People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[2bayboys]

I happen to love tangents so I found this:

White-shoe firm

[Jealoushe]

Alright, I am sorry but I was not trying to police you at all! I’m saying ignore because the thread is being derailed just like many others.

Was more a suggestion to continue to scroll and roll. I’m sorry I came across otherwise.

[FitzE]

Ah, fair enough, sorry I took it worst possible way.

When someone is having such a go at really, genuinely useful participants and mocking and demeaning everyone with absolute impunity, it does get under the skin. That behaviour is tolerated from no one else on these boards that I can see and I find it truly bizarre (though I guess no one else has resorted to directly threatening the executive editor, so there’s that).

As vxf111 said, sometimes you get sucked in. But, starving this stuff of oxygen is the best strategy, you are absolutely correct and I take your point now, thank you for clarifying.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@FitzE

As vxf111 said, sometimes you get sucked in. But, starving this stuff of oxygen is the best strategy, you are absolutely correct and I take your point now, thank you for clarifying.

It happens to everyone eventually on these forums. And some people are notorious for sucking others in.

[Jealoushe]

All good, it was late and I probably didn’t word it very well. We all know I get sucked in easily too

[foursocks]

I would just like to chime in to say that I am very appreciative of the (real) lawyers participating here. That part has been very informative, and interesting. The other stuff…not so much. I’m grading many, many, MANY, oh-so-many papers right now and, if they were essays, would send most of the gobbledegook posts back to the student to rewrite.

Yesterday this subject actually came up in one of my classes (I teach comparative politics). We were discussing the staggering number of women, one in three, who have experienced physical or sexual violence in the world. One of my students noted that it’s stupid to feel “lucky” because here in the US at least we have legal recourse, including SS, for something that shouldn’t happen in the first place, whereas people elsewhere do not. She pointed out that even here people still don’t believe victims, who are afraid to or discouraged from speaking up and attacked when they do, and that getting justice is rare. It’s such a low bar, but still too high for some, apparently.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@vxf111

I think it will be particularly interesting to see what, if anything, SS does if the Jane Does prevail on their civil suit. Most civil cases have a long trajectory and I would expect this one will too. And most civil cases settle rather than try. If this one does try and the Jane Does prevail, I would think SS would then be in a position to either reinstate the temporary ban and continue proceedings or possibly just use the judgment itself as a basis for some sanction of some sort (perhaps not a lifetime ban but some lesser sanction). In analogous contexts like administrative suspension/debarment/exclusions, agencies do use civil judgments as the basis for administrative penalties. So there is so basis for this.

You have a really good point here. If the McDonald’s settle with the Jane Does, or if there is an actual legal proceeding and judgement, then the question as to what to do on SafeSport’s part won’t be all that complicated, in my opinion. They’ll almost certainly reinstate the ban on Bob McDonald, given the nature of the allegations.

The tricky issue this time is the potential for a LONG interim period while the entire lawsuit plays out. Does SafeSport go ahead and reopen the complaint and ban him again? Is it in the best legal interests of the two Jane Does to participate in a SafeSport arbitration process before their civil suit is completed? I’d imagine it’s not.

So what to do? If SafeSport sits back and waits until the civil suit is resolved before sanctioning anyone, then what should USEF do with respect to Debbie’s role as a technical adviser in the meantime? I know many many many people like and respect Debbie, and have known her for years… but honestly… it’s a really f****d up thing if she continues on in this role while this civil suit naming her and Bob, and alleging rape of minors, drags on. Not a good thing for USEF’s public image.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@foursocks

would just like to chime in to say that I am very appreciative of the (real) lawyers participating here. That part has been very informative, and interesting.

Ditto.

[Knights_Mom]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@vxf111

I think it will be particularly interesting to see what, if anything, SS does if the Jane Does prevail on their civil suit. Most civil cases have a long trajectory and I would expect this one will too. And most civil cases settle rather than try. If this one does try and the Jane Does prevail, I would think SS would then be in a position to either reinstate the temporary ban and continue proceedings or possibly just use the judgment itself as a basis for some sanction of some sort (perhaps not a lifetime ban but some lesser sanction). In analogous contexts like administrative suspension/debarment/exclusions, agencies do use civil judgments as the basis for administrative penalties. So there is so basis for this.

You have a really good point here. If the McDonald’s settle with the Jane Does, or if there is an actual legal proceeding and judgement, then the question as to what to do on SafeSport’s part won’t be all that complicated, in my opinion. They’ll almost certainly reinstate the ban on Bob McDonald, given the nature of the allegations.

The tricky issue this time is the potential for a LONG interim period while the entire lawsuit plays out. Does SafeSport go ahead and reopen the complaint and ban him again? Is it in the best legal interests of the two Jane Does to participate in a SafeSport arbitration process before their civil suit is completed? I’d imagine it’s not.

So what to do? If SafeSport sits back and waits until the civil suit is resolved before sanctioning anyone, then what should USEF do with respect to Debbie’s role as a technical adviser in the meantime? I know many many many people like and respect Debbie, and have known her for years… but honestly… it’s a really f****d up thing if she continues on in this role while this civil suit naming her and Bob, and alleging rape of minors, drags on. Not a good thing for USEF’s public image.

Long time is a mild way of putting it. My former court is backed up well over a year for even the simplest, smallest cases. Many other cases are not even being scheduled yet. Inputting cases in my former court is backed up 6,000 cases. That means there are 6,000 of just one type of case that haven’t even entered the system yet.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Holy MOLY. Is that mostly Covid related? That’s CRAZY.

[Knights_Mom]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Holy MOLY. Is that mostly Covid related? That’s CRAZY.

It is entirely Covid related.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Another thought on this whole case, and a reference to the parallel discussion going on over in the thread on the Dressage forums.

I think there is a potential benefit to the sport in general with respect to the way Mike Reck (the attorney for multiple plaintiffs now) has gone about naming Topping Ridge Club, Flintridge Riding Club, and now Orange County Fairgrounds as co-defendants (hopefully that’s the correct legal term… if not, one of the lawyers on these forums is welcome to correct me ) in these suits.

Let’s think back about a hundred posts on this thread to late summer, early fall. We were all discussing the challenging issue involved with local (to Virginia) schooling/unrated shows, and Tom Navarro (lifetime banned by SafeSport), who has been routinely trying to show up with a trailer full of students at various venues.

Multiple folks pointed out that it’s really tough for venues to screen everyone, they aren’t actually required to enforce participation restrictions when it comes to unrecognized shows, etc etc.

Well… these suits are something anyone involved in hosting horse shows of any kind should take note of. If you knowingly/unknowingly host an identified sexual predator (who has a group of minors in tow) on your property… you may very well end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit years after the fact if that predator then sexually assaults or molests one of those minors while attending the unrecognized show you are hosting.

Just something for people to think about. Perhaps the owners of various facilities that still occasionally allow certain SafeSport banned people on their property for unrecognized shows/clinics should think about these 3 suits, and re-evaluate if what they are doing is REALLY worth the potential legal exposure…

Anyways, back to why I think these suits might prove beneficial to the sport… I think they might be one more factor that ‘nudges’ people towards cutting ties with these known predators, once and for all. Even when it comes to low level unrecognized shows. The legal liability involved in welcoming an identified sexual predator on your property? It’s not worth it. Not at all.

I wish people would be motivated by common decency to cut all ties with known predators… but apparently many folks in the sport have a character deficit in some respects…

[Jenerationx]

Hmmm… being accused of entering this thread to discuss a poster is interesting, and incorrect of course. I’ve been in this thread and the George Morris thread, and others about the abuse that’s gone on in our sport for a very long time. I just don’t sit here and pretend to be a lawyer, or proclaim that because I have a lawyer, I know more than others.

Unfortunately, I do know a whole hell of a lot about abuse and what those JDs are going through.

@vxf111

I think it will be particularly interesting to see what, if anything, SS does if the Jane Does prevail on their civil suit. Most civil cases have a long trajectory and I would expect this one will too. And most civil cases settle rather than try. If this one does try and the Jane Does prevail, I would think SS would then be in a position to either reinstate the temporary ban and continue proceedings or possibly just use the judgment itself as a basis for some sanction of some sort (perhaps not a lifetime ban but some lesser sanction). In analogous contexts like administrative suspension/debarment/exclusions, agencies do use civil judgments as the basis for administrative penalties. So there is so basis for this.

That is where my head is right now too. I hope that SS will use the civil case and a settlement as an admission of guilt if there is a settlement. If it goes to court and the finding is against the McDonalds, I would hope that lends some weight to the SS investigation and gets reopened. The SS code itself states that the outcome of criminal or civil proceedings doesn’t preclude a SS resolution, but it also doesn’t state that a civil case would be used to open, reopen or bolster an investigation.

Quote from XI, E, 1 of the code found here: https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SafeSportCode2021_040121_V3.pdf

Apart from the application of the Code as it relates to
Criminal Charge(s) and Disposition(s), the Center’s
resolution will not be precluded merely because (a)
a civil case or criminal charges involving the same
incident or conduct have been filed, (b) criminal
charges have been dismissed or reduced; or© a civil
lawsuit has been settled or dismissed.

[oreo_mom]

That’s just awful! People need to get on with life. A man became basically homeless after his court case was put on hold. All over an unpaid truckload of hay

[oreo_mom]

It’s hard to cut ties with dead people.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Tom Navarro and George Morris are very much alive.

But yes… Jimmy Williams is dead.

[Night_Flight]

@oreo_mom

It’s hard to cut ties with dead people.

It’s not hard at all, actually. Don’t post in the dead person’s defense saying that it’s unfair to say bad things about someone who isn’t around to defend themselves, and don’t post photos, etc., of abusers who are now dead saying that those were the “good old days” and how much better everything was back then.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Night_Flight

It’s not hard at all, actually. Don’t post in the dead person’s defense saying that it’s unfair to say bad things about someone who isn’t around to defend themselves, and don’t post photos, etc., of abusers who are now dead saying that those were the “good old days” and how much better everything was back then.

Right? All the FB nostalgia around one particular child rapist is truly BIZARRE.

[Night_Flight]

And if you’re feeling extra brave, you could even say “I was friends with/a business associate of X back in the day, and while we had a good relationship, I believe the victims who have come forward and I only wish I had noticed what was happening at the time so that I might have been able to do something about it before now.”

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Night_Flight

And if you’re feeling extra brave, you could even say “I was friends with/a business associate of X back in the day, and while we had a good relationship, I believe the victims who have come forward and I only wish I had noticed what was happening at the time so that I might have been able to do something about it before now.”

See, that would be the sort of thing people who have common decency would say.

Instead, it’s on and on and on about how wonderful it was riding with big name trainer X,Y, or Z back in the day, and how valuable the whole experience was. Who cares that the trainer was raping children in his spare time?!? He was such a great coach, and really helped shape the sport.

So bizarre and ridiculous.