Is the accused allowed to have an attorney cross-examine the complainant? Does the accused have the right to conduct discovery, including finding out the witnesses against him, having his attorney cross-examine them, and bringing in his own witnesses to testify? Does Safesport require clear and convincing evidence before imposing penalties?
Those are basic protections that an accused should have, and that distinguish due process from systems like, say, China. I’m not familiar with how Safesport works, or how it differs from the tribunals that universities have set up to adjudicate sexual misconduct.
Sure when the case goes to trial. If you read the SafeSport rules you’ll see they report to the police who conduct additional criminal investigations.
But for the purposes of horse showing, all SafeSport can do is recommend removing an investigated-then-found-to-have-enough-evidence-against-them person from participating in the sport. In other words, they can’t show. But they can still train, give clinics, write books, host websites, etc. as long as it’s not on the show grounds.
Oh I have. It is helping me compile a list of horse people to NOT do business with when I move to SoCal next year. I mean a convicted child molester is complaining about his ban, saying he shouldn’t be banned and people are supportive of his statements. SMH.
Are SafeSport violations reported to law enforcement?
Reports of sexual misconduct involving a minor are reported to law enforcement.
How are bans enforced? What if a USEF show is on public land?
Federal law requires USEF to enforce sanctions imposed by the U.S. Center for SafeSport and interim measures, including temporary suspensions. Banned individuals are prohibited from even being on the showgrounds of a USEF-sanctioned event. Organizers are required to comply with this.
Is everyone who is investigated listed on the website? At what point in the investigation does someone’s name go up?
No. USEF publishes the names of individuals who are under a temporary suspension, suspension, expulsion and permanent ineligibility/banned. This is published after USEF has been informed by the U.S. Center for SafeSport of the status and an attempt has been made to notify the individual.
Questions answered by the Scott Lewis, Acting Chief of Response and Resolution at the U.S. Center for SafeSport
Does everyone who is reported to The Center For SafeSport get investigated?
No. Some are resolved the minute they’re referred, i.e. criminal disposition, if someone is on the sex offender registry. About a quarter of the cases end there. There are some reports that we don’t pursue that I’d call low-end abuse: Tommy called Sally a bad name. We’ll refer those to the National Governing Body. Sometimes people report bad things that we don’t end up investigating because they’re out of our jurisdiction, things like embezzlement or a bad coaching technique. About 55 percent of the cases end up being investigated.
What standard of proof is required in SafeSport investigations?
Preponderance of the evidence, which is the same standard that the law uses, as well as every civil court, human resources department and school uses.
At what point in the investigation does the accused get full information about his or her accusations?
Once someone is accused of something and investigation begins, we reach out to them for statement. The respondent is given enough information, but not given all of the information. During the course of the investigation if the respondent is participating in and cooperating with the investigation they are privy to almost everything. But if the respondent won’t participate, won’t provide us with requested texts, videos and so on, they don’t get to see what we collect until the end.
How are sanctions determined? What warrants a permanent ban versus two-month ban versus something less?
There are two pieces to this: One is the scale of offense and the danger to community. Think about someone who did harm to a child or children; they’ll end up on the permanently ineligible list. Think of something like the [Larry] Nassar case. Was it non-physical contact? Low-end physical contact? How long ago did it happen? All of these things are factors. If something happened 25 years ago, and there’s never been a complaint since, we take that into account. We measure sanctions out to what will stop the behavior, prevent it from reoccurring and provide remedy to the community and the individuals involved. There’s no one size fits all answer because there are so many variables.
Notice no matter how many times the haters of Safe Sport are told its not USEF doing the leg work, but U.S Center for Safe Sport, they choose to ignore it and keep complaining about USEF?
If you don’t like Safe Sport, at least take your anger out on the right organization.
Some ugly truth was about to come to the surface, and unfortunately, some people would rather be dead than face the music.
Let me be clear - I am NOT blaming the victim NOR making them responsible.
I am a victim - not in the horse world but in another sport. I was lucky enough that even many many years ago my parents talked to and taught me about these issues. As a result, the incident I experienced was relatively minor and isolated and I had the right responses ready and knew what to do. My parents were vigilant and involved and I had a wonderful relationship with them. I also chose not to tell them or anyone else. My choice. I only realized many years later that I was not the only one he approached or engaged - my education from my parents did not go that far. If I have any regrets, its that I did not realize that the incident was not isolated and that my speaking out might have helped others. I am NOT feeling guilt, just wishing I had known more back then - because it might have changed my decision.
Yes, this individual was deeply in my circle of trust. I lost the relationship with a person I had considered a second father for more than half my life. But having been educated, I trusted my instinct for what did not feel right.
Education does not shift responsibility or blame, but it provides needed information for minors and reassurance that their feelings and reactions are valid. Good education is linked with the resources that minors need to turn to for help. We need to understand that minors need to know that leaving an abusive trainer does not mean that their horse lives are over - they need to know that there are resources to support, help, and redirect them to other trainers.
This idea that parents can prevent this is simply not true.
What about the issue that SafeSport requested a continuance of his appeal when another accusation came forward? Shouldn’t this be handled case-by-case? Hear the appeal on the one claim, and continue moving forward with the new accusation as a separate case. It put his right to continue his appeal for this matter on hold due to a separate claim. I just question if things would be different if he was able to continue the process of his appeal. Not a matter of guilty or innocent, its the process of addressing both parties fairly.
Educating minors is not about shifting blame - NOT AT ALL. ITs about providing knowledge and resources so that minors are empowered if they do have a situation. And my comments are as a victim who fortunately had parents that talked about and educated me on these issues - and it was THAT EDUCATION that allowed me to rapidly shut down what might have turned into an extended cycle of abuse from a trusted member of my inner circle.
Not sure why suggesting that minors also be educated and have resources becomes blaming the victim.
Either side can ask for a continuance if they receive new evidence or something prevents them from meeting a deadline. The request could be denied, it is up to the arbitrator.
In some cases, there is a report filed, SafeSport does an initial investigation, if they find it legitimate, they issue a temporary suspension. After a person is banned, SafeSport receives additional reports, additional evidence, names of other potential victims. During arbitration, SafeSport has the initial reporter, but the other reports are used as evidence. So, no each claim is not handled separately.
Thanks to Tiramit for those answers. I must say, they are actually not very reassuring. First of all, preponderance of evidence is the very LOWEST standard, used only for ordinary civil actions. Some civil claims require “clear and convincing” evidence, and criminal actions require “beyond a reasonable doubt,” so Safesport is using the lowest legal standard (sometimes defined as 50.01%-- i.e., just better than 50-50).
Also, it just reeks of subjectivity. “There’s no one size fits all answer because there are so many variables…”
Look, I certainly am not an apologist for sexual misconduct. I’m a mom of 2 teenage girls and I worry constantly about them being taken advantage of. But I’m also a lawyer, so I think a lot about standards of proof, fairness, and due process. I also have a neighbor whose son’s life was wrecked by a false allegation by a girl-- 2 teens having consensual sex in the school bathroom; when they were caught skipping class, she claimed it was non-consensual; he was expelled from school and she wasn’t based entirely on her word. It’s been some years, so I don’t recall all the details, but the mom felt there was a lot of evidence of the girl’s dishonesty but they were never allowed a chance to present that.
Anyway, I found this in an article about a Safesport proceeding in a sport:
The SafeSport system, as it stands, holds certain fundamental, indeed disconcerting if not outright worrisome, concerns:
— Interview summaries have tended not to be under oath and not recorded.
— The “Reporting Party” has the option to say she or he will only answer questions from the arbitrator; the arbitrator is not required to ask every question that is submitted; the art of cross-examination, as every law student learns, is fundamental to notions of justice.
— It’s presumed that minors don’t have to testify at all. Which means that the only evidence that might well be submitted would be that interview summary. There would be no ability for the accused or the accused’s lawyer to ask any questions of that minor.
— There’s no “discovery,” the legal term for fact-finding by lawyers around a case, “except in exceptional circumstances as ordered by the arbitrator.” This may keep costs down. But does it blunt the search for the truth?
— Unless there are “exceptional circumstances” — that phrase again — a hearing is “expected” to be done in a “single, eight-hour business day.” What complex legal proceeding has ever gotten done in one day? What shortcuts might or might not get taken to get that done? https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2018/8/19/the-scarlet-safe-sport-letter
Rob was a brilliant horseman who had his demons - which many were aware of - I never let my daughter go to the barn alone, NEVER, whether he was there or not. I took personal responsibility to protect my kid from this. People would under their breath jokingly say “keep your kids away from Rob!”. The flip side to this is that under those demons was a kind person and sensitive horseman. Preying on kids is about a skewed relationship with power, which ultimately is what suicide is. I am sorry for the people who lost a friend, and sorry that he couldn’t get the help he needed earlier in his life to avoid this. I hope that the victims who came forward truly understand that suicide is a personal choice which reaches deeper in a soul then anyone outside can reach. A lesson for all.
SafeSport does an investigation and interviews the parties involved, and any other witnesses. The accused can present any evidence they desire. They can provide witnesses, documentation, photos, and evidence to defend themselves. After the decision, if found guilty and banned, the accused can request a full-merit arbitration hearing, then yes, the accused can have their attorney cross examine the reporting party and submit evidence and witnesses. Safesport also gets to question the accused witnesses. The accused absolutely gets due process and a chance to defend themselves.
This is one of the most disturbing things in this thread. Are you describing things that happened decades ago, or more recently?
With all the people defending Rob in recent days (including people I know and admire), I think some of us were clinging to the possibility that this was a one-time lapse–maybe a technical violation like a consensual relationship with an older teen. Your post belies that impression.
It really is remarkable what I’ve read on FB from his friends and people who claim to have been interviewed in the initial investigation. Apparently, this particular man admitted to having had sex with a minor and others interviewed confirmed but the defense is “her parents were okay with it.” Some of the remarks state it was 35 years ago (making the banned coach 31 years old at the time). Maybe there is a school district in America that would not immediately suspend a teacher with this fact scenario, but I wouldn’t want to be a child at that school.
Since the conduct was admitted, I see no grounds for an appeal. I also do not see where anyone outside the investigation is entitled to see the interview transcripts or any other documentation.
In the State of California, like many other states, it is grounds for disbarment for an attorney to have consensual sex with a client (2 consenting adults) It is considered sexual misconduct and attorney can forfeit his livelihood (of course, there are other methods of making a living). Those are the rules of the association and in order to practice our chosen profession we must follow the association’s rules.
Here, I understand that the banned trainer was banned from showing at USEF shows for “sexual misconduct” …not some crime that could be adjudicated in a court of law.
Sexual abuse of minors is rampant in this country, some estimates quote 22 million children have been abused by family and confidants. Our judicial system has failed to stop this evil. (note here the statistics on rape: 1/3 of rapes are reported, 95% of reported cases are not prosecuted, 0.7% of prosecuted cases end in felony conviction)
Kind people don’t molest minors. Good parents don’t pay for their children to train with child molesters. Reasonable people call the police when adults molest children. WTF is wrong with everyone?!?!
