Dude, not everyone at the upper echelon of the sport loves George Morris. If you believe that, it’s you who haven’t been there.
27 Likes
People in this thread can complain all they want about Safesport and GM, boo hoo he’s banned. Everyone’s known about GM being a creep since the beginning of time, shouldn’t be a shock he’s banned. Safesport is law so all the complaining isn’t going to get you anywhere. And the fact some people think that their personal experience of him “being a nice guy” dismisses his actions is comical.
31 Likes
I disagree that there’s a viable Sherman Act claim, especially for equestrian sports.
The law review article referenced operates on this premise: that “the Center will be empowered by all forty-seven NGBs with the power to expel and permanently ban coaches from their respective sport, and effectively restrain them from earning a living in their profession.”
I could go to horse shows without being Safe Sport certified and without being a USEF member by paying the show pass fee. People like Bernie T also will continue to operate a good business after he has relinquished his USEF memberships. So, really, is there a “restraint of trade” that raises Sherman Act concerns? For those who have no clue what the Sherman Act is, it is our antitrust law in the USA.
Sports issues have raised Sherman Act concerns before (usually for monopoly-like behaviors), but I don’t think anyone is going to be able to show that SS is anticompetitive.
The real risk to SS under any legal theory (including antitrust) is if their procedures result in actions that are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. It appears that the procedures as codified are sufficient to withstand this challenge. I get that there appear to be a lot of people out there that think that SS does not actually follow their own procedures, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that being true.
11 Likes
del
17 Likes
I’m so sorry you weren’t believed either, @Jenerationx. I am certain this is (unfortunately) STILL not uncommon, even in 2019. What a sad state of affairs and poor reflection on our society as a whole that is. It just makes me want to cry. 
{{{hugs}}} to you @Jenerationx and the others who have posted personal stories. After lurking in this thread for days, ya’ll helped me be brave enough to post mine.
20 Likes
And I am just going to say it’s some kind of crap to say things along the lines of “in my day we knew who was creepy” and insinuate that is all that is needed. I have seen this promoted.
Yes it was true for me. My parents told me when you are at a show never find yourself alone with Y or Z. These were at one day western open shows.
While it’s great to be warned in the end game it still puts the onus on the victim. If I had found myself in a trailer with one of them I would have felt somewhat at fault . Yeh we need more.
18 Likes
On the Sherman Act theory, the Sherman Act is only legislation which was passed by Congress almost 100 years ago, IIRC. Congress passed recent legislation creating Safe Sport and gave it the power to do what it’s doing.
As I understand statutory interpretation, later legislation on a specific matter creates an exemption from a more general statute that might otherwise be applicable.
Of course, I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
4 Likes
I’ve thought about this for a long time. Why do survivors get shamed, blamed, or disregarded completely when they come forward? My conclusion is that those that hear the tale are afraid. If they believe the accuser, then they have to DO something. This upsets the balance of their family, church, workplace, friend circle, neighborhood, or wherever the perpetrator operates for them. I think it’s understandable that it’s much easier for them to find some excuse to not believe things happened that way, to make it not the abuser’s fault, and then things can just stay as they are and the accuser can just “get over it.” So, first someone who has been abused needs to overcome their shame and fear and come forward… and then whoever they tell have their own fear of upsetting the status quo to actually do something about it.
THAT is what we’re dealing with now. It’s much easier for folks to say they don’t have enough details, haven’t seen any abuse themselves and go stand with GM. They’re just sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that this was investigated by Safe Sport and found to be valid because they want their lives and worlds to just go on without having to take a stand and risk alienation from those that idolize and refuse to believe the obvious facts. It doesn’t matter WHO comes forward at this point, or with what evidence, it’s GM. I’m sure some will go to their graves as ostriches… but maybe a few will gain some courage.
Maybe enough people will refuse to be associated with or give money to those that go around excusing bad behavior, and we’ll see an era of predator free equestrian sports. From some of the reactions here and on FB, I’m not as optimistic as I’d like to be, but it’s still early days. It took me a long time to gain my courage, maybe in time enough will stand with the survivors.
30 Likes
Well, it should touch everyone’s life if a sport allows sexual predators within its industry. Furthermore, the architects of SafeSport pointedly disagree with you, Crashing Boar, in your conviction that sexual predators matter only to those who are victims of them. That is why all adult USEF members are required to complete SafeSport training.
And, really, what decent adult should take the position of “Meh, I didn’t feel the need to protect anyone from sexual abuse because I had no dog in that fight.” Of course, you can find some 7,000 those congregating in the I Stand With George group on Facebook.
And, by Monday, I promise you that people outside the horsey set will be making this your problem.
23 Likes
With just an easy bit of internet research, the home in Florida in which it appears he lives, in is not indicative of “wealth” even for a winter season home.
The ban will hurt financially but I’m sure all of the people who “stand with George” will put their money where their mouths are. 
2 Likes
I’m wondering just how stringent a reciprocal FEI suspension would be.
There has been lots of talk about “lifetime bans” for people who attend GM clinics and such in the US. Whether that is true or not, I have no idea. But would the FEI, while banning him from connections with FEI events, be willing to ban people who patronize his clinics? it would seem to me that would be a matter for each country, not for the FEI. The Safe Sport/USEF ban is the result of US law.
I know that the USEF has taken the position that a reciprocal suspension here from an FEI suspension is not identical in its effects to a USEF suspension.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if GM is able to continue to work abroad, just not in an FEI connection
Do the rules say that USEF can ban people who attend the clinics? Or just the people who organize the clinics?
1 Like
I believe that is the address of his office manager.
2 Likes
Might I remind you that the MEDIAN divides the population in half - half are above, and half are below. The AVERAGE is the sum of all scores divided by the number of participants. So a bunch of really high scores will drag the average up, and a bunch of really low scores will drag the average down. If you are not sure which way you are dragging the AVERAGE, pm me for further explanation. Wouldn’t want to waste these good folks time.
25 Likes
I am not sure I understand the banning people who attend his clinics. People lesson with PV and are not banned, even if he is. Can someone explain that to me?
2 Likes
It has been almost 44 years for me, and I still have moments of gut churning flashbacks.
Sheilah
10 Likes
I enjoy your posts, but the issue of “just pay the thirty days and leave now.” is problematic for me. Holding the BO to the contractual obliation can and has resulted in feed cut, hay denied, Tack stolen Padded last month bills, restricted turn out and lack of stall care… not to mention taking it out on the horse. Nope. Leave, because if it is that bad it is also likely ( and in my personal experience) to be bad for my horse. In one case a perfectly sane mount became radically head shy. There is no learning for the BO and the horse suffers.
18 Likes
It could well be. It is the only address that comes up for him.
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, they can’t have USEF sanctioned clinics. So if a banned member wants to hold a clinic at their farm or a private farm there’s nothing stopping them. The ban is only for things that are under control of the USEF. Ie if the USEF is renting or leasing a property and the person wants to hold a clinic on that property during the period of the lease.
3 Likes
Now I’m chuckling a little… someone on this board has a tagline something like, “The Horse World: 2 people, 3 opinions.” I may not have it exactly right but I always smile when I see it. It could definitely be modified to apply to lawyers. We don’t always know the outcome but there’s usually no shortage of ideas!
Thanks to Fordtraktor and IPEsq for interesting contributions–you both have thought this through better than I have. I think the Sherman Act argument is clever, but I’m not convinced it’s the only possible approach. --And none of that is meant as a prediction that any legal challenge will ultimately be successful. I think a court will be quite motivated to uphold Safesport, unless somehow a plaintiff far more sympathetic than GM comes along.
8 Likes
