George Morris on the SS list

[fordtraktor]

@Texarkana

Remember there is a difference between interim suspension and a final sanction. I am sure you understand that, but many people still seem confused about the difference.

Interim suspensions are delivered when there is enough preliminary evidence from the claim to believe the accused may be an active risk to minors. Similar to what a school might hand down to a teacher or coach accused of sexual misconduct. You remove the person ASAP to prevent abuse from continuing.

I agree it’s a touchy subject. But when you read about many of the high profile cases (Nassar, etc.), it comes up again and again that these people were reported repeatedly, yet no actions were taken for a myriad of reasons. The interim suspension attempts to address this problem.

Hopefully our society as a whole can change the overall perception of interim suspensions and recognize them as attempts to protect children, not the personal attacks that they feel like.

I am well aware. I also feel not having a trained investigator involved to make this determination is a flaw.

[ladyj79]

@fordtraktor huh?

with regards to George and Rob, there is nothing to wait for. the investigation concludes and they received lifetime bans. They can appeal, like Scott Peterson is appealing. Doesn’t change the fact that a whole proceeding concluded and a sanction was awarded.

With regards to Michael barisone, who jumped all over him??? Cause I think the answer is no one.

This is all super disingenuous and full of logical fallacies for a lawyer.

[fordtraktor]

@Denali6298

You are correct in that I find it just fine. As far as lack of nuance… well I can point you to some appellate attorneys who have argued in front of the Supreme Court that agree with me. The law has gotten specialized and has been specialized for a while. I may not be a lawyer but be careful what you say. I may just prove you wrong. If you don’t work in constitutional law or appeals, I’m sorry I’m not going to take your word on the law.

Do you? Please name them.

You can’t prove someone wrong on a matter of opinion, by the way. Another nuance for you. I welcome you to PM me if you want to know my credentials and who “agrees with me.”

[ladyj79]

@fordtraktor

I am well aware. I also feel not having a trained investigator involved to make this determination is a flaw.

@541hunter

apparently it is that they aren’t trained, this is what I was responding to, asking for who specifically wasn’t trained.

[fordtraktor]

@ladyj79

Which investigators aren’t trained? Like can you name the individuals employed by safe sport who are demonstrably unqualified for their position?

I am talking about the procedures only. The published procedures. geez, the poster asked for concrete examples of ways SafeSport could be improved. I suggested a concrete example where they should require the trained investigator earlier in the process, and should interview the accused earlier as their OWN POLICY SAYS THEY DO. I don’t see why any of this is so repulsive to you and Denali. Do you not think the interim suspension should be decided by someone trained? Do you not think they should follow their own policy? Really. This discussion is stupid and I am done now. Go ahead and lynch me for doing my job.

[ladyj79]

@fordtraktor it seems to me you are being disingenuous in this conversation.

[541hunter]

@ladyj79 it’s not that the investigators aren’t trained, it’s that the policy doesn’t specify that the investigators are the ones evaluating the claim at the very beginning of the process. They assign a trained investigator after someone (unclear who) performs an “initial inquiry” to determine if the claim should be investigated. That “someone,” it seems, has the right to decide if interim sanctions should be applied. Small distinction, and it may just be that the “someone” IS a trained investigator, but it’s not laid out in the Code.

[Jealoushe]

@fordtraktor

I am talking about the procedures only. The published procedures. geez, the poster asked for concrete examples of ways SafeSport could be improved. I suggested a concrete example where they should require the trained investigator earlier in the process, and should interview the accused earlier as their OWN POLICY SAYS THEY DO. I don’t see why any of this is so repulsive to you and Denali. Do you not think the interim suspension should be decided by someone trained? Do you not think they should follow their own policy? Really. This discussion is stupid and I am done now. Go ahead and lynch me for doing my job.

Again, what you makes you think they arent trained?

Did you read the SS website, and all the PDFs with the procedures and policies or just look at the flow chart?

Do you really think someone as big and powerful as SS wouldn’t have their ducks in a row as ensuring people are trained?

[khall]

fordtraktor then you must have problems with the Boy Scouts and how they proceed as well. A child has to make one complaint and then that adult is removed from contact with any child at that point. No trained investigator at all. I have problems with what the BS are doing in other areas, but their policies for protecting the children now are IMO well done.

[RainWeasley]

Jeez groups on facebook that I thought were full of relatively intelligent people are now going on about how “anyone that has a grudge can get someone banned now” and crap like that. I’m about to just get off facebook for a while…I’ve been staying pretty detached from this all but it’s really getting annoying.

[midwestalter]

It’s really surprising to me that nobody has brought this up: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/themanurepile39728/pm-from-coth-t7820.html

Note the date - ten years ago. This has been pretty common knowledge amongst trainers in the Midwest…there is no shock or surprise.

[ladyj79]

@midwestalter

It’s really surprising to me that nobody has brought this up: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/themanurepile39728/pm-from-coth-t7820.html

Note the date - ten years ago. This has been pretty common knowledge amongst trainers in the Midwest…there is no shock or surprise.

This is actually the third time this has been posted on this thread alone

[NoSuchPerson]

@541hunter

Personally, I can see where that ambiguity of who is evaluating the claim during that time could be improved, especially when it involves the question of interim measures.

Obviously I don’t know how SafeSport does it. But, hypothetically speaking, I can see how such a determination could be made early on in the process using a decision tree approach. For example:

Was the complaint made by the alleged victim him/herself? If yes:

Is there physical evidence (e.g. photos, text messages, e-mails, handwritten materials) to corroborate the claim? If yes:

Does the alleged violation include (insert certain specific physical actions)? If yes:

Does the alleged perpetrator currently have direct access to minors in situations in which abuse could occur? If yes:

Then interim suspension.

I’ve got absolutely no problem with a SS staff member following that tree and making the call for an interim suspension prior to a trained investigator getting heavily involved in the investigation.

And I know it’s been said many times before, but I’ll repeat it. This is absolutely no different than if a complaint is filed against e.g. a teacher. The interim suspension happens right away. The complete investigation happens after.

[prairiewind2]

@Denali6298

But I’m telling you Jim Giorgio is being given a plat form and he is a convicted child molester.

OK. I see what you are saying now. But the rights of convicted felons after they have served whatever sentence is a whole 'nother discussion. Personally, I’d never want Giorgio posting on my side of anything, but then again, I’m not a pedophile, ephibophile, abuser, or cruel, insecure or stupid.

[NoSuchPerson]

@541hunter

@ladyj79 it’s not that the investigators aren’t trained, it’s that the policy doesn’t specify that the investigators are the ones evaluating the claim at the very beginning of the process. They assign a trained investigator after someone (unclear who) performs an “initial inquiry” to determine if the claim should be investigated. That “someone,” it seems, has the right to decide if interim sanctions should be applied. Small distinction, and it may just be that the “someone” IS a trained investigator, but it’s not laid out in the Code.

I guess that’s where the matter of trust comes in. I look at it and say, well, of course a qualified person is going to make that call. Why wouldn’t you naturally assume that would be the case? You think Bob who empties the trash takes care of handing out interim suspensions, too? But, I have trust in the organization.

I suppose that if you don’t have trust in the organization, you might well fear that if the policy doesn’t specify precisely who makes the call then it could well be Mabel on the switchboard who pushes the big red “interim suspension button” on a whim.

[enjoytheride]

@Jealoushe

Again, what you makes you think they arent trained?

Did you read the SS website, and all the PDFs with the procedures and policies or just look at the flow chart?

Do you really think someone as big and powerful as SS wouldn’t have their ducks in a row as ensuring people are trained?

You’re talking to some with experience in criminal law so chances are she probably already did all that.

[541hunter]

@NoSuchPerson

Obviously I don’t know how SafeSport does it. But, hypothetically speaking, I can see how such a determination could be made early on in the process using a decision tree approach. For example:

Was the complaint made by the alleged victim him/herself? If yes:

Is there physical evidence (e.g. photos, text messages, e-mails, handwritten materials) to corroborate the claim? If yes:

Does the alleged violation include (insert certain specific physical actions)? If yes:

Does the alleged perpetrator currently have direct access to minors in situations in which abuse could occur? If yes:

Then interim suspension.

I’ve got absolutely no problem with a SS staff member following that tree and making the call for an interim suspension prior to a trained investigator getting heavily involved in the investigation.

And I know it’s been said many times before, but I’ll repeat it. This is absolutely no different than if a complaint is filed against e.g. a teacher. The interim suspension happens right away. The complete investigation happens after.

Oh trust, I 100% agree with this logic. I just see where the ambiguity in the written policy around who evaluates the claim pre-decision to launch a formal investigations can be tightened up. If those criteria were put into the code more or less as you’ve written them (or whatever criteria experts think is the right call) I think it would be an improvement.

Once again though, my musings on ways the Safe Sport Code can be improved in no way indicate that I believe the current process is illegitimate.

*edit: just want to reiterate, I do have a decent measure of trust in the process; I also think that tweaking a few clauses in the published code would go a long way towards engendering trust in those who DON’T yet, and hopefully quash a small measure of the hollering we’re currently experiencing. And my motivation for wanting to quash that hollering is to protect survivors and victims who see all that and think it means nobody would ever support them if they came forward.

[ladyj79]

@enjoytheride

You’re talking to some with experience in criminal law so chances are she probably already did all that.

So we can’t presume investigators for safe sport are trained but we can presume a person on the internet who says they’re a lawyer is a lawyer and has done all the research

[enjoytheride]

@ladyj79

So we can’t presume investigators for safe sport are trained but we can presume a person on the internet who says they’re a lawyer is a lawyer and has done all the research

Or, you could actually take her up on her offer and PM her since her credentials are so important to you. But that probably won’t be good enough since you’re being so hostile.

[RugBug]

@ladyj79

It less like being fired from your job and more like not being allowed to work for Microsoft, and instead having to work for any of a million other smaller employers.

He can still ply his trade all over the place, just not at select venues at select times.

Just a quick note that downplaying the impact of an SS decision is disingenious. If it really only had the impact as noted above, they why even have it? What a waste of time and energy.

The truth is that, while someone could still be involved in horse sports, it would look VERY different.

Of note - when an employee is released from a job, there are options for wrongful termination. I know I mentioned it on another thread, but that does make me wonder if (when?) we will see lawsuits against SS or USEF.