People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[mvp]

@TheMoo

But there has been overt victim blaming on Facebook. I don’t think Packy’s post is victim blaming but when people post comments calling HR a murderer… you can’t deny there IS victim blaming.

Even on CoTH. At the beginning of the GHM thread someone expressed doubt about the claims against GHM because a minor could have gotten something out of it. Granted the person knows nothing about GHM beyond his name but that is victim blaming under the guise of not knowing.

Oh, please. “She was wearing a mini-skirt” is the oldest, favorite and sometimes effective defense of a sexual perpetrator. That argument is a defense by way of an ad hominem attack on the victim.

I don’t know what rock packy mcgaughan has been living under, but he’s dead wrong with respect to his claims that no victim shaming happens around this.

[oneequestrienne]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

Hmmm, well I can tell you that I was involved in a Safesport case where there were many victims who came forward to Safesport and gave statements. So many people here and on FB ranted about how long ago it all was. He was no present danger, so leave him alone. This included many of my long time friends and acquaintances. Here’s the thing, sexual predators don’t grow out of it and, in this case, I stumbled over more current evidence. I came across a photo taken two years ago of this person having inappropriate contact with a 14 year old. Normalizing inappropriate contact is part of grooming. You can bet that after talking to the mother, I turned the photo over to Safesport. I also gave USEF a cropped version of the photo hiding the victim’s identity. And no, neither you nor anyone else will ever know who was in that photo. The adult was already well on the way to being sanctioned and the child is a minor and a victim.

[poltroon]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

So a couple of things. First, in criminal law, statutes of limitations have been removed in many jurisdictions for sexual abuse of a minor. This is not generally retroactive so even if a jurisdiction has no time limit now, it may have when an event occurred. But, this change is due to recognition that often people do not come forward until they are 50, and that unfortunately even with that passage of time many of the abusers are in fact still active.

Second, I think with your emphasis on protective you’re completely backwards on how to apply the statute of limitations and most likely what investigators are looking at. That is, you’re thinking that SafeSport is punishing people for violations that occurred decades ago and then the individual saw the light and stopped.

SafeSport has the discretion and the data to make a judgement about that. Was it one incident that happened in a misguided youth? Or is it the only survivor who is willing to testify but investigators have strong suspicion that there are multiple more recent survivors who are unwilling to testify? In both the recent high profile equestrian cases, we have public whispers of people witnessing questionable behavior with minors within the last 5 years. The SafeSport investigators would have been in a position to follow up on those whispers and decide if they were credible. I don’t know either way. But I doubt that what many people seem to fear is true: that SafeSport would ban someone for having a teen-teen relationship 50 years ago* if that’s all there was in the case file, and if the person seems to have led a scandal-free life since.

The only person who said that the allegations are only from a four year period 50 years ago is GM. No one else has agreed that’s all they have. We know a second person testified and we don’t know the time period for that person.

One of the longstanding problems with these cases has been exactly the situation where we had many decades of abuse, with current victims, but the old cases were too old to try and the new cases wouldn’t testify. And so these people - priests and coaches among them - got shuffled around where no one knew of the previous accusations.

It does require putting trust in the SafeSport investigators to do their job - just as our criminal justice system requires trust in police and district attorneys to do theirs. The investigators are drawn from the same pool. If SafeSport needs better people, I’m down for figuring out how to advocate for that. It sounds like they need more people, and I’m down for that too. If you look at the cases that have resulted in Permanent Ineligibility, I haven’t seen even one that looked inappropriate. Even the ones that were public that were overturned on appeal look like the investigators called it reasonably, from the accounts I read in the press.

–
Edited to add this asterisk:

• I don’t mean to imply as you might casually read it, that the GM case involves two teens. The public survivor would have been 13 when GM was 30 in 1968.

[mvp]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

So because you come to this as someone with a vested interest in protecting your kid now and you “can’t imagine” what it’s like to be a victim of a sexual abuse, you think the Statute of Limitations is a good idea? With all due respect, I don’t think you are actually on the victims’ side. And what happens if your kid takes, say, 25 years to come forward with the information that she was a victim? Perhaps then you will feel compelled to imagine.

[BeeHoney]

@packy mcgaughan thank you for your thoughtful post. I disagree with your argument regarding the “weaponization” of Safe Sport. In real life, many rules can be weaponized. In fact, accusing competitors of rule breaking is an age old trick, it didn’t suddenly appear with Safe Sport. Look at the drugs and medications rules. Given the public and low security nature of a show grounds, it would be a simple matter in many cases to administer medication to a competitor’s horse and then watch them be set back for a D&M infraction. There are even cases where it’s tough to tell if a positive test might be the result of a groom’s mistake or even environmental contamination. Should we just do away with the D&M rules? Of course not! We have decided as a community that equine welfare and fair sport are priorities that transcend the discomforts and difficulties of rule implementation. Providing a safe environment for youth sports participants is an even more important priority.

I’d also like to point out that receiving a temporary suspension from Safe Sport is hardly equivalent to being “branded” a child molester. It’s SOP in many jobs to be suspended or put on some type of administrative leave when an accusation of inappropriate behavior is made in order for an investigation to take place. Safe Sport probably offers additional protection beyond many workplaces in that Safe Sport specifically penalizes accusers who make deliberate false complaints.

And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I’m not seeing that connection.

[Tackpud]

@packy mcgaughan

No one who speaks out against the process of how people are banned for life is engaged in victim shaming.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. The victim shaming on FB has been horrific and has been done by many of the people that say they are supporting a reform to SS. Some of the following are written by persons involved in the new “Athletes for Equity” group.

Direct quotes from FB without names:

“this is his two seconds of “fame” because he never made it as a trainer, a rider nor an actor. I had heard that his brother swore to bring George down. Well, they succeeded. And funnily enough, he still thanks George for his training as an instructor on his sites. I knew JS. I put this in the past tense as I want nothing to do with him ever again. I have zero respect for him now.”

“‘No one will ever again think that sex with an underage student is no big deal. And that is progress’ REALLY Jonathan??”

“Are we supposed to have sympathy for her?”

“Perhaps Safesport ought to ban people convicted of child porn.”

“You have got to be kidding me that we are now going to put a registered sex offender up on a pedestal”

“So kids can go train with a convicted pedophile, but not the former coach of the US equestrian team?”

Just a small list of things that people who say they are working to change the process have put out on FB. And those sure aren’t the worst things I could find. I didn’t even look at what is posted on individual’s pages, this is just from the group pages. So don’t tell me there’s no victim shaming going on - it’s all over the place and you’re incredibly dense if you deny it.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

Here’s my 2 cents…

People say there needs to be a statute of limitations in these cases. NJ DOES NOT have a statute of limitation for sexual assault. Hunterdon was in NJ, so if someone wanted to press criminal charges against George for an assault that occurred at his NJ home/barn they could. There is another person on the interim suspension list now that was facing charges from the 80’s by a woman in NJ. He agreed to having a judgement entered against him. When the report was made against a Massachusetts trainer on the banned list, the stature of limitation had NOT expired for civil charges. So here are 3 examples of people with either lifetime, or temporary bans that do fall within the statute of limitations.

I vehemently disagree that sexual misconduct with a minor should be similar to sexual harassment cases. I was assaulted at 15 by a trainer. I was sexually harassed by a boss and I will say they are not even in the same ballpark. Sexual assault of a minor destroys trust, makes you feel dirty, embarrassed, alone, depressed, guilty and a multitude of other feelings. It affects you for the rest of your life, as well as any future relationships you have (boy/girlfriend, parents, children, friends, trainers) Sexual harassment is unpleasant, but please, do not consider them equal.

Protective vs punitive. That is the point of punishment; it acts a deterrent. Current trainers pay attention; if you prey on minors, the punishment will be a lifetime ban. You do not know if there are other, more recent victims. Most women do not address their childhood sexual abuse until they are in their 50s. (I will try to find a case study or reference of this statistic). You are also making assumptions on these old cases - you do not know if it was he said/she (he) said. Those banned may not have denied it occurred, There could be many victims or witnesses that testified. There could be many more that chose not to participate. People say “they didn’t see anything” or he didn’t abuse me. All that could be true, but in most cases the assaults did not happen during a lesson or in the public eye. If you know of “current violators” than do something about it. Don’t stand by and ignore it; you are not helping change the culture of the sport.

I don’t understand your comment about it being more than exclusion from a club given the aiding and abetting rules. It is not a civil right to be a part of the USEF or any other NGB. Perhaps if the equestrian world required licensure like other professions, people would understand penalties and accept a ban as a proper penalty. If a doctor/teacher/therapist/lawyer has sex with a patient/student/client, they can lose their license.

If you had the opportunity to be involved in a SS case, you would see that there is an opportunity to obtain evidence. The accused can present ANYTHING they want when interviewed. They can present character statements, letters from doctors, forensic psychologists, etc. And contrary to what is splashed all over social media, they do know who reported it so they can tell their version of the events in question. And if you have a full merit hearing, both sides get to present evidence, witnesses and cross examine. The Responding Party does not get to talk to the Reporting Party before arbitration, but they do not get that opportunity when facing sanctions in other professions either. You do not know the facts that were presented in any of the cases unless you are the Reporting or Responding Party (and their advisors), so perhaps the facts were presented and the truth was revealed. Just because people do not like the outcome of the arbitrations, it does not mean the truth was not revealed. In fact, I think the truth has been revealed and that is why the arbitrator came to the conclusion the did.

[oneequestrienne]

@Keep it Simple

Here’s my 2 cents…

People say there needs to be a statute of limitations in these cases. NJ DOES NOT have a statute of limitation for sexual assault. Hunterdon was in NJ, so if someone wanted to press criminal charges against George for an assault that occurred at his NJ home/barn they could. There is another person on the interim suspension list now that was facing charges from the 80’s by a woman in NJ. He agreed to having a judgement entered against him. When the report was made against a Massachusetts trainer on the banned list, the stature of limitation had NOT expired for civil charges. So here are 3 examples of people with either lifetime, or temporary bans that do fall within the statute of limitations.

I vehemently disagree that sexual misconduct with a minor should be similar to sexual harassment cases. I was assaulted at 15 by a trainer. I was sexually harassed by a boss and I will say they are not even in the same ballpark. Sexual assault of a minor destroys trust, makes you feel dirty, embarrassed, alone, depressed, guilty and a multitude of other feelings. It affects you for the rest of your life, as well as any future relationships you have (boy/girlfriend, parents, children, friends, trainers) Sexual harassment is unpleasant, but please, do not consider them equal.

Protective vs punitive. That is the point of punishment; it acts a deterrent. Current trainers pay attention; if you prey on minors, the punishment will be a lifetime ban. You do not know if there are other, more recent victims. Most women do not address their childhood sexual abuse until they are in their 50s. (I will try to find a case study or reference of this statistic). You are also making assumptions on these old cases - you do not know if it was he said/she (he) said. Those banned may not have denied it occurred, There could be many victims or witnesses that testified. There could be many more that chose not to participate. People say “they didn’t see anything” or he didn’t abuse me. All that could be true, but in most cases the assaults did not happen during a lesson or in the public eye. If you know of “current violators” than do something about it. Don’t stand by and ignore it; you are not helping change the culture of the sport.

I don’t understand your comment about it being more than exclusion from a club given the aiding and abetting rules. It is not a civil right to be a part of the USEF or any other NGB. Perhaps if the equestrian world required licensure like other professions, people would understand penalties and accept a ban as a proper penalty. If a doctor/teacher/therapist/lawyer has sex with a patient/student/client, they can lose their license.

If you had the opportunity to be involved in a SS case, you would see that there is an opportunity to obtain evidence. The accused can present ANYTHING they want when interviewed. They can present character statements, letters from doctors, forensic psychologists, etc. And contrary to what is splashed all over social media, they do know who reported it so they can tell their version of the events in question. And if you have a full merit hearing, both sides get to present evidence, witnesses and cross examine. The Responding Party does not get to talk to the Reporting Party before arbitration, but they do not get that opportunity when facing sanctions in other professions either. You do not know the facts that were presented in any of the cases unless you are the Reporting or Responding Party (and their advisors), so perhaps the facts were presented and the truth was revealed. Just because people do not like the outcome of the arbitrations, it does not mean the truth was not revealed. In fact, I think the truth has been revealed and that is why the arbitrator came to the conclusion the did.

Matches my experience exactly. Thank you, I couldn’t agree more with you.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Tackpud

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. The victim shaming on FB has been horrific and has been done by many of the people that say they are supporting a reform to SS. Some of the following are written by persons involved in the new “Athletes for Equity” group.

Direct quotes from FB without names:

“this is his two seconds of “fame” because he never made it as a trainer, a rider nor an actor. I had heard that his brother swore to bring George down. Well, they succeeded. And funnily enough, he still thanks George for his training as an instructor on his sites. I knew JS. I put this in the past tense as I want nothing to do with him ever again. I have zero respect for him now.”

“‘No one will ever again think that sex with an underage student is no big deal. And that is progress’ REALLY Jonathan??”

“Are we supposed to have sympathy for her?”

“Perhaps Safesport ought to ban people convicted of child porn.”

“You have got to be kidding me that we are now going to put a registered sex offender up on a pedestal”

“So kids can go train with a convicted pedophile, but not the former coach of the US equestrian team?”

Just a small list of things that people who say they are working to change the process have put out on FB. And those sure aren’t the worst things I could find. I didn’t even look at what is posted on individual’s pages, this is just from the group pages. So don’t tell me there’s no victim shaming going on - it’s all over the place and you’re incredibly dense if you deny it.

Thanks for this post, and being firm in terms of pushing back on the notion that there is no victim shaming going on.

I will add two more to your list of HORRIBLE things said about victims on Facebook by actual people following high profile cases…

1. Following the story the articles that were published about Williams in 2018, and the decision to ban Gage in early summer, one particularly well known figure in the hunter jumper community came out and commented that teenage girls from the 1970’s routinely were “screwing for the blue.”

2. Following Gage’s suicide, Steve Bostwick actually left a comment on AK’s professional Facebook page, accusing her of being a “murderer” who was responsible for his death, because she had spoken up about her own experiences as a victim. By AK going public with her own experiences, and then choosing to be a leader with respect to changing the culture in our sport, others felt comfortable coming forward to and working with Safe Sport. Blaming a victim of childhood abuse for Gage’s tragic decision to take his own life? That’s insane.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Keep it Simple

Thanks for your last few posts. You have done an awesome job at clarifying the process of a Safe Sport investigation, and highlighting misinformation that is obviously spreading.

I’m tired of seeing the same misinformation repeated over and over and over again by well known professionals throughout the industry. It’s disappointing and sad. Folks, you destroy your own credibility when you obviously stand by a small circle of friends, and don’t bother to thoroughly examine the published details of the Safe Sport process, and details about specific cases, before going out and repeating the same old arguments.

I have no problem with people being concerned about Safe Spirt, examining individual cases and the process, and attempting to improve it. But it’s tome to get real… that is not what the vast majority of the groundswell in hunter jumper land is doing right now. The anti Safe Sport sentiment is all about protecting the old guard, and sucking up to big names who have very strong public opinions because close associates and friends have been caught up in a Safe Sport investigation… and it’s sad. The situation is obvious.

I can understand folks struggling with some of the ugly revelations… I can understand folks supporting long time friends, teammates, family members, mentors, etc… but once it’s obvious that allegations are likely accurate… what is the continued noise about Safe Sport reform REALLY all about?

At what point do we decide that this behavior is bad… and always was bad? It’s time to say that. I’m sorry friends and cons are dealing with the consequences of bad choices. It IS sad. But sweeping these things under the rug is WORSE. Support change. Encourage people like me to dial back their rhetoric and speak with compassion about individual cases… that’s fair… but don’t attack the change that is happening in the sport. This change is a good thing for young people, and for the future of the sport.

@poltroon - thanks for going back and finding the statistical information FiSk123 shared in another thread concerning statistics related to Safe Sport cases across multiple sports. It helps put things in perspective, for sure. I wish FiSk would pop back into multiple threads now. She/he contributed a lot to discussions.

[MHM]

@Virginia Horse Mom

I have no problem with people being concerned about Safe Spirt, examining individual cases and the process, and attempting to improve it. But it’s tome to get real… that is not what the vast majority of the groundswell in hunter jumper land is doing right now.

Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

[mvp]

@MHM

Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

On your last point: I don’t think anyone believes that sexual exploitation happens in the H/J world more frequently than anywhere else. Rather, I thought that the point was that we are (disappointingly) unique in our push-back against SafeSport. At least, that’s what I see from my corner of the world, though I am not well-informed about sports at large.

I am surprised by the callousness and entitlement exhibited by "my betters’ in this industry who are ill-informed about the SafeSport process or the experience of victims, but quite sure of the validity of their opinions. And at bottom, these folks are making an argument against preventing sexual abuse of children. This feels like yet more way in which I’m finding myself at odds with the sport I grew up loving. This branch of the high-end H/J world are not my people.

[oneequestrienne]

@MHM

Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

Check out @JudgeThree on Twitter for an interesting cross sport perspective. He/She is from figure skating but also has had direct contact with Safesport and connections to people in other sports.

[packy_mcgaughan]

And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I’m not seeing that connection. [/QUOTE]

Bonnie will not tell you this but I will. She has never charged any of the nearly two dozen clients she has represented a dime for her services. She, more than any other lawyer working on these issues, understands how most equestrian professionals live hand to mouth. We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.

[Midge]

When people say, “Shouldn’t the court system handle this?”

“A rape kit wasn’t tested for 23 years. Police just matched the DNA — to a man suspected all along.”

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1197245627236782081

[Midge]

@packy mcgaughan

Bonnie will not tell you this but I will. She has never charged any of the nearly two dozen clients she has represented a dime for her services. She, more than any other lawyer working on these issues, understands how most equestrian professionals live hand to mouth. We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.

Oh, she told us.

[ladyj79]

@Midge

Oh, she told us.

thank you for beating me to this. What the heck? She says this repeatedly. And please, I think it’s great that this one person wants to defend all the dopers and kiddy rapers. Congrats on finding your folks.

[ynl063w]

@packy mcgaughan

We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.

Well, those of us who don’t rape children don’t need a lawyer at all, let alone one who will happily defend child rapists at no charge.

[Mara]

@packy mcgaughan

And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I’m not seeing that connection.

Bonnie will not tell you this but I will. She has never charged any of the nearly two dozen clients she has represented a dime for her services. She, more than any other lawyer working on these issues, understands how most equestrian professionals live hand to mouth. We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.

Since I won’t be raping children or drugging horses for competition, I won’t be in need of “a lawyer like Bonnie” in my corner.

[fair_judy]

Mr. McGaughan spoke clearly on his opinions in a Chronicle podcast back in August. I can’t even type Navin without feeling queasy.