And I believe the Oares have grandchildren that age.
I find it completely appropriate to ban him, posthumously. Bravo.
His achievements as a horseman was exhaulted for decades, posthumously. Now his true character can be linked to his reputation as horseman. One is not one without the other…
5 Likes
“Now his true character can be linked to his reputation as horseman.”
But that’s one of the problems with all this – was it in fact his “true character”? Williams has been dead for 25 years, and these things would have happened almost 50 years ago.
Do the math. The women who are accusing him long after he’s dead must be around 60 now. That means they were in their mid-30s when he was still alive, around 30 or so 5 years before he died, and had 10 years or so before that, when they were in their 20s, to accuse him at the time, go to the police, sue him or Flintridge, or otherwise raise Holy Hell. Or to tell their parents who were still alive and running the Riding Club, who should have gone to the authorities or sued at the time, if they themselves wouldn’t or couldn’t. That would have been in the 1980s and early 1990s, which isn’t exactly ancient history.
My point is that if times have changed so much now, what good does it do for our federation to say this is putting “teeth” into a policy when banning a dead man is just the opposite?
What is the federation really doing, and what are current participants in the sport actually doing now, to bring forward names of those who are alive now and committing crimes? Or is this just self-serving publicity and getting attention and joining the #MeToo movement for the sake of notoriety and political correctness?
Seems to me that the compelling aspect of #MeToo is naming names of those alive and active and seriously misbehaving toward women. Now. So that they can be dealt with. While they’re alive. When the example of penalizing their bad behavior would truly mean something. And when, incidentally, they can defend themselves if they have a defense.
So maybe the stupidity and absurdity of banning a dead man is really sending the wrong message. Just sit tight, be silent, don’t confront your accuser. Your day will come when he’s dead and gone and you can vent your anger then without fear of any defense or opposing opinions.
That policy would give great comfort to men who are behaving badly now.
1 Like
Why would banning Williams (about whose character there’s not a scintilla of doubt, regardless of his skills as a trainer) preclude banning others? Banning those still living will take more time as the stakes are higher, but conveying that even fantastic results as a trainer won’t insulate a predator is an extremely useful message to convey to everyone.
2 Likes
Oh boy, more victim blaming. Joy. People didn’t come forward earlier because until VERY recently generally no one cared/took allegations seriously… and a myriad of other reasons
14 Likes
Personally, I have way more than a “scintilla of doubt” about these allegations, but I knew Williams and was at Flintridge at around the same time as these other women. No doubt in my own mind that he was flawed by today’s “standards,” but just how flawed is, I think, open to question.
Very few of those posting on this subject knew him, but they’re willing to accept the Chronicle’s “investigation,” such as it was, and its unspoken implications, as the final word on his personal behavior. I agree that there’s no doubt about that, sadly.
But if “the stakes are higher” for those living, doesn’t that mean that’s where our attention should be? And where do the Chronicle’s and the Federation’s “investigations” stand as far as the living are concerned?
2 Likes
@vxf111 sometimes we just have to use our internal block when the same people keep coming back to explain how people are victiming wrong (because like you can’t argue with people who are willfully ignorant and revel in their wrongness).
13 Likes
Are you really suggesting that in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, that anyone, especially parents, wouldn’t “care” about or didn’t “take seriously,” blatant child abuse?
Sorry, I don’t agree. Then, as now, such behavior was criminal.
Other behaviors that are frowned upon now were commonplace, I do agree.
2 Likes
Yes, I’m absolutely saying that and if you haven’t learned any lessons from US gymnastics, PSU, and Harvey Weinstein, I don’t know what to say.
20 Likes
The proper question really is, what are the lessons to be learned from those cases.
-
Gymnastics – in those cases, parents and athletes did in fact report misbehavior! As it’s turning out, apparently, for a long, long time. And the governing body and university did not take the accusations seriously. But the parents and athletes did. Going way back, near as I can tell. And too few authorities did, I admit. These were children. Isn’t the lesson here to report, report, report, and follow up, follow up, follow up, litigate, and insist?! At the time of the offenses.
-
Penn State – again, it was the authorities, meaning in the university itself and possibly outside, whose actions were questioned, when reports were made. The aggrieved raised hell, while the accused were (and in at least one case still are) alive and imprisoned.
-
Weinstein – completely different, near as I can tell. No children were involved. Nobody that I know of is defending him, certainly I am not. To the extent he deserves a defense, he’s here to provide it himself.
So, I say again, where are the investigations of and attention to the living in our sport? Now. Today.
3 Likes
The lesson to be learned there is that NOTHING WAS DONE. Because when you’re a “big shot,” people believe you and not the accusers. And JW was a big shot. If you were a kid and you knew everyone idolized this BNT, why would you come forward? No one would believe you. Or if they did, they’d say you “asked for it.” Of else they’d bully you out of riding entirely. The system was set up such that victims didn’t see the upside to reporting. So they didn’t. And some victims felt a lot of shame, even though they had done nothing wrong.
Parents stood in the room and LET LARRY NASSER abuse their children. Why? They didn’t want to lose the coveted training spot. McQueary reported an incident at PSU. Nothing was done. So why would he continue to report? Most everyone in Hollywood knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing, but it was just sort of accepted that it was part of the path of becoming an actress to be victimized and deal with it. So why report it if its just “how it’s done.”
All of that appeared to be true of the abuses in our sport. People knew but didn’t want to be the “small fish” making waves. They didn’t want to lose coveted training or rides. Nothing happened when you reported except getting shunned or blamed. So why report?
Literally until very recently, harassment/abuse was just considered part of the school of hard knocks by a lot of people. There are so many reasons victims waited to report that have nothing to do with the veracity of their reports. Some were just plain scared. Scared to look in the eye someone who they idolized and who really hurt them and scared to say out loud the terrible thing that had happened.
So just stop the victim blaming. FULL ENDSTOP. People didn’t report because they didn’t think they’d be taken seriously. Stop putting any of the blame for being victims of sexual assault on the victims. It is not the victim’s fault for being victimized. It is the abuser’s fault.
19 Likes
“…and the governing body and university did not take the accusations seriously.”
I think what you are missing, Two Lea, is that was true throughout American society in the 20th century. And it was not always just the “governing body and university” but it was your boss, your board of directors, your boss’s boss…And it was not always children (Weinstein). Pretty much nobody would listen to complaints of sexual misbehavior. “The girls were dressed provocatively.” “It’s just how he is…” “Just ignore it” “Forget about it” etc., etc.
In your other posts, you say you were there when this was happening. That must make you a contemporary of these women who have accused Mr. Williams. Do you not recall the amount of sexual harassment that occurred in the workplace, the public, schools, literally everywhere? While you call it “criminal”, it was, for the most part, accepted behavior. Now, finally, the victims have the public’s ear. Finally, they can come forward and be believed. Finally, maybe they can get a small measure of retribution. Finally,our society is seeing this as the horror it truly was.
So,yes, let’s ban Jimmy Williams post mortem. And, let’s continue to expose and revile others who engaged in this kind of behavior because they had power, made winners, were the boss. Because by so doing, perhaps just one perpetrator will think twice, one guilty party will stop, and one victim will be spared.
10 Likes
It took me a while to find it. It’s one of those right-in-front-of-your-face, if-it-was-a-snake-it-would-have-bit-you things.
Look at the top of this page and right under the box which says,
Home > Forum > Discussion Forums > Hunter/Jumper
and you will find a highlighted box with the bolded statement
UPDATE TO FORUM RULES: CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS
1 Like
Time for some clear(er), less emotional thinking.
First, does anyone else believe that there’s a difference between “sexual harassment” generally, and more serious “criminal behavior,” such as statutory rape, child abuse, and rape itself? Maybe not. At some point, sexual harassment as defined can become criminal, I assume. So it’s all the same thing?
To answer one of the recent posts, I already said much earlier that, over the years, I dealt with my share of what we used to call “wolves.” For those of you younger and much younger than I am, so-called “standards” of behavior have most certainly evolved over the decades. I agree with that. And that’s part of the point I’m trying to make.
To me, there’s a difference between innocent flirtation, not-so-innocent flirtation, then vulgar behavior, escalating to much, much worse. I’m not sure where the line of criminality begins for adults, but for children (even though “children” themselves are defined differently, believe it or not, depending on the jurisdiction and even the country), it’s more clear.
Yet laws as they have evolved really struggle with all these distinctions. Because law has to be precise. Just read some of the posts on the law in Virginia in some of these respects. And what’s posted is just a small part of Virginia law about these matters generally.
It is really instructive as to the present emotional #MeToo lynch-mob mentality about these things that just raising questions about these issues, and suggesting the absurdity of banning a dead man from participating in a sport (which is supposedly a great symbol of something, but I’m not sure it’s of what is intended), becomes “victim blaming.” If anyone dares suggest that due process of law should apply to someone accused of misbehavior, the very suggestion of that time-honored maxim is “victim blaming.” Okay. If anyone of that belief who is reading this is ever wrongly accused of anything, from a parking ticket on up, just remember it. You’re guilty (of anything) upon accusation.
I get that presuming guilt upon accusation of sexual harassment or worse makes some people feel better. But wouldn’t those same people feel better still if someone was actually investigating, uncovering, accusing, and banning those who are alive and behaving wrongly?
Under the Chronicle’s new rules, it looks as though you can have at it.
2 Likes
Two Lea, Flintridge settled a lawsuit filed by a group of parents. This was common knowledge around the club when I was a member ten years ago.
Would the filings be public if the matter was settled out of court?
I’m mystified by your apologist stance.
I know JW’s ex wife and many of her close friends in whom she confided. He was a bad guy.
11 Likes
So does the JW plaque in Rolex stadium at the KHP come down?
yup, and it wasn’t “ancient history” - what defines Ancient History?
20?
40?
50 years ago?
70/100 years?
how dare his victims be given recognition and BELIEVED!
and some sort of action aganist the predator is taken. (sorry, my sarc/ levels are affected by threads like these.)
easy to tell whose led a charmed life never being a victim of a predator. lucky them.
6 Likes
(wish I could “like” your post, but seems I can no longer “like” a post - very odd)
instead I have quoted you, along with a LOUD, Bravoh!!!
3 Likes
oh goodie.
would you also like to give character witness statements for my now deceased foster father and foster brother?
positive that my late foster brothers wife & family would appreciate another voice saying what a fabulously kind and generous individual he was - even though, just like you never knew him none of them knew him when he was raping me every saturday morning. . .
not always easy to accept that one has been duped, and duped for decades re the vices of someone one called a Friend. but QUIT blaming the bastards victims!
9 Likes
I don’t see Barney Ward on there either. Perhaps it’s selective outing? 
