Menu

Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Robert “Bob” McDonald Apparently Cleared of Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Lifting of SafeSport Lifetime Ban

Dressage
#41

There is also the statement from McDonald himself. Some of the statement construed things strongly according to his perspective (i.e. he says the lifting of the ban shows that the allegations were false), but aside from that he does say that last week he submitted evidence to SS in preparation for the arbitration. It’s still inference, but it seems plausible that the additional evidence changed the case sufficiently dramatically that SS no longer thought the ban was warranted, or no longer thought they could meet the burden of proof.

To return to my three states of nature in the previous post, it’s now either 1) or 2). Suppose it’s 2). I don’t think SS can “explain itself” by saying publicly “Well, we still think he’s guilty of misconduct, but we just didn’t think we could prevail in arbitration.”

I think we are not going to get any further explanation from SS and we’re left with not knowing whether it’s 1) or 2).

McDonald had NOT been interim suspended pending investigation, so I would think that unlike the Serio case, this case is now over. I suppose SS could clarify that.

1 Like
#42

So very happy to hear this!

2 Likes
#43

I’m not sure SafeSport has any credibility left after the way it has handled many of these cases. They have done some things that seem really, really, shady, not just in the equestrian world but in other sports too. And the lack of clarification on anything doesn’t help whatsoever.

Just look at Soresi. :cool:

2 Likes
#44

Which “many” cases?

What things seem shady?

What do you think they should clarify, and to whom?

16 Likes
#45

I look at this as an indication that the process works. I don’t need a bunch of explanations from SS. At the time the ban was imposed they had what they thought was sufficient evidence to do so. When new evidence came to light they didn’t double down but overturned the ban. In there exists a story I don’t think we’re going to hear. Bob got to say his piece and stated that the emails proved the allegations were false.

People are left to believe what they want but I have enough faith in Safe Sport to not feel they owe me or Jo Public a break down of their decision. Although it’s an excellent new investigative entity I’m sure they are fine tuning as they go.

Thumbs up. On to the next creep.

28 Likes
#46

Sorry, but that is nothing but supposition, because SS didn’t say it.

How do you know that SS has closed the case? How do you know that SS couldn’t remove someone from the banned list, while maintaining an active case, and perhaps even re-banning them at some point?

Nothing in those suppositions came from SS. SS hasn’t commented, so far.

A statement from the least objective party, with the most to gain from spin, is meaningless, as far as I’m concerned.

12 Likes
#47

This is what happens with media reporting. To make up an interesting article, a journalist & editorial staff “interpret” some sparse facts. Because readers don’t want facts, they want conclusions. So the writers give them a few.

But unfortunately those interpretation of events can wander from the actual facts, many of which may not be known at all to the public (including the media). As in this case.

But — at that point the public has got hold of the idea that the journalists put out there, has accepted it as fact, and repeats it as if it were fact. That seems to be happening with Bob McDonald’s case.

IMO, SafeSport has an obligation to clarify to the public it serves exactly what they hell happened in the Bob McDonald case, from the SafeSport point of view. SS had enough facts to justify a ban, having cleared all the rigorous investigation and analysis that many of us have given them full credit for.

But then all in an instant the ban is lifted, without explanation? What changed, and why wasn’t it known before the ban? Is this a technicality that doesn’t actually contradict the accusations? Or is this a major new set of facts that do contradict the accusations? Or just the threat of something that could be very costly to SS, enough that it bailed to save itself? Or something that caused the accusers to withdraw even though their story is true - or isn’t true?

In actual law enforcement / court cases, sometimes there is abundant hard evidence about what happened. It happened. But the legal consequences all go up in smoke due to some bureaucratic disaster / legal technicality. Maybe that happened here, and the accusations were in fact relevant. But there is no way to know what to think about SS’s ban action until SS itself clarifies.

All the guessing and supposing and assuming that has been published in the equestrian media means nothing. None of it is based on a specific statement by SafeSport.

How about it, SafeSport?

#48

I have not seen anything shady in what I’m aware of from SafeSport so far. In fact, I have been impressed by the depth and thoroughness of their process, and the caliber of people they have working on it.

But I have thought that they have a problem when it comes to the process of the bans, what is made public and when, and what happens after the initial ban. Whatever happened with McDonald seems to highlight those issues.

Won’t be surprised if there are changes in their processes around making and announcing a ban, and everything that happens afterward, as a result of this reversal.

SafeSport has outed some serious child abusers. That’s exactly what is needed, they are doing their job. There just needs to be some clean-up in how they communicate and maintain their credibility with the public around the bans.

4 Likes
#49

The Soresi case is a very peculiar anomaly, as far as who and what was involved in that. Only 17 files of illicit content, no apparent FBI involvement with the computer apparently staying in Police custody (and the county-owned/operated forensics lab), two cut-and-dry press releases in the local media and no real reporting or journalistic investigation about the matter, Soresi’s assigned PD gets bumped up to a primo position after the case and Soresi claims the guy had no interest in defending him and pushed him into a guilty plea from the get-go, and George supposedly quietly gets him reinstated in the horse world a short time later, after a time-out period. We know that GM was a Nor’Eastern socialite back in the day and still wielded extensive influence in the region through his horse business/USET connections at the time Soresi was arrested. We also know, as a matter of public record, that GM had been trying to liquidate his property since the time - within days - that SafeSport was formed. The fact that some men who were working with GM as juniors - as Soresi had - stepped up and said that George was every bit the boy-lover and groomer that the long-standing gossip made him out to be pretty much derailed the idea of GM being an innocent man and led to him being banned.

One of the things that has leaked about the Soresi/Morris relationship is that he apparently - according to the pro GM folks - has had it in for George for years and has talked numerous times to anyone who would listen about taking him down. The more I look at the totality of the Soresi case and what is now going on and has happened with GM, the more it looks like Old Man George was using his social influence to smack Soresi into line after he ran his mouth one too many times and discrediting Soresi - who was said in the social circles to be a drug addict before and at the time of his arrest - in the eyes of the elite social world he’s been a player in and the public at large with an arrest for CP is a sensible strategy to use for getting away from a potential train-wreck in the future. Anyone around Soresi could have had access to his laptop and put some CP on there with a USB flash drive, only needing a minute or two to transfer 16 JPEGs and 1 video file and even less time to muck up the laptop so that he’d take it in to have it looked at. One fact omitted from all the available information is “what was apparently wrong with the laptop” and it could have been something as simple as someone disabling the WiFi using the hardware or software switch, which definitely would have confused pretty much any average person back then. At this point, I’m not even sure the evidence is still retained, but I’d punt it to the FBI and let them take a look at it before I’d trust the local PD and their lab, which is oddly separate and disconnected from the county Sheriff’s office and their cyber-crime unit.

12 Likes
#50

In case anyone wants to burn their eyeballs with the Soresi lawsuit, here’s the paperwork…

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Jonathan-Soresi-v-George-Morris-et-al-080520-.pdf

2 Likes
#51

The part in which he says it proves the allegations are false is spin.

I believe the part that he sent additional evidence in to SS in advance of the arbitration, because obviously something changed, and that is the type of thing that would do it.

Since this went all the way to a completed investigation and a lifetime ban, and was set for arbitration, I would be surprised if SS could now consider the investigation to be continuing, as that would seem to be akin to double jeopardy. So my inference is that the case is indeed closed, or at least as closed as it would be if it had actually gone to arbitration.

1 Like
#52

I can’t support LexInVA’s conspiracy theory here, but I think there are some facts worth highlighting:

  • Soresi has never been accused of directly harming a child
  • Soresi took his laptop in for repair and that's when images were found
  • Do a picture inspection on your own laptop; you may be surprised at stuff you didn't know was there. All it would take is someone emailing you this content, even if you never opened the email
  • DAs love cases like this because they are so easy
  • Due to his drug problems and own personal despair Soresi did not effectively fight the charges
  • Soresi was represented by a public defender who does not seem to have held Soresi's interests at heart
  • Soresi is on the sex offender list in Florida because of their specific rules, but was not required to register in his home state where the conviction was obtained
  • SafeSport *did* ban Soresi based on the Florida registration and their action was overturned by the independent arbitrator.
I don't know Soresi and am not inclined to sign up to train with people with ongoing or long term substance abuse problems, and there is an interesting bit of irony to note that he was never arrested for that, but I have two conclusions from the above: [LIST=1]
  • What Soresi pleaded guilty to would likely never had stuck if he had been a rich guy with a fancy, aggressive lawyer. (Your thoughts on the justice of that aside.)
  • SafeSport moved as aggressively as they could, acted completely within the rules and expectations set down by their charter, and the arbitrator chose otherwise. [/LIST] Edited to add: One of the reasons abuse of children is so awful is because it creates substance abuse problems and lifelong despair.
    • 15 Likes
    #53

    As for Bob McDonald, we may not ever know the details. Obviously if he is innocent it is sad it went this far. Obviously if he is guilty it is sad it was dropped. The best outcome is that whatever may have happened then, whatever happened in the case here, that kids are safe around him.

    There are a lot of ways that everyone could have acted honorably and carefully and smartly and in good faith and get to an outcome like this.

    None of that invalidates the process or the need for SafeSport, just as we don’t scrap the criminal justice system every time prosecutors drop cases or lose on appeal.

    26 Likes
    #54

    True. It only makes people more aware and shrinks the pool of available victims.

    4 Likes
    #55

    Yes, people like me who denounced those who like RD’s thread Did so because of what RD said and how he presented it, not because of what TM or DM said or did. You need to see the difference.

    6 Likes
    #56

    Double jeopardy doesn’t apply here. SS is not a court of law.

    10 Likes
    #57

    This is what happens with media reporting. To make up an interesting article, a journalist & editorial staff “interpret” some sparse facts. Because readers don’t want facts, they want conclusions. So the writers give them a few, to attract eyeballs.

    But unfortunately those interpretation of events can wander from the actual facts, many of which may not be known at all to the public (including the media). As in this case.

    But — at that point the public has got hold of the idea that the journalists put out there, has accepted it as fact, and repeats it as if it were fact. That seems to be happening with Bob McDonald’s case.

    IMO, SafeSport has an obligation to clarify to the public it serves exactly what they hell happened in the Bob McDonald case, from the SafeSport point of view. SS had enough facts to justify a ban, having cleared all the rigorous investigation and analysis that many of us have given them full credit for.

    But then all in an instant the ban is lifted, without explanation? What changed, and why wasn’t it known before the ban? Is this a technicality that doesn’t actually contradict the accusations? Or is this a major new set of facts that do contradict the accusations? Or just the threat of something that could be very costly to SS, enough that it bailed to save itself? Or something that caused the accusers to withdraw even though their story is true - or isn’t true?

    In actual law enforcement / court cases, sometimes there is abundant hard evidence about what happened. It happened. But the legal consequences all go up in smoke due to some bureaucratic disaster / legal technicality. Maybe that happened here, and the accusations were in fact relevant. But there is no way to know what to think about SS’s ban action until SS itself clarifies.

    All the guessing and supposing and assuming that has been published in the equestrian media means nothing. None of it is based on a specific statement by SafeSport. (It means nothing factually, unfortunately it means that many in the public have adopted it as “truth”.)

    How about it, SafeSport?

    3 Likes
    #58

    Thanks for the insider information on GM-Soresi. That clarifies many things about how that story continues to play out. And gives a lot of useful context and background to things that are being said & done now, in relation to that case.

    Without drawing any conclusions as to what actually happened with GM-Soresi, a general observation is that minor victims of extended sexual abuse aren’t always considered by the public, later on, to be great witnesses, precisely because of the problematic and confused lives many of them lead after the abuse. That was very true in the Jerry Sandusky case, where there isn’t much doubt about what happened. Most of his victims were unearthed in current-day reduced and troubled circumstances.

    Based on what has been recounted just on COTH, personally I see a lot of parallels between GM and Sandusky. A powerful, even revered figure, abusing minors for decades, many people in power were aware but were totally ineffectual in taking down such a well-liked icon of the sport in that community.

    And once again, not outed until well past their prime and no longer in a position of real influence, even if they are still actively seen and known.

    It makes me wonder if there are abusers out there right now, at the top of their careers, and considered untouchable even in the era of Safe Sport.

    6 Likes
    #59

    I really don’t view this as Safe Sport not talking to Bob. I think this shows that it does work. The late evidence could have been late for a million reasons.

    I also don’t think Safe Sport needs to answer to people as to the why’s. The system has been explained to death and if people still don’t get it they just don’t want to. Honestly, when people demand answers it would be great if they put themselves in the victims shoes. Safe sport coming out and saying they were removed because blah blah would just give people more ammo to say the victim is lying even if it’s a lack of evidence.

    5 Likes
    #60

    People like you, and perhaps you, denounced not just RD but people like Steffen Peters, Lisa Wilcox, and other Olympic teammates of DM who clicked “like” on RD’s post expressing support for Bob McDonald.

    Both Bob McDonald and Debbie McDonald have acted with dignity and grace, expressing their claim that RM was innocent, but NOT attacking or undermining SS as an organization. Not attacking or denouncing anyone, in fact. Both are probably greatly appreciative of the people who publicly expressed support, even those who merely clicked “like” on Dover’s post.

    RD’s post supporting GM was more embarrassing than dangerous, IMO. But we are talking about a post expressing support for McDonald, not George Morris. You need to see the difference.

    Clicking “like” on A SPECIFIC POST does not mean you endorse everything the man has ever said.

    Are you the one who vowed never to take a lesson with any of the trainers who clicked “like” on Dover’s post?

    1 Like

    Get your Digital Subscription here - only $21.95 / year

    Subscribe here
    See gift options

    Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

    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.

    Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse