Owntoomany joined June 20, 2019 and their first post ever was today on this thread. That should tell you everything you need to know.
16 Likes
It is important that Navin’s page be monitored. It is vital to keeping this process motivated. It is VERY important to know who those are on her page agreeing. Her pals are all about creating their own safe spaces where they can do as they please. Personally I would not be sorry to see some of their ilk go but think of the pain they could cause? She blocked me some time ago…
8 Likes
I have read the entire thread and been mulling over so many thoughts. And there are many.
As a survivor who will never confront my abusers, I find the demand that details be released by SS so the general public can decide for themselves if a lifetime ban was warranted to be entitled, selfish, and lacking any and all empathy for the victims/survivors.
I can only assume those individuals want details released to speed up their healing process, so they can be sure “it wasn’t as bad as people are making it out to be.” They are certain it’s going to be a case of a “close to 18 yr old girl in a parent approved relationship”. Or as recently discovered, maybe it was younger girls, BUT it was just a butt pinch here, a rude comment there, etc. It for sure can’t be something AWFUL because they know RG so well…and there’s just NO.WAY. he did horrible things to minors. Additionally, there’s no way THEY would be friends etc with someone who does those kind of things. These details will exonerate everyone, there’s no question about it.
But what if the facts present a different result? What if SS did release the details, and it’s so much worse than you thought? Like, the worst things a person could do. How would you feel then? Do you regret knowing it all?
And even more importantly, how did it affect the victims to have all the details put out publicly even if the names are redacted? It’s been over 30 years for me, and I can’t imagine how devastating it would be to read my story plastered over social media. And that’s without my name included (or reading any of the comments that I’m sure would STILL vindicate my abusers, even if they flat out admitted to it.)
I get that we live in a time where we get to know more, get info faster, and weigh in on so many topics we know very little about (yes, I see the irony here). But for once, we don’t get to know all the details. We don’t get to give input. Those wanting more info will have to find peace with the decision and move on.
But I dare say coming to terms with not knowing the depth of your friend’s dark deeds is still far easier than coming to terms with being abused.
45 Likes
OneTooMany, you do raise some valid points about credibility of, and public confidence in, the process. And the posters who insist that our criminal and civil justice systems would also keep all the facts confidential seem to have confused our court system with China’s. In actuality, while a minor victim or rape victim might be referred to as “Jane Doe” in court, all of the surrounding facts will be public, and trials are public. Moreover, sentencing data is public at both the state and federal level: if you want to know what kinds of sentences are handed out for particular types of conduct, you can find that out.
I’ve concluded it is not possible in this forum to have an objective, reasoned conversation about what level of due process and/or transparency is appropriate for SafeSport. Any attempt to bring up the topic will quickly cause you to be branded a pedophile and/or RG sympathizer–even if, like me, you don’t know anything about RG and have made no comment on his culpability.
3 Likes
https://deadspin.com/report-another-safesport-ban-got-overturned-this-time-1833081599
In February of last year, the U.S. Center for SafeSport found that American weightlifter Colin Burns had committed “non-consensual sexual acts” with another weightlifter and banned him—but that ban didn’t even last six months, the Orange County Register reported yesterday. Instead, the ban was overturned that July by an arbitration panel made up of three former federal judges, who found that SafeSport did not prove what had happened “by a preponderance of the evidence,” the Register reported.
1 Like
Why do you want to know? Your question sounds invasive towards the privacy of victims (like posters who always demand more info, until the victim is I.D.'d), and possibly a bit prurient.
16 Likes
What specific information do you need that hasn’t already been provided by SafeSport and why? Any sexual contact with a minor student makes a trainer or coach unfit. There’s nothing else we need to know. There’s no acceptable level of sexual abuse. All releasing details would accomplish is to give fodder to abuser apologists who want to judge for themselves that certain acts of abuse aren’t “bad enough.”
I’ve lurked here for a bit since my kids have started showing more interest in riding. I know that those victim shaming on social media don’t represent everyone in the sport, but man this has been both enlightening and horrifying.
25 Likes
Have you read that story from all sides?
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/03/1…o-her-anxiety/
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/03/2…l-abuse-cases/
"The documents, which include previously undisclosed confidential SafeSport emails, memos, reports, interviews and transcripts, reveal that the arbitration panel, in overturning the SafeSport ruling, relied heavily on the testimony of Kim Fromme, a controversial University of Texas clinical psychology professor.
SafeSport’s determination that Roberts was sexually assaulted while she was incapacitated by alcohol consumption and sleep was “seriously undercut” by Fromme’s testimony, the arbitration said in its final ruling.
Fromme, without interviewing Roberts, testified that Roberts was in an alcohol-induced black-out at the time of the alleged sexual assault and was not incapacitated by alcohol and still capable of consenting to sex. SafeSport did not call a rebuttal witness to Fromme."
So the arbitration panel decided that drunk she could still consent. Hence the overturn.
4 Likes
Yeah, the Lopez brothers (mentioned in the linked article) had their bans overturned at arbitration because all the victims declined to testify because they were pursuing legal action, instead. Their attorney advised them to remove themselves from the SafeSport proceedings for that reason.
And the article certainly doesn’t do Colin Burns any favors, either.
Burns, after denying being in Roberts’ room in three interviews with SafeSport investigators, eventually said Roberts invited him back to her room after he escorted another female U.S. weightlifter to her room.
Nor does the arbitration panel come off smelling like roses:
The documents and interviews also reveal that Roberts was questioned about her sexual history by an arbitration panel member during an appeal hearing, and that the panel in overturning the SafeSport ruling relied heavily on the testimony of a controversial University of Texas psychologist who, without ever speaking with Roberts, determined Roberts was in an alcohol-induced blackout at the time of the incident that would not have prevented her from consenting to have sex with Burns.
The primary criticism of SafeSport that I can see based on the article is that they are simply overwhelmed by the number of complaints they have received:
Then-USOC chairman Larry Probst, amid mounting pressure from Capitol Hill, acknowledged last April that SafeSport was “under-resourced.”
5 Likes
Ok, so assuming that sexual harassment is on your low end of seriousness, let’s look at how the code defines that.
Sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or other unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non-verbal, graphic, physical, or otherwise, when the conditions outlined in (a) and/or (b), below, are present.
If the target of this conduct is a minor, that’s still pretty awful behavior.
15 Likes
Sure it is. However, almost everyone who has come here questioning what level of due process and/or transparency is appropriate for SafeSport:
- Has also included, in their post, expressions of support for RG, which immediately identifies them as biased, and/or
- Hasn’t bothered to actually read the law that led to the formation of SafeSport or the documents on the SafeSport web site outlining the policies and procedures under which the center is required to operate, and/or
3 Seems to think “objective and reasonable conversation” means that you (generic) explain to us (generic) how we’re wrong and we then see the light and agree with you (generic).
None of those leads to “objective, reasoned conversation.”
14 Likes
Yes, but keep in mind, Safesport also has jurisdiction over conduct that does not include minors. Hence my example above: what Safesport remedy would be appropriate where, say, a senior trainer plants an unwelcome kiss on a more junior trainer?
At a company, I believe this conduct by an employee would typically result in a reprimand and probably remedial training in sexual harassment. Of course, if the conduct was repeated, stronger discipline would ensue.
Except we are literally talking about sexual misconduct with a minor.
Fairly certain that deserves more than a reprimand.
This is such an unreal conversation.
24 Likes
I’m just going to say that once I revealed my assault here I never had a single forum participant react in anything but a supportive manner. I thank all of you from the bottom of my soul for that. It’s too bad we all can’t be as kind. Once again, I identify myself. I am Sarah Hochschwender and I am a survivor.
55 Likes
I’m not actually talking about that. I’m talking about Safesport generally. I have already stated I know nothing about RG and am not expressing any opinion about his case.
This is what is so frustrating here! People who either can’t read, or don’t want to read, what one actually wrote.
Yes, I agree with you: this tale does not inspire confidence from any angle! It wasn’t mentioned in the article I linked, but I believe the weightlifter was given a 10 year ban by Safesport. For forcible rape!! That seems like a rather light penalty, doesn’t it?
1 Like
Sure it is…once and if it goes to trial. The accused is arrested once there is enough evidence that the person is guilty that they feel a case is buildable, and from that point on, they are detained in jail (or held on bond)…and this is all prior to the public getting all the nasty details in a trial and prior to any guilty sentence. One can be arrested early in the investigation based on a piece of evidence that ends up getting explained away, and we the public don’t get all the details at that point to determine our opinions.
There are a lot of RG supporters / Safe Sport critics saying that it isn’t fair to have a temporary ban during the investigative process and that the details should be made public at that point…and that any temporary ban during the investigation violates the “innocent until proven guilty” ideology. Which completely flies in the face of the criminal justice system (which they say we should use instead of Safe Sport).
I think Safe Sport’s effort to to keep the details private is far kinder to the victims. Do you have any idea how hard it must be to sit in a jury trial that’s reported on globally and painstakingly go through every awful detail, and then be questioned about it and judged on it by cross examination, the media, and the public? I find it sad that the “need” to know outweighs any respect for the victims.
I pose this question yet again…How can we as a culture say “Victims, please come forward, we must stop sexual abuse” and then when someone comes forward we want to explain it away or evaluate the sexual acts for ourselves so we determine if they’re valid? Why do we have that right?
Systems and processes are put in place to prevent the public from being judge, jury and executioner of the accused or accuser(s), which this case exemplifies is a damn good thing.
23 Likes
[QUOTE=Horsegirl’s Mom;n10418397]
https://deadspin.com/report-another-…ime-1833081599
Did we read the same article? The victim was incapacitated and you think this is evidence of SafeSport’s overreach? Or am I misunderstanding?
5 Likes
If you read the story, are you not appalled by the arbitrator’s reliance on an “expert” who never interviewed the victim? The arbitrator basically went with, “well maybe she was so drunk she doesn’t remember consenting” … which by definition, friends, is not consent.
21 Likes
[quote="“erinmeri,post:1347,topic:459071”]
You are misunderstanding. It is an example of a Safesport ban being overturned by arbitrators for not meeting the legal standard. Somewhat paradoxically, it is also an example where the penalty imposed by SafeSport seemed rather light.
My overall point is, these kinds of examples will tend to cause people to express a lack of confidence in the process, or at least to express confusion about the results.
Safesport could potentially mitigate such concerns by publishing some data about its operations. What percentage of bans are overturned in arbitration? What penalties are handed out for various categories of behavior? --Kind of like the sentencing guidelines that guide judges in deciding sentences. People tend to feel that a system is fair when there is some level of predictability and consistency in the results it yields.
And notice I said Safesport should consider publishing DATA. No one is talking about publishing names of victims. But once again, the mob is screaming that even broaching these ideas is being unkind and disrespectful to victims.
1 Like
