:rolleyes:
15 Likes
This… This is the simple, unfortunate truth of the matter. It’s not that SS doesn’t have the best of intentions. However, they are (currently) understaffed & those whom are designated to job of “investigator,” - don’t display their credentials or training types for public consumption.
SafeSport has a duty to protect all competitors from power imbalances, bullying, sexual assaults, harassment etc, etc, etc. If anyone in any sport which commands SS as the oversight body, is found to have been arrested, charged with a crime by police (not an interpersonal summons by magistrate- but criminal charges brought by a state) is automatically deemed “ineligible.” That is literally written in their long list of code violations. It does make me question things when this information about an offender is made available & verifiable to SS (through DA’s or Federal agents) - but their own code isn’t followed.
Surely, they are staffed enough & have the training enough to know, refusing to follow their own guidelines “per the code,” looks & smells fishy.
This is (now) just an example & has never, to my knowledge, happened … yet. But, if a repeat offender for (let’s say) illegal gambling, has a sibling or cousin or relative/friend - someone with a different last name- who is an LEO & willing to switch to the vice department, repeat offender would then have an “inside man.” It is really not that far a stretch - Bc, it’s way more common within LE than people would believe. Since that’s the case there, how many degrees of separation to a hired SS applicant must a sex offender (for example) have … and how would We know?
I guess my point is, something which begins as an idea - graduates to becoming a policy & begins with the absolute best of intentions (much like police- back when “sheriff” was called “shire reeve,” - reeve of the shire/village ) - can also “graduate,” to corruption. Again, not saying this HAS happened, or will happen. Just providing a scenario in which it easily could. And, bc of the structured model which requires/allows SS (and prohibits all parties involved in a complaint) to provide zero public information before, during or after an investigation’s outcome- we will never ever know a single detail. Except “banned,” “ineligible,” “suspended,” etc. Or, the “lifting,” of any of the aforementioned sanctions. Aside from that- the public gets nothing, aside from a very general, pre-approved by SS statement from any or all complainants or alleged “violators,” - should either party desire to “go public,” so to speak. (This is why DM was so secretive on her post about her husbands banning- “I’m barred from discussing details , but we are confident we will prevail in an independent arbitration.”) Paraphrased from DM fb post.
Trust me, if she were allowed to use her very large platform … to tilt the scales in her husbands direction, by blowing the victim out of the water - she would have. Bad for her. Bad for victim. Extra layer of alleged controversy re: SS. That said, a victim should ALWAYS have the choice to remain anonymous - Forever.
It strikes me as a very unfair accusation to assert that you somehow know that, had she not been gagged by the confidentiality clause, DM “would have … [blown] the victim out of the water” in order to “tilt the scales in her husband’s direction.”
Given the confidentiality, we will probably never know whether the allegation was baseless or true but unprovable. We do know that SS reversed the ban and (seems to) have closed the case. I think both DM and RM acted with restraint and dignity by not saying anything beyond “He is innocent”, and especially by refraining from attacking the SS process.
Proclaiming one’s innocence, especially prior to the arbitration, is not, in itself, an attack on SS.
My pointing that out is not an attack on SS, either.
14 Likes
“This is (now) just an example & has never, to my knowledge, happened … yet. But, if a repeat offender for (let’s say) illegal gambling, has a sibling or cousin or relative/friend - someone with a different last name- who is an LEO & willing to switch to the vice department, repeat offender would then have an “inside man.” It is really not that far a stretch - Bc, it’s way more common within LE than people would believe. Since that’s the case there, how many degrees of separation to a hired SS applicant must a sex offender (for example) have … and how would We know?”
That entire paragraph makes no sense. “…way more common with LE than people would believe,”? So you are in LE and know this for fact? What a totally bizarre statement.
15 Likes
Bizarre, and typical for this poster.
8 Likes
On your first point- Yes. You’re probably right that my assumption wasn’t entirely fair. My very first read of DM’s post regarding the ban struck me as extremely angry. Not that I would disagree with that reaction if she and her husband were wronged by a frivolous complaint. Knowing the extremely strict confidentiality rules implemented by SS on all parties of any complaint/counter complaint - (rules which apply to everyone alike) - I guess her post rubbed me the wrong way. Again, of course, first read only without much (or any) further analysis at the time, to me, it read like a BNT feeling or seeming more insulted that anyone would have the audacity to accuse “them,” of something such as “misconduct.” That alone (possibly/probably/perhaps) incorrectly, struck me as a statement with gritted teeth in being unable to just lay it all out right then, victim be “damned.” That’s honestly how it came it off to me, but, really more so as I read her replies the first time. Less so in the post itself.
Its possible that the more friends in similar or more powerful positions reply, the natural reaction could be to (even accidentally) reply back with more & more disdain towards the anonymous, complaining party. I do agree without a doubt, serious restraint was displayed and that’s a good thing. Whether or not it was due to, well, a “gag order,” (I guess that would be the best phrase) or genuine civility & respect for the SS process. I could be completely off, and I have no problem rethinking & re-reading the post along with all replies, though, I do distinctly remember thinking, “wow, what level of entitlement is this?” Then, came the RD post, confirming my original reaction. First reactions… certainly up for grabs in equal & opposite reactions from others with exactly that. Fair enough.
To your 2nd & 3rd point- I also agree proclaiming innocence is not attack on SS’s process. I’m curious, since I wrestle with this myself & you seem to have numerous, well thought out ideas on most subjects, if you could change anything about SS, it’s process, it’s supposed civil suit immunity, or, basically any aspect of the SS body, what would that be? It’s also entirely respectable if your view is, “it’s perfectly good as is.” Equally, I wouldn’t at all consider it an “attack,” or undermining of SS if you did have ideas on how to make SS a more … trustable (?? - for lack of a better word) institution. I look forward to your thoughts!
And, btw, I didn’t at all feel your last point (or any) were attacks on SS. Since there are so many from a wide range of people, you not being one of them, I figured you’d be the best person to ask if you did feel it could made better & how. Every time I consider the same question, I begin to understand why even SS itself is encountering issues in making its own system better for victims & respondents alike. As a victim myself, I have to try & examine things from the side of respondents, particularly one’s who are/were innocent of the claims laid down upon them. Any ideas? (Genuinely asking, as I’m sure you know already.) :))
How would you know what is “typical,” for “this poster?” Have you even read this thread? Have you clicked on each poster commenting here, to check their recent, or less recent posts to analyze what YOU believe is “typical,” for them? No. You have not.
Bizarre? How so? Are you of the opinion that LE have never faced corruption charges in their existence? I don’t have to know anyone personally to make this assertion- it’s all over the news, including the DOJ, AG offices etc…That said, I do know many LEO’s personally & let’s just say, there are some who appreciate very much having an IA department & some who would rather see it gone, yesterday. I’ll leave that at that.
You’re doing yourself no favors by making *anyone’s,” contributions here personal. Either stay on topic, or scroll on by.
@YankeeDuchess I just thought of something & asked a friend who had the answer, but no real opinion either way. Apparently, a “third party,” complainant is not entitled to updates on a filed complaint. The reason I asked in the first place was Bc, the person I was thinking of & referring to in my question was not a “third party,” complainant, but a first party one. (At least according to this individual’s description of their own concluded/semi concluded matter.)
Assuming this is true, (the latter & the former) do you know why SS would have withheld pertinent updates from a party who seemed certain he/she was the first party complainant? I’m just thinking, if a complainant files a complaint & is later told that complaint is “third party,” & complainant is entitled to no info re one or more of the respondents, this (almost) seems like a deliberate way to protect certain respondents. As always, I could be wrong - completely & totally off base. I couldn’t locate anything other than “third party complainants,” and their respective roles within a complaint… but, nothing which would explain how a “first party,” complainant could become “third party.” Perhaps I don’t have the entire set of facts. Though, (carefully) assuming I do - do you know why or how this type of thing could take place? (The shift from 1st party to 3rd, that is?) All I could conjure up is this: Perhaps, one of the respondents didn’t “count,” as the main respondent, therefore removing the complainant of that particular party to a 3rd party complaint, making any info regarding that particular respondent, info to which a 3rd party would not be entitled? Darn, trying to provide an example so this seems less vague, but if anyone could follow this, sans specific details, again, I would stake my bet on you!
Their entire “thing,” is concluded now, (or, in the stage of wrapping up- not 100% sure) so these are just afterthoughts the individual is considering, which may or may not cause this individual to take further steps. Not really related to RM exactly, but the more people who educate themselves on SS code and it’s process - the better it will be for everyone involved in SS governed sports. Also, nothing that I add or deduce should be construed as undermining the SS SafeSport system. I’m the last person on earth who would have something “bad,” to say - as far as I’m concerned SS protects victims & I’m thankful. Systems do have flaws though. The philosopher in me always needs to view things from every angle possible. Not to do so could leave doubt, which victims & respondents alike never want left in their wake. 
Regarding the dignity and restrain of DM’s remarks, the only statement of hers that I read was a 3 or 4 sentence statement quoted in COTH that said basically (paraphrasing) ‘I’m not allowed to say much/please understand this is a stressful time/He is innocent!’
If there was more back and forth on FB, I did not see it as I’m not on Facebook.
In this particular thread I have been attacked and mocked for attempting to state this position:
As much as I trust the SS investigation of the complaint (including this investigation) to be thorough and conducted in good faith, at the time that Dan Hill announced the lifetime ban (in RM’s case in June), the SS investigation has been completed and the SS determination that “the allegations are credible” has been made, but at that point the respondent has not yet had the case reviewed by an independent adjudicator. “Independent” here means “independent of the SS investigation”. The respondent has been interviewed by SS and had the opportunity to submit evidence, but an independent adjudication has not occurred.
Without faulting the SS process in any way, my position was (and is) that the only real, independent adjudication the respondent receives is in the arbitration phase.
At the point that the SS ruling comes down, the ban had been imposed, and prior to the arbitration, my position was that RM (or other respondents) have not yet had “their day in court” and therefore their supporters proclaiming their innocence does not constitute “supporting pedophiles” or “attempting to undermine SS”.
If you reread the thread, you will see posters attacking me for taking the position that neither DM nor her Olympic teammates who clicked “like” on RDs post should be condemned as “pedophile supporters” or accused of attempting to undermine SS. While I did not click “like” on RDs post, for saying that those who did should not be condemned, I was condemned as a “pedophile supporter”. Numerous times, by numerous posters, in the nastiest language permitted by COTH.
The one, tiny change to SS procedure that I would advocate is this:
At the time the SS investigation is completed and there is a finding that the allegation is credible, Dan Hill announces that and says “The respondent is now on the interim suspension list pending the results of the independent arbitrator. Depending on the outcome of the arbitration, the suspension will either be lifted or be replaced with a lifetime ban.”
Note that this changes only the verbiage. Note that in this instance, if SS had used that verbiage it would be in a less embarrassing position when it received the additional evidence, as it could have simply ended the interim suspension prior to arbitration instead of having to reverse a lifetime ban.
I advocated a change along these lines, not to soften the burden on the respondent, but to effectively counter Diane Carney’s statement when the ban was announced to the effect that “contrary to what you may have heard, the man did not receive a hearing prior to being banned”. She was right - at the time he was banned, he had not yet had his hearing. I’m OK with that. All SS needs to do is answer, “He has the right to independent arbitration; he is simply on an interim suspension pending the outcome of the arbitration.” So the purpose of the change (in verbiage only) is to shut down the criticisms of people like Diane Carney. Also to make more clear that stating your husband’s innocence prior to the arbitration is not undermining SS or “supporting pedophiles”. Also to give SS a more graceful exit if they need to reverse the ban prior to arbitration, or if they lose in arbitration.
I was advocating a mild alteration in verbiage only that would STRENGTHEN SS, and I was ridiculously attacked and called a “pedophile supporter” for making the point.
4 Likes
All else aside, no one gets to dictate the direction that a thread takes. If you don’t like my post, you can scroll on by.
21 Likes
If one believes in the sanctity of Safe Sports original decision, then it follows that one should believe in the updated decision. Or Safe Sport loses their credibility.
6 Likes
That’s my problem, right there. I don’t quite see how to give equal credibility to two such opposite decisions. Especially without an explanation as to the change - even just at the highest level without details.
SS owes me something to understand how the guy could be off-limits one moment, and a-ok the next. And it doesn’t help that I don’t think that SS intended to send a signal that he is an a-ok guy.
3 Likes
LLP and YD…blowing smoke up each other’s skirts. Flashing back to the MB thread.
16 Likes
No one gets to dictate the “direction” of the thread in terms of the substance being discussed. Her point, which I agree with, is that it is one thing to post a substantive point, maintaining or altering the course of the thread, and quite another to post a missive with ZERO content on the topic, but which is just an ad hominem smear on the poster.
Ad hominem comments, smears, and mockery are against COTH rules, and cause the thread to get shut down if they get bad enough.
Do you think your ad hominem swipe was “taking the thread in a new direction”? Other than in the direction of getting it shut down?
1 Like
I honestly don’t know what is meant by “blowing smoke up each other’s skirts”. Please don’t inform me.
Did you just drop in on the thread and miss the fact that my exchange with Lauren started with me disagreeing with her post that DM would have dissed the victim in the RM case if not for a gag order?
I disagreed with THE SUBSTANCE of her post strongly. She responded by further discussing the substance rather than by insulting and mocking me. Quel horreur!
Like Silly Horse, your post has nothing to do with substance of the thread and is a cheap, juvenile attack.
2 Likes
Woot Woot for what? Silly horse starting in on ad hominem swipes that are the first steps to the mean girl free for all that only ends in the thread bring shut down?
2 Likes
If we fully support SS because we have faith that their investigations are thorough and conducted in good faith (I do), then we would expect them to change their stance on the credibility of the allegations if the set of evidence or roster of witnesses changes. There is nothing dishonest in their dropping the ban if some key piece of evidence against RM for some reason was not valid or usable in the arbitration. In fact, doing that is more honest than saying, ‘Gee, we lost a key part of our case, but we can’t admit we were wrong so we’ll try to push through a dubious case’.
SS never said he was “off limits” in the sense of being a current threat; they can issue lifetime bans as a sanction for past violations even if the respondent is not a current threat. He had not been suspended pending the investigation, which suggests he had not been considered a current threat.
Likewise, SS never said that he is now considered “A-Ok”. They rescinded the ban, which simply means that they no longer think they can meet the burden of proof to establish the violation.
This leaves us bystanders not knowing whether the allegations were completely unjustified or just couldn’t be proven to the satisfaction of an arbitrator.
As a bystander, you are bothered by the case being left in limbo as it were. How do you think RM feels? Maybe the allegations were true but unprovable and he feels relief; maybe the allegations were untrue and, while he’s not banned, he has to live with the humiliating shadow over his reputation.
2 Likes
I 100% agree with your suggested change in verbiage. While it’s seems a very minuscule change, (and, it is) - the potential resulting damage to claimants & respondents, as well as potential embarrassment for SS, could be eradicated, or, lessened with this tweak.
How anyone could see a problem with that, is too far beyond my comprehension. It always seems that when you (you, per se) carefully & thoughtfully make a case for a position you’re defending, the Coth “mob,” can’t handle it!
Seems a quite straightforward position to take, in stating, “no, I’m not advocating for alleged ‘pedo’s‘ & Im also not undermining the SS process- I’m simply pointing out that, a slight change in verbiage wrt to Dan Hill, could have possibly made a positive difference for the respondent/s & SS, wrt to the public’s general reaction!” (Paraphrased, of course.)
FTR- personally, it’s my belief that, these ridiculous attacks on you are a result of your ability to critically think & explain your positions, which are well researched & meticulously thought out. Certain Coth posters (not all- again, not all, Incase anyone insists I have ‘lumped them all together’ ) need to believe they are the BB threads’ “Commenter in Chief.” Sigh~
Discussions are good. Vicious (or ANY) attacks on those engaging in healthy conversations, only serve to waste pages. That’s a shame. Also, rude & disrespectful. You’ve always kept comments/replies you write classy & civil- regardless of how emphatically you may, or may not state your position. At least you have positions & don’t come on here disguised as someone who does- but, in reality, only wants to stir the pot. (Even if the pot was at maximum stir level a year ago.) Tell it like it is, YD! Forget the trolls. 😉
1 Like
Yep! Pretty much! That’s what they do. Although, it would be so much more productive if they had something better to do. For people who swore a year ago, “in a year from now, no one will even remember her name,” they seem to have much better memories than they gave themselves credit for, then. Just a side note.
I’ll try to remind “mean girls of the outback,” this thread is about SafeSport, if not specifically, how SafeSport relates to the RMD ban/lifted ban, etc. I won’t bother to name the myriad of subjects (which could be debated ad infinitum, elsewhere) with which this thread has nothing at all to do. (Eye roll) Back to SS & RMD!
1 Like
