Given that we all know that SS is “not a court of law”, that’s why when I referred to the concept of double jeopardy, I said that continuing an investigation at this point would be “akin to double jeopardy”.
My inference is that the case is now closed, but nevertheless it would be interesting to hear from SS as to whether they have closed the case.
While SS withdrew the lifetime ban, that hardly makes McDonald whole, as they can’t unring the bell of the ban announcement. Despite the whole confidentiality policy, you’d think SS owes McDonald some sort of statement, if only to say the investigation is closed.
Is the investigation closed? Does anyone KNOW? Directly from SafeSport?
The supposing and assuming is exactly what is wrong with SS withdrawing the ban without an explanation. SafeSport absolutely owes its supporters some sort of statement, to help them maintain that support in conversation with others. Otherwise people from all sides jump in with their own conclusions, that may or may not be correct, stating them as if they are fact.
People will always fill an information vacuum with their own interpretations. That is why organizations (and individuals) must get in front of it.
SafeSport can offer some clarification without outing witnesses and accusers. Just a few sentences from the top level. Details aren’t necessary.
Something as simple as “We withdrew the ban while we consider significant new evidence that could potentially affect our conclusions.” “In the light of new information, we believe that BM is not a current threat to the sport, so a ban is not necessary for the safety of sport participants.” Or something, whatever is truthful and appropriate to the situation.
I was inferring that the investigation was completed prior to the announcement of the ban June 10th. To withdraw the ban on the eve of the arbitration because its case looked shaky only to go back and continue investigating would be “akin” to double jeopardy. If SS had gone ahead with the arbitration, could it lose in arbitration, and then say, “Well, we’ll just keep investigating until we think we have a better case?”
The issue is not whether RM is a current threat. The issue is whether he committed misconduct and SS can meet its burden of proof.
ETA: If SS had wanted to mull over the new piece of evidence before possibly attempting to justify the ban in arbitration, it could have asked for a continuance on the date the arbitration was going to begin. Instead they withdrew the ban.
A large part of the problem is the media reporting and the public all weighing in with their uninformed opinions. No one knows the facts of any of the cases unless they are directly involved, but everyone has an opinion. If the media hadn’t reported on any of the cases until they were completely resolved, and no one jumped in with uninformed opinions, no one would be claiming their reputation was ruined. As we only hear from one party, it is only speculation as to what really happened.
As a lawyer, I must say you are very generous about saying there is abundant hard evidence in cases that just go poof. That is super rare. What is far, far more normal is that the PD does a crap job, not because they are awful but because they have hundreds of clients and are overworked. Something comes out later they should have discovered if they weren’t so swamped, but they are just human.
Same applies here. The SS people are qualified but are, IMO, understaffed. They get thinking a hard case is simple, but it blows up on them.
Only the end of RD’s post was in support of DM. The whole 1st three paragraphs was a dig at SS going after 40 year old cases, and implying that these cases would be better served in court, or with court-like rules. That’s where I have the problem.
First of all, as I pointed out to you back then, there is a statute of limitations in court, and RD knows this. Second of all, the majority of victims never tell until later in life, after they’ve become strong enough to have overcome fear and guilt. Anyone with a brain or empathy can see right through the “Why didn’t she (or he) take care of this back when it happened?”, which attempts to place blame or suspicion on the victim.
As a former victim, I don’t want to associate with anyone who supports that kind of thinking.
Only the end of RD’s post was in support of DM. The whole 1st three paragraphs was a dig at SS going after 40 year old cases, and implying that these cases would be better served in court, or with court-like rules. That’s where I have the problem.
First of all, as I pointed out to you back then, there is a statute of limitations in court, and RD knows this. Second of all, the majority of victims never tell until later in life, after they’ve become strong enough to have overcome fear and guilt. Anyone with a brain or empathy can see right through the “Why didn’t she (or he) take care of this back when it happened?”, which attempts to place blame or suspicion on the victim.
As a former victim, I don’t want to associate with anyone who supports that kind of thinking.
Child porn is extremely harmful to the children who become victims of it. It is a disgusting thing and anyone who gets caught with it and can’t explain why that would be there should be on a sex offender list. Period.
I seriously doubt that child porn ‘just happened’ to be there. More than likely, there was much more, and he thought he successfully deleted it but didn’t and got caught.
He should not have a pass here, and should be banned from any safesport governed event.
The timing of his reversal is also very, very suspicious.
You would think so but this, so far, has not been the case.
I know of at least one boarding barn that is ran by someone who is banned and on the sex offender list and still has many, many underage clients.
Most media outlets and journalists threw ethics out the window long time ago. Stories like this one are the spitting image of click bate. The story of him being of the list not so much…
Only the last comment in his three paragraphs was in support of RM and DM, as if it were an afterthought.
Go back and read it. He implied that the courts had a better way of handling it, and questioned the validity of taking on a 40 year old case. THAT’s where I have a problem. I don’t need friends who support that line of thinking.
RD knows that there is a statute of limitations, and that these cases most often run past that. Anyone with half a brain and any empathy realizes that victims don’t usually tell until they are older and more confident, and have worked through some of their guilt and shame.
There is a thread in the technical help section on this topic. The spam filter that is attempting to keep the spam posts away sometimes snags stuff that is not spam. It happens to lots of posts.
Like you, I disagree with RD on the reforms of SS that he advocated in the post concerning just using the courts, or having a statute of limitations, or raising the hurdle on the burden of proof. You and I are in perfect agreement (!) that none of those reforms of SS are desirable. Or necessary.
Unlike you, I don’t condemn and denounce RD for advocating changes in the SS procedure. This is partly because I think there is almost zero chance any of those changes will happen, despite his advocacy.
I especially don’t denounce or condemn the trainers (including the Olympic teammates of both DM and RD) who clicked “like” on Dover’s post. I assumed they were clicking “like” to express their support for DM, rather than actively advocating RD’s suggested reforms of SS. Even if they were supporting his suggested reforms, though, I don’t consider advocating changes in the process to be “undermining SS”.
It’s people like Bonnie Navin who spread gross misinformation like the claim that early on the great majority of SS bans were overturned on appeal (not true), or that the arbitration phase does not assess the merits of the case, but instead just assesses whether SS followed the correct procedures (also not true) who are attempting to undermine SS and should be denounced.
Your post may have been “flagged as spam” because there is a glitch in the system such that if you go back an edit a post soon after posting it, for some reason the system flags it as spam. It usually is cleared and posted within 24 hours.
Sometimes it is very hard to say anything without saying too much. I too wish they would say more though.
A classic reason that a case that looked solid might not go forward is if a witness is no longer available to testify… and there are many reasons that might be so.
It could be that there is genuine new evidence available. But never take the accused’s press release as a statement of fact. All we know for sure is that the appeal ended and that the process concluded in McDonald’s favor.
The thing that makes me dislike RD’s post is not reform, it is the age-old subtle implication that the victim should have handled this in court years ago. He drops a hint when he jabs at a “40 year old” case, and that the court system has a better way of handling it.
To be fair, there are quite a few threads on this & and other specific topics which posters should go back, read what they wrote- and be disgusted with themselves. Not to mention, embarrassed & disgraced. SafeSport doesn’t require due process of law (neither do civil suits, as an aside) Bc “participating in a sport is a privilege.” So, yeah… it has its flaws. Big ones. (Clearly.)
There are two unfortunate pieces of info here- 1.) The RMD situation won’t allow for any further info to be told by either party. Even if both parties are complainants! That’s a SafeSport rule & I can’t say I agree with it, at all. 2.) Ive found that on these BB threads, no matter what evidence comes to light, contrary to what posters have written, few if not none of them will ever admit they were wrong, telling completely false stories or, in any way admit to making (purposely or accidentally) false allegations/speculations & worse. Luckily, their comments will live on here forever & legal action can eventually be taken against those who defamed someone’s character. (Screen shots are absolutely IMPERATIVE.)
Disclaimer: I don’t disbelieve any claiming victim on a matter. I also believe there are people who purposely use SS to weaponize it- (engaging others to assist them in lies) for the sheer purpose of attempting to eliminate someone in their sport, with which they have personal grudges. That is not the way SS was meant to be used & it makes legitimate claims hold less weight. Also, using SS in this manner is a significantly large violation of the SafeSport code of conduct. But so is “victim shaming,” of any kind. This is why any parties to any claims should not be bound by “code,” rules to keep it all “hush hush.” Full transparency & the ability to tell their side of the story -through media or otherwise, should be allowed on the part of either or any party (should that party see fit.)
One thing that makes me dislike the RD post is, it isn’t coming from a completely “neutral,” party. Anyone is entitled to an opinion. That said, using one’s position in the sport (in his case, a substantial one) to undermine the process which his longtime friend’s husband is having to answer for, (legitimate claim or longtime grudge- & I’m NOT at all saying it’s the latter) seems wildly inappropriate.
SS does have its flaws. They’ve admitted this & have made some changes to its “code,” quite recently. It was only put into affect in 2018 & every new congressional act or policy can’t be expected to be perfect on the first few “go arounds.” As long as SS continues to notice & make better the areas they find to have “inconsistencies,” - it’s difficult to fault them.
Lastly, the fact of the matter is, it’s very difficult to really know & understand allegations if literally, no one is allowed to hear them. I understand completely victims needing or desiring to stay anonymous. Perhaps, though, that’s why SS makes “victim blaming/shaming,” such a huge violation of the code. However, this also puts the onus of proving they are blamed/shamed on the victims themselves. And, that alone would open an entirely new investigation, which, by their (SS) own admission - could take many months - or even years. Idk how to fix the issues of SafeSport here, but I believe any authoritative body should have some oversight committee or an “IA,” department. I can think of so many agencies & federations which protect evil people if their pockets are deep & name big enough. I just wouldn’t want SafeSport to somehow fall into this category of favoritism.
