As show manager, what prevents you from adding a form in which the exhibitor has to agree that their participation will not involve any coaching or support of any kind by anyone on the SS list? You could provide a link to the list, or spell out on the form the roll call of disgrace.
7 Likes
In the case of a criminal conviction, they can take action without a separate investigation, but the sanctioned person always has the option of arbitration to contest the sanction. Think about it like this - maybe they’ve found a criminal record for the wrong person, maybe the person argues that the sanction is inappropriate for the convicted crime.
In fact, we have an example of this from the Jonathan Soresi case, where SafeSport banned him based on his guilty plea and his obligation to register as a sex offender in Florida when he was there for the show circuit in 2008. (SS found out because he told them about this when cooperating on the Morris case.) The courts did NOT obligate him to register in New York or New Jersey when the charge was adjudicated. We don’t have the written findings of the arbitator, but the arbitrator overturned SafeSport’s decision to ban there.
So here is how I read it, though IANAL. SafeSport already knows what they WANT to do, wanted to do, but they feared losing the case in arbitration without having live witness testimony. I think this is a reasonable concern given some other high profile cases. So they shelved it until they had a case they were sure they could win, hoping that this additional weight would come in time.
It was REMARKABLE that they stated in a public press release that McDonald was not exonerated and created the clarity that they still believed in their case. I cannot think of another example where this has happened. As an entity, this is out on a bit of a limb for them. This is one of the problems with being this kind of entity, that you are constrained with confidentiality and can’t always tell your side of the story in public, while all the other players can say whatever they want, and there’s little opportunity to correct the record either among the directly involved or the peanut gallery like ourselves.
A civil case would provide public record of the testimony of the plaintiffs and even if the two women didn’t choose to then appear live before the arbitrator, the transcripts of that testimony would presumably be admissible and might make the difference for SafeSport to tip from “we aren’t sure we can win before the arbitrator who might be assigned” to “we are confident we can win this case now.” (Writing this, I also wonder if they knew the assigned arbitrator and had specific concerns on that point as well.) Or it might not. But as I read it, that’s the decision point for SafeSport.
Either way, the civil suit means that more people will know about the charges and be able to protect themselves and their children, and put to bed the claim that McDonald was exonerated.
8 Likes
I think the article stated that Bob’s behavior had been reported to the OC Fairgrounds. Who did nothing.
Noting that the fairgrounds has really cut back on the equestrian facility over the past 20 or so years, both in acreage (reassigned for other purposes) and scope. And, a few years ago there were threats of closing the whole facility.
3 Likes
That’s interesting. I’d have to assume they have something in the way of evidence in order to go forward with the lawsuit.
With suits involving victims of Morris and Williams that specifically also named Flintridge and Topping Ridge… the reality is that many people at that time were WELL aware that Morris and Williams were child predators.
@Jealoushe shared this update about the McDonald’s on the Dressage forum thread, but I thought I’d link it on this thread as well.
1 Like
It’s very common. Litigants settle all the time even when they have done nothing wrong and/or they have viable defenses. If it’s going to be 2 years of hassle/uncertainty and 6 digits worth of attorney’s fees to defend yourself and win, or you can settle quickly with no admission of liability and be DONE (with finality and no appeals) for half of that-- some litigants will do the cost/benefit calculation and decide to settle. This is especially true when a claim is tendered to an insurance company. The insurance company has no emotional investment and is looking at settlement vs. trial as purely a pramatic financial calculation. Many many settlements are without admission of liability. And many occur for purely pragmatic reasons. This is a pretty charged set of facts so maybe there won’t be a settlement here. But in a general sense it’s not at all uncommon for settlement to be motivated by pragmatic concerns and for it to be with no admission of liability (it’s “liability” and not “guilt” in the civil setting, despite how the terms sometimes get used interchangeably on this thread by people who don’t know the difference).
19 Likes
I don’t think the Jane Does NEED to prevail for SS to move forward. SS can move forward at any time. But given what’s happened so far, SS may not want to unless it’s clear that this time the Jane Does are going to cooperate/testify and that SS is going to have the evidence it needs. In light of what’s happened so far, SS may prefer to hit pause and see what happens with the civil case. If there’s a trial and a judgment for the Jane Does, there’s going to be a LOT more evidence available to SS that SS doesn’t have to do much additional legwork to collect. And there will be hanging out there the fact that a jury found McDonald liable. That doesn’t bind the SS process but it certainly has some resonance. In the administrative exclusion/debarment context there are times the agency COULD go forward with its own process but prefers to see how a civil case plays out first… because if there’s a civil judgment (or in some circumstances a settlement) that can shortcut the administrative process. I don’t think SS has to wait and let the civil case play out first. I’m just wondering aloud if they will, at least for a while, to see what happens.
7 Likes
I just re-read the Feb. article and could not find any mention that Bob’s behavior had been reported to the OC fairgrounds. Only saw that K.D. discussed her abuse with a peer/friend. Could a report to the fairgrounds have been mentioned in the original OC Register article?
If the nature of “Bob’s behavior” was that he was having intercourse with multiple girls in the 13 to 16 year old age range, anyone who knew about it should have reported it to the police, not to the fairgrounds management. What was the fairgrounds supposed to do, other than report it to the police?
9 Likes
Thank you. That makes sense.
1 Like
Sorry. Should have been clearer and/or provided a link, but I was on my phone and got lazy. The article was the COTH one that just came out. Article doesn’t say behavior was reported, only that the DAA (fairgrounds management) knew of it. Link - https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/bob-and-debbie-mcdonald-face-civil-lawsuit-from-alleged-victims-of-child-sex-abuse
I’ve also attached a screenshot of the relevant quote. Interesting that they refer to behavior before he was at the fairgrounds. As in fairgrounds management knew before they allowed him to operate a business there, assuming the quote is accurate.
3 Likes
Thanks, Peggy. Good find!
Your mind continues to be a steel trap. 
It’ll be interesting to hear that part of the evidence. If it is indeed accurate, then so many young girls were potential victims back then.
5 Likes
Hmmmm. This is interesting. According to the OC Register article, Bob McDonald was operating a training business out of the Hillsview Saddle Club before moving to the fairgrounds.
Nothing in. Nothing out. 
7 Likes
Oh really? So, you believe the JD’s - victims of sexual assault- aren’t “normal, law abiding citizens?” They have a legal team. By your standards, since they do, they must be what? Participants of criminal recidivism? Not a very “lawyer-like,” conclusion.
Further, are you asserting that those who choose to retain a legal team, especially top firms, must have committed a crime (instead of oh…. a million other reasons) should they retain such a firm? Give me a freakin break. Ridiculous!
Most folks don’t have the money to hire the top law firms, so they hire smaller. less renown firms or solo practitioners. Who may be as good or better than the expensive firms.
9 Likes
I can’t see the original reply to my post (the ignore feature is nice 
) but that was basically my point. The average person isn’t a victim of sexual assault or other heinous crimes, so usually doesn’t need such a specialized or renown firm, or can even afford it on their own (variables there though). Unfortunately, there are more and more victims everyday that it is becoming more likely that your average person might be a victim. 
it’s sad. It’s just that when you speak to most average Americans I imagine they don’t have or keep a renown legal team on retainer. I think that’s fairly simple to understand and realistic. If you’re law abiding, no need for a defense team either, but sometimes sh*t does happen. If you are law abiding (because it’s not only criminals that need a legal team, obviously) you may have one for other reasons (business, perhaps). It’s just not common in my experience. If you asked a room full of people if the have a top of the line top whatever firm on retainer/refer to them as their legal team regularly, I think you’d find it’s not many people that would say they do.
Using local or smaller offices for estates, wills, family or traffic court matters, or maybe landlord Tennant stuff, might be more common for the average American.
12 Likes
Fully agree. With every single point. The point I was making was just a reply to CC who stated that anyone who is a “normal/law abiding citizen,” would have no need to hire a firm - or a top firm at that. I’m saying, that assertion is absolutely false.
Let’s say, hypothetically, a person, or many persons, wanted to file a very serious claim with SafeSport - or even just USEF about equally serious violations by another “athlete,” or perhaps, a board member. Maybe both. These claimants learned along the way (in this hypothetical scenario) that the way things seem are not the way they actually are. Before these claimants are ready to take huge legal actions against either the respondents individually, and/or their entire NGB along with SafeSport itself- they decide to hire a firm dedicated and feared enough to make for a very formidable opponent. That does not mean the claimants are criminals- obviously, despite the absurd assertion of Cantering C ….
What it does mean, is that the claimants want the criminals held accountable- outed for a large number of “dirty deeds,” & they want this done as accurately & quickly as humanly possible. And yes, you’re right. If the claimants couldn’t afford a top legal firm, they’d either need to locate a cheaper firm or perhaps, find a firm happy to take the case pro Bono. Being in a family where (almost) every male is a lawyer (or, doctor) and my siblings (female) are head hunters (recruiters) for top firms, it’s been impressed upon me that, one thing is a constant. “You get what you pay for.” Though, I suppose that’s not always the case.
This is interesting. This is far from being in my lane, but I wonder if the facility can be held liable. I would think there would have to be proof of gross negligence and/or some kind of knowledge that certain actions were taken on their property. However, even if the owner and/or manager doesn’t know, is it possible they can still be held liable? I think (again not my country, law, or lane) this can be the case, and possibly when it comes to insurances.
Is it bad for the sport that minors cannot participate without a parent present on the grounds… Yes and no. The only way it’s “bad” is that parents might not have time to always be there and the kid rides less (most kids when I was younger were just dropped off, some still are). On the other hand the parent can be there and this may deter certain predators, and the parent is more involved with the kids sport, which isn’t necessarily bad.
2 Likes
Well, facility owners I recommend adding Abuse coverage to your Liability Insurance policy.
You can get coverage for it, and then you don’t have to worry about being sued. Obviously I would hope people still do everything they can to not have these losers around children in the first place.
6 Likes
