But if he’s been suspended, and not contacted by SS? Apparently the Feller’s were not contacted either, but I’m not sure how true that is. Once again, because of social media rumor mills 
Hence my agreement with OP. I appreciate CoTH for stating facts in an article, and it’s not their fault the comment section gets out of control. Turning off comments would help stop the spread of malicious lies, that’s all.
At least two of the witnesses have also posted on Facebook that they were never contacted by Safe Sport. If that’s the case, that is concerning.
Only slightly. People can still share and make all the comments the want.
He said there were witnesses to the incident. To me, that doesn’t imply he necessarily did anything to violate Safe Sport policies. Just that something occurred between him and another individual. Not saying he’s innocent, just that he didn’t tacitly admit to an infraction occurring.
I think the articles re: SafeSport should absolutely be posted on Facebook, but I think the community management on the COTH FB and their communication around Safesport is not being handled well. I work in social media for a very high-profile and sometimes controversial figure and navigate this type of thing often, so here would be my suggestions:
-The bottom of each SafeSport-related article on COTH should include a link to USEF’s “Safesport FAQs,” “SafeSport Myths and Facts,” the Safesport 24 hr helpline number, and the link to report a claim, much like articles about mental illness or suicide will often have an italicized paragraph with links to related resources. The big argument about Safesport is that it’s opaque, so provide resources to make it less opaque! Anyone can call Safesport or USEF at any time with questions, comments or reports of abuse.
-This information should also be included in the post copy on Facebook (ie, above the link), OR as a single comment below the article.
-Comments should either be turned off (except for a single informational comment from COTH itself) or very heavily managed/monitored. If COTH doesn’t have the manpower to do serious community management, so be it, but they should just turn off comments if that’s the case. Letting firefights unfold in the comments isn’t best practice and reflects poorly on COTH (and, frankly, the entire equestrian community).
Call me, COTH! This is very doable and my consultation fees are cheap!
(Edited to clarify some clunky wording)
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember from the last time a SS suspension was discussed at length, that the process is someone reports something to SS, and if, based on the report and cursory investigation, they believe the report is credible, they temporarily suspend the individual while doing an in-depth investigation.
IIRC, some of the outrage in Rob Gage’s case was directed at the fact that they skipped the temporary suspension and went right to the permanent ban. It was later revealed that there was written evidence, in his own handwriting, which explained moving directly to permanent ban.
So if Ali is temporarily suspended at this point, it likely means that the allegation was made and found credible, and that now it will be fully investigated. Which might be why not all the witnesses to the incident have been interviewed. Perhaps the SS investigator found enough info to corobborate the report without interviewing all the witnesses; but all will be interviewed as part of the full investigation?
That’s my understanding of process also.
My point is about your wording vs. his. You said he admitted there were witnesses to infraction and therefore tacitly implied he had committed an infraction. He said witnesses to incident.
I do agree with you that if Safe Sport felt it was necessary to implement a temporary ban then allegations are credible. I’m very curious to see how this ends up after final investigation.
My personal solution is to just never read social media comments because they make me want to put my head through a sturdy piece of drywall.
Fair point. But clearly everyone agrees there was an “incident” that was then reported to SS; the disagreement was whether the SS report or the temporary suspension was warranted.
Unlike some of the other cases, where the accused and their supporters insisted that nothing had EVER happened until the evidence absolutely overwhelmed them.
I have no information about this specific incident, so I have no opinion about it.
Just as a general observation, it’s interesting to see the evolution of PR responses over the last couple of years.
Maybe they don’t need to be contacted because the proof is out there in another form? Like Ali hiring a sex offender a course designer…which is right there in one of the prize books?
The part I’m having a hard time reconciling in my head is that I thought SafeSport only imposed temporary suspensions if they felt their was significant risk to allowing the accused to continue participating in the sport while full investigations take place.
Ali contends a 5 minute conversation is what resulted in the suspension, which seems unlikely when there are other actions like no-contact directives that can be used. What made SafeSport consider him a risk to the general horse showing population? Did the reporter of the infraction highly exaggerate or lie about the incident? Is the reason for the suspension actually a completely different incident or in addition to the 5 minute conversation reported by Ali?
There’s a window to appeal the temporary suspension so it will be interesting to see if it is removed.
My understanding is that this incident is related to a he said/she said confrontation with multiple witnesses. I don’t believe it is related to the course designer referenced in your reply.
According to one of the witnesses on Facebook, the incident was highly exaggerated by the complainant, false, and “not morally sound.”
Is this just off whats been going around or was that in one of the articles?
The witness statement I quoted above I read on FB. It was posted by the witness in response to Ali’s post on his page. The other statement was/is also on FB posted directly by another witness on her personal FB page.
This exactly. According the myths page, suspensions are really rare.
https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/wP3zvSurED8
From what I understand, he was encouraging a young adult to reconsider one of her friendships and said friend confronted him while drunk and reported him.
I was not there, so take that for the heresay it is.
Strictly for the sake of argument here let’s pretend this is what happened (again, wasn’t there and the only people I’ve talked to, I think would take his side).
This is a really important opportunity for SafeSport to be transparent and address the complaints of “whAt aBouT duE proCesS, diSgrunTLed CliENts, WitChunT, etc”
I am NOT saying that we have a right to know the sordid details of what was said or what happens in ANY these cases. But I do think it would be great if they could clarify their thought process in collecting evidence and choosing to ban him, since it is so rare.
For the credibility of the organization, I think the reversal of bans or dismissing bogus claims are almost as important as the bans. This gives people the confidence that this system works.
Thanks. Interesting. I wonder if its even about what Ali says its about. Seems the proof of wrong doing is right there with hiring someone banned right?
Why should the public get this info though?
Again, assuming what I said above is true (as a thought exercise), I’m worried that if they don’t, that people will lose confidence in the SafeSport process… it stands in direct contrast to one of the myths they talked about with temporary suspensions.
And I think we still have a lot of work to do to root out some of these bad actors. I am a huge fan of SafeSport’s, but hearing about this case has me a little worried. Maybe I’m totally wrong and it doesn’t hurt their credibility. I just want the bad guys and gals gone.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
