It seems some posters have never spent any time at a criminal trial. First off, minors are protected by publication bans to protect their identities - and their futures. That should be a BIG FREAKING SIGN that no, you are NEVER going to be told the who, or the WHAT, unless you are the judge, the jury, the lawyer, the victim or the defendant. Get real here. People calling for SS to act like the legal system, but only in ways they like. They are protecting minors by not releasing the details, it is literally the LAW in criminal court. Get with the freaking times and shut up about wanting the details.
Keep in mind in regards to the case with the drunk woman and consent, not sure what the story is there but if the witness will not co operate then sometimes the prosecution (or say SS in this) doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Often times, after these assaults happen the victims go through hell trying to get charges laid, or in this case a ban in place. It can lead you down a very dark path and it is extremely difficult to handle unless you have an amazing support system. Was the victim here just not willing to continue? That is a possibility and if that is the case I can see it getting overturned sadly.
Forgot to add, the real reason people want victims names is so that they can go do their Facebook stalking and gossiping and find reasons XYZ as to why the victim shouldn’t be believed.
Thank you.
”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹As to the weightlifting case. She was present at arbitration and grilled about her sexual history. She is/was suing in regards to how her case was handled.
"While the SafeSport code has “no statute of limitations or time bar of any sort” the Burns case raises questions about what guidelines will be used to decide cases where the alleged incidents of sexual abuse or other misconduct took place prior to the center opening in 2017.
The documents in the Burns case show that the arbitration panel agreed with Burns that SafeSport’s policies, procedures and supplemental rules would apply to the investigation and arbitration hearing but that USA Weightlifting’s safe sport policies and code of conduct that were in place on April 11, 2016, the date of the alleged incident, would “govern the substantive standards of conduct in this matter.”
SafeSport’s Code for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement did not take effect until March 2017. The SafeSport code was used as the standard in regards to Burns’ lying, which took place between March and May 2017.
In ruling in favor of Burns the arbitration panel said there was nothing in USA Weightlifting’s by-laws and policies in April 2016 that defined non-consensual sexual contact or required consent.
“USAW’s Policies do not define non-consensual sexual intercourse, or define the necessary standards for obtaining consent to particular activities, and as such, there is no standard that required both (Roberts) and (Burns) to obtain express verbal consent from one another for each particular sexual act, regardless of whether that would have been good policy or not,” the panel wrote in its decision. “There was simply no such policy requiring such actions at the time of the sexual encounter.”
This ruling from the arbitration committee makes me ill.
What we should be striving for is a Horse Show world that does not need to even worry about Safe Sport - because people are not being bullied, abused, assaulted or sexually molested. This whole situation is tragic and sad- but the jokes all the time about male trainers dating their junior riders is wrong- I don’t care what a 16 year old thinks they are participating in a grown adult does not date or have sex with a child and under 18 is a child.
Rob G gave several clinics for a local organization. The one that I saw about six years ago likely had no riders who were USEF members.
On the same FB thread of Duncan’s he notes that a SS banned person cannot accept money from a USEF member, thus leading to the comment that he could work for non-USEF members. I have not had time to check that
Me too. But it certainly shows that the narrative of “immediately banning someone based on a single anonymous claim that could happen to anyone,” which was spouted on Facebook, is not true.
No because that’s not what I said. There are people elsewhere, and here, wanting to know. Definitely didn’t use the term demanding. Gaslight much, starting an argument over semantics? You can try and sidetrack my posts but I am way too aware to play those games
She was present at arbitration and grilled about her sexual history.
And this is exactly why people aren’t more willing to step forward. What possible relevance was her sexual history supposed to have in this case?
As to why people who observed sexualised behaviour going on between trainers and minor (or not) students back when and didn’t speak up (someone made this comment way up-thread) - just who were we supposed to speak up to?
I saw some things that made my skin crawl back in the day, but no. one. cared. The police would have laughed at me; besides, I didn’t see anything actually illegal. No one got beaten up and raped in front of me, which is probably the only thing they would have acted on, if then.
My peers would either have dismissed my concerns (but he never did anything to me…), or passed them on in whispers to others. The trainer would simply have trashed my reputation, called me a troublemaker, said I was just a jealous b***h, because we all know how girls are, right? The child’s parents would probably have been outraged that I was casting aspersions on their daughter’s reputation. She might have got in trouble with them for not acting “modest” enough (what did you do to make him think…) If I had made enough of a fuss, my horse might even have been mysteriously injured in his stall at a show. So I say again - what was I supposed to do?
I kept quiet about it. That’s what we all did. That’s what for the most part, people still do. Kudos to those women who spoke up at The Oaks, but I note that they are grown women, important women (at least one of them). They’re not unknown 14 year old barn rats accusing their big name trainer.
I don’t understand that to be true. He is banned from participating in USEF activities, not from associating with USEF members. He can teach people all day long at home as long as someone else takes those clients to USEF shows and signs the entry blanks. USEF only has the power to police the activities it controls and sanctions, USEF cannot control what a former (now banned) member does outside of those activities.
I appreciate you genuinely asking. A full response is complicated and I do not have time to fully outline it in this message as I am busy this morning. But I am going to begin with an outline and I will expand on each point in a series of messages that will take some time to come out. Some of this is going to cause howls from the mob, but I am going to say it anyway because having a sane discussion is important. And even some of the mob may develop more nuanced views.
Here is the outline:
(1) Ex post facto laws are, in most cases (but not always), fundamentally unfair. Ex post factor means retroactive.
(2) Consensual sex between an adult and a 17 year old minor is not illegal in most states.
(3) False accusations of rape and sexual assault do happen and with sufficient frequency that the existance of false accusations cannot be ignored.
(4) Particularly in the light of (3), due process matters.
(5) The time elasped since the events occurred does matter for several good reasons. These underlying reasons are why statute of limitations laws exist.
(6) Transparency is important because lack of transparency allows a corrupt process. The combination of a lack of transparency and weak due process is particularly dangerous.
(7) An evidence standard of “preponderance of the evidence” is too low for some sactions (such as a lifetime ban).
The Rob Gage case brings together a bunch of issues that make it quite complicated.
So I have to give the disclaimer that none of this suggests that I am OK with sexual assault or with enabling or covering up sexual assault. Nor am I unaware or unsympathetic to the pain and damage suffered by victims or the additional difficulty of coming forward.
I am going to address (2) because it is quick and easy and I am out of time now. I will address (3) next.
“The age of consent is the age below which a person is considered to be legally incompetent to consent to sexual acts.”
This is pretty much identical to the definitions given in the SafeSport code.
Also, according to Wikipedia, at the present time, the age of consent is 16 in 30 states and Washington DC, 17 in 8 states, and 18 in the remaining 12 states.
So allowing me to lump DC in with states, in 39 states consensual sexual relations between an adult (of any age) and a 17 year old is not a crime. And it is not a crime no matter how many 17 year olds are involved.
So until two days ago, the only “facts” that were “out there” was the hearsay claim was about consensual sexual intercourse with a 17 year old. It should be clear to everyone why the age of the victim matters, not just that they were a minor. If the victim was 15 or under, the alleged activity would be clearly illegal everywhere in the US. If the victim was 16 or 17, then whether or not the activity was illegal depends on location.
I don’t know where RG lived at the time of the incidents, but even if it was in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 18, the fact that the relationship is legal in 39 states and only illegal in 12 means that there is no national consensus (either now or in the past) that consensual sex with a 17 year old is a serious crime. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that 30 years ago consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 26 year old would be only lightly enforced in most of the 12 jurisdictions with an age of consent of 18 and given light sentences if it did go to court. This last part is my speculation, so I welcome facts that would show otherwise (about enforcement 30 years ago).
I can’t finish discussing this without touching on the issues of ex post factor laws. My understanding is that there were no USEF rules about sexual relations in the rule book 30 years ago. The justification for retroactive enforcement by SafeSport relies on the local law at the time. This puts SafeSport in the odd position that if multiple sexual relationships occurred with any number of 17 year olds in 39 states, they would and could do nothing. But if just one incident occurred in 12 states where the age of consent is 18, then they could impose a lifetime ban. Frankly this seems rather weird to me.
I believe that all of this is factually correct but, if not, I welcome corrections.
Since you can clearly read, you tell me. I’ve read this thread from Day 1, I don’t need to do it for you.
Also, this discussion is not limited to actions on CoTH, as we have been discussing articles, Facebook, Twitter, horse shows, etc. But I’m sure you already knew that and are just being purposefully obtuse.
You know, I heard on the radio today that it is the anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death. He was a known child predator, and he was also revered by millions. Parents sent young children to stay with him, sleep in his bed. Years later, many of the kids came out and admitted they lied about Jackson NOT molesting them.Many of them were under serious pressure by Jackson’s handlers and their own parents. I am sure most of those kids are seriously messed up now.
This is no different then RG. He may have been a hero to many, but he was also a nightmare to many.
You’re both right. :rolleyes: Some people want to know the victim’s names. Some want transparency as noted above from OwnTwoMany that doesn’t include names. If would could stop painting everyone with the same brush, it would be helpful.
That seems to be too much to ask of some on this thread.
OwnTooMany, rather than howling, I would like to commend you on a thoughtful and educated analysis of important issues raised by SafeSport. My hat is off to you! I have no doubt these issues will continue to be raised before the arbitration panels and in civil lawsuits, and I’ll be interested to see what develops.
