Rob Gage

[NoSuchPerson]

@atl_hunter

I am sure that was the initial purpose, but then again the initial purpose of SafeSport was to keep athletes safe today, and not 30-40 years ago.

But that’s the thing. If a person engaged in a pattern of behavior in the past, it is reasonable to anticipate that under the same circumstances, that pattern of behavior is likely to continue in the present/future. So, if a guy has a history of engaging in sexual misconduct with teens and pre-teens in the past, SafeSport should sanction him in order to keep athletes safe today.

[FiSk123]

I’m not directly involved with equestrian sports, but I’ve been following this thread since its inception. First, I want to thank you all for the very enlightening and responsible discussions about such a difficult subject. Figure skating is my sport and, as many of you already know, the death of John Coughlin sparked similar reactions and discussions in our community.

Just to give a bit of background information on me, I am a former freelance journalist and, for the past several years, I have worked as a sexual assault and domestic violence counselor. In that time, I’ve worked with survivors, abusers, and witnesses of sex abuse scandals within several sports (including taekwondo, gymnastics and skating). Over the past several months, I’ve also been working on a project about SafeSport and sexual misconduct as it relates to the Olympic Movement (which has led me to interview survivors whose abusers were given lifetime bans and other sanctions by SafeSport, attorneys who specialize in civil action related to sexual abuse, SafeSport media representatives, etc.)

In the cases I’ve worked on or that I am aware of, SafeSport requires a higher standard of evidence to impose a temporary measure (such as a temporary suspension) than most professional settings. It usually comes in the form of text messages, recordings (both audio and visual), emails and/or multiple-witness testimony. Even more evidence was required for the Center to impose a sanction (such as a suspension or a permanent ban). Once again, this comes from my experience as a crisis counselor and my interviews with the aforementioned parties.

One issue I see with a lot of the SafeSport discourse is that it tends to concentrate on how SafeSport is unfair to the accused, while in my experience, it has been unfair to the claimants.

Another issue that I have is that I’ve seen several people on social media argue that SafeSport should adhere to certain legal rights that are only granted to the accused during criminal trials (such as the presumption of innocence and the confrontation clause). However, I feel like people on this forum have responded to these arguments very well.

@OwnTooMany I believe you are referring to this section of the SafeSport code that refers to prohibited conduct:

“(1) Prohibited Conduct, as outlined in the Code; (2) any conduct that would violate any current or previous U.S. Center for SafeSport, NGB, or LAO standards analogous to Prohibited Conduct that existed at the time of the alleged conduct; or (3) any conduct that would violate community standards analogous to Prohibited Conduct that existed at the time of the alleged conduct, including then applicable criminal and/or civil laws.”

In my experience, in cases in which the alleged misconduct occurred before SafeSport existed and outside of the NGB standards at the time, it is up to the reporting party (and their adviser) to prove that the conduct of accused broke either criminal OR civil laws. So you have to ask not only “Could person A have been arrested for this in year B?” but also “Could person A be sued for this in year B?”

I personally don’t know of any case in which a person was sanctioned by SafeSport for an action that did not violate the existing code at the time (whether it be related to SafeSport, the NGB, criminal law, or civil law).

[Mac123]

@APirateLooksAtForty

THIS

Sooo…we needed a rule to spell out that sexual misconduct with a minor was bad? Seriously?

I’ve lost ALL faith in humanity if that’s the argument. And keep in mind to keep our memberships in good standing we all have to complete SS training, even if we became a member in 1950.

Regardless of whether SS was around in the '70s, I think it’s abundantly clear that sexual contact with a 13 year old is reprehensible and deserving of punishment. The fact that multiple victims have come forward give credence to the fact that such offenders rarely do this once, and I find it incredibly justifiable to sanction someone who was found to have multiple victims over an undisclosed span of time. Gage very well could have continued this behavior over the past 30 years, and thank God we’re finally willing to say it’s enough and to try and protect future victims from coming into the hands of these predators.

Or most of us are, anyway.

[IPEsq]

USEF has general prohibitions about assaulting another person as well as any conduct that negatively impacts the sport or. I haven’t dug out any dusty AHSA rule books, but there have been a lot of very generally worded human conduct and horse welfare type rules for a long time.

[adlgel]

Interesting, and timely, article about “due process” coming into play for sexual assault allegations at PRIVATE universitys (it’s already in play at public universitys). I have no legal expertise whatsoever but if this moves forward does it not open the door for the same argument to be made for private clubs?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/25/rhodes-college-ruling-opens-door-due-process-private-universities?utm_source=Inside%20Higher%20Ed&utm_campaign=7fe6efd772-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-7fe6efd772-198217881&mc_cid=7fe6efd772&mc_eid=b9d1a6cadc

[Keep_it_Simple]

@IPEsq

USEF has general prohibitions about assaulting another person as well as any conduct that negatively impacts the sport or. I haven’t dug out any dusty AHSA rule books, but there have been a lot of very generally worded human conduct and horse welfare type rules for a long time.

Most of the rules only apply to behavior at a USEF or AHSA event; .they do not apply to behavior off show grounds.
Safesport has used civil and community standards.

[HLMom]

@adlgel

Interesting, and timely, article about “due process” coming into play for sexual assault allegations at PRIVATE universitys (it’s already in play at public universitys). I have no legal expertise whatsoever but if this moves forward does it not open the door for the same argument to be made for private clubs?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/25/rhodes-college-ruling-opens-door-due-process-private-universities?utm_source=Inside%20Higher%20Ed&utm_campaign=7fe6efd772-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-7fe6efd772-198217881&mc_cid=7fe6efd772&mc_eid=b9d1a6cadc

You are right–that is indeed interesting. One way I could see that constitutional concepts of due process could be held to apply to private institutions is because they accept federal dollars for student financial aid, research grants, etc.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@OwnTooMany

If the victim is older than 15, then whether or not a crime occurred depends on the state. This leads to the situation that the same behavior might lead to sanction if you lived in one state and no sanction if you lived in another. I think many people would view this as strange and somewhat unfair.

While power imbalance is important, it was not in the USEF rules and not in the law 30 years ago. Many things are complicated by retrospective application of rules developed now.

If you assume the sex was consensual then it may depend on which state it occurred,

I keep reading comments where people say that “things are different back in the day”, but not all 15, 16 17 year olds wanted to have sex with their trainer. In addition, not all 15 year olds kept quiet because they got to ride nice horses… Yes, definitely things were different in the 70’s and 80’s. There was no discussion of “good touch- bad touch”, . I was raised to respect my elders. As kids we didn’t get to share our opinion. I never was allowed to talk back if I didn’t like something. I was not allowed to show emotion. If someone asked how I did in a class, the only appropriate answer was "fine, thank you. " Did my upbringing set me up to be the perfect target for a predator? Yep, I think it did.

[vxf111]

@HLMom

You are right–that is indeed interesting. One way I could see that constitutional concepts of due process could be held to apply to private institutions is because they accept federal dollars for student financial aid, research grants, etc.

It’s just a ruling on a TRO, it’s not a decision on the merits. I wouldn’t be staking my legal career on this being the precedent overturning what the constitution says Due process is mentioned in what is essentially dicta. I also want to point out that… judges are human and they can be wrong. That one district court judge was kind of loose/sloppy/just plain wrong in the language used in deciding an injunction is not evidence that the constitution says something different than it’s said since it was signed by the founders

Plus the huge difference between private universities is the Title 9 link to federal funding. If you don’t comply with Title 9, your institution is ineligible for federal loans and grants. USEF doesn’t have that link. So even if you did read this ONE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE’S NON MERITS RULING ON A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER as some kind of larger res judicata, it isn’t analogous to the USEF situation.

[poltroon]

@IPEsq

USEF has general prohibitions about assaulting another person as well as any conduct that negatively impacts the sport or. I haven’t dug out any dusty AHSA rule books, but there have been a lot of very generally worded human conduct and horse welfare type rules for a long time.

Which is good, because no one thought to specifically write in the rules ahead of time that you could be sanctioned for electrocuting horses for money and making fraudulent insurance claims.

[HLMom]

@vxf111

Plus the huge difference between private universities is the Title 9 link to federal funding. If you don’t comply with Title 9, your institution is ineligible for federal loans and grants. USEF doesn’t have that link. So even if you did read this ONE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE’S NON MERITS RULING ON A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER as some kind of larger res judicata, it isn’t analogous to the USEF situation.

Well, I wondered about this. Does SafeSport get federal funding? I thought someone mentioned that it does.

[McGurk]

Thank you, poltroon. Yet some of us knew it was wrong anyway. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Keep_it_Simple]

@OwnTooMany

If the victim is older than 15, then whether or not a crime occurred depends on the state. This leads to the situation that the same behavior might lead to sanction if you lived in one state and no sanction if you lived in another. I think many people would view this as strange and somewhat unfair.

While power imbalance is important, it was not in the USEF rules and not in the law 30 years ago. Many things are complicated by retrospective application of rules developed now.

If you assume the sex was consensual then it may depend on which state it occurred,

I keep reading comments where people say that “things are different back in the day”, but not all 15, 16 17 year olds wanted to have sex with their trainer. In addition, not all 15 year olds kept quiet because they got to ride nice horses… Yes, definitely things were different in the 70’s and 80’s. There was no discussion of “good touch- bad touch”, . I was raised to respect my elders. As kids we didn’t get to share our opinion. I never was allowed to talk back if I didn’t like something. I was not allowed to show emotion. If someone asked how I did in a class, the only appropriate answer was "fine, thank you. " Did my upbringing set me up to be the perfect target for a predator? Yep, I think it did.

[DarkBayUnicorn]

@OwnTooMany

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.

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent), the age of consent is defined as follows:

“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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o…_United_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.

(Let the howling begin …)

OK. OK. I know. I’m jumping way the heck ahead by quoting something on page 69 that will show up on page 70-something.

But WHAT??? WHAT??? WHAT???

Wikepedia as source WHAT?? 17 is just fine WHAT???

You sleep at night feeling righteous as F WHAT?

Honestly. Honestly. WTF are you talking about?

Dear almighty @OwnTooMany I hope you never have a daughter who tries to confide in you. I hope to all things holy you don’t have junior clients. Because they’re fecking screwed if they have to come to you in a time of need.

I can’t even. I just can’t. PLEASE COTH folks, I will now read the rest of the 5+ pages.

But really @OwnTooMany? Really? FFS!

[roseymare]

@HLMom

Well, I wondered about this. Does SafeSport get federal funding? I thought someone mentioned that it does.

Yes it does but I am not sure that still correlates completely with Title IX.

[Dorito]

I was thinking today that one irony of this is that the trainers who have been vocally advocating for the protection of trainers over the protection of minors to which they are entrusted have probably done more harm to their reputations than SS ever will.

[OverandOnward]

Re the remark that in several states, sex between a 17 year old and an older adult would be legal, but it wasn’t in CA where and when RG is accused of this …

IMO this is splitting hairs and dodging the issue. If it’s illegal in your state, you wait until all of the parties are of legal age. Or go elsewhere to where it is legal.

It isn’t less illegal because the law is different in another state. Temporarily postponing a desire until both parties are of legal age would avoid all of the issues. Clearly a far better outcome that taking the risk of the consequences of violating the law. And by law the burden of that decision falls on the age-qualified adult.

Every adult capable of managing their own affairs is as aware of this law as they are of the speed limit. If the burden of adhering to the laws of the state one is in is all that great, then people of sufficient means (and anyone who can afford to be involved in horses has to be in that category) can consider relocating to a different, more permissive state. I don’t get where the comparison between states is any sort of excuse for such an egregious violation.

This post is not about the full range of ages of accusers that is now part of the public information surrounding RG. Just the fixation of so many people on the 17 yo that is said to be part of the RG case.

“In Kansas and Massachusetts, the age for marriage with [parental] consent is 14 for males and 12 for females.” There are countries where girls can be married as young as 10 yo. That doesn’t make it ok everywhere.
https://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/marriage/parental-consent.htm

The attempt to justify the 17 yo by comparing laws is just a deliberate red herring for this discussion, IMO.

[OverandOnward]

Re the remark that in several states, sex between a 17 year old and an older adult would be legal, but it wasn’t in CA where and when RG is accused of this …

IMO this is splitting hairs and dodging the issue. If it’s illegal in your state, you wait until all of the parties are of legal age. Or go elsewhere to where it is legal.

It isn’t less illegal because the law is different in another state. Temporarily postponing a desire until both parties are of legal age would avoid all of the issues. Clearly a far better outcome that taking the risk of the consequences of violating the law. And by law the burden of that decision falls on the age-qualified adult.

Every adult capable of managing their own affairs is as aware of this law as they are of the speed limit. If the burden of adhering to the laws of the state one is in is all that great, then people of sufficient means (and anyone who can afford to be involved in horses has to be in that category) can consider relocating to a different, more permissive state. I don’t get where the comparison between states is any sort of excuse for such an egregious violation.

This post is not about the full range of ages of accusers that is now part of the public information surrounding RG. Just the fixation of so many people on the 17 yo that is said to be part of the RG case.

“In Kansas and Massachusetts, the age for marriage with [parental] consent is 14 for males and 12 for females.” There are countries where girls can be married as young as 10 yo. That doesn’t make it ok everywhere.
https://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/marriage/parental-consent.htm

The attempt to justify the 17 yo by comparing laws is just a deliberate red herring for this discussion, IMO.

[OverandOnward]

Re the remark that in several states, sex between a 17 year old and an older adult would be legal, but it wasn’t in CA where and when RG is accused of this …

IMO this is splitting hairs and dodging the issue. If it’s illegal in your state, you wait until all of the parties are of legal age. Or go elsewhere to where it is legal.

It isn’t less illegal because the law is different in another state. Temporarily postponing a desire until both parties are of legal age would avoid all of the issues. Clearly a far better outcome that taking the risk of the consequences of violating the law. And by law the burden of that decision falls on the age-qualified adult.

Every adult capable of managing their own affairs is as aware of this law as they are of the speed limit. If the burden of adhering to the laws of the state one is in is all that great, then people of sufficient means (and anyone who can afford to be involved in horses has to be in that category) can consider relocating to a different, more permissive state. I don’t get where the comparison between states is any sort of excuse for such an egregious violation.

This post is not about the full range of ages of accusers that is now part of the public information surrounding RG. Just the fixation of so many people on the 17 yo that is said to be part of the RG case.

“In Kansas and Massachusetts, the age for marriage with [parental] consent is 14 for males and 12 for females.” There are countries where girls can be married as young as 10 yo. That doesn’t make it ok everywhere.
https://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/marriage/parental-consent.htm

The attempt to justify the 17 yo by comparing laws is just a deliberate red herring for this discussion, IMO.

[vxf111]

@roseymare

Yes it does but I am not sure that still correlates completely with Title IX.

USEF is the college in the analogy, not SS