Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Attention Parents- What is wrong???

Hunter/Jumper
#61

[QUOTE=backinthebay;2629745]
That is a pretty slippery slope from people who do horrible things to children to someone who had had a DUI or did drugs in college or blondes? Some might say you are taking common sense out of equation.

Weird post from someone who believes we should drug test riders. http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=107885

This is so far from any course of logic that I would on suggest you do a little homework. Most people who do these crimes against children repeat given the opportunity. Most DUI offenders dont repeat. How many people did drugs in college and grew out of it. These are serious issues but come on![/QUOTE]

sigh.

sorry you completely missed the point. which was - in a nutshell:

it’s a slippery slope to start deciding “who we don’t like” and segregating them.

The comment about blondes was tongue-in-cheek. sort of.

I don’t like the idea of anyone practicing ANY kind of deviant behaviour (yeah, that would include drug use and drinking and driving) around children

I don’t like the idea of a sexual predator stalking children, either - but not all sex offenders are sexual predators. (and EVERYONE should do their homework before slinging those two labels around)

I don’t understand why you’re bringing up the drug-testing post, it’s really along the same lines - just more related to horse’s well being than children’s. Sorry you didn’t have anything to contribute to it at the time.

And you’re wrong about DUI and drug offenders - they often do repeat!

#62

[QUOTE=spina;2629528]
Getting into scary territory here.

Do you think we should ban convicted drunk drivers from show grounds? Definately bad for the sport, your safety, your horse’s safety, your kid’s safety. There are a lot more of those around and we KNOW they have a HUGE record of repeat offenses.

Sould we ban convicted drug offenders? We all know cocaine is pretty addictive - you know those people are bound to keep doing it the rest of their lives. Can you imagine leaving your child - or horse - in the care of one? Or even in the presence of one?

These are just a couple of the court labeled offenders - we could certainly delve into other groups who don’t yet have “protected” (as you say) status - blondes, for instance. Like you said, we can just get together and agree we don’t want them and get them banned. Personally, I have had a lot of trouble in the past with blondes (don’t want to hijack this thread so won’t go into it here) and I know of several other people who also wouldn’t dream of leaving their child alone with one. I hadn’t thought of it before, but maybe getting them banned from all the organizations I belong to would make my life so much easier. hmmm
[/QUOTE]

I am blond, and I am going to give you some trouble.

Another total cop out. Add it to the “i can’t do anything about it, so I watch my kids and you watch yours” argument. Except this one is dressed up as a specious “freedom/equality” argument when it’s really just pure intellectual drivel.

This is not a public event or locale. It’s a private event sanctioned by a national organization that is made possible by its dues-paying members. Who can very legitimately determine the participants.

Therefore, it is fully appropriate to say “no” to leering pedophiles at horse shows.

Don’t forget, this is America, and they, like the drunk drivers and addicts, are still free to roam the beaches, parks, and neighborhoods to their hearts’ content.

#63

I’m pretty sure that legally, the police can only ban a level 3 sex-offender from going places that children frequent (like schools, amuzement parks, etc.). I bet the USEF would be more likely to ban these men if we could get a real petition going, one where you actually sign it and put your USEF membership number, address, and phone number. Someone who goes to the shows where these men are could have a real impact passing out flyers and a petition. If I were in the area, I would definitely take the challenge!

#64

[QUOTE=EqLuvr;2629799]
This is not a public event or locale. It’s a private event sanctioned by a national organization that is made possible by its dues-paying members. Who can very legitimately determine the participants.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it IS a public event - or rather, an event “open to the public”. You don’t need to be a member to participate, spectate or be on the grounds.
It may be possible for USEF to limit the participants at shows, I’m just saying it’s a slippery slope and I think you need to look really carefully at the repercussions as well as the effectiveness. It may be relatively easy to prevent a convict from having a USEF number, but do you really think that’s going to be very effective in keeping kids safe if it doesn’t keep them off the grounds?
Should we start posting security guards at the gate to monitor everyone’s ID and run a quick background check?

#65

[QUOTE=redlight;2629611]
It is sick. Do you think a soccer coach or little league coach would be allowed at the games if they were a convicted sexual predator? Am I wrong or was Jimmy Doyle also caught doing the same thing a few years ago? I don’t think there are many people who do background checks on a trainer before going to them but if you were an employer looking to hire someone you certainly would perform a background check. Perhaps this is the way to go?[/QUOTE]

Sadly, most local sporting organizations do not screen their coaches or employees. There’s been a lot of trouble here in NoVA in the past with 4H and other groups because the organizations either refuse to do it stating it is too much trouble/costs too much or they don’t want to remove anyone who is already working for fear of looking bad when people ask why they didn’t do it from the start. Luckily, a few of the local youth athletic clubs have been doing background checks for the last two years so it seems to be catching on.

#66

Ken Kraus had a crack cocaine problem. It ruined his marriage, his job, his life. While on crack, he had sex with someone he did not know was underage. (At least this is my understanding.) Yes, he was guilty but even on crack, he was not what I consider to be a predator. Now he has spent time getting off crack and has been clean for more than 2 years. He has not tried to hide his history
in fact, he wrote a letter on Towerheads when he was going through all this. Crack Cocaine screwed up his life. He is doing everything he can to go on with a normal life but people keep bending and twisting his story and condemning him. Mason Phelps has given him a job with a lot of responsibility and is giving him a chance to succeed in having a good life. Mason would not have done that if he felt Ken was a real danger to anyone. I do not know any of the details of Soresi.

#67

[QUOTE=backinthebay;2629745]
That is a pretty slippery slope from people who do horrible things to children to someone who had had a DUI or did drugs in college or blondes? Some might say you are taking common sense out of equation.

Weird post from someone who believes we should drug test riders. http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=107885

This is so far from any course of logic that I would on suggest you do a little homework. Most people who do these crimes against children repeat given the opportunity. Most DUI offenders dont repeat. How many people did drugs in college and grew out of it. These are serious issues but come on![/QUOTE]

I think you missed it a little. I am pretty sure spina was saying that it would be hard to draw the line as to who to ban if you get into the legal mumbo jumbo. Like I was trying to say earlier, you can not ban someone strickly because they are a sex offender, unless their specific punishment has provisions, i.e: The sexual misconduct happened at a horse show, or the person’s sexual misconduct has to do with clients, etc. Believe me, I wish you could! I think USEF could ban them if they wanted, my point earlier is I’m not sure it would stand in a court room. That is the world we live in today, and our criminal justice system and our constitution protects ALL citizens, even convicted felons.

and not to get into a legal battle, but, are you sure about that DUI stat? :wink:

#68

[QUOTE=Lessonlady;2630072]
Ken Kraus had a crack cocaine problem. It ruined his marriage, his job, his life. While on crack, he had sex with someone he did not know was underage. (At least this is my understanding.) Yes, he was guilty but even on crack, he was not what I consider to be a predator. Now he has spent time getting off crack and has been clean for more than 2 years. He has not tried to hide his history
in fact, he wrote a letter on Towerheads when he was going through all this. Crack Cocaine screwed up his life. He is doing everything he can to go on with a normal life but people keep bending and twisting his story and condemning him. Mason Phelps has given him a job with a lot of responsibility and is giving him a chance to succeed in having a good life. Mason would not have done that if he felt Ken was a real danger to anyone. I do not know any of the details of Soresi.[/QUOTE]

the other thing to take into consideration with Ken Kraus if that is actually the story, is that the sex could have been consensual. (please don’t flame me, I have no idea if that is the case, I am playing devils advocate here) But, under the law, it is stat rape regardless, even if the girl didn’t want to press charges. Just something else to consider! someone mentioned earlier that there can be a HUGE difference between a sexual predator and an offender. The above would be an example.

#69

Folks, this needs to be in the “issues, not individuals” vein. I don’t want to read anyone saying what anyone else did or didn’t do, UNLESS you’re citing something IN PRINT and can provide a link.

There’s no point in getting into the minutia of an individual case. You can, however, discuss the broader issue.

#70

However you all feel about these people, USEF still has to act within the law.
I’m not sure that they can prevent them from earning a living.

#71

If this happened in any other sport it would make national headlines and the governing body would more than likely make these people resign.

#72

Geez, I work at a school and we need to fill out CORI forms every year to check our criminal backgrounds. I think EVERY youth organization, or organization that has participants under 18, should be required to do the same. I can’t believe that 4-H doesn’t background check!

#73

[QUOTE=Hood Rat;2630258]
If this happened in any other sport it would make national headlines and the governing body would more than likely make these people resign.[/QUOTE]

That’s what I think as well. I just can’t even conceive of it happening in other sports’ NGBs. :no:

#74

You’re right and there is no reason to stop them from earning a living.
That living can be made elsewhere than a USEF recognized horse show.
USEF’s own rules give them great leeway in what they can do.
They can, and have, banned people for insurance fraud involving horses.
They can certainly ban a convicted pedophile from a venue that is designed to draw children.

#75

[QUOTE=Guin;2630264]
Geez, I work at a school and we need to fill out CORI forms every year to check our criminal backgrounds. I think EVERY youth organization, or organization that has participants under 18, should be required to do the same. I can’t believe that 4-H doesn’t background check![/QUOTE]

It would be nice but they would never do that. By design 4H groups are self-sufficient and autonomous from the larger organization. My local 4H for example has almost nothing to do with the state group and they certainly didn’t follow any sort of rules when I was participating. It really falls on the individual groups to do background checks but that certainly wouldn’t happen if the group is as clique-like as it is here. When I was with them, I saw terrible behavior and individuals who really had no place being around children (I found they had criminal records and were on probation) but they were running things because they lived in Clifton and had a ramshackle backyard stable which apparently makes you a credible equestrian around here. :rolleyes:

#76

[QUOTE=spina;2629789]
sigh.

sorry you completely missed the point. which was - in a nutshell:

it’s a slippery slope to start deciding “who we don’t like” and segregating them.

The comment about blondes was tongue-in-cheek. sort of.

I don’t like the idea of anyone practicing ANY kind of deviant behaviour (yeah, that would include drug use and drinking and driving) around children

I don’t like the idea of a sexual predator stalking children, either - but not all sex offenders are sexual predators. (and EVERYONE should do their homework before slinging those two labels around)

I don’t understand why you’re bringing up the drug-testing post, it’s really along the same lines - just more related to horse’s well being than children’s. Sorry you didn’t have anything to contribute to it at the time.

And you’re wrong about DUI and drug offenders - they often do repeat![/QUOTE]
Sorry I dont have anything to contribute? We all have something to contribute. Of course you dont like the idea of a predator around. I very sorry if my use of predator vs offender wasnt quite right. I certainly wouldn’t want to mislabel one of those (aren’t they both horrible?).

I missed the point? No, you did! We aren’t segregating people we dont like. WE ARE TRYING TO SEGREGATE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HURT CHILDREN FROM CHILDREN. Yeah that is o.k
 And as I have stated multiple times, just ban these people from events with children. It’s kind of how we ban people that kill horses from dealing with horses at USEF events AKA Barney Ward.

Thats kind of how rules and laws work.

The drug testing post? You said in that thread that we should drug test riders. Why, just because? No because you want to punish people that do that. Not because you dont like them. Because as a federation we dont want that behavior. You get it?

We want to punish(ban) people the hurt kids because as a federation we dont want that behavior.

DUI offenders often do repeat. Dont twist my words. The majority(most) dont repeat. Of course many do (about 35%). Almost all sexual offenders have multiple victims. (Drugs(with so many different levels it is hard to keep it short enough for a BB).

You should be less sharky!

#77

[QUOTE=ktm2007;2630082]
I think you missed it a little. I am pretty sure spina was saying that it would be hard to draw the line as to who to ban if you get into the legal mumbo jumbo. Like I was trying to say earlier, you can not ban someone strickly because they are a sex offender, unless their specific punishment has provisions, i.e: The sexual misconduct happened at a horse show, or the person’s sexual misconduct has to do with clients, etc. Believe me, I wish you could! I think USEF could ban them if they wanted, my point earlier is I’m not sure it would stand in a court room. That is the world we live in today, and our criminal justice system and our constitution protects ALL citizens, even convicted felons.

and not to get into a legal battle, but, are you sure about that DUI stat? ;)[/QUOTE]

That is avalid agrument. But should we try and ban them and if it fails in court at least we tried(or at least we did keep them away for a till overturned). It probably would help the USEF’s case when they get sued when an incedent happens at a show.
Yes I am sure about the DUI stat. Many do repeat but most dont. 65% of DUI arrests are first time offenses, 35% are 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. Thank you for the lack of sharkyness.

#78

Exactly, bays
 protecting children from people who have hurt children.

Sorry, but I just don’t get some of the attitudes here


Why is there so much “it won’t hold up in court, it’s not practical, yada yada yada” and not enough outrage?

I guess we know why certain people are still hanging around horse shows.

Apathy.

#79

Should more be done about it by those in charge? Yes
but what that would entail, I don’t know. After all, what are they supposted to do, check everyone’s ID vs a National database at the gate


Honestly, I think parents need to take responsibility for their kids. If they can’t attend a show
hire a sitter
team up with other moms
do something. My parents and grandparents (my grandmas both watched me a lot as kid, so did my aunt
its one of the benefits of a large Italian family) would never have let me run around a showgrounds, county fair, park, disneyland, etc alone.

Yes, those in charge need to do their part
but so do the parents.

#80

[QUOTE=EqLuvr;2630674]
Exactly, bays
 protecting children from people who have hurt children.

Sorry, but I just don’t get some of the attitudes here


Why is there so much “it won’t hold up in court, it’s not practical, yada yada yada” and not enough outrage?

I guess we know why certain people are still hanging around horse shows.

Apathy.[/QUOTE]

As mentioned earlier, the only way anything will ever happen is if people vote with their $$. Don’t patronize the shows that ignore the KK issue, and let them know why. Don’t patronize clients of Mason Phelps, and let them know why. make it very public. No other youth sport organization could stay in business letting sex offenders around kids - especially offenders with a conviction involving a minor.

This is a very clubby sport and the good old boys take care of each other. As long as customers tolerate it, it will continue. But it’s going to take the loss of $$, and lots of public bemoaning (publicity over it) to keep Kraus of the grounds of any show where he’s covering the events. Who’s willing to give up a big chunk of their show schedule to make a point? Because outraged words on a BB won’t change anything. Exhibitors staying away from horse shows, and announcing to management why, will. If enough people refuse to show where those folks are permitted, they won’t be welcomed. So who’s ready to boycott those shows? I would do so - gladly and vocally - if I were showing, but I’m not this year


That’s the only way, IMO, you’re going to get anything done. It’s all about the Benjamins at this level. Wish I could help, because it’s a shandeh.

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $29.99 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse