George Morris on the SS list

[IdahoRider]

@ladyj79

Oh good, Robert Dover has weighed in to say that he stands with George because George didn’t molest one specific guy he asked…

And that guy he asked is really, really good looking! So if GM didn’t go after the super good looking dude, he wouldn’t have gone after anyone.

It disappoints me that Dover would do this.
Sheilah

[Midge]

@LaurieB

It doesn’t surprise me at all that the wagons are beginning to circle.

But with regard to the big names who are lending their support to GM, seriously ewwww.

I don’t know how the ban can truthfully come as a surprise to anyone who’s even peripherally involved in the H/J world. Or who has read GM’s own words in his book.

I hope the ban sticks and that dozens of other people are quaking in their boots right now.

I remember a rumor that someone spoke to George about a Safe Sport allegation and he said if they take me down, I’m taking everyone with me.

[Tiramit]

@Midge

I remember a rumor that someone spoke to George about a Safe Sport allegation and he said if they take me down, I’m taking everyone with me.

Good. If it’s true then bring them all down.

[ladyj79]

@IdahoRider

And that guy he asked is really, really good looking! So if GM didn’t go after the super good looking dude, he wouldn’t have gone after anyone.

It disappoints me that Dover would do this.
Sheilah

My head is going to explode.

[Lori_T]

I came on here hoping for some answers and was really shocked to see that everyone is debating GM’s innocence and the validity of victim’s claims.
What we should all be concerned about is that someone is automatically guilty and banned from an organization for life, with no fair trial. And that such accusations can be made anonymously is very disturbing. Sadly, we have seen this mentality a lot lately, mainly with politicians and in Hollywood. And how many of those were later recanted?
If GM or any of the others are found guilty, then yes, by all means, they need to be punished. But before receiving a fair trial? We are not living in the 1600’s and the Salem Witch Trials anymore.

[ladyj79]

@Lori T

I came on here hoping for some answers and was really shocked to see that everyone is debating GM’s innocence and the validity of victim’s claims.
What we should all be concerned about is that someone is automatically guilty and banned from an organization for life, with no fair trial. And that such accusations can be made anonymously is very disturbing. Sadly, we have seen this mentality a lot lately, mainly with politicians and in Hollywood. And how many of those were later recanted?
If GM or any of the others are found guilty, then yes, by all means, they need to be punished. But before receiving a fair trial? We are not living in the 1600’s and the Salem Witch Trials anymore.

If you could list all the misrepresentations of the safe sport process in one post, this would be a good start. It only misses the overt victim blaming

[Denali6298]

@ladyj79

If you could list all the misrepresentations of the safe sport process in one post, this would be a good start. It only misses the overt victim blaming

I hope people realize the overt victim blaming will not be tolerated. THAT makes my head explode…

[Saskatoonian]

@LoriT

I would be concerned about that. Fortunately, it’s not what happened here. GM was banned after notice of and an opportunity to respond to the claim or claims, after investigation, and determination of the credibility of the allegations. The whole process is laid out on the SS website.

[vineyridge]

@Room for a Pony

Eight hundred years ago few people in Europe were literate. There isn’t the original source material available to draw that kind of conclusion. I would be very curious to know where the author was able to dig up witness testimony records that were able to survive the Black Death, literally hundreds of years of wars and conflict, not to mention deteriorating materials from the environment and insects. Whoever wrote the book you are reading has an agenda. And yes, it is off topic.

It’s from the very detailed records of an Inquisition in the very far South of France, and detailed in a book called Montaillou. The inquisitors avoided torture whenever possible and recorded long talk sessions with those they were interested in. There is good bit of discussion of sex and sexual norms.

Here’s the Kirkus Review: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/emmanuel-le-roy-ladurie-2/montaillou-the-promised-land-of-error/

[Palm_Beach]

@Tiramit

Good. If it’s true then bring them all down.

X1,000,000.

[fargaloo]

@rollingabout

If the evidence shows he’s guilty then he should stay banned. Those who didn’t report it and knew are guilty as well. You’re way too emotional about this. Think logically.

What if he’s innocent?

I trust evidence. I’m a scientist therefore think logically and not emotionally.

As a scientist, surely you are familiar with the concept of parsimony.

GM has been given a lifetime ban. GM is either guilty or innocent. In order to be innocent, it must mean a) that someone accused him falsely (intentionally with malice OR due to some type of delusion), AND b) that the SafeSport investigation was crooked AND/OR incompetent. What is the likelihood that any of these are correct?

At the point of accusation: making a true accusation against anyone, never mind one of the most powerful and influential people in the sport, is intensly painful and unpleasant. Making a false accusation out of malice to “get” someone is incredibly risky – you will be interviewed over and over; your story will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. You betcha that they’ll be looking for evidence of buried grudges, ulterior motives, etc. If you are crazy or delusional, your story will probably reflect that and won’t hold up. Is it parsimonious to think that the accuser(s) are malicious or deluded? Probably not, but even if they are, let’s move to Step 2:

At the point of investigation: SafeSport knows that their rulings can be appealed, and that hastily or sloppily applied sanctions will quickly lead to the death of SafeSport. They also know that the bigger the fish, the more attention paid to the catch. So, here they are going up against a celebrity with a cult-like following (many of whom are deep-pocketed enough to mount one heck of an appeal). Is it parsimonious to think that SafeSport (which has issued lifetime bans in only a small percentage of cases investigated) was unusually sloppy/incompetent/malicious in imposing this ban, knowing the stakes involved? I’d guess that’s pretty improbable, too.

So on one hand, you’ve got TWO improbable circumstances that have to align for GM to be innocent --a false accusation (unlikely) that is accepted as true after an investigation (unlikely). On the other hand, we’ve got a process that is subject to review and appeal that has come down with a very strongly stated guilty decision (lifetime bans are reserved for the most egregious offences). Which is the parsionious choice?

We all like to think that we are the rational ones, and that those who disagree with us are illogical or emotional. But isn’t it possible that there’s a lot of emotion in wanting to see a “hero” vindicated?

Demanding to see evidence isn’t proof that you’re being rational; it just shows that you are suspicious and sceptical. I don’t demand to see evidence that an elevator has been recently inspected before I get in it – unless I have reason to be suspicious that it might break down. If your suspicion is not parsimonious, then it’s founded on something other than rationality and logic.

[vineyridge]

@Denali6298

Homosexuality is completely separate from pedophilia. Also, you can’t “raise a homosexual.” You are or you aren’t.

There is absolutely no scientific PROOF of the universality of the latter statement at all. Environmental factors have traditionally been thought to have had significant impacts on sexuality.

[caffeinated]

@vineyridge

There is absolutely no scientific PROOF of the unviersality of the latter statement at all. Environmental factors have traditionally been thought to have had significant impacts on sexuality.

OK, while this is an interesting discussion, it has zip-all to do with the topic at hand.

[Denali6298]

@vineyridge

There is absolutely no scientific PROOF of the unviersality of the latter statement at all. Environmental factors have traditionally been thought to have had significant impacts on sexuality.

Considering I’m straight raised by lesbians, bull. Homosexuality isn’t strictly how one has sex.

[NoSuchPerson]

@YankeeDuchess

I think what the poster was reacting to was the statement that s private club can ban “anyone” without legal repercussions. The Boy Scouts tried to ban gays from serving as leaders and even, I think, as Scouts. They lost in court.

No, they did not lose in court. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court which narrowly (5-4) affirmed that the Boy Scouts had the right to deny membership to openly gay individuals.

The Boy Scouts later decided to allow gay scouts and leaders, but that was their choice, as a private club. Yeah, there was lots of public pressure and bad PR behind the decision, but it was still the organization’s choice.

[Limerick2017]

Jonathan Soresi was banned by USEF for a time-maybe six months. I remember because I talked to one of his clients at WEF after the ban was complete.

[bird4416]

GM has been quoted as saying he’s had over 10,000 sex partners. If he had sex everyday with a different person, that’s over 27 years of every day a new partner. That’s mind boggling. It’s not hard to believe that some of them weren’t of age or willing. How did he find time for horses?

[YankeeDuchess]

@NoSuchPerson

No, they did not lose in court. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court which narrowly (5-4) affirmed that the Boy Scouts had the right to deny membership to openly gay individuals.

The Boy Scouts later decided to allow gay scouts and leaders, but that was their choice, as a private club. Yeah, there was lots of public pressure and bad PR behind the decision, but it was still the organization’s choice.

Thank you for correcting me on this. I remembered that they asserted the right to exclude gays, it went to court, and eventually the admitted gays. Had forgotten they won at the Supreme Court.

[Davignport]

@Escada

So Robert Dover and Mary Phelps are coming out in support of George Morris. They are blaming SafeSport.

I think I would be more careful about saying stuff if I was a horse professional. He didn’t get banned on a whim.

The statement was from Mason Phelps PR Company, not Mary Phelps the photographer.

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

I followed the RG thread peripherally, and I wasn’t shocked to see the ban of GHM pop up in my newsfeed yesterday.

I read his public response and thought “good” - let him appeal, let’s hope everything that led to this point is rock solid (no unlabeled test tubes!), and let’s add a denied appeal to the proof that the Safesport investigative process is thorough and legit. And then maybe we’ll have a genuine legal case in NY to do it all again in an actual court of law - with hopefully the same results.

In the meantime, I am sure that if GHM announced a new set of clinic dates, all the slots would fill immediately. “The Bad Bully Tour”