As far as a cynical take on Safe Sport simply amounting to a liability mitigation strategy for the NGBs?
Well… I understand thinking that way. I am a naturally cynical sand suspicious person. And frankly… USA Gymnastics does face some liability questions when it comes to both Nassau and John Geddert. To the best of my knowledge… these matters aren’t resolved yet and bankruptcy is a distinct possibility for the NGB.
But I think having an entirely naive and positive view of Safe Sport, or a totally cynical one both are too extreme. The truth lies in the middle. It’s kind of like the MAAP policies. It serves to partially protect athletes (there is no foolproof way of protecting the innocent… sadly), but also shields coaches and other adults involved in sports who AREN’T predators from potential false allegations, etc.
I hope that makes some sense. I don’t think it’s a perfect law, nor is Safe Sport foolproof… But I think it’s a major step in a better direction.
I think they would want to look sharp regarding a “knew or should have known” standard in a law suit. With the public postings of Duncan McIntosh no group would have much standing to say they didn’t know and couldn’t have known. That’s what made me initially think his posts would lead to an automatic report and discipline situation with respect to SS. SS is out there saying he passed training for the season and yet…his public spew suggests otherwise (i.e., if I only saw the public posts I would assume he hadn’t taken the training as his posts are in such direct opposition thereto).
I don’t think SafeSport, even with its mission to protect rather than punish, can act on mere public statements. I think you expect too much of SafeSport training. Those who are committed to inappropriate behavior and thoughts will not be deterred by education alone. I think SafeSport knew that. The training is meant for those who are not so far to one and who are perhaps a little clueless or thoughtless.
I don’t particularly want SafeSport to be mired in a McCarthy-esque system of investigating people for what they think or even write, do you? That seems like a fantastic waste to time, money and effort.
I am thinking of how I would proceed as someone involved in the training process.
I would not give someone who wrote what he does certification as having passed training and in good standing with my organization.
I would suspend/revoke the good standing of someone already certified as having completed training if he posted what DM posts.
If he were later credibly accused of behaviour in contradiction to that training (either bad behaviour of his own or failure to report the bad behaviour of others), I would not even consider defending my organization by saying I/it had no knowledge that would lead us to believe that, despite our training, he was unsafe to certify as having completed training that would allow him to work with children. I would know victim’s counsel would pull those public posts in a heartbeat and I’d not have a leg to stand on in an adversarial process. Those posts are a slam dunk “knew or should have known” standard.
As the org providing and certifying the mandatory training, yes, I’d CYA (CMA??) like it was my job. Because, it would be.
As previously posted, if a teacher who was current on Child Safety training was posting like that we wouldn’t even be having this conversation b/c he’d be suspended within hours of the first such post.
Or do you also think a teacher who posted, word for word, what DM posted shouldn’t be suspended pending investigation and re-training or that such initial action would be “McCarthy-esque”?
To me, McCarthy-esque would be trying to life-time ban him for rumors/innuendo that he felt this way/was creepy. This is taking his actions - his own lengthy public statements - into account and, as the training body, acting accordingly and appropriately to a) rigorously perform the mandate of my org, and b) cover my/my org’s behind in the event of any claims regarding the individual in question.
I defer to all who say it won’t happen b/c that’s not how SS works. I do not agree it shouldn’t happen b/c it is somehow overreach. It certainly isn’t with respect to teachers. It is bare minimum.
@FitzE I totally get what you are saying, but until riding instructors have to meet educational requirements like teachers to become instructors I think it would be a step too far. Safe Sport is a good first step in the right direction.
And if you were in charge of this and you’d do all you say, how would you hope to gain knowledge of what every adult member of the USEF was publishing on their social media pages?
I think you’ll have to explain that before you can claim distance between your plan and anything McCarthy-esque. Again, if you see this all as (among other things) a big CYA action by SafeSport or the USEF, I plead with you to spend their money in a different way. This cyberstalking one sounds expensive!
I would urge you to let go of the hyperbole like “cyber stalking” and “McCarthy-esque.” I think it can all be discussed by reasonable and interested people using just normal language descriptive of the issues in question without the emotional labels.
It is is absolutely not cyber stalking for someone to notice and re-post here the posts of a high-profile trainer who is making this stuff public on his public page where he shares all kinds of personal and professional information. Calling noticing the posts of BNTs cyber stalking is utterly nonsensical. These are people who actually seek to drive traffic to their SM presence as part of their professional lives. Calling it cyber stalking not only doesn’t make sense and is bizarre, but also disingenuous as you would then have to say anyone who notes and discusses any public posting of anyone on here is cyber stalking. But you don’t suggest that with respect to other such postings. The thread where someone links to Piggy’s SM post saying farewell to Red doesn’t attract a charge of cyber stalking, does it? Of course not. Bc it’s public and meant to be read by any and everyone who wants to.
Similarly, DM’s posts are public and are literally written as him putting out there for the interested public his personal view of the situation. It is at least an attempt at what we call persuasive writing. He is giving examples, personal anecdotes, etc. in support of the theory he has about children and sexuality and whether or not adults should be sanctioned. He’s like other ISWGers who are writing publicly to outline their opposition to what SS is doing. Noting it is the opposite of cyber stalking. He is putting out propaganda for his view of the issue and people are doing what he intends: reading it and discussing it. If it was just the usual railing about process that’s one thing. He’s discussing very young people and their bodies and sexual experiences and it’s profoundly disturbing and highly questionable.
If such behaviour was reportable, other SS members would dutifully report it at no cost whatsoever to SS. then SS could decide whether they wish to look into it and take any action from re-training to a warning letter to suspension. There is no barrier whatsoever to having this kind of disturbing stuff inform SS certification.
Again, defer to more experienced posters who know this is not reportable behaviour according to SS. Disagree that it shouldn’t be and that if it were it would amount to “thought policing” “cyber stalking” “McCarthyism” or any other exaggerated term or would over burden SS. It seems highly relevant.
You have indeed missed my point about how this might be done for all USEF members (or even those who were reported by others) at not cost. But life is too short to try and explain again. You win.
I think you are missing the real world application. No one cyber stalks anyone. I certainly don’t. But I see DMs comments on the articles posted by CoTH. It’s the same for teachers or the military or any other profession where saying things will get you at minimum a conversation with your boss. In the age of Facebook where people “friend” others just because they are aware of their presence IRL one doesn’t need to stalk pages. Many people send and accept friend requests without a thought. While doing that they don’t take into consideration those people can see what they post.
I have been a Facebook member since before it was open to the public. I could post my name here and people still won’t be able to find my profile because that’s how I set my security settings. People don’t think about what they post on Facebook. TPTB for any profession don’t need stalk their employees pages.
In some sports there is a lot of bad abuse between athletes too, even junior athletes. I will say track and field has a real problem with that in my experience. And then there are the financial abuse of high earning juniors or women, by spouses or parents who are mangers and coaches… Tennis, golf, ice skating have all had issues. Serena Williams has spoken out about this although she never said who abused her, and she is so smart and strong if it can happen to her it can happen to any athlete who starts as a child and knows little of the real world. It tells a story that she did not marry another athlete in the end I think.
1. In general, one can understand the law, abide by the law, but not agree with the law and state that you think the law should be different. As a different example, if, pre-1973, one lived in a state that did not permit abortion, as long as one follows the law, not performing or having an abortion, it is nevertheless OK not only to disagree with the current law, but to openly state your reasons for disagreeing with the law.
The major difference between advocating for abortion in a non-abortion state and DM’s discussions of sex with barely pubescent adolescents is that even in 1973, advocating for abortion rights was not only mainstream, it was the majority view, soon to be endorsed by the Supremes. Fortunately, DM is in a tiny minority with his views, and his position is repugnant to most people. But that is a matter of degree, and doesn’t change the principle, which is that in the US (I’m assuming you’re Canadian), it is generally OK, and often protected, to openly say “I don’t think this behavior should be illegal.” Abortion. Smoking weed. Drinking alcohol. Non standard sex positions.
And don’t forget, for the side that was and is opposed to abortion being legal, they view abortion as not the abuse of young defenseless children, but the murder of really young, really defenseless children.
USEF has about 100,000 members. Aside from the sheer number of members, USEF pretty much has to accept as a member anyone who applies, pays the dues, and is not on the SS list. It is not a public or private school that goes over your criminal record, credit report, and 3 references before deciding to hire you. Your school can and should decline to hire DM, based on what he has written. Your school evaluates the performance of its staff and is in a position to know DM was problematic (had they hired him), and can fire him if they think he is a risk.
Saying USEF is legally liable for the crimes of any of its 100,000 members is preposterous. Now its employees, that’s a bit different. USEF is responsible for providing the training, preventing people from participating in showing if they don’t take it, and enforcing any bans and suspensions from SS. That’s it.
It has also been suggested that DMs words be taken down and used in evidence against him, should there be a report on him in the future (for actual abuse, or failure to report abuse). But that smacks of J Edgar Hoover having “files” on various people and using them for blackmail.
I’m sticking with my original position. “SS certified” just means they took the test and checked the right boxes; they know what the rules are, and they know that SS may come after them if they violate the rules (unlike in the past, when everyone looked away). That’s not nothing.
But I don’t see how SS or USEF can “do” anything about DM’s appalling views.
Thank you for explaining the problem better than I could.
FWIW, I don’t think SafeSport “is out there saying” that McIntosh is fine because he passed their training. Rather, SafeSport doesn’t have anything to say on this matter at all until someone files a report on him and asks SafeSport to weigh in on the problem of a USEF member making gnarly comments on Social Media. Any USEF member sufficiently interested can, I suppose, start the ball rolling on this test if they wish.
I just thought that it was a waste of time, money and effort.
Tom Navarro operates his farm (River Chase) and simply does not attend USEF shows. He only goes to local schooling shows, where SafeSport does not have jurisdiction. The client in this post also is not a USEF member; she also only shows at the local level.
So yes, it is outrageous, but nothing to “report” because it is irrelevant to USEF.
It was pointed out that not only are there fewer children in dressage barns, but also that there are fewer dressage riders than HJ riders in USEF.
However, your argument that child molesters self select into the discipline with children suggests that, after self selection, the concentration of child molesters would indeed be higher in HJ than in dressage.
Also, the shocking thing about the HJ trainers on the banned list is not so much the number, but the fact that a number of the “greats” are on the list. That suggests to me that it’s not just a given percent of the population that’s bad, but something systematic in the culture which is contributing.
I don’t know anything about DM other than his support for RG and what he’s posted. I can understand being absolutely devastated at the suicide of a friend, but cannot understand his apparent tolerance of sex with young children.
I was thinking Jimmy Williams and GM. Williams is not on the list because he is dead.
But I’m not in the HJ world, so don’t really know where various trainers stand.
