I concur.
They were brave enough to take the hits as adults so that hopefully there will be fewer children facing this issue in the future. Both from offenders who have been doing it for years, and others who may realize that the times, they are a-changing.
He’s desperate for any straw that keeps Gage from being known as a child molester.
SafeSport is a new entity with a new process for handling reports of abuse and as such needs to establish a track record of identifying and sanctioning the guilty and refraining from putting too much burden on the few who may be falsely accused.
Bonnie Navin and the FB group were reasonably successful in (unfairly) calling the credibility of SafeSport into doubt. SafeSport could not do much “to defend itself” as the confidentiality provision prevented from saying “Look, people, there were at least x victims, and of those, their ages were m,n,o,p, and further more the respondent did not dispute any of this.”
HR and the others had to speak up to establish the credibility of SafeSport and the legitimacy of the sanction. I would think that it is pretty clear to most people at this point that SafeSport did what it had to do in RG’s case. HR and the others gave SafeSport considerable credibility and legitimacy.
If, going forward, SafeSport can continue to build credibility, it won’t be necessary for other reporters to publicly out themselves.
One of the reasons I have such a low opinion of what Bonnie Navin did is that she was fanning the flames of misinformation and misleading information, knowing that due to the confidentiality provision, SafeSport had to bite its metaphorical tongue and let all the misinformation stand. She must have been shocked when HR called her bluff and said what SafeSport was not allowed to say.
Anybody else noticed that THE thread of the past 2 months, 2K posts and 6 figures’ worth of views, topic highly culturally relevant and the only one that materially affects nearly every discipline, doesn’t show up these last few weeks under “Trending In Forums?”
Now, If I were cynical . . .
The fudge is wrong with you?
It’s super annoying but it’s not limited to this thread. I believe that the data reason is that it only pulls topics created in the past few days (I’m too lazy to know the cutoff) and then sorts them by last updated, rather than pulling topics based on the last updated date.
It might be that someone likes this because it tamps down controversial topics, but most likely the reason why it was implemented this way is to minimize the load on the data query by not trying to accurately sort 20 years worth of forum threads.
Specifically, which suspensions by SafeSport based on incidents 25+ years ago do you think were solely about a consensual dating relationship between two people who were, let’s say, 5-15 years apart in age?
Because as I understand what SafeSport themselves have published, those are not the decades-old cases that they are going after. You need not worry about that, because they aren’t spending their limited time and resources on that.
This type of misinformation is part of what is creating controversy over issues that aren’t the real SS issues. And it is allowing people (some people) to wave away their possible concerns about a name on the suspension list, because they can default to the assumption that is was “just consensual dating”, when it isn’t so.
I understand that it is earthshaking to see the name of someone who is well known and respected in the equestrian community on a SS suspension list. It is easier for that person to claim that consensual dating is the reasion, and it is easier for everyone else to believe it. But SS themselves says that for those old cases, the sort of consensual dating relationship you describe is not the basis of the suspension. It will be for something far more disturbing.
Almost certainly the case. And likely COTH has no control over the algorithm that selects threads for “Trending Topics” (or any other automated sort). It’s the computer program as it was delivered by the programmers, who created it some time ago before the last forum update.
THIS. I believe I said this earlier, but most of the time, the reason behind a SafeSport sanction will become public (usually in the form of criminal charges being filed, a lawsuit, or the claimants coming forward through the media). I’ve tracked the older cases(25+ years) that have led to permanent bans - I’ve yet to find a case that fits the aforementioned profile.
The “closest” case that I found to fit the aforementioned scenario was a coach who was banned for having a sexual “relationship” with a student when he was 28 and she was 13 in the early 1980’s. However, there is some very strong evidence to suggest that he abused more girls afterwards (I don’t want to reveal too much info, but let’s just say that he had a lot of pre-teen and early-teen aged girls attend “slumber parties” at his home).
Wow. Did he have a daughter in that age range who was hosting the slumber parties? Otherwise I cannot imagine why anyone would let their daughter attend such a gathering. It’s one thing if kids are going to a horse show out of town, and need to stay in a hotel for that purpose. But at the trainer’s house without a pressing reason?!?
No - he did not have any children. I’m almost positive that he lived alone during all of these instances (i.e. no wife/partner or roommates).
Yikes. Even more inexplicable that parents would go along with it.
This dating a teenager who is almost an adult scenario is still a false flag. First of all, we know that’s not the reason RG was sanctioned. No trainer who was in a “consensual” relationship with an 18 year old when they were 25 needs to be living in fear that the morality police will come knocking at their door. That’s not what Safe Sport is.
There has to be a victim. Who felt abused, intimidated, coerced and damaged by the “relationship.” And that victim, or someone close to that victim, has to make a report to law enforcement or to SS, which is then thoroughly investigated. For some to call that kind of scenario a “witch hunt” is absurd.
When I was 17 I dated a guy who was 24 or 25. We met in a social setting. He wasn’t my employer, my teacher, my coach or in any position of power over me. He wasn’t absuive, or manipulative or harmful to me in any way. That is NOT the case with the incidents in question here and it’s an important difference.
Also this is worth mentioning, I think …
The other cover story that the accused and their supporters (generally speaking, not necessarily RG) like to turn to is a version of victim-blaming. “She was mad after he broke up with her and wants to get even.” Or some version of "she’s getting even for [fill in the blank] ". (Even after 25+ years?)
Trained investigators are well aware of that possibility, are trained to see through it and suss it out, and aren’t interested in pursing a case based solely on someone wanting to get even with someone else. One reassuring aspect of SS is the professional credentials of their staff. Their training and experience will go a long way to filtering out the malicious cases and focusing on the genuine problems.
Sadly, the equestrian world has had a lot of cleaning up to do for a long time. There will be more unpleasant surprises to come. And SS probably will not be able to address even more situations, due to no reporting, or too hard to build the kind of case needed to take action.
This may have already been said upthread, but it’s a lot of pages, or it may have been said elsewhere. The narrative that I always heard on RG was that he was “only” dating almost-legal girls. We now know that not to be true, based on HR who was 13 (and apparently others, as I think a 12 y.o. was mentioned). The other assumption is that he outgrew it, in the sense that he still dated younger women, but as he got older, a similar age gap meant that the girlfriends were over 18. I am no longer certain about that. Note that I am not saying there was necessarily anything going on in the last few years, but I wonder about 10-15 or so years ago.
This is the part that makes me wish there was some independent account of the Q & A session with HR and the others. Just to clear up some of the confusion. But at the same time, I respect their choice to give out information in whatever way suited them best.
Get out your tiny violins…
Bonnie Navin posted this on her FB page this morning:
“SMH- So I was told I must not have been a good lawyer because my client killed himself. Seriously an equestrian actually sent that to me.”
At noon there were over 90 comments of support telling her that person is stupid and don’t they know anything about the “mechanics of suicide”, or mental illness. Other comments stating no one should place blame on another person with regards to suicide. And the irrelevant comment that that person has no idea all that you give and do for all of us for free.
Did these people forget what happened only a month ago? Bonnie was the first person to place blame for SafeSport for RG death. Now, someone blames her and the world comes crashing down. All those people that were onboard when she blames SafeSport are telling her it isn’t her fault and that person is ignorant. They are saying bullying is wrong. She should report them to SafeSport. Does anyone think Bonnie made a call or reached out to HR when she was publicly attacked on FB? I doubt it. Did any of those people apologize or rethink their actions once they knew that it was not once incident from 30 years ago with someone only a few years younger? She creates a mob mentality and they all follow without even thinking if it is the right thing to do.
As RG’s lawyer, BN had extra credibility on June 13 because she had seen the process from the inside. I would think that least some of the honestly grieving friends of RG would be angry with her for the way she deliberately misled them in her bashing of SafeSport.
Perhaps bashing and bullying an institution like SafeSport is “not as bad” as bullying a person, such as a victim, but BN did not hesitate to go ad hominem against Michael Henry, saying “despite all the evidence presented, one man, Michael Henry, believed one side over the other.”
Taken literally, that’s a true statement. But it certainly suggests that there was evidence both for and against a finding of culpability, and suggests that a different administrator or panel of administrators might have concluded against culpability.
BN knew when she wrote that, as we learned later, that the facts of the incidents were not in dispute, even by Gage himself; that he had provided a written confession; that there were at least 4 victims, and the ages were as young as 12 and 13.
Yes, one man, Michael Henry, decided based on the evidence in favor of culpability, but contrary to BN’s obvious suggestion that another administrator, or arbitrator, or judge might have decided differently, any adjudicator would have made the same decision.
My problem with BN is that despite being in a position of knowing the inside scoop, she fanned the flames of the dumpster fire by failing to correct false information, and intentionally encouraging outrageously false information among those who were honestly grieving RG’s death. Perhaps the short lived belief that RG was unfairly sanctioned was temporary comfort to them, but I think she exploited their grief in her disinformation campaign to undermine SafeSport. When at least some of the disinformation was shown to be false, in large part due to HR, I would have thought that at least some of these people would have realized that they had been manipulated and used.
But clearly some are clinging to their myths, still saying SafeSport is the villain for putting undue stress on RG based on “an allegation”.
In BN’s most recent posts, she is asking all her FB friends to post and share inspiring statements of positivity. Isn’t that noble and sweet.
The supporters of BN have a very, very simple core belief: If you valued, admired and loved RG for all that was good in him = you must bash SafeSport and try to undermine its legitimacy. BN encourages and supports that belief.
I’m willing to believe that RG had all the wonderful qualities that his friends loved him for. I don’t think that it is a contradiction to say that, despite all that, SafeSport did what it had to do.
As of today, Randy Cates and Jim Giorgio have commented on this post of hers as well…
I’ll quote Giorgio this time - but first - let me remind everyone he plead guilty to molesting a 14 year old girl.
“So sorry Bonnie. That’s like the idiots and haters who say “oh he killed himself so he must of been guilty”. These ass-wipes don’t know the humiliation, pain, emotional depression, etc that comes from being accused and having to go through the entire SS process. It’s not like anyone says it is or even SS says it is. It eats at you, takes all your energy, emotionally destroys you, tears at you beyond belief when it’s almost impossible to properly defend yourself with their lame-ass rules and one sided processes. This week marks my one yr anniversary from defending myself. $30,000 later and I’m still not done with appeals or suits.”
Poor poor grown man having to deal with the consequences of molesting a child. Tiny violins are playing for you. (Sarcasm)
Unreal.
In over 2,000 posts on this thread, I have not seen even ONE that says “oh he killed himself so he must [have] been guilty”.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
