This is from Robs lawyer
SAFESPORT CLARIFICATION -
I wish I could take the time to respond to each and every mis-step and mis-information that people post about SafeSport and understand even after one year we lawyers still muddle through much of it as it is a moving target. That said let’s hit a few points:
Safesport’s representative Dan Hill said Gage was:
SafeSport spokesman Dan Hill told USA TODAY Sports on Friday that investigators found Gage was guilty. . ."
Please search the current rules of SS and look for the word GUILTY. You will only find it ONCE on page 7 referring to a criminal court conviction. There is NO such ruling in SS that someone is guilty or innocent. The issue is whether or not someone may have violated the SS code and if so, in light of that what is their current fitness to be in the sport TODAY. That is the measure that is to be weighed. That measure also comes with review of mitigating factors - then a sanction is recommended.
Keep in mind NO one can violate the Code if the act occurred before the effective date of the Code which is March 2018. If an act is alleged to have occurred prior they then look to the NGB rule book for rules that may have been violated. In Rob’s case the NGB never had such rules. Thus SS went to the catch-all of “any violation of any law or rule in effect at the time” and chose to assign a criminal standard reserved to use in a criminal court, where each side is appointed counsel trained in handling such criminal cases and where the standard is “beyond all reasonable doubt”, and statute of limitations apply. SS instead slid the standard down to “preponderance of the evidence” which was never a standard to use for such situations. This is one of the areas where SS is unfair in its process in our humble opinion.
SS says they only find someone permanently ineligible to the most egregious scenario - again untrue, they were permanently banning everyone until pressure was placed on them and the arbitrations lead to over 90% reversals. SS tells reporting parties when they ask can the person at least still have a job and SS says yes but that isn’t true. See page 15 of the rules effective April 15, 2019 which says that one cannot “aid and abet” a banned member. Read the rule. It says that if you allow a banned person to coach a “Participant” then you will be investigated and sanctioned too!!!. Read page 6 as a “Participant” is an NGB member. Thus anyone who is banned but gives clinics to people who happen to be a USEF member will be in trouble and will expose the organizer to discipline.
Correct that the SS act is only permitted to act within the jurisdiction of NGB so making rules like noted above is acting beyond the scope of the legislation and that is what is upsetting to the accused. If you are banned from the NGB you CAN’T continue your business as someone has tried to argue. Also, many people do not have transferable skills at 67 years old to “change occupations.”
An accused is given a hearing before a ruling and sanction - this is FALSE. The accused is given an interim hearing to see if they can return to the sport while an investigation is underway. Many people did NOT know that Rob was in fact given interim measures and allowed to return to the Sport to course design, judge and to train Lauren. The problem was by the time that ruling came in the 2019 course designing and judging jobs were contracted leaving only end of the year assignments for which Rob was reluctant to seek out because heThe ruling Rob received was NOT that he was guilty. SS decided that despite all the evidence presented one man, Michael Henry, believed one side over the other. Once THAT ruling comes in you are entitled to an arbitration hearing where you see for the FIRST time an arbitrator who hears the ENTIRE story and for that the accused gets to pay $5,600 and pay for attys and witnesses to come and testify. The accusers have an atty present the case for them assigned by SS (and the investigator comes in to assist the accusers assigned by SS) and they can testify. The accused gets no atty nor investigator from SS to help them. That is the FIRST time an accused is before an independent decision maker (purportedly independent although their employer has the EXCLUSIVE contract with USOC to handle ALL arbitrations for SS (probably worth a couple million in revenues)). The rules say you are entitled to that hearing in 15 days (speedy) but Rob was assigned an arbitrator (2/11) who couldn’t be available until AFTER April 15 and even then the SS lawyer had prior committed family vacation for 2 weeks and it delayed the process even more. His hearing was selected to May 29, Rob did bring in additional counsel, at my advice, which did cause a change in arbitrator (as the first one couldn’t then be available until AFTER October) and delay his hearing to June 17. The point is the process is by no means swift.
Remember the only issues complained of were the processes on how to get to a fair and balanced decision - whatever that decision would have been. If done fair and square and within the letter of the law then people can accept outcomes. When the process is so flawed it is near impossible to keep up the fight. was worried he would let down someone in the future if a ban ultimately was assigned. He didn’t go back to the shows to train Lauren only because her horse had gotten hurt. He was more worried about others than himself. It is kindof true and kindof false that the accused gets an opportunity to be heard. The accused is summoned to an interview by an investigator and is NOT permitted to be told of allegations and information prior to the interview because as SS claims they want to tell the accused for the first time information to see how they react (show them pictures, or comments, or whatever) and then the accused can listen and tell the investigator what evidence they have to refute the allegations. They can have an advisor present (or atty) but that person cannot interfere or interject at all. If you refuse to answer the rules say SS can take an adverse inference. Meaning since you didnt give an affirmative answer they can decide what answer it would have been by your silence. So you walk in blind, they try and use surprise tactics like interrogation you see on TV and then expect you to think about allegations 38 years old and offer right then and there your defense or evidence. The ruling Rob received was NOT that he was guilty. SS decided that despite all the evidence presented one man, Michael Henry, believed one side over the other. Once THAT ruling comes in you are entitled to an arbitration hearing where you see for the FIRST time an arbitrator who hears the ENTIRE story and for that the accused gets to pay $5,600 and pay for attys and witnesses to come and testify. The accusers have an atty present the case for them assigned by SS (and the investigator comes in to assist the accusers assigned by SS) and they can testify. The accused gets no atty nor investigator from SS to help them. That is the FIRST time an accused is before an independent decision maker (purportedly independent although their employer has the EXCLUSIVE contract with USOC to handle ALL arbitrations for SS (probably worth a couple million in revenues)). The rules say you are entitled to that hearing in 15 days (speedy) but Rob was assigned an arbitrator (2/11) who couldn’t be available until AFTER April 15 and even then the SS lawyer had prior committed family vacation for 2 weeks and it delayed the process even more. His hearing was selected to May 29, Rob did bring in additional counsel, at my advice, which did cause a change in arbitrator (as the first one couldn’t then be available until AFTER October) and delay his hearing to June 17. The point is the process is by no means swift.
Remember the only issues complained of were the processes on how to get to a fair and balanced decision - whatever that decision would have been. If done fair and square and within the letter of the law then people can accept outcomes. When the process is so flawed it is near impossible to keep up the fight.
This was the copy/paste I was trying to do.
