it simple and oneequestrianette. People here have been deep in the UL hunters for a while. We know what goes on. I myself have stories for days. I don’t tell them because my friends told me in confidence and therefore they are not my stories to tell. That is what YOU need to understand.
FFS have some damn compassion for the people who’ve been through hell. Don’t look at everything as a trial attorney. Look at things as a human being.
Indeed, I know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community. Everything I know about George Morris I learned on this thread.
Who is being accused of “spreading false information about BNTs being banned by SafeSport BECAUSE they are a BNT”?
I thought Cupcake was bashing Horsegirl’s Mom for saying that a non truncated sample was necessary to get meaningful statistics on the rate at which bans are overturned on appeal. Horsegirl’s Mom was absolutely right about that.
I didn’t even object to Cupcake slinging around a mild insult, just pointed out that “clutching pearls” is sort of tired at this point.
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