Rob Gage

[roseymare]

And we are back to the “was almost of age and was in some states” story…

[BigMama1]

@OwnTooMany

This is a response to the posts that say things along the lines of “RG is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor. What more do you need to know?” and attack anyone who wants more details about SafeSport’s finding as being immoral.

(1) “Sexual misconduct with a minor” sounds absolutely horrible but, as defined by SafeSport, it includes behavior that is perfectly legal in the 38 states that have an age of consent of 16 or 17. It is not unreasonable to inquire as to whether or not the findings include legal behavior or even to inquire whether the behavior was such that it would be legal in some jurisdictions and illegal in others.

(2) “Sexual misconduct” as defined by SafeSport includes a very wide range of behaviors that range from acts as serious as forcible rape to much less serious acts such as verbal harassment of a sexual nature. While all of the behaviors are undesirable, reasonable people could conclude that some of them would not merit a sanction as severe as a lifetime ban.

In my opinion, a central question relating to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate has to do with the likelihood that the Responder (SafeSport’s term) will re-offend. That is, the likelihood that they represent an ongoing threat.

(3) Age of the victims has important bearing on assessing the likelihood that the Responder represents an ongoing threat. Specifically, pedophiles are known to have a high likelihood of re-offense, pedophilia is an identified psychiatric disorder, and pedophilia basically cannot be cured (this may be a somewhat unfair simplification). But pedophilia involves sexual attraction and/or acts with prepubescent children. For an act or desire to fall under the umbrella of pedophilia it must involve a prepubescent target or victim. Thus whether the victims are prepubescent, pubescent, or postpubescent is central in assessing the ongoing threat.

I understand that “pedophile” is frequently used in common language to refer to any acts or desires that involve any minor, but that is an incorrect use of the term. If you are unfamiliar with this and want to learn more, the Wikpedia pages are not a bad place to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

In any case, none of the allegations that I know about with respect to RG involve acts of pedophilia, so it appears to me that currently there is no evidence that RG was a pedophile. If the facts change, my assessment will change.

I am trying to have a serious, measured, and fact- and science-based discussion here. If I assume the worst case of alleged “facts” to be true (RG < 30 years old at the time, between 5 and 10 victims that are all post-pubescent, no accusations about recent events - more than 20 years, RG 67 years old now), I see no way that SafeSport could reasonably conclude that RG was an ongoing threat (at a preponderance of the evidence level or even a lower level). There appears to be no research that would support such a conclusion and I have searched quite hard to find it.

Given the nature of the horse world, there must be quite a few professionals on this forum and at least a few psychologists and maybe one or two psychiatrists. I do not have expertise in this area (although I do have other scientific expertise) and I would be thrilled if a few experts would share with us their expertise on this issue (assessing the likelihood of on-going threat). I welcome measured, fact- and science-based challenges, especially if they include references or at least enough information that the basis for the conclusions can be found. There is an opportunity to educate me and perhaps others. We can have a serious conversation in spite of the noise.

It honestly doesn’t matter what you think, or what assessments you have made based on your own, personal, limited knowledge of Rob’s sexual activity. SS has far more information than you do. They have made their assessments based on that information. They are under no obligation to share details with you. They have been crystal clear that his offences presented an ongoing threat and were deserving of the most serious sanctions they could administer. You are welcome to not believe them, but they owe you zero further explanation or details.

[Ghazzu]

@OwnTooMany

(1) “Sexual misconduct with a minor” sounds absolutely horrible

Perhaps that is because it is horrible.

[2bayboys]

@OwnTooMany

In my opinion, a central question relating to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate has to do with the likelihood that the Responder (SafeSport’s term) will re-offend. That is, the likelihood that they represent an ongoing threat.

You might want to consider that a lot of people don’t share your opinion that the likelihood of recidivism is the central question to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate.

[NoSuchPerson]

@2bayboys

You might want to consider that a lot of people don’t share your opinion that the likelihood of recidivism is the central question to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate.

Yeah. I’m appalled at the suggestion.

“Hey, yeah, we know that old John Smith molested a half dozen lids back in the day, but he’s old now and you know, the old prostate thing makes it impossible for him to get it up, so he won’t be having sex with any more kids, so it’s all good. No need for any sanctions here.”

I’m also appalled that some of these folks just don’t get how awful they sound when they say things like this.

[Denali6298]

@NoSuchPerson

Yeah. I’m appalled at the suggestion.

“Hey, yeah, we know that old John Smith molested a half dozen lids back in the day, but he’s old now and you know, the old prostate thing makes it impossible for him to get it up, so he won’t be having sex with any more kids, so it’s all good. No need for any sanctions here.”

I’m also appalled that some of these folks just don’t get how awful they sound when they say things like this.

Or how awful they sound when they want to know all the details of the assaults.

[Mardi]

@oneequestrienne

Just pointing out the likely possibility that this alter is a troll with an ax to grind. However, with your lengthy participation on this board, you already knew that. Their comment which (came after my comment) wanting to know the details of the sexual misconduct committed by RG with minor children so they could personally decide if a lifetime ban from USEF and other Olympic Sports is appropriate, supports that supposition. This was a pretty old post for of mine taken out of context by you. One wonders why you would bother with it now but, then again, maybe it’s your alter. So then, do tell which acts of sexual misconduct with minors do you think are OK?

Wow. Apologies to you that it took me a few days read through this very long thread. Yes, it’s true, I had to break away to other things (work, horses) and come back, try to find the page/post where where I Ieft off, and then continue reading.
So since I’m late in responding to your comment questioning the identity of another poster, you now question mine ?
Good Lord.
With all of the thoughtful and meaningful comments on this thread, yours seemed out of place and completely meaningless to the seriousness of the topic. How does it help anyone ? It doesn’t.

[mvp]

@2bayboys

You might want to consider that a lot of people don’t share your opinion that the likelihood of recidivism is the central question to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate.

Yes, but to be fair: Recidivism is SafeSport’s justification for the temporary bans during investigations. IIRC, that’s how we got onto this topic. And I think it was they element of SafeSport policy started the whole hue and cry about presumption of guilt.

So there is a decent reason to think that someone was, in fact, asking about the merits of banning old guys or even dead guys before their crimes have been proving.

I also think the “Meh… you tell me what he did and I’ll make my own decision about the heinousness of the crime” request from a lay person and member of the public is appalling. It presumes no care or expertise within a dedicated institution, and shows no concern for the victim. You can get anarchy and entitlement all in one delicious package!

[Peggy]

@Mardi

Wow. Apologies to you that it took me a few days read through this very long thread. Yes, it’s true, I had to break away to other things (work, horses) and come back, try to find the page/post where where I Ieft off, and then continue reading.
So since I’m late in responding to your comment questioning the identity of another poster, you now question mine ?
Good Lord.
With all of the thoughtful and meaningful comments on this thread, yours seemed out of place and completely meaningless to the seriousness of the topic. How does it help anyone ? It doesn’t.

If you read oneequestrienne’s post in the context of her previous thoughtful posts on this thread it doesn’t seem out of context, at least to me. Given that it is such a long thread, it is hard to remember who said what, so maybe go back and re-read her previous posts.

[RugBug]

@Peggy

If you read oneequestrienne’s post in the context of her previous thoughtful posts on this thread it doesn’t seem out of context, at least to me. Given that it is such a long thread, it is hard to remember who said what, so maybe go back and re-read her previous posts.

The last two sentences of oneequestrienne’s post was pretty out of line, even with the delayed nature of Mardi’s post:

@oneequestrienne

One wonders why you would bother with it now but, then again, maybe it’s your alter. So then, do tell which acts of sexual misconduct with minors do you think are OK?

I read the first part of the post and was just fine, but that last sentence was uncalled for.

But then again, I also don’t like when people positively assert they know who a poster is…unless that poster has outed themselves. Saying some of the FB crew is surely following the thread or that some of the new posters could be their alters is one thing. Saying you know they are and posting as such? Call me naive, but unless their IP has been tracked, just leave it to the supposition.

[Denali6298]

I just want to remind everyone that people are reading and posting on this thread that are dealing with their own assaults and this thread brings up a lot of emotions for them. If we could cut people some slack that would be great. We all have gotten out of line when threads and posts hit an emotional nerve.

[roseymare]

I don’t see Peggys post as out of line at all. She was suggesting that it is easy to forget who says what and to read a specific posters posts in order to get their context.

[BigMama1]

@OwnTooMany

This is a response to the posts that say things along the lines of “RG is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor. What more do you need to know?” and attack anyone who wants more details about SafeSport’s finding as being immoral.

(1) “Sexual misconduct with a minor” sounds absolutely horrible but, as defined by SafeSport, it includes behavior that is perfectly legal in the 38 states that have an age of consent of 16 or 17. It is not unreasonable to inquire as to whether or not the findings include legal behavior or even to inquire whether the behavior was such that it would be legal in some jurisdictions and illegal in others.

(2) “Sexual misconduct” as defined by SafeSport includes a very wide range of behaviors that range from acts as serious as forcible rape to much less serious acts such as verbal harassment of a sexual nature. While all of the behaviors are undesirable, reasonable people could conclude that some of them would not merit a sanction as severe as a lifetime ban.

In my opinion, a central question relating to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate has to do with the likelihood that the Responder (SafeSport’s term) will re-offend. That is, the likelihood that they represent an ongoing threat.

(3) Age of the victims has important bearing on assessing the likelihood that the Responder represents an ongoing threat. Specifically, pedophiles are known to have a high likelihood of re-offense, pedophilia is an identified psychiatric disorder, and pedophilia basically cannot be cured (this may be a somewhat unfair simplification). But pedophilia involves sexual attraction and/or acts with prepubescent children. For an act or desire to fall under the umbrella of pedophilia it must involve a prepubescent target or victim. Thus whether the victims are prepubescent, pubescent, or postpubescent is central in assessing the ongoing threat.

I understand that “pedophile” is frequently used in common language to refer to any acts or desires that involve any minor, but that is an incorrect use of the term. If you are unfamiliar with this and want to learn more, the Wikpedia pages are not a bad place to start:

In any case, none of the allegations that I know about with respect to RG involve acts of pedophilia, so it appears to me that currently there is no evidence that RG was a pedophile. If the facts change, my assessment will change.

I am trying to have a serious, measured, and fact- and science-based discussion here. If I assume the worst case of alleged “facts” to be true (RG < 30 years old at the time, between 5 and 10 victims that are all post-pubescent, no accusations about recent events - more than 20 years, RG 67 years old now), I see no way that SafeSport could reasonably conclude that RG was an ongoing threat (at a preponderance of the evidence level or even a lower level). There appears to be no research that would support such a conclusion and I have searched quite hard to find it.

Given the nature of the horse world, there must be quite a few professionals on this forum and at least a few psychologists and maybe one or two psychiatrists. I do not have expertise in this area (although I do have other scientific expertise) and I would be thrilled if a few experts would share with us their expertise on this issue (assessing the likelihood of on-going threat). I welcome measured, fact- and science-based challenges, especially if they include references or at least enough information that the basis for the conclusions can be found. There is an opportunity to educate me and perhaps others. We can have a serious conversation in spite of the noise.

It doesn’t matter what you think you know, or what your personal assessment is based on your personal limited knowledge of Rob’s sexual practices.

It matters what the SafeSport investigators know and they are under no obligation to share that info with you. They have already been clear there was an ongoing risk and that his offences were worthy of the most severe sanction they can impose. If you choose not to believe them, that’s entirely your choice but why would you expect the organization to justify its decision to you and share specific details to which the public isn’t privy?

[Bogie]

It puzzles me that you are so vehement in your defense of someone who repeatedly broke the law and engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor. There is no way to sugar coat what happened. It is absolutely essential to protect our children from predatory behavior. How many more victims need to come forward before you “believe” that a ban was justified?

@OwnTooMany

This is a response to the posts that say things along the lines of “RG is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor. What more do you need to know?” and attack anyone who wants more details about SafeSport’s finding as being immoral.

(1) “Sexual misconduct with a minor” sounds absolutely horrible but, as defined by SafeSport, it includes behavior that is perfectly legal in the 38 states that have an age of consent of 16 or 17. It is not unreasonable to inquire as to whether or not the findings include legal behavior or even to inquire whether the behavior was such that it would be legal in some jurisdictions and illegal in others. Seriously. The offenses took place in California where the children (yes, children), were under the age of consent. That means it was AGAINST THE LAW. It’s legal in some countries for children to be married off at the age of 11 (in Nigeria), does that mean it’s okay for 11 year olds to get married? The youngest age of consent in the US is 16. At least one of the public accusers of Rob Gage was under that age. Are you now going to say that one under age child isn’t enough?

(2) “Sexual misconduct” as defined by SafeSport includes a very wide range of behaviors that range from acts as serious as forcible rape to much less serious acts such as verbal harassment of a sexual nature. While all of the behaviors are undesirable, reasonable people could conclude that some of them would not merit a sanction as severe as a lifetime ban. I think it is inappropriate for the actual behaviors to be published for public consumption as the names of the victims invariably are leaked, or in this case, some victims were compelled to come forward because they felt the complaints were not taken seriously. They would then need to suffer through the realization that what happened to them is public knowledge.

In my opinion, a central question relating to whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate has to do with the likelihood that the Responder (SafeSport’s term) will re-offend. That is, the likelihood that they represent an ongoing threat.

(3) Age of the victims has important bearing on assessing the likelihood that the Responder represents an ongoing threat. Specifically, pedophiles are known to have a high likelihood of re-offense, pedophilia is an identified psychiatric disorder, and pedophilia basically cannot be cured (this may be a somewhat unfair simplification). But pedophilia involves sexual attraction and/or acts with prepubescent children. For an act or desire to fall under the umbrella of pedophilia it must involve a prepubescent target or victim. Thus whether the victims are prepubescent, pubescent, or postpubescent is central in assessing the ongoing threat. Repeated sexual abuse of children under the age of consent is plenty of reason to ban someone for life, whether or not the behavior complies with the “technical” definition of pedophilia.

---

I am trying to have a serious, measured, and fact- and science-based discussion here. If I assume the worst case of alleged “facts” to be true (RG < 30 years old at the time, between 5 and 10 victims that are all post-pubescent, no accusations about recent events - more than 20 years, RG 67 years old now), I see no way that SafeSport could reasonably conclude that RG was an ongoing threat (at a preponderance of the evidence level or even a lower level). There appears to be no research that would support such a conclusion and I have searched quite hard to find it. Okay, so you are saying that just because there are multiple victims under the age of consent who came forward (we don’t know exactly how many or when the last person reported his behavior), if he didn’t molest anyone recently, that’s okay? Do you have children? You would look another parent in the eye and say, sure, this man has a history of molesting under age children, but don’t worry. He hasn’t done so in many years?

I am a parent. I am appalled by this attitude and appalled by the willingness of so many in the equestrian community to brush under the rug the illegal behavior by many in our industry just because someone is a skilled equestrian. Someone can be the best trainer in the world, a horse whisperer of extraorinary ability. It does not exuse illegal and immoral behavior. And yes, this happened/happens more often than we know and there are other BNTs who have gotten away with criminal behavior. This doesn’t make it right or excusable. It makes the rest of us enablers.

[RainWeasley]

I am highly confused. All of the people saying they want more details, they aren’t saying they want explicit details of the intricacies of whatever acts RG performed upon any minors. They said they wanted details on what constituted a life ban. I mean…I don’t think there is anything useful that could come of knowing the details, honestly, but the attacks on those people saying that they are just wanting to know gruesome details and that they must be okay with child molestation just seems a bit much. I haven’t seen a single person say they think that there are any levels of it that are okay.

And while I don’t think those details are anything that anyone is owed, or that need to be public, I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with people wanting to know. I’ve wanted to know what happened to people I have known that had been accused of murder. One definitely did it, another I’m honestly not sure. Doesn’t mean that me knowing would have any effect on anything, besides maybe peace of mind knowing the system was doing its best to be fair and just. Doesn’t make me an awful person to wonder. You can disagree with people on things without being rude and accusing them of being okay with child molestation or anything like that.

Not directed at any one person, but I have seen a lot of this in this thread. Please try not to assume everyone that asks for information is doing so for nefarious or disgusting reasons.

[Denali6298]

@RainWeasley

I am highly confused. All of the people saying they want more details, they aren’t saying they want explicit details of the intricacies of whatever acts RG performed upon any minors. They said they wanted details on what constituted a life ban. I mean…I don’t think there is anything useful that could come of knowing the details, honestly, but the attacks on those people saying that they are just wanting to know gruesome details and that they must be okay with child molestation just seems a bit much. I haven’t seen a single person say they think that there are any levels of it that are okay.

And while I don’t think those details are anything that anyone is owed, or that need to be public, I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with people wanting to know. I’ve wanted to know what happened to people I have known that had been accused of murder. One definitely did it, another I’m honestly not sure. Doesn’t mean that me knowing would have any effect on anything, besides maybe peace of mind knowing the system was doing its best to be fair and just. Doesn’t make me an awful person to wonder. You can disagree with people on things without being rude and accusing them of being okay with child molestation or anything like that.

Not directed at any one person, but I have seen a lot of this in this thread. Please try not to assume everyone that asks for information is doing so for nefarious or disgusting reasons.

I’m sorry but “sexual misconduct with a minor” is good enough for me. I don’t need details to understand flirting with, touching or even having sex with a minor is NOT okay, nor do I believe those things are on separate levels of bad behavior.

[RainWeasley]

@Denali6298

I’m sorry but “sexual misconduct with a minor” is good enough for me. I don’t need details to understand flirting with, touching or even having sex with a minor is NOT okay, nor do I believe those things are on separate levels of bad behavior.

But literally no one is saying any of that IS okay, is what I’m saying. Trust me, I am definitely not questioning it at all either. It’s messed up. But I don’t see how that makes anyone that does question it automatically a supporter for any kind of child abuse.

I guess I just am confused by how quickly people are to jump on others for something they aren’t really even saying.

[oldernewbie]

As I’ve followed this discussion, I’ve wanted to add so many comments because there are events from just about all stages of my life that are pertinent. So here goes…

1. I am old enough that “back in the day” really is a while back. Say… 1966 or so. Barn owner’s son started sexually molesting me, but let me tell you… none of us (or very few of us) at that time knew what to call it. We also were not educated as to the wrongness of it, what to do when it happened, that it was OK to tell someone, etc etc etc. I realize that those of you who are much younger may find that hard to believe, but it is true. Your average teen and parent in those days just didn’t talk about such things. I am so, so thankful for everything that has happened since then to give young men and women context for such behavior, ways of asking for help, and recourse. Also tips for what to do when it happens. You can’t imagine how confused I was with no one to turn to. I am in awe of the victims who came forth and so thankful that they had someone to turn to. SafeSport may need some improvement, but it serves an incredibly important function.

2. Seems like many people in the horse community are completely ignorant of what has occurred in the catholic church, USA gymnastics, wrestling at OSU, Penn State, and who knows how many other places. Do you think the horse business was immune to predators? Have you not read one thing about the victims of catholic priests and how long it took for them to come forward? It takes some serious tunnel vision to miss everything that has happened in the last 25 or more years regarding sexual predation of young people. One thing is true in all venues tho, and equally so in the horse biz, is total disbelief on the part of some people that authority figures, respected figures, beloved figures, could do such horrible things. Yes, they can and did. Yet the denial continues. It’s going to take some serious mental work to reconcile what some folks thought they knew about the abusers with what the facts are.

3. I was a Boy Scout leader. Sexual abuse was ferreted out and dealt with rather early on in BSA, and we were trained to death about it and how to avoid it. And yet, someone just recently circumvented ALL of the policies and procedures of BSA and let a pedophile back into youth leadership because the local folks liked the person and “told him not to do it again”. And sure enough, he offended again. This is the down side of thinking that you know better than a credentialed group of experts who put together a program that was designed to keep these people out of an organization. Take a lesson from this folks - don’t let your emotions overcome what is right in front of your face AND what experts are trying to prevent.

This is an incredibly intense and difficult topic. I pray for peace for all involved.

[Denali6298]

@RainWeasley

But literally no one is saying any of that IS okay, is what I’m saying. Trust me, I am definitely not questioning it at all either. It’s messed up. But I don’t see how that makes anyone that does question it automatically a supporter for any kind of child abuse.

I guess I just am confused by how quickly people are to jump on others for something they aren’t really even saying.

Because they are asking the question in the context of was a lifetime ban an appropriate punishment. That’s the problem I have. Anyone who flirts, touches or tries to have sex with minors does not need to be allowed to horse show. I’d rather they be in prison, in general pop with a big sign advertising why they are there.

[RainWeasley]

@Denali6298

Because they are asking the question in the context of was a lifetime ban an appropriate punishment. That’s the problem I have. Anyone who flirts, touches or tries to have sex with minors does not need to be allowed to horse show. I’d rather they be in prison, in general pop with a big sign advertising why they are there.

I do agree with that.