George Morris on the SS list

[Mardi]

@caffeinated

The problem is when many of the folks objecting to the “process” don’t even bother to understand what the process is, and continue to basically make stuff up about it.

Yes, very true. That’s often nature of large groups…some are educated on the purpose, others not so much…

[Anniemaymay]

@Mardi

Yes, very true. Then there are others who have taken the time to read and understand the process, and believe some reform is necessary.

Could you provide an example of any thoughtful, substantive suggestion for reform of the safesport process? Something besides just shrieks of “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty”? Because I haven’t seen any.

[Arelle]

I’m not a USEF member currently as I switched over for a few years to the breed shows and let it lapse, so I have not taken the mandatory SafeSport training - but could someone chime in for me…

I looked up the SafeSport Policy (https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/YXj0R68pxq0/safe-sport-policy---includes-minor) - not because I wanted to defend any sexual predator, but because I wanted to understand the charge of “sexual misconduct with a minor”. Am I looking at the correct section when I see the following?:

C. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT It is a violation of this Policy for a Participant to engage in Sexual Misconduct. Sexual Misconduct offenses include, but are not limited to:

1. Sexual or Gender-related Harassment
2. Non-consensual Sexual Contact (or attempts to commit the same)
3. Non-consensual Sexual Intercourse (or attempts to commit the same)
4. Sexual Exploitation
5. Bullying or hazing, or other inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature

Once someone is posted to the list, SafeSport doesn’t actually go into detail about which subcategory the accusation falls under - correct?

How does SafeSport determine which charge to use? I also see there’s a section for “Other Inappropriate Conduct” that includes conduct of a sexual nature - does SafeSport ban participants for multiple offenses? Like “Sexual Misconduct” and “Other Inappropriate Conduct”? Or is there a difference in the charges?

Seems to me like if he wasn’t caught on the sexual aspect, he damn sure would’ve been reported for the entire “Emotional Misconduct” section based on his own autobiography alone, so being upset about the ban itself is a moot point. :lol:

[Denali6298]

@prairiewind2

LOL Sooooo traditional. If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.

The messenger is a convicted child molester

[snaffle1987]

if someone invites you to the group, but you don’t accept, you can still have access to all of the hoopla going on in the group. My newsfeed on facebook is currently filled with this jaw dropping behavior ensuing on that page and I never accepted the invite

I have no problem with people wanting reform of SS or if they think the process is unfair (although, unless they’ve been questioned and investigated, I am not sure how they can just label it unfair. We don’t know what went on between GM, Investigators and the Victim). But instead of blatantly supporting an individual who as been found of wrongdoing and masking it as wanting SS reform, make a page for SS reform and let it all hit the fan.

I stand by my statement that you can have civil and kind interactions and relationships with abusers, child molesters, murderers, etc. That doesn’t erase what they have done or find pleasure in doing. 99% of the time, George may be a decent individual. But I think, in all honesty, very very few people can truly say they are “close” with the man and child molesters don’t exactly wear that on their sleeves; they keep it hidden behind close doors with no witnesses other than their victims who they think they can silence with their age and maturity and fame. The majority of those crying foul on this facebook page are people who have met him in passing or took a photo with him or clinic’d with him or had a passing conversation with him. They are treating him as though he is God and exempt from any wrongdoing; without ever knowing any ounce of fact. Start a page about SS reform, but the cult following of a man who thinks hes Jesus of the horse world needs to stop. Let the appeal process happen. Let him lawyer-up. Unless these people know an ounce of what transpired, not one of them should be yelling “I support him”

[541hunter]

@Arelle

I’m not a USEF member currently as I switched over for a few years to the breed shows and let it lapse, so I have not taken the mandatory SafeSport training - but could someone chime in for me…

I looked up the SafeSport Policy (https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/YXj0…includes-minor) - not because I wanted to defend any sexual predator, but because I wanted to understand the charge of “sexual misconduct with a minor”. Am I looking at the correct section when I see the following?:

Once someone is posted to the list, SafeSport doesn’t actually go into detail about which subcategory the accusation falls under - correct?

How does SafeSport determine which charge to use? I also see there’s a section for “Other Inappropriate Conduct” that includes conduct of a sexual nature - does SafeSport ban participants for multiple offenses? Like “Sexual Misconduct” and “Other Inappropriate Conduct”? Or is there a difference in the charges?

Seems to me like if he wasn’t caught on the sexual aspect, he damn sure would’ve been reported for the entire “Emotional Misconduct” section based on his own autobiography alone, so being upset about the ban itself is a moot point. :lol:

Yes, that’s the correct section, and no, Safe Sport does not go into detail which subsection of the code was violated. I have been very vocal about my support of the investigative process as a whole but I do think this is a piece that could be improved. I posted some pages back with a link to my state medical board’s monthly action report; the way allegations and findings are laid out seem to me to strike a very good balance between protecting the complainant(s) and giving relevant details to the public.

*edited to add: Although Safe Sport code covers emotional misconduct, it doesn’t handle investigations of allegations related to that portion of the document; those they leave to the NGBs themselves.

[RainWeasley]

@Jealoushe

Just trying to think of ways to change the message they are putting out. I wish I was creative enough to make a good meme I could just post under all the supportive comments.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“medium”,“data-attachmentid”:10449355}[/ATTACH]

Hmm…anyone got something better to put?

[Jealoushe]

@RainWeasley omg that is great :lol:, I don’t know if they will get the meme though, probably a bit too young for the GM and anti SS supporters

[RainWeasley]

@Jealoushe

@RainWeasley omg that is great :lol:, I don’t know if they will get the meme though, probably a bit too young for the GM and anti SS supporters

Probably won’t get any meme then :lol:

[fordtraktor]

@Anniemaymay

Could you provide an example of any thoughtful, substantive suggestion for reform of the safesport process? Something besides just shrieks of “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty”? Because I haven’t seen any.

Ok, I will probably regret this but I am attorney and I have spent a lot of time working for people denied process. I am NOT making any claims about the accused here. I do not know the facts and cannot make claims about their veracity.

so, we have all seen the SafeSport flow chart posted about how the process works, whttps://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-…-Process-2.pdf

we have also seen Kathy Serio’s Post about her experience.

the process flow chart purports that during the intake process, they have preliminary information gathering and initial contact with the involved parties. According to Kathy, there was an email sent hours before the release of suspension with Tommy. I do not find that sufficient. They did not interview him or provide any actual information about the claim so he could defend himself. It leaves me questioning whether they follow their posted policies.

Note on the flow chart that this limited “preliminary information gathering and initial contact“ is done before a “trained investigator” is assigned to the case. The interim suspension is also handed down before the trained investigator is assigned to the case. But the interim suspension is announced publicly, also before a trained investigator is even involved.

that is one area I believe could be improved. Or, at least, their description of it leaves me shaking my head.

[Mara]

@roseymare

The Saddlebred Morgan and Arabian peeps are circling the wagons as well. Led by one Mr Cates. Maybe not to the same extent but many are using the witch Hunt label and throwing around the same language about rights and innocence.

I guess poor Randy is unhappy about having to find another source of victims, since he’s banned per Safe Sport. My heart bleeds.

[fordtraktor]

@fordtraktor

Ok, I will probably regret this but I am attorney and I have spent a lot of time working for people denied process. I am NOT making any claims about the accused here. I do not know the facts and cannot make claims about their veracity.

so, we have all seen the SafeSport flow chart posted about how the process works, whttps://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Response-and-Resolution-Process-2.pdf

we have also seen Kathy Serio’s Post about her experience.

the process flow chart purports that during the intake process, they have preliminary information gathering and initial contact with the involved parties. According to Kathy, there was an email sent hours before the release of suspension with Tommy. I do not find that sufficient. They did not interview him or provide any actual information about the claim so he could defend himself. So that makes me question whether they follow their own procedures. That is not “preliminary Information gathering” if one of the involved parties was not interviewed.

Note on the flow chart that this limited “preliminary information gathering and initial contact“ is done before a “trained investigator” is assigned to the case. The interim suspension is also handed down before the trained investigator is assigned to the case. But the interim suspension is announced publicly, also before a trained investigator is even involved.

that is one area I believe could be improved. Or, at least, their description of it leaves me shaking my head.

[Denali6298]

@fordtraktor

Ok, I will probably regret this but I am attorney and I have spent a lot of time working for people denied process. I am NOT making any claims about the accused here. I do not know the facts and cannot make claims about their veracity.

so, we have all seen the SafeSport flow chart posted about how the process works, whttps://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Response-and-Resolution-Process-2.pdf

we have also seen Kathy Serio’s Post about her experience.

the process flow chart purports that during the intake process, they have initial contact with the involved parties. According to Kathy, there was an email sent hours before the release of suspension with Tommy. I do not find that sufficient. They did not interview him or provide any actual information about the claim so he could defend himself. Note on the flow chart that this limited “preliminary information gathering and initial contact“ is done before a “trained investigator” is assigned to the case. The interim suspension is also handed down before the trained investigator is assigned to the case. But the interim suspension is announced publicly, also before a trained investigator is even involved.

that is one area I believe could be improved. Or, at least, their description of it leaves me shaking my head.

We get the time line from Kathy. Who also yaps about the expense of it all but fails to mention it was pro bono. Same with RG. They all yap about the expense but BN did it all pro bono. This is where they care about the little people…

[Standard_Bread]

@Jealoushe

@RainWeasley omg that is great :lol:, I don’t know if they will get the meme though, probably a bit too young for the GM and anti SS supporters

The sticky caps should get the point across. I invoked the sticky caps of mocking upthread and people seemed to get the message.

[fordtraktor]

@Denali6298

We get the time line from Kathy. Who also yaps about the expense of it all but fails to mention it was pro bono. Same with RG. They all yap about the expense but BN did it all pro bono. This is where they care about the little people…

So does that mean it isn’t accurate? I don’t know. If it is accurate, it is a flaw. A legitimate flaw in process as the poster asked for. Either way, not having a trained investigator doing an initial check/good look before public announcement is on the SS flow chart and has nothing to do with Kathy.

[Laurierace]

Regardless of whether you believe the findings of any of these investigations or not, I think we can all agree that SS is far from perfect. Hopefully in time it will be reformed to make it at least seem to both sides like they were treated fairly and justly.

[fordtraktor]

@Laurierace

Regardless of whether you believe the findings of any of these investigations or not, I think we can all agree that SS is far from perfect. Hopefully in time it will be reformed to make it at least seem to both sides like they were treated fairly and justly.

I would hope so but I gather there are many who are willing to say the process is JUST FINE and is working well. They have on this thread. I find that lack of nuance in thought depressing for actual justice.

[Denali6298]

@fordtraktor

So does that mean it isn’t accurate? I don’t know. If it is accurate, it is a flaw. A legitimate flaw in process as the poster asked for. Either way, not having a trained investigator doing an initial check/good look before public announcement is on the SS flow chart and has nothing to do with Kathy.

It’s probably accurate but failing to mention its free is kinda bullshit. Also Safe Sport has trained investigators. I get it. Through all these threads you don’t wanna believe your idols are POS’ and your an attorney. So you’ll find the one flaw. Kathy IMO is an asshole.

[541hunter]

@fordtraktor

the process flow chart purports that during the intake process, they have preliminary information gathering and initial contact with the involved parties. According to Kathy, there was an email sent hours before the release of suspension with Tommy. I do not find that sufficient. They did not interview him or provide any actual information about the claim so he could defend himself. It leaves me questioning whether they follow their posted policies.

Note on the flow chart that this limited “preliminary information gathering and initial contact“ is done before a “trained investigator” is assigned to the case. The interim suspension is also handed down before the trained investigator is assigned to the case. But the interim suspension is announced publicly, also before a trained investigator is even involved.

that is one area I believe could be improved. Or, at least, their description of it leaves me shaking my head.

I think the flowchart is a little more nebulous than the actual Code document. Section XI of the Code states:

A. Initiating Proceedings
When the Center receives a report of allegations that fall within its exclusive authority, or accepts jurisdiction over allegations within its discretionary authority, it will notify the relevant NGB, conduct a preliminary inquiry, and, if appropriate, undertake an investigation to determine whether a Participant violated the Code.

Which is the only text I can find on the pre-investigative period. I read it as once a claim is submitted, the Center for Safe Sport looks at what is included in the claim, potentially does some preliminary digging around but not necessarily, and then makes a decision as to whether or not it’s worth a formal investigation. Subsection H of that same statute says “the Center may, at any point before a matter is final, impose temporary measures as set forth below,” so presumably if the details of the initial claim represent a potential for serious danger, an interim suspension can be set down as soon as the claim comes in. So that does seem to jive with Kathy’s experience and what you’ve written above.

I personally don’t feel qualified to comment on whether the option for the Center to impose interim sanctions that early in the process is appropriate, so I leave that up to those more versed in these kinds of legal issues. On gut feeling alone I tend to think having that as an option is probably useful, because I can imagine situations in which a speedy interim suspension could save athletes from serious harm. However, I fully understand why others might be uncomfortable with that process, as it looks like it’s fully at the discretion of whoever happens to receive the claim.

[ladyj79]

@fordtraktor

So does that mean it isn’t accurate? I don’t know. If it is accurate, it is a flaw. A legitimate flaw in process as the poster asked for. Either way, not having a trained investigator doing an initial check/good look before public announcement is on the SS flow chart and has nothing to do with Kathy.

The investigation occurs prior to any permanent penalty or suspension. If it is deemed during the course of the investigation that the accused poses an immediate threat currently, an interim suspension is handed down and announced. if not, the investigation continues to conclusion .

The process includes complaint (s), preliminary investigation, notification, investigation, witness testimony, accused offered chance to offer testimony and respond, investigation concluded, penalty decided and announced publicly. Individual can appeal.

That is where we are now. And where we were when Rob Gage killed himself because during the appeals process more women came forward, but he had already been banned for life.

George has been banned for life following the conclusion of the investigation.

He is appealing.