And many others have gone after AK as a murderer, for really starting the dominos falling, and no one, anywhere, can argue about her success, so sour grapes just becomes another straw man.
14 Likes
A reaction over on HSD (which is incredibly quiet and tame following news of the appeal - go figure) seemed worth sharing on this thread. I can’t speak to the accuracy of it… but it’s powerful…
“To all the BNTs who are defending George: His victims are people you stand next to at the in-gate, people with whom you buy and sell horses, people you have dinner with during with WEF, people whom you greet with a handshake and a hug in the horse show office. Defending GeorgeMorris is the most heinous insult ever to your fellow trainers and riders.”
26 Likes
Lots of great points in this post.
I sum up some of this mentality with the idea that you can only successfully claim sexual abuse when/if you have more Olympic medals of the one you’re accusing. And some (see Kursinski) barely even then.
As you say, this is a sick way to proceed. For one thing, only so many medals to go around, for another, how many really talented kids were derailed from success because of this abusive behavior? There is testimony from multiple other sports about how this affected both athletes who were successful and athletes who were not.
For another, can we take a moment how sick it is that these professionals would trade access to their best horses for sex? Not only because it harms the human target, and our sport, but because it’s terrible horsemanship?
13 Likes
Bingo
These guys weren’t horsemen, they were riders. George says as much about himself.
6 Likes
IANAL, but I’d guess a defamation suit would uncover a number of rocks relative to discovery.
4 Likes
@CanteringCarrot @Virginia Horse Mom @Horsegirl’s Mom
What I was assuming to be correct apparently is; I found this in the statute under the section talking about the binding arbitration (it also provides an exception for defamation, though, absent actual malice):
PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as altering, superseding, or otherwise affecting the right of an individual within the Center’s jurisdic- tion to pursue civil remedies through the courts for personal injuries arising from abuse in violation of the Center’s policies and procedures, nor shall the Center condition the participation of any such individual in a proceeding described in paragraph (1) upon an agreement not to pursue such civil remedies.
You beat me to it!
Another point along the same lines… to me, great horsemanship requires patience, selflessness, and empathy. A true horseman brings out the best in a horse by really seeing what is going on with the animal, and then patiently and systematically addressing issues that impede the animal’s ability to succeed in a given discipline… be it issues of soundness or training. Additionally, a true horseman treats a horse with fairness… horsemanship does not involve asking too much too soon of an animal (and potentially harming the animal’s health or confidence) nor does it involve using trickery to achieve results (cough cough… Poling and Drugging ?!?).
The comments all over Facebook talking about George and his incredible “horsemanship” have me wanting to gouge my eyeballs out. He was many things… but a horseman in the best sense of the word is NOT one of them.
And a person who is not patient, nor fair, lacks empathy, and is fundamentally selfish? That certainly applies to child molesters, as well as to adults who knowingly choose to have sexual relationships with teenagers who are not yet 18, and frankly too naive and inexperienced to grasp that they are being emotionally and sexually exploited.
17 Likes
Interesting. I read that though and assume that language was included to preserve a victim’s right to pursue action in civil court and sue an abuser for damages related to personal injuries… in addition to pursuing sanctions via Safe Sport.
I guess if it preserves a victim’s rights, it preserves the rights of the accused as well. But it seems geared towards informing people making an accusation that they will not lose the opportunity to pursue other legal avenues by participating in a Safe Sport proceeding.
1 Like
On a closer look, that is what it seems like; however, the following part (subpart (2)) excepts defamation and damage to reputation from these preserved rights, which to me speaks more to an accused than accused? I don’t know; it’s not totally clear.
I’m going to push back against your estimation of Morris as not being a true horseman. I know many who have great gifts with horses who I wouldn’t have a cup of coffee with. These are not mutually exclusive traits.
5 Likes
Hmm, and upon further research, employers can force mandatory arbitration on employees, thereby depriving employees of going to court for claims of violation of their constitutional rights. So, I guess SafeSport could have done that, too. But again, it seems crazy someone would agree to that. If they came to George and said, “if you don’t sign this, we’re going to revoke your USEF membership, but if you do, we’ll do an investigation which might not turn up enough to ban you,” it seems like that is some form of coercion that might affect the legality of the contract?
Fair enough - you know him far better than I, and I can respect you pushing back.
2 Likes
I can’t help but think that some of the support for George is based on a desire to preserve the decades old mentality among our industry that anything goes (even murder) and no one will be held accountable. Regulation of the show horse industry has been virtually non-existent since time began. We’ve seen and heard of many, many behaviors that would not stand the light of day, yet it continues decade after decade. Even the “powers that be” at USEF (AHSA) abnd USET have swept numerous things under the carpet to protect the wealthy and influential. Take a hard look at the supporters names. Some of them are pretty shade characters.
17 Likes
I don’t know him at all, but in his book he basically fashions himself as a rider who was not that involved in actual management of the horse out of the tack. Not criticizing and his horse allergy might have made the barn aspect next to impossible.
I have always heard the term horsemanship used to mean management of the health and well-being of the whole horse in and out of the saddle (like Beezie who grooms for herself at some International shows and is my model horseman). That may be why some are saying he wasn’t.
I agree it has has nothing to do with being a good person.
20 Likes
This is exactly what I am referencing, that George wrote that kids should learn more about horsemanship beyond merely being a good rider, and acknowledged that he had very little background or training in anything beyond riding.
This wasn’t a slag, it was a repetition of George’s own acknowledged short coming: he was a rider, not a horseman.
6 Likes
And I would argue his assessment of himself is born out by his treatment of horses (doping, poling, etc) and people (sexual predator and all around a $$hole)
16 Likes
Well, employers can “force” an arbitration agreement, but you can also not be employed by that employer if you don’t agree. Or attempt to negotiate your way out of it by not accepting it as a term of employment (highly unlikely to work in your favor though). The FAIR Act in the US is a pushback against this mandatory arbitration, and has gained some traction on the matter.
George may have been fully aware that there was an arbitration agreement, but maybe figured that he wouldn’t be investigated for a variety of reasons due to it happening in the past and the fact that he’s George Morris aka pure arrogance.
I also don’t think this qualifies as coercion. An arbitration agreement can be called unenforceable by the court if there is substantive unconscionability and procedural unconscionability. I really don’t think its all that exciting in this case and likely not to be challenged on legitimate grounds. If it is the case, that’d be interesting and highlight some potential short comings of Safe Sport. However, unlikely IMO.
It’s not so crazy that someone would agree to arbitration, so many of us agree to arbitration every day by having a credit card through x bank, or subscribing to x TV movie streaming service, or when x company changes their terms of service or policies and we just click “ok” etc. No one reads the fine print, or the internet pop-ups, they just blindly consent a majority of the time. Some of this is not always writtin in laymans terms and may also be difficult for people to understand fully.
He could have thought “this won’t effect me” or he know it was coming and it was a matter of time, but what could he do really?
2 Likes
I don’t know what you are referring to as far as “arbitration agreement”.
An complaint was made. An investigation was done. A decision was made by the Center. If the Responding party (Accused) does not like the decision (lifetime ban), they can ask for an Arbitration Hearing on either (1) the sanctions, or (2) the merits of the case. They pay for a portion of the Arbitration Hearing. If it is a full arbitration hearing on the merits, you start from scratch. They chose an arbitrator and a date. There are pre-hearing conferences. Each side presents their position in writing. They produce a witness list. There may be more conferences. They submit motions to be considered, etc, etc. During the hearing each side presents opening statements, witnesses testify, witnesses are cross examined, the arbitrator can ask questions, other evidence is admitted (here is where the Director’s decision can be admitted), closing arguments from both sides. Then the arbitrator evaluates everything and writes their decision. There is nothing to be signed.
1 Like
I believe the Preservation of Rights refers to the Reporting Party. They can pursue civil charges at any time. SafeSport does not come before a civil trial. They also will not require a Reposting Party to press charges. Safesport dropped the ban on the Lopez (taekwondo) because their accusers were going to court and the lawyers did not want them to testify at the SS arbitration in addition to court.
The accused is not the party who is suffering personal injuries from abuse in violation of the Center’s policies and procedure.
1 Like
