I think it is unfortunate and problematic that both claimants abruptly declined to testify in the arbitration, after bringing the allegations to SafeSport. Also unfortunate and problematic that after declining to testify at the arbitration, where they might have retained anonymity, that they chose to go to the press, and as a result are probably no longer anonymous.
However valid their allegations, I think their inconsistency in refusing to testify at the arbitration has put SS in a bad position, and a weaker position in which to move forward on their case.
I don’t think Debbie actually said he “had been cleared”. She said she was grateful the case had been closed.
She also said that from the beginning that their goal was to clear his name.
Hmmm - you’re right about the masterful wording Yankee Dutchess. She did say it was closed… then later said that, From the beginning, we were committed to clearing his name.”
Soooo, it’s pretty understandable that everyone would assume the case had been closed because his name had been cleared. But apparently… that wasn’t the case. Not at all.
Furthermore, per the SafeSport report the article seemed to reference, neither Bob nor Debbie cooperated with the investigation. Who knows why - they might have had legit reasons. But they apparently didn’t provide any evidence that actually cleared his name. Nor did they even sit with the investigator to be interviewed. In light of that revelation, her August statement seems MIGHTY misleading. At best.
After all the SS shockers over the last few years, I’m left to wonder… whose next? What predator is out there waiting and wondering when their name shows up on the list.
@Jealoushe - a betting person would put money on there being another claim against another big name who is located out on the West Coast. Perhaps an investigation has been already been started. But I don’t know for sure.
Correct. But I actually think the more appropriate comparison is a prosecutor dropping charges with respect to a specific case. Other posters who are actual lawyers can weigh in… but my rudimentary understanding of criminal charges is that prosecutors can file charges, and subsequently drop them for specific reasons if issues arise with their case or witnesses. This sort of thing does happen in the real world.
Additionally, it’s my understanding that a prosecutor deciding to drop criminal charges against someone because there are issues with a case is NOT the same thing as the accused being found “not guilty.” When this sort of thing happens, it’s not necessarily common for the accused to go out and make public statements all but declaring that their name has been cleared. Because their name hasn’t been cleared. The charges have just been dropped. These are two different things.
Anyway… as you said… this isn’t a legal proceeding. It’s a SafeSport proceeding. In particular, a SafeSport proceeding involving ‘horse world’ and a guy who apparently had sex with minors. In an abusive way. So everyone is confused, and few people seem to be looking at this whole thing going, “DAMN! That guy got seriously lucky. If a more competent investigator had been assigned, he probably would have been screwed.” Nope. For whatever reason, horse people can’t seem to see it that way.
But that’s how I see it. But maybe I’m wrong, and McDonald will successfully sue the hell out of Scott Reid and the OC Register for publishing a false and libelous story about him. sexually abusing two underage girls. After all… he apparently threatened to take SafeSport to US District Court last year…
We will see.
We will also see if the USEF says anything about this. Anything at all. Or is it just business as usual. Sad. Really damn sad.
According to an alarming number of people who rode jumpers in Southern California between 1965 and 1990 - yeah. Grown ass men can have sex with 11 and 12 year old little girls, whether the girls are interested or not, and it’s all perfectly fine. California in the 60’s and 70’s apparently was a “special” place to be if you were a horse crazy young girl.
My interpretation of the refusal to cooperate more than absolutely required was that he was sort of protesting the aspects of the investigation phase that the SS critics always complain about. Sort of, “I’m refusing to cooperate because I don’t think I’ll be treated fairly.” Quite different from “I’m eager to present my side of the story because once you hear the evidence I’m confident I’ll be cleared.”
While the mystery of why SS banned him then abruptly canceled the arbitration has been cleared up, this leaves a new festering issue. Given that SS was the one who canceled the scheduled arbitration and announced the case “closed”, can the case be pursued? Perhaps only if a third claimant comes forward?
He was obviously not “cleared”, and I did not think he was cleared at the time, despite Debbie’s masterful and intentionally deceiving statement. Nevertheless, it seems unfair to leave him in perpetual limbo.
In conducting the investigation, SS would need to anticipate questions submitted by defense counsel in the arbitration, so is it really feasible to conduct interviews of the claimants without asking intrusive questions? It’s an honest question; I don’t know.
I certainly take the point that the claimants deciding not to testify at the arbitration is understandable. But however understandable, it put SS in a bad position. The other part of it is: if the claimants decide they can’t bear to testify before the arbitrator, why go to the press, and essentially try the case in terms of public opinion? McDonald would have some procedural safeguards in arbitration, but skipping arbitration and going to the press isn’t fair to McDonald or to SS. Or to the claimants.
Ah, ladyj79. If you’re referring to a post of mine, the sentence started with the caveat that it was not a criminal trial, and referred to “something akin to double jeopardy”. Do I need to be even more lawyerly than that?
On the “akin to double jeopardy” issue, do you think that SS, given that it is not a criminal proceeding, can pursue a sanction against McDonald based on these two claimants?
Suing in libel is notoriously tricky. You have to prove the things said are not true and/or that they harmed your reputation, while the defendant is going to rely on the truth of the statements as an absolute defence. Which leads to a lot of evidence about those things - and usually a lot of press coverage. Often the practical reality is that you bring even more attention, much of it negative, to yourself.
My hunch is that they refused to testify in an arbitration proceeding, because the SafeSport investigator did a crappy job of writing up statements they made during the course of the investigation, and they anticipated that they would end up in a position where their testimony during the arbitration proceeding would possible contradict details in the report that the SafeSport investigator wrote up.
I might be wrong, but after reading the OC Register article, that is what I have concluded.
I agree… it put SafeSport in a bad position. But… if the SafeSport investigator was sloppy, and did a poor job building a relationship with the witnesses… SafeSport reaps what it sows. And at the end of the day, the reality is that the two parties involved in the arbitration proceeding were actually SAFESPORT and Bob McDonald. Kinda like in criminal court. The state brings criminal charges against the defendant. The complainant/victim is just a witness in the whole thing. And if the state does a poor job with details of its investigation, and a poor job prepping witnesses… the state loses their case. Or… the state decides to drop the charges before the case ever goes to trial, because they know they haven’t prepared enough.
In this matter, someone at SafeSport anticipated running into problems during arbitration, and they decided not to try and defend the lifetime ban decision. It’s analogous to dropping charges.
Back to the complainant. Perhaps she went to the media, because she was deeply dissatisfied with how SafeSport handled this whole complaint. You keep on stating that it isn’t fair to McDonald that the complainant went directly to the press. But I don’t see it that way. If what the complainant shared with press is true… she’s entirely within her rights to share it with the media. Frankly, she could have skipped SafeSport altogether, abs do w that right from the get go. But she didn’t. She tried to go through a confidential SafeSport process first. But they screwed up, and it seems to me that the complaining party believes the proverbial ship has sailed when it comes to using the SafeSport process to deal with these allegations. I am of the opinion that is because SAFESPORT bungled it on some level. The complainant didn’t want to just walk away.
So back to the next phase… complainant takes these allegations to the media. You seem to believe that is unfair to McDonald. But here are some things to consider. First… By going to the media, she LOST many of the protections she had in the SafeSport process. She has opened herself up to harsh counter allegations by McDonald. She also has opened herself up to potential defamation suits, abs civil liability, if she is lying. But she went to the media anyway. And they published her claims… after doing extensive background verification of the evidence she presented. In fact… Scott Reid (the reporter) contacted Bob McDonald prior to publishing this story. He has quotes from McDonald. Multiple quotes. But you know what Scott Reid didn’t seem to get from McDonald? Any evidence that clears McDonald’s name. One can assume if McDonald had such evidence, he or his lawyer would have spoken about it to this reporter. They didn’t though, as far as we can tell.
Call me crazy… but here’s what I think… I think it’s entirely possible McDonald as bluffing all along when he claimed he was going to clear his name during the neutral arbitration proceeding. And he got lucky when SafeSport pulled back. And then… when the reporter called him up and asked for his side of the story… McDonald la led any sort of compelling defense.
I mean, it’s possible the reporter decided not to share exculpatory details McDonald shared with him when he was contacted for comment prior to publication. But that isn’t how the article read to me. It’s possible the complainant lied to the reporter, and fed him a BS story. But there’s an awful lot of corroborated detail. And I don’t think the reporter would have run with this sort of explosive story if he wasn’t confident she was being honest about many of the details reported. After all… the reporter can be sued by McDonald as well.
So what does all that say to you? To me… it says that this complainant pressed forward because she thinks McDonald should be held accountable, on some level, for what he did back in the 70’s. And if what he did is as described in the OC Register article… bluntly… I think McDonald is lucky to have led a long and fulfilling life, and not have served jail time. And he might be best served to sit back abs remain silent now, and be grateful he never did jail time.
I do think it’s sad that Debbie’s role with the US Dressage team will likely be impacted by this. But… that’s her choice. Her husband. Her life. She’s had a great career. She can still actively coach abs participate in sport. She has many loyal friends. And if SafeSport hadn’t screwed up the investigation, and Bob had been banned for life from anything to do with recognized sport… or if he had faced charges for statutory rape (or worse)… well… I think things would have been even harder on Debbie.
So all in all, if what the complainant is alleging in the OC Register article is true… both Bob and Debbie are going to walk away from this in a pretty ok position. And if what the complainant told the reporter is all an awful lie… well… they now have the option of fighting back and suing the stuffing out of her.
So we will see what happens. My bet is nothing. Which says a lot.
Agreed. But it is an option for McDonald, now that she went to the press. What she shared with the press demonstrably did harm his reputation. It will likely cost Debbie her role as a technical adviser to the US team. And he and Debbie have both made multiple statements saying they want to clear his name. I believe Bob’s first statement last year was pretty forceful, and alleged he was seeking an opportunity to clear his name… and that was part of the reaction in the wake of SafeSport dropping the complaint. That he was going to clear his name during the arbitration proceeding… and that was why they backed off.
Sooo… if he has the strong hand he has claimed to have… it seems rational for him to pursue a libel or defamation suit.
Ahhh. My mistake. I think my original post failed to adequately convey my sarcasm and disgust over this whole issue. I agree that all of these sort of sexual relationships are abusive by definition.
Also… In the case of this situation, and the events and descriptions she shared with the OC Register… there is an element of it all that goes beyond what one would describe as statutory rape alone. I do want to be careful with language, so I won’t label it beyond that. But the experiences she shared as part of the article are terrible, and if they are accurate, he’s an abusive person beyond just the age and power differentials.
I hope that makes sense.
As for the flaky description, feel free to address your complaint to the poster who first said it. That poster wasn’t me (I thought I addressed that already, but it seems like perhaps it is still unclear).
Is the burden of truth on the libeler to prove what he said was true, or on the libeled to prove that what was said was untrue?
Whichever it is, a problem with suing for libel is that to defend against the charge, the libeler is going to lay out his case and evidence to support the statement.
I did mean to say that. I was being sarcastic though. Because OBVIOUSLY it is all horribly abusive. But OBVIOUSLY there is a really remarkable contingent of people who are horse professionals from a certain era, who all lived and worked in Southern California, who make bizarre excuses when it comes to these sexual abuse cases over and over and over.
It’s 2021, and most of them have now realized that people like me will call them out on these forums when they publicly say HORRIBLE things on Facebook blaming victims, and bemoaning how cruel and unfair it is that Jimmy’s reputation has been ruined, yada yada yada… and they keep those comments private now or say them in little secret FB groups to like minded friends…
Anyway… that’s what I was alluding too. The pedophile ring in equestrian sport - jumpers in particular- that seemed to operate with impunity out in SoCal back in “the good old days.”
C’mon. You know that if McDonald decides to sue for libel or defamation, the burden of proof is on him. As far as the ‘libeler’ laying out their evidence and case all over again… yes… it’s ugly. It prolongs the agony…
But the accusations are already out there. And they are UGLY. They can’t be unseen at this point. If they truly are false, and he can clear his name… as he and Debbie have both said he wants to…
Why wouldn’t he try? Other than because it’s expensive?
