George Morris on the SS list

[541hunter]

@ClerkofCourts

I must have gave up on it before I got to that story. What a travesty.

I was rereading it the other night to check on the years referenced in the Phelps statement; my eyes about bugged out of my head when I read that little tidbit. I didn’t remember it from the first time I read it.

[Room_for_a_Pony]

I just took his book out of the library. Here is the dedication:

“This book is dedicated to all of the worthy horsemen, students, and friends who are not mentioned herein. There simply weren’t enough pages to tell all of your stories, but all of them reside faithfully in my memory.”

I’ll bet they do.

[Ghazzu]

@Room for a Pony

I just took his book out of the library. Here is the dedication:

“This book is dedicated to all of the worthy horsemen, students, and friends who are not mentioned herein. There simply weren’t enough pages to tell all of your stories, but all of them reside faithfully in my memory.”

I’ll bet they do.

:eek:

[Toblersmom]

Another thought on why some victims from the SafeSport investigation may not speak up, is that during this process they were advised by their own legal counsel that they had grounds to move forward with criminal charges and/or civil suits, and told not to talk about it so as not to potentially jeopardize those proceedings.

[ClerkofCourts]

@Room for a Pony

I just took his book out of the library. Here is the dedication:

“This book is dedicated to all of the worthy horsemen, students, and friends who are not mentioned herein. There simply weren’t enough pages to tell all of your stories, but all of them reside faithfully in my memory.”

I’ll bet they do.

He f-ing signed my book in between complaining about someone drinking wine near him, not complaining, actually telling the organizer to tell the girl not to drink near him and generally looking ornery and old. He had a signing nearby so I got a book for my trainer for Christmas and figured I’d get one for myself. My first and only impression: what an arsehole.

[BLBGP]

It’s shocking how polarized everything is right now and how so many people form unshakable beliefs off headlines and misinformation.

I completely understand why Safe Sport needs to be quiet about allegations publicly. I see how victims are being talked about on social media (hell, they’re still bashing Anne K and blaming her for everything) and even if safe sport came out with only vague details, people would seek out the victim and attack. But, the problem is that allows the perpetrator to craft the storyline. And it seems the first thing people read is what they believe forever. Thus the 17 3/4 storyline with RG and the one jilted lover 40 years ago with GM. I do a lot of crisis communications and in today’s world, speed is the most important thing. Even just one hour of silence while you’re crafting a response is enough to make people believe the crisis. What happened to critical thinking?

And when finally proved wrong they dont don’t come back to apologize. They just move on to the next shiny thing of the day.

[Cat_Tap]

@dannyboy

@ flofleming I haven’t heard that Conrad has released a public statement, but you can bet the investigators spoke to him.
ETA: If so, he may have been advised not to speak out.

Is it possible that not everyone was a “victim”. perhaps some were willing partners and did not feel abused?

As far as his teaching/coaching style goes it wasn’t a secret. One should not enter a clinic or ride with him unless they are prepared to handle it.

I am not condoning molesting minors and find all of this very sad including some of the glee displayed here,

I attended an instructor’s clinic 40 years ago that was most educational and without any verbal abuse. Audited another clinic 10 years ago and found him to be fair and helpful to everyone. Even complimentary to those who tried hard and followed his instruction.

I was never aware of any of the ugliness mentioned by many posters.

[BLBGP]

@541hunter

GHM also proudly tells a pretty horrific story in the book about setting up (I think?) Melanie Smith Taylor to flip a horse in an exercise because he thought she was too cocky.

Amazing to me how many of my horse circle are talking about what a fantastic horseman he is.

Did the horse actually flip?

[HLMom]

@Toblersmom

If the MLB can give Pete Rose the boot, for activities that (near as i can tell) are not illegal but only against the MLB’s rules for standard of conduct, SafeSport is within their legal rights to ban GM.

The difference is that Pete Rose’s activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM’s activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal? If neither, then can a person fairly be punished for them 40 years later?

Here’s another example to think about. Say the drinking age used to be 18. Now it is 21. Back when it was 18, you gave some of your junior riders glasses of champagne after a big competition. What if USEF wants to punish you now, saying, “Hey, it’s against our rules to give underage minors alcohol.” Would you say, “But that’s not fair! At the time I did it, they were legal!” Or would you say, “Oh okay, guess that’s my bad luck that the law changed later…it seems fair to punish me now.”

Caveat: I still don’t know the details of SS’s allegations against GM. Obviously if he was having sex with 13 and 14 year olds, I’m pretty sure that was illegal AND against policy 40 years ago, just as it is now.

[NoSuchPerson]

@Toblersmom

Another thought on why some victims from the SafeSport investigation may not speak up, is that during this process they were advised by their own legal counsel that they had grounds to move forward with criminal charges and/or civil suits, and told not to talk about it so as not to potentially jeopardize those proceedings.

That’s what happened in the arbitration (appeal) hearing for one of the Lopez brothers (Taekwondo) who was sanctioned by SS. I think there were 3 victims and none of them would participate in the arbitration because their attorney thought it was not in the best interests of their upcoming civil suit. That was the primary reason the guy won his appeal and got the sanction overturned.

[ClerkofCourts]

@HLMom

The difference is that Pete Rose’s activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM’s activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal? If neither, then can a person fairly be punished for them 40 years later?

Here’s another example to think about. Say the drinking age used to be 18. Now it is 21. Back when it was 18, you gave some of your junior riders glasses of champagne after a big competition. What if USEF wants to punish you now, saying, “Hey, it’s against our rules to give underage minors alcohol.” Would you say, “But that’s not fair! At the time I did it, they were legal!” Or would you say, “Oh okay, guess that’s my bad luck that the law changed later…it seems fair to punish me now.”

Caveat: I still don’t know the details of SS’s allegations against GM. Obviously if he was having sex with 13 and 14 year olds, I’m pretty sure that was illegal AND against policy 40 years ago, just as it is now.

o think it’s less about punishing him and more about taking away his access to children.

[betonbill]

@HLMom

The difference is that Pete Rose’s activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM’s activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal? If neither, then can a person fairly be punished for them 40 years later?

Here’s another example to think about. Say the drinking age used to be 18. Now it is 21. Back when it was 18, you gave some of your junior riders glasses of champagne after a big competition. What if USEF wants to punish you now, saying, “Hey, it’s against our rules to give underage minors alcohol.” Would you say, “But that’s not fair! At the time I did it, they were legal!” Or would you say, “Oh okay, guess that’s my bad luck that the law changed later…it seems fair to punish me now.”

Caveat: I still don’t know the details of SS’s allegations against GM. Obviously if he was having sex with 13 and 14 year olds, I’m pretty sure that was illegal AND against policy 40 years ago, just as it is now.

I believe that having homosexual sex at that time was 100% illegal regardless of the participants’ ages. Not to mention having homosexual relations with a minor! That would also be 100% illegal. As someone mentioned a while back, the AOC probably only refers to the female sex; sex involving boys would probably just be called “boys will be boys,” heh, heh, heh."

[NoSuchPerson]

@Cat Tap

Is it possible that not everyone was a “victim”. perhaps some were willing partners and did not feel abused?

If the young man was underage, it doesn’t matter. He is still a victim and, by law, unable to give consent and be a “wiling” partner.

I will acknowledge that it’s very likely that at least some victims were groomed and manipulated into believing that they were choosing to participate in the relationship and were thus “willing” partners. And some may chose to continue to believe that out of self-preservation.

But, given the power differential and the young age at which some of the victims fell under GM’s “management,” I’m not convinced that any of them could indeed be considered “willing partners” in the way that most of us would define consensual sex.

[punchy]

@YankeeDuchess

They refer to the NYTs journalist as a “journalist”, and removed a post of hers, blocked her from the page, and provided the members of the group with the phone number of the NYTs editorial department. So outraged ISWG people could complain to the NYT that … what?

The fact that prominent people in this industry seriously think they can influence the NYT’s editor fills me with renewed appreciation that people in this industry have such a misplaced sense of self importance and absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the world beyond their little private barns and their little fancy horse shows and the highways that run between the two.

[aristokat]

@FiSk123

Thank you so much for your posts, @Farhills123.

GM’s reaction to the investigation is quite interesting to me. Based on the knowledge that I have on the case, I don’t really see any way that he could argue innocence. I have no doubt that he and his legal advisers will try and attack the credibility of the claimants, but the sheer volume of claimants/witnesses and the identity of certain claimants would make that tactic a very poor choice.

Also, considering that he “allegedly” threatened several people in an effort to convince them not to speak to SafeSport/reporters, he could be found in violation of several SafeSport policies. I could also see his legal team going the “technicality” route and trying to argue that SafeSport did not follow its own rules - but this tactic would definitely hurt his public declaration of innocence. Another issues is the PR statement - which was carefully worded to single out a specific claimant. I’m not sure if it rises to the level of “Abuse of Process” but its wording was incredibly misleading.

For those who are interested in learning more about the actions that typically result in “Permanent Ineligibility”, here is a spreadsheet that I created in early July: SafeSport - Permanent Ineligibility

@poltroon I agree 100%. The PR statement is a perfect example of how even basic information, like a four-year time span tied with a violation of “sexual misconduct - involving a minor”, can reveal the identities of claimants.

Are you able to clarify the difference between “criminal disposition - involving a minor” and “sexual misconduct involving a minor”?

I was discussing this with my daughter because I unknowingly sent her to someone on the SS banned list for “criminal disposition involving a minor” last spring. She moved to VA from Canada and I was sending her horse to her later. I had NO idea… She’s a grown woman but I don’t want to “support” anyone on that list.

It seemed to me that misconduct was historical, criminal disposition was more recent, resulting in a conviction. Is that accurate?

She went to the barn I sent her to… And met with the banned party… But she has excellent judgment and went elsewhere!

[fair_judy]

@flofleming

I asked this on the new Facebook group, but I’ll try here as well. Has Conrad spoken up? If not, his silence is deafening. He was the right age, right look, right time period. How was his stay with George? As an Olympic medalist, he needs to have the strength of little Simone Biles and say something, one way or the other.

Are you seriously outing someone who has not spoken up? IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

[Alterforme]

If in fact, he is proven guilty. Would the victims ( or family) be able to sue him for pain & suffering? I think about the 2 victims from the NYT article & how their lives have been rocky, well, one is even deceased. Heartbreaking.

[Room_for_a_Pony]

Here is the SS text on Criminal Disposition:

“Any disposition of a criminal proceeding, other than an
adjudication of not guilty, including an adjudication of guilt
or admission to a criminal violation; a plea to a lesser
included offense; a plea of no contest; or the disposition of
the proceeding through a diversionary program, deferred
adjudication, disposition of supervision, conditional
dismissal, or similar arrangement.”

[poltroon]

@HLMom

The difference is that Pete Rose’s activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM’s activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal?

Once again, I’m just struck by how hard people will work for these justifications. I’ve experienced it myself.

For example: “Show me where it says in the rules I can’t call another member incessantly on the phone and show up on their doorstep after I’ve been asked to stop.” No, I didn’t feel the need to explicitly state that in the rules for my online forum.

This is why the rules get more bureaucratic and exacting every year. “How the heck was I supposed to know defrauding an insurance company for paying someone to murder my horse and make it look like an accident would be against the rules?” Or, if you like, “How was I to know you would catch me for administering Reserpine to my show horses?”

In this case, the main public allegation seems to involve a 30 year old male having sex with a 13 year old male who was his student and under his care, and for four years. I mean, damn AHSA/USEF for not explicitly writing in the 1968 rule book that you couldn’t do that. How could he have known?

Can I just say, not sure what your intent is, but posts like that … don’t make him look more sympathetic or less guilty.

[poltroon]

@aristokat

Are you able to clarify the difference between “criminal disposition - involving a minor” and “sexual misconduct involving a minor”?

Criminal disposition means that the sanction is based directly on a criminal court conviction or plea. IE, SafeSport did not investigate the case and the person is ineligible directly because of the court record.

“sexual misconduct involving a minor” means that SafeSport investigated and made the finding. It could be that it involves cases outside the statute of limitations, it could be that a conviction was not obtained, or it could be that evidence was available to them that could not be used in a criminal trial - for example, sometimes witnesses are unavailable to participate in the trial, or evidence is excluded because of how it was obtained (like recording a phone call without consent or warrant). FiSk123 has shared some of those situations.