People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[LilRanger]

@La-LaPopRider

the way things seem are not the way they actually are .

This basically means you need an advocate -of whatever stripe- that understands what is going on. And I agree that you need someone dedicated, but I disagree on the feared part.

I recognize that you do have a lot of contact with lawyers, and your experience is obviously going to be different than mine, as I don’t live anywhere near excitement or top ten global firms, and I know I couldn’t afford one anyway.
By all accounts, the women in this case do have good lawyers, who specialize in this type of law, and that is usually the best way to get a good outcome, in my experience. I’m going they can succeed and empower others to come forward about other abusive trainers.

[La-LaPopRider]

[quote]It will be interesting to see, if the two Jane Does prevail in their civil suit, will SS go ahead and ban McDonald again based upon that judgement? Or will the victims have to go through a SS arbitration still? [quote]

SafeSport can ban RMD again at any point in time. They don’t need to wait for a ruling on the civil suit. If they had enough evidence to ban him for life to begin with, this civil action being brought could easily count as “new evidence.” Also, since it appears the JD’s are now willing to participate in an arbitration hearing, SafeSport (if acting in good faith & goodwill) would immediately re-open the case & continue straight to arbitration. I can’t say I’m surprised they haven’t. I don’t believe SafeSport had any intention of keeping the ban & they shouldn’t get to claim “mistakes were made,” in a case like this. (Not that this is what they are claiming.)

I believe, their remarkable public statement was made to specifically assert the opposite. In other words, “mistakes were not made !! I happen to think that statement was not made to oppose RMD’s attorney’s remarks- (at least not entirely) - but to get in front of any accusations made by the JD’s, which might’ve called out SafeSport for the “mistakes”they felt occurred.

Here is what almost certainly happened: SafeSport sent letters to the claimants & respondent. The letter the claimants received stated “Notice of Decision,” - Lifetime Ban for male athlete RMD (and listed the violations.) However, the letter received by RMD read: “Notice of Decision,” - Lifetime Ban (listed violations) BUT, required a signature and RMD’s agreement to accept this sanction. RMD didn’t agree. (In that case, it moves to arbitration.) The claimants are left believing that RMD has been banned for life. They aren’t aware that RMD must agree to these sanctions and Notice of Decision.
In the interim, Howard Jacobs has communications with SafeSport (which we will all likely never know what took place there) and SafeSport tells JD’s something to the affect of “RND disagreed with our proposed sanction, do you really want to go up against him in arbitration- knowing your lawyer cannot be present- and it will be you asking the questions, not your lawyer- and the onus is on you to prove your case?” (That is how arbitration works and it does, unfortunately, end up acting as a deterrent for the victims, as they’d have to not just relive it all- but MAKE their case AGAIN- without a lawyer asking the questions presented to RND.) The JD’s probably wanted nothing to do with that type of “Court,” and declined to participate.

And just like that- boom- ban is lifted, case is administratively closed. Try and imagine how the JD’s took this news. This is the last thing they probably saw coming! Shocked, that would be one word. “Enraged,” would be another. Next step- sue the pants off both MD’s in a real court setting. Complete with attorneys (who are allowed to speak), a judge and possibly a jury. If SafeSport wanted to ban RMD - they would never have closed the case administratively, prior to the arbitration. That’s a definite.

[Jealoushe]

Which is a strange the municipality doesn’t keep insurance on the location? It’s not hard to get a policy to cover a show location you are borrowing but I’m in Canada so it could be difficult down there.

[skydy]

Posted as well on the dressage forum

USEF Announces It Will Not Renew Contract With Debbie McDonald

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I think this is the right call on USEF’s part. They need to look after the best interests of the sport, and the team, and this mess with the lawsuit and the SafeSport claim? It’s better to just thank Debbie for her accomplishments in that role, and go forward with someone else now.

[FitzE]

I think it’s the right call, too. I see the comments on the site linked in the Dressage forum thread on this topic and it’s a bunch of people saying it’s so sad for US Dressage. I’m astounded that any decent human would put a sports organisation over a fellow human.

Then there are those baying about “guilt by association” and “innocent until proven guilty”. I agree, no one should be guilty by association, but aiding and abetting is a thing for a reason.

Also, I feel that simply her signing her name to the statement in which they attack the Jane Does over using pseudonyms (which is allowed right in the SS Code) should disqualify her as she’s committed a violation of SS which, in her position, is huge.

If she signed on to his, I was found not guilty message, that’s also a violation.

Again, for the cheap seats, many people lose a position or are suspended PENDING INVESTIGATION AND HEARING and it does not violate any principle of law or justice, especially when that position is with a private organisation.

[LilRanger]

Being self insured means you pay for any claims that are proven/settled. If you have insurance through a commercial company, your costs rise for high liability activities. Which is all obvious, but the cost to maintain a large facility that leads to financial liability makes little sense when that same property sitting vacant costs nothing.

I do get the cost to the community in Losing outdoor venues, but sadly that math often isn’t factored into these equations.

[LilRanger]

Christ on a bike, of course she knew about him, what do you want to bet she was one of his victims too? Not excusing her, but I can’t imagine being her and having to hear these allegations and remembering my own experiences that led me to marriage. It would be a nightmare, life shattering event.

[Jealoushe]

Yes I know how insurance works LOL I’m surprised a Municipality choses to self insure, thats a huge Liability in itself for their own financial future.

Equestrian events are not expensive to insure, a policy weekend event (Horse Trials) runs about $250 here.

[LilRanger]

Yes, I suspected you did! BB make some of us pedantic because we’re missing all the non-verbal cues of an in person conversation! (There, I did it again )

Most government entities self insure their properties, because it involves no outlay of funds until there is a claim, so they save even that $250 you’re spending. But yours is a good question, and just cause they do it, that doesn’t mean it’s the best way, just the cheap way.

[Jealoushe]

Interesting, up here in Ontario they don’t self insure, only really the Military who does and maybe a few others. They must have a lot of $$$ lol

[LilRanger]

Well, they own tons of assets, and gets bonds and property taxes, so yeah, many big ones have lots. Smaller ones may buy insurance because they don’t have those assets to draw on/leverage. Some even have litigation funds to use for this purpose too. And what ever other law stuff they need.

[skydy]

I’m curious about why you are directing this post at me. I posted the link to the Chronicle article, that’s all.

[poltroon]

@vxf111

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.

I imagine one of the things that they really really want to avoid is moving too quickly, having an arbitrator overturn the sanction, and THEN see the finding in the civil case but not being able to reinstate their sanction. So I think they’ll wait until their calculation that the risk of that is worth the benefit of moving more quickly, which would depend on how they expect an arbitrator to look at what they have as well as their assessment of the risk of ongoing abuse, given the publicity that has already taken place.

[LilRanger]

I was replying to that article, not in particular to you, sorry to cause confusion. As I posted earlier, written communication makes me awkward, in this situation I would normally respond to the person presenting an article, rather than announcing to the group as a whole.

[BITSA]

@trubandloki

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.”

98% of civil cases settle. Why? Because litigation is expensive and stressful. Unless its a fee-bearing case (ie civil rights) the plaintiff has to pay her lawyer, either up front or as a contigency fee. Plus the defense side will dig up whatever dirty laundry they can find, including therapy and medical records. Most people don’t have the funds or emotional tolerance for what could be years of litigation and personal scrutiny.

[skydy]

No sweat.

[hillary_again]

I find the inclusion of the fairgrounds odd, as well. From the description, the fairgrounds was like a landlord. Was there a court case or something that should have been flagged? The implication is that as a landlord, the fairgrounds should have refused to rent due to some knowledge. ? Wow, I don’t really like the sound of this. I am all in for these victims but don’t understand this alleged responsibility of the fairgrounds or county.

[Thebigdew]

![Screenshot_20211203-162916|230x500](upload://q4pcS853OL6zvkeezwVTKiZzfe8.jpeg. there seems to be a lot of speculation on what confidentially is at safesport well everyone who gets documents gets this red stamp as a warning and agrees to maintain confidentiality .

[PonyPenny]

Besides the OC Fairgrounds has been looking at other options in the space where the equestrian center currently is. If they decide to close it because of litigation, all the current horses and riders including an active pony club would get booted. There is a shortage of horse boarding facilities in Orange County CA. I hope that part of the lawsuit gets removed from the case.