I have no idea why certain people seem convinced that SafeSport would be happy to get false, malicious reports. It seems to me pretty obvious that they’d be angry about having their time wasted and about being used to bully someone.
As for the $25k, that’s not enough to purchase a lobbyist, if that’s what they were thinking…
Yes, we’ve been dealing with SS in rowing for some time. Both of my kids rowed in college, too but the implementation of SS was more obvious with the juniors. My daughter’s college team is coached by women; my son’s was coached by men. I’m not sure how they accomodated the coxwains.
When the coach who worked with my daughter was fired for having a relationship with a team member, what shocked me most was the response by some of the adults around me. Another mother told me “that girl always liked older men” and I heard several people comment about the fact the girls wore Unis and looked “attractive” so they could see how that might happen, and after all, the girl was 17. Jesus, the coach was 35 and she was 17, maybe 16 when it started. In an age where you can “swipe right” and find a date with a woman who is of an appropriate age, he had no excuse. Especially when we discovered he’d been fired from a previous job for inappropriate texting to young women on his team (15-ish).
Most of the time when predatory behavior comes to light it’s not a one off.
Perhaps our recently banned member wasn’t too far off the mark, as some of the folks standing with George are comparing removing the arena names with removing Confederate Civil War Monuments.
As a negative.
Why does this not surprise me?
The swords would be in scabbards, of course.
In the warm up ring, do you know why we pass left to left? As most people are right handed, you would pass with the victim on your right if you were intending to take your sword to them. By passing left to left, you are nonverbally saying “I am
a friend, not a foe”.
Also, swords are the reason we mount on the left. Can you imagine mounting from the right with a sword on your left hip?
Swords are at the very heart of the sport. Time to bring them back.yes
GOOD MORNING FROM Safe Sport OVERHAUL. Kathy Hobstetter here - the one you (dannyboy) says is “not the brightest star in the sky”…certainly been called worse than that in my lifetime. 
. Before any conversation with this guy I did an in dept research of who he is, who he is working for, what he wants and why he is calling the people in the sport. I assure you I did not blindly go into that phone conversation.
For Yankee Dutchess and anyone else who questions why there are calls from Safe Sport going around like this - The appeal for George has not happened yet, is coming up, and they have investigators following up after the NYT story as they get ready for the appeal and shoring up Safe Sports side…
I posted the above information on OVERHAUL so people out here in the sport could have a heads up and would not be surprised if they got a call… Thank you for following us over there.
PS…we posted the GoFund me for expenses as we work at an OVERHAUL of Safe Sport for simply Fair process. Knocking on doors is truly a funny remark about the work. The cost of getting to Congresspeople in Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Washington DC, all over California and the west coast and other congressional offices will be, and IS, certainly costly. Printing pamphlets, documents and folders for Congressional members we are requesting help from is way costly. etc. We are doing a lot of work (which takes hours and hours and expense money) and appreciate ANYONE who cannot do the foot work but can pitch in a few dollars to help our wonderful sport of horses and support our project of Fair Sport. We do not voice in on the specific situations, we are rather working hard at the process…
Thank you for your interest, concern and support if you wish.
Kathy
Oy vey
:lol::lol::lol: it’s too funny.
I appreciate the insane moments of levity amidst a terribly serious subject.
eta so yes, they need the money to pay themselves :lol: and make pamphlets:rolleyes: there’s something catchy about pamphlets for pedophiles
As discussed earlier in the thread, there are genuine, good faith questions about the appropriate level of procedural protections in these types of proceedings (witness the many controversies over similar tribunals at private universities, including the mass revolt by Harvard Law professors). Reasonable minds can differ over how to strike the balance between procedural protections for the accused and taking quick and decisive action against possible abusers.
Ridiculing people who have different points of view on issues that actually raise deep ethical questions just makes us look like ignorant bullies–which I thought is what we were against.
I fail to see what is unfair about the process. I fail to see what is unethical. Maybe my ethics are different. Further more, vague sentences about pamphlets and such do nothing to entice donations. What exactly, line by line, would that money be used for?
As a former college professor, the discussion of standards and procedures for protections for adult students and employees or colleagues is frankly very very different than that same conversation about protections for actual literal minor children.
One I think we could certainly have differences that were equally valid; the other? not so much. No. Sorry, but no.
Yes, they did split up.
Mr, Coach is (I think) still with my former teammate, though circumstances suggest he has not changed his ways.
If you follow the overhaul page, it is clear that Kathy and others are putting their own money in so far to travel and meet with legislators. They are asking other like minded folks to pitch in.
This is why I have an issue with a large number of GFMs that I see and why I rarely contribute to them. When I do make a charitable donation it is to an organization that can tell me what exactly I am contributing to, one that can show me monthly expenses line by line, and show what percentage of the dollars raised go to what expenses.
The irony that this group is calling for more transparency in the SS procedures but is unwilling to be transparent themselves is not lost on me :rolleyes:
The “procedural protections” at issue are for the accused as well as the alleged victim. In both settings (universities and sport) the accused will generally be adults, so similar issues arise.
It is very disappointing to hear a college professor (!) say that no difference of opinion is possible on the question of what procedures are appropriate and fair in these types of proceedings.
Having been in graduate programs more years than I like to count, I can’t recall any issue on which a professor declared that “no difference of opinion is possible!” Indeed, that seems contrary to the very mission of academia.
I find the issues raised by the Harvard law professors and others both deep and interesting. It’s okay if you disagree with them–that’s what healthy intellectual debate is-- but to treat such concerns as ludicrous (or worse, as pro-pedophilia) reflects more on you than on the issues under consideration.
I am definitely going to double down and say that one side here is right, and one wrong. shocking you never met a professor who thought someone was clearly wrong :lol: that’s pretty par for the course in academia, there really aren’t so many people who argue for complete subjectivity.
I also want to add we keep trying to have conversations with people who are completely disingenuous about their motives, and completely misrepresenting that thing they want to change.
That’s not a legitimate foundation for discussion. Please see logical fallacies.
It doesn’t require “complete subjectivity” to recognize there can be good faith, colorable arguments on both (or multiple) sides of an issue, that there are pros and cons to each proposed resolution, and that different people may draw the line differently in terms of how to prioritize various pros and cons. That’s why our Supreme Court is almost always split on important issues. When some justices vote in favor of a defendant’s argument while others vote against, it’s because each justice weighs competing considerations differently. It’s not because they are all “completely subjective” or, even more ridiculous, because some of them are “pro-crime.”
Could you explain the current and specific procedural issues you see with the Safe sport process?
When asked without exception we only get evidence that the person quarried is either unfamiliar with the procedures, or making things up.
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.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use