Over 10+ years ago, a smaller trainer (woman with a man’s name) had a nice horse that was doing really well at A shows. The testers showed up and she put the horse on the trailer, said he was colicking and took him to the vet clinic, not allowing him to be tested. She was suspended for a time period and started showing up at an unrated local show circuit. The local show circuit had a blurb about “following AHSA rules” and it caused a bit of an uproar. I don’t remember what the local circuit board decided to do, if anything, or if I saw her again.
Does anyone here show a local or nonrated circuit that actually states that individuals presently suspended or banned by USEF are not allowed to participate?
Good point, Texarkana about usef not requiring proof of I’d for membership. I always found that odd. I knew a few jr riders about 25 yrs ago, who lied about their birthday and gave themselves an extra jr year. It was suggested by the trainer at the time. You’d think in this day & age, Jrs would need to show birth certificate, then at 18 everyone needs to show there DL as proof.
Anyone can age out or be suspended & move across the country and get a new membership.
She states George Morris was put on the list “Thanks to allegations of misconduct with a minor” was an interesting one. I would have expect her to say “because” not 'thanks". In my opinion, using the word “thanks” give it a sarcastic tone.
I haven’t read the three pages between the post above and where my response will appear, so please forgive me if the conversation has moved on.
Going back to our “friend” Sam from my HR example here…
If SafeSport is the HR department, they fire Sam with cause based on their investigations. If Sam chooses to sue ACME Widgets for wrongful dismissal, or if he works with a union and they file a grievance, then THAT is comparable to “the opportunity to make their case in front of an independent, impartial adjudicator”.
He’s still been fired by ACME Widgets or “banned” if you will. If he loses his lawsuit or his union grievance, that is akin to losing a SafeSport appeal.
Not directly related to the post I quoted:
Those saying a SafeSport ban is not equivalent to losing a regular job, because if you lose a regular job you just go work for someone else? Not entirely true. A lot of industries are tight-knit and insular. Everyone knows everyone. Sam, known to work for ACME Widgets, comes applying for a job WITHOUT A REFERENCE from ACME Widgets? He is NOT likely to be hired by KING Widgets Company.
A lifetime ban from sport is a heavy penalty and it prevents one from continuing to work at the same level or in the same field. To someone with no other employable skills it is a real, serious threat to their livelihood. But I still think it is more comparable to being fired with cause than with a criminal case and penalty.
This was discussed on the RG thread at length. Navarro was originally on the NY state offender list as part of a plea deal for his 2000 offense. He was only to remain on that list for 10 (?) years I think… can’t remember. He moved to virginia before he was OFF the list in NY, then was placed on the Virginia list as well. He petitioned yo be removed from the Virginia list in 2011, But was unsuccessful. Tried again in 2015… and was successful that time.
When he first moved to the area and started a business, he was still on the list and people were aware. After 2015, when he came off the sex offender list… those who didn’t know had no EASY way of knowing the risk… except for paying for a full background check. Until Safe Sport.
Unfortunately, a lot of the parents of his current kids probably have never heard of SafeSport, either. So he continues to get away with it.
Whenever someone asks for referrals about barns, I steer them away from Navarro/RCF and point out information here and other places to review themselves. What they choose to do with it, I can’t guarantee. I’m amazed at how many of his current boarders with children in his program do know about it and still don’t care.
On a somewhat unrelated but interesting note regarding much of the last several PAGES and PAGES of this thread… just finished watching “The Tale” on HBO.
Coincidentally, I have some ties to the area the author was from, and some of the background sporting communities related to this story.
Anyone else watch it yet? I don’t know that I will recommend it as it is INCREDIBLY triggering. I don’t quite know how I feel about the movie at this time.
Regardless… it’s sort of bizarre how close some of the real life stuff behind this movie is to George Morris. The former Olympian “running” coach in the movie won a Gold at the 1960 Olympics… George Morris won Silver there. The movie theoretically happened at a “Carolina” horse farm. But the real life Jennifer Fox was from Narberth, PA. With a bit of piecing together different parts of the story… it’s possible to make a very good guess as to who the real life Bill Allen and Mrs. G are. Both are in their eighties now…
I cross referenced the Safe Sport list to see if the person it seems like the Bill Allen character was based upon is on it (he was an Olympic athlete and has been a major coach in his sport for decades). The guy isn’t on the list. It’s sort of odd… if the story from the movie is true… there are very very very likely more victims out there. I hope Safe Sport is investigating the person the movie seems to point to.
And it makes you wonder about the real life Mrs. G as well. It’s sad and really disturbing to think about. But the events in the movie are horrific.
I find it appalling and amusing all st the same time that they won “Best of Loudoun” a year of two ago. I guess those folks just counted votes and didn’t do any background research either :rolleyes:
So I have a question as it relates to arbitration and the absence or presence of subpoena power.
I thought that I have read situations in which once you accept arbitration a civil suit is no longer an option for your complaint. Could this be the reason why subpoena power is available or not? IE if arbitration is you last step it makes sense for subpoena power to exist for the arbitration.
Wow. Thanks for posting this. I had not heard about this movie. Just reading the summary was enough for me to know that I will never watch it. I already lived my own version. Part of grooming is convincing your victim that they are mature and making their own decision. It certainly worked on me. When a certain trainer 12 years my senior started paying attention to me, I didn’t really even know who he was. He spent 6 months grooming me and by the time all was said and done, I viewed it as a teenage mistake on my part. Very well done by Mr. BNT, very well done. I now know that I was one of many. At the same time. As far as I can tell, most, if not all, the other girls were even younger than I was.
Yes. Many state facilities do have security forces, but most private facilities do not provide any security. They’ll call local law enforcement if there’s a problem.
Not all large facilities are state run even though it would seem logical , some are city run and others are private. Not that it makes a difference as to if USEF requires security, it is just something I was surprised about.
I listened, and the first half hour was Packy going on about due process, de novo, civil liberties, and how SafeSport has become something like the purity police, and if SafeSport banned everyone who got arrested for drunk driving, there’d be almost no one left in the sport. He was also big on more transparency because we don’t “see” the process or why individuals are banned. Molly did seem to wind him up and act like everything he said was accurate (e.g. The accused finds out they are being investigated when they see themselves on the SafeSport banned list.). I wish there had been a counter to his legal aspect, so that it someone within SafeSport could confirm or dispute.
I thought Dr. Jenny was a nice, calm, balanced counterpoint, especially on the banning, when she said “If I lose my driver’s license, it’s no one’s business.” Same with being banned.
USEF does not owe anyone a job or a career. Packy said banning someone takes away their right to compete in the Olympics. Um, when did that become a constitutional right? USEF is about the shows. You have to join to show. It is not intended to provide a career path for anyone, competitor or trainer. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
One thing to remember is that “arbitration” is a term that encompasses a wide variety of processes. Arbitration can be a legal proceeding with all the authority of the legal system, including the issuing of subpoenas that HLMom/Horsegirl’sMom keeps harping on. This is the kind of arbitration that parties in a civil suit would accept. It is, in this context, a process of the judicial system.
But, arbitration can also be an administrative proceeding. In these situations it’s a mutually agreed upon process for resolving a disagreement and it takes place outside the judicial system. This is the case with SafeSport. By joining USEF, you’re agreeing to follow the SafeSport code, which specifies that disagreements will ultimately be settled by arbitration.
The specific process of an administrative arbitration proceeding is determined by the terms of the agreement between the involved parties, but people who aren’t parties to the agreement are not obligated in any way to participate in the process. So, even if USEF agreed to give SafeSport the authority to issue subpoenas during the arbitration process and SafeSport agreed to accept that authority, as HLMom and YankeeDutchess keep suggesting, the only people who would be obligated to abide by those subpoenas are people who are members of USEF. And, the only thing USEF could do to someone who refused to abide by the subpoenas is revoke their USEF membership, or suspend them for some specific time.
In my opinion, the whole idea of having SafeSport issue subpoenas is nuts. Not only is it entirely unworkable, there is no evidence that it is necessary or would be useful, outside the strawman arguments thrown up by the proponents.
Are you saying the claim that their lawyers told them not to testify because testifying in the arbitration process would jeopardize their civil case is not true?
I think the film might be PROFOUNDLY triggering for you… hugs to you, you brave soul.
The portrayal of how grooming works, especially when it comes to teenaged girls going through a rebellious phase from a less than ideal home life? That component was VERY accurate.
The depiction of the film maker repressing/denying/reframing the facts of her abuse and reframing it as a sort of “relationship” I also thought was VERY accurate and well done.
The choice of the film maker to put forth an INCREDIBLE number of clues as to the identities of both of these coaches… but then alter the story to make bill a running coach (I think he was actually a rowing coach), and to portray the farm as being in the Carolinas instead of the greater Philadelphia area… I am a little confused about.
In later interviews, the film maker claims that she doesn’t want “justice” but rather to share the truth of the experience. However… I’m having trouble with that.
After watching it and thinking about it, and then talking to some personal contacts about details of two prominent figures from local sporting communities…
the two predatory coaches depicted in the movie are still alive. The male coach (if it is who I think it is) is HIGHLY regarded… still… on an Olympic and national scale. Not on the Safe Sport list. Based on the movie… it doesn’t matter how d he is. He should be banned for life. The female coach - “Mrs. G” - bears an incredibly close resemblance to someone in the area who is in her late 80’s. The film maker claimed in an interview that the real “Mrs. G” has passed away. I think that is an attempt to protect her identity though.
I have trouble with this… it’s all very very disturbing. The way Mrs. G is portrayed toward the end of the movie is as though she was someone actively serving up young girls to the other coach, knowing he would groom and abuse them.
