Rob Gage

[Keep_it_Simple]

@OwnTooMany

Still trying to get enough information to decide what I think about all of this.

Well we can probably assume it was not a pat on the butt or a hug.

Perhaps if you provided us some offenses and what you would consider appropriate punishment for them we could understand your position better.

I will provide Safe Sport’s definitions to make it easier for all.

Consent cannot be obtained:… (d) where a Power Imbalance exists.

Nonconsensual Sexual Contact It is a violation of the Code for a Participant to engage in Sexual Contact without Consent. Sexual Contact is any intentional touching of a sexual nature, however slight, with any object or body part (as described below), by a person upon another person. Sexual Contact includes but is not limited to: (a) kissing, (b) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching of another with any of these body parts; and © making another touch themselves, the Participant, or someone else with or on any of these body parts.

Nonconsensual Sexual Intercourse It is a violation of the Code for a Participant to engage in Sexual Intercourse without Consent. Sexual intercourse is any penetration, however slight, with any object or body part (as described below), by a person upon another person. Sexual Intercourse includes (a) vaginal penetration by a penis, object, tongue, or finger; (b) anal penetration by a penis, object, tongue, or finger; and © any contact, no matter how slight, between the mouth of one person and the genitalia of another person.

Factors relevant to determining appropriate sanctions include, without limitation:

1. The Respondent’s prior history;
2. A pattern of inappropriate behavior or misconduct;
3. The ages of individuals involved;
4. Whether the Respondent poses an ongoing and/or potential threat to the safety of others;
5. Respondent’s voluntary disclosure of the offense(s), acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, and/or cooperation in the Center’s process;
6. Real or perceived impact of the incident on the Claimant, NGB(s), LAO(s), USOC, or the sporting community;
7. Whether given the facts and circumstances that have been established, continued participation in the Olympic Movement is appropriate; and/or 8. Other mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Any single factor, if severe enough, may be sufficient to justify the sanction(s) imposed.

[Denali6298]

@vxf111

Also inverse seriousness in relation to how good the rider is as a rider (sarcasm). You can be rapier if you win grand prixs (sarcasm).

Unfortunately it’s not too far off the mark.

[Jealoushe]

Sadly, a lot of those who are hating on the USEF aren’t even members! There were a bunch of Canadians I saw going on and on about it. Plenty others who said “I haven’t been a member for years but…”. Like OK then. Loons.

[Denali6298]

@Jealoushe

Sadly, a lot of those who are hating on the USEF aren’t even members! There were a bunch of Canadians I saw going on and on about it. Plenty others who said “I haven’t been a member for years but…”. Like OK then. Loons.

I resemble that remark! In all honesty I ditched my membership for reasons not related to Safe Sport.

[Tiramit]

@vxf111

Also inverse seriousness in relation to how good the rider is as a rider (sarcasm). You can be rapier if you win grand prixs (sarcasm).

What I’ve learned about the horse show world is that if you’re a winner, you can do anything: kill horses, rape children, whatever floats your boat between accolades. People will still support you. :eek:

[Jealoushe]

@Denali6298

I resemble that remark! In all honesty I ditched my membership for reasons not related to Safe Sport.

I am Canadian too LOL and not a member of USEF, but I am also not hating on them. I didn’t think you were either? lol

[Denali6298]

@Jealoushe

I am Canadian too LOL and not a member of USEF, but I am also not hating on them. I didn’t think you were either? lol

Some people like to think so. Specifically the H/J discipline.

[vxf111]

@Tiramit

What I’ve learned about the horse show world is that if you’re a winner, you can do anything: kill horses, rape children, whatever floats your boat between accolades. People will still support you. :eek:

Gotta be a dude too. Because when you’re a female olympic rider who was bold enough to, you know, get raped as a CHILD and not SHUT UP about it then it’s your fault when men get brought down

[Tiramit]

Fair point. So winning dudes can do whatever they like. Females of any age and rank who speak up against them are ____ (enter your own horrifically offensive slur).

[mvp]

Yeah on the accepted sexism.

Recently here, a newbie asked about how to get to the GP ranks. The poster was male (a bit unusual for our crowd) and someone made the joke about being “charming enough to get owners to buy horses” for him.

I’ll tell you what, I don’t think that joke would be made had the poster been female. Or, at least, in the 10+ years I have been reading along here, I have never seen anyone recommend that an ambitious young wannabe pro sleep her way to the top…or even that that might work.

And another point-- 90% of the money coming into this industry comes from women. Yet at the top, there is a preponderance of male trainers. I think it’s harder to get all the way to the tippy top if you a woman… and that happens at the hands of the women who are writing the checks.

Bummer.

[bip]

@mvp

Yeah on the accepted sexism.

Recently here, a newbie asked about how to get to the GP ranks. The poster was male (a bit unusual for our crowd) and someone made the joke about being “charming enough to get owners to buy horses” for him.

I’ll tell you what, I don’t think that joke would be made had the poster been female. Or, at least, in the 10+ years I have been reading along here, I have never seen anyone recommend that an ambitious young wannabe pro sleep her way to the top…or even that that might work.

I bet young women asking the question are advised to marry money though, which is the other side of the “women as chattel” coin.

[Anniemaymay]

I checked back at BN’s Facebook because I was curious to see if the tone changed after the women came forward. Is she really suggesting that the derby stewards are tyrannical and unconstitutional like Safesport…and the Safesport will ban Noelle Floyd’s shirt?

[OverandOnward]

@OwnTooMany

…
So I will say it once again: We need a reliable source of key facts.
…

As I understand it, your principal argument is that SafeSport is not to be trusted.

That position allows you to take both sides - on the side of victims generally (however you define them), but against bad ole SafeSport. At the same time.

But this infers that you don’t trust THESE accusers. You don’t feel that SafeSport has, or will ever, take them from the category of ‘accuser’ over the bridge to ‘victim’.

So when I first became aware of what had happened to RG, knowing little about SafeSport, I wondered if SafeSport might be jumping straight into the accusations without investigating with a critical eye, partly because of remembering the mistakes of certain universities.

However, since learning more about the full SafeSport process plus all that SafeSport has found appropriate to reveal in this case, I’ve turned the corner and now believe SafeSport to be credible (to date).

OwnTooMany, your arguments start from the premise that SafeSport is unreliable without any proof that this is so. You are insisting that this must be the default opinion. You give chapter and verse of all of the possibilities of poor process, and take the position that these possibilities must be assumed to be true until proved otherwise.

As far as I’m concerned, they’ve been proved otherwise and have passed the test (at least so far).

FWIW I don’t believe that you need to type out another textbook post, because those reading have already decided if you are credible or not (although I know you will anyway). But nonetheless I thought it was worthwhile to outline why I’m not persuaded by what you have to say, and a good many others aren’t either. (I did read all you have posted in this thread.)

I think your best bet is to stick with the crowd that is already inclined in your direction. You don’t seem to be persuading those that are not. Usually adults aren’t that easy to sway in any case, and it is no different here.

[OverandOnward]

@atl_hunter

That is how it is today. Emphasis on today. The way they are managing and applying SS rules sets a precedent that USEF can make changes today and apply them to anything from yesterday. With 5 years of samples on file “for testing” I find that even more interesting.

For a moment, please stop the focus on the medication rules and look at rules in general. What I’m saying is that it really doesn’t matter what you know about the rules today. Not the drug rules (that you know wet well - I applaud you as you are very well versed!) or competition rules or any rule. You may be following the rules and even the law today. But if in the future if whatever you are doing today is determined to be wrong a rule could be retroactively applied to you. They have never done this before but it shows they think it’s okay to do so.

This doesn’t mean I’m against victims. It does mean I am aware of what a precedent is and how it can be leveraged multi ways once it exists.

Thats all I’m saying. I think some people get this on here and some don’t. That’s okay.

And for the record, I’m fine with my drug sample being on file. I follow the rules. At least today’s rules…

That is not at all what is happening.

For the drug testing comparison, think of it is like the rape and murder cases that police investigated a couple of decades ago, just as they knew that DNA technology was evolving, but not yet able to help them. So they saved the blood and other evidence for future testing with better tests that could definitively identify the perpetrator.

The law did not change. The testing changed. Years later, cases were able to be solved with better tests.

That’s what is going on with the USEF drug testing of old samples. People find ways to cheat the rules because they know “it doesn’t test”, meaning they know it’s against the rules, but at this moment there isn’t a test to confirm the violation. Is that the sport we want?

If it’s against the rules, trainers and riders should keep it clean, regardless of whether “it tests” or not. Since not everyone will adhere to the higher standard of behavior, the USEF is attempting to promise some future accountability to help them reconsider their intentions to circumvent the rules.

@Tackpud

USEF has stated in the past that it keeps test samples on file in case new drug tests come out. They would then test older samples for illegal substances. Their reasoning is that the rule is on the books - no mood altering (or however it is stated) substances allowed - and if a horse is shown with a substance that can later be tested for, it was illegal under the rules at the time the sample was taken. So they’re not going back and testing for things that “weren’t on the banned substances list”, they’re testing for substances that were against the rule of no mood altering substances. Can’t remember how many years they said they would keep samples for, but I think it was something like 5 years. However, with all the issues of storage that came up in the LG case, they should have thrown everything out.

Exactly. Well said.

Back to the old and extremely old cases of sexual contact with minors, it isn’t that there is evidence saved from old investigations, since there weren’t any investigations for the most part. Rather it is that due to the terribly flawed system that existed (or didn’t exist at all) back in the day, reports are coming forward now.

What SafeSport is applying is not new rules, but rather new investigations into old but serious violations of the law.

[endlessclimb]

@mvp

Yeah on the accepted sexism.

Recently here, a newbie asked about how to get to the GP ranks. The poster was male (a bit unusual for our crowd) and someone made the joke about being “charming enough to get owners to buy horses” for him.

I’ll tell you what, I don’t think that joke would be made had the poster been female. Or, at least, in the 10+ years I have been reading along here, I have never seen anyone recommend that an ambitious young wannabe pro sleep her way to the top…or even that that might work.

And another point-- 90% of the money coming into this industry comes from women. Yet at the top, there is a preponderance of male trainers. I think it’s harder to get all the way to the tippy top if you a woman… and that happens at the hands of the women who are writing the checks.

Bummer.

That wasn’t a joke, and it didn’t get pulled out of my backside. Boyd Martin mentions it more than once in his interview for an eventing podcast.

It’s not sexist. It’s not insulting. You’re not going to coordinate a syndicate by being a grump that no one likes. Charming doesn’t need to be taken as a sexual comment, and it wasn’t intended as such. I explained that there on the thread you’re mentioning, but you’re stuck on the horse, yeah?

[Midge]

@Anniemaymay

I checked back at BN’s Facebook because I was curious to see if the tone changed after the women came forward. Is she really suggesting that the derby stewards are tyrannical and unconstitutional like Safesport…and the Safesport will ban Noelle Floyd’s shirt?

She’s just shooting for the lowest common denominator. The shirt post is incredibly stupid and yet, people are commenting like it’s actually a thing Safe Sport would take into consideration. You can never underestimate the stupidity of people in groups and she is banking on it.

[TMares]

Agreed, @endlessclimb . Any successful horseman (a gender-neutral term in my use) has to have talent, drive, willingness to take big risks, willingness to relocate, and people skills. Among them, charm. This list doesn’t care about your gender.

[OwnTooMany]

@HLMom

That’s an interesting point. I’m an attorney, and I think of SafeSport as being more like the bar association than like my private employer. Somewhat analogous to Safesport, the bar association has a high level of control over my ability to practice law as an attorney. If I am disbarred, I can still work in law (for example, I could work as a paralegal or write legal treatises) but I could not represent clients as an attorney. This is kind of like how people say if SafeSport bans a trainer, they can still do horse stuff like training horses at home, but they can’t bring clients to rated shows.

As I have said before, I like the analogy between SafeSport and the state bar association with respect to disciplinary procedures. Since no one else followed up on this (which is too bad), I finally got around to looking what due process is provided in disciplinary proceedings. I picked CA to look at since this seems to be the state that is the focus in the Rob Gage situation. Here is the top level finding:

“Rule 5.103 The State Bar’s Burden of Proof: The State Bar must prove culpability by clear and convincing evidence.”

It appears to me that the level of due process is relaxed somewhat from due process in civil or criminal cases. The rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed and hearsay evidence can be admitted under some circumstances. But there appears to be full discovery, ability to subpoena witnesses, cross examine witnesses, etc.

Here is the link: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Title5_Procedure.pdf

The burden of proof (and also the amount of due process) seems to usually be linked with the severity of the sanction. SafeSport does not have to have only one level of burden of proof. The “preponderance of the evidence” could be used for shorter suspensions or most fines (not clear to me whether or not SafeSport can fine), while a higher standard like “clear and convincing” could be used for more severe sanctions (such as lifetime bans).

[Denali6298]

@OwnTooMany

As I have said before, I like the analogy between SafeSport and the state bar association with respect to disciplinary procedures. Since no one else followed up on this (which is too bad), I finally got around to looking what due process is provided in disciplinary proceedings. I picked CA to look at since this seems to be the state that is the focus in the Rob Gage situation. Here is the top level finding:

“Rule 5.103 The State Bar’s Burden of Proof: The State Bar must prove culpability by clear and convincing evidence.”

It appears to me that the level of due process is relaxed somewhat from due process in civil or criminal cases. The rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed and hearsay evidence can be admitted under some circumstances. But there appears to be full discovery, ability to subpoena witnesses, cross examine witnesses, etc.

Here is the link: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/…_Procedure.pdf

The burden of proof (and also the amount of due process) seems to usually be linked with the severity of the sanction. SafeSport does not have to have only one level of burden of proof. The “preponderance of the evidence” could be used for shorter suspensions or most fines (not clear to me whether or not SafeSport can fine), while a higher standard like “clear and convincing” could be used for more severe sanctions (such as lifetime bans).

Yes it is analogous to a bar association. No one touched on it again, because we do not agree with your opinion. It doesn’t matter how many times you explain it. The one difference however is the majority of people on ethics committees are peers. Ie other lawyers. It is still prudent for the accused to hire an attorney. I have never seen a case in CT where one was not hired. The committee is also assisted by the state bar associations.

IMO the burden of proof is higher for suspension or disbarment because being disbarred in one state usually means one cannot be admitted in another. An attorney can no longer be an attorney.

A ban from USEF does not result in not being able to train, sell, give clinics or lessons, or go to non-USEF horse shows. Disbarment has a much bigger impact therefore the burden of proof is higher. Also, at least for CT, the burden of proof does not change based on the accusation.

[OwnTooMany]

@FiSk123

Which is why I said that I don’t think that asking the questions is wrong. I have no problem with people asking about the public Q&A. I am uncomfortable, however, if the intention behind asking those questions is to personally “gauge” if the level of sexual misconduct committed was “severe” enough to warrant a lifetime ban from the USEF.

I will be very specific about my intention. My intention is to assess, as objectively as I can, the degree is culpability, if any, that SafeSport has in the suicide of Rob Gage.