I honestly think that’s their own bias.
Fair Judy you are one strong lady. And more power to you for willing to have a conversation. I personally couldn’t as the thoughts are rambling at best, incoherent at worst. Maybe he’s a better conversationalist than writer.
Agreed. It became clear that the willfully ignorant were out in force at the Q&A. Especially when Ms. “I had heard there’s a fee” wouldn’t let that go.
And Bonnie is STILL pushing the idea that there is a fee. She said, there wasn’t a fee to start an investigation, but once someone was banned, there was a fee to determine if you should get temporary measures. No, if your are banned, you’ve already gotten temporary measures. If you want to be taken off temporary measures, you have to go to arbitration, for which there is a fee. If you want to fight your ruling, it is done through arbitration, for which you have to pay.
Why do people think these things should be free? If you face civil charges, you pay for everything to defend yourself.
The day George Morris sincerely and genuinely admits that what he did was wrong will be the day I grow a second, third, and fourth head.
I IMMEDIATELY thought of your earlier comment on the intersectional crisis.
You were so on point with that. And here it is … again.
In my opinion, he’s doing the same thing he has been doing all along… he’s trying to portray himself as some sort of super smart, super enlightened, philosophical and cultural leader.
And of course, he’s also trying to cozy up to the powerful old guard in sport. Like so many others in the ISWG crowd. Because these people are all about using a crisis in sport involving a revered coach and Olympian who has been banned for the sexual abuse of minors to…
wait for it…
advance their own profile as a professional in the industry.
In another comment, he mentioned actually working with Jonathan years ago, and essentially said that he thought the relationship was consensual.
For everyone who has forgotten, JS went to ride with George and live at Hunterdon back in 1968, I think. He was 13 or 14 years old at the time. And an emotionally vulnerable teen, as his father had passed away at age 6.
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. Pause on the issue of possession of child pornography, discovered years and years later. Just think about a young teenage boy, from a middle class background, whose father had died, and who was living with a coach and had dreams of making it as a professional in the sport.
Its awful. And really sad. And these people excusing it? Whitewashing it? Awful. Just AWFUL.
They also conveniently (for them) overlook the fact that your constitutional rights do not prevent you being held in jail until your fair trial, should the judge decide it’s necessary. They only need look as far as Michael Barisone for an example.
I think what’s happening is that both sides are conflating two concepts:
True “Constitutional rights” that would create a right of action in court; and
The intuition that any large body that has a substantial impact on people’s lives and livelihoods should function according to certain norms of procedural and substantive fairness (sometimes short-handed as “due process.”)
The latter is why, for example, a huge contingent of Harvard Law School professors rebelled when the university instituted a sexual misconduct adjudication policy that they felt leaned too far toward the rights of the accuser and did not allow the accused a fair chance to mount a defense. NB: Harvard Law is a private institution and no one has a “Constitutional right” to attend.
I hope that most horse people, recognizing the huge impact that USEF can have on people’s lives and livelihoods, would also embrace the value of fundamental fairness in SafeSport’s procedures.
I will say that the presence in SafeSport of so many criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors, and judges (i.e., the JAMS folks) gives me confidence that they have a very good understanding of due process and are unlikely to allow an accused person to be railroaded.
In all fairness this is coming from someone who believes his 10 year old daughter can make her own choices about having sexual contact with an adult and she has to live with those choices. He also believes that one is ONLY a victim if they choose to remain quiet about abuse. If nothing else, he’s consistent.
Apparently there are some fees. If you are on an interim suspension while the investigation is going on (which is very rare), you can pay a fee to have arbitration of the interim suspension; if you want to appeal the final sanction, you pay a fee for the arbitration.
So there are fees. I am all for the ISWG types donating their own money to pay these fees and pay for lawyers to defend their friends. Since SS issues interim suspensions in only 2% of cases, and only 1% of sanctions are overturned (which suggests that the vast majority of those sanctioned will wise up and not waste money on an appeal), it’s probably not even a lot of money involved. If funding the defense of the accused were a moral issue, you would think these funds would appear for all the accused, not just for the famous people like GM.Comparing a power imbalance among adults for grades, letters of recommendation, a law clerk position or just plain fraternization is widely different than penetrating and molesting kids.
Yes having sex with kids ruins ones ability to make money in their chosen field. That is not unique to the USEF. I’m appalled that people find all of this revolutionary.
I can’t determine if you don’t understand my post, or if you are actually arguing that it doesn’t matter whether SafeSport’s procedures are fair.
My position, to put it more simply, is that as moral human beings, we all ought to have an interest in ensuring that SafeSport’s procedures are fair. Having learned more about how the process works, the statistics regarding how often a SafeSport violation is found (which turns out to be in a small minority of reported cases), and the qualifications of SafeSport personnel, I am leaning toward believing the process is overall fair and is not likely to result in someone being railroaded.
I think that “fair” is a word open to an incredible array of interpretations, hence the outcry from all sides.
Exactly. I also find it odd Bonnie is STILL beating the drum regarding the fees. She claims to have represented people pro-bono. I have no reason at this time to question this particular claim (that she hasn’t charged people for work she has done on Safe Sport issues). But I find her focus on the arbitration fees strange. She’s a LAWYER. She KNOWS that the REAL expense is the actual billable hours people have to pay attorneys if they don’t have someone defending them on a pro bono basis.
By all means… if others disagree with my take on this, especially the actual attorneys who follow these threads, feel free to educate me. But honestly… the arbitration fees do not seem like a major concern to me.
Isn’t that what I said?
Two points:
1) The higher ups in USEF are not privy to any of the details or evidence of the investigation or arbitration any more than we, the membership, are, so I don’t see how they are in a position of authority to say to what degree they “agree with” or “fully support” or “applaud” the decision.
2) SS may not want “support” from USEF beyond USEF fulfilling its legal obligation of enforcing the ban. I am old enough to be reminded of a time in the late 70’s when post resignation Nixon reached out to the Republican Party offering his support or assistance in some election or other, and the Republican Party responded with “Thanks for the offer, Mr. Nixon, but you’ve done quite enough.”
Yes, but you said it in the context of Bonnie Navin continuing to hammer on about fees. I have a lot of issues with Bonnie Navin, but I wouldn’t criticize her for complaining about fees, when there are, in fact, fees. She probably wants SS (I.e. the taxpayer) to pay all the arbitration costs, but that is unfair to taxpayers and creates the wrong incentives.
The solution to the existence of fees is for ISWG and other SS-bashing groups to raise the funds privately and make the funds available to their friends.Mr. Henry did emphasize that hardship exemptions from fees are considered on a case-by-case basis. Something else the ones repeatedly whining about fees seem to have missed.
Typically, when BN and others crow about it not being “fair” what they mean is it’s not fair their friends got caught.
I understood your point just didn’t like the analogy. The second paragraph was more wondering, why professionals in our sport, feel the need to be held to a lesser standard than other professionals that work with children?
For example, upon an accusation that prompts a police investigation a teacher will be removed from their position and put on the news. It’s only after a complete investigation and maybe a trial is the teacher allowed back (maybe) or put in jail or just fired and good luck with a rehire.
That is what confuses me about the “fair argument.” No one as of yet has gone to jail. Not even Randall Cates. The police and prosecutor didn’t have enough for a trial. Yes it impacts ones ability to make a living in their chosen profession, but I do not think that coaches should have a lower bar than anyone else who works with minors.
Honestly, any horse pro worth their salt that I have met and worked for has told me to go to college, have a day job or marry rich to have a secondary income in order to make a go at being a pro.
So as someone who has worked for UL riders, S judges, and olympians who all told me the same career advice, this separate bar for coaches just doesn’t fly.
I also have noticed, it is by and large the BNT/R H/J crowd pitching a fit and falling in it publicly all over social media.
I understand the skepticism of policies that have seemingly hit over night. I understand the squirming when some of the biggest names get banned. I do not understand the insistence that pros in our sport who work with kids should be held to a lessor standard. Nor do I understand the belief that not being able to ride and show luxury sport pets equates to a jail sentence or being on a sex offender list.
ETA: I am unclear why it is so difficult for people to read the policies and procedures on the Safe Sport website so hard. I am also unclear why people don’t email the liaison at the USEF with their questions. I never thought SS was unfair because I knew from reading the website that they used JAMS for arbitration and looked at their hiring page to see what they require for the different positions.
And please don’t take any of my post as me thinking you do this, it’s just what I have seen over the past two years.
The fees are charged by JAMS. Not Safe Sport. No one, not even in criminal trials, is forced to appeal. It’s optional. She is very misleading about the fees.
But there are only fees if you choose to go to arbitration. That’s not how she’s presenting it.
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