Should Brian Holm be given the boot at Omega?
 

He was found not guilty, but I don't think the seven year old made up the story.

Omega boss stands behind acquitted Brian Holm - VeloNews.com

Why do you know the seven year old?

No, I don't know the seven year old, but I don't think a seven year old can make up the details of the case. And holm admitted he had been drinking. If I were a sponsor, I won't want my name/product associated with someone like Holm.

So once an allegation is made by a child, one is guilty regardless of what a court might find?

Other Well-Known Cases | Innocence Lost | FRONTLINE | PBS

Ever hear of the McMartin Preschool Case?

I believe the kid!

Holm was found not guilty b/cos there was not enough evidence to convict. If you are a father like I am, you can see how seven year old can't make up details like he licked my ear and took off my underwear. Kids are different than adults in that at a certain age they just tell the truth without thinking about the ramifications. I was at a party last Friday where an eight year old girl told a fellow guest in front of everybody that "my mom says you are weird, and should stay away from my dad." Everybody laughed nervously, except the lady she was talking to.

And Holm admitted he was drunk!

Yes, no seven year old has ever made things up.

Not with the kind of details in this case.

Which had 100 times as much detail, some corroborated from multiple witnesses. All children, and all led by 'investigators'.

I'd at the least want to see a transcript of the interview with the child before making even a tentative decision.

But if they do make up details like that, you'd just assume they're telling the truth.

Circular reasoning.

No, I am saying a seven year old won't say something like he licked my ear. I don't think a seven year old can construe that particular action as "sexual."

Pedophiles, for the most part, are betting on kids not being believed.

What are the details of the case?

What you linked was a news report referring to unnamed media sources. And Velonews has never been known for their accurate, investigative journalism. They have enough trouble with the results from bike races that they attend.

The details I read was that a friend of his daughter was having a sleepover at his house, Mr. Holm came home intoxicated, licked the seven year old's ear and removed her underwear. He admitted to being drunk, but not the actions mentioned. And I am saying a seven year old does not construe ear-licking as sexual, that is adult territory.

The shame is I am almost positive he'll do it again to another child. These non-convicted types always do.

Let's say for argument sake the kid did say that, without context you have no idea if the kid is sexualizing that action anyway. You're the one making that jump.


Read the link of other cases that Bikemig posted. Take this excerpt for example:
"The case began in April 1985, when a four year-old boy was being examined at a pediatrician's office. The nurse rubbed his back and took his temperature with a rectal thermometer. He did not seem upset, but remarked to her "that's what my teacher does to me at nap time at school." The nurse suspected that he was being abused at the day care center, and immediately reported her suspicions to authorities."

What do you think the teacher did, logically? Rub his back I'm thinking. It's context.

I've looked for the news on this Holm story and there's virtually nothing. So not only have you decided he's guilty, you've already decided he's a pedophile who will do this again. And that he should lose his job. I hope you're never called for jury duty.

I hope you are right. And I hope you and I are still here when he does it again.

And how do you KNOW that a seven-year-old can't make up something like that? Just because your kid(s) never did make up things like that? Or they did and you believed them because you KNEW they couldn't make that up?

Perfectly circular reasoning: it's not made up because it's not made up.

Are you kidding me? A drunk 51 year old came back home intoxicated, licked the ear of a seven year old, then took off her underwear, and you think the seven year old made up the story?

Mr. Holm was intoxicated, and that alone suggests to me this child was probably molested. You can believe what you want, but I believe the child.

And for the circular reasoning charge, I say nonsense. Just wait till he does it again. Psychologists are of the view that pedophiles that are never caught/treated always keep at it.

So do all intoxicated people molest children?

Are you serious? An intoxicated man has been accused of sexual molestation by a child. You and I know there are terrible human predators out there, even unexpected ones (what with the catholic church clergy and their enablers), and I am of a firm view that a seven year old can't look at "ear licking" from a drunk as a sexual move, but all that changed when he removed her underwear.

The intoxicated bit probably/in all likelihood impaired his judgement terribly.

Obviously if he does it again, then it changes the matter drastically. And if a previous victim were to come forward, that would also change matters.

But children do make things up, and children can be coaxed/coached/coerced into saying things. I don't know why anyone would want to coach the child to say such things about Holm, any more than I know why Holm would want to do the things the child described. But absent a more compelling case than she said/he said/he admitted he'd had one too many, there doesn't appear to be enough for the Danish court to pursue the matter further.

You can believe the child all you want. I'd say there are some in the Danish legal system who do, too. But in the law, it doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove.

I don't know if I'd feel comfortable working with Holm, or to leave him alone around my nieces or nephews, but OPQS, who know the guy a lot better than you or I or any of us posting here, are happy to keep him working with their professional all-male cycling team.