My guess is Mark was asked to “sponsor” the show, which saddlery liquidators does for many local shows, provided a banner, and never thought about it ever again.
5 Likes
Could be. Jay was certainly well aware - he was probably there several days a week.
ETA: and I’m not saying there was anything wrong about that, until the results of the appeal were final.
1 Like
@fordtraktor mentioned in an earlier post that if someone was going to fight Safe Sport or something like it based on an argument related to the Sherman Act, or Interstate Commerce Clause… economic expert testimony would be required.
I am simply a house wife and happy amateur and mom these days… but once upon a time so studied this stuff in depth. I don’t have the credentials of the sort of expert economists who would argue for or against a particular application of that law to this case. Just to be clear.
What I can say generally is that people who don’t study such things in depth have s tendency to believe all monopolies in industry are “bad” and the free market and competition are the solution to everything. This is simply not the way the real world works. Some industries have a tendency to drift into a monopoly structure for many reasons. Sometimes that’s a positive thing… if well regulated… it can be fine for society. This has been argued about and litigated to death by people far more knowledgeable than me. Needless to say… just because USEF is a monopoly in some respects (I actually think monopolistic competition might be a better descriptor of the horse industry)… it doesn’t necessarily mean anyone can make an argument that the monopoly should be broken up. It actually might make it easier to make an argument that the monopoly should be heavily regulated for the public good.
There is a concept called “tying” whereby you are forced to buy one product in order to use another product. I discussed this in class eons ago in relation to operating systems and hardware. My guess is there has been a volume of litigation since then on the topic. But maybe there is some sort of “tying” argument to be made concerning USEF membership or bans and participating in competition. Someone much more knowledgeable than me like fordtractor or IPesq can explain why that wouldn’t be relevant st all though.
Sorey for continued tangents… but I love nitnoid economic stuff. Sometimes I fantasize about going back to school just to study it for fun with feee time. Then I decide I shouldn’t bother, and should ride more. And with that said… I’m off to do just that.
6 Likes
That is a fantastic way to think of this whole discussion. Thank you.
31 Likes
Ugh. Some of these people should be forced to wear a scarlet letter, but it should probably be branded on their foreheads so it is visible to all at a glance.
I realize that is not within the current legal system, but it would save a lot of other people so much time and heartache down the road.
6 Likes
I honestly don’t know what these people expect, coming on here to spout whatever they have been reading on Facebook. Do they think everyone is going to say, “Oh, you know, we have heard these false reasonings so many times but because you just came on here and said it, now we will change our minds and agree with you”?
I also don’t get the “But it was 50 years ago!” argument. If someone was murdered 50 years ago and the person that did it was just discovered today, there would be no “but it was 50 years ago and you are destroying their livelihood and reputation”. And this can ruin lives just as thoroughly as murder.
20 Likes
Castration isn’t the answer. It’s a control mechanism and the filling of a void, needing adoration. Geldings still mount mares. I think when a kid is being groomed, it is a kid that may be in need of adult attention. I’m not criticizing parents. They may be working or have lots of kids or sick relatives, etc. Then this person who may be a nobody or a celebrity or other important person starts grooming and then they are special. They do feel good sexually as thing progress. Then shame hits so there is a theme of its ok, most people are just inhibited, it’s perfectly natural, it’s accepted in older civilizations, other forums, etc. But the kid knows friends and family would not accept so there is deeper shame and a high better than any drug which may be accompanied by drugs and/or alcohol. Then the kid ages out or is rejected or tries to leave and it is like trying to get off crack, turns to drugs and alcohol, disparate to be adored, starts the cycle again and there is plenty of company saying it’s ok and others are foolishly inhibited. But the shame remains and it is monstrous. If the child tries to leave or says they will tell then the threats begin, who will believe you, or more crazy, threatening family, everyone will condemn you, you seduced me, etc. Everything is upside down. So now there is a hole and shame and an addiction and craving to feel good and special again with a terrible fear of public exposure. How many abused children turn to drugs and alcohol and suicide? I don’t know. There is also other paths to abuse with anger and abuse can become killing or start later and ages preferred could be anywhere but the kids need to be protected as best as we can.
5 Likes
Can someone in Tryon confirm GM’s name has been removed from the stadium?
From a layman’s curiosity standpoint, could something like tying be the argument that Safe Sport could not mandate the part of the rule that says other members also cannot do business with the banned person? This is the only part that makes me think, ‘Can they really do that?’
Jay was very much aware of Navarro’s “status” for over a decade, long before SafeSport. The SafeSport ruling just finally forced him to do something about it.
2 Likes
I don’t understand why those standing up for people accused aren’t writing letters to support their appeal in the JAMS arbitration and are attacking SafeSport instead. Letters stating worked with for numbers of years, no abuse, etc., very safe, would really help. Why isn’t there a request for that instead of comparing a Code of Conduct violations to Constitutional criminal law?
2 Likes
Pretty sure their most resent press release stated they’re keeping it until the appeal is finished.
I was assured yesterday it has been removed, just trying to confirm.
@ Gainer Completely agree.
1 Like
No answer, just another question. What is the liability if they don’t have that rule and someone is abused after it’s a known issue?
1 Like
What I want to know is, is any H/J based publication going to have the b@lls to publish an article or opinion piece on this major industry event? I keep looking at the usual sites and there is a deafening silence from all media angles. It’s disappointing.
8 Likes
Even this reasoned article presents the GM allegations as having happened between 1968-1972. Those dates are presented as fact, and the basis for the SafeSport ruling.
Those dates are how GM and the PR firm he hired frame the allegations. SafeSport isn’t talking about time frames or how many people have made complaints. Whatever GM is paying that PR firm isn’t enough. They have so successfully spun the entire probe that their version of timeline and number of complainants is accepted and passed on as the central fact to the case.
Sheilah
21 Likes
If they did, they haven’t updated it on their website, because it still says George Morris Arena on the orders of go page – https://tryon.coth.com/classsignup/List
Most who are waving around a due process argument have been asking for the same procedures and evidence standards and standards of proof as in a criminal case. That is not applicable here, and I think SS follows what is pretty normal for civil cases and administrative governing bodies.
Additionally, the private (and public) universities have not had their procedures made into law, whereas the SS code has already gone through the legislature and thus would not be low hanging fruit for a constitutional challenge. Most likely it would have to make it all the way to SCOTUS and then they would have to find a flaw for anything to change IMO (and I don’t see that happening realistically—likely not a case they want to touch). Perhaps I’m just cynical. Not saying the process is perfect but there is a lot of wiggle room between not perfect and convincing a court that a law (as this process is codified) is unconstitutional for lack of due process.
As I’ve mentioned before, as far as the retroactive reach of the law, I think the existing SCOTUS precedent on that defeats that challenge, because again this is not a criminal proceeding.
12 Likes
I love that people are really thinking it through answers coming up with some cool ideas. The concept with tying is that a firm with monopoly or at least a high degree of market power conditions the purchase of the item it monopolizes on the customer also purchasing a second item or service (the tied product), over which it does not have the same degree of market power. This, in effect, enables the monopolist to use its monopoly power to enlarge its market share in the tied product market.
it is an interesting concept, but I am not aware of any cases that act in the negative (a ban being unlawfully extended to ban more things, instead of a purchase. I have a migraine today, though, so am not thinking the clearest and am maybe missing how to make this work.
i do think that if SadeSport runs afoul of the Sherman Act, this aiding and abetting aspect is what is going to do it. It makes it possible to argue a broader affect on competition, as opposed to only an effect on a single competitor. That is key.
3 Likes
