Safesport in the wake of the Barisone Verdict: Weaponization and Inconsistent Standards

[trubandloki]

Thank you for clarifying that MB is suspended, @Sdel.

[LilRanger]

I believe in the context of SS, aiding and abetting is not support of any kind, just
"Aiding and Abetting also includes, without limitation, knowingly:

1. Allowing any person who has been identified as suspended or otherwise
   ineligible by the Center to be in any way associated with or employed by
   an organization affiliated with…"

So just giving money to him as an individual may not qualify, unless it’s considered associating? I’m not sure if taking lessons without an organization associated with a SS covered entity can get you in trouble either. The regs seem to emphasize organizational association, not personal associations? As not a member I can’t really be bothered to figure out if they mean individuals, or businesses can’t be involved with aiding or abetting. So all those giving individually are probably ok. It looks like they don’t want companies to hire banned people more than limiting individual members from giving them money for any reason.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Einhorn

I disagree about it being “career ending” but perhaps we are thinking of different groups? You can’t end the career of an AA rider, they have no riding career. They can lose the ability to perform in USEF sanctioned Events. That’s all.

Yes, that could be the be all end all for that person, but they won’t choose to train with a banned person. Which was my point, not being part of the USEF (either by choice or violation) eliminates a certain clientele from MBs universe, which may be a good thing. The burden is on the client not him. He sounds like someone who needs fewer burdens in his life.

However, you may disagree, and we can agree to do that.

Edited to add: I’ll be interested to see what sanctions USEF brings against those members who gave money to the go find me set up forMB. That’s aiding, I’d think.

I think the penalty is for someone aiding and abetting him in violating the ban by training people, etc. I don’t see why anyone would be sanctioned for contributing to the GoFundMe. Steffen Peters, Adrienne Lyle and Jane Thomas all gave under their names.

[Rowdy]

I believe it is the law that is behind the times. Law enforcement can only act within the law (or at least they are supposed to). If there are no laws on the books that address cyberstalking, harassment, etc., the police can do nothing.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Aurora58

I seem to recall LK and RG saying on the witness stand, it was “boom boom … boom”. ED was on the phone and only heard two shots, per his testimony, and they only found two shell casings. LK/RG were shown to lie on the witness stand so it may be there were only two shots in reality.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable in the best of circumstances. They may not have perfect recall as to the number of shots, and when they learned from police that two shot went through LK and one through the window, taken that info into account to aid their memory and settle on a memory of three shots.

There does seem to be a bullet hole through the window in the door, and graze marks on some saddle pads, and a hole in another window, so the two bullet theory requires a bullet to pass through LK, then the door, graze the saddle pads, then go through the second window.

So there may indeed only have been two bullets. For that reason, I think the NG on the two counts having to do with RG was clearly correct.

On the other hand, maybe the third shot occurred after LK dropped the phone and that’s why ED didn’t hear it.

[BrendaJane]

not relyable is cute in this context.

There is no evidence of a 3rd shot.
Unless Rosie ate the shell casing.

they did not find bullets. If they looked.

[MHM]

@CurrentlyHorseless

On the other hand, maybe the third shot occurred after LK dropped the phone and that’s why ED didn’t hear it.

This has been covered many, many, many times already. But since apparently it still has not sunk in yet:

ED testified that the phone did not go dead for 10-15 seconds after he heard two, repeat TWO, shots.

LK and RG both testified that the three shots were very close together. Boom, boom… boom.

Their. Stories. Do. Not. Match.

[MHM]

@BrendaJane

Unless Rosie ate the shell casing.

Oh, come on! Now you’re thinking of new things to blame on poor Rosie?!? Lol.

[BrendaJane]

well, she is the only one who had nothing to gain or lose from the casing, and known to sink her teeth into inedibles.

[Scribbler]

@cutter99

@Einhorn

I disagree about it being “career ending” but perhaps we are thinking of different groups? You can’t end the career of an AA rider, they have no riding career. They can lose the ability to perform in USEF sanctioned Events. That’s all.

Yes, that could be the be all end all for that person, but they won’t choose to train with a banned person. Which was my point, not being part of the USEF (either by choice or violation) eliminates a certain clientele from MBs universe, which may be a good thing. The burden is on the client not him. He sounds like someone who needs fewer burdens in his life.

However, you may disagree, and we can agree to do that.

Edited to add: I’ll be interested to see what sanctions USEF brings against those members who gave money to the go find me set up forMB. That’s aiding, I’d think.

How could USEF sanction members for donating to a GoFundMe?

If they were to do that, they would need to see a strict accounting from every member of any donation made ever.

That is not what they are in the business to do!

No obviously it’s aiding someone to circumvent the ban or suspension. Like hiring them under the table to run a clinic or sneaking them onto the show grounds in a false mustache or continuing to lesson with them.

Obviously many riders exist entirely outside the USEF or SS orbit. There are lesson barns run by trainers who don’t venture beyond the unrecognized schooling show level and there thousands of trail riders and rodeo competitors and folks teaching horsemanship etc who have no overlap with USEF.

However, a high level dressage trainer needs to work with and for and inside the system of USEF because that’s where the clients want to show and where the horses have value. Thus cutting a high level competition trainer in jumpers, eventung, hunters or dressage out of the world of USEF or FEI accredited shows will end their career in that world.

Obviously they can still breed, start colts, teach up down lessons to children, even take prospects in Training Level at a schooling show. Or reinvent themselves as a natural horseman clinician. Etc. But they cannot easily continue at a high level in their previous discipline. And that’s the whole point of a suspension or ban.

Likewise for an ammie, if they have dreams of competing above first or second level at schooling shows, that’s cut short by a suspension or ban. In this case obviously not a career. But up to now every high profile SS case I’ve followed has been about a pro, anyhow.

Aiding is like when the wife of a gymnastics coach accused of sexually abusing underage students puts the private gym in her name and he continues on teaching there.

[enjoytheride]

Did everyone just move over here to argue about the same things that have already been proven from the case?

[trubandloki]

@enjoytheride

Did everyone just move over here to argue about the same things that have already been proven from the case?

Yes! I guess they figured that since they were not getting the response they wanted in the other thread, they might try again in this thread. Which is about a different topic, but why let that stop you.

[Moderator_1]

There’s already an active thread debating issues related to the Barisone case, and there has been a lot of bickering and personal commentary in this thread, so we’re going to close it.