Rob Gage

[Tiramit]

That was a much more detailed story than I had expected. This was telling:
[INDENT]"Gage’s death was confirmed by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, which provided no further details. Karp confirmed the suicide but declined to share further details, including about the SafeSport investigation, saying that Gage didn’t want her to share the allegations.

SafeSport spokesman Dan Hill told USA TODAY Sports on Friday that investigators found Gage was guilty of sexual misconduct with “a number of minors.” He added that Gage had the opportunity to refute the allegations and provide evidence during the investigation, and that he could have appealed SafeSport’s ban before an independent arbitrator.

“Permanent ineligibility is the harshest sanction the Center can impose and is reserved for the most egregious offenses,” Hill said. "The sanction issued here was implemented following an exhaustive investigation.

“The Center does not have a statute of limitations, as we disagree with those who seek to invalidate abuse that occurred many years ago. To change the culture of sport, individuals must be held accountable for their behavior, regardless of how long ago it occurred.”[/INDENT]

[Max123]

Educating minors is great and should of course be part of Safe Sport training. However, predators are master manipulators and are excellent in finding the most vulnerable in the pack. Not all of us had parents we could talk to for one reason or another …

[IPEsq]

@HLMom

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).

Most civil cases involving sexual assault use the preponderance of the evidence standard. The difference in the burden of proof is largely in line with the penalty available. Criminal cases deny someone of their freedoms, and thus the burden is higher because the stakes are greater. And in criminal cases, a jury must unanimously find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases have a lower burden and generally the finding does not need to be unanimous. Civil cases result in some lesser penalty, such as monetary compensation.

SafeSport does not put anyone in prison. It seems totally reasonable to adopt a standard that is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As for which standard, it seems reasonable to use a preponderance standard here since many jurisdictions would do the same for a civil case involving the same types of allegations. The standard is not just constrained by the wrong that has been alleged but by the remedy sought against the accused.

[Bogie]

Something has to be done to protect our children. I’ve no knowledge of this case, and if Mr. Gage was wrongfully accused and vilified, that is a failure of the system that ended most tragically.

But that does not mean we shouldn’t bring this behavior out into the open and make sure it doesn’t happen. As a teenaged girl riding at a large East Coast facility in the 70s and early 80s, I saw things that shocked me – sex, drugs were rampant. No one ever touched me, but I saw how much some young women wanted to please their coaches. As an adult, I learned that the husband of a female trainer was found to have “seduced” one of her 14 year old students. This kind of abuse happens all the time.

My own kids didn’t ride, but I’ve seen this happen in their chosen sport: rowing. A well-respected and amazingly talented coach seduced at least one of his athletes while she was underage and was fired from a previous job for inappropriate text messages sent to a young, female athlete. At one point my daughter and her friends wondered about the relationshp between the coach and one of the girls who trained with him. I told her he couldn’t possibly be that stupid. He was. He will never coach again. This is a coach who was regularly alone with his students and who traveled with them to competitions. I am a hands-on parent and never let my daughter be alone with him, but he was so charming and friendly that it never occurred to me that she was at risk (I just thought it a bad idea that any male coach be alone with my daughter.)

Reading about what happened to Mr. Gage, and the stories that were written about Jimmy Williams, I’m astounded by how in denial this community is about sexual abuse. Yes, any investigations need to be fair, to avoid ruining someone’s life, but so many young women – and men – have had their lives ruined by predators. It’s time we took them seriously.

[HLMom]

@IPEsq

Most civil cases involving sexual assault use the preponderance of the evidence standard. The difference in the burden of proof is largely in line with the penalty available. Criminal cases deny someone of their freedoms, and thus the burden is higher because the stakes are greater. And in criminal cases, a jury must unanimously find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases have a lower burden and generally the finding does not need to be unanimous. Civil cases result in some lesser penalty, such as monetary compensation.

SafeSport does not put anyone in prison. It seems totally reasonable to adopt a standard that is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As for which standard, it seems reasonable to use a preponderance standard here since many jurisdictions would do the same for a civil case involving the same types of allegations. The standard is not just constrained by the wrong that has been alleged but by the remedy sought against the accused.

That is all true. However, it seems problematic when the preponderance standard is used to judge conduct that is in fact not only criminal, but morally abhorrent–and which potentially results in loss of a livelihood. You may be aware that in California, civil elder abuse cases (brought by private plaintiffs) require “clear and convincing” evidence; this is also the standard for punitive damages awarded on any civil claim.

You can see how someone might think that if an individual is going to be deemed guilty of rape and banned from the only industry in which they have ever worked, we might want to at least go up to “clear and convincing” evidence as an added safeguard, rather than 50.01%.

[IPEsq]

@HLMom

That is all true. However, it seems problematic when the preponderance standard is used to judge conduct that is in fact not only criminal, but morally abhorrent–and which potentially results in loss of a livelihood. You may be aware that in California, civil elder abuse cases (brought by private plaintiffs) require “clear and convincing” evidence; this is also the standard for punitive damages awarded on any civil claim.

You can see how someone might think that if an individual is going to be deemed guilty of rape and banned from the only industry in which they have ever worked, we might want to at least go up to “clear and convincing” evidence as an added safeguard, rather than 50.01%.

Perhaps, but also think of the OJ Simpson cases. Murder is certainly morally abhorrent. Burden was not met in the criminal case, but he was found liable in the civil case and ordered to pay a decently large sum in compensatory damages.

[Texarkana]

Honest people who aren’t abusing children should have no problem removing that 50.01% doubt.

It’s people who repeatedly engage in morally questionable behavior who have to worry… but then again, maybe they shouldn’t have been engaging in morally questionable behavior in the first place?

I am still waiting for someone to provide me with the name of anyone who was 100% innocent and lost their career to SafeSport.

[oneequestrienne]

@HLMom

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.

My polite suggestion to you is that maybe you might go to their website and discover it for yourself.

[oneequestrienne]

@Tiramit

Here, I found answers for you from here: https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/usef-and-the-u-s-center-for-safesport-answer-your-safesport-questions

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.

Thank you for sharing this.

[specifiedcupcake]

@juststartingout

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.

This is so true. I listened to the NPR series on Larry Nassar and him waffling when the investigator asked about his pelvic floor technique, or why he had an erection during medical exams is absolutely stomach turning. THOSE GIRLS’ PARENTS WERE IN THE ROOM WHILE HE MANUALLY PENETRATED THEIR DAUGHTERS AND GOT OFF ON IT.

[oneequestrienne]

@HLMom

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 was not a one time lapse.

[DarkBayUnicorn]

@Max123

Educating minors is great and should of course be part of Safe Sport training. However, predators are master manipulators and are excellent in finding the most vulnerable in the pack. Not all of us had parents we could talk to for one reason or another …

Another thing to really keep in mind here is that due to the outrageous expense of our sport, the power dynamic between a coach and a student can be even more out of wack.

A coach with intent to groom a victim need only single out the kid with some talent and no money for the horseflesh to match it. Praise them. Get them rides. Get them in the ring. Not only is the kid more likely to fall victim, the parents are more likely to turn a blind eye (I’ve seen this happen IRL more than once, sadly). And others on the outside looking in praise the pro for giving a hardworking kid a chance.

Things turn inappropriate, and maybe the kid is starting to get uncomfortable. They fear or are told they’ll lose the ride on the good horse, so they put up and shut up.

Things get downright pervy, but now the kid not only will lose the ride on the good horse, they feel all the guilt and shame of a sexual assault victim. If they report, they’re skewered, ostracized, told they’re wrong and ungrateful and ‘how dare you?!’

One of the reasons why sport in general is taking a really hard stance on grooming and sexual misconduct is because 1) it gives those with the tendancies easy access to kids with a built-in power imbalance and 2) a portion of kids in sport are so incredibly emotionally invested that they feel they cannot escape the torment without losing their dreams and 3) some parents are willing to do whatever it takes to get their kid to the top.

Yes, education of kids and parents is really important. But it won’t stop the problem. Lessen it, perhaps? Yes. Good, harsh penalties won’t stop the problem either, but maybe a little fear could prevent someone near the edge from stepping all the way over the line.

[HLMom]

@DarkBayUnicorn

Another thing to really keep in mind here is that due to the outrageous expense of our sport, the power dynamic between a coach and a student can be even more out of wack.

One of the reasons why sport in general is taking a really hard stance on grooming and sexual misconduct is because 1) it gives those with the tendancies easy access to kids with a built-in power imbalance and 2) a portion of kids in sport are so incredibly emotionally invested that they feel they cannot escape the torment without losing their dreams and 3) some parents are willing to do whatever it takes to get their kid to the top.

Yes, education of kids and parents is really important. But it won’t stop the problem. Lessen it, perhaps? Yes. Good, harsh penalties won’t stop the problem either, but maybe a little fear could prevent someone near the edge from stepping all the way over the line.

Very good points, DarkBay. You explain it in a very compelling way.

[specifiedcupcake]

@marginall

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?!?!

True story. Remember all the outcry with “Brock Turner the swimmer” vs “Brock Turner the rapist”?

[Marie51]

For those who were waiting for SS and USEF to respond. Well they did…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2019/06/14/equestrian-coach-rider-robert-gage-dies-suicide-recent-safesport-ban/1455390001/

for the record…i believe in SS and their process. I was scared for the horse community after seeing the mentality of many professional posting on Fb thread. I was appalled at the many people who were dismissive of the allegations. Sexual abuse must be taken seriously no matter if it was 20-30 years ago. I’m sick of the excuse “it was a different time”. It wasn’t ok then as sure as heck isn’t ok now. I don’t know if RG was truly guilty but my faith is in the SS system and that’s good enough for me…there is obviously a reason he was given the punishment of a permanent ban. It’s a privilege to belong to the USEF not a constitutional right.

[Midge]

@HLMom

You can see how someone might think that if an individual is going to be deemed guilty of rape and banned from the only industry in which they have ever worked, we might want to at least go up to “clear and convincing” evidence as an added safeguard, rather than 50.01%.

He is not banned from the industry. he is banned from USEF. He can still teach, train, buy, and sell. He just can’t do it at USEF sanctioned shows.

[ynl063w]

@HLMom

This is one of the most disturbing things in this thread. Are you describing things that happened decades ago, or more recently?

Why does this even matter??

@HLMom

That is all true. However, it seems problematic when the preponderance standard is used to judge conduct that is in fact not only criminal, but morally abhorrent–and which potentially results in loss of a livelihood. You may be aware that in California, civil elder abuse cases (brought by private plaintiffs) require “clear and convincing” evidence; this is also the standard for punitive damages awarded on any civil claim.

You can see how someone might think that if an individual is going to be deemed guilty of rape and banned from the only industry in which they have ever worked, we might want to at least go up to “clear and convincing” evidence as an added safeguard, rather than 50.01%.

I don’t think SafeSport deems anyone guilty of rape, and they don’t even ban anyone from the only industry in which they have ever worked. Rob Gage could have continued working in the horse industry; based on the hundreds of disgusting facebook posts, he had plenty of supporters and could have easily continued making money in the hunter/jumper industry, as many others before him are doing. He was not sentenced to life in prison. He was not sentenced to death. If something about the latest accusation (and he was apparently told who made the accusation) made him decide to end his life, I fail to see how that is the fault of SafeSport in any way, shape, or form. He could have chosen to continue with his appeal if he was so sure of his innocence.

[oneequestrienne]

@Denali6298

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.

I would also like a copy of that list.

[Denali6298]

@oneequestrienne

I would also like a copy of that list.

For sure.

[Carolinadreamin]

Posted under the Chronicle of the Horse FB post regarding this, is a person who stated (and I am summarizing) “who cares? It happened 38 years ago!” Unless she is privy to the details of the allegations or to Rob Gage’s responses to these allegations, she should wisely consider her personal beliefs regarding sexual abuse of minors. Then she claims it was all about getting those blue ribbons. I don’t know anything about this particular case… comments like this woman’s are quite nauseating.