Many cases which settle do so with the provision of “no admission of guilt” as part of their stipulation/agreement.
1 Like
I hope the JDs will not accept those terms.
7 Likes
I am not saying this does not happen, because it clearly does. But it is so strange - “Here, I will pay you lots of money but not admit to doing anything wrong.”
4 Likes
I think it really depends upon the tort involved in each case. In the case we are all debating, the tort involved is rape of minors. I don’t see how it will be acceptable to either side to arrive at a settlement that involves financial compensation, but no admission of wrongdoing. And it’s worth noting that the Jane Does involved first tried to go through SafeSport for accountability… which indicates that they have not raised these claims because they are focused on financial compensation. They raised these claims because they want him to be held accountable for his actions… and for the fact that he engaged in wrong and harmful behavior to be a matter of public record.
7 Likes
When other facilities see that places “like them” are being sued for big bucks, there could also be undesired consequences. When faced with potential liability, they might start restricting competitions to participants over 18 or shut down their facility altogether.
7 Likes
If memory serves me right that’s how trump and his daddy settled the case against him and his father for engaging in discriminatory rental practices.
3 Likes
It happens all over the place. I am not sure why Trump needs to be brought into it. My point it that I think it is weird to be able to say ‘here have money, we did nothing wrong but we are willing to give you all this money just because’.
Even more weird in a case like this.
6 Likes
The much more analogous civil case involving a former President is actually the Bill Clinton v. Paula Jones matter.
In 1998, Clinton made a settlement offer to Jones, which she accepted. $850,000 , but no apology or admission of wrongdoing on Bill Clinton’s part.
2 Likes
I hope this is not going to devolve into another Trump/Clinton political debate on this discussion.
Again, what’s the topic of this thread?
14 Likes
On the basis its investigation, SS issued a lifetime ban, and only closed the case because the JDs were not willing to participate in the arbitration at the time. Apparently, they are willing to participate now.
Why would SS need the JDs to prevail in a civil suit in order to reopen the case? If they did reopen the case, and reissue the ban, they would need to go through the arbitration (if BM appeals). However, they thought they had a strong case before, and the JDs think they can prevail with a preponderance of the evidence in the civil suit (the same standard as the arbitration), so it seems extremely likely that the ban would be upheld in arbitration.
I believe that the SS legislation specifically says that in the case of criminal convictions, SS can issue sanctions without either arbitration of investigation. The existence of a civil case does not preclude SS action, but is there anything in the SS legislation that says that a civil case can be used to fulfill the respondents rights to arbitration?
I don’t think the civil case has any direct effect on the SS ban. It has indirect effects - the JDs have the resolve to pursue the cases against McDonald and are now willing to participate in the arbitration, but other than that, I still don’t see a direct role of the civil case in the SS case.
2 Likes
Of course we don’t want it to devolve into that. One poster chose to try and bring Trump into it. I think it’s fair to point out that the Clinton case was LITERALLY a landmark sexual harassment lawsuit, that ended in a financial settlement, and no admission of wrongdoing.
Enough said.
3 Likes
VHMs post on the civil suit against Clinton being settled with a big payout to the plaintiff but no admission of guilt is exactly on topic to the thread.
3 Likes
trump was brought in because that’s one example that I know. No other reason.
5 Likes
I see your point, but let’s acknowledge that in today’s day and age, there is this helpful public tool… the SafeSport list on the USEF website. A Facility can literally just look at that list, and then commit to banning people on that list from their facility. And just like that, they’ve demonstrated that they are not negligently indifferent when it comes to child predators and sport.
It’s really not that hard or complicated… and a simple commitment to abide by SafeSport code and uphold the banned list? That can actually serve as a liability shield for facilities.
Which makes the facilities who willfully choose to ignore the banned list seem just a little bit more stupid, when you think about it.
7 Likes
Fair enough.
2 Likes
One of the problems with this is that exhibitors are not required to name their trainer or can put their own name or their parents on the entry form. Especially at an unsanctioned show, as the show manager I can’t police the schooling or identify who might be standing at the in gate with a rider as a banned person. Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE to publicly run someone off the grounds if I know they are sanctioned by SS, but it can be difficult to enforce in practice.
5 Likes
That’s a good nuance to understand.
Personally, I think that the simple desire/willingness on the part of a show manager or facility to exclude all folks currently sanctioned by SafeSport… well… I think that counts for a lot. Simply making a public statement on a website that, “We abide by SafeSport code at all times” … I think that’s important.
When the Beverly schooling show situation involving Tom Navarro was brought up on this thread last summer, we did all discuss it for a day or two before Beverly was privately contacted. It was crummy PR for them, but they made lemonade out of lemons with a really clear, classy, and professional public response. Now that everyone knows they are committed to SafeSport… in the future, if someone sees Tom (or a different banned person) wandering around on their premises at a show or clinic or whatever… I think the 3rd party observer will be more inclined to privately reach out to management and just say, “Heads up. It looks like a jerk slipped through the cracks. You guys might want to quietly escort him off the grounds.” And honestly… that’s probably the best way to address these issues as a sport.
Hopefully that point of view makes sense. If I’m missing a practical challenge though, please, inform me 
7 Likes
I would love it if people would commit to self-policing our sport at every level. If somebody knows a banned person is at a show, then that somebody should approach management and make them aware. If management chooses not to address the problem, then they can deal with the fallout.
I also think Beverly Equestrian handled it well. A public statement about the facility’s commitment to following the rules of USEF/VHSA/Safesport is a great idea.
11 Likes
That is about all anyone can do, short of contacting the police and filing trespassing charges if a banned person refuses to leave. We can’t really expect the event management to be able to screen and recognize every face in a crowd themselves.
7 Likes
But the Orange County facility is being sued by the JDs for what happened in the early to mid seventies when BM was not on any list. He isn’t on a list now. The alleged rapes were described as occurring in his nearby apartment and on a road trip. If the abuse was going on with the one JD for three years and her own parents were unaware of it, how was the facility management supposed to be aware of it? Unless the facility was guilty of gross negligence (and hosting a trainer on the SS banned list I agree is negligence), I see the suing of the facilities as likely to lead to some closures or rules that minors cannot participate without a parent present on grounds - bad for the sport.
6 Likes
