It is your routine use of “independent.” Safe sport is independent of the horse world. You don’t seem to bring up other cases that have been turned over so it seems you think Safe Sport is out to get equestrians.
I am interested in seeing what his lawyers say and I’m happy to read about the processes working as intended.
You could answer your own question by doing a search, but, yes.
Also, I don’t ever “answer for sexual abusers”; that’s one of your misinterpretations, along with your misinterpretation that I ever “dropped my anonymity” to reveal that I was Diane Carney.
I do not attempt to “undermine SS”.
I do not “support pedophiles.”
I am not Diane Carney.
Your post is pretty much the “apology” I would have expected from you,
@ blue_heron .
Thank you for the clarification.
I do know that SS is independent of the equestrian sports and has jurisdiction over most sports. I do not think SS is “out to get equestrians” (beyond the ones who are misbehaving). We agree, I think, that the fact that SS is independent of the equestrian governing bodies (for example, USEF) is crucial in enabling them to get things done without being subjected to pressure from powerful insiders. We all agree on SS being “independent” in that sense.
When I refer to someone not being conclusively determined to be guilty until he has had the ruling from an “independent adjudicator”, in that instance “independent” means “independent of the SS investigation”.
I consider the report by Dan Hill that the allegations have been found credible as NOT independent of the SS investigation because it’s all in-house within the four walls of the SS organization.
In contrast, I consider the retired judge who hears the appeal to be “independent of SS”, and therefore consider the decision of the judge in the arbitration to be an “independent (of the SS investigation process) adjudication”.
As a strong supporter of SS, it’s a little disheartening to see that SS either reversed itself or was overturned, but nevertheless I see this as evidence that the system is working in that the system does have protections to prevent sanctions in cases where the solid evidence of misconduct is just not there. Whether the allegations were untrue or the allegations were true but could not be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, no one should receive a lifetime ban without evidence of misconduct that meets the burden of proof.
I don’t know what happened, as I haven’t been privy to official information or even leaks, but I find it concerning if SS issued a public lifetime ban based only on “complaints” and “cursory information gathering”.
If they considered him an ongoing risk, I thought that the protocol was an interim suspension until the full investigation was completed.
I’ll be interested to see more information on the reason for the reversal.
W
Yes, the people complaining about the process have repeatedly been characterized as pedophile supporters. But at the same time, we were assured over and over that the process is extensive with trained professionals and though secret, it is actually really thorough and a ban only comes around when well deserved.
That rings a bit hollow if SS drops its case before even presenting it to an independent arbitrator. I guess we will have to wait and see to decide…like we have been doing all along, unlike the mob. I am glad for Mr. McDonald and his family that it is over, though, if there was not enough there to justify a ban. That has to be a huge relief.
i also disagree that this was an informal process. SS had reached its final determination or it would not yet have been appealable to the arbitrator. If its final decision is sometimes “cursory,” then that is a huge problem.
I have enough respect and trust in the SS process that I doubt that the ban was issued on the basis of a “cursory information gathering” — that was just some poster’s conjecture.
I think we’ll need to wait for more info (just leaks, probably) on what “changed” between the issuance of the ban and the reversal.
As stated on previous threads, the failure to meet get or keep a sanction really does not equate to being “cleared” of anything.
[edit]
I, for one, never accused you, and my reasoning for not supporting RD is still the same. He is undermining SS. The process worked as it should. It removed a suspect in order to protect children, and then reinstated the suspect when it was deemed he was not a threat. It kept children safe in the interim. Bob McDonald conducted himself with dignity.
RD, remember, has supported a known pedophile in the past.
Here’s what changed: additional information was provided to SS before the arbitration. SS then dropped all charges and the case is closed.
A lifetime ban does not assure that the abuse will stop and minors are kept safe. There’s no way to guarantee that.
This is what people have been worried about since the beginning. I really think SafeSport could clear up the concern if they were more forthcoming about what the actual process is, and what it takes to actually get suspended.
I also think it’s odd that some of these people have been banned before anything really had been decided upon. I understand in cases where the abuse is current, and the person could harm someone (you wouldn’t allow a suspected murderer to just walk around with no one keeping an eye on them) but in some of these cases the person receiving the ban is no longer in any sort of position to use their status or power over others, or the incident was something that happened a long time ago, and so the announcement of permanent suspension could easily wait until after its been fully investigated. Of course, I don’t know this cases pertinent details so I don’t know if the accusation was current or many years ago. I speak in general.
I don’t know if he did anything wrong. What I do know is my personal experiences with when someone is falsely accused of something. That person can never get away from it. Their name will forever be linked with whatever that was, even if they are exonerated. Internet searches will bring it up, potential employers will see it and decline to hire, rentals will be denied, and it will, forever, be the thing people talk about when they refer to you.
He is lucky that at least COTH ran an article saying charges have been dropped. Many people accused or crimes never get that, and forever the first thing that pops up when their name is googled is an arrest or crime they were never even charged for.
FWIW, charges weren’t dropped, because charges weren’t filed, because this isn’t a trial.
If you say you were not one of the people who accused me of being a pedophile supporter, I’m prepared to believe you, as it’s too much trouble to keep track of who accuses me of what.
The purpose of an interim suspension pending the outcome of the investigation is to protect vulnerable children until the investigation is completed. That’s not what this was.
SS completed its investigation and imposed the ban on the basis of its determination that the allegations of abuse were credible. Banning someone for misconduct in the past can occur even if the person is not an ongoing threat. For example, Jimmy Williams.
This reinstatement did not occur because he was no longer deemed a threat. It occurred because something changed in the slate of evidence SS thought they had against him, and they wisely decided to withdraw the ban rather than have an arbitrator overturn it.
Lots of people were condemning not just RD himself as a pedophile supporter, but anyone who “liked” his post on McDonald, or expressed support for McDonald, like Debbie McDonald, Steffen Peters, Lisa Wilcox, etc.
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks that not being banned or having the ban withdrawn is proof that a person is innocent.
Isn’t engaging in predatory behavior a crime? And isn’t it against COTH policy to anonymously accuse someone of a crime?
The fact that he provided “additional information” so quickly after he was perma-banned (and before arbitration) points to an extreme act on SS’ part (sneak-attack ban) and raises the possibility that he didn’t know beforehand that he was in their cross-hairs, as they may not interview someone with a complaint against them, if they feel it could impact the process negatively or compromise their efforts. It must have been some real game-changing information to negate the supposed multiple complaints against him. On the other hand, it could be something as simple as him proving that he was somewhere other than where the complainants claim he was or that he had no actual association or interaction with them.
Then again, it’s entirely possible this was just a set-up to discredit SS by getting a big hammer to whack a non-existent nail and make them look bad by whacking another big name, except wrongfully. If I were the anti-SS folks, I’d certainly consider weaponizing the SS process to discredit them and this is the ideal time for such a thing to happen, while the pandemic has gummed up the works and the ban of GM is still fresh in the public’s mind. After-all, if they were wrong about poor old Bob McDonald, surely they could have been wrong about poor old George Morris?!
So I quoted the word cleared, which you then quoted, because that’s literally part of the title of the thread. This one, this thread.
I see your point and grant you that one.
There are three possible states of nature:
1) He is innocent and the allegations were false.
2) He committed misconduct and the allegations are true, but SS does not have enough evidence to meet the burden of proof of a preponderance of the evidence.
3) He committed misconduct and SS believes they have enough evidence to meet the burden of proof.
When SS issued the ban on June 10, the state of nature was 3). Based on the evidence that McDonald submitted last week, the state of nature is no longer 3). But that’s all we know.
You point out that we should NOT therefore conclude that the state of nature is 1). True enough. But on what basis do you anonymously assert that you know that the state of nature is 2)?
There is nothing dishonest or dishonorable about SS changing their position and withdrawing the ban in response to additional evidence provided by McDonald (or anyone). I still assume that the original investigation was thorough, and I also assume that the “additional evidence” was rather blockbuster in nature for this to happen.
It is extremely unfortunate for both McDonald and for SS that the evidence came sufficiently late so that the ban was issued and then withdrawn two months later.
SS does not conduct “sneak-attack bans”.
Where is a statement from Safe Sport explaining their action, and using the words that would correctly characterize it? This is all I can find:
The SafeSport internet registry that lists all findings by the organization as of Thursday night no longer carried any reference to Bob, 73, who has spent a lifetime involved in horse sports.
[URL=“https://dressage-news.com/2020/08/21/robert-bob-mcdonald-apparently-cleared-of-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-lifting-of-safesport-lifetime-ban/”]https://dressage-news.com/2020/08/21…-lifetime-ban/
The case was apparently dropped by SafeSport even before it went to arbitration.
“Apparently” is not a statement of fact. It is a supposition.
“Dropped”? Repudiated? Cleared? Or just hit a snag that SS doesn’t feel it can overcome?
COTH reported:
Robert “Bob” McDonald, of Hailey, Idaho, was removed from the U.S. Center For SafeSport’s suspension list.
https://www.chronofhorse.com/article…uspension-list
That appears to be the only purely factual reporting, as of this moment. No word from SS as to why McDonald’s name was on the list, only to come off the list not long after. Speculation as to why is only just that, speculation.
It seems that the articles and those commenting are reading many things into the removal of BM’s name from the list. “Cleared”, “false allegations”, etc. Where does Safe Sport say those things? If SS has said so, I hope someone will post a link to it.
So what does SS say? It is imperative that SS issues some sort of explanatory statement. Even just a short one that doesn’t give away the details of allegations. Safe Sport’s credibility is on the line with this chain of events.
It is a fair point that the SS process creates a lot of questions and confusion once a ban is made public, before the accused has made their case in arbitration. Yes, it is important to protect the public from bad actors sooner rather than later, but it is equally important to protect SS’s credibility with that same public, in order for its actions to be truly effective. To maintain its validity, SS needs to share some visibility into how an equestrian can be banned, then un-banned, before the arbitration process was completed. SS doesn’t have to give identifying details, just some word as to why the public should take those bans seriously and why the this particular ban was so quickly reversed.
I am not disputing your point; in fact, I agree. However, it’s important to clearly emphasize that SafeSport addresses allegations of abuse in many sports, not just equestrian.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
